This Department of Education website is not fully compliant with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The Department is currently remediating all non-compliant components. In the interim, please contact EDDataExpress@ed.gov for alternative means to interact with this website.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the collection and reporting of data on EDE, beginning in SY 2019-20. The Department urges abundant caution when using the data and recommends reviewing the relevant data notes prior to use or interpretation. This includes data on state assessments, graduation rates, and chronic absenteeism.

View Data in the Data Download Tool

Click here to view graphs and charts for Funding, Participation, and Performance Data
Program
Educators

Percent of teachers who are identified as inexperienced as defined by the state

Caution! States often vary significantly in their implementation, data definitions, and/or measures used to report on federal grant programs. Comparing data across states can lead to misinterpretation.
Zoom-Out

(Note: Because states use different definitions, making comparisons across states can lead to incorrect conclusions.)

EDFACTS File Specifications 203 and 067

Map Data Notes
Displaying 4 - 6 of 117 data notes
School Year State File Spec Data Group Data Topic Data Note State Note
2019-2020 MISSISSIPPI 067 422 Staffing Year to Year Comparison: The number of fully certified or licensed and not fully certified or licensed Title III teachers changed by more than 25% between the prior year and the current year. Data have been verified as accurate. The Mississippi State Board of Education temporarily suspended certain licensure guidelines duirng the 2019-2020 school year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The increase in the number of certified teachers could be attributed to the temporary provision that was in effect.
2019-2020 MONTANA 067 422 Staffing Year to Year Comparison: The number of fully certified or licensed Title III teachers changed by more than 25% between the prior year and the current year.
2019-2020 NEVADA 067 422 Staffing Year to Year Comparison: The number of fully certified or licensed and not fully certified or licensed Title III teachers changed by more than 25% between the prior year and the current year. The data has been verified and is correct as reported. This was due to COVID and many students transferring to Charter schools which caused a need for additional teachers.
United States
10736

Title II Allocation of Funds

Share and percent of funds for different Title II activities

Source: Title II-A Use of Funds District Survey (EDE File Specifications T2USESHR AND T2USEPCT)

Title II Types of Professional Development (PD)

Of districts funding [Subject] PD, percent by type of PD

Source:  Title II-A Use of Funds District Survey (EDE File Specification T2DTYPE)

Title II Topics of Professional Development (PD)

Of districts funding [Subject] PD, percent by topic of PD

Source: Title II-A Use of Funds District Survey (EDE File Specification T2PDTOP)

Data Dictionary
No data notes found
No data notes found

Displaying 4 - 6 of 32


Filter by relevant graph
Relevant Graph Type of information Reference Term Description
Title II PD Topics Graph Description Title II Professional Development Topics The data from this graphic come from the following two Title II-A LEA survey questions: Which of the following topics are covered by teacher professional development in your district in SY 2021-22, funded at least in part by Title II-A? Which of the following topics are covered by principal and other school leader professional development in your district in SY 2021-22, funded at least in part by Title II-A? The options were different for teachers and principal and school leaders. Note: If districts used Title II funds for any of these activities, then they are included in the percent calculations. If the districts did not participate in any of the activities, they are excluded from the analysis. For example, if a district used Title II funds for teachers' professional development, but not for principals' professional development, then they would be included in the denominator for the teacher graph, but not for the prinicipal graph.
Title II PD Types Graph Description Title II Types of Professional Development The data from this graphic come from the following two Title II-A LEA survey questions: Which of the following types of professional development and support to teachers is your district providing during SY 2021–22, funded at least in part by Title II-A? Which of the following types of professional development and support to principals and other school leaders is your district providing during SY 2021–22, funded at least in part by Title II-A? The options for teachers were slightly different than the options for principals and other school leaders. Note: If districts used Title II funds for any of these activities, then they are included in the percent calculations. If the districts did not participate in any of the activities, they are excluded from the analysis. For example, if a district used Title II funds for teachers' professional development, but not for principals' professional development, then they would be included in the denominator for the teacher graph, but not for the prinicipal graph.
Dataset Description Data Variables (columns) in EDE For this data group, this file includes the following columns (variables): --Value: Of the districts that funded PD for teachers (or principals), the percent that used the funds to focus on the particular funding topic --Characteristics: Whether the PD topic refers to teachers or principals (permitted values are Teachers or Principals) --Program Type: The topic of the professional development (the permitted values are instructional practices; content knowledge; school management, climate, improvement; parent and community engagement, and other--note that principals did not have content knowledge as an option)