IES Blog

The National Center for Education Statistics recognizes the need to provide expanded economic data on education, including data about the education labor market. In this blog we will be presenting public education sector data from the February 2024 release of the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. JOLTS data provide national monthly estimates of job openings, hires, and separations. These data can be used to monitor current labor market demand in education and to assess the presence or extent of labor shortages¹.

JOLTS Design

JOLTS is a monthly survey of about 21,000 public and private employers across all nonagricultural industries in the 50 States and District of Columbia. JOLTS estimates are produced by industry sector, including education². Additionally, JOLTS provides separate estimates for public and private education. This enables our analysis to focus on the public state and local education industry (“state and local government education” as referred to by JOLTS)³, which includes all persons employed by public elementary and secondary school systems and public postsecondary institutions.

The JOLTS program does not produce estimates by Standard Occupational Classification⁴. When reviewing these findings, please note occupations⁵ within the public state and local education industry vary⁶ (e.g., teachers and instructional aides, administrators, cafeteria workers, and transportation workers).

Analysis

This analysis of JOLTS data highlights key statistics describing employment availability, hiring, and turnover in public local and state education. Table 1 includes estimates on the number of job openings, hires, and separations from February 2020 through February 2024. Table 2 includes estimates on the corresponding rates of job openings, hires, separations, fill and churn rate measures from February 2020 through February 2024. The job openings rate is computed by dividing the number of job openings by the sum of employment and job openings. Metric rates for hires, total separations, quits, layoffs and discharges, and other separations are defined by taking the number of each metric and dividing it by employment. Fill rate and churn rates are calculated economic measures that are not readily available from the JOLTS database. Fill rate is defined as the ratio of the number of hires to the number of job openings and the churn rate is defined as the sum of the rate of hires and the rate of total separations^7,8.

Table 1. Number of job openings, hires, separations, and net change in employment in public state and local education, in thousands: February 2020 through February 2024

*Significantly different from February 2024 (p < .05).

NOTE: Data are not seasonally adjusted. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), 2020–2024, based on data downloaded April 2, 2024, from https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?jt.

Table 2. Rate of job openings, hires, and separations in public state and local education and fill and churn rates: February 2020 through February 2024

*Significantly different from February 2024 (p < .05).

NOTE: Data are not seasonally adjusted. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), 2020–2024, based on data downloaded April 2, 2024, from https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?jt.

Overview of February 2024 Estimates

The number of job openings in public state and local education was 226,000 on the last business day of February 2024, which was higher than in February 2021 (170,000) and lower than in February 2022 (322,000) and February 2023 (314,000) (Table 1). In percentage rate terms, 2.0 percent of jobs had openings in February 2024, which was lower than in February of the previous two years (3.0 percent in 2022 and 2.8 percent in 2023) (Table 2). The number and percentage of job openings in February 2024 were not measurably different from the number and percentage in February 2020. The number of hires in public state and local education was 107,000 for February 2024, which was not measurably different from in February of the previous three years, but was lower than February 2020 (141,000) (Table 1). The number of job openings at the end of February 2024 (226,000) was nearly double the number of staff hired that month (107,000). In addition, the fill rate for that month (0.5) was less than 1, which suggests a need for public state and local government education employees that was not being filled completely by February 2024.

The number of total separations in the state and local government education industry in February 2024 (80,000) was not measurably different from in February of the previous four years. In February 2024, the number of quits (56,000) was higher than the number of layoffs and discharges (17,000). Layoffs and discharges accounted for 21 percent of total separations in February 2024 (which as not measurably different from the percentage of layoffs and discharges out of total separations in February 2023, 2022, 2021, or 2020) while quits accounted for 70 percent of total separations (which was not measurably different from the percentage of quits out of total separations in February 2023, 2022, 2021, or 2010).

This blog is part of NCES’ effort to share more economic data from other federal statistical agencies that is relevant to education. We plan to provide regular updates to selected months from JOLTS to enable our data users to find and follow useful information about the education workforce.

