NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report January 1997

The Status of Teaching

as a Profession: 1990-91

SASS

Richard M. Ingersoll
Department of Sociology, University of Georgia &
American Institutes for Research

Peggy Quinn and Sharon Bobbitt, Project Officers

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 97-104
IJ.S. Department of Education
Richard W. Riley
Secretary
OrYice of Educational Research and Improvement
Sharon P. Robinson
Assisfartt Secretary
National Center for Education Statistic
Pascal D, Forgione, Jr.
Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primaty federal entity for collecting, analyzing,
and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations, It fulfills a congressional
mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in
the United States conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance
of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and
review and report on education activities in foreign countries,
NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs provide consistent, reliable,
complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends and report timely, useful, and high
quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policy makers,
practitioners, data users, and the general public.
We strive to make our products available in a variety of fo~mats &d in language that is appropriate to a
variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating
information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or
report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to:
National Center for Education sta~s~cs
Otice of Educational Research and Improvement
U.S. Department of Education
555 New Jersey Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20208–5574

Janua!y 1997

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is

http//www.ed.gov/NCES/

Suggested Citstion
U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. The Status of Teaching as a
Profession: 1990–91, NCES 97–104, by Richard M. Ingersoll. Pmjectofticers, Peggy Quinn and Sharon
Bobbitt. Washington, DC: 1996.

Contact
Peggy Quinn
(202) 219-1743
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Introduction ...............................................................1

Characteristics of Profession and Pmfmsionals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Credentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...5
Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...6
Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...6
Specialization ..........................................................7
Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...7
Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Dmand Mewures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Credentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Induction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Specialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...21
Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

ImplicatiOm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Teacher Credentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...31
The Problems and Prospects of13eginning Teachera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Power, Authority, and Decisionmaking in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Comparing Public and Private Schmls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...32

Technical Not= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...45

Appendix A — Standard Emma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Appendix B — Additional Resources on the %hcols and ScaffIng Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

The Status of Teaching as a Pr&ssim iii

 ;.

List of Tables
Table 1 Means and percentages for measures of teacher professionalization, for public
schools, by poverty enrollment and si~.e 1990-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 2 Means and percentages for measures of teacher professionalization, for priuatt
schools, bycxientation: 1990-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 3 Mean annual salaries of new bachelor degree recipients in teaching and other
selected occupations: 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..24

Table 4a Meana and percentages for measures of teacher professionalization, for public
schook, bysmte: 1990-91 . . . . . . . . .! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...25

Table 4b Means and percentages for measures of teacher professionalization, for public
schools, bystacc: 1990-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...26

Table 5 Meana and percentages for measures of teacher professionalization, for @“vate
schools, bysiztn 1990-91 . . . ..J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...27

Apj?endix Tables
Table A. 1 Standard errors for table 1: Meana and percentages for measures of
teacher professionalizarion, for public schools, by powrtj enrollment
andsizc 199&91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...53

Table A.2 Standard errors for table 2: Means and percentages for meaaurea of
teacher professionalization, for pivatt schools, by orientaciom
1990-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...54

Table A.3a Srandard errors for table 4X Means and percentages for measurea of
teacher professionalization, for public schools, by sm. 1990-91 . . . . . . . . . 55

Table A.3b Standard errors for table 4b: Means and percentages for meaaurea of
teacher professionalization, for public schools, by state: 1990–91 . . . . . . . . . 56

iv % Sratus of Teaching as a Profession

List of Figures
Figure 1 Measures of teacher professionalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 2 Percentage of schools with all four professional hking requirements

1990.91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 3 Percentage of schools with a mentor progmm and with effective assistance
fornewteachem 1990.91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 4 Percentage of schools with continuing education support and with annual
participation in profcsional organization activiti~ 1990-91 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
.
Figure 5 Percentage of secondary-school teachers’ class schedules in which they
taught in fields for which they had at least a college minon 1990-91 . . . . 20

Figure 6 Percentage of principals reporting groups to be influential over school

decisionmaking 1990-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Figure 7 Mean teacher starting salary &d m;an maximum salay 1990-91 . . . . . . . 23

The Status of Teaching as a Profession u

 ,.

vi The Status of Teaching u a Profession

 Acknowledgments
This report was produced under the direction of the Education Surveys Program of the
Surveys and Cooperative Systems Group of the National Center for Education Statistics.
Peggy Quinn and Sharon Bobbitr were the Project Gfficers. Daniel Kasprzyk was the Program
Director. Paul Planchon was the Groupk Associate Commissioner.

Thanks are due to a number of staff at the American Institutes for Research (AIR) who greatly
helped with this report Mei Han and Chuck Keil who undertook the statistical work, created
the tables, and calculated the standard emor~ Shannon Daugherty who helped edit the
manuscript and Don McLaughlin who directed the overall contract of which this report was
one part.

! Thanks are also due to a number of individu~ls wh~ reviewed the manuscript and provided
I many helpful comments. These include Dale McDonald of the National Catholic Education
Association David Baker of AIR; Sue Betka of the Budget Servicq Janice Ancarrow of the
Otlce of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services of the Department of Educatiow and
from NCES: Sharon Bobbitt, Peggy Quinn, Mary Rollefson, and Daniel Kasprzyk of the
Education Surveys Program Marilyn McMillen of the Cooperative Systems Group; Shelley
Burns of the Data Development and Longitudinal Studies Grou~ and Bob Burton of the
Statistical Standards and Services Division of NCES.

The Status of Tsding as a profession vii

 .

viii The SW of Teaching as a Profession

Executive Summary
The objective of this report is to provide an empirical examination of the status of elementary
and secondary teaching as a profession in the United States. The primary data source for this
analysis is the nationally representative 1990-91 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS),
conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

Teacher professionalization—the movement to upgrade the status, tmining, and working

conditions of teachers—has received a great deal of interest in recent years. This repofi
addresses several quesrions concerned with thk topic How professionalized is elementary and
secondary teaching ? To what extent can elementary and secondary teachers be comidercd
professionals, and to what extent can elementary and secondary schools be considered
professionalized workplaces? Moreover, to what degree does teacher professionalization differ
between various kinds of public and private s~hool~ across the United States?

This focus of thk report is professionalization—not professionalism. The latter refers to the
attitudes and beliefs of those who are considered to be, or aspire to be conaidercd as,
professional. The former refers to the degree to which particular employees and their
workplaces exhibit the attributes, characteristics, and criteria identified with professions and
professionals. This report assesses levels of teacher professionalization in elementaw and
secondary schools by examining a selected set of traditional characteristics used to distinguish
professions from other kinds of occupations

CdentiaLr
● the use of professional criteria for hiring reaching job candidates

Induction
● the provision of mentoring programs for beginning teachers

● rhe effectiveness of assistance provided to new teachers

Professional Development
● the provision of fimncial support for teachers’ continuing education

● the extent of participation of teaching staffs in activities sponsored bv professional

teaching organizations

The Srmus of Teaching as a Profession ix

Executive Sumrrtqi * —
—

SpecidimtrOn
● the extent to which secondary-level teachers teach subjects that match their fields of
training

Authority
. the extent to which teachers influence school decisions concerned with key
educational issues

Compensation
● the normal teacher starting salaries offered by schcmls

. the highest teacher salary levels offered by schools

. the numbers of paid benefits provided by schools

The 1990-91 SASS data show that, on the one hand, most elementary and secondary schools
exhibited at least some of the characteristics traditionally a.wxiated with professionalized
workplaces. The data also show, however, that despite a decade of reform initiatives, most
schools lacked many of the characteristics associated with professionalization. For example,
only a minority of schools provided assistance to new teachers that the teaching sraffs strongly
agreed was effective. Only a minority of schools provided financial reimbursement for
teachers’ continuing education tuition and fees. It-I only a minority of schools did principals
rcpott their faculties to have as much decis ionmaking influence as they themselves had over
key educatioml issues. Finally, starting salaries for teachers in most schools were lower than
those in many other occupations that require a college education.

The data also show that schools varied in their degree of teacher professionalization,
depending on the type of schcml. For instance, high-poverty public schools were leas
professionalized than public schwls in more affluent communities, most notably, in
professional development activities and their degree of faculty decisionmaking influence.
Moreover, large public schools were slightly more professionalized than small public schrmls in
several ways, including salary levels and paid benefits. On the other hand, large public schcds
were slightly Iex professionalized than small public schools in other ways, including assistance
for newcomers and faculty participation in professional development programs.

The most striking differences in levels of teacher professionalization, however, were those
found between public and private schools. The teaching job in private schools was in many
ways far less professionalized than in public schools. Comparing across the characteristics
examined in this report, public schcols in more affluent communities were among the most
professionalized of all schools. On the other hand, non-Catholic religious private schools
were among the least professionalized of all schools. Public schcols, as a whole, were more
Iikely than private schools to use a fill range of professional hiring requirements
(e.g., certification in area of specialization, substantive training in area of specialization,
mp~eriOn ~ accredlt~ tmining program, passage of examination). In addition, public
school teachers did less teaching out of their fields of training. Public schcols more often
provided a fidl range of paid benefits (medical, dental, life insurance, retirement). Finally,

x The Stutus of Teaching as a Profession

 ~ Executive Summary

kth starting and end-of-career teacher salaries were higher for public school teachers than for
private school teachers.

On the other hand, teachers in private schools were more likely to report that assistance to
beginning teachers was effective than were public school teachers. Moreover, private school
principals more often reported their faculties to have substantial decisionmaking influence
over key educational issues.

This report closes by discussing the important implications these findings have for current
education research and policy in several areas, such as teacher credential> the problems and
prospects of beginning teachers decisionmaking in schcmlx and comparisons between public
and private schools.

,.:
Tk Stattu of T&ng as a profession xi
 ,.

xii The Status of Teaching as a Profession

The status of elementary- and secondary-school teaching as a profession has been a source of
perennial concern to education researchers and reformers since the turn of the century.
Educators have repeatedly sought to promote the view that teaching, like other professions, is
a highly complex kind of work that requires specialized knowledge and skill and, like other
professions, deserves commensurate prestige, authority, and compensation. But, most
researchers and reformers have concluded that these efforts have been only partially successful,
with the result that teaching has long been regarded, correct or not, aa a ‘Lsemi-profcasion”
(Lortie 1969, 1975).

However, since the early 1980s, he movement to promore the professional statua of teaching
has gained increasing momentum and widespr~ad n?ional attention. There has been a
growing comensus among education reformers, po[icymakers, and researchers chat many of the
well-publicized shortcomings of the educations ystem are, to an important extent, due to
inadequacies in the resources, authority, preparation, compensation, and support provided to
school teachers. As a result, numerous recent education initiatives have been undertaken in
an arrempt to upgrxde the status, training, and working conditions of reachers. One of rhe
more prominent examples of this upsurge in public recognition of the importance of teachers
has been the addition of elementary and secondary teacher education and professional
development to the National Education Goals, through the Goals 2000 federal education
legislation. In short, there is a growing consensus that a key to improving the quality of
schools lies in furthering the professionalization of reaching (e.g., Holmes Group 1986;
Carnegie Forum 1986; Darling.Hammond 1984; Rosenholtz 1989; Sergiovanni and Mcere
1989; Weis et al. 1989).

Although there has been an upsurge in interest and reform, much contlnion continues to
surround the staom of teaching as a profession. Three reasons contribute to this lack of clarity.
First, among those concerned with the status of teaching as a profession, there has been little
consensus as to what constitutes the proper target of research and reform. The rhetoric,
research, and reform surrounding teaching as a profession have focused on a wide range of
different aspeccs of teachers, teaching, and schools. Moreover, there are wide differences in
what is meant by a profession, professionalism, and professionalization for the case of teaching.
For example, staff development—training and educational programs designed to upgrade the
skills and knowledge of teacher+is the focus of many researchers and reformers. To others,
however, the degree of staff collegiality and collaboration is the key focus. Many tend to focus
on the individual attitudes teachers hold towards their work, such as the degree to which

Ths Status of Teaching as a Profession I

Introduction ;.

teachers support high academic standards, while others are concerned with the organizational
conditions in which teachers work, such as the degree to which school decisionmaking is
centralized. Fkmlly, to others, occupational characteristics, such as licensing and certification
requirements for entry into teaching, are the primary concern. As a result of this wide range
of emphases, it is often unclear whether researchers and reformers are referring to the same
aspects and phenomena when they discuss or criticize the current status of teaching as a
profession. (For examples of recent discussions of teaching as a profession, see Little 1990;
Rowan 199% Talbert and McLaughlin 1993; Lab&ee 1992. )

Second, most of the debate and discussion concerned with teaching as a profession has been
highly prescriptive. Research and reform concerned with teacher professionalization are based
on the view that professionalization will be highly beneficial to teachers, schools, and
students. The rationale underlying this view is that upgrading the teaching occupation will
lead to improvements in the motivation and efilcacy of teachers, which, in mm, will lead to
improvements in teachers’ performance, which will ultimately lead to improvements in
student learning (e.g., Carnegie Fomm 1986; Darling-Hammond 1984, Holmes Group 1986;
Darling-Hammond 1994). Hence, researchers and reformers have primarily directed their
attention to the ways and means of altering the current state of affairs. There has been much
less attention, and empirical research, directed to a more basic and perhaps more fundamental
ia.sue-what ir the current state of affaira-that is; what-is the current state of teaching as a
profession?

Third, the teaching occupation is in a period of transition. A wide range of reforms designed
to change teachers and teaching have been successfully implemented since the early 1980s.
Many of these initiatives and efforts have been local, piecemeal, or targeted to specific kinds of
schools or kinds of teachers (e.g., utban, high-poverty public schools, or mathematics and
science teachers ). Moreover, many of these reforms have advanced contradictory purposes or
competing agendas. For example, some reforms have sought to improve teaching by
increasing rop.down, centralized control of teachers and schools (Darling-Hammond and
Berry 1988; McDonnell 1989). Others have sought to improve teaching by precisely the
opposite approach—increasing decentralization and school-based management (Rowan 1990;
Malen and Ogawa 1988; Ingersoll 1994, 1996b).

As a result of the wide range of emphases and of rhe contemporary period of transition, the
state of elementa~ and secondary teaching as a profession is unclear. The objective of thk
report is to empirically address this issue. The report f~uses on two q“estionx

■ How professionalized is the elementary and secondary teaching occupation?

■ To whar degree does teacher professionalization differ between various kinds of public
and private schools across the United States ?

2 Tfu Status of Teaching as a Profcnion

 i- Insmduction

This report is designed to build on two other recent examumuons of teachers published by the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The first, America’s Teackem: Pr@k of a
Profession, is a comprehensive examination of a wide range of data on teachers and teaching
(Choy et al. 1993a). The second, Amsrica’s Tea&m Ten Years A@r “A Nation at Risk,” is a
brief overview essay of changes in the stxte of the teaching occupation from the mid- 1980s to
the mid- 1990s (Smith 1995).

Thii report offers a focused and in-depth empirical x.rsessment of the status of teaching as a
profession by turning to research from the sociology of work, occupations, and professions.
sociology has been among the most prominent d~ciplines to study the characteristics of
professiona. Sociologists have developed what is known as the professional &l—a series of
organizational and occupational characteristics associated with professions and professionals
and, hence, useful to distinguish professions and profqsionals from other kinda of work and
workers (Hughes 1965; Vollmer and Mills 1966; Hall 1968; Wallace 1994). These
chmxcteristics include rigorous training requirements, positive working conditions, high
prestige, substantial authority, relatively htgh compensation, and an active professioml
organization or association. From this viewpoint, cccupatiom can be assessed according to the
degree to which they do or do not exhibit rhe characteristics of the professional model. The
“established pmfessions’’—law and medicine, in particular—are usually regxrded as che
stmngew examples of the professional model. The process whereby occupations seek to
upgrade heir professional stxtus by adopting the attributes of the pmfessioml mcdel ia known
a.v professianalizatian.

