The Nevada TEACHER - Home Page - UNLV College of ...education.unlv.edu/consortium/documents/2017 Teacher...The Nevada TEACHER WORKFORCE: An Initial Examination by Derek Riddle, Steven

The NevadaTEACHERWORKFORCE:

An Initial Examinationby Derek Riddle, Steven Hayden, Jeffrey Laferriere, Tara J. Plachowski, Jori S. Beck, and Kim K. Metcalfon behalf of the Nevada Consortium on the Teacher Pipeline

About the Nevada Consortium on the Teacher PipelineEstablished in 2014 by the College of Education at UNLV, the Consortium was founded to facilitate dialogue

and collaborative problem solving among education stakeholders and leaders in the community, with the ultimate purpose of substantively improving the number, quality, and retention of effective teachers in Southern Nevada. Consortium members include the broadest possible range of constituencies, who each work together to identify, pursue, coordinate, and engage in activities that support the Consortium’s overall purpose with the following goals in mind:

1. Engage representatives from the business, education, policy, legislative, community advocacy, philanthropic, and other constituencies in ongoing, respectful and concrete conversations about the cause, extent, and solution to persistent teacher shortages in Clark County.2. Provide and maintain a context in which diverse, and even competing, ideas can be shared and openly discussed in order to develop those which have most promise.3. Support subgroups within the Consortium as they are identified and pursue particular initiatives and courses of action, and coordinate communication and effort across distinct activities.4. Use the breadth of diversity and perspectives reflected by Consortium members to develop community awareness of the importance of the teacher pipeline issue and the concrete and cross-organizational initiatives intended to address it.

AcknowledgmentsThe members would like to thank Wynn Resorts, Limited for their generous support of the Consortium and

commitment to education in our community. The authors would also like to thank the human resources directors of the 13 school districts who helped us collect data for this report. Additionally, several individuals provided useful feedback in shaping this report including Victor Wakefield, Allison Combs, and Dena Durish. This report was greatly improved through your suggestions.

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary .......................................................................................................................................4

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................5

The National Context .....................................................................................................................................5

The Educational & Geographical Context of Nevada ...................................................................................7

The Nature & Extent of the Teacher Shortage in Nevada Schools ................................................................8

The Teacher Pipeline in Nevada ....................................................................................................................10

Characteristics of Teacher Candidates in Nevada ..........................................................................................11

Production of New Teachers in Nevada .........................................................................................................12

Alignment of Production with Demand .........................................................................................................13

Out of State Teacher Recruitment in Nevada .................................................................................................14

Legislative & Policy Issues in Nevada ..........................................................................................................15

Legislation with Implications for Teacher Supply and Demand ...........................................................15

Legislation with Implications for Teacher Quality and Accountability ................................................16

Summary ........................................................................................................................................................17

Recommendations & Conclusion ..................................................................................................................18

References ......................................................................................................................................................19

4 Nevada Consortium on the Teacher Pipeline

• Any discussion of education in Nevada, including the shortage of education professionals, must take into consideration the vast differences that exist in size and student population across school districts in the State.

• Reported teaching vacancies in mid-summer 2016 indicated slightly over 1,000 remaining vacancies across 13 of the State’s 17 districts, projecting a total vacancy of 1,175. Elementary vacancies made up nearly 40 percent of this total, with special education constituting roughly one-third, and secondary vacancies (all areas) making up about one-quarter.

• The severity of Nevada’s teacher shortage differs widely across the State’s school districts, but is clearly more widespread than is often perceived. In fact, there is some evidence that the problem is more serious for many of the State’s small, rural districts than it is for the more often-noted large, urban districts. In fact, of reporting districts, teacher vacancies as a proportion of student enrollment in Clark County is the smallest in the state.

• While data in the early years are not completely accurate, enrollments in Nevada’s approved education programs have declined substantially since a reported high of 6,502 in 2010-11 reaching a low of 2,574 in 2012-13. They appear to have rebounded by about 20 percent in 2013-14 (3,109), but it is unclear whether this upward trend will continue.

• The proportion of candidates enrolling in ARL programs has steadily increased since these programs were first approved in 1994 and tracking and reporting on these programs began in 2010-11. By 2013-14, ARL enrollments constituted slightly more than 15 percent of total enrollments in education licensure programs.

• Candidates enrolled in Nevada’s preparation programs are largely female (75 percent) and White (66 percent). This mirrors national data on the teacher workforce and, while

it reflects a notable proportion of individuals of Hispanic/Latino decent (19 percent), it is far less diverse than Nevada’s student population.

• Paralleling diminishing enrollment, production of license-ready teachers in Nevada also declined from 2010-11 to 2013-14. From a peak of 950 education graduates, production decreased to only 768 in 2013-14. This drop is entirely a result of declines in traditional program completion; the number of license-ready teachers graduating from alternative programs increased during this same period.

• The effects of the Great Recession on the production of license-ready teachers in the State are clear. In 2010-11, 950 new teachers graduated from Nevada preparation programs. However, the State granted a total of only 447 initial licenses. Even if every Nevada education graduate had desired a teaching position, less than half of them were licensed to accept such a position.

• Even in years when the shortage of teachers in Nevada has been widely publicized, between 10 percent and 15 percent of education graduates do not pursue licensure to teach.

• Nevada has relied heavily on recruitment of new teachers prepared out of State. About two thirds of all initial licenses over the five-year period were granted to individuals who had completed their preparation outside Nevada.

• Nevada has implemented a range of new policies and programs to improve education in the State. Some of these have been directed at increasing the number of available educators (TEACH Nevada, licensure openness, waiver of class size reduction requirements). However, some (e.g., expansion of full-day kindergarten and availability of preschool) have actually exacerbated the shortage in particular areas.

The Nevada Teacher Workforce: An Initial Examination The purpose of this report is to provide a state of the field of the teacher workforce in Nevada. To that end, the project team

utilized extant Title II data as well as school district vacancy data to develop a portrait of teacher candidate production and the need for teachers in the State. Key findings include:

The Nevada Teacher Workforce Report | 2017 5

Giving an address at Teacher’s College, Columbia Universi-ty in 2009, then Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stat-

ed, “To keep America competitive, and to make the American dream of equal educational opportunity a reality, we need to recruit, reward, train, learn from, and honor a new generation of talented teachers” (Duncan, 2009, para. 11). However, in the same address, Duncan worried that there would be a “massive exodus…from the teaching force in the next decade” (Duncan, 2009, para. 8). Unfortunately, Secretary Duncan’s concern is well justified and, in fact, has been increasingly realized over the past few decades. Across the United States, school districts are grappling with hiring and retaining quality teachers, and they face projections of a growing shortage of teachers (Brenneman, 2015; Newton, 2015; Rebora, 2016; Strauss, 2015a). New teachers have always been needed somewhere in the country due to the natural effects of retirement and teacher attrition. However, across the U.S., a growing shortage of teachers currently exists and is projected to become more acute in coming years (Sutcher, Darling-Hammond, & Carver-Thomas, 2016). Thus, while Nevada’s teacher shortage may be particularly problematic, it exists in a national context that is likely to exacerbate rather than ameliorate the issue. The purpose of this section of the report is to outline the teacher shortage problem from a national perspective while also specifically concentrating on how the problem affects Nevada. Teacher shortages exist for a multitude of reasons, and solutions are not always readily discernible (Ingersoll, Merrill, & Stuckey, 2014). In fact, the problem is so multifaceted that solitary approaches are unlikely to provide adequate solutions. The first aspect of the problem stems from diminishing enrollment in teacher education programs across the nation (U.S. Department of Education & NCES, n.d.; U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). The data indicate that interest in pursuing teaching careers has been waning for more than forty years. For example, in 1975, of all bachelor degrees conferred in the U.S., 21 percent were issued to education majors. Compare that statistic to 2011 when education degrees represented only 6 percent of all conferred degrees (U.S. Department of Education & NCES, n.d.). Additional data further confirm the issue. In just the five-year period between 2008 and 2013, enrollment in

teacher education programs nationally decreased by 30 percent, and the number of individuals completing education programs fell by 17 percent (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Further, there is evidence that declines in education enrollment were more pronounced among students of color (Torres, Santos, Peck, & Cortes, 2004). These statistics demonstrate a clear trend: college students are increasingly choosing fields of study other than education. There may be several reasons for this trend and additional research is needed to understand perceptions of teaching. Among media reports and scholars, a frequently cited cause is the current climate of education. They suggest that the changing nature of the work of teachers—for example, the increasing emphasis on standardized testing, frustrating working conditions, and a lack of professional autonomy—make teaching a less-desirable career option (Berry, 1986: Strauss, 2015a). These conditions are not only reinforced for education candidates during preservice preparation as they engage in clinical experiences in schools, but they are routinely conveyed in popular media (Berry, 1986; Money, 2015; Riddle & Pollins, 2016; Turner, 2014). Pursuit of careers in education has also been negatively affected by the Great Recession. According to the Economic Policy Institute,