By Josue DeLaRosa, NCES

¹ “Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey Overview Page.” BLS.gov.  Last modified November 28, 2022. https://www.bls.gov/jlt/jltover.htm

In Education Across America, we explore the condition of education across four main geographic locales: cities, suburbs, towns, and rural areas. In this blog post, we use select findings from Education Across America to focus on the experiences of elementary and secondary school students in distant and remote rural areas (find the definitions of these locales and sublocales).

This blog post provides a snapshot of these students’ experiences and includes data—which were collected at various points during the 2019–20 school year—on family characteristics, characteristics of student populations, characteristics of schools, school choice, coursetaking, and educational outcomes.

Family Characteristics

The percentage of children ages 5 to 17 who were living in poverty in remote rural areas was higher than the national average. Similarly, a higher percentage of students in remote rural areas lived in homes without internet access compared with all other sublocales.

• In 2019, the percentage of related children¹ ages 5 to 17 who were living in poverty was 21 percent in remote rural areas, which was higher than the national average of 16 percent.
• In 2019, among the 43 states for which data were available, the percentages of children in remote rural areas living in poverty ranged from 6 percent in Vermont to 42 percent in Arizona. The states with the highest percentages of children in poverty in remote rural areas were concentrated in the West (e.g., Arizona, New Mexico) and the South (e.g., South Carolina, Georgia).
• In 2019, the percentage of students who lived in homes without internet access or with access only through dial-up was higher in remote rural areas (11 percent) than in all other sublocales (ranging from 3 percent in large suburban areas to 9 percent in distant rural areas).
• In 2019, the percentage of students who had fixed broadband internet access² was lower in remote rural areas (69 percent) than in in all other sublocales except distant rural areas (ranging from 77 percent in remote towns to 88 percent in large suburban areas).

Explore more data on Children in Rural Areas and Their Family Characteristics and Rural Students’ Access to the Internet.

Characteristics of Student Populations

Public schools in remote and distant rural areas had smaller populations of Black, Hispanic, and English learner students compared with those in other sublocales. However, public schools in remote rural areas had a larger populations of students with disabilities.

• In fall 2019, the percentage of public school students who were Black was lower in remote (6 percent) and distant (7 percent) rural areas than in all other sublocales (ranging from 7 percent in fringe towns to 24 percent each in large and midsize cities).³
• In fall 2019, the percentage of public school students who were Hispanic was lower in distant and remote rural areas (each 10 percent) than in all other locales (ranging from 19 percent in fringe rural areas to 43 percent in large cities).
• In fall 2019, the percentage of public school students identified as English learners (EL) was lower for school districts in distant and remote rural areas (3 and 4 percent, respectively) than for school districts in all other sublocales (ranging from 5 percent in fringe rural areas to 17 percent in large cities).
• In fall 2019, the percentage of public school students who were students with disabilities was higher for school districts in remote rural areas (16 percent) than for districts in all other sublocales, which ranged from 13 percent in midsized cities to 15 percent each in fringe and distant rural areas, all three town sublocales, and midsized suburban areas.

Explore more data on Children in Rural Areas and Their Family Characteristics and English Learners and Students with Disabilities in Rural Public Schools.

Characteristics of Schools

When compared with public schools in other sublocales, public schools in distant and remote rural areas had smaller school enrollment sizes and lower ratios of students to staff and teachers—meaning the average staff member or teacher was responsible for fewer students.

• In fall 2019, a lower percentage of public schools were located in remote rural areas than in other types of rural areas. Six percent of all public schools were located in remote rural areas, 10 percent were located in distant rural areas, and 11 percent were located in fringe rural areas. In comparison, 26 percent were located in large suburban areas and 15 percent were located in large cities.

• In fall 2019, average public school enrollment sizes in distant rural areas (285 students) and remote rural areas (165 students) were smaller than those of all other sublocales (ranging from 402 students in schools in remote towns to 671 students in schools in large suburban areas).
• In fall 2019, the average public school pupil/teacher ratios and pupil/staff ratios in distant rural areas and remote rural areas were lower than the ratios in all other sublocales.
  • For example, the average pupil/teacher ratios in distant rural areas (14.0) and remote rural areas (12.5) were lower than the ratios in all other sublocales (ranging from 15.4 to 16.9).