%ciologists hxve been careful to distinguish professiorr&ation from pro@analism. The

former refers to the degree to which occupations exhibit the smuturaI attributes,
charxcteriatics, and criteria identified with the professional model. The latter refers to the
attitudirud attributes and ideology of those who are considered to be, or aspire to be considered
XS, prof=sionals. These include commitment to a career, a belief in the value of expertise, and
a public-service orientation. Although professionalism is often considered part of the
professionalization process, it is not considered a reliable indicator of the professional mcdel.
On the one hand, some wcupational groups that express the ideas and ideology of
prof=siomlism, in reality, may not bc very advanced in regard to professionalization. On the
other hand, some established professions thxt are advanced in regard to pmfessionalization, in
reality, do not widely exhibit the ideology and attitudes of professionalism (e.g., Hughes 1965;
Vollmer and Mills 1966; Hall 1968).

The objective of thk report is to describe the extent to which elementary and secondary
teaching exhibits the chxrxcteristics of the professioml model and the extent to which thii
professionalization differs among various kinds of schools across the United Stxtes. Hence, the
focus of thk report is on the chxrxcteristics of school workplaces and teaching staffs, and not
on the attitudes of individual teachera. Moreover, the intent of this report is neither
explanatory nor evaluative, but descriptive. Thxt is, it does not intend to provide an
explanation of the sources or causes of teacher professionalization, nor an analysis of its
consequence or effects. This analysis, for example, does not seek to evaluate whether or not

,.
Tks Srasus of Teaching as a Profession 3
Induction _ i-

professionalization in education is beneficial for teachers, schools, or students. Another

NCES report, TeacheT Plofessiona[ization and Teodwv Commitment-A Multilevel Analysis.
focuses on this latter topic (Ingersoll 1996a).

The fo[lowing section describes in more detail six characteristics traditionally associated with
the professional model, and for each, suggests possible empirical indicator that could be
applicable to the case of teachers, teachhg, and schools.

4 Tk Status of Teaching as a Profession

 Characteristics of Professions and
Professionals
Credentials

Social scientists traditionally have distimzuished

-.orofe~sions from other kinds of occupations
by the degree of expertise and complexity involved in the work itself. The assumption is that
professional work involves highly complex sets of skills, intellectual functioning, and
knowledge that are not easily acquired and not widely held. For this reason, professiona are
often referred to as the “knowledge-baaed” occupations ( e.g., Hughes 1965; Vollmer and Mills
1966; Hall 1968; Etzioni 1969; Larson 1977; Friedson 1986; Abbott 1988; Wallace 1994;
Hodson and Sullivan 1995). But, even if laypeeple were to acquire these complex setr of skills
and knowledge, they would not be able to practice as professiomls. Professions require
credentials. That is, nearly all professions reqtike completion of an offkially sanctioned or
accredited training program and paasage of examinations in order to obtain certification or
Iicensure to practice. Indeed, it is illegal to practice most profession without a license
(Collins 1979). These credentials serve ae screening devices. Their rationale is protection of
the interests of the public by assuring that practitioners hold an agreed-upon level of
knowledge and skill, and by filtering out those with substandard levels of knowledge and skill.
The importance of such credentials is evidenced by the practice, commonly used by
professionals, such as physicians, dentists, architect, and attorneys, of prominently displaying
official documentation of their credentials in their offices (e.g., Hodson and Sullivan 1995).

Upgrading the training and licensing requirements for new teachers haa been an important
focus of school reform over the past decade (National Commission on Excellence in
Education 1983; Holmes Group 1986). Advocates of such reforms argue that teachera, like
traditional professionals, should not be amateurs or dilettantes, but experts. In thk view,
efforts to upgrade credential requirements, such aa tightening the entry-level standards for new
teachers, would help insure that teachers possess expertise over the bodies of knowledge they
will teach (Darling-Hammond 1984 ). Hence, one important indication Of teacher
professionalization would be the extent to which schcml officiala require applicants for
teaching positions to be formally trained in an accredked program and tested and Iicenaed in
both teaching skills and subject knowledge, especially in the fields thev will be aasigned to
teach.

17M S_”of T& as a Profession 5

C&mmeristics of Pro@ons and Pro@sionalr 2

Induction

In addition to initial formal training and preparation, profcasional work requires extensive
training fornewpractitioners once on the job. Such training isdesigned topickupwherepre-
service training has left off. That is, while entry examination inmanyprofessions are usually
designed to insure char new entrants have a minimum or basic level of knowledge and skill,
induction programs for practitioners are designed ro augment this basic level of knowledge and
skill. Asaresuk, enrry to professions rypically involves kmthformal and informal mechanisms
of induction—internships, apprenticeships, ormentoring programs (Hughes 1965; Erzioni
1969; Larson 1977; Abbott 1988). Sometimes these period so finductio ncanbeprolonged
andintensive, x.sinthe case of physicians’ internships. Theobjective ofsuchprogrmnsand
practices is to aid new practitioners in adjusting to the job environment, to familiarize them
with the concrete realities of their jobs, and toprotide asecondoppormni~to fikero”t those
with substandard levels of skill and knowledge.

Mentoring or other programs designed ro assist new teachers have also been the subject of
recent school reform efforts. The teaching occupation has Iongbeen plagued byhighatttition
rates among new staff. School reformers have argued tharoneofthe best ways to increase the
efficacy and retenrion of new teachers is to ~ssist t~em in coping with the practicalities of
teaching, of managing groups of students, and of adjusting to the schcd environment (Sclan
1993; MumaneetaL 1992). Hence, from kisviewpoint, onemefil indication of teacher
professionalization would be the extent to which schools provide for beginning teachera
menroring or other programs that are effective in assisting them in coping with their jobs.

Professional Development

Beyond both pre.service basic training and mentoring for beginners, professions also require
ongoing in-service technical development and growth on the part of practitioners throughout
their careers. The assumption is that achieving a professional level of mastery of the complex
skMs and knowledge is a prolonged and continuous process and, moreover, that professionals
must continually updare their skills as the body of technology, skill, and knowledge advances.
As a result, professionalized workplaces typically both require and provide support for
employee development and, in addition, recognize and reward employee growth through
formal avenues of promorion and mobility (Hall 1968; Wallace 1994 Hodson and Sullivan
1995).

School reformers also have recognized the importance of professional development to the
teaching occupation. Indeed, as mentioned earlier, the Goals 20L?0 federal legislation added
increased support for the professional development of the teaching workforce to the national
education goals (National Foundation for the Improvement of Education 1993). Hence, one
important indication of professionalization in schcds would be the provision of and teacher
use of opportunities for ongoing growth and development of expertise.

6 The Statu.r of TeachinE ar a Profession

 2 Charuc@5tics of Professions and Professionals

Specialization

Another of the traditional attributes that distinguishes professions from other occupations is
specialization—professionals are not generalists, but instead possess expertise over a specific
body of knowledge and skills. The assumption is that, given the complexity of the work,
professionals must specialize in order to develop appropriate levels of expertise. Additional
certification or Iicensure in a specialty or subfield is common in some professions, such as
medicine and law. In turn, in order to efficiently utilize this specialized expertise,
professionalized workplaces typically are characterized by a division of labor based on skill and
training (e.g., Hughes 1965; Hall 1968; Etzioni 1969; Abbott 1988; Wallace 1994).

Increasing the substantive course requiremen~ for certification in a specialty area has been an
important focus of school reform over the pxst decade fNatioml Commission on Excellence
in Education 1983; Holmes Group 1986). Advocates of such reforms argue that teachers
should have substantial training and expertise in the specific fields they teach. From this
viewpoint, one key empirical indicator of the degree of professional specialization in schools,
especially at the secondary level, would be the extent to which teachers are assigned to teach
subjects for which they have been trxined. Hence, professionalization in schools would lead to
a decrease in teachen teaching subjects for whiEh theY have little or no training and would
lead to efforts to maximize the degree of match between teachers’ expertise and school
curriculum needs.

It should be noted thxt a great deal of disagreement surrounds the topic of teacher
specialization. A number of school researchers have argued that specialization, especially at
the elementary-school level, does not address the needs of the “whole child: unduly fragments
the educational process, and, hence, contributes to the alienation of students (e.g., Sizer
1992). On the other hand, especially at the secondary+chcd level, and especially in the core
academic subjects, a clear case can be made that teachers ought to have at least minimal
substantive trxining in the fields they teach (e.g., Ingersoll 1995; Darling-Hammond and
Hudson 1990). The purpose of this analysis, however, is not to enter the debate as to whether
specialization, in particular, or professionalization, in general, are beneficial or not for
students, teachers, or schools the purpose is to establish to what extent teacher
professionalization and specialization occur.

Authority

Another of the hallmarks of a profession is substantial employee authority over decisions

concerning workplace policies. A key distinction in any organization is whether key policies
and decisions concerned with technical and production processes are controlled from the
administrative center or whether these arc delegated to employees and, hence, decentralized.
Professionalized employees have authority approaching rhat of mamgement when it comes to
decisions concerned with technical issues (e.g., Hall 1968; Larson 1977; Friedson 1986). The
rxtionxle behind increasing levels of professional authority is to place substantial levels of

The Status of Teaching ar a profession 7

Ch5mcteri.rtics of Professions and Professionals 2
—.

control and autonomy into the hands of those who are closest to and most knowledgeable of
technical processes. That is, professionals are considered experts in whom substantial
authority is vested.

For examp[e, in hospitals, physicians traditionally have had substantial control over medical
decisions concerning the care of patients (Friedson 1986; Hodaon and Sullivan 1995).
Likewise, attorneys employed by law firms tnditionally have had similar control over decisions
conceding the provision of Iegalservices for clients (Wallace 1994). Hence, for evaluating
teacher professionalization, a key empirical indicator would be: Which group has more
influence over important educatimuda ctivities, administrators or facuhy?

Compensation

Professionals arc typically well-compensated and are provided with relatively high salary and
benefit levels throughout the career span (Hodson and Sullivan 1995). The assumption is
that, given the lengthy training and the complexity of the knowledge and skills required,
relatively high levels of compensation are necessary to recruit and retain capable and
motivated individuals (Etzioni 1969; Hodson and Sullivan 1995). Starting salary and paid
benefit levels provide some indication of how well}articular kinds of workplaces are able to
compete for the pool of capable individuals. Advanced or end-of-career salary levels provide
some indication of the ability of particular kinds of workplaces to retain and motivate capable
individuals. The gap between starting salaries and end-of-career salaries provides some
indication of the extent of opportunity for promotion, and the range of monetary rewards
available to employees aa they advance through their careers. From d-is viewpoint, a
professionalized teaching job would offer salaries and benefits competitive with those in the
established professions

The series of characteristics described abcwe has been widely used to distinguish professional
from nonprofessional work, workers, and workplaces. These, of course, are not the only
characteristics used to define professions, nor are they the only kinds of criteria used to
distinguish work and occupations in general. For instance, a traditional aspect of professions,
not discussed here, is high prestigq professionals consistently are rated highly in surveys of
occupational prestige (National Cpinion Rcaearch Center 1983). Another traditional
hallmark, also not described here, is self-governance. Professional organizations undertake
much of the regulation of practitioners. Such organizations, for example, may set and enforce
behavioral and ethical standarda for practitioners, and may also exert substantial control over
the curriculum, admissions, and accreditation of professional training schools (Hodson and
Sullivan 1995 ). But, the characteristics described above are among the most widely used
indicators of professions and professionals, are the subject of much discussion in reference to
teachers and schools, and are those for which national data are available. The objective of
this amlysis is to use empirical indicator of these particular characteristics to aasess the degree
of teacher professionalization in elementary and secondary schools across the United States.

8 The Stutm of Teaching ar a Profession

 ;.

Data and Measures

The primary data source for this study is the 1990-91 Schools and Staffhg Survey (SASS)—.
nationally representative survey conducted by NCES. The U.S. Census Bureau collected
these data for NCES in winter 1991 from a random sample stratified by state, sector, and
school level. Because all figures and estimates in this report are based on samples, they are
subject to sampling error. Standard errors indicating the accuracy of selected estimates arc
included in Appendix A. All comparisons and differences discussed in the text are
statistically significant at the .05 level, unless otherwise noted.

The 1990–91 SASS included four sets of linked questionnaires for each school sampled, for
the principal or headmaster of each school, for the central district board (public sector only),
and for a subsample of the faculty within each ~choo~ Within each school, kom 3 to 20
teachers (average of 4 ) were randomly sampled, depending On leveL s~e, and s=tOr.

SASS is particularly useful for analyzing the status of teaching as a profession. k is the largest
and most comprehensive dataset available on the stafkg, occupational, and organizational
characteristics of schools in the United States. Indeed, until this survey was first conducted in
1987-88, there had been a paucity of nationally representative data on such issues. It includes
a wide range of information on the characteristics and work of teachers and the characteristics
and conditions of schools and school districts across the country.

The units of analysis in this study are schools and not individuals in schools. The data
represent either school-level responses, as in the case of information collected from
administrators, or school-wide means, as in the case of information collected from teachers.
Teacher weights were used in aggregating the teacher data. School weights were used in the
anal ysis proper. Aggregating individual-level data in the caac of teachers, of course, ignores
within-school diversity, but it allows the empirical analysis to narrow its focus to the topic of
interest—the levels and variations of teacher professionalization among different kkds of
schools.

Because of its unusually large and comprehensive school sample, SASS is especially uaeftd for
conducting such a school-level analysis. The actual sample used in thii amlysis contains
11,589 schools and supports national estimates by numerous school characteristics. More

,.
The .Stntus of Teaching a! a Profession 9
 Data and Mu-cures a

detail on the technical aspects of the 1990-91 SASS are included in the Technical Notes at
the end of this report.’

This analysis drew items from the District, School, Administrator, and Teacher
Questionnaires of SASS to develop a series of empirical measures representing schcd-level
indicators for each of the six characteristics of professionalization, described above. These
measures of teacher professionalization are defined in figure 1. The questionnaire items used
in the measures and more details on the con&u ction of selected variables are included in the
Technical Notes.

Credentials
■ Professional Hiring Requirements: on a scale of O-1, the sum of four possible criteria required of

candidates for teaching posit ions, as reported by school administrator= (a) full standard state
certification for the field to be taught, (b) graduation from a state-approved teacher education
program, (c) college major or minor in the field to be taught, and (d) passage of a national, state,
or local teachers’ examination.
.
Induction
● Mmmw Program yes/n~availabdity of formal mentor progcam to help beginning teachera, as

reported by school administrators.

■ Effective Assistance: on a scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agcee, the school mean of the
amount of agreement of all teachers with the statement “this school is effective in assisting new
teachers” in each of the following matters-student discipline, instructional methods, curriculum,
and adjusting to the schcol environment. Assistance is defined as “effective” if the mean score for
the four areas was greater than or equal to 3.5.

Professional Development
■ Continuing Education Suppom yes/no-availability of reimbursement for teachers’ tuition and

course fees, as reported by school administrators.