The number of teachers and education staff fell dramatically during the Great Recession and has failed to get anywhere near its prerecession level, let alone the level that would be required to keep up with an expanding student population…The costs of a significant teacher gap are measurable: larger class sizes, fewer teacher aides, fewer extracurricular activities, and changes to the curricula. (Gould, 2016)

Further exacerbating the effects of declining enrollment in education programs is a troubling increase in attrition of qualified teachers from the field. In fact, Ingersoll (2001), a professor of Education and Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, suggested that the teacher shortage is an even greater function of retention than recruitment. Data from the Teacher Attrition and Mobility Report, produced every four years by the National Center for Education Statistics, found the rate of teacher attrition from the profession has increased by

In fall 2014, a broad group of approximately 50 stakehold-ers in Nevada convened to discuss issues and generate ideas

to address the acute shortage of qualified teachers in the State. Over time, and with the support of the Wynn Resorts, Limited, the group continued to meet regularly and has grown to include well over 100 individuals representing a diverse range of ed-ucation, business, policymaking, philanthropic, governmental, and community agencies. The group, which adopted the name The Nevada Consortium on the Teacher Pipeline, has empha-sized its role in ensuring cooperation and coordination of effort across its varied members as they individually and collective-ly work to increase both the quantity and quality of teachers throughout Nevada. One particular outcome of these meetings

was agreement on the need for a report on the status of the teaching workforce in the State. This report represents an ini-tial response to that need, and its purpose is twofold. First, this report presents a descriptive “state of the field” in Nevada on teacher licensure candidates, the teacher workforce, projected needs of school districts, and legislation in the State. Second, the report suggests a number of potential action steps based on these data, including necessary data points for future iterations of this report as well as potential action steps for the next legis-lative session and policy development more generally. The cur-rent report is intended to be informative rather than evaluative, and it must be considered only the first of what we hope will become a regular series of reports on this issue.

Introduction

The National Context


1These figures include only individuals who voluntarily chose to leave teaching. It does not include the substantial proportion of teachers who lost their jobs as a result of budget reductions during this period.

more than 60 percent during the period 1991 to 2005. Attrition was at a low of 5.1 percent in 1991-92, the first year these data were reported, to a high of 8.4 percent in 2004-05 (Goldring, Tale, & Riddles, 2014). While attrition diminished slightly during the Great Recession, it remains above 7 percent. In raw numbers, this reflects 259,400 teachers who chose to leave the profession after the 2012-13 school year.1

Recent polls provide some indication of the basis for this trend:One 2013 poll found that teacher satisfaction had declined 23 percentage points since 2008, from 62 percent [sic] to 39 percent very satisfied, the lowest level in 25 years. Fifty-one percent of teachers reported feeling under great stress several days a week, an increase of 15 percentage points reporting that level in 1985. (Strauss, 2015a, para. 6)

The National Education Association (Walker, 2014) also found in a nationwide survey of 1,500 PreK-12 teachers that 45 percent of teachers consider leaving the field of education each year due to the pressures of standardized testing. In addition, self-reported data revealed a plethora of reasons for teacher departure including: “a combination of under-resourced schools, the loss of job protections, unfair teacher evaluation methods, an increase in the amount of mandated standardized testing and the loss of professional autonomy” (Strauss, 2015a, para, 12). Not only are teachers leaving the profession at faster rates than in previous decades, there is evidence to indicate that those who do so may be some of the most effective (TNTP, 2012). In one study conducted in the Midwest (Voke, 2003), superintendents were asked to think about teachers who left the field for reasons other than maternity/paternity or retirement and to report on the effectiveness of this departing group. They were then asked to estimate the percentage of the departing group that fit into the categories of “highly effective,” “effective,” or “ineffective.” Superintendents estimated that 75 percent to 100 percent of the teachers leaving the classroom in their districts were “effective” or “highly effective” (Voke, 2003, para. 14). Another study found that new teachers who scored in the top quartile of their college entrance exams were twice as likely to leave the profession than those with lower scores (Boser, 2000). More recently, Winters, Dixon, and Greene (2012) found evidence

to support the notion that more effective teachers from their sample in Florida were more likely to leave the classroom. Not only are schools and districts losing large numbers of teachers through attrition, they might be losing more academically talented or effective teachers. In addition, the teacher shortage extends to issues of diversity. Traditionally ethnically and racially marginalized students now make up approximately 50 percent of the nation’s public school population (Quintero & Hansen, 2016). In contrast, 18 percent of the nation’s teachers are teachers of color. This can be problematic when there is evidence from research that students of color tend to perform better when they have a teacher of the same race (Egalite, Kisida, & Winters, 2015). A nationwide shortage of well-qualified teachers clearly exists. The shortage is becoming more widespread, and is projected to become more severe in coming years (Sutcher et al., 2016). At a time when the population of school-aged

children is once again growing and becoming ever more diverse, fewer individuals are electing to pursue careers in education, and those who do are less likely to remain in the profession for the duration of their working lives, particularly those of higher academic ability and from underrepresented populations (Arizona Department of Education, 2015; Briseno, 2015; Strauss, 2015b). This is particularly important in Nevada which is one of the most diverse states in the country (Diversity in Ed, 2014). It is important to remember that the issue with an insufficient or leaky pipeline is not the teacher shortage itself, but the impacts

on students when schools do not have access to a strong, qualified, and diverse teacher workforce. As Ingersoll (1997) pointed out regarding the challenge principals face in a teacher shortage crisis, they will “most commonly do three things: hire less-qualified teachers, assign teachers trained in another field or grade level to teach in the understaffed area, and make extensive use of substitute teachers” (p. 41). Another concern highlighted in this report is the lack of recent empirical evidence to guide stakeholders in policy decisions that may improve this issue. Thus, numerous factors contribute to teacher shortages and these shortages have myriad implications for schools and students.

Fewer individuals are electing to pursue careers

in education, and those who do are less likely to remain

in the profession for the duration of their working lives, particularly those

of higher academic ability and from underrepresented

populations.


Name Percent Non-White

Percent w/IEP

Percent EL

Percent FRL

Eligible State 64.93 11.83 16.31 53.17

Carson City 50.82 12.6 17.47 50.28 Churchill 37.39 15.63 8.11 48.45

Clark 72.42 11.63 18.4 57.52 Douglas 31.76 14.17 5.43 33.71

Elko 39.5 11.19 11.34 34.95 Esmeralda 43.24 --- 14.86 54.05

Eureka 14.98 9.31 0 25.1 Humboldt 44.03 14.77 12.84 39.48

Lander 40.61 10.39 8.77 29.27 Lincoln 21.48 12.22 1.08 49.26

Lyon 35.8 12.63 6.41 49.65 Mineral 42.95 17.68 0 52.63

Nye 35.3 15.21 7.32 63.67 Pershing 45.52 13.29 7.51 49.71

SPCSA 42.78 7.84 3.82 22.81 Storey 19.95 16.96 0 4.24

University Schools 43.8 0 0 0

Washoe County 54.35 13.18 16.03 48.2

White Pine 25.68 14.72 2.32 31.92 Note: Data in this table were retrieved from the Nevada

Report Card (Nevada Department of Education, n.d.a.).