Explore more data on Enrollment and School Choice in Rural Areas and Staff in Rural Public Elementary and Secondary School Systems

School Choice

Enrollment in both charter schools and private schools was lower in remote rural areas than in larger towns and cities, reflecting limited access to alternative educational institutions in remote rural areas.

• In fall 2019, the percentage of public school students enrolled in charter schools was lower in remote rural areas (2 percent) than in all other sublocales, which ranged from 2 percent each in distant towns and distant rural areas to 17 percent in large cities.⁴
• In fall 2019, the percentage of students enrolled in private schools was lower in remote rural areas (3 percent) than in the other sublocales, which ranged from 5 percent in distant rural areas and fringe towns to 14 percent in large cities.

Explore more data on Enrollment and School Choice in Rural Areas.

High School Coursetaking

Compared with those from cities, a lower percentage of public and private high school graduates from remote rural areas had taken advanced math but a higher percentage had taken career and technical education (CTE) courses.

• In 2019, the percentage of graduates in remote rural areas who had earned any advanced mathematics credits was lower than the percentage in large cities (85 vs. 93 percent).
• In 2019, the percentage of graduates who had completed any CTE course was higher in remote rural areas (97 percent) than in most other sublocales (ranging from 75 percent in large cities to 92 percent in fringe towns).⁵
• In 2019, a higher percentage of graduates in remote rural areas than in most other sublocales had taken courses in the following six CTE subject areas: agriculture, food, and natural resources; architecture and construction; human services; information technology; manufacturing; and transportation, distribution, and logistics.
  • For example, 47 percent of graduates in remote rural areas had taken a course in agriculture, food, and natural resources, while this percentage ranged from 3 percent for graduates in large cities to 24 percent in distant towns.
• Conversely, the percentage of graduates who had taken a course in engineering and technology was lower for those in remote rural areas (5 percent) than for those in most other sublocales (ranging from 12 to 16 percent).

Explore more data on College Preparatory Coursework in Rural High Schools and Career and Technical Education Programs in Rural High Schools.

Educational Outcomes

Public high school graduation rates were higher in remote rural areas than in cities. Despite this relatively high graduation rate, the percentage of adults age 25 and over with at least a bachelor's degree in remote rural areas was lower than in all other sublocales.  

• In 2019–20, the adjusted cohort graduation rate (ACGR) in remote rural areas (88 percent) was higher than the ACGRs in cities (ranging from 79 percent in large cities to 86 percent in small cities) and in remote towns (85 percent) but lower than the ACGRs in large and midsized suburban areas (89 percent each) and in fringe and distant rural areas (91 and 90 percent, respectively).
• In 2019, the percentage of adults age 25 and over who had not completed high school in remote rural areas (13 percent) was higher than the percentages in 8 of the 11 other sublocales, not including large cities, distant towns, and remote towns.
• In 2019, the percentage of adults age 25 and over who had earned a bachelor’s or higher degree in remote rural areas (19 percent) was lower than the percentages in all other sublocales, which were as high as 38 percent in large cities and large suburban areas.

Explore more data on Public High School Graduation Rates in Rural Areas and Educational Attainment in Rural Areas.

Check out the Education Across America hub and the indicators linked throughout this blog post to learn more about how the landscape of education varies by locale/sublocale. Be sure to follow NCES on X, Facebook, LinkedIn, and YouTube and subscribe to the NCES NewsFlash to stay informed when new locale-focused resources are released.

On May 28, the National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) announced plans for our fiscal year (FY) 2025 Special Education Research Grants Program through a Federal Register notice. Careful readers will note that, for this competition, we are focusing on a specific topic: Education Systems. We did so both because it highlights a domain of much-needed research and because, as in years past, we find ourselves in a situation where the field continues to propose more high-quality research than NCSER has resources to support. I offer more details below.

Why is NCSER running a focused Research Grants Program competition in FY25?