■ Participation in Professional Organiwion Activities: on a scale of O = none, 1 = less than once a year,
2 = once or twice a year, 3 = three or more times a year, the school mean of teachera’ reports of
their participation in workshops, seminars, or conferences sponsored by a professional
organization. School ia defined as having “annual parricipmion” if school mean is gmatm than or
equal to 2.

‘ For information concerning survey design and sample estimation of SASS, see Kaufman and Huang
(1993 ). For information about the quality of the data in SASS, see Jabine ( 1994). For manuals on the
use of SASS, see Gruber, Rohr, and Fondelier (1993). For at extensive report smntnmizing the data
used in this investigation and providing an overview of SASS, see Choy et al. ( 1993 b).

,’
G Tk Smttu of Teaching m a Profession
 2 Data and Measures

Figure 1 (cont’d)— Measures of teacher professionalization

Specialization
~ in.Fieki Teaching the school mean of the percentage of teachers’ entire work assignments-their
weekly class schedules—in which they taught in fields for which they had at least a minor in the
field. This measure focuses only on teachers at the seccmdary.schc.d level (grades 7-12). (For
more detail on the measurement of out-of-field teaching, see McMillen and Ibbbitt 1993; Bobbin
and McMillen 1995; Ingersoll 1995.)

Authority
■ Decisiomnaking Injlumce of School Board, Principal, and Faculty on a scale of 1 = none to 6 = a great

deal of influence, principals’ reports of “the actual influence you think each group or person has on
decisions concerning the following activities setting discipline policy, establishing curriculum,
and hiring new full-time teachers.” Three groups a[e represented: school boards, principals
themselves, and faculty. Each group or person is defined as being “influential” if the mean score
for the three activities was greater than or equal m 4.5.

Compensation
■ Starting Scdary normal yearly base salary for teachers with bachelor’s degree and no experience, as
reported by school administrators. Thk measure excludes private schcd teachers whose effort is
contributed as a free service. .

m Maximum Salary normal yearly base salary for teachers at highest pmaible step on salary schedule,
or if no salary schedule, the highest salary offered, as reported by schcol administrators. This
measure excludes private school teachers whose effort is contributed as a free service.

■ Paid Benefits: on a scale of O-4, the sum of fom d,fferent possible paid benefi~medlcal, dental,
life insurance, retirement—as reported by school administrators. “Thii measure indicates only
whether a schccd offers a paid plan in each of the four arw, it does not account for differences in
the worth or coverage of plans.

The focus of thk analysis is the degree of variation in teacher professionalization acrtm
different kinds of schools. Previous research s.ggems that rher. are, in fact, important schccJ-
to-school dMerences in organizational design and working conditions and that these
difference are related to the context of the school, its community setting, and the type of
smdents enrolled (e.g., Pallas 1988; Rowan et al. 1991). The socioeconomic status of the
school’s community, in particular, has been shown to be highly related to the organizational
and teachhg conditions in schools (e.g., Bidwell and Quiroz 1991; Kozol 1991). Sector
differences also have’ been the focus of a number of studies of school organization most have
concluded that private schools are far dfferent from public schook in the way they are
organized (e.g., Chubb and Moe 1990). Moreover, recent analyses have shown distinct
differences in school organizatioml characteristics among different kinds of private schools
(McLaughlin, O’Donnell, and Ries 1995; Baker, Han, and Broughman 1996).

The Status of Teaching m a profession 11

Dam and Measures ? —

Following this prewous research, this study focuses on differences in professionalization based
on school size and che level of poverty of the student populations for public schools, and the
orientation or affiliation for private schools, as shown below. Data on poverty levels in
private schools are not availablq hence, these comparisons will not be made for the private
sector. Data on professionalization for private schools, according to schcol size, and for public
schools, comparing the 50 states, are also presented, but neither are a main focus of this
analysis and, hence, are not d~cussed in detail in the ~esults section.

Public Sector

Poverty Enrollment of School-the percentage of students in each school receiving publicly

fhnded fzee or reduced-price lunches

● Low. IW than 15 percent

● Medium 15 percent to 49.9 percent
● High: 50 percent or more

School Size—student enrollment

● Small: lea-s than 300

. Medium: 300 to 599
● Large 600 or more

Private Sector

Orientation

. Catholic schools
. Other religious schools
. Nonsectarian schools

12 The Status of Teaching m a Profession

 Results
Data on the extent to which the above-described kinds of schools exhibit the characteristics
of teacher professionalization are displayed in tables 1 and 2. In this section, the results for
each of the six characteristics of professionalization are discussed separately and are illustrated
in the figures with representative data from the tables. Additional tables with teacher
professionalization data for private schcds, according to school size, and for public schools,
comparing the 50 states, are included at the end of this section.

Credentials

The top rows of tables 1 and 2 and also figure 2 display data on the degree to wh,ch different
types of schools used the four types of profeasjonal gualificatiOm fOr hiring full smte
certification in the field to be taugh~ completion of a state-approved teacher education
program, college major/minor in the field to be taughq and passage of a teacher examination.

The dara indicate rhat there were few differences among public schools in the use of these
h,ring criteria. Most public schcols used three of the four criteria, about one-third used all
four criteria, and very few used none of the criteria. However, public and private schools
greatly differed in their use of these kinds of hiring criteria for teachers. Only 7 percent of
private schools, compared to 32 percent of public schcds, required all of the four criteria. In
addition, only 2 percenr of public schools, compared to 30 percent of private schools, required
none of the four hiring criteria.

This does not mean, of course, that private schools were not selective in who they hired as
teachers. These data simply indicate that private schcols far less frequently used hiring criteria
associated with professionals: There were, moreover, dktinct differences in the me Of these
hking criteria among private schools, depending upon their orientation. Catholic schools
were more likely to utilize rhese professioml hking criteria. For example, only 10 percent of
Catholic schools did not require any of the four hking requirements examined, compared to
28 percent of nonsectarian schools and 45 percent of ocher religious schools. It should also be
nored that many states do not require private school teachers to hold state certification.

Tk Srarus of Teaching as a Profersimr 13

Reds ~.

Table 1— Means and percentages for measures of teacher professionalization, for public schools,
by ~overty enrollment and size: 1990-91

Poverty Enrollment School Size

Total L4nl, Med. High Smafl Med. Large
Public < 15% 1 549% >49% >300 300-599 >599

Credentials

Mean Number Professional

Hiring Requirements 2.8 2.8 2.9 L8 2.8 2.8 2.9
‘h wi thow Professional
Hiring Requirements 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
% with all Four Professional
Hiring Requirements 32% 30% ’32% 33% 31% 30% 35%

% with Mentor Program 67% 65% 66% 71% 53% 69% 78%
Mean Effectiveness 3 3 3 3 3.1 3 2.9
% with Effective Assistance 16% 16% 15% 17% 21% 17% 9%
.
Professional Development

% with Continuing Education

Support 36% 40% 36% 30% 36% 36% 34%
Mean Participation in Professional
Organization Activities 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3
% with Annual Participation in
Prof. Org. Activities 42% 44% 41% 39% 44% 42% 38%

Specialization

Mean % In-field Teaching 77% 81% 76% 69% 75% 75% 79%

Authority

% with Influential E!oard 42% 37% 43% 48% 41% 43% 42%
% with Influential Principal 72% 78% 74% 60% 71% 73% 71%
% with Influential Faculty 30% 36% 31% 22% 29% 31% 30%
Mean Faculty Influence 3.9 4.1 4 3.6 3.9 4 3.9

Compensation

Mean Number Paid Senefits 3.1 3.2 3.1 3 3 3.1 3.2

% with all Four Paid Benefits 48% 54% 47% 44% 40% 51% 52%
Mean Starting Salary ($) 20,918 21,719 20,313 21,132 19.711 21,094 21,984
Mean Maximum Salary ($) 39,348 42,533 37,657 38,811 35;317 40,279 42,421

SOURCE: US. Department of Education, National center for E&cation Statistics, 199C-91 Schools and
Stalfing Survey

14 Tk Statm of Teaching as a Profession

 * Results
—

Table 2— Means and percentages for measures of teacher professionalization, for private schools,
by orientation: 1990-91

Total Orientation
Private Catholic Other Religious Nonsectarian

Credentials

Mean Number Professional

Hiring Requirements 1.5 2 1.1 1.4
% without Professional
Hiring Requirements 30% 10% 45% 28%
% with all Four Professional
Hiring Requirements 7% 11% 4% 10%
\
Induction

% with Mentor Program 32% 43% 23% 32%

Mean Effectiveness 3.3 3.2 +;; 3.2
% with Effective Assistance 35% 29% 37%

Professional Development .

% with Continuing Education

I Support 39% 32% 41% 44%
Mean Participation in Professional
,- Organization Activities 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.2
% with Annual Participation in
Prof. Org. Activities 37% 38% 35% 39%

Specialization

Mean % In-field Teaching 56% 55% 53% 67%

Authority

% with Influential Board 27% 13% 42% 18%

% with Influential Principal 86% 95% 77% 89%
% with Influential Faculty 34% 38% 26% 47%
Mean Faculty Influence 4.1 4.3 3.9 4.4
~,
Compensation

Mean Number Paid B~nefits 2.1 3.0 1.6 1.8

% with all Four Paid E!enefits 21% 35% 13% 16%
Mean Starting Salary ($) 14,406 14,810 12,963 16,998
Mean Maximum Salary ($) 23,719 25,243 20.704 27,807

I SOURCE: U.S. Department of S&cation, National Center for !?.ducation .%atisrics, 1990-91 S.heals and
Smffing Swvey.
i

.1 ~ The Status of Teaching cma Profession 15

Re5uks ;.

Figure 2— Percentage ofschmls with all four professional hiring requirements: 1990-91

Public Sch.wls

“’’’””e” -“

“’””” m“
““e m“
‘“” -“

OWr Rdigio.s 4
p

0 20 40 S4 M 1!33
percent

SOURCE: U.S. Department of S&cation, National Center for Education Statistics, 1990–91 Schools and
Staffing Survey

Induction

ksistance forneworbeginning teachers can beprovided inanynumberofways. Thedatain

figure 3 indicate the percentage of schools that offered formal mentoring programs for
beginning teachers and also che percentage of schools in which the faculty, on average,
strongly agreed that assistance for new teachers was effective, whether it was from amentoring
program or another source.

In the public sector, a majority of schools offered formal mentoring programs, but in only a
mintiri tyofschoo lsdidteache rsstrongly agree that, on average, assistance for new teachers,
fiomeiAer mentoring progmmor oAersources, waseffective. Thus, thedatasuggeat that
simply offering formal mentoring progmrns didnot~arantee that new teachers were
effectively assisted in matters of discipline, instruction, and adjustment to che school
environment. Indeed, Aedatasuggest &thving afomalpro~m mayhave hadlittle to do

16 The Stastuof Teaching aaProfessiom

 * .——RewIu
—-

with whether teachers reported that their schools provided effective assisumce.z This gap
between offering programs and offering effective assistance was particularly true for larger
public schools. Although over three-quarters of large public schools offered mentoring
programs for beginning teachers, only in one-tenth of large public schools did faculty find
assistance to be effective. In contrast, small public schook were less likely than large schools
to offer mentoring programs but more likely to provide effective assistance. Notably, there was
little difference between high-poverty and low-poverty public schools for both of these
measures.

Figure 3— Percentage of schools with a mentor program and with effective assistance for new
teachers: 1990-91

Public Schools ~ \ ~71:

ii~h Poverly

‘+

~–... .—.—
1:78
Large
m’ “-
53

F
Smll
21

Private schools
4a
Cathotic

40
O’herRe’igiOu’ F!+

‘“”-’”” - ~

0 20 4a SO so 100
F8rmnt
u% aith Mentor Prcgram W% with Effedw mlstamm

NOTE The percentage of schcols with effeccive assistance dce.s not represent a subset of schcds with mentor
pmgrmw
SQURCE U.S. Demrtment of Sducation, National ~nmr for Ed”cation %atiatics, 1990-91 %hm!s and
Staffing Survey.

2 Background analysis of the data zdso indi=ated that whether or not a school had a mentor program
little affected the distribution of teachers’ reports of the effectiveness of assistance. In either case, in
only about 20 percent of schcels did the staff strongly agree that assistance was effective.

1 Ths Status of Teaching as a Profession 17

 Results 2

There “was less of a gap in the private sector between offering a program and offering assistance
deemed to be effective. Beginning teachers in private schools had less access to apprenticeship
and mentoring programs than did beginning teachers in public schools, but private school
faculties more often found [he available assistance for new teachers to be effective, Within
the private sector, however, religious schools varied in the percentage offering mentoring
programs and in the perceived effectiveness of assistance, Non-Catholic religious schools were
less likely to have mentor programs than were Catholic schools, but were more likely to report
effectiveness in assisting new teachers.

Professional Development

Data on two types of teacher professional development activities are displayed in figure &the
percentage of schools that provided finding to support the continuing education of teachers
through additional college coursework and the percentage of schools in which the faculty
annually participated in activities sponsored by professional organizations.

The data indicate that it was not commonplace for schools to provide continuing education
support to teachers. Only about one-third of schools provided reimbursement for teachers’
tuition and course fees. There were some differences between different types of schcds. For
instance, 30 percent of high-povert y public s_chool~ provided reimbursement for teachers’
tuition and course fee> 40 percent of low-poverty public schools covered these costs. Among
private schools, Catholic schools were the least likely to have provided reimbursement for
teachers (32 percent), compared to41 percent of other religious schcds and 44 percent of
nonsectarian schools.

A similar pattern holds for the extent to which faculties participated in activities sponsored by
professional organizations. Fewer than half of teachers reported that, on average, they
attended workshops, seminars, or conferences at leasr annually. The degree of participation
differed among schools for example, in 42 percenr of public schools compared to 37 percent of
private schools (tables 1 and 2), teachers repormd thar they participated in activities
sponsored by or associated wirh a professional organization at least annually. There were
slight differences between large and small public schools and between high-poverty and low-
poverty public schwls; teachers in small schools were more likely to have annual participation
than those in large public schools, and teachers in low-poverty public schools were more Iikelv
[o have annual participation than those in high-poverty public schools (figure 4).

I 18 The Starwr of Tmching as a Profession

 = Results
.-— —.

Figure 4- Percentage of schools with continuing education support and with annual
participation in professional organization activities: 1990-91

“r’” -38
‘q=-
Private Schmk
32
catholic
38
k

‘erRe’gbusP=!E’
““C”’”” 0
h!!!!dc
m- 40 so au lW
P*rmnt

0% with Sl$$wt
9% with Ann& Palwpalicm

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for S&cation Statistics, 1990-91 Schools and
Sraffing Survey.

Specialization

The measure of teacher specialization examined here-in-field teachhg-fccuse.s on the

extent to which teachers taught subjects chat were in their fields of expertise. Expertise is
defined here at a minimal level—at least a college minor in the fields taught. The focus here
is, moreover, solely on classes at the secondary level (grades 7–12 ). Figure 5 dkplays data on
school means of in-field teaching—the averxge portion of secondary-level teachen’ weekly
class schedules for which they were assigned to teach in fields for which they had at Iesst a
college minor (see the Technical Notes for a detxiled description of thk messure).

Given rhe minimal definition of expertise, the data indicate that teachers were assigned to
teach a substantial portion of their weekly class schedules out of their fields of expertise. In
public schcds, teachers, on average, spent over three-quarrers of their c1ass load teaching
fields in which they had at least a college minoq private school teachers were far more often

The Sraru.r of Teaching LX a Profession 19

 assigned to teach subjects out of their fields of trsining than were public school teachers; on
average, only 56 percent of a private school teacher’s schedde was in-field (tables 1 and 2).