Any meaningful discussion of the teacher shortage in Ne-vada must take into account the vast differences that exist

between and among the State’s 19 school districts including the State Public Charter School Authority (SPCSA) and Univer-sity Schools. School district contexts vary widely in the State of Nevada, including small and large districts, urban and rural districts, and homogeneous and heterogeneous student popu-lations. For example, the State’s smallest district is Esmeralda County which serves 74 total students but covers over 3,570 square miles (Esmeralda County School District, 2014). In con-trast is the Clark County School District (CCSD), the fifth larg-est district in the nation, which serves nearly 320,000 students (approximately 70 percent of the State total) in both urban and rural schools within a county that ranges over more than 8,000 square miles (CCSD, 2016). The State also supports charter schools, both within and authorized by school districts (e.g., CCSD sponsors seven charter schools) and as independent lo-cal education agencies (State Charter Schools enrolled 20,104 students in 2014-15). Table 1 outlines each of the 19 school dis-tricts in the State and the populations of those counties (Nevada Legislature, 2015).

Table 1. Population and Student Enrollment of Nevada Counties

These 19 districts also vary widely in terms of the characteristics of the children they serve. Table 2 provides data on four characteristics of each district’s student population.

Table 2. Characteristics of Nevada’s Student Population by District

The most ethnically and racially diverse district is Clark County, in which non-White students make up 72.48 percent of total enrollment, and the least diverse district is Eureka County, in which roughly 15 percent of total enrollment is of non-White students. Notably, while the statewide proportion of non-White students is 64.93 percent, when Clark County is eliminated as a clear outlier, the proportion of non-White students in Nevada’s schools is reduced to less than 50 percent (48.26 percent)—still racially/ethnically diverse but varying widely across districts. The districts also serve populations that differ in the proportion of students who are eligible for special services (i.e., Individualized Education Programs or IEPs), English Learner (EL) assistance, and free or reduced lunches (FRL). Variation across districts is greatest in terms of proportion of students eligible for EL services. Five of the State’s districts have EL populations exceeding 15 percent of the total population, while an equal number have populations of zero to about one percent of the total population. Eligibility for special services also varies across districts ranging from a high of 17.68 percent of students to lows of 7.84 percent in SPCSA and zero in University Schools. Eligibility for free and reduced lunches varied somewhat less across districts. Still, Nye County at 63.67 percent represented the State’s largest proportion, compared with Storey County at 4.24 percent and University Schools reporting no eligible students.2

County Name

Total Population

Student Population

Carson City 55,274 7,526 Churchill 24,877 3,488

Clark 1,951,269 318,040 Douglas 46,997 6,054

Elko 48,818 9,859 Esmeralda 783 74

Eureka 1,987 247 Humboldt 16,528 3,473

Lander 5,775 1,049 Lincoln 5,345 1,015

Lyon 51,980 8,065 Mineral 4,772 475

Nye 43,946 5,167 Pershing 6,753 692

SPCSA --- 20,104 Storey 4,010 401

University Schools

--- 137

Washoe 421,407 63,108 White Pine 10,030 1,250

2State Charter Schools and University Schools serve student populations that are notably different from that of the State more broadly. Al-though racial and ethnic diversity of these schools is similar to that of other districts in Nevada, students attending State Charter and Univer-sity Schools are less likely to qualify for free and reduced lunches, require EL instruction, or qualify for special education services than other public schools.

The Educational & Geographic Context of Nevada

Note: Data in this table were retrieved from the Nevada Report Card (Nevada Department of Education, n.d.a.) and the U.S. Census Bureau (n.d.)


As would be expected, the tremendous range of differences in student population size and characteristics also affect

both the number of teacher vacancies and the types of vacan-cies that exist across school districts in Nevada. Estimates of the demand for new teachers in the 2016-17 academic year in Nevada were as high as 2,800 in early spring of 2016 (M. Gen-try, Personal Communication, February 18, 2016). However, in order to more accurately determine the likelihood of unfilled teacher vacancies at or near the beginning of the academic year, project staff conducted a survey of Human Resources directors in late June and early July 2016. Fourteen of the State’s districts responded, and these data are presented in Table 3 and depicted graphically in Figure 1. When appropriate, some proportional estimations are made in order to draw statewide inferences.

Table 3. Projected District Teacher Vacancies for 2016-17 as of July 2016 culled from Human Resources Directors Survey

Figure 1. Distribution of teacher vacancies by area. Data derived from Human Resources Directors survey.

The 13 responding school districts indicated a total of 1,005.5 vacancies as of late June 2016. Demand for elementary teachers constituted almost 40 percent of this total, and special education vacancies constituted another third. Secondary vacancies across all areas made up about one quarter of all vacancies, and pre-K and out-of-classroom vacancies together made up 4 percent. It can reasonably be estimated that roughly 1,175 teacher vacancies existed in Nevada about one month before the academic contract year began3. This figure would have included 428 elementary vacancies, 362 special education vacancies, and 285 vacancies at the secondary level. However, there is substantial variation in the unique teacher vacancies existing across districts. This variation can be seen in Figure 2 on the following page.

Nevada’s educational context is unique compared to other States in the U.S. The State itself is generally sparsely populated given its geographic size. The majority of school districts in the State reflect this largely rural environment, particularly in terms of district enrollments, but also in terms of comparative diversity, particularly racial, ethnic, and language diversity. However, a single, highly concentrated urban center in southern Nevada accounts for almost three quarters of the

State’s population and school enrollment. Additionally, this large district serves a student population that is far more diverse than other districts around the State. Thus, any examination or discussion of education in Nevada, including the nature of the teacher workforce, must recognize these vast regional differences within and across the State.

Pre-KVacancies1%

ElementaryVacancies38%

Secondary**Vacancies26%

SpecialEducation32%

Out-of-Classroom3%

3This estimation is based on the student population of responding districts versus total student population to project numbers as though every district had responded to the survey. Because the responding districts serve roughly 85 percent of total student population in the state, this calculation assumes that the reported vacancies represent 85 percent of total vacancies.

The Nature & Extent of the Teacher Shortage in Nevada Schools

1 Data from CCSD were reported in a different format.

School District Pr

e-K

V

acan

cies

Ele

men

tary

V

acan

cies

Seco

ndar

y**

Vac

anci

es

Spec

ial

Edu

catio

n

Out

-of-

Cla

ssro

om

Tot

al

Vac

anci

es

Carson City 1 14 16 7 2 40

Churchill 1 11 3 3 6 24 Clark1 --- 251 177 276 --- 751 Douglas 1 18 13 4 8 44 Eureka 0 2 3 1 0 6 Humboldt 1 14 5 4 2 26 Lander 1 6 1 1 0 9 Lincoln 1 2 3 1 4 11 Lyon 3 36 12 8 5 64 Mineral 1 5 6 2 1 15 Pershing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storey 0 0 0 0 0 0 White Pine 0 7 5 2 2 16

Totals 10.0 366.0 243.5 309.0 30.0 1,005.5 1Data from CCSD were in a different format.