The short answer to this question is that, in FY24, the number of proposed projects peer reviewers rated as Excellent or Outstanding outpaced the funds we had available. As some may remember, we faced a similar situation in FY23. At the time, a handful of unfunded projects that had scored in the “fundable” range (that is, below 2.00 in our scoring system)  but were not funded due to a lack of available funding. Fortunately, the vast majority of these FY23 studies resubmitted in FY24 and were recommended for funding. The problem is that we now have a new set of proposals in a similar spot. These applicants could reapply again in FY25, but we worry this is creating a pattern that will be hard to break. Absent a marked change in NCSER’s funding levels, how do we get out of this yo-yo of a cycle?

I want to honor the work—and acknowledge the excellence—that the community displayed throughout our FY24 competition. As such, my first priority in FY25 is to fund as many of the projects as we can that scored at or below 2.00 in FY24. But this decision comes at a cost: the need to focus our FY25 competition in some way. How we’ve chosen to do that—and our rationale for that choice—is described in more detail below.

More changes are likely in the years ahead. We hope we will have more funds in FY26 and beyond based on the interest in our grant competitions. But, in the absence of substantial increases in our funding appropriations, NCSER will need to be more selective in its investments, such as limiting the number of topics we compete in a given year or placing restrictions on the number of projects we intend to support on any one topic. We are at a point where we routinely receive more high-quality proposed research than we can support without making sacrifices to other investments that are critical to improving outcomes for students with or at risk of disabilities. This includes our early career programs that train the next generation of special education scholars, our methods trainings that strengthen special education research, and our research and development centers that provide national leadership on some of the most important issues facing special education today. I am not prepared to abandon these other programs, or close off opportunities to new investments, as each are equally important as our primary research competition in growing the knowledge base underlying high-quality special education.

We all know that every funder operates within resource constraints, and that leaders within funding organizations are responsible for making hard choices about prioritization. But the consequences of the current funding context are not lost on me. I recognize how much work goes into writing a proposal, and in the consequences of delays in funding opportunities—for the research getting done, for the success of partnerships with stakeholders, and for individuals’ own careers. I know from personal experience the feeling of receiving a score in the fundable range only to be notified that there is not sufficient funding for one’s project. There’s disappointment too for our program officers, who have spent countless hours working with first-time applicants and those who have resubmitted their projects one or more times. All these factors are balanced in making decisions about how to make the best use of NCSER’s available funds. And I am proud at how much the field of special education research has accomplished, making the most of our available resources.

Why focus on education systems?

With limited funds for new research awards, NCSER decided to invest in systems-level education improvements for students with disabilities. NCSER has long encouraged systems-level research, but we typically receive a small number of systems proposals each year. While NCSER has generated considerable evidence about individual- and classroom-based programs and practices for learners, we need more research on how programs and services are coordinated within and across the multiple, complex systems of special education. A focus on systems is particularly warranted given the current realities of the education climate, including ongoing staffing shortages, chronic absenteeism, fiscal uncertainties, and school systems that are still recovering from the disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As you will see in our forthcoming RFA, we are casting a wide net in how we are encouraging the field to think about systems research.  This is truly a case where we need research across the board—from high-quality descriptive research documenting what special education systems look like in schools today, to research exploring how systems-level factors shape and are shaped by classroom practices and programs, to studies developing and testing systems-level interventions to measure development and validation given the relatively limited existing assessment work at the systems level. We are excited to see how the field embraces this focus.

Looking Forward

NCSER plays a singular role in the education research landscape, dedicated to building rigorous evidence about how to best meet the needs of students with and at risk of disabilities and to support the educators who serve them. I can appreciate that our focusing of the FY25 competition may cause some special education researchers to pursue funding with others this year, including private foundations or different federal partners. But throughout the year ahead—and as they have done since our inception—NCSER staff will continue to support our mission: training the next generation of researchers, building the research base on high-quality special education policies, programs, and practices, and finding more equitable and effective ways of mobilizing our research into practice.