Levels of in-field teaching differed among public schools; teachers in high-poverty schools
spent less of their schedules teaching in their fields of expertise than did those in low-poverty
schools (figure 5). There were also some differences among private schools. Teachers in
nonsectarian private schools, for example, had higher levels of in-field teaching than did
teachets in other private schools. On average, teachers in nonsectarian schools spent about
two-chkds of their schedules teaching in-field; in contrast, in-field levels in religious private
s.zhocds were lower+kt half their class loads.

Figure 5— Percentage of secondary.school teachers’ class schedules in which they caught in

fieIds for which they had at least a college minor: 1990-91

Private Schools

“’’0”” -“

01.f.egou$-

0 20 40 S0 m 1(?0
Percent

SOURCE: US. Department of Education, National cnwr for Education Statistics, 1993-91 Schools and
Staffing Survey.

~“ 20 The Status of Teaching m a Profession

 * Results

Authority

Figure 6 displays the frequency of schools in which principals reported the ~hcml beard, the
faculty, and themselves to have substantial decisionmakhg influence over three key activities
curriculum, discipline, and hiring. The data show that the reported influence of teachera
varied relative to that of administrators, depending on the school type and the groups
compared

Atthetop of thehlerarchy lie principals. Ovemll, principals in bothsectors cleatly viewed

themselves as poweriid actors in reference to decisions concerning curriculum, dkcipline, and
hiring inschools (tables land2). Incompirison toprincipals, teachers appear tohave had
limited professional authority over these school educational decisions, at least from the
viewpoint of principals. Innone of the types ofschcds examined were facuhies influential in
amajority of schools. Moreover, inallschwl ~6, principals reported faculqtok
influential Icsaoften than they were themselves.

Figure & Percentage of principals reporting groups to be influential over school

decisionnmking 199c-91

71:

71

I
Cathok

GtWr Religious

Nonsectarian

0 204060801CXl
Pemnt
ClOoard mPriIWPP.1 =FP.c”(&

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Sd.carion Statistics, 1992-91 Schools and
Staffing Survey.

I
[’ The Status of Teaching as a profession 21
 Results 2

However, faculty influence over school decisionmaking differed across different types of
schools (figure 6). Among public schools, there were distinct differences in faculty influence
between high-poverty and low-poverty school~ faculty were far more often reported to be
influential in the latter. Moreover, there were distinct differences within the private secto~
faculty in non-Catholic religious schools were less often influential over schoo[ educational
decisions than were those in other private schools.

in comparison to school boards, teachers’ professional authority was mixed, depending on the
school type. In high-poverty public schools and non.Carbolic religious private schools, boards
were more often influential than were faculties. But, in low-poverty publlc schools, the
influence of school boards and faculties were similar. Fkially, in Catholic and nonsectarian
private schools, faculties were more often influential than were school boards.3

Compensation

Teacher salary analyses typically focus on the average salary levels of particular types of
teachers or in particular jurisdictions. Comparing average teacher salaries for different kinds of
teachers or schools, however, may be misleading because teacher salary levels are often
standardized according to a uniform salary schedule, based on the education levels and years of
.
experience of the teachers. E.speciall y with a; aging teacher workforce, it can be unclear
whether differences in average salary levels are due to real differences in the compensation
offered to comparable teachers by different schools or are due to differences in the experience
and education levels of the teachers employed.’ That is, a school wirh older teachers may
appear ro Offer better salari=, when in fact they do not. A more effective method of
comparison across schools is to compare the normal salaries paid by schools to teachers at
common points in their careers. This analysis examines data on rhe normal start-of-career and
end-of-career teacher salaries offered in the different kinds of schools. These data are
illusrrared in figure 7 and at the bottom of tables 1 and 2. Data on the number of paid benefits
are also dhplayed.

The SASS data indicare that che compensation afforded to teachers did not vary widely in
public schools. For example, contrary to popular belief (e.g., Kozol 1991), the differences in
teacher pay between public schools serving high-poverry communities and schools in more
affluent communities were minor. But, there were wide differences between public and
private schcok. Teachers in private schmls were paid far Iw than those in public achmla and
ako received fewer benefits. For example, 48 percent of public schools provided all four of the
paid benefits examined—medical, dental, life insurance, or retirement—to their teachera,
compared to only 21 percent of private schools (tables 1 and 2). The mean starting aalmy was

‘ For a more detailed analysis of SASS dara on decisionmaking infhence, see Ingersoll (1994, 1996b).

4 For a more detailed analysis of SASS data cm the determinants of teacher salaries, see Chambers
(1996)

~.
, 22 Ths .$tatm of Teaching m a Profession
 > Results

almut $5,000 more in public schools than in private schools ($20,918 versus $ 14,406).
Moreover, the public-private salary gap widens as teachers progress through their careers. The
average maximum salary (the highest possible step on the scale) for private school teachers
was about $23 ,000; for public school teachers it was about $39,000. In addition,
compensation differed among private school types (figure 7), Non-Catholic religious private
schools paid their teachers less than did nonsectarian schools.

Figure 7— Mean teacher starting salary and mean maximum salary: 1990-91

Public SCW301S
High Povwcy
““”7 $21
$39
I

““-l $21
LOw PO”.*
$43

$22
large
I S42

‘“” ~$,,

“’””’”=:s$25:
-$21 ~
C)wr.eligio”s

““’’””” ~:
50 510 $20 $ao $40 w
(Thousand$)

[lMean Stating Salary

-Mean Maximum Salary

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for S&cation Statistics, 1990-91 Schmls and
Staffing Survey.

In order to place teachers’ salaries in perspective, it is usekd co compare them to the salaries
earned in other occupations. Data from SASS and the Recent College Graduates Sutve y
show that the salaries of new college grsduates who have become teachers in recent years have
been considerably below those of new college graduates who chose many other occupation.
For instance, the aversge starting salary at the end of their first year for 1990 college graduates
who became teachers was over $10,000 less than the average starting salary of their classmates

Ths Status of Teaching as a Profession 23

Results 2

who entered computer science jobs (table 3) (Rollefson 1993; Cahalan et al. 1993; Gray et al,
1993; also see RolIefson and Smith, 1995, for national data comparisons of teacher salaries
with those in other occupations).

Table 3— Mean annual salaries of new bachelor degree recipienra in teaching and other selected
occupations: 1991

Occupation. s@Y Difference _

Teaching $19,913’
Computer Science 30,419 $10,5;
Math, Physical Sciences 26,040 6,127
Business/Management 25$961 6,048
Writers/Artists 22,353 2,440
Biologists 21,325 1,412
Communications 19,584 ,329
Public Affairs/Social Services 19,227 ,686

All occupations $23,632 $3,719

‘ Scheduled sala~ based m average contract length of.9.7 nqdw.

SOURCE: U.S. Depamnem of E&cation, National Center for Educarim %ciscics, 1991 Recent (Xlege
Graduates Survey and 1990-91 Schcals and Staffing S.rveY (Teacher Demmd md Shortage Q.escicmnaire)

Tables 4 and 5 provide additional data on levels of teacher professionalization-for public

schools, comparing the 50 states, and for private schools, according to schcd size. These data
indicare, for example, that public school teachers in Alaska spent 63 percent of their
schedules teaching in-field subjects, and the aver-age starting salary in Alaskan public schools
was about $29,700. On the other hand, the average srarring salary in North Dakota public
schools was about $15,800. In the privare sector, secondary school teachers in small private
schools spent half of their weekly course schedule teachhg subjects for which they did not
have at least a college minor, and the average starting salary in these schools was undet
$14,000.

24 The Status of Teaching as a Profession

 >> Results

Table 4a— Means and mercentaees for measures of teacher mofessionalization, tor bubk schools,
by state: 199(L91 “
Credentials —. ~duction Professional Dev.
Mean # Prof. % ulo”c %u’/au4 %w/Mmtor %td Effcc[, WI Cent. O/.

Hire Req. Hire Req. Hke Req.

—.—. — Program A5siwnce Education SuPpwt
&al Public--— —’––—2~0 —-”” 2% 31% ’66% 16% 36%
Alabama 1,9 0 11 53 18 11
Alaska 2.0 5 0 34 10 24
Arizona 3.0 1 42 54 7 17
Arkansas 3.1 0 50 13 17
California 2,9 1 41 :: 17 12
Colorado 3.0 0 43 46 8 20
Connecticut 2.9 0 33 94 24 37
O&ware 3.0 0 34 9 lco
Diat. of Columbia 4.0 0 103 G 17 o
Florida 2,1 7 5 98 26 37
Georgia 2.5 4 26 ‘ 83 22 48
Hawaii 4.0 0 lW 73 3
Idaho 3.3 0 59 92 8 :
Illinois 3.0 0 38 38 8 38
Indtana 3.5 1 64 99 15 9
Iowa 2,3 3 8 35
Kansas 3.3 : 46 ;; 15 16
Kencwky 3.5 0 65 93 21 5
Lxisiana 3,0 14 62 16
Maine 2.4 2 15- :: 14 1

Maryland 2.8 0 26 71 12
Massachusetts 1.8 15 29 13
Michigm 2.8 1 i 48 10
Mimwscma 3.1 0 @ 5
Mississippi 3.3 0 : 49 28
Missouri 1.5 6 98 23
Montana 3.2 4 i: 15 8
Nebraska 3.1 0 43 52 24
Nevada 2.7 0 17 41 10 2
New Hampshire 1.9 7 4 34 7 95

Nw Jersey 2.7 1 30 40 23 66
New Mexico 3,2 0 53 82 11 9
New York 2.8 33 53 9 28
North Carolina 3.2 h 47 97 22 46
Norrh 13akcm 2.7 o 24 9 25
Ohio 2.6 0 ; 79 17 45
Oklahoma 3.3 0 55 95 26 29
Otegon 2.2 14 75 16 80
Pennsylvania 3.1 1 : 30 74
Rhode [s[and 3.4 0 60 H 19 15

Smch Carolina 3.1 0 48 76 15 82

South Dakota 2.4 2 0 53 11 21
Tmmewee 3.1 1 41 77 21 17
Texas 2.9 2 41 59 15 16
Utah 2.3 1 0 88 17
vemm”t 2.4 1 0 26 16 8
Vkginia 2.6 2 29 84 19 69
Washington 2.2 2 1 9 35
West Virginia 3.4 0 58 : 23 54
Wisconsin 2.6 1 4 43 5 41
Wyoming 2.3 3 6 35 18 33
SOURCE: U.S. Department of S&cation, National center for Education Statistiq 1990-91 Schcmls and
Staffing Survey.

,.

The Status of Teaching asa Profession 25

Resuks ,.
—.

Table 4E-- Means and percentages {m measures of teacher professionalization, for public schools,
.by state: 1990-91 _ .— —
Professional Dev. —Specialization
— Authority Compensation —
% .d Annual Part. Man % Y. W( hf. – Man # — O/. d all 4 Mm. Srmting M,..
i n Pmf. OTa ln+dd Teachin~ FOLUIO P d . Be@jQ_P&@qf&~ - Mm. Sala,Z.
Total Public 42% 78% 30% 3.1 48% $20,918 $39,348
Alabama 48 80 10 2.9 41 21,222 31,433
Alaska 34 63 26 3.5 84 29,690 55,803
Arizona 24 37 3.6 21,262 39,316
Arkansas
California
42
35
;
69
2.5
3.3 60
E17,475
24,75o
26,367
47.369
1?
C&rad. 34 77 3.8 88 19,621 41,482
C.mnectic.t 61 ; 3.7. 26,147 52,705
O&ware 53 26 3.3 : 20,915 45,379
Dkc. .fCnluinbia 57 10 4.0 100 23,305 48,175
Florida 37 25 3.3 52 22fJ34 40,875
\
Georgia 64 3.0 48 21,04C 42,088
Hawaii 70 E 4.0 m 23,969 46,641
Idaho 48 3.2 59 17,118 31,991
Illinois E 28 3.2 39 19,899 38,902
Indiana 86 29 3.5 20,870 39,787
Iowa 87 35 3.2 2 17,899 32,366
Kansas 31 2.2 20,348 34,398
Kentucky : 24 3.0 E 19,521 34,229
Louisiana 69 2.7 19 18,187 31,298
Maine 67 $ 2.4 15 18,628 34,676

Maryland 43 3.6 73 23,545 47,191

Mawachusecci 34 ; ;; 2.9 21 21,780 41,127
Michigan 46 77 37 3.6 87 22,430 45,293
Minnesota 70 90 53 3.1 52 21,3S4 40,049
Midssippi 35 69 14 2.1 18,541 32.OBO
Missouri 70 84 26 3.0 ;i 18,743 32:496
Montana 66 85 29 2.8 34 16,713 31,203
Nebraska 57 86 29 2.5 26 16,426 27,46$
Ncxada 31 72 31 3.5 47 21,391 42,192
New Hampshire 72 89 43 3.8 82 20,547 37,770

New Jersey 76 18 2.8 42 24,567 49,785

New Mexico 42 3.4 65 IB,874 34,631
New York K 34 3.1 25 24,570 51,530
North Carolina 79 21 2.7 18 20,105 38,634
Nmh Oakm 88 20 2,2 5 15,833 27,023
Ohio 77 3.5 19,104 39,517
Oklahoma 78 ;8 2.7 : 17,661 28,515
Oregon 75 45 3.3 61 19,099 35,291
Pennsylvania 25 3.8 92 23,258 43,657
Rhode Island K? 22 3.5 71 20,864 41,810

Sod Carolim 34 71 22 3.2 56 19,736 40,478

South O&ma 34 81 31 3.0 16,299 26,357
Tennessee 54 70 3.2 f 19,845 33,436
Texas 25 ;; 2.3 19.5.S 33,138
Utah 55 H 41 3.1 : 17;437 33,874
Vermont 38 79 57 2.7 19,711 37,199
Virginia 21 3.0 % 22,944 40.296
Washington 2 ;: 50 3.5 66 19,994 41;818
West Virginia 17 86 L2 3.4 .$2 18,478 32,56$
Wi5comk 66 87 39 3.5 67 20,873 39,895
WyOmi”E 40 84 64 3.3 53 19,569 38,371
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education %atistics, 1!WLL91 S-&-& and
%affing Survey

26 The Scam of Teaching a a Profession

 + Results

Table 5— Means and percentages for measures of teacher professionalization, for private schools,
by size: 1990-91
School Size
small Medium Large
>300 300-599 >599

Mean Number Professional

Hiring Requirements 1.4 1.8 1.9
% without Professional
Hiring Requirements 33% 13% 13%
% with all Four Professional
Hiring Requirements 7%, 9% 12%

Induction

% with Mentor Program 2s% 4s% 53%

Mean Effectiveness 3.3 3.2 3.1
% with Effective Assistance 37% 31% 21%

Professiomd Development .

% with Continuing Education

support 36% 4s% 52%
Mean Participation in Professional
Organization Activities 1.2 1.3 1.3
% with Annual Participation in
Prof. Org. Activities 3s% 36% 35%

Specialization

Mean % In-field Teaching 50% 63% 75%

Authority

% with Influential E!oard 29% 17% 14%

% with Influential Principal 54% 93% 96%
% with Influential Faculty 33% 42% 35%

Compensation

Mean Number Paid Benefits 1.9 2.9 3.1

% with all Four Paid Benefits 18% 32% 41%
Mean Starting Salary ($) 13,959 1S,922 17,293
Mean Maximum Salary ($) 22,510 27,410 32,72S

source U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Sducation %acistics, 1990-91 Sctmols and %alfing
Survey.

