Idaho Te Teacher Pipeline Repor port a and R d Recom ommend - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Idaho Te Teacher Pipeline

Repor port a and R d Recom

• mmend

endat ations

• ns

Idaho State Board of Education Meeting

College of Southern Idaho

December 21, 2017 Christina Linder Educator Effectiveness Program Manager

Overvi rview

• Initial Findings from the Supply and Demand

Report

• Key Policy Questions
• Recommendations

Devel elopi

• ping

ng t the S Suppl pply a and D d Demand and Repor port

Data Sources:

• Teacher Certification Database
• School Staffing Reports
• Title II Reports
• Idaho Department of Labor Projections
• District Survey

Key F Findi ding ng: R Retent ention

• n, N

Not P Produc

• duction
• n,

is is th the M Main in Is Issue

• Approximately 1,873 Idaho instructional certificates are issued

annually; of those certificated individuals, approximately 33% do not serve in an Idaho public school

• The attrition rate for Idaho teachers remains at a steady 10%

annually, compared to approximately 8% nationally

• Approximately 76% of Idaho’s attrition rate is made up of teachers

leaving the teaching workforce before reaching retirement age, compared to 66% of teachers nationally

• The result: In one out of every twenty Idaho classrooms, a teacher

who has not fully met the minimum certification requirements is responsible for our childrens’ learning.

Te Teac acher Supp pply in Idaho ho

Num umbe ber of

• f Com
• mpl

plet eters by by Progr

• gram

am

Year Completers by Program Totals Boise State BYU Idaho Idaho State College

• f Idaho

LCSC NNU U of Idaho 2014-15 196 320 83 12 48 54 108 821 2015-16 172 384 92 20 49 56 99 872

Teacher er S Suppl pply i in Idaho aho

Instructio ional C l Certif ificates es I Issued ed

Certificates issued to those who were employed in Idaho Share not employed as instructional staff in an Idaho Public School Academic Certificates Certification period is from Sept 1- August 31 Total certificates issued State of first certification CTE Certificates Total Idaho Other state

2013-2014 1,932 1,249 828 421 33 35% 2014-2015 1,720 1,180 782 398 51 31% 2015-2016 1,889 1,298 909 389 61 31% 2016-2017 1,952 1,234 821 413 56 37%

Teacher er S Suppl pply i in Idaho aho

Average ge Number er of Certif ificates Issued ed by Content nt Area

• Special Education

268 annually

• Career Technical

50 annually

• STEM Content

– Math 179 annually – Sciences 159 annually – Computer Information 18 annually

Teacher er S Suppl pply i in Idaho aho

Annual N l Number er of Certific icates I Issued ed – Specia ial E l Educatio ion

Year Certificates Issued

2013-2014 260 2014-2015 237 2015-2016 282 2016-2017 292

Teacher er S Suppl pply i in Idaho aho

Annual N l Number er of Certific icates I Issued ed – ST STEM EM C Cont

• ntent

Mathematics Life and Physical Science Computer and Informational Systems 2013-2014 187 142 19 2014-2015 150 138 21 2015-2016 172 171 19 2016-2017 207 184 14

Year Certificates Issued

Te Teac acher Deman Demand d in Idah aho

Grow

• wth C

Com

• mbi

bine ned d wit ith “ h “Typi ypical al” A Attrit ition

• n

Narrow definition of “demand” is characterized by the number of teacher retirements plus the number of new teachers needed due to growth in student populations: Idaho annual teacher retirement 360 Idaho annual average growth 233

Te Teac acher Deman Demand d in Idah aho (Cont

• ntinue

nued) d)

• Using this narrow definition of “demand”, Idaho

schools would need 596 teachers each year

• Idaho issues an average of 1,873 instructional

certificates every year, with approximately 1,200 accepting teaching jobs

• Annual surplus of teachers should be between

600 - 1,000 every year

Te Teac acher Deman Demand d in Idah aho

Actu tual A Attr ttriti tion

Number with instructional assignment Number with instructional assignment in next year Attrition Rate Number without instructional assignment but with Administrative assignment Share who leave to become only Administrators 2013-2014 15,322 13,814 10% (-1,508) 108 1% 2014-2015 15,507 13,922 10% (-1,585) 98 1% 2015-2016 15,767 14,116 10% (-1,651) 114 1%

Te Teac acher Deman Demand d in Idah aho

Attrit ition

• n D

Due t ue to

• Fact

actor

• rs O

Other her Than R han Ret etir irem ement ent

• Idaho’s loses10% of our 15,000 teachers annually,

compared to 8% nationally

• 76% of those who leave are between 22 and 54,

compared to the national pre-retirement attrition which is 66%

• Idah

aho’s a average a e annual l rate of a attrit itio ion is is equal l to approx

• xim

imat ately 1 1,500 t 0 teacher ers lo lost, w wit ith 1,140 t teacher ers le leavin ing o