June is LGBTQ+ Pride Month, and NCES is proud to share some of the work we have undertaken to collect data on the characteristics and well-being of sexual and gender minority (SGM) people. Inclusion of questions about sexual orientation and gender identity on federal surveys allows for a better understanding of SGM people relative to the general population. These questions generate data to inform the development of resources and interventions to better serve the SGM community. Giving respondents the opportunity to describe themselves and bring their “whole self” to a questionnaire also helps them to be more fully seen and heard by researchers and policymakers.

Sometimes, we get asked why questions like this appear on education surveys. They can be sensitive questions for some people, after all. We ask these questions so we can better understand educational equity and outcomes for SGM people, just as we do for other demographic groups, such as those defined by race, ethnicity, household income, and region of the country. Just as is the case for other demographic groups, it is possible that SGM people have unique experiences compared with students and educators from other demographic groups.

Over the past 10 years, NCES has researched how to best ask respondents about their sexual orientation and gender identity, how respondents react to these questions, and what the quality of the data is that NCES has collected in questionnaires and datasets that include sexual orientation and gender identity information.

Several NCES studies include background questions for adults about their sexual orientation and gender identity, including the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) Second Follow-up in 2016, the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B) 08/18 and 16/21 collections, the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) in 2020, the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS) 20/22 and 20/25 collections, and the 2023–24 National Teacher and Principal Survey. In addition, the School Crime Supplement (SCS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and sponsored by NCES, asks students several questions pertinent to SGM experiences. For example, the SCS asks students whether they were bullied due to their gender or sexual orientation and whether they experienced hate speech related to their gender or sexual orientation. As participants in the NCVS, students ages 16 and older who respond to the SCS also report their gender identity and sexual orientation. Collectively, these data allow NCES to describe the experiences of students who identify as sexual and gender minorities.

• As of 2021, 2009 ninth-graders who were bisexual and questioning left postsecondary education without degrees or credentials at higher rates than other groups of students who were in ninth grade in 2009, and they earned bachelor’s or higher degrees at lower rates than other students.¹
   
• In 2020, some 9 percent of students who identified as genderqueer, gender nonconforming, or a different identity had difficulty finding safe and stable housing, which is the three times the rate of students who identified as male or female (3 percent each).²
   
• In 2018, about 10 years after completing a 2007–08 bachelor’s degree, graduates who were gender minorities³ described their financial situations. Graduates who were gender minorities were less likely to own a home (31 percent) or hold a retirement account (74 percent) than graduates who were not gender minorities (63 percent and 87 percent, respectively).⁴
   
• Among 2008 bachelor’s degree graduates with a full-time job in 2018, those who were straight people reported higher average salaries than those who were either lesbian/gay or bisexual.    
   
• In the 2017–18 school year, 18 percent of public schools had a recognized student group that promoted the acceptance of students’ sexual orientation and gender identity, such as a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA). This was an increase from the 2015–16 school year, in which 12 percent of schools reported having a GSA.^5|
   
• Among all students ages 12–18 in grades 6–12 who reported being bullied (19 percent), the percentage who reported being bullied due to their sexual orientation more than doubled from 2017 (4 percent) to 2022 (9 percent).⁶ That change was primarily driven by female students, for whom the percentage tripled from 2017 to 2022 (from 4 to 13 percent), while the percentage of bullied males who reported being bullied for their sexual orientation was not statistically significantly different across the period (3 percent in 2017 and 4 percent in 2022).

Figure 1. Among students ages 12–18 enrolled in grades 6–12 who reported being bullied, percentage who reported that they thought the bullying was related to their sexual orientation: 2017, 2019, and 2022

! Standard error for this estimate is 30 to 50 percent of the estimate’s value.

* Statistically significantly different (p < .05) from 2022. 