Th. Status of Teadtingasa Profession 27

28 Tldtatw of Tediingasa Profession
conclusion
This analysis reveals large variations in the levels of professionalization in elementary and
secondary schools in the United States. On the one hand, almost all schools exhibited some
of the characteristics of professionalized workplaces. On the other hand, despite numerous
reform initiatives since the early 1980s, almost all schools were lacking or fell short on a
number of key aspects of professionalization in 1990–91. If we accept the common
assumption that professionalization attracts capable recmits to an occupation, fosten their
expertise and commitment, and, ultimately, provides assurance of quality service to the public,
then these data do not yield a positive portrait of the teaching occupation.

For example, only a minority of schools used a full range of professional criteria for hking new
teachers (e.g., certification in area of specialization, substantive training in area of
specialization, completion of accredited training pro&am, passage of examination). Only a
minority of schools provided assistance to new teachers that teaching staffs, on average,
strongly agreed was effective. Only a minority of schools provided financial reimbursement for
continuing education mition and fees. Ord y a minority of schools had facuhies that
participated in professional organization activities at least once per year. In most schcds,
teachers were assigned a substantial portion of their class schedules to teach subj ects for which
they had little training. In few schools did principals report their facukies to have as much
decisionmaking influence over key educational issues aa they themselves had. Only a minority
of schools provided a full range of paid benefits (medical, dental, life insurance, retirement).
Final] y, srarting salaries for teachers in most schools were lower than those in many other
mcupations requiring a college degree

However, the degree of teacher professionalization varied, depending on the type of achcol.
For instance, high-poverty public schools were less professionalized than public schcds in
more affluent communities in several ways, most norably, in professional development
activities and their degree of faculty decisionmaking influence. Moreover, large public schwls
were slightly more professionalized than small public schools in several ways, including salary
levels and paid benefits. On the other hand, large public schools were slightly less
professionalized than small public schcols in other ways, including assistance for newcomers
and participation in professional development programs.

However, among the most striking differences were those found between public and private
schools. The teaching job in private schools is in many ways far less professionalized than in
public schtmls. Among the most professionalized were public schools in more affluent

The Stutwof Teaching as a Profession 29

 Conclusion *

commtinitiev non-Catholic religious private schools were among the least professionalized of
all schools. Public schools were more likely than private schools to use a full range of
professional hiring requirements (e.g., certification in area of specialization, substantive
training in area of specialization, completion of accredited training program, passage of
examination). Public school teachers were assigned a smaller portion of their class schedules
to teach subjects foI which they did not have at least a college minor. Public schools more
often provided a full range of paid benefits (medical, dental, life insurance, retirement), and
starting and end-of-career teacher salaries wete higher for public school teachers than for
private school teachers. On the other hand, teachers in private schools were more likely to
report that assistance to new teachers was effective. Moreover, private school principals more
often reported their faculties to have substantial decisior-tmaking influence over key
educational issues.
\

~“ 30 The Smtu,r of Teaching as a Profession

 hnplications
These findings suggest several important implications for contemporary education research
and policy.

Teacher Credentials
\
Over the past decade, a great deal of interest has focused on upgrading the education,
preparation, and training requirements for teachers (National Commission on Excellence in
Education 1983 ). There is almost universal agreement that one of the most important
characteristics of a quality teacher is training. Research has shown moderate but consistent
support for the reasonable proposition that subject knowledge (knowing what to teach) and
teaching skills (knowing how to teach) are importan~redictors of both teaching quality and
student learning (for reviews of this research, see Darling-Hammond and Hudson 1990).
Knowledge of subject matter and of pedagogical methods do not, of course, guarantee qualified
teachers nor quality teaching, but they are necessary prerequisites. In this view, efforts to
tighten entry-level standards for newly hired teachers, and efforts to insure that teachers only
teach subjects for which they have minimal training, would help insure that reachers possess
expertise over the bodies of knowledge they will teach (Darling-Hammond 1984). ~ese dam
clearly show, however, that many schools do not make extensive use of professional hiring
requirements and that in many schools, teachers teach out of their fields of training.

The Problems and Prospects of Beginning Teachers

The problems confronting new teachers in their jobs are of great interest in current education
research. Researchers have consistently shown that new teachers leave the occupation at very
high rates. As a result, policy makers have advocated a range of reform efforts, such as
mentoring, apprenticeship, and induction programs, designed to aid new teachers and cut
down on their high attrition rates (e.g., Bobbitt et al. 1994; Sclan 1993; Mumane et al. 1992).

But, the importance atiached to improved induction for new teachers has not, as of yet,
resulted in the prevalence of effective progmma in schools. This analysis shows that while a
majority of schools offered formal mentoring programs, in only a minority of schools did
teachers strongly agree that assistance for new teachers, from either mentoring progmtna or
other sources, was effective. This finding suggests the importance of conducting fimher
research on what distinguishes effective from ineffective induction and assistance pmgtams.

The Status of Teaching as a Profession 31

Implications ~

Power, Authority, and Decisionmaking in Schools

The distribution of power, authority, and control in schools is one of the most important
issues in contemporary education research and policy. Indeed, this issue lies at the crux of
many current reforms-teacher empowerment, site-based management, and related forma of
school decentralization But, although the importance of the distribution of power in schcol
systems has become increasingly recognized among both education researchers and
p.dicymakers, this has not resulted in the prevalence of high levels of teacher empowerment in
schools. The results show, for example, that in few schools did principals report their facultiea
to have as much decisionmaking authority and influence over key educational issues as they
themaelvea had. This finding raises questions about how much delegation of decisionmaking
to teachers has actually occurred in recent years, and why.

Comparing Public and Private Schools

Over the past decade, interest has surged among both education researched and pctlicymakera
in comparing public and private elementary and secondary schools in the United Statea.
Numerous researchers, for instance, have sought to carefully isolate key differences between
public and private schmls and to explore what imp~t these differences have on student
outcomes (e.g., Coleman and Hoffer 1987; Bryk et al. 1994; Chubb and Moc 1990). The
primary emphaais of much of this research haa been to separate out the effects of schools,
student characteristics, and family background on student performance. Although highly
contested, many have come to the conclusion that, in important ways, private schools are
distinctly different from public schools and, in general, are better places for student growth
and learning.

The results of this analysis raiae questions for this view. Clearly, there could be serious
concerns with employment in private schools from the teacher’s viewpoint, which suggesta the
need for research on the advantages and disadvantages of the teaching job in public and
private schcols.

32 The SIUtwr of Teaching as a Profession

 Technical Notes
The Schools and Staffing Survey

The primary data source for this report is the 1990-91 Schcols and Staffhg Survey (SASS), a
nationally representative survey of teachers, principals, and schools conducted by the U.S.
Department of Education’s National Center for Educ&,on Statistics (NCES). The U.S.
Census Bureau collected the SASS data for NCES in 1991 using a mail survey with telephone
followup. The objective of SASS was to obtain information on the staffhg, occupational, and
organizational characteristics of schools in the United States.

Sample Selection’
.
Schools were the primary sampling unit for SASS. Each selected school received a School
Questionnaire and an Administrator Questionnaire. Next, a sample of teachers was selected
within each school, and each received a Teacher Questionnaire. A Teacher Demand and
Shortage (TDS) Questionnaire was sent to the local education agency (LEA) associated with
each selected public school. Also, an additional sample of public schcml districts not
associated with the sampled schools received the TDS Questionnaire. The Private Schcml
Questionnaire included TDS questions for the school. The original sample for SASS
conducted during the 1990–9 1 school year included 12,856 schools and administrators,
65,217 teachers, and 5,515 local education agencies. The response rates are dkcussed below.

SASS was designed to provide national estimates for public and private school$ state
estimates for public schools; state elementary, state secondaq, and na[iOnal mmbin~
estimates for public schools; affdiation- and grade-level estimates for private schcd~ estimates
of change from 1988 to 1991 in schml-level characteristics and national estimates for schcols
with greater than 25 percent Indian enrollment. The teacher survey was designed to support
comparisons between new and experienced teachers. Comparisons between bilingual and
nonbilingual teachers are possible at the national level.

5 For a detailed description of the sample design of the 199@91 SASS, see Kaufman and Huang
(1993).

1“ Tha Status of Teaching as a Pmfassion 33

I
Technical Notes —

Selection of Schools

The public school sample of 9,586 schools was selected primarily from the 1988-89 schcol
year Common Core of Data (CCD) file. The CCD is based on survey data collected annually
by NCES from all state education agencies and is believed to be the most complete list of
public schools available. The frame includes regular public schools, Department of Defense
operated military base schools. and nonregdar schools such as special education, vocational,
and alternative schools.

The private school sample of 3,270 schools was selected from two sampling frames, a list frame
and an area frame. The 1989–90 Private School Survey (PSS) list frame was bxsed on the
1989 Quality of Education Dxta (QED) private school list, updated with 20 private school
association lists provided to the Census Bureau in t~e spring of 1989.

To improve private school coverage, an area frame of schools was developed consisting of 123
sampling units (PSUS) selected with probability proportional to the square root of the PSU
population. Within each PSU, a telephone search was conducted to find all in-scope private
schools. Sources included yellow pages, religious institutions (except for Roman Catholic
religious institutions, because each Catholic diocese is contacted annually when the QED list
is updated), local education agencies, chamb~rs of ~ommerce, and local government offices
PSU schools not on the QED file nor the lists from private school associations were listed in
the area school frame. From the frame, additional schools were eligible to be selected for the
SASS private school sample.

The private school sample was designed to support estimates at the national and affiliation
levels. The a~lliation groups for private schools were determined by d-re schcml’s orientation
or affdiation group listed on the 1988-89 Private Schrmls Survey (the list frame).

Selection of LEAs

All LEAs that had at least one school selected for the school sample were included in the LEA
sample for the TDS Questionnaire. Each Bureau of Indian Affairs and Department of Defense
school was defined to be an LEA. Some LEAs did not have schools, but hired teachers who
taught in schools in other LEAs. To ensure representation of these reachers, a sample of 135
LEAs without eligible schools was selected. Only 14 of the 135 were actually in scope, that is,
were an operxring public school agency that reported hiring teachers. (LEAs without schools
were not included in this analysis). All LEAs in Delaware, Nevada, and West Virginia were
included to reduce high standard errors in these states. The total LEA sample was 5,515.

Selection of Teschers

All 56,051 public and 9,166 private school teachers in the teacher samples were selected ftom
the sampled public and private schools. The averxge number of teachers selected per school
was 3.49, 6.98, and 5.23 teachers for public elementary, secondaty, and combined schools,

34 The Starus of Teaching cm a Profession

 3 Technical Notes

respectively, and 3.78, 4.72, and 2.83 teachers for private elementary, secondary, and
combined schools, respectively.

Data Collection

The data were collected for NCES by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Questionnaires were
mailed to school districts and administrators in December 1990 and ro schools and teachers in
January and February 1991! Six weeka later, a second questionnaire was sent to each
nonrespondent. A telephone follow-up of nonrespondents was conducted between March
and June.

Weighting
\
Weights of the sample units were developed to produce national and state estimates for public
schools, teachers, administrators, and LEAs. The private-sector data were weighted to
produce mtional esrimates and affiliation group estimates. The basic weights were rhe inverse
of the probability of selecrion, and were adjusted for nonresponse and also co adjust the sample
totals (based on responding, nonrespondkrg, and out-of-scope cases ) to rhe fmme totals in
order to reduce sampling variability.

Response Rates and Imputation

The final weighted questionnaire response rates were as follows

Public Private
Teacher Demand and Shortage 93.5 —
Administrator 96.7 90.0
School 95.3 83.9
Teacher* 90.3 84.3 —

— nor applicable
*The reswnw rates for public schml teachers do not include the 5 percent of the p“biic schcols that did not provide
teacher lists, and the response rates for private schml teachers do not include the 11 percmt of the private schcals chat
did not provide teacher lists. The effective respn.se rate for public schcak was 85.8 percent and for privare schcols,
75.9 percent.

Values were imputed for items with missing data by (1) using dara from other Items on the
questionmire or a related component of the SASS (a school record to impute district data, for

6 Copies of the questionnaires may b obtained by writing to the address given at the end of thii
section.

The Status of Teaching CM a profession 35

Technical Notes z

example); (2) extracting data from the sample file, such as the CCD or PSS; or (3) extracting
data from a respondent with similar characteristics.’

Standard Errors

me data in this report are based on samples and, hence, are subject to sampling variability. In
order to make proper inferences about the larger population which the samples represent, the
accuracy of all statistics and estimates in this report were checked. All comparisons discussed
in the text were tested for statistical significance using the Student’s t statistic at an alpha
level of .05. Whenever comparisons were multiple, the Eonferroni procedure was used to
adjust the alpha level for the t tests.

Standard errors were calculated to indicate the accukacy of each estimate in the tables. If all
possible samples of the same size were sutveyed under the same conditions, an interval of 1.96
standard error units below to 1.96 standard error units above a particular statistic would
include the universe value in approximately 95 percent of the cases. Note, however, that the
standard errors do not take into account the effect of bkmcs due to item nonrespome,
measurement etror, data processing error, or orher possible systematic error.

Standard errors were calculated using a balan~ed re~eated replications procedure. Because this
procedure incorporates the design feamrcs of complex sample surveys, the standard errors are
generally higher than those calculated under the assumptions of simple random sampling.
Standard errors for selected tables are presented in Appendix A.

Information on Variables

Poverty Enrollment of School

The measure of poverty used in the analysis is the proportion of a schcmlk sttrdent Wpulacion
that received the publicly funded free or reduced-price lunch program. The propmtion of
free-lunch recipients is a standard measure of poverty level in school population becauae
almost all public schools participate in the program. But, it must be interpreted with some
caution. The number of children reported to k recipients may be an underestimate, becauae
not all children who are eligible may identify themselves as such (especially at the secondary
level). Note that this measure is nor available for private schools.

7 For a detailed description of rhe imputation procedures in the 1990-91 SASS, see Kaufman and
Huang (1993), pp. 60-67.

36 The Srartu of Teaching ar a %ofessim

 > Technical Notes
-.

In-Field Teaching

The measure of in-field teaching used in the analysis ia drawn from earlier work sponsored by
NCES that developed and compared a range of different measurca of the extent of in- and out-
of-field teaching (see McMillen and Bobbitt 1993; Bobbitt and McMillen 1995; Ingersoll
1995 ). ~Is analysis uses the school mean of the percentage of teachers’ entire work
assignments-their weekly class schedules-in which they taught in fields for which they had
at least a college minor. This particular measure focuses on the extent to which teachers had
minimal substantive training in broadly defined fields at the secondary level. These features
are described below.

This measure of in-field teaching focuses on minimal levels of background preparation in

broadly defined fields. The amlysis defines adequate training not as a college major but m a
college minor, which often requires passing m few aa four undergraduate courses in a field.
Hence, thk measure is conservative and may, in fact, understate the level and degree of
underqualified or out-of-field teaching. This is intentional. Rather than enter the debate as
to what constitutes a qualified teacher, quality teacher training, or quality teaching, this
analysis presenra data on the portion of teachers’ classes for which they had basic prerequisites
in the fields. The underlying premise is that even a moderate portion of teachera’ schedules
lacking such minima[ training prerequisites is a strong indication of a lack of teachel
professionalization.

