Drop in number of teachers who resigned to teach in another state

During the 2014-15 school year, 1,028 teachers said that they resigned to teach in another state.  According to the draft 2015-16 State of the Teaching Profession Report, 828 teacher reported that they exited the classroom last year for that reason.

Overall, around 0.9 percent of the 95,549 teachers employed in North Carolina between March 2015 and March 2016 chose to resign to teacher elsewhere.  In 2015, approximately 1.1 percent of teachers bolted for schools over yonder.

Focus on raising pay for early career teachers was the correct policy

Below is another chart from the draft 2015-16 State of the Teaching Profession Report.

Screen Shot 2016-10-26 at 11.12.07 AMThe chart suggests that early career teachers are much more likely to leave the profession to teach in another state or change careers.  Raising the base salary for these teachers may begin to curb attrition when it is more likely to occur, that is, during the first five years.

Departing teachers less effective than peers

Here is a critical point from the draft 2015-16 State of the Teaching Profession Report.

Additionally, analysis of the effectiveness of teachers who no longer remain employed in NC public schools shows that departing teachers are, on average, less effective than their counterparts who choose to remain employed in NC public schools. (p. 25)

This is one of the positive, yet rarely acknowledged, aspects of turnover.

Screen Shot 2016-10-26 at 11.09.10 AM

Draft report: Teacher turnover rate was 9 percent last year

The N.C. State Board of Education just posted the draft 2015-16 State of the Teaching Profession Report.  It indicates that the overall attrition rate for 2015-16 was 9.04 percent.  Note that the attrition rate includes retirees and those who took a position in another North Carolina school district or charter school.

Because of changes made to the report, N.C. Department of Public Instruction researchers say that this year’s data should not be compared to rates from previous years, including the 14.84 percent rate reported last year.

I’ll post additional information from the report later today.

Meanwhile….in New York….

As you probably are aware, early voting is an issue here in North Carolina, with an NBC News analysis concluding “long wait times may bear out recent concerns that the controversial Republican-backed cuts to early voting, in combination with other voting changes and population growth, could restrict access to the ballot in some areas.”

(Interesting footnote—NBC characterizes Greensboro as a “predominantly African-American city.” While Gboro certainly has a thriving black community, I wouldn’t describe it as “predominantly African-American.”)

So you can imagine my surprise when listening to NPR’s “Fresh Air” last night to hear this interesting bit of information on the state of New York. Fresh Air host Terry Gross was interviewing Rick Hasen, founder of the Election Law Blog and author of the book “The Voting Wars.” Gross asked Hasen about early voting (emphasis mine):

There have been fights between Democrats and Republicans over extending early voting or cutting it back, and this has led to some litigation. There are some states – Pennsylvania is probably at the top of that list, put New York on there, some Northeastern states – that offer no early voting, that offer no absentee balloting for people who don’t have a good excuse, like being unable to get to the polling place because of a disability or being out of the country. So there are some places where voting is still very hard. And some of these states – take New York, you know, you’ve had Democrats in charge for a long time, and yet voting is still more difficult than it needs to be.

As for federal —“universal” voter registration—Hasen adds it’s “the kind of system I like to say that has unified Democrats or Republicans. They all hate it…” Why would Democrats hate it? Because it would involve voter ID…..

Newsweek keeping an eye on N.C.’s election

Newsweek parachutes into North Carolina to keep an eye on North Carolina’s election–specifically speaking black voters’ access to the polls:

Jen Jones, Democracy North Carolina’s communications director, says thus far the biggest concern has been reports of three- and four-hour waits in Wake and Mecklenburg counties—home to the state’s biggest metropolitan areas around Raleigh and Charlotte—during the first few days of early voting. The group has not received any reports of individual voter intimidation from Trump-aligned poll monitors. Trump’s website asks users to volunteer as poll watchers, but Jones said her organization had not heard of the GOP training any observers who may have signed up. The state Republican Party did not respond to an inquiry from Newsweek.

“What we’re concerned about is…you have a people who are not involved with the political process until this election going to the polls and just standing there and watching. And that can be intimidating,” says Jones. She also noted that many polling locations in the state are subject to open carry gun laws: “You may have someone with a gun standing there watching you vote.”

Autrice Campbell Long, a middle-aged bank employee, didn’t have any problems while voting October 21 in Durham but said the rhetoric coming from Trump and his supporters made her a little nervous. If anything happens, “I think it’s going to be more on Election Day, I get that sense,” she said. “I plan to bring my mom and have her vote early as well, to avoid any drama that might occur.”

Hello—-am I the only one who remembers liberal political groups monitoring the polls to make sure the 2004 election wasn’t stolen—which by the way many still claim was stolen?

An overview of state education data systems

Last week, the Education Commission of the States published 50-State Comparison: Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems.  Information on North Carolina’s longitudinal data system is available here.

Screen Shot 2016-10-26 at 8.52.39 AM

Answering for Obamacare’s failure

David Harsanyi of the Federalist wonders when left-of-center pundits and politicians will be called upon to answer for their failed predictions involving the Affordable Care Act.

No doubt, you’ll remember all those romantic charts and stories from the liberal smart-set predicting Obamacare’s affordability and success. Remember the jeering aimed at conservatives who argued state-run markets that inhibit genuine competition and increase regulations would only spur costs to rise? “Lies,” they said.

In 2014, E.J. Dionne asked a valuable question: “Is there any accountability in American politics for being completely wrong?” The answer is, of course not. Not for some conservative talkers. And definitely not for the Voxers and liberal pundits who keep modifying the meaning of success whenever Obamacare’s viability is threatened (1234567891011 … you could spend hours linking to pieces rationalizing why ACA’s failures simply mean it’s “working.”)

At the time, Dionne argued that the ACA was doing exactly what its supporters had predicted, “getting health insurance to millions who didn’t have it before.” In reality, that was only one piece of Obamacare’s promise, and even that accomplishment has been retroactively simplified to create an impression of unqualified success. Far from it.

Of course mandating and subsidizing health-care insurance will decrease the number of uninsured. Yet Left punditry seems to be under the impression that coercing people to participate in their plans is revolutionary policymaking. But countless times in 2009, the president promised that exchanges would offer those newly insured Americans more quality “choices” and “affordability” and push down rates overall. (He promised the rest of us that health-care premiums would fall by $2,500 for a family of four. Instead, they’ve risen by over $4,800.)

New administration data released this week finds that Obamacare premiums will spike an average of 25 percent across the country for benchmark plans in 2017. But don’t worry, consumers on exchanges will also have far fewer choices. So they will either be forced to forfeit plans they like or lose insurance altogether and accept a tax or fine — or whatever liberals are calling their state-enforced mandate these days.