State financial aid programs have the potential to substantially augment the support that students receive from the federal Pell Grant. Federal programs, most notably the Federal Pell Grant program, have historically played the lead role of providing a solid foundation of financial support to students, with states playing the supporting role of providing additional aid to students who meet specific eligibility requirements. In recent years, states have moved to innovate their financial aid programs in ways that have the potential to increase total aid packages, meet a wider range of needs, and serve a broader population of students. The effects of these recent innovations are mostly unknown yet of great interest to state legislators and policymakers. To address this issue, IES is funding a set of five research projects that assess the scope and effects of innovative financial aid programs in California, Connecticut, Michigan, Tennessee, and Washington state. This blog describes how the five projects are contributing to the evidence base.

State financial aid program eligibility rules differ in ways that can substantially alter total aid awards, the scope of the population that can be served, and the ways in which students can use aid funds to meet their various needs while enrolled in college. For example, one key policy attribute that affects the total aid award is whether awards are calculated independently of the Pell Grant­–as “first-dollar” awards that add to the Pell award if state eligibility requirements are met– or as “last-dollar” awards that supplement Pell awards conditional upon eligibility and appropriate-use requirements. Policies including an eligibility requirement for recent high school graduation within the state tend to limit aid access for older and returning students. In addition, financial need requirements can limit or broaden the pool of eligible recipients, depending on family income thresholds. Policies that require completion of the federal FAFSA Form without offering an alternative state application tend to close off access to aid for undocumented immigrants. Merit and high school GPA requirements can close off aid access to students who are otherwise ready for college. Moreover, appropriate-use requirements in some states limit aid usage to tuition and registration expenses while other states allow aid usage for living expenses such as housing and transportation.

Given these variations in program eligibility rules, state officials want to know if their aid programs are reaching targeted student groups, meeting their needs in ways that allow them to focus on their studies, and making a difference in their academic and subsequent labor market outcomes. In an effort to support decision making, IES is funding five projects that are each working closely with state officials to understand the features of their programs and conducting research to assess which students are accessing the programs, the extent of support provided by the programs, and their effects on enrollment in and progression through college. Below is the list of the IES-funded projects.

• Evaluating Incentives for Full-time Enrollment at California Community Colleges: Researchers from the Wheelhouse Center for Community College Leadership and Research at the University of California-Davis are assessing the effects of the Student Success Completion Grant, a supplement to California’s Cal Grant B financial aid program, on community college enrollment intensity and academic outcomes. This award provides additional financial aid for full-time enrollment to encourage timely degree completion. 
• Early First-Dollar Categorical Need-Based Aid: A New Model for Making College Affordable?: Researchers at the University of Michigan Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy are assessing the effects of Michigan’s Tuition Incentive Program (TIP), the state’s largest financial aid program. TIP provides a first-dollar scholarship which fully covers in-district community college tuition and fees and provides partial tuition support at four-year institutions, for low-income students as indicated by Medicaid participation before high school graduation.
• Measuring the Impact of State Financial Aid Programs: Researchers at the Connecticut Office of Higher Education and the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management are leading a project to assess the enrollment and postsecondary attainment effects of the Roberta B. Willis Scholarship Program. This last-dollar program has need-merit and need-based components that supplement the Pell Grant to cover the costs of tuition and fees and provide a stipend for books and supplies, for low-income in-state recent high school graduates.
• A Collaborative Use of a State Longitudinal Data System: A Study of the Washington College Grant Program: Researchers from MDRC and the Washington Student Achievement Council are assessing the effects of the Washington College Grant. This first-dollar scholarship is available to eligible low- and middle-income students of all ages enrolled in registered apprenticeships as well as two- and four-year degree programs.
• Studying Heterogeneity in the Impact of Merit Aid Receipt and Loss on Academic and Labor Market Outcomes: Researchers at University of Michigan are partnering with the Tennessee Higher Education Commission, the Tennessee Student Assistance Commission, and the Tennessee Board of Regents to assess the Tennessee Hope Scholarship. This merit-based program awards financial aid to graduates of Tennessee high schools who enroll in a 2- or 4-year public or private postsecondary institution within 16 months of high school graduation, conditional on meeting high school achievement requirements.

We are excited to fund these projects and look forward to the findings they will be sharing, starting in fall 2024.

This blog was written by James Benson (James.Benson@ed.gov), program officer in the Policy and Systems team at NCER.