Adequate training is defined in rerma of substantive background. The measure of in-field

teaching indicates how many classes were taught by teachers who had at least a college minor
in the subject field, regardless of whether they were certified or not. This includes both
education majors and minors and academic arts majora and minors. Hence, a teacher with a
bachelor’s degree in mathematics education or with a minor in mathematics who was teaching
mathematics is defined as in-field. It should be noted thar many teachers held multiple
degrees, and many held multiple majors and minor% hence, many met minimal prerequisites
in more than one field. It should also be noted that these measures do not account for
informal training or life experiences that may have imparted substantive knowledge to
teachers.

Fields are broadly defined in thk analysis. The range of both class subjects and college
major/minors are categorized into eight fields parallel to conventional departmental divisions
in high schcelx mathematics, science, social studies, English/language arts, foreign languages,
vocational education, art+msic, and physical education. Hence, a teacher with a college
degree in economics who is assigned to teach history is considered in-field; both are wirhh the
field of social studies. Likewise, a teacher with a minor in biology but teaching chemistq is
also defined as in-field; both arc within the field of science. (The categorization of dkciplines
and subjects into eight fields of training and eight fields of teaching assignments are listed
below.)

7%s Srartu of Teaching as a Pmfe.ssion 37

Technical Notes z

This analysis focuses solely on teachers who taught students at the secondary-school level (grades
7–12), regardless of whether the school was actually a middle school, junior high school, a
senior high school, a secondary school, or a combined school. Furthermore, it solely focuses
on those who caught departmentalized courses in the eight fields. This includes special
education teachers to the extent that they taught departmentalized courses in the eight fields
But, 7th or 8th grade teachers or special education teachers teaching multiple subjects in self.
contained classes were excluded. Likewise, the nondepartmentalized and non-7–12th grade
portions of the schedules of teachers in combined schools or middle schools were excluded.

For several reasons, the argument for in-field and against out-of-field teachhg ia especially
unambiguous for the secondary +chool level. First, at the secondaty-schcml level, teachera are
divided by fiekk into department faculties are thus more specialized than in elementary
schools, and therefore the differences between fields are more distinct and, perhaps, greater.
Moreover, the level of mastery in different subjects is higher at the secondary+chcol level, and
therefore a clear case has been made by policy analysts and researchers that teachers ought to
have adequate background in the subjects they teach (e.g., Ingersoll 1995).

38 The Stactu of Teaching as a Profession

 Technical Notes

SASS Questionnaire Items Used in the Measures of Teacher

Professionalization

Credentials
■ Professional Hiring Requirements:

TDS Questionnaire (question # 23 ) and Private Schcol Queacionnaire (question

# 58)
Item. DISTEST, STABASIC, STASUBJ, NTEPASS, FULLCERT,
TEACHED, MAIORFLD.
\
Induction
■ Mentor Program:

Public School Questionnaire (question #35 ) and Private Schcol Questionnaire

(question # 55)
kern MENTOR.
.
■ Effective Assistance:

Public and Private Teacher Questionnaires (question #37)

Items TSC237 - TSC240.

Professional Development
■ Continuing Education Suppmt:

TDS Questionnaire (question # 13) and Private Schcml Questionnaire (question

# 53)
Item TU1TION.

■ Participation in Professional organization Activities:

Public and Private Teacher Questionnaires (question #27 )

Items TSC108, TSC109.

Specialization
■ % Ckms Schedtde In-Field: for a detailed discussion, see above section and Ingersoll
(1995).

Tk Status of T?aching a.! a Prafessian 39

.- Technical Notes
—.

Authority
m Decisiomnaking Influence of School Board, Principcd, and Faculty:

Public and Private Administrator Questionnaires (question # 15)

kerns TEACURRC, TEAHIRNG, TEADISPL, PRNCURRC, PRNHIRNG,
PRNDISPL, BRDCURRC, BRDHIRNG, BRDDISPL.

Compensation
■ Starting Scdmy, Maximum Scdary:

TDS Questionnaire (questions # 15–1 7) and Private Schcml Questionnaire

(questions # 46-48)
Items SALSCHED, MINBACH, HIGH$AL, MAXSALRY.

■ Paid Benefits:
TDS Questionnaire (questions # 13, 24) and Private School @eetionmire
(questions # 53, 56)
[term RETIREMT, MEDICAL, DENTAL, LIFE.

40 Tk Status of Teaching as a Profession

.- Z Technical Notes

Definitions of Fields for Calculating the Measure of In-Field Teaching

Teacher Training
u jMaior/Minor) Teachine me tsn
Assien

artlmusic art, fine & applied arts and crafts

art education filmmaking/photography
drama/theater chorus
music band
music education drama/theater/dance
music
other visual

physical educatton health profession health

physical education(health physical education

foreign language foreign language educ. French

French - German
German Latin
Latin Russian
Russian Spanish
Spanish Other foreign language
other foreign language

vocational education agric., natural res. agriculture

agriculture education business, marketing
architecture & environmental design industrial arts
business & management health occupation
business, commerce & distributive vocational home economics
education trade and industry
communication & journalism technical
engineering accountinfiokkeeping
health profession shorthand
home economics wing
home economics educatmn career education
industrial arts other vocational education
health/physical education

The Runts of Teaching m a Profession 41

L Technical Notes. 2

Teacher Training
.r. r
Eield IMaIo Mm. )
sccial studies psycholog y social studies
public affairs & services history
social studieslsocial science education world civilization
economics political science/gOvemment
hlsto,y geography
political science economics
sociology civics
other sccial sciences scciOlOgy/sOcial organization
other area. ethnic studies other social science
psychology

science education general science

biology btolo~flife science
chemistry chemistry
earth science/geology physics
physics geology/earth
other natural sciences science/space science
.
other physical science
other namral science

communications & journalism literature

English/language arts compositionfjoumalisml
English education creative writing
literature reading
reading education other Englishflanguage arts
course

mathematics engineering general mathematics

mathematics business math
mathematics education algebra, elementa~
algebra, intermediate
algebra, advanced
geometry, plane/solid
trigonometry
analytical geometry
probabAty/statistics
calculus
other mathematics

42 Tk Status of Tenching as a Profession

 z Technical Notes

Comments and More Information

SASS and TFS data on CD-ROM with Electronic Codebooks, as well as user’s manuals, are
available (free single copies) from the National Data Resource Center at 703445–3151
(fax 703 Y820-7465).

Special requests for data tapes of the SASS and TFS data maybe made to NCES at the
address listed below.

Schcols and Staffing Survey

Elementary and Secondary Education Statistics Division
National Center for Education Statistics
555 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20208-5653

The Sum of Teaching as a Profession 43

44 The Stutus of Teaching as a Profession
References
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of profession: An estay ars the division of expert fafrar. Chicago
University of Chicago Press.

Baker, D., Han, M., and Broughman, S. (1996). How different! How similar?: Comparing key
organizatiorud qualities of American public and privaie secorrdmy schaols. Washington, D. C.:
U.S. Department of Education, Natioml Center for Education Statistics (NCES
96-322).

Bidwell, C. and Quiroz, F? (1991 ). “Organizational control in the high school workplace A
theoretical argument.” Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1:211-229.

Bobbitt, S., Lcich, M., Whitener, S., and Lynch, H._ (199;). c~rm~~s of s@Yer’s, ~s,
and leavers: Results from the Teacher FoKawuP Survey 1991-92. Washhgton, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 94-337).

Bebbitt, S. and McMillen, M. (1995). Qwa@atiuns of the public schaal teacher warkforce:
1988–1 991. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES 95-665).

Bsyk, A., Lee, V., Holland, P. (1994). Cathalic schads and the common god. Cambridge, ~
Harvard University Press.

Cahalan, M., Gray, L., Brick, M., Severyrrse, J., Wkan, G., Hein, S., L1trnan, C., Warren, S.,
and Stowe, P. (1993). Occupational and edwccuirmaf owtcomes of recent college graduates 1
year afteT graduation: f 991. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES 93-162).

Carnegie Fomm on Education and the Economy. (1986). A rratian prepared: T?adwrs for the
21st century. New York: Carnegie Fonsm.

Chambers, J. (1996.) Patterns of teacher compensation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department

of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 95-829).

The Srarur of Teaching as a Profession 45

Refermces ;.

Choy, S., Eksbbitt, S., Henke, R., Medrich, E., Hem, L., and Lieberman, J. (1993a).
America’s teachers: Profile ofa profession. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 93425)

Choy, S., Henke, R., Alt, M., Medrich, E., and Bobbict, S. ( 1993 b). Schook and staffing in the
United States: A statistical profile, 1990–91. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 93-146).

Chubb, J.E. and Moe, T. (1990). Politics, nwdter.s and Anmica’s schools. Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institute.

Coleman, J. and Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and piute SChOOk: Ths imwt of communiti. New
York: Basic. \

Collins, R. (1979). The credential satiety. New York: Academic Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1984). Beyond the Commission reports: The coming ~k in Wuhing.

Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Darling-Hammond, L. and Berry. B. (1988). The euokstian of teak palicy. Santa Monica,
CA: Rand Corporation.

Darling-Hammond, L. and Hudson, L. (1990). “Prc-college science and mathematics

teacherx Supply, demand and quality.” Review of Research in Education, 16:223-264.
Washington, D. C.: American Educational Research Association.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). The cuwmt suws of ttmching and Lwher ~~e~P~nC in the
United States. Paper prepared for the National Commission on Teaching and America3
Fumre.

Etzioni, A. (Ed.) (1969). The semi-professiam and thzir organizations: Tmhers, nurses and social
wadcers. New York: Free Press.

Friedson, E. (1986). Professional patmrs: A study in the instittuionak@on of fmnud knawledge.

Chicago University of Chicago Press.

Gray, L., Cahalan, M., Hein, S., Litman, C., Severynse, J., Warren, S., Wkan, G., and Stowe,
F? ( 1993). New”teachers in the job market, 1991 updae. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 93-392).

Gmber, K., Rohr, C., and Fondelier, S. (1993). 1990-91 Schaok and Stafjing Survey: Data jle
user’s nrmtud, volumes 1–111. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 93441-1.111).

46 The Sranu of Teaching as a Profession

 * References

Hall, R. (1968). “Professionalization and bureaucranzauon.” American Socio@iccd Review,

33:92-104.

Holmes Group. (1986). T-mu’s tackers. East Lansing, Ml: Holmes Group.

Hcdson, R. and Sullivan, T. (1995 ). “Professions and professionals: in Tke Social

Organi@mr of Wurk. Belmont, CA: Wadswosth, 287-314.

Hughes, E. (1965). “Professions~ in The Professions in America. Eds. K. Lynn and the editors
of Daedahrs. Bostom Houghton Mifflin, 1–14.

Ingersoll, R. ( 1994). “organizatioml control in secondary schools.” H-d Ed~

Review, 6 4 1 5 0 - 1 7 2 . .

—. (1995). Taker supply, teacher qwskfications, and teackm turnover: 1990-91.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES 95-744).

—. (1996a). Teder professionalization and teacher commitment-A multilevel anrdysis.

Washhgton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES 95-069).

—. (1996b). “Teachers’ decision-making power and schcml conflict.” Sociology of

Edtuadan, 69:159-176.

]abine, T. (1994). A quality profile for SASS: Aspects of tke quality of data in ths SC~Ok .nd
Stajj%sg Surveys. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Natioml Center for
Education Statistics (NCES 94-340).

Kaufman, S. and Huang, H. (1993). 1990–91 Schoo!s and Stajjlng SUrvey: SampIe design and
estimation. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES 93449).

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York: Harper-Collins.

Labaree, D. (1992). “Power, knowledge, and the rationalization of teaching A genealogy of

the movement to professionalize teaching.” Harvard EducAmal Review, 62:123-154.

Larson, M. (1977). Tke rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis. Berkeley University of

California Press.

Lee, V., Dedrick, R., and Smith, J. (1991 ). “The effect of the social organization of schools
on teachers’ e~lcacy and satisfaction.” SOCidogy of Education, 64 190-208.

The hutu of Teaching as a Profession 47

References

Little, J. ( 1990). “Conditions of professional development in secondary schools,” in The

Contexts of Teaching in Seconday Schook: Teachers’ Realities. Eds, M. McLaughlin, 1.
Talbert, and N. Bascia. New York: Teachers College Press, 187-218.

Lortie, D. (1969). The balance of control and autonomy in elementary schcml teachlng~ in
7%s Semi-Professions and Their Organization: Ti=achers, Ntmes and Social Workers. Ed. A.
Etzioni. New York: Free Press, 1–53.

—. (1975). School teaher, Chicago Universmy of Chicago Press.

Malen, B. and Ogawa, R. (1988). “Professional-patron influence on site based governance

council: A confounding case study:’ Educational Ewduatims and Policy Analysis, 10:
251-270. .

McDonnell, E. (1989). The dilemma of tack policy. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

McLaughlin, D., ODcmnell, C., and Ries, L. (1995). Private sclmok in the United States: A
statistical profile, 1990-91. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education, Natioml
Center for Education %atistica (NCES 95-330).
.

McMillen, M. and Bobbitt, S. (1993, April). Teacher certijbtion, mining and wark
assignments in public SCIUOIS. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Education Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

Mumane, R., Singer, J., Wtllett, J., Kemple, J., a n d Olsen, R. (E&.) (1992). Who wil teach?
Pokiie.s that matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Prcs.s.

Mullens, ]. (1996). Student learning, teaching quality and profe.ssiarud &ueIopmesu: Theoretical
linkages and ccmwnt measurement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. ( 1983). A nation at tik: The imperative of

educational reform. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing GtTice.

National Foundation for the Improvement of Education. (1993). Changing teaching: The next
j?ontier. Washington, D.C.

National Opinion Re~earch Center (NORC). ( 1983). General .%&d Sswueys, 1972-1983:
Cumtckatitw mdebuok. Chicago, IL.

Pallas. A. ( 1988). “School climate in American high schools.” Teachers College Record, 89:
541-543.

48 Ths Statccs of Teaching as a Profession

 c References
.——

Rollefson, M. ( 1993). Teacher salmies-Are they competitive? Washington, D. C.: U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (Issue Brief, NCES
93-450).

Rollefson, M. and Smith, T. (1995, April). Do low salaries really draw the law able into the
teaching profession? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Rosenhohz, S. (1989). Teacher’s wmkpkzce: The social organization ofschook. New York:
Longman.

Rowan, B. (1990). “Commitment and control: Alternative stmtegies for the organizatioml
design of schools.” Review of Research in Education, L6: 353-389. Washington, D. C.:
American Educational Research Association.

—. ( 1994). “Comparing teachers’ work with work in other occupations Notes on the
professional status of teaching.” Educational Researcher, 23(6): 4-17.

Rowan, B., Raudenbush, S., and Kang, S. (1991). “Organizatioml design in high schools A
multilevel analysis.” Arneriran Jourrud of Edtu-2sion,99: 23&260.

S&n, E. (1993). Tfte effect of perceived tuorkpbce conditioru on beginning teachers’ work
commitment, career choice commitnunrt and planned retention. Ann Arbor, MI: University
Microfilms International.

%giovanni, T and Moore, J. (1989). Sckooling for tomorrow. Boston, MA: AMym and
Bacon.

Sizer, T. (1992). Harace’s compromise: The dilenmw of the American high school. Bostom
Houghton Mifflin.

