The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

The big idea

The economic toll of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. will reach US$14 trillion by the end of 2023, our team of economists, public policy researchers and other experts have estimated.

Putting a price tag on all the pain, suffering and upheaval Americans and people around the world have experienced because of COVID-19 is, of course, hard to do. More than 1.1 million people have died as a result of COVID-19 in the U.S., and many more have been hospitalized or lost loved ones. Based on data from the first 30 months of the pandemic, we forecast the scale of total economic losses over a four-year period, from January 2020 to December 2023.

To come up with our estimates, our team used economic modeling to approximate the revenue lost due to mandatory business closures at the beginning of the pandemic. We also used modeling to assess the economic blows from the many changes in personal behavior that continued long after the lockdown orders were lifted – such as avoiding restaurants, theaters and other crowded places.

Workplace absences, and sales lost due to the cessation of brick-and-mortar retail shopping, air travel and public gatherings, contributed the most. At the height of the pandemic, in the second quarter of 2020, our survey indicates that international and domestic airline travel fell by nearly 60%, indoor dining by 65% and in-store shopping by 43%.

We found that the three sectors that lost the most ground during the first 30 months of the pandemic were air travel, dining, and health and social services, which contracted by 57.5%, 26.5% and 29.16%, respectively.

These losses were offset to a degree by surges in online purchases, a series of large fiscal stimulus and economic relief packages and an unprecedented expansion of the number of Americans working from home – and thus were able to keep doing jobs that might otherwise have been cut.

From 2020 to 2023, the cumulative net economic output of the United States will amount to about $103 trillion. Without the pandemic, the total of GDP over those four years would have been $117 trillion – nearly 14% higher in inflation-adjusted 2020 dollars, according to our analysis.

We also simulated four different possible economic outcomes had the number of COVID-19 deaths been different because of either more or less successful public health strategies in the first 30 months of the pandemic.

The direct health expenses, driven mostly by hospitalization costs in these scenarios, would have totaled $20 billion in a best-case scenario in which 65,000 Americans would have died from January 2020 to June 2022. In the worst-case scenario, about 2 million would have died during that period, with $365 billion in direct health-related expenses.

Based on our findings, most economic losses were not due to these health care expenditures.

Why it matters

The COVID-19 pandemic’s economic consequences are unprecedented for the U.S. by any measure. The toll we estimate that it took on the nation’s gross domestic product is twice the size of that of the Great Recession of 2007-2009. It’s 20 times greater than the economic costs of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and 40 times greater than the toll of any other disaster to befall the U.S. in the 21st century to date.

Although the federal government has now lifted its COVID-19 Public Health Emergency declaration, the pandemic is still influencing the U.S. economy. The labor force participation rate, which stood at 62.6% in April 2023, has only recently neared the February 2020 level of 63.3%.

What is not known

We modeled only the pandemic’s standard economic effects. We didn’t estimate the vast array of economic costs tied to COVID-19, such as lost years of work after an early death or a severe case of long-COVID-19.

We also didn’t assess the costs due to the many ways that the disease has affected the physical and mental health of the U.S. population or the learning loss experienced by students.

Jakub Hlávka, Research Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management; Schaeffer Center Fellow, University of Southern California and Adam Rose, Professor of Public Policy, University of Southern California

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Public school superintendents are having a moment, and for many of them, the moment is neither super nor what they intended.

During the last several years, tense school board meetings where superintendents were fired erupted in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Oregon, South Carolina and Virginia.

Contributing to this tension are politically divisive issues that many school superintendents have had to navigate over the last three years, including the teaching of race, book bans and providing access to athletics and bathrooms for students who identify as transgender.

Within this tense environment, a recent study found that nearly 40% of superintendents reported being threatened or feeling threatened on the job. And, 63% of superintendents reported feeling worried about their mental health and well-being over the past two years.

But while superintendents are feeling the heat, policymakers are unable to accurately determine the impact of pressure on superintendent well-being, performance and willingness to stay on the job.

In fact, the U.S. Department of Education does not collect such data on superintendents, and a nationally comprehensive, annually updated superintendent database has never existed.