1 Data from CCSD were reported in a different format.

School District Pr

e-K

V

acan

cies

Ele

men

tary

V

acan

cies

Seco

ndar

y**

Vac

anci

es

Spec

ial

Edu

catio

n

Out

-of-

Cla

ssro

om

Tot

al

Vac

anci

es

Carson City 1 14 16 7 2 40

Churchill 1 11 3 3 6 24 Clark1 --- 251 177 276 --- 751 Douglas 1 18 13 4 8 44 Eureka 0 2 3 1 0 6 Humboldt 1 14 5 4 2 26 Lander 1 6 1 1 0 9 Lincoln 1 2 3 1 4 11 Lyon 3 36 12 8 5 64 Mineral 1 5 6 2 1 15 Pershing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storey 0 0 0 0 0 0 White Pine 0 7 5 2 2 16

Totals 10.0 366.0 243.5 309.0 30.0 1,005.5


High demand for elementary teachers was generally common across the districts according to our survey and, in most, represented the largest proportion of vacancies that remained in mid-summer. This was particularly true in Humboldt, Lander, Lyon, and White Pine Counties, where more than 50 percent of vacancies were at the elementary level. Beyond this pattern, there was substantial variation in areas of greatest need across the districts. To understand Nevada’s shortage of qualified education professionals, it is useful to examine teacher vacancies as a proportion of total student enrollment in each district. This proportion provides some indication of the extent of the shortage in the context of district size. Table 4 provides these data. Across reporting districts, teacher vacancies averaged 1.4 percent of total student enrollment. Humbolt County (6.8 percent), Mineral County (3.2 percent), and Eureka County (2.4 percent) were well above the state average. Excluding districts reporting no vacancies, Clark County at 0.2 percent has the smallest vacancy-to-enrollment ratio. While only a very crude metric of the comparative severity of the teacher shortage across Nevada’s school districts, these data are telling. Although Clark County undoubtedly represents the greatest total number of vacancies in the State, the teacher shortage appears to be more severe in some of the state’s more rural districts. Thus, efforts to address the very real shortage of teachers in Nevada cannot focus only on the more visible shortage in urban areas like Clark and Washoe counties.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Carson City

Churchill Clark County***

Douglas County

Eureka Humboldt Lander Lincoln Lyon Mineral Pershing Storey

Pre-K Vacancies Elementary Vacancies Secondary** Vacancies Special Education Out-of-Classroom

Figure 2. Distribution of teacher vacancies by district and area. Data derived from Human Resources Directors survey.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Carson City

Churchill Clark County***

Douglas County

Eureka Humboldt Lander Lincoln Lyon Mineral Pershing Storey

Pre-K Vacancies Elementary Vacancies Secondary** Vacancies Special Education Out-of-Classroom

County Name Student Population

Reported Teacher

Vacancies

Vacancy Proportion

Carson City 7,526 40 0.005 Churchill 3,488 24 0.007

Clark 318,040 751 0.002 Douglas 6,054 44 0.007

Elko 9,859 --- n/a Esmeralda 74 --- n/a

Eureka 247 6 0.024 Humboldt 3,473 26 0.068

Lander 1,049 9 0.009 Lincoln 1,015 11 0.011

Lyon 8,065 64 0.008 Mineral 475 15 0.032

Nye 5,167 --- n/a Pershing 692 0 0.000

Storey 401 0 0.000 Washoe 63,108 --- n/a

White Pine 1,250 16 0.013

Table 4. District Teacher Vacancies as Proportion of Total Enrollment


A presumably important source of new teachers into the pipeline are graduates of programs offered within the

State and approved by the Nevada Department of Education to prepare teachers for licensure. This includes what are often termed “traditional” programs—programs offered at the bach-elor’s or master’s level that include completion of an under-graduate degree with substantial requirements for coursework and intensive, supervised field-based experiences including at least one semester of full-time student teaching. However, since the creation of conditional licensure in 1989 (AB 813) and the establishment of alternative route to licensure (ARL) programs in 1994 (Nevada Revised Statue 391.019), Nevada has encour-aged the development of ARL programs in an attempt to meet the State’s demand for new teachers by offering pathways for those who have already completed an undergraduate degree in another field but are interested in pursuing a career in educa-tion. ARL programs in Nevada are frequently offered by en-tities other than higher education institutions (e.g., school dis-tricts or private providers), although some Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) institutions offer these programs at the post-baccalaureate level in addition to their undergraduate programs and traditional M.Ed. programs. The production of new teachers and indications of future production can be viewed in multiple ways. This includes at least: (a) consideration of total enrollments in approved education programs (providing an indication of future production) and (b) the number of “completers” (individuals who successfully complete programs that make them eligible for licensure)4. Figure 3 depicts trends in enrollment in approved Nevada licensure programs over the five-year period from 2009-10 through 2013-14 (the most recent year for which data are available). As will be seen, the decline in interest in teaching as a career nationally has also affected educator preparation programs in Nevada.

As can be seen in Figure 3, enrollments in approved Nevada preparation programs dropped significantly from their high of 6,502 during the 2010-11 academic year. Some of this drop is attributable to a change in the way in which the State defined enrollment and in which programs reported these data (D. Durish, personal communication, November 9, 2016). Other political factors at the time may have also influenced this drop in enrollment5. Nonetheless, the number of individuals participating in programs leading to teacher licensure declined from 2010-11 through 2012-13 to a low of 2,574. This year-to-year trend was reversed somewhat in 2013-14 as total enrollment reached 3,109, though total enrollment remained lower than even two years earlier (3,412). These data are generally consistent with trends found throughout the U.S. during this period. As the fiscal impacts of the Great Recession forced schools to reduce staff, education programs suffered declining enrollments. Also notable during this period is the steady comparative growth of enrollments in approved ARL programs. Although these programs first became available in 1994, they did not report and track data until 2010-11. At that time, for ARL programs, reported data included a total of 148 students, 2.2 percent of total education enrollments. By 2013-14, ARL programs enrolled 471 teacher candidates, 15.1 percent of total enrollments. This trend is likely to continue in the near term due to its perceived popularity with teacher candidates, the State approving more alternative providers, and as a result of incentives like the Nevada TEACH Scholarship that have focused specifically on recruitment of individuals into ARL programs.

4Even the term “completers” can be further disaggregated between those who complete a program qualifying for either full licen-sure or conditional licensure. Full licenses, while they must be renewed periodically, are granted and remain in effect indefinitely. Conditional licenses are granted for a period of up to three years during which time the holder must complete all requirements for full licensure. In the present report, we refer only to those who have completed programs making them eligible for full licensure.

5It has been suggested that very public and contentious contract negotiations taking place between the CCSD and Clark County Education Association may have affected the number of individuals pursuing licensure, but this is impossible to validate.

The Teacher Pipeline in Nevada

6,267 6,354

3,0722,333 2,638

- 148

340

241 471

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Traditional ARL

Figure 3. Enrollment in Nevada educator preparation programs culled from 2013-2014 State Title II data (U.S. Department of Education Title II Education Provider, n.d.).

6,267 6,354

3,0722,333 2,638

- 148

340

241 471

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Traditional ARL


As previously discussed, the characteristics of students served by each of the State’s diverse school districts vary

greatly. However, the importance of recruiting a more and more diverse teacher workforce has been a focus not only in Nevada, but throughout the country (Dee, 2004; Egalite Kisida, & Win-ters, 2014; Hays, 2011; Putnam, Hansen, Walsh, & Quintero, 2016).

Figure 4. Teacher preparation enrollments in Nevada by gender according to 2013-2014 State Title II data (U.S. Department of Education Title II Education Provider, n.d.).

As Figure 4 reflects, females dominate education program enrollments in Nevada. In fact, the ratio of women to men has remained relatively consistent at slightly more than 3:1. Both the reality of the work of teachers and the historic perception of the profession as associated with women and perceived feminine traits contribute to this, and Nevada’s gender proportionality is actually less diverse than the 58.1 percent/41.9 percent reported by the National Center for Education Statistics (2016).

Figure 5. Teacher preparation enrollments in Nevada by race and ethnicity according to 2013-2014 State Title II data (U.S. Department of Education Title II Education Provider, n.d.).

While Nevada, and particularly distinct regions of the State, have a highly diverse population, this diversity is not well reflected in the populations of teacher candidates enrolled in Nevada’s teacher licensure programs where White candidates dominate. Hispanic/Latino teachers tend to make up the next largest group of teachers but White teachers still outnumber them at rates between 3:1 and 4:1. Black or African American teachers trail White teachers at rates between 7:1 and 9:1. The least represented groups in the teaching profession in Nevada are Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, American Indians, or Alaska Natives.

