U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2007–349

Documentation for the

2004–05 Teacher

Follow-up Survey

March 2007
U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2007–349

Documentation for the

2004–05 Teacher

Follow-up Survey

March 2007

Shawna Cox

Randall Parmer

Steven Tourkin

Toni Warner

U.S. Bureau of the Census

Deanna M. Lyter

Education Statistics

Services Institute—

American Institutes for

Research

Reneé Rowland

Project Officer

National Center for

Education Statistics
U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences

Grover J. Whitehurst

Director

National Center for Education Statistics

Mark Schneider

Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary 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 policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and 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 Statistics

Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

1990 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006-5651

March 2007

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is http://nces.ed.gov.

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Suggested Citation

Cox, S., Parmer, T., Tourkin, S., Warner, T., and Lyter, D.M. (2007). Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher

Follow-up Survey (NCES 2007–349). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for

Education Statistics.

For ordering information on this report, write to

U.S. Department of Education

EDPubs

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

Or call toll free 1-877-4ED–Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.org.

Content Contact:

Reneé Rowland

(202) 502-7336

renee.rowland@ed.gov
iii 

Contents 

List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................................vi 

List of Exhibits...........................................................................................................................................viii 

Chapter 1. Overview .....................................................................................................................................1 

Background...............................................................................................................................................1 

Purpose and Content of the Survey ..........................................................................................................1 

Questionnaire for Former Teachers (Form TFS-2) ..............................................................................2 

Questionnaire for Current Teachers (Form TFS-3)..............................................................................2 

Target Population and Estimates ..............................................................................................................3 

Target Population .................................................................................................................................3 

Estimates ..............................................................................................................................................3 

Methodology.............................................................................................................................................4 

Contents of the Manual.............................................................................................................................5 

Chapter 2. Preparation for the 2004–05 TFS ................................................................................................7 

Cognitive Interviews and Usability Tests.................................................................................................7 

Study One.............................................................................................................................................7 

Study Two ............................................................................................................................................8 

Content Changes.......................................................................................................................................9 

Changes to the Questionnaire for Former Teachers.............................................................................9 

Changes to the Questionnaire for Current Teachers...........................................................................10 

Final Content of the 2004–05 TFS.....................................................................................................11 

Chapter 3. TFS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures...........................................................13 

SASS Sampling Frames..........................................................................................................................13 

Public School Sampling Frame ..........................................................................................................13 

Private School Sampling Frame.........................................................................................................14 

SASS School Stratification.....................................................................................................................15 

Public School Stratification................................................................................................................15 

Private School Stratification...............................................................................................................16 

SASS School Sample Selection..............................................................................................................17 

Public School Sample Selection.........................................................................................................17 

Private School Sample Selection........................................................................................................18 

SASS Teacher Sample Selection............................................................................................................19 

SASS Teacher Frame .........................................................................................................................19 

Within-School SASS Teacher Allocation ..........................................................................................20 

TFS Teacher Sampling Frame, Stratification, and Allocation................................................................21 

TFS Teacher Sampling Frame............................................................................................................21 

TFS Teacher Stratification .................................................................................................................21 

TFS Teacher Allocation .....................................................................................................................25 

TFS Teacher Sample Selection...............................................................................................................28 

Sorting................................................................................................................................................28 

Sample Selection................................................................................................................................29 
iv Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Chapter 4. Data Collection..........................................................................................................................31 

Overview of Data Collection Procedures ...............................................................................................31 

Internet and Incentive Experiment..........................................................................................................32 

Timing of Data Collection......................................................................................................................33 

Data Collection Procedures ....................................................................................................................34 

Collecting Teacher Status Information...............................................................................................34 

Initial Mailings of Questionnaires to Current and Former Teachers..................................................34 

Address Research Operations.............................................................................................................35 

Follow-up Mailings............................................................................................................................35 

“Switchers” ........................................................................................................................................35 

Nonresponse Follow-up .....................................................................................................................36 

Changes in Data Collection Methods from the 2000–01 TFS................................................................36 

Address Research Operation ..............................................................................................................37 

Internet and Incentives .......................................................................................................................37 

E-mail Reminders...............................................................................................................................37 

Chapter 5. Response Rates..........................................................................................................................39 

Survey Response Rates...........................................................................................................................39 

Item Response Rates...............................................................................................................................41 

Nonresponse Bias Analysis ....................................................................................................................42 

Unit-level Nonresponse......................................................................................................................42 

