To learn about state priorities in the coming years, NCTQ surveyed education leaders, advocacy groups, and researchers across the country. The goals of the survey were: (1) to identify state priorities and the policy actions that respondents think are most promising, and (2) to understand the resources that the field finds most useful in support of state policy work. This brief will focus on the former goal, understanding the state-level priorities and policy actions that the field identifies as most important and most promising.

When respondents were asked to identify their top five priorities in the next three years, these topics led the way:

1. Teacher retention (48% of respondents identified this as one of their top five priorities over the next three years),
2. Teacher recruitment and hiring (43%).
3. Diversifying the teacher workforce (32%).
4. Scientifically based reading instruction (30%).
5. Improving teacher prep (29%).

The data held a few surprises as well:

• Elementary mathematics instruction was a low priority (only 8% of respondents identified it as a top priority), which is surprising given that math achievement dropped more precipitously than reading during the pandemic.878  
• Teacher layoffs were also, surprisingly, a low priority (identified by 2% of respondents), which may cause some headaches when ESSER funds run out in the coming years,879 especially if enrollment in public schools does not rebound.880
• Supporting students with disabilities and English language learners also ranked low among states' priorities (identified by 7% and 8% of respondents as a high priority, respectively). Large numbers of students are included in each group (nationally, approximately 15%881 of students receive special education services, and 10% of public school students are considered English learners882), and these students consistently fall behind their peers on measures of reading and math achievement.883 

Exploring the top five priority areas
Respondents were also asked to assign a priority level (high, medium, low, or not a priority) to a range of topics specific to teacher quality. 884 For topics they identified as high priority, respondents identified which policy actions, from a list of choices, they believe would be most likely to have a positive effect.

This section provides data about the priority level respondents gave to each of the five most pressing topics (identified above), and about the policy actions that respondents believe will be most effective in addressing each topic. To see this data for all teacher-related topics, download the appendix.

For each of the graphs below, you may toggle between "State Priorities" and "Effective actions." Note: Data may not add up to 100% due to rounding.



The "Effective Actions" bar graph labels abbreviate each policy action; hover over each bar to see the full description of the policy action.


The "Effective Actions" bar graph labels abbreviate each policy action; hover over each bar to see the full description of the policy action.


The "Effective Actions" bar graph labels abbreviate each policy action; hover over each bar to see the full description of the policy action.


The "Effective Actions" bar graph labels abbreviate each policy action; hover over each bar to see the full description of the policy action.


The "Effective Actions" bar graph labels abbreviate each policy action; hover over each bar to see the full description of the policy action.

Survey methodology
This survey was administered for three weeks in March and April 2023. NCTQ sent the survey via email to leaders in state education agencies, members of education committees in state legislatures, state boards of education, education-focused advocacy and nonprofit organizations, and researchers who have authored multiple studies on teacher quality issues (see table below). The survey was sent to a total of 2,230 people, and we received 181 responses from 44 states and D.C. (although not all respondents identified their state).

NCTQ analyzed responses separately for the two most prevalent groups of respondents—people from state education agencies and those from advocacy/nonprofit organizations—and found little difference in responses from these two groups. 

Respondents' organization type

Organization	Number of respondents	Percentage of respondents
State education agency	44	24%
Advocacy / nonprofit organization	37	20%
Blank	29	16%
State board of education	26	14%
Institution of higher education	14	8%
State legislature	13	7%
Research center / organization	11	6%
Other (please specify)	7	4%

---

Project Funders
This brief is based on research funded by The Joyce Foundation. The findings and conclusions contained within are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or policies of the project funders.