4,797 4,687 2,621 2,009 2,448

1,470 1,614 793 562 661

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Female Male

705.00 900.00565.00

331.00 519.0049 69

24 28

19 173

236

113 127

146 452 482

232 169

212 158 94

43 33

30

3,319 3,782

1,915 1,522 1,802

952 985

107 73 170

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Hispanic/ Latino American Indian/ Alaska NativeAsian Black/ African AmericanNative Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander WhiteTwo or More Races

Characteristics of Teacher Candidates in Nevada


Enrollments in approved teacher licensure programs pro-vide an indication of the earliest segments of the teacher

pipeline. They reflect trends in potential input into the pipeline that, over time, will produce newly license-ready teachers for Nevada’s classrooms. As such, and because this is an essential and rich source of new teachers for the State, these data are critically important. Clearly the number of individuals who are pursuing programs for teacher licensure establishes the early pool of potential future teachers. However, a more focused indicator of “flow” through the teacher pipeline is the total number of individuals who complete an approved program and who are eligible for licensure in Nevada. Figure 6 depicts production of completers from approved Nevada licensure programs from the 2009-10 academic year through the 2013-14 year.

Figure 6. Teacher preparation program completers in Nevada according to 2013-2014 State Title II data (U.S. Department of Education Title II Education Provider, n.d.).

According to Title II data, during the five-year period, production of new teachers in Nevada was at its peak in the 2010-11 academic year when 950 license-ready teachers completed approved programs representing a total net year-to-year increase of 101 completers (about 6 percent). This increase is fully driven by the 156 individuals in ARL programs. At this same point, completers from traditional programs actually declined by 54 graduates. From this high point, the total number of completers from Nevada programs declined in each subsequent year. Completers from traditional educator

preparation programs consistently declined each year with the most significant year-to-year decline occurring from 2012-13 to 2013-14 when 117 fewer teachers graduated from traditional programs, a loss of 16.8 percent. Total net annual loss from 2009-10 to 2013-14 was 81 teachers (9.5 percent). The ratio of completers to total enrollment in a given year is somewhat misleading, but provides some indication of efficiency (i.e., production as a proportion of total enrollment). Because most programs take more than one year to complete, the number of individuals currently enrolled will always be some multiple of that figure. Nonetheless, it is useful to examine the relative proportion of completers to enrollees over the five-year period. Figure 7 presents both annual enrollment and completers during this period.

Figure 7. Annual Nevada education program enrollments and completers based on 2013-2014 State Title II data (U.S. Department of Education Title II Education Provider, n.d.).

As noted earlier, enrollment data in the first two years of this period were reported differently than in subsequent years. Thus, direct comparisons year to year are misleading. However, as a total of education enrollments in the final three years of the period, the ratio of completers to enrollees statewide remained generally consistent at between 25 percent and 30 percent. While the relationship between enrollments and completers is not linear, it is clear that increasing enrollments is likely to lead to increased production of new teachers. Equally important, in order to meet demand of approximately 2,000 new teachers annually, the state would need to maintain a consistent enrollment of approximately 9,000 education majors.

849 794 757 694 577

0 156 11077 191

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Traditional ARL

849 950 867 771 768

6267 6502

34122574 3109

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Completers Enrollment

Production of New Teachers in Nevada


As described in an earlier section, both proportionally and in sheer numbers, the largest demand for new teachers is at the elementary level. This may be at least partially attributed to Class Size Reduction mandates (AB 964) that require capping class sizes in kindergarten and grades 1, 2, and 3. Although recent legislation (AB 278) provides relief from these mandates, these mandates may provide some rationale for this need as smaller class sizes inherently require more teachers. As

seen in Figure 8 and Table 5, Nevada’s preparation programs have consistently prepared proportionally more elementary teachers than any other. However, over the five-year period, the total number of elementary teachers prepared in the State dropped by nearly half from 583 to only 295. Preparation of secondary teachers reflects a similar pattern. Production of new secondary teachers in Nevada during this five-year period was highest in 2009-10 when a total of 291 new secondary teachers completed programs. The lowest production came in 2012-13 when only 168 new secondary teachers were produced in the State, with completions ticking upward slightly in 2013-14 to 199. In contrast, the total number of special education teachers prepared in Nevada increased from 128 in 2009-10 to 157 in 2013-14, and this represented the second largest proportion of new teachers each year. The production of new teachers in Nevada appears to be smaller than demand. And, while production of special education teachers is increasing, production of elementary and secondary teachers has declined substantially since 2009-10. In total number, production of new teachers is far short of the largest estimates of demand (2,800), and total annual production of new teachers in the State would fill less than 80 percent of the vacancies that remained even one month before the beginning of the 2016-17 academic year. Despite a growing number of approved educator preparation programs in Nevada in recent years, total production of new teachers has continued to decline even as demand increases.

Meeting the needs of Nevada’s schools for well-qualified new teachers is not simply a matter of preparing the req-

uisite total number of completers. These completers must also

be prepared in the areas and disciplines of comparatively great-est need. Figure 8 and Table 5 depict the distribution of educa-tion program completers by area over the five-year period.

Alignment of Production with Demand

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

Elementary Early ChildhoodMath EnglishSocial Studies/History ScienceSpecial Education English as a Second Language

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014


Figure 8. Nevada completers by area according to 2013-2014 State Title II data (U.S. Department of Education Title II Education Provider, n.d.).

Table 5. Nevada completers by area according to 2013-2014 State Title II data (U.S. Department of Education Title II Education Provider, n.d.).

Ele

men

tary

Ear

ly C

hild

hood

Mat

h

Eng

lish

Soci

al S

tudi

es/H

isto

ry

Scie

nce

Spec

ial E

duca

tion

ESL

2009-10 583 79 78 97 46 70 128 36 2010-11 416 33 34 58 52 58 104 17 2011-12 385 36 40 45 28 55 140 34 2012-13 303 33 33 43 22 41 135 22 2013-14 295 84 33 70 49 47 157 52

583

416 385303 295

79 33 36 33 8478 34 40 33 33

97 58 45 42 70

46 52 28 22 4970 58 55 41 47128 104 140 135 157

36 17 34 22 52

0100200300400500600700

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

Nevada Completers by Area

Elementary EarlyChildhoodMath EnglishSocialStudies/History ScienceSpecialEducation EnglishasaSecondLanguage


993 928 7411,227 1,304

601447 652

702 645

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Total Out of State New Licenses Total In State New Licenses

In order to fill the gap between production of new teachers within the State and statewide demand, Nevada has relied

heavily on recruitment of individuals from out of state. In fact, as can be seen in Figure 9 below, a majority of new licenses in Nevada are granted to individuals whose teacher preparation was completed out of state.

Figure 9. In-state vs. out-of-state initial licenses awarded in Nevada according to a data request from the Nevada Department of Education.

Over the five-year period, Nevada’s Department of Education awarded more than 8,000 new (i.e., “first time”) teaching licenses. Annually, total new licenses dipped between 2009-10 and 2011-12, but have since increased to a high of 1,949 in 2013-14. Throughout the period and despite variation in the total number of new Nevada teaching licenses granted each year, the proportion of licenses granted to graduates of in-state programs has remained relatively consistent. With the notable exception of 2011-12, when the total number of new licenses was at its lowest point, about one third of all new Nevada teaching licenses are granted to individuals who have completed a Nevada-approved preparation program. As noted in earlier sections, demand for new teachers in Nevada has not been equaled by production of license-eligible individuals. However, as reflected in Figure 10, the data suggest that not all license-eligible Nevada completers apply for licensure.