• ur c

cla lassroom

• ms e

each y h year d due t to compe pellin lling g factors other er t than r retir irem ement

Te Teac acher Deman Demand d in Idah aho

Attrit ition

• n by

by Exper xperie ienc nce

Attrition Rate - Share with an assignment in base year but without assignment in next year 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 No prior experience 14% 17% 15% 0.1 to 3.9 years of experience 10% 12% 11% 4.0 to 7.9 years of experience 10% 9% 11% 8 to 10 years of experience 7% 8% 8% More than 10 years of experience 10% 10% 10% Overall 10% 11% 10%

Te Teac acher Deman Demand d in Idah aho

Attrit ition

• n by

by Cohor

• hort

Te Teac acher Deman Demand d in Idah aho

Attrit ition

• n by

by Regio egion

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Region Number of teachers with instructional assignments District- level Attrition Rate Number of teachers with instructional assignments District- level Attrition Rate Number of teachers with instructional assignments District- level Attrition Rate 1 1,736 12% 1,764 13% 1,779 13% 2 977 11% 927 11% 940 13% 3 6,867 14% 6,964 14% 7,058 13% 4 2,268 14% 2,307 17% 2,310 15% 5 1,438 8% 1,480 17% 1,438 13% 6 2,584 16% 2,635 16% 2,654 16% Virtual 412 12% 453 10% 484 11%

Te Teac acher Deman Demand d in Idah aho

Attrit ition

• n by

by Locale Locale

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Number of teachers with instructional assignments District- level Attrition Rate Number of teachers with instructional assignments District- level Attrition Rate Number of teachers with instructional assignments District- level Attrition Rate

Urban 12,732 13% 12,981 14% 13,047 13% Rural: Fringe & Distant 2,059 17% 2,026 18% 2,057 16% Rural: Remote 1,079 16% 1,070 15% 1,075 16% Virtual 412 12% 453 10% 484 11%

Prevalen ence o e of Alter ernat native Pathway hways

2014-2015 ABCTE Content Specialist Prov Auth Teacher to New TFA Share of teachers Region 1 1 6 24 2% Region 2 1 5 3 16 3% Region 3 28 23 41 84 3% Region 4 9 10 35 37 4% Region 5 4 9 15 21 4% Region 6 12 7 36 32 4% Charter schools 11 5 23 30 7% Total 65 60 159 244 2015-2016 ABCTE Content Specialist Prov Auth Teacher to New TFA Share of teachers Region 1 2 22 29 3% Region 2 16 22 5% Region 3 41 106 72 14 4% Region 4 26 102 38 8% Region 5 7 50 24 6% Region 6 30 57 34 5% Charter schools 13 46 23 8% Total 119 399 242 14

Char arac acter erizing A ng Alter ernat native P e Pathway hways

• Some of these pathways have been specifically designed to allow for

flexibility – so these numbers do not tell the full story of shortages in Idaho

• Alternative Pathways can be an indicator of hard-to-fill positions due to

either a scarcity of teachers in a particular content area or difficulty drawing teachers to a geographic location; the gap between fully certified staff vs. interim staff is widening between urban districts and all types of rural districts: Fringe, Distant, and Remote

• Approvals for alternative authorizations increased 17% between FY16 and

FY17; 931 teachers, or nearly 5% of Idaho’s teacher population, is not fully certificated.

• The percentage of teachers on some form of interim certificate has

increased in every region over the last two years, but particularly in Region 4 where the number of alternative authorizations doubled in 2015-16

Teac eacher her S Suppl upply and and Demand emand Pol

• licy Q

cy Ques uestions

• ns

Year ear af after y year ear, w why hy do do appr approximatel ely 700 700 new newly cer ertified ed Idaho daho t teac eache hers c choos hoose not e not t to

• teac

each i h in n our

• ur publ

public schoo hools?

• Are we losing them to more competitive border states?
• Are they being drawn to more competitive non-teaching

professions?

• Are they unable to find jobs in their area of preparation?
• Are they unwilling to take jobs in particular geographic

areas?

Teac eacher her S Suppl upply and and Demand emand Pol

• licy Q

cy Ques uestions

• ns

Appr pproximately 30 30 per percent of

• f new

new teac eachers l leav eave e af after t the f he first five y e year ears of

• f t

teac eachi hing

• ng. Who

ho ar are t e they hey and and why hy do do they hey l leav eave? e?

• Do the bulk of those leaving hold interim certificates or full

certificates?

• Are they exiting voluntarily or being released?
• In line with national research, are we losing them for lack of

support?

• Is it because of more competitive border states or non-

teaching professions?