Smith, T. (1995). Ameiica’s teachers ten years after “A Nation as Risk.” Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES
95-766).

Talbtrt, J. and McLaughlin, M. ( 1993). “Teacher professionalism in local echcd contexts.”

American Jousmal of Education, 102:123-153.

Vollmer, H. a n d Mills, D. (1966). Professionalization. Englewcod C[iffs, NJ: Prentice-HaIl.

Wallace, J. (1994). Organizatiarud and professional commitment in professional and

~P@essioti bUWWCT@ie-S. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Sociological Association, Los Angeles, CA.

The Sratur of Teixhing as a Profession 49

References

Weis, L., Akbach, P., Kelly, G., Petrie, H., and Slaughter, S. (1989). Crisis in reaching.
Albany: State University of New York Press.

50 The Statw of Tauhing as a Profession

 Appendix A
Standard Errors

The Status of Teaching u a Profession 51

52 The StmL$ of Teaching as a Profession
 ~ Appendix A

Table A. l— .%andard errors for table l: Means andpercentages formeasures of teacher

professionalization, for public schools, by bovertyenmlbnent and size: 1990-91

Povertv Enrollment Schcd Size

Total Lou ‘Med. High S??tufl ‘“’
Med. Large
“
Public <15% 1549% M9% >3m 30Q-599 >599

Credentials

% without Professional
Hiring Requirements 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3
% with all Four Professional
Hking Requirements 0.7 1.2 0.9 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.1

Induction \

% with Mentor Pmgmm 0.7 1.4 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.0 1.0
% with Effective Assistance 0.6 0.9 0.8 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.8

Professional Development

% with Continuing Education

Support 0.5 1.2 0.7 - 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1
% with Annual Participation in
Prof. Org. Activities 0.8 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.3

Specialization

Mean % In-field Teaching 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.8 1.2 1.3 0.8

Authority

‘A with Influential @oard 0.7 1.3 0.9 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.1
% with Influential Principal 0.6 1.3 0.8 1.3 1.3 0.9 1.1
% with Influential Faculty 0.6 1.5 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0

Mean Number Paid Benefits 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02
% with all Four Paid Benefits 0.6 1.4 0.9 1.4 1.4 1.0 0.8
Mean Starting Salary ($) 34.0 74.7 54.8 82.6 S3.8 54.8 74.7
Mean Maximum Salary ($) 74.7 211.5 140.5 208.3 178.6 133.6 162.3

SOURCE: U.S. Department of E&cation, National Center for Ed”cation Statistics, 1990-91 S&G& and
Staffing Survey.

The Statut of Teaching as a Profession 53

A@ndix A >

Table A.2— Standard errors for table 2: Means and percentages for measures of teacher
pro fessiomdizatio”, for brivate schools, by orientatiotu 1990-91

Total Orientation
Private Catholic other Rdi@2ut Nonsectarian

Credentials

“h without Professional
Hiring Requirements 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.1
% with all Four Professional
Hiring Requirements 0.7 1.2 0.6 1.8

Induction
\
% with Mentor Program 1.4 1.7 2.0 3.0
% with Effective Assistance 1.7 2.3 2.5 3.9

Professional Development

% with Continuing Education

support 1 .3_ ~ 1.5 2.0 3.5
% with Annual Participation in
Prof. Org. Activities 1.6 2.1 2.6 2.9

Specialization

Mean % In-field Teaching 1.6 2.1 2.7 4,5

Authority

% with Irdhential Board 1.3 1.6 2.4 2.1

% with Influential Principal 1.1 1.0 2.1 2.2
% with Influential Facultv 1.2 1.9 1.7 3.3

Compensation

Mean Number Paid Benefits 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.08

% with all Four Paid Benefits 0.9 1.8 1.0 2.1
Mean Starting Salary ($) 145.4 91.2 216.4 331.0
Mean Maximum Salary ($) 218.4 190.8 330.0 544.8

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Sducmion Statistics, 199c-9 1.%hook and
Staffing Swvcy.

54 Tk Status of Teaching as a profession

Table A.3a— Stindard errors formble 4a: Means andpercentages formeasures of teacher
professionalization, for public schools, by st%&!JW&91 —
_Credentials Induction _ Pro fessiomdDev.
Mean # Pm{. % UAW 9. uJ/ au 4 %w/Menmr %w/Effect. % wl Cont.
Hin Req. Hire Req. Him Req. Pro*mn &sAs~~ce Educatim Sttpwrt
Total Public 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5
Alabama 0,1 0.0 2.9 3.4 3.8 1.7
Alaska 0.1 1.6 0.0 3.6 3.1 3.3
Arim”a 0.1 0.9 3.4 4.6 2.5 3.0
Arkansas 0.1 0.0 4.3 4.4 3.0 3.5
CdifOmia 0.1 0.6 4.0 2.6 3.6 2.5
Cnl.radO 0.1 0.0 3.1 4.1 2.2 1.4
Cmme.cicuc 0.1 0.0 4.3 2.5 4.0 3.1
O&ware 0.1 0.0 4.4 5.2 3.9 0.0
DLst. .f C.l”ntbia 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,4 5.8 0.0
Florida 0,0 1.3 0.9 0.8 3.8 2.2

Georgia 0.1 1.7 3.3 ~ 3.1 4,6 3.8

;&y 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 1.9 0.0
0.1 0.0 4.2 1.8 2.6 4.3
Illinois 0,1 0.3 3.6 3.9 2.6 3.3
India”. 0.1 1.1 4.2 1.1 3.3 1.7
low 0.1 1.9 1.1 5,4 2.4 4.9
Kansas 0.1 0.4 5.1 4.8 3.3 3.5
Kemu.ky 0.0 0.0 3.1 2.2 4.6 1.6
Louisiana 0.1 1.4 3.8 3.6 3.0 2.6
Maim 0,1 0.5 4.0 -4.4 4.5 3.0

Maryland 0.1 0.0 2.6 4.3 3.7 1.2

Massachusetts 0.1 2.6 1.1 5.3 3.6 3.4
Mtchigm 0.1 0.8 2.2 4.4 3.1 4.7
Mimxsota 0.1 0.0 3.8 3.8 1,8 3.0
Mississippi 0.1 0.0 3.8 3.6 3.8 2.1
Missouri 0.1 2.1 3.0 1.3 3.2 3.5
Montana 0.1 1.4 4.7 2.9 3.1 3.6
Nebraska 0.1 0.0 5.8 5.8 5.5 2.5
Nevada 0.1 0.0 3.4 4.5 3.2 1.4
New Hampshire 0,1 2.6 1.0 4.5 2.8 2,5

New Jersey 0.1 0.6 4.7 4.7 4.2 3.8

New Mexico 0,1 0.0 4.7 3.0 3.7 1.9
New York 0.1 0.4 5.5 4.5 3.7 3.4
North Camlim 0.1 0.0 4.6 1.7. 3.9 4.6
North Dakota 0,1 0.0 0.9 3.8 2.8 4.3
Ohio 0.1 0.1 2,0 3.4 3.8 3.9
Oklahoma 0.1 0.5 3.3 0.8 3.6 2.9
Chg.. 0,1 1.8 3.8 4.2. 4,0 3.0
Pennsylvania 0.1 0.4 4.4 1.9 3.7 2,6
Rh.de Island 0.1 0.0 3.3 4.0 4.5 2.6

Sath Carolina 0.1 0.0 4.1 3.6 3.7 3.4

Scw[h Oakota 0.1 1.2 0.0 3.9 3.1 4.2
Tennessee 0.1 1.1 3.6 4.3 4.0 3.1
Texas 0.1 0.8 3.1 2.9 2.5 2.1
Utah 0.1 1.2 0.5 3.1 3.0 1.9
Vermont 0,1 0.8 0.0 4.7 3.8 3.3
Vkginia 0.1 1.4 4.1 2.7 4.6 4.0
Washingcm 0.1 1.0 0.9 3.3 1.9 3.7
West Virginia 0.1 0.0 3.5 4.5 3.3 4.0
Wixonsir, 0,1 0.8 2.3 3.8 2.3 4.8
Wyoming 0.1 1.2 2.8 5.6 5.6 4.1
SOURCE U.S. Department of Ed”catio”, National Center for Education Statistics, 1990-91 Schools and
Staffing Survey

Tht Status of Teachinga.s a Profession 55

,4ppendix A z

Table A.3b- Standard errors for table 4b: Means and Percentages for measures of teacher
— mofessionalizati~n, forpublic schools, bystg~e: 1990-91
Pro sessional Dev. ~cializaticm Authority Compensation
% ul Amwd Pmt. Mean % “;O w/ Infl Mean # Y. w/ Izl14 Mean Starting Mean
inpmf. OTg. &-field Teachint FcwdtY Pd. Bt-ntfits PddBme fin S&n-j Max. Salary
Total Public 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.6 34.0 74.7
Alabatm 4.0 2.9 2.0 0.1 4.3 61.3 172.1
Alaska 3.7 3.3 3.4 0.1 2.2 166.0 306.0
Arizona 2.9 3.6 5.1 0.1 3.2 207.9 537.2
Arkanm 4.6 1.9 3.5 0.1 2.6 112.1 254.7
CaiifOmia 4.0 3.1 3.4 0.1 2.8 163.7 284.3
C.4orad. 3.8 4.2 4.5 0.0 2.5 69,1 310.6
COnmcticut 5.3 4.2 4.0 0,1 3.9 140.9 323.5
Delaware 6.7 4.9 6.1 0.1 4.4 118.5 264.1
Diw. of CnI.mbia 6.9 6,4 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Florida 3.7 3.3 3.2 0.0 2.1 %.4 286,4

Georgia 3.8 5.2 2% 0.1 3.4 111.4 225.9

Hawaii 5.9 4.1 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Idaho 4.4 3.1 4.0 0.1 3.7 68.3 175.8
Illinois 4.4 3.9 3.4 0.1 3.5 134.5 446.3
Indiana 5.7 2.0 3.8 0.1 3.1 115.0 245.7
Iowa 4.5 2.8 5.1 0.1 4.8 93.2 321.2
Kansas 3.8 4.2 3.6 0.1 2.5 115.2 291.6
Kentucky 4.9 4,8 4.1 0.1 4.7 59.3 137.2
Lnuisiana 3.7 4.1 1.6 0.1 2.1 105.9 197.0
Maim 4.5 3.7 %2 0.1 3.4 89. I 315.7

Marylmd 5.6 3.3 3.6 0.1 2.6 56.4 221,5

Massachusetts 5.3 3.6 4.6 0.1 3.3 180.4 332.8
Michigan 4.3 3.3 4.3 0.1 3.9 158.1 427.1
Mirmemca 5.0 2.7 3.8 0.1 4.2 111.6 382.0
Misksippi 3.3 3.4 2.8 0.1 3.0 28.9 73.2
Missouri 4.5 2.1 3.5 0.1 3.2 119.1 376.0
Montana 3.7 2.4 4.0 0.1 3.7 162.3 550.0
Nebraska 5.3 5.0 4.3 0.1 3.1 212.9 748.5
Nevada 5.6 5.7 4.8 0.0 3.5 85.5 150.9
New Hampshire 4.5 3.2 4.0 0.1 4.2 141.5 479.6

New jersey 4.8 4.6 2.4 0.1 4.3 166.9 622.4

New Mexic. 5.9 3.6 5.0 0.1 3.6 107.0 186.2
New York 4.6 4.1 4.2 0.1 3.1 216.7 651.2
North Camlim 5.0 3.8 4.0 0.1 3.6 43.9 256.7
North Dakota 4.1 2.5 3.4 0.1 1.3 70.3 514.0
Ohio 3,8 3.9 3.2 0.1 3.7 118.5 357.6
Oklahoma 1.7 2.9 3.5 0,1 2.8 69.0 243.5
O?egm 4.9 4.2 4.2 0.1 4.7 136.1 560.2
Pennsylvania 4.0 1.7 4.0 0.1 2.2 198.1 444.1
Rhode Island 6.6 4.4 4.4 0.1 2.8 69.9 195.6

south Carolina 3.7 2.5 3.7 0.1 3.7 54.1 205.6

South Dakota 3.7 2.7 4.1 0.1 3.3 73.5 351.4
Tennessee 4.9 3.8 3.7 0.1 2.9 58.3 284.7
Texas .2.8 2.6 2.1 0.1 1.8 77.1 143.3
Utah 4.1 2.0 4.4 0.1 2.9 36.6 151.5
Vermont 5.5 4.5 5.1 0.1 4.5 166.4 531.8
Virginia 5.2 4.3 4.1 0.1 3.8 117.9 520.9
Washington 5.4 2.9 4.8 0.1 4.4 14.6 295.1
West Virginia 3.1 1.5 la 0.1 4.3 36.8 74.5
Wisconsin 4.0
. 3.0 4.2 0.1 4.2 97.4 254.4
Wymning 5,3 2.3 5.2 0.1 5.6 59.7 382.3
SOURCE: U.S. Department of S&cation, National center for Education %atistics, 199c-9 1 Schools and
Staffing Survey

56 The Status of Teaching asa Professkn

 Appendix B
Additional Resources on the
Schools and Staffing Survey

The Status of Teaching as a Profession 57

58 The Status of Teaching as a Profession
I
. ? Appendix B
~

Additional Resources on the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)

SASS

SASS Data Products .

The following SASS data products may be obtained free of charge while supplies last fionx

U.S. Department of Education

National Center for Education Statistics
SASS Data Products
555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Room 42.2 -
Washkigton, D.C. 20208-5651

Reports

■ Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality (NCES 96-040)

. Schools and Stafing in the United States A Statistical Profile 1993-94 (NCES
96124)

■ Private School Universe Survey, 1993-94 (NCES 96-143)

■ SASS by State, 1993–94 Schcols and Stai%ng Survey Selected State Results
(NCES 96-312)

■ How Different ? How Similar?: Comparing Key Chganizatioml Qualities of

American Public and Private Secondary Schools (NCES 96-322)

■ Schools and Staff@g in the United States Selected Data for Public and Private
Schcds, 1993-94 (E.D. Tab, NCES 95-191)

■ Private Schmls in the United Statex A Statistical Profile, 199&91 (NCES

95-330)

■ Teacher Supply in the U.S.: Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and
Private Schools, 1988-1991 (NCES 95-348)

W Sratus of Teaching m a Profession 59

Appendix B a

■ Characteristics of American Indian and Alaska Native Education, Rewlta from

che 1990-91 SASS (NCES 95-735)

● Teacher Supply, Teacher Qualifications and Teacher Tmover, Aspects of

Teacher Supply and Demand in the U.S., 1990-91 (NCES 95-744)

■ The Patterns of Teacher Compensation (NCES 95-829)

■ Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers Results from the Teacher

Followup Survey, 1991-92 (E.D. Tab, NCES 94-337)

■ SASS by State (NCES 94-343)

■ Private School Universe Survey, 199~-92 (NCES 94.350)

■
C$U~~na of the Public School Teacher WorkforcC 1988 and 1991 (NCES

m America’s Teachers Profile of a Profession (NCES 93-025)

■ Private School Universe Survey: 198~90 (NCES 93-122)

■ Selected Table. on Teacher Supply and Demand (E.D. Tab, NCES 93-141)

● Schcds and Sta!fing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1990-91 (NCES
93-146)

■ Schcols and Staffing in the United States Selected D.ta for Public and Private
Schcols, 1990-91 (E.D. Tab, NCES 93-453)

■ Schcols and Staffing in the United Statex A Statistical Profile, 1987-88 (NCES
92-120)

■ Characteristics of Stavers. Movers. and Leavers: Results from the Teacher

Followup Survey, 1988.89 (E.D. Tab, NCES 91-128)

Forthcoming Report.