As an education researcher who studies superintendents, I decided to create the data set myself by collecting data, one district at a time.

New insights into superintendent turnover

Since 2019, my research team has dedicated as many as 400 hours each year to collect the names of superintendents of nearly all traditional public school districts in the United States.

And for a newly published research study in the academic journal Educational Researcher, I conducted a comprehensive, national analysis of superintendent turnover in over 12,500 public school districts since 2019.

My analyses revealed an increase in turnover of nearly 3 percentage points – from 14.2% between 2019-20 and 2020-21 to 17.1% between 2021-22 and 2022-23. More than one out of every three states (37%) had a turnover rate greater than 20% between the last two school years.

A superintendent change occurred at least one time in 35% of districts nationwide, and 6% of districts experienced two or more turnover events.

Though we are unable to determine the exact cause, my research also shows that districts serving larger proportions of students of color were significantly more likely to experience superintendent turnover.

This finding is especially troubling given that frequent churn of leadership can disrupt a school district’s stability and culture, ultimately impacting students’ academic performance.

The role of gender

Superintendent turnover rates vary tremendously across states and districts.

Town and suburban districts were significantly more likely to experience superintendent turnover than urban and rural districts. New research suggests that contentious politics may contribute to superintendent fatigue.

Sixty-five percent of suburban superintendents, for instance, agreed or strongly agreed that school board meetings have become more contentious, compared to 55% of urban superintendents and 47% of rural superintendents.

My research also revealed that superintendent turnover rates for men increased at nearly twice the rate of that for women.

The turnover rate for men jumped 3.2 percentage points, from 13.8% to 17.0%, while the increase for women was 1.8 percentage points, from 15.3% to 17.1%.

Though the jump in turnover rate for men could have narrowed the superintendent gender gap, the gap barely budged. Among districts that experienced turnover, very few hired a new superintendent who was a different gender than their prior superintendent.

As it is currently, the ratio between male and female superintendents nationally is 3-to-1. In some states, that ratio is as large as 8-to-1.

There are also differences in the characteristics of districts where superintendent jobs turned over.

Among districts led by men, those that experienced turnover had significantly larger proportions of students receiving free or reduced price lunches, students of color and students classified as English language learners

Women-led districts that experienced turnover had significantly smaller proportions of students classified as English language learners and students receiving free or reduced-price lunches.

Moreover, districts that experienced superintendent turnover involving either a man or woman with larger proportions of white students were consistently more likely to hire a man to be their next leader.

Why superintendent data matters

This research only begins to fill an expansive void in our basic understanding of American superintendency.

Currently, the most commonly referenced data or reports on superintendents come from the American Association of School Administrators; the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research institution; and the ILO Group, a women-owned national education strategy and policy firm.

These sources do provide valuable insight into the superintendency.

For example, ILO Group’s analyses show that half of the nation’s largest 500 districts have experienced superintendent turnover since March 2020.

Based on a survey of 222 district leaders, the RAND Corporation found that 13% of superintendents planned to leave their position after the 2020-21 school year.

Yet, this source is quite restricted in what it can reveal about superintendent turnover due to low response rates, small samples and respondent anonymity that does not allow superintendents to be linked to districts.

Additionally, the RAND surveys asked about superintendents’ intentions to leave their current position, a measure known to be largely inaccurate for determining actual turnover.

Due to the limitations of existing data, divergent claims have emerged of both “projected normal turnover rates” and a “mass exodus” of superintendents.

Some states are making an effort to support the collection and analysis of data on superintendents. However, states often make it incredibly challenging for researchers, for example, by charging a substantial fee for data access – in some cases as much as $10,000 a year.

Having this data would provide a timely, comprehensive picture of the superintendency – not just a brief snapshot of a few superintendents at a point in time. Moreover, national, longitudinal superintendent data would allow for deeper examination of the contributors to and consequences of superintendent turnover.

If ensuring some teachers and students are not disproportionately at risk of undesirable superintendent churn, sustained support for and efforts to collect and analyze national longitudinal superintendent data must be prioritized.

Rachel S. White, Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, University of Tennessee

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.