Kristian L. Holden

Crossing the Border? Exploring the Cross-State Mobility of the Teacher Workforce

Due to data limitations, very little is known about patterns of cross-state teacher mobility. It is an important issue because barriers to cross-state mobility create labor market frictions that could lead both current and prospective teachers to opt out of the teaching profession. In this article, we match state-level administrative data sets from Oregon and Washington and present evidence on patterns of in-service teacher mobility between these two states. We find levels of cross-state mobility that are drastically lower than levels of within-state mobility, even when accounting for proximity to the border. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that there are significant penalties to cross-state mobility that may be attributable to state-specific licensure regulations, seniority rules, and pension structures.

Career and Technical Education, Inclusion, and Postsecondary Outcomes for Students With Learning Disabilities:

We used longitudinal data from Washington State to investigate the relationships among career and technical education (CTE) enrollment, inclusion in general education, and high school and postsecondary outcomes for students with learning disabilities. We replicated earlier findings that students with learning disabilities who were enrolled in a “concentration” of CTE courses had higher rates of employment after graduation than observably similar students with learning disabilities who were enrolled in fewer CTE courses. We also found that students with learning disabilities who spent more time in general education classrooms in high school had higher rates of on-time graduation, college attendance, and employment than observably similar students with learning disabilities who spent less time in general education classrooms in these grades.

Why make it hard for teachers to cross state borders

Barriers to mobility, particularly those imposed by state-level licensure procedures have received growing attention in the media and in reform discussions. Much of this attention is driven by shortages of teachers in some regions and subject areas and the fact that barriers to mobility make it more difficult for states to address such shortages by drawing on whatever surplus of labor may exist out of state. But there are reasons to expect that lowering barriers to mobility would be beneficial to the teacher labor market even in the absence of shortages. To the extent that teachers value locational flexibility, lowering barriers to mobility could make the teaching profession more desirable to prospective entrants and reduce attrition among experienced teachers who may opt out of the profession following a move to a new state. The authors describe how licensure procedures and pension systems impose costs on teachers who cross state borders, discuss the evidence on whether teachers are responding to these disincentives to mobility, and consider possible reforms that would lower barriers to teacher mobility.

Pension Structure and Employee Turnover: Evidence from a Large Public Pension System

Public pension systems in many U.S. states face large funding shortfalls, and policymakers have considered moving toward defined contribution (DC) pension structures in the interest of reducing the likelihood of future shortfalls. Concerns exist, however, that such changes might increase levels of employee turnover. The empirical evidence on the relationship between pension structure and turnover is mixed, and is quite limited in the case of public-sector plans. The authors study a single class of public-sector employees (teachers) who are enrolled in either a traditional defined benefit (DB) plan or a hybrid DB-DC plan during overlapping periods of time. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the authors find little evidence that the introduction of the hybrid plan increased employee turnover; in fact, they find that turnover is lower among teachers who transferred out of the DB plan into the hybrid plan. Employers may benefit by shifting the debate away from plan structure per se and toward a discussion of how to provide employees with pension plans they will highly value.