In none of the five years were new Nevada licenses sought by all individuals who had completed an approved program during the respective year. In fact, in 2010-11, less than half (47.1 percent) of those teacher candidates who graduated from an approved Nevada program were granted licensure. This was the most dramatic example, but in each of the years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, 29.2 percent, 52.9 percent, and 32.9 percent of graduating education students were not licensed to teach. In 2012-13 and 2013-14 this pattern has improved (10.2 percent and 16.0 percent, respectively). Nonetheless, it is troubling that at a time when demand for new teachers so greatly exceeds in-state production, a meaningful proportion of license-eligible graduates are choosing not to teach, to teach in schools that do not require licensure, or to teach in other states. It must also be noted that the data and patterns depicted in Figure 10 may also explain, at least in part, the decline in education enrollments in Nevada in recent years. For at least three years, the staffing and fiscal reductions that resulted from the Great Recession may have created challenges for many education graduates to find work in their profession. For these graduates, they had invested time and fiscal resources into preparing for a career in which, upon graduation, many of them would not find work. This was not unique to education as the economic downturn forced many college graduates to accept work outside their chosen field, if they could find work at all. And, at the same time, students who were making decisions about post-secondary education and careers during this time were well aware of what was, at the time, a particularly bad job market in education. Thus, as would be expected, many of those who might have been considering enrolling in programs leading to teacher licensure likely chose other options. The combination of a poor job market over multiple years, generally declining interest in education as a career choice, and the natural lag between economic changes and their effect of career or educational decisions created something of a “perfect storm” for Nevada. Over the past two years, the State has relied heavily and somewhat successfully on recruitment

of new teachers from other states to resolve this dilemma. However, as the extent of the national teacher shortage becomes more widespread, it will be increasingly difficult to meet or even substantially close the gap between demand and the availability of effective teachers.

Out-of-State Teacher Recruitment in Nevada

601447

652 702 645

849950

867785 768

0100200300400500600700800900

1,000

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Total In State New Licenses In-State Completers

601447

652 702 645

849950

867785 768

0100200300400500600700800900

1,000

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14


601447

652 702 645

849950

867785 768

0100200300400500600700800900

1,000

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14


Figure 10. Comparison of initial licenses and Nevada completers; data culled from a data request to the Nevada Department of Education as well as 2013-2014 State Title II data (U.S. Department of Education Title II Education Provider, n.d.).


The workforce of well-qualified teachers in Nevada is a function of many factors—national and state econom-

ic conditions, regional population and demographic changes, even societal and generational norms. However, Nevada has been ambitious in its response to the current crisis. With support from Governor Brian Sandoval, former Superintendent of Pub-lic Instruction Dale Erquiaga, current superintendent of public instruction Dr. Steve Canavero, and other legislators, the State has implemented a range of programs, policies, and initiatives with both direct and indirect implications for the State’s teacher workforce. In this section, we briefly overview this legislative context. The 77th and 78th sessions of the Nevada Legislature (2013 and 2015, respectively) included dozens of bills associated with education in the State, each intended in some distinct way to improve access, quality, or accountability. Across this range of bills, there was a similarly wide range of potential influences on the availability of effective education personnel throughout

Nevada. In a few cases, the effect of legislation on the teacher workforce was intentional, but in others the effects were much less direct. For example, expansion of full-day kindergarten or preschool throughout the State actually exacerbated the shortage of available teachers by creating greater demand for early childhood educators. Conversely, waivers of the State’s class size reduction targets would reduce by some margin the number of teachers needed across the State. The following bills are presented by way of example to convey the ambitious legislative education agenda Nevada has pursued in recent years, and to highlight the implications of this agenda for the State’s shortage of effective education personnel. The examples have been organized around two basic themes: (1) legislation that had potential or intended to affect the number of teachers available or needed in Nevada (i.e., the magnitude of the teacher shortage) and (2) legislation that had potential or intended to address the quality and accountability of teachers in the State.

• AB27 (2015). This bill revised provisions of Nevada Revised Statute 391.060 to expand the circumstances under which the State can grant licensure to individuals who are not citizens or lawful residents of the United States. This bill allows non-citizens who are eligible to work in the U.S. to qualify for licensure in areas/schools/districts where shortages exist on three conditions: (1) there is a shortage of teachers in the area the person is qualified; (2) the person is qualified to teach the content of the subject area; and (3) the school district employs the person in that subject area. This bill directly influences the teacher workforce by increasing the number of individuals interested in teaching who could qualify for licensure. However, issues of certification articulation must still be resolved (i.e., teachers coming to Nevada must reconcile their own coursework with Nevada’s requirements).

• AB205 (2015). This legislation formally charges the Legislative Committee on Education, which meets regularly during the legislative interim, with the task of considering “guidelines, parameters, and financial plans” for mentorship programs targeted on improving educational attainment and success. The bill stipulates additional mentoring for students who are found through end-of-course or other assessments to be at risk of: (1) being deprived of the opportunity to develop and maintain a competitive position in the economy; (2) failing to make adequate yearly progress in school; and/or (3) entering the juvenile justice system. Although the bill does not directly address the number or quality of education personnel, decisions or recommendations made by the Committee have potential to increase demand in order to support mentoring programs.

• AB394 (2015). This bill was among the most contentious enacted by Nevada’s 78th Legislature. It stipulates the reorganization of the Clark County School District “into certain local school precincts” in ways that provide greater autonomy to individual schools. The bill does not directly address or discuss the shortage of effective education personnel; however, changes to the governance and operation of individual local schools have substantial implications for the types of preparation and support needed by teachers and school leaders.

• SB511 (2015). Like AB394, this bill was enacted very late in the 78th legislative session. It is one of a handful of bills directly focused on increasing the number of licensed education professionals available, particularly in high-needs schools and districts. The bill awards full tuition scholarships to qualifying individuals who pursue teaching licensure and then teach in high-needs schools.

• SB491 (2015). This bill makes way for funding by which education management and charter school entities can be contracted to open new charter schools focused in areas serving families of high poverty. The funds establish a nonprofit entity to expand availability of charter schools using the funds to: (1) recruit, encourage, and develop persons to assume leadership roles to serve students living in poverty; and (2) recruit new charter management organizations to operate such charter schools. The nonprofit must also match the state allocated money report annually concerning the use of the money. This bill has the potential to influence the teacher workforce both directly and indirectly with the recruitment of new teachers and/or in other ways that the nonprofit organization would deem necessary.

Legislative and Policy Initiatives in Nevada

Legislation with Implications for Teacher Supply & Demand


Across these examples and dozens of others, it is clear that Nevada has aggressively pursued policies focused on im-

proving education. Many of these have focused additional fund-ing, resources, and flexibility on schools serving students who are of greatest need—those in ZOOM and Victory Schools, for example. In many of these cases, the requirements for addi-tional or supplemental instructional support likely increase the State’s demand for licensed educators. However, they also of-ten provide incentives intended to help attract teachers to the State’s highest-needs schools and to retain these teachers in these setting. The examples also include direct efforts to address the State’s acute shortage of teachers. Notable among these are AB27, which broadens the pool from which individuals

may become licensed to teach in Nevada, and SB511, which provides tuition scholarships and incentives to individuals electing to pursue an education career working in high-needs schools. In total, and over time, Nevada has continued to seek new ways to resolve the complex issue of teacher workforce shortages. It is too early to determine how or whether these recent efforts have substantively affected the size or quality of the Nevada teacher workforce or the academic performance of the State’s diverse students. But it is clear that the State has been and remains open to a wide range of approaches that may have promise. In closing, we suggest a number of implications for policy and practice based on the data outlined in this report.

• AB234 (2015). This bill requires the State’s content and performance standards for social studies to include standards specifically addressing multicultural education. These new standards are to be created in consultation with members of the community who represent the racial and ethnic diversity of the State. Also, newly licensed teachers or those applying to renew an existing license must demonstrate completion of a course in multicultural education. The bill is intended to address the quality of the teaching force by ensuring the multicultural and pedagogical competence of licensed teachers.

• SB474 (2015). This bill establishes the Great Teaching and Leading Fund to expand the range of providers and options for educator professional development (PD). Not only does the bill require school districts and charter schools to ensure the availability of professional development, but it also creates the Advisory Task Force on Educator Professional Development to study and report on matters related to PD. This bill directly focuses on improving the quality of the teacher workforce by providing a broader range of PD opportunities for teachers, administrators, and other education personnel by expanding the number and range of entities to provide them.

