Teacher Preparation Policy
The state should inform district hiring needs with key teacher supply and demand data and make teacher mobility data publicly available at the district level. This goal was reorganized in 2021.
Teacher Production Data: Connecticut publishes an annual Connecticut Teacher Shortage Areas report, which includes information on areas where vacancies remain after the beginning of the school year. These data are used to determine areas of shortage.
No information is provided regarding the number of enrolled or completed candidates at Connecticut state teacher preparation programs. The state publishes a staffing report that contains the staffing information for each district and school, but not by certification area.
The state indicated that an Educator Preparation Program (EPP) dashboard would be available Fall 2020, however the dasboard is not available as of January 2021. The EPP dashboard will include indicators such as: number of program completers and enrollees in a reporting year, percentage of program completers employed in any Connecticut school, the percentage of teachers employed the second and forth years after program completion, and employment of completers in hard-to-staff schools.
However, Connecticut does not connect teacher production data to district hiring needs.
Teacher Mobility Data: Connecticut does not track teacher mobility data and make it publicly available.
Connecticut Teacher Shortage Areas Report 2020-21 https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/SDE/Performance/Research-Library/ConnecticutTeacherShortage-Areas-Report-2020-21.pdf?la=en FTE Staffing Report http://edsight.ct.gov/SASPortal/main.do Program Approval https://portal.ct.gov/SDE/Certification/Program-Approval Connecticut General Statute 163-10-10a EPP Dashboard Indicators https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dW7CaSWKwZNHhrUgP7afjZcXFvDEdtcn/view?usp=sharing
Publish data that connect program supply data to district-level demand data.
Teacher preparation programs graduate more candidates each year than actually earn certification, and only some of those certified are ultimately hired to teach in the state. It is certainly desirable to produce a large enough pool to provide districts a choice in hiring, but a substantial oversupply of teacher candidates in some teaching areas serves neither the profession nor the students well. Connecticut should strive to collect a rich set of data that can inform policy decisions, including graduates by program, ethnicity, and gender, as well as new hire information by district broken down by these levels. These data can then be used to determine, when connected with teacher program data, teacher shortage and surplus areas.
Track teacher mobility data and make it publicly available.
Connecticut should not only track teacher mobility data at both the state and district levels, but it should also make these data publicly available, consistent with applicable privacy constraints. Providing detailed analyses of teacher mobility and attrition will help provide a clearer picture of Connecticut's teaching force.
Connecticut recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis, and was helpful in providing NCTQ with additional facts that enhanced this analysis. However, this analysis was updated subsequent to the state's review.
1B: Teacher Shortages and Surpluses
It is an inefficient use of resources for individual districts to build their own data systems for tracking teachers. States need to take the lead and provide districts with state-level data that can be used not only for the purpose of measuring teacher effectiveness, but also to gauge the supply and demand of teachers in the state. Furthermore, multiple years of data are necessary to identify staffing trends.
Many preparation programs graduate people who are certified to teach but do not get jobs in the classroom. Often times, this is because these teachers pursue certifications in areas that already have a surplus of teachers (e.g., elementary education), while districts struggle to find applicants to hire in other areas (e.g., special education, science). Given this misalignment between the teachers that teacher preparation programs produce and the hiring needs of school districts, the state should step in to establish a cohesive data reporting system. By creating reports that publicly delineate the number of teachers produced by each teacher preparation program (and therefore by certification area), the state will be better able to identify instances where the production of teachers does not match districts' needs.
Furthermore, the state should consider whether teacher preparation programs are supplying districts with the teachers they need when approving or re-approving programs. Teacher preparation programs exist primarily to prepare teachers for public school positions (approximately 88 percent of teachers work in public schools). If teacher preparation programs produce far more teachers than the state needs in some certification areas and far too few in others, the programs are failing to meeting their state's demand. Moreover, student teaching placements (which tend to be near candidates' teacher prep programs) are highly predictive of where candidates will get their first teaching jobs, therefore also allowing states the ability to predict which open positions are likely to be filled. Given that the preparation program's function is to supply the nearby area (and more generally, the state) with public school teachers, it is incumbent upon the state to make sure the program fulfills that responsibility, particularly through the collection and application of data on teacher production numbers and district demand.
Additional elements are needed to use data to assess teacher supply and demand. For example, states should include in their data systems means of tracking when teachers leave schools or districts, as well as when they re-enter new ones, and should make these data publicly available. These data can support the state's effort to build a cohesive picture of the state's teacher labor market and workforce needs.