. Characteristics of American Indian and Alaska Native Education, Reauka from

the 1993-94 SASS

■ America’s Teachem Profile of a Profession, 1993-94

m The Status of Teaching as a Profession, 1990-91

■ The Effect. of Professionalization on Teachers A Multi-Level Analysis, 1990-91

~ The Sinus of Teaching m a Profession

 a- Appendix B

■ Time Spent Teaching Core Academic Subjects in Elementary Schcols:

Comparisons Across Community School, Teacher, and Student Characteristics

✎ Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers: Effects of Workplace, Conditions,

Background Characteristics, and Teacher Compensation, 1993–94

✎ A Profile of Administration Policies and Practices for Llmitcd English Proficiency

Students: Screening Methods, Teacher Training, and Program Support, 1993-94

■ Private Schools in the United Statex A Statistical Profile, 1993-94

■ Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and Private schools, 1988-94

✎ Characteristics of Students’ Programs: Results fro~ Their Student Records,

1993-94

■ Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavem Results from the Teacher

Followup Survey, 1994-95

● Characteristics of Public School Dktricts, 1993-94

■ School Principals in the United States, 19~3-94-

Issue Briefs

. Are High School Teachers Teachhg (he Subjects Without College Majors or
Minors in Those Subjects? (Issue Brief, NCES 9&839)

. Where Do Minority Principals Work? (Issue Brief, NCES 96-840)

■ What Academic Programs are Offered Most Frequently in Schools Serving

American Indian and Alaaka Native Students? (Issue Brief, NCES 96-841 )

■ How Safe are the Public Schcck What Do Teachers Sav? (Issue Brief, NCES
96-842)

■ Extended Day Programs in Elementary and Combined Schcols (Issue Brief, NCES
96-843)

■ What Criteria are Used in Considering Teacher Applicant? (Issue Brief, NCES
9&844)

m Private School Graduation Requirements (Issue Brief, NCES 95-145)

■ How Much Time Do Public and Private School Teachers Spend in Their Work?
(Iswe Brief, NCES 95-709)

The Status of Teaching@ a profession 61

. 2
Appendix B

. Migration and Attrition of Public and Private Schcd Teachers 1991–92 (Iaaue
Brief, NCES 95-770)

■ Which Types of Schcols Have the Highesr Teacher Turnover? (Issue Brief, NCES
95-778)

■ Libraries/Media Centers in Schcolx Are There Sufficient Resources? (Issue Brief,

NCES 95-779)

■ Who Influences Decisionmaking About School Curriculum: What Do Principals

Say? (Issue Brief, NCES 95-780)

■ Public and Private School Principals Are There Tim Few Women? (Issue Brief,
NCES 94-192) .

■ Sources of Newly Hired Teachera in Public and Private Schcds, 1988-91 (Issue
Brief, NCES 94-481)

■ What are the Mosr Serious Problems in Schcds? (Issue Brief, NCES 93-149)

■ Teacher Salariea-Are They Cornpeti~ve? (Issue Brief, NCES 93-450)

■ Teaching and Administrative Work Experience of Public School Principal (Issue

Brief, NCES 93-452)

■ Teacher Attrition and Migration (Issue Brief, NCES 92-148)

Video

■ America’s Teacherx Profile of a Profession

Methods

■ 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey Sample Design and Estimation (Technical
Report, NCES 96-089)

. An Exploratory Analysis of Nonrespondents in the 1990-91 Schcmls and Staffing

Survey (NCES 96-338)

■ Design Effects and Generalized Variance Functions for the 1990–91 Schools and
Staffing Surveys (SASS) Volume I—User’s Manual (NCES 95-3421)

■ Design Effects and Generalized Variance Functions for the 1990-91 schools and
Staffing Surveys (SASS) Volume II—Technical Report (NCES 95-34011)

■ Quality Profile for SASS: Aspects of the Quality of Data in the Schools and
Staffing Surveys (Technical Report, NCES 94-340)

62 The Stcatwr of Teaching as a Profession

 > APPendix B
—

. 1990-91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation (Technical
Report, NCES 93-449)

. Modeling Teacher Supply and Demand, with Commentary (Research and

Development Report, NCES 93-461)

■ 1987-88 Schools and Staffing Survey Sample Design and Estimation (Technical
Report, NCES 91-127)

CD-ROMs

. Schcols and Staffing Survey 1993–94 Electronic Codebook and Public Use Data

■ Schools and Staf8ng Survey 1990–91 Electronic Codebook and public Use Data

■ Schcols and Staffing Survey, 1987=8 Microdata and Documentation

Questionnaires

■ SASS and PSS Questionnaires 1993-1994 (NCES 94-674)

. SASS and TFS Questionnaires 199@1991 -

■ SASS and TFS Questionnaires 1987-1988

Users Manuals

■ 1990-91 Schools and Staffing Survey Data File User’s Manual Volume 1: Survey
Documentation (NCES 93-144-1)

■ 199&9 1 Schcds and StaKlng Survey: Data File User’s Manual Volume H:
Restricted-Use codebook (NCES 93-144-11)

■ 199&9 1 Schcds and Stating Survey: Data File User’s Manual Volume III:
Public-Use codebook (NCES 93-144-111)

■ 199G91 Schcds and Staffing Survey Data Fde User’s Manual Volume IV:
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Restricted-Use Codebooks: Administrator,
Schools, and Teachers (NCES 93-144-IV)

■ 1991–92 Teacher Followup Survey Data File User’s Manual—Public-Use Version

(NCES 94-331)

■ 1991–92 Teacher Followup Survey Data File User’s Manual—Restricted-Use

Version (NCES 94-478)

■ 1988-!39 Teacher Followup Survey Data File User’s Manual—Public-Use Version

(NCES 92-058)

The Status of Teaching as a profession 63

 Appendix B a
.—

Forthcoming User’s Manuals

. 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User’s Manual Volume 1: Survey
Documentation

■ 1993–94 Schools and Stat%ng Survey, Data File User’s Manual Volume 11:
Restricted-Use Ccdeimok

■ 1993–94 Schcols and Staffing Survey, Data File User’s Manual Volume 111:
Public-Use Codebook

■ 1993–94 Schuols and Staffing Survey, Data File User’s Manual Volume IV:
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Restricted-Use Codebooka: Administrator,
Schools, and Teachers .

■ 1993–94 Schcds and Staffing Survey, Data File User’s Manual Volume V:
Restricted-Use Codebook Students’ Records

Conference Papers

■ Using Cla.ssrcmm Instructional Process Items in National Center for Education

Statistics Study To Measure Student ~portunity to Learn A Progrew Repat

■ Heaven or Hell? The TeachiW” Environment of Beginning Teachers

. Using Opportunity to Learn Items in Elementary and Secondary National Surveys

■ characteristics of Public and Private School Teachera

■ Characteristics of Mathematics and Science Teachers

■ Teacher Training, Certification and Assignment

m Teacher Tumovec Patterns of Entry To and Exit from Teaching

■ Moonlighting Among Public and Private School Teachers

■ Characteristics of Bilingual Education and English as a Second Language Teachers

■ Highlights of Minority Data from the Schcols and Stafkg Survey

■ Teacher Incentive Research with SASS

■ Teacher Salaries Comparing Statea After Adjusting for Teacher Experience and
E&cation

■ What arc the Characteristics of Principals Identified as Effective by Teachers?

:“ 64 The Status of Teaching as a Profession

 &- Appendix B

● Schciols at Rkk: Results of the 1987-S8 Schools and .staflng Survey

m Destinations of Movers and Leavers Where Do They Go?

. Classrcom Environment and Support of Bcgimting Teachem A Test of the

“Cmcible versus Cradle” Theory of Teacher Induction

. Why do Teachers Leave Teaching? Reasons for Teacher Attrition from the
Teacher Followup Survey

NCES Working Papers Related to SASS

WP 94-01 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). Papers Presented at the Meetings of the
American Statistical Association
.

Section on Survey Research Methods, August 1992

a. “The Schools and Staffhg Survey Research Issues”

b. “The Schools and Staffing Survey How Reinterview Measures Data Quality’
c. “Mail Versus Telephone Response in the 1991 Schcols and Staffing Surveys”
d. “Questionnaire Research in the Schools and Staffing Survey A Cognitive
.
Approach”
e. “Balance Half-Sample Replication with Aggregation Units”
f. “Characteristics of Nonrespondents in the Schcds and Staffhg Surveys’ School
Sample”
g. “Improving Reliability and Comparably on NCES Data on Teachers and Gther
Education Staff’

Establishment Surveys Conference, June 1993

a. “Sampling Frames at the United States National Center for Education Statistics”
b. “Monitoring Data Quality in Education Surveys”

Section an SuWey Research Methods, August 1993

a. “Generalization Variance Functions for the Schools and Staffing Surveys”

b. “A Bootstrap Variance Estimator for the Schools and Staffing Survey”
c. “Adjusting for Nonresponse Bias of Correlated Items Using Logistic Regression”
d. “Comparisons of Schcd Locale Setting Self-Reported Versus Assigned”
e. “Characteristics of Nonrespondents to the 199C-91 Schmls and Staffing Survey”

social Statistics Section; August 1993

a. “Implicit Markets for Teacher Quality and School Attributes”

b. “Who Decides? Principals’ and Teachers’ Views on Decision-Making”
c. “Determinants of Pupil-Teacher Ratios at Schcd Sit= Evidence from the Schools
and Staffhg Survey”

- The Status of Teaching m a Profession 65

Abbendix
~. B ..

WP 94-02 Generalized Variance Estimates for Schcds and Staffing Survey (SASS)

WP 94-03 1991 Schcds and Staffing Survey (SASS) Reinterview Response Variance
Report

w 94-04 The Accuracy of Teachers’ Self-report on Their Postsecondary Education.

Teacher Transcript Study, Schools and Staffing Survey

WP 94-06 Six Papers on Teachers from the 1990–91 Schcmls and Stat%ng Survey and
Other Related Surveys

a. “The Resuks of the 1993 Teacher List Validation Study (TLVSY

b. “Designing the Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS): Issues and Content)”
c. “Understanding the Supply of Elementary and Secondary Teachers: The Role of
the School and Staffing Survey and the ~eacher Followup Survey”
d. “Teacher Retention/Attritiom Iss”ti f o r Research”
e. “Reflections on a SASS Longitudinal Study”
f. “Whither Dldst Thou Go? Retention, Reassignment, Migration, and Attrition of
Special and General Education Teachers in National Perspective”

WP 95-01 Schcols and Staffing Survey 1994. Papers Presented at the 1994 Meeting of
the American Statistical Ass&iatiofi (95-01)

Estimation Issues in School Sutwy”-

. . “Intersurvey Consistency in School Surveys”

b. “Estimation Issuer Related to the Student Component of the SASS”
c. “Properties of the Schools and Stai%ng Survey’s Bootstrap Variance Estimator”
d. “Optimal Periodicity of a Survey Sampling Error, Data Deterioration, and Cost”

[email protected] and Coverage Issues in School SuWeys

“Some Data Issues in Schcol-Based Surveys”

“The 1991–92 Teacher Follow-up Survey Reinterview and Extensive
Reconciliation”
“improving Coverage in a National Survey of Teachers”
“Improving the Coverage of Private Elementary-Secondary Schools”

Educ@ion Research Using the Schook and Stajjhg Surveys and the National
Educatim Longitudinal Study

a. ‘iAdding Value to the Value-Added Educational Production Function

Specification”
b. “Teacher Quality in Public and Private Schools”
c. “Teacher Shortages and Teacher Quality”
d. “Work Experience, Local Labor Markets, and Dropping out of High School”

66 Ths Statur of Teaching as a Profession

 i- Appendix B

WP 95-02 QED Estimates of the 1990-91 Schools and Staffing Survey Deriving and
Comparing QED Schcd Estimates with CCD Estimates

w 95-03 Schcds and Staffing Survey 1990–91 SASS Cross-Questionnaire Analysis

WP 95-08 CCD Adjustment to the 1990–91 SASS: A Comparison of Estimates

w 95-09 The Results of the 1993 Teacher List Validation Study (TLVS)

WP 95-1o The Results of the 1991–92 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) Reinterwew and
Extensive Reconciliation

WP 95-11 Measuring Instruction, Curriculum Content, and Instructioml Reaource~ The

Status of Recent Work

WP 95-15 Claasrcom Instructional Processes A Review of Existing Measurement

Approaches and Their Applicability for the Teacher Followup Survey

WP 95-16 Interauwey Consistency in NCES Private School Surveys

WP 95-17 Estimates of Expenditures for Private K–12 Schcmls

.
WP 95-18 An Agenda for Research on Teachers and Schcol~ Revisiting NCES’ Schmls
and Stafhg Survey

WP 96-01 Methodological Issues in the Study of Teachers’ Careers Critical Features of a

Truly Longitudinal Study

WP 96-02 Selected papers presented at the meeting of the 1995 American Statistical
Aasociat~ri (9~2)

Overcoming the Bureaucratic Paradigm: Memorial Session in Honor of Roger

Herriot

a. “1995 Roger Herriot Award Presentation”

b. “Space/Time Variatiom in Survey Estimates”
c. “Out of the Box: Again and Again, Roger Herriot at the Census Bureau”

Design and Estitnaticn Issues fi School Baaed Surveys

a. “Improving the Coverage of Private Elementary-Secondary Schmls”

b. “Improving GLS Estimation in NCES Surveys”
c. “Qtimal Periodicity of a Survey Alternatives under Cost and Policy Cmatraint”
d. “Propertiea of the Schools and Staffing Survey’s Bcmtstrap Variance Estimator”

The Srartu of Teaching m a Pmfessiorr 67

[email protected] ?

Data Quality and Nonres@nse in Education SUrrmys

a. “Assessing Quality of CCD Data Using a School-Based Sample Survey”

b. “Dcxumentation of Nonresponse and Consistency of Data Categorization Across
NCES Surveys”
c. “Mukivariace Modeling of Unit Nonresponse for 1990-91 Schcmls and Stat%ng
Surveys”
d. “Evaluation of Imputation Methods for State Education Finance Data”
e. “Variance Estimates Comparison by Statistical Software”
f. “Teacher Supply and Demand in the U.S.”

w 96-05 Cognitive Research on the Teacher Listing Form for the Schools and Staffing
Survey

WP 96-06 The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) for 1998-99; Design
Recommendations to Inform Broad Education Policy

w 96-07 Should SASS Measure Instructional Processes and T~cher Effectiveness?

w 96-09 Making Data Relevant for Policy Discussion.w Redesigning the School
Administrator Questionnaire for the 1998-99 SASS
.
WP 96-1o 1998–99 Schcmls and Staffing Survey Issues Related to Survey Depth

w 96-11 Towarda an Organizational Data Base on America’s Schools A Proposal for the
Future of SASS, with Comments on School Reform, Govemmenta, and
Fhance

WP 96-12 Predictors of Retention, Tranafer, and Attrition of Special and General

Education Teachers Data from the 1989 Teacher Followup Survey

WP 96-15 Nested Structures Dkict Level Data in the SASS

WP 96-16 Strategies for Collecting Finance Data from Private Schools

68 The Statu.r of Teaching m O profession

lLa.QOnlmuuPrmlqa 1900— &?lumcua