• AB448 (2015). This bill establishes the Achievement School District within the Department of Education and authorizes the Department to unilaterally convert underperforming schools to achievement charter schools. The bill prescribes a number of conditions that must be followed in order to properly convert a public school to an achievement charter school. A key provision of the bill allows reassignment of school employees outside collective bargaining, which is intended to provide greater capacity to eliminate poorly or underperforming teachers and leaders.

• SB92 (2015). This bill establishes/expands the Turnaround Schools initiative in which low-performing schools are given additional resources and a temporary waiver from accountability metrics to provide them greater autonomy and innovation. The bill influences the teacher workforce in at least two ways: (1) it encourages high-performing teachers to continue working at a school designated as a turnaround school and (2) it requires that assistance must be provided to teachers reassigned to other schools to help them meet the standards for effective teaching.

• SB405 (2015). This bill provides the use of certain money to establish or continue certain programs at designated ZOOM schools. ZOOM schools are elementary and middle schools that serve high proportions of EL students. Provisions of this bill encourage ZOOM schools to employ additional instructional staff to support these programs and, as such, increase demand for qualified educators.

• SB432 (2015). This bill provides for the distribution of money to public schools designated as Victory Schools. Victory Schools serve high populations of students living in poverty and also have received a rating indicating underperformance. The money received through this bill is intended to be used for certain programs and services that will help improve student achievement and school performance. The additional funding provided to Victory Schools is likely both to include incentives for teachers who choose to teach in these high-needs settings and, at the same time, to increase demand for instructional personnel.

Legislation with Implications for Teacher Quality & Accountability


The intent of this report, the first in what we hope will be a regular publication, is to examine the extent and nature

of Nevada’s severe shortage of qualified education profession-als. This shortage has drawn national attention, and it likely portends a situation that will face much of the U.S. in coming years. Specifically, and importantly, we examined data on the extent and nature of this issue, and situated Nevada’s unique position in a larger national context. Several key findings or conclusions emerge from the available data:• The U.S. and parts of the world are experiencing a growing

shortage of qualified education professionals. This appears to be a result of declining interest in teaching as a career over the past several decades, increasing attrition out of the profession over the past decade, and the effect of staff reductions made during the Great Recession. However, there is some evidence that the extent of the shortage varies by region and discipline. Large urban and remote rural areas face the most acute shortages, and the shortage of special education and English for Speakers of Other Languages teachers is generally more severe than in other disciplines regardless of region.

• Any discussion of education in Nevada, including the shortage of education professionals, must take into consideration the vast differences that exist in size and student population in school districts across the State.

• Reported teaching vacancies in mid-summer 2016 indicated slightly over 1,000 remaining vacancies across 13 of the State’s 17 districts, projecting a total vacancy of 1,175. Elementary vacancies made up nearly 40 percent of this total, with special education constituting roughly one-third, and secondary vacancies (all areas) making up about one-quarter.

• The severity of Nevada’s teacher shortage differs widely across the State’s school districts, but is clearly more widespread than is often perceived. In fact, there is some evidence that the problem is more serious for many of the State’s small, rural districts than it is for the more often-noted large, urban districts. In fact, of reporting districts, teacher vacancies as a proportion of student enrollment in Clark County is the smallest in the state.

• While data in the early years are not completely accurate, enrollments in Nevada’s approved education programs have declined substantially since a reported high of 6,502 in 2010-11 reaching a low of 2,574 in 2012-13. They appear to have rebounded by about 20 percent in 2013-14 (3,109), but it is unclear whether this upward trend will continue.

• The proportion of candidates enrolling in ARL programs has steadily increased since these programs were first approved in 1994 and tracking and reporting on these programs began in 2010-11. By 2013-14, ARL enrollments constituted slightly more than 15 percent of total enrollments in education licensure programs.

• Candidates enrolled in Nevada’s preparation programs are largely female (75 percent) and White (66 percent). This mirrors national data on the teacher workforce and, while it reflects a substantial proportion of individuals of Hispanic/Latino decent (19 percent), it is far less diverse than Nevada’s student population.

• Paralleling diminishing enrollment, production of license-ready teachers in Nevada also declined from 2010-11 to 2013-14. From a peak of 950 education graduates, production decreased to only 768 in 2013-14. This drop is entirely a result of declines in traditional program completion; the number of license-ready teachers graduating from alternative programs has increased during this period.

• The effects of the Great Recession on the production of license-ready teachers in the State are clear. In 2010-11, 950 new teachers graduated from Nevada preparation programs. However, the State granted a total of only 447 initial licenses. Even if every Nevada education graduate had sought a teaching position, less than half of them would even have been licensed.

• Even in years when the shortage of teachers in Nevada has been widely publicized, between 10 percent and 15 percent of graduates do not pursue licensure to teach.

• Nevada has relied heavily on recruitment of new teachers prepared out of State. About two thirds of all initial licenses over the five-year period were granted to individuals who had completed their preparation outside Nevada.

• Nevada has implemented a range of new policies and programs to improve education in the State. Some of these have been directed at increasing the number of effective, fully-licensed educators (TEACH Nevada, licensure openness, waiver of class size reduction requirements). However, some (e.g., expansion of full-day kindergarten and availability of pre-school) have actually exacerbated the shortage in some areas.

Summary


There is no question that Nevada faces a tremendous short-age of qualified education professionals. Further, and de-

spite well-intentioned efforts statewide, including expansion of the number of programs in the State that are now approved to prepare individuals for licensure, the extent of the shortage is likely to expand. Explanations and solutions are not easily de-rived from this single and initial examination of available data. However, a limited number of conclusions and associated rec-ommendations can be drawn.

1. Any successful effort to address the shortage of teachers in Nevada must recognize the intensity of this issue in the State’s rural districts. While sheer numbers of vacancies draw attention to large, urban districts, the difficulty in recruiting and retaining teachers is probably greater among many of the State’s smaller districts. It will be important to engage existing preparation programs in working with all districts despite geographic and logistical difficulties.2. Increasing the number of educator preparation programs in the State is unlikely to affect the shortage of qualified education personnel. If pre-recession trends are any indication, the State’s existing preparation programs appear to have substantially more capacity than their current enrollments require. Taking advantage of this existing capacity would be far more cost-effective than developing capacity through new providers. 3. Aggressive recruitment of individuals into education careers must be the foundation of any efforts. The comparatively low rate of college attendance in Nevada makes this more challenging, but also offers an opportunity. Most promising are programs that support individuals who might not otherwise consider attending college.

4. The State’s low rate of post-secondary education makes it unlikely that the teacher shortage will be solved by recruiting only in-State. However, the skills of teaching are not completely transportable, and the needs of Nevada’s schools are unique. Out-of-State recruiting should focus on individuals who complete at least some significant portion of their preparation in an approved Nevada program.5. A statewide effort should be directed toward implementing and funding systematic programs to support early-career teachers and reduce attrition through induction and mentoring. Such a program could be integrated within and constitute some part of an advanced degree for these individuals or counted toward requirements for professional growth during the first two to three years of an individual’s career. Retention is an important facet of teacher shortages that must be recognized along with recruitment.6. A coordinated, annual process for collecting and reporting on key factors associated with the teacher shortage is critical. This must include standardized reporting of vacancies at important points of the academic year, a method for tracking new hires across the state, consistent definitions and reporting on enrollments and production in State-approved educator preparation programs, collection of data on the extent of teacher attrition and the characteristics of those leaving the profession, and longitudinal tracking of teacher effectiveness as a function of their preparation and licensure. Additionally, due to the rise of ARL programs in the State and anticipated growth (Nevada Department of Education, n.d.b.), it seems useful to track the performance of candidates from ARL programs compared to traditional programs to learn more about what types of programs or program components work best in Nevada.