Teac eacher her S Suppl upply and and Demand emand Pol

• licy Q

cy Ques uestions

• ns

Why hy ar are e som

• me regi

egions

• ns ex

exper perienc encing s ng suc uch s h sev evere s e shor hortage ges?

• Are they exiting voluntarily or being released, and what is

the connection to alternative routes, if any?

• How does the rural nature of a region impact shortages?
• Does access to a local teacher preparation program have

an impact?

Recom

• mmen

endat dations

• ns
• Estab

ablish a h a format at f for a standar andardi dized ed Teac ache her S Suppl pply and and D Dem eman and R Repo eport, w with th con

• nsistent da

data ta def definitions, , for for the pur the purpose of

• f gau

gauging p prog

• gress tow

toward m meas easurable goa goals

• Es

Esta tablish a a pr proc

• cess to

to ens ensure al align gnment bet between pol policy recom

• mmen

endat dation

• ns a

and c nd critical al t teac acher her p pipel peline ne data

• Begi

gin t n to i implement ent w workgr group

• up r

recom

• mmenda

endations

• ns that

ar are s sup upported by by the the data data pr prov

• vided r

rega egarding Idah Idaho’s teac teacher pi pipe peline

Key ey R Rec ecom

• mmendat

endation

• n – Induc

nduction S n Suppor upport

• National estimates suggest new teachers

leave at rates of somewhere between 19% and 30% over their first five years of teaching

• Of the 1,200 new teachers certified and

taking jobs in Idaho schools annually, an estimated 360 will leave the classroom within five years

• Whether they are leaving voluntarily or not, a

strong case can be made for induction programs and mentor support.

• Using replacement rates calculated a decade

ago, annual attrition of Idaho teachers (10%

• r 1,500) is costing taxpayers over 6 million

dollars each year

• Countless studies have concluded that a

robust induction program with well-trained, effective mentors will decrease the attrition of new teachers:

Key ey R Rec ecom

• mmendat

endation

• n – Induc

nduction S n Suppor upport

• Providing expert mentors with release time to coach beginning

teachers reduced attrition by more than two thirds. Furthermore, the beginning teachers became competent more quickly than those who were forced to learn by trial and error (NCTAF, 1996)

• There is much evidence that well-operated induction and mentoring

programs are the best method for increasing teacher retention. In California, high quality induction and mentoring programs reduced attrition by 26 percent in just two years (Brill & McCartney, 2008.

• Most researchers and education experts agree that, in general, new

teachers require from three to seven years in the field to reach proficiency and maximize student performance. Economists have reported that investing in comprehensive induction can create a payoff of $1.37 for every $1.00 invested (Villar, 2004). $1.66 for every dollar invested (New Teacher Center, 2013)

Key ey R Rec ecom

• mmendat

endation

• n – Induc

nduction S n Suppor upport

• Mentoring and Induction Programs – The

greater the support, the lower the attrition

• Negotiated rule making this summer for

the purpose of standardizing strong mentor programs was unsuccessful

• Convening a stakeholder group this spring

to re-examine the issue Key ey R Rec ecom

• mmendat

endation

• n – Induc

nduction S n Suppor upport

• Sustainable change will take time
• Board action on a Mastery Pathway to

certification must be supported

• Regions experiencing the most severe

shortages need targeted support Key ey R Rec ecom

• mmendat

endation

• n – Mor

More E e Effici cient ent Pat athw hways ys t to

• Cer

ertificat ation

• n

Other er W Workgr grou

• up R

p Recom

• mmen

endat dation

• ns
• Attract/Recruit: Attracting talent a

and c d creating ng i incentives t to t teach – Explore incentives to teach in rural districts: Loan forgiveness, housing options, hiring bonuses, and scholarships for candidates committing to district the district for a specified period of time – Continue to support higher salaries and compensation packages / Fund the third rung of the Career Ladder

• Prepa

pare/ e/Certify: Alternat ate routes and “Grow Your Own” n” strateg egies – Develop a Mastery-based Content Specialist program to supplement the current alternative authorizations – Closer alignment between secondary and postsecondary education courses and increase specific dual credit opportunities to expedite preparation for high school students interested in teaching

• Retai

ain: Development and support for all teachers, includi ding induction program ams, eval aluation feedback, and d teac acher l leade dership o

• ppor
• rtunities

– Support mentor program standards and explore a variety of innovative mentoring models, training supports, resources – Emphasize evaluation practices that balance accountability and teacher driven professional growth with measurable outcomes – Explore option for a “Teacher Backpack” through reallocation of a percentage of PD money to support teachers

“In a a completely r rational so soci ciety, t the bes est of

• f us w

would b be t e teac eachers an and t the rest o t of f us w s would h have t to se settle f for someth thing l less. s.”

• Lee Iacocca