Search

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has lo//ng reported on public and private school enrollments. But it is only since the late 1990s that NCES has collected information on homeschooling, after the expansion of its National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) to address this topic. The past two decades have also seen growth in another form of out-of-school learning--virtual education. In virtual education, instruction is provided remotely via information technology. As information technology has advanced, this form of education has become a more feasible option for both children being homeschooled and enrolled students (Molnar et al. 2019). This increased access was particularly important during the coronavirus pandemic, which forced many schools to switch to virtual education. The NHES is now poised to provide key trend data on virtual education, with the 2019 NHES serving as a prepandemic baseline. The next NHES collection will occur in 2023. This report includes the national rate of homeschooling in 2019, as well as information on who participates in homeschooling and on why parents choose to homeschool. Using the new questions on virtual education, the report also includes the national rate of participation in full-time virtual education, information on who participates in full-time virtual education, and the rate at which students participate in either of these instruction-at-home options.

The Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) is an important tool to help students find financial assistance. Not only do students fill out the FAFSA to apply for federal aid for post-secondary education, but also to be considered for aid by states, institutions, and private funders. Thus, filling out the FAFSA, specifically, and applying for financial aid, more generally, is one of many important steps that college-going students might undertake in their transition from secondary to postsecondary education (Klasik 2012), and challenges with financial aid considerations--alongside other barriers--may undercut students' access to higher education (Castleman and Page 2013, French and Oreopoulos 2017). This brief builds on prior National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) publications (Chen, Wu, and Tasoff 2010; Ifill 2016) to provide an updated and detailed look at why students or their parents reported that they did not complete the FAFSA. This report uses data from the 2013 Update of the NCES High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09), a nationally representative study of a cohort of students who were ninth-graders in fall 2009. HSLS:09 focuses on understanding students' trajectories from the beginning of high school into higher education and the workforce.

This Statistics in Brief summarizes the changes from the 1998-99 to the 2012-13 school years in the average age of public schools, ratings of satisfaction of the environmental quality of school facilities, the cost to put school buildings in good overall condition, and short-range plans to improve school facilities. In addition to providing results for all schools, selected comparisons are made within 2012-13 by school level (elementary, secondary, and combined) and school size (less than 300, 300-599, and 600 or more students). This Statistics in Brief uses data from two surveys on the condition of public school facilities conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) through its Fast Response Survey System (FRSS). The first survey on this topic was conducted in the 1998-99 school year, and the second was conducted during the 2012-13 school year. Although the surveys sampled individual schools, the questionnaires were mailed to the districts with which the schools were associated, with a separate questionnaire enclosed for each school included in the sample. The following questions were asked: (1) How did the average functional age of schools' main instructional buildings change?; (2) How did dissatisfaction with schools' environmental factors change?; (3) Was there a difference in the percentages of schools that needed money for repairs, renovations, and modernizations to put onsite buildings in good overall condition, and what was the estimated cost of these projects, in total and per school?; and (4) Was there a difference in the percentages of schools with plans for building improvements in the next 2 years? The survey was designed to be completed by district-level personnel familiar with the school facilities in the district, often a district facilities coordinator (although the title of the position varied). The differences reported in this brief are statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level to ensure that they are larger than might be expected due to sampling variation. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. Key findings include: (1) In the 2012-13 school year, the average functional age of schools' main instructional buildings was 19 years, which was older than the average functional age of 16 years in the 1998-99 school year; (2) Of all the environmental factors in schools, lighting was the factor that the highest percentage of public schools rated as unsatisfactory in 2012-13 and the only factor rated as unsatisfactory for a higher percentage of public schools in 2012-13 than in the 1998-99 school year. Interestingly, lighting was the factor least rated as unsatisfactory in 1998-99; (3) In the 2012-13 school year, the percentage of public schools that needed money for repairs, renovations, and modernizations to put onsite buildings in good overall condition was 23 percentage points less than in 1998-99. However, the average cost of these projects was estimated to be $1.4 million more per school, adjusted for inflation, in 2012-13 than in 1998-99; and (4) A lower percentage of public schools in the 2012-13 school year than in the 1998-99 school year had plans for building improvements in the next 2 years. However, approximately 39 percent of public schools in the 2012-13 school year had plans for major repairs, renovations, or replacements to at least one building feature in the next 2 years. The following are appended: (1) Data Tables; and (2) Standard Error Tables.

Amid reports of decreased instructional time in music and art in some districts (Heilig, Cole, and Aguilar 2010; McMurrer 2008; Rabkin and Hedberg 2011), researchers, policymakers, and practitioners have questioned the status of arts education in the United States (Sabol 2013). Evidence about how elementary and secondary schools staff their arts instruction would further inform the discussion regarding arts education in U.S. public schools. A recent National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) report detailed high levels of visual arts and music instruction in both the 1999-2000 and 2009-10 school years, while reporting drops in dance and drama/theatre instruction (Parsad and Spiegelman 2012). Additionally, a 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on arts education found that while most schools did not report decreased instructional time in arts education between the 2004-05 and 2006-07 school years, those that had high percentages of minority and low-income students and those labeled as in need of academic improvement reported reduced arts instructional time (U.S. GAO 2009). While previous NCES reports have examined the availability of arts education to students and the incorporation of arts education into the school day, both during a single school year and across school years, this "Statistics in Brief" focuses on who teaches arts education in schools and how instructional staff varies by school characteristics and across school years in elementary and secondary school settings. Specifically, this report builds on the prior studies to explore the different types of school staff (i.e., full-time arts specialists, part-time arts specialists, and classroom teachers) used to provide arts instruction. This "Statistics in Brief" reports data only for schools that offered instruction in visual arts or music. The following study questions are addressed: (1) Among public schools that offered instruction in visual arts and/or music, what percentage of elementary schools employed full-time arts specialists, part-time arts specialists, and classroom teachers in the 2009-10 school year; and what percentage of secondary school teachers were full-time or part-time arts instructors in the 2008-09 school year?; (2) How do schools' use of full-time and part-time arts specialists, and classroom teachers vary by selected school characteristics for elementary schools (school year 2009-10) and for secondary schools (school year 2008-09)?; (3) How has the use of full-time and part-time arts specialists and classroom teachers changed for elementary schools (from the 1999-2000 to the 2009-10 school year) and secondary schools (from the 1998-99 to the 2008-09 school year)?; (4) How has the use of full-time and part-time arts specialists and classroom teachers changed for elementary schools (from the 1999-2000 to the 2009-10 school years) and secondary schools (from the 1998-99 to the 2008-09 school years) by selected school characteristics?; and (5) What percentage of elementary schools report the use of facilities specifically dedicated to arts education and how, if at all, has this use changed from 1999-2000 to 2009-10? The findings reported in this brief are statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. The following are appended: (1) Data Tables; and (2) Standard Error Tables.