Recommendations & Conclusions


Arizona Department of Education. (2015). Educator retention and recruitment report. Retrieved from http://www.azed.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/err-initial-report-final.pdf

Berry, B. (1986). Why bright college students won’t teach. Urban Review, 18(4), 269-280. Retrieved from http://www.teachingquality.org/sites/default/files/Why percent20Bright percent20College percent20Students percent20 Won’t percent20Teach.pdf

Boser, U. (2000). A picture of the teacher pipeline: Baccalaureate and beyond. Education Week Quality Counts 2000, 19(18), 17.

Brenneman, R. (2015, August). Is there a teacher shortage? That depends how you frame it. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teaching_now/2015/08/is-there-a-teacher-shortage-yes-no-maybe.html

Briseno, E. (2015, August 15). Teacher Shortage Hitting RRPS. Albuquerque Journal. Retrieved from http://www.abqjournal.com/628854/news/teacher-shortage-hitting-rrps.html

Clark County School District (2016). 2014-2015 District accountability report. Retrieved from https://ccsd.net/schools/accountability-reports/pdf/CCSD_14-15_District.pdf

Dee, T. S. (2004). Teachers, race, and student achievement in a randomized experiment. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 195–210. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3211667.pdf?acceptTC=true

Diversity in Ed. (2014). Most diverse student populations: Lands of opportunity for diverse teachers. Retrieved from http://diversityined.uberflip.com/i/272824-teachers-of-colormagazine-spring-2014/20

Duncan, A. (2009). Teacher preparation: Reforming the uncertain profession—Remarks of secretary Arne Duncan at teachers college, Columbia University. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/teacher-preparation-reforming-uncertain-profession

Egalite, A. J., Kisida, B., & Winters, M. A. (2014). Representation in the classroom: The effect of own-race/ethnicity teacher assignment on student achievement (EDRE Working Paper No. 2013-08). Retrieved from http://www.uaedreform.org/downloads/2014/09/representation-in-the-classroom-theeffect-of-own-raceethnicity-teacher-assignment-on-student-achievement.pdf

Egalite, A. J., Kisida, B., & Winters, M. A. (2015). Representation in the classroom: The effect of own-race teachers on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 45, 44-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.01.007

Esmeralda County Schools (2014). 2012-2013 District accountability summary report. Retrieved from http://www.esmeraldacountyschools.com/05_E__District-Wide_K-8_2013.pdf

Goldring, R., Taie, S., & Riddles, M. (2014). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the 2012-13 Teacher Follow-up Survey. Washington, DC: Institute for Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014077.pdf

Gould, E. (2016, October 7). Austerity at all levels of government has created a teacher shortfall. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.epi.org/publication/teacher-employment-and-the-number-of-jobs-needed-to-keep-up-with-enrollment-2003-2016/

Hays, J. M. (2011). Student to teacher racial/ethnic ratios as contributors to regional achievement gaps, 1999–2008 (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Education Resources Information Center (ERIC). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED546382)

Ingersoll, R. (1997). Teacher turnover and teacher quality: The recurring myth of teacher shortages. Teachers College Record, 99(1), 41–44.

Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534.

Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & Stuckey, D. (2014). Seven trends: the transformation of the teaching force, updated April 2014. CPRE Report (#RR-80). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://cpre.org/sites/default/files/workingpapers/1506_7trendsapril2014.pdf

Money, J. (2015, March 23). Don’t become a teacher, advises award-winner Nancie Atwell. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teaching_now/2015/03/award-winner-nancie-atwell-advises-against-going-into-teaching.html

National Center for Education Statistics (2016). Fast Facts. Washington, DC: Institute for Education Science. Retrieved from nces.ed/gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_209.50.asp.

Newton, S. (2015, September 29). Where have all the teachers gone? The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-newton/where-have-all-the-teache_1_b_8215602.html

Nevada Department of Education. (n.d.a.). Nevada Annual Reports of Accountability. Retrieved from http://nevadareportcard.com/di/

References


Nevada Department of Education. (n.d.b.). Alternative Routes to Licensure (ARL). Retrieved from http://www.doe.nv.gov/Educator_Effectiveness/Educator_Develop_Support/Educator_Preparation/Alternative_Routes_to__Licensure_(ARL)/

Nevada Legislature (2015). Nevada Education Data Book. Carson City, NV: Research Division. Retrieved from www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Research/Publications/EdDataBook/

Putnam, H., Hansen, M., Walsh, K., & Quintero, D., (2016). High hopes and harsh realities: The real challenges to building a diverse workforce. The Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/browncenter_20160818_teacherdiversityreportpr_hansen.pdf

Quintero, D. & Hansen, M. (2016, August 18). We cannot simply hire our way to a more diverse teacher workforce. The Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2016/08/18/we-cannot-simply-hire-our-way-to-a-more-diverse-workforce/.

Rebora, A. (2016, January). Faced with deep teacher shortages, Clark County, Nev., district looks for answers. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/01/27/faced-with-deep-teacher-shortages-clark-county.html

Riddle, D. & Pollins, H. (2016). [Transcribed responses from a qualitative study of developing pre-service teacher efficacy beliefs in classroom management]. Unpublished raw data.

Strauss, V. (2015a, August 24). The real reasons behind the teacher shortage. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/08/24/the-real-reasons-behind-the-u-s-teacher-shortage/

Strauss, V. (2015b, November 20). Why today’s college students don’t want to become teachers. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/11/20/why-todays-college-students-dont-want-to-be-teachers/

Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/A_Coming_Crisis_in_Teaching_REPORT.pdf

Torres, J., Santos, J., Peck, N. L., & Cortes, L. (2004). Minority teacher recruitment, development, and retention. Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory LAB. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED484676.pdf

TNTP. (2012). The irreplaceables. Author. Retrieved from h t t p : / / t n t p . o r g / a s s e t s / d o c u m e n t s / T N T P _Irreplaceables_2012.pdf

Turner, R. (2014, January 23). A warning to young people: Don’t become a teacher. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randy-turner/a-warning-to-young-people_b_3033304.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Quick Facts. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/00

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS). (n.d.). “Degrees and Other Formal Awards Conferred” surveys, 1970-71 through 1985-86; Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), “Completions Survey” (IPEDS-C:91-99); and IPEDS Fall 2000 through Fall 2012, Completions component. (Prepared July 2013.). Retrieved from https://gallery.mailchimp.com/75c11d504df238505de351774/files/Trends_in_Teacher_Supply_and_Demand.pdf

U.S. Department of Education Title II Education Provider. (n.d.). Program, Enrollment and Completer data by State. Retrieved from https://gallery.mailchimp.com/75c11d504df238505de351774/files/Trends_in_Teacher_Supply_and_Demand.pdf

Voke, H. (2003). Responding to the teacher shortage. In M. Scherer (Eds), Keeping good teachers. Retrieved from www.ascd.org/publications/books/104138/chapters/Responding-to-the-Teacher-Shortage.aspx

Walker, T. (2014, November, 2). NEA survey: Nearly half of teachers consider leaving profession due to standardized testing. NeaToday. Retrieved from http://neatoday.org/2014/11/02/nea-survey-nearly-half-of-teachers-consider-leaving-profession-due-to-standardized-testing-2/

Winters, M. A., Dixon, B. L., & Greene, J. P. (2012). Observed characteristics and teacher quality: Impacts of sample selection on a value added model. Economics of Education Review, 31, 19-32. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.07.014

The NevadaTEACHERWORKFORCE:

An Initial Examinationby Derek Riddle, Steven Hayden, Jeffrey Laferriere, Tara J. Plachowski, Jori S. Beck, and Kim K. Metcalfon behalf of the Nevada Consortium on the Teacher Pipeline

UNLV College of Education4505 S. Maryland Parkway, MS 3001Las Vegas, NV 89154-3001

The Nevada Teacher Workforce: An Initial ExaminationReport brought to you by:

The Nevada Consortium on the Teacher Pipeline

For more information, visit us online at:education.unlv.edu/consortium

The Nevada TEACHER - Home Page - UNLV College of ...education.unlv.edu/consortium/documents/2017 Teacher...The Nevada TEACHER WORKFORCE: An Initial Examination by Derek Riddle, Steven

Documents