Item Nonresponse Bias Analysis........................................................................................................47 

Chapter 6. Data Processing .........................................................................................................................49 

Questionnaire Check-in ..........................................................................................................................49 

Check-in of Paper Questionnaires......................................................................................................49 

Check-in of Internet Questionnaires...................................................................................................50 

Data Capture...........................................................................................................................................50 

Data Capture of Paper Questionnaires ...............................................................................................50 

Internet Questionnaires ......................................................................................................................51 

Reformatting...........................................................................................................................................51 

Preliminary Data Review........................................................................................................................51 

Preliminary Interview Status Recode (ISR) Classification.....................................................................53

Computer Edits.......................................................................................................................................53 

Final Interview Status Edit .....................................................................................................................54 

Creating Imputation Flags ......................................................................................................................55 

Data Products..........................................................................................................................................56 

Chapter 7. Imputation Procedures...............................................................................................................57 

Overview ................................................................................................................................................57 

First-Stage Imputation ............................................................................................................................57 

Second-Stage Imputation........................................................................................................................58 

Hot Deck Imputation..........................................................................................................................58 

Subsample Imputation........................................................................................................................61 

Subsample Ratio Imputation ..............................................................................................................61 

Random Subsample Ratio Imputation................................................................................................62 

Third-Stage Imputation...........................................................................................................................62 

Post-Imputation Processing ....................................................................................................................63 

Final File Imputation Tables...................................................................................................................63 
Contents v 

Chapter 8. Weighting and Variance Estimation..........................................................................................65 

Weighting ...............................................................................................................................................65 

Variance Estimation ...............................................................................................................................67 

Chapter 9. Reviewing the Quality of TFS Data ..........................................................................................73 

General Data Quality..............................................................................................................................73 

Nonresponse ...........................................................................................................................................73 

Weighting ...............................................................................................................................................74 

External Data Checks .............................................................................................................................74 

Chapter 10. Information on Data Files and Merging Components.............................................................83 

Availability of Data ................................................................................................................................83 

How to Get Restricted-Use Data Files ...............................................................................................83 

Understanding the Data Files .................................................................................................................84 

Confidentiality Edits to the Data........................................................................................................84 

Treatment of Public Charter Schools and Schools Funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.............84 

Categories of Variables ......................................................................................................................85 

Nonresponding Units..........................................................................................................................87 

Linking Files Within and Across TFS and SASS...................................................................................88 

Sample SAS Syntax for Merging Data Files and Attaching Variable Labels....................................89 

Sample SPSS Syntax for Merging Data Files ....................................................................................91

Sample Stata Syntax for Merging Data Files .....................................................................................93 

Chapter 11. User Notes and Cautions .........................................................................................................95 

Cautions Concerning Change Estimates.................................................................................................95 

Estimates for Total Teachers ..................................................................................................................95 

Minority Enrollment ...............................................................................................................................96 

User Notes and Cautions for SASS ........................................................................................................96 

References...................................................................................................................................................97 

Appendixes 

Appendix A. Key Terms for TFS ...........................................................................................................A-1 

Appendix B. TFS Questionnaire Availability ........................................................................................ B-1 

Appendix C. Summary of TFS Interview Findings and Recommendations .......................................... C-1 

Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations ................D-1 

Appendix E. (Inter) Net Gain? Experiments to Increase Response ....................................................... E-1 

Appendix F. Quality Assurance for TFS Keying and Mailout Operations.............................................F-1 

Appendix G. Changes Made to TFS Variables During Computer Edits, by Data File ..........................G-1 

Appendix H. Percentage of TFS Variables Changed During Three Stages of Imputation, by Data 

File ....................................................................................................................................H-1 

Appendix I. Weighting Adjustment Cells...............................................................................................I-1 

Appendix J. Frame and Created Variables............................................................................................. J-1 

Appendix K. Crosswalk of 2004–05 TFS Items With 2000–01 TFS and 2003–04 SASS Teacher 

Questionnaire ....................................................................................................................K-1 
vi Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

List of Tables 

Table Page 

1. Average expected number of new and experienced teachers selected per school, by school 

level and school type: 2003–04........................................................................................................ 20 

2. Final unweighted and weighted number of teachers selected for the SASS teacher sample, 

by teacher type and school type: 2003–04 ....................................................................................... 21 

3. TFS sampling frame counts for teachers, by school type, teacher status, teacher’s grade 

level, teacher experience, and minority status: 2004–05 ................................................................. 23 

4. Final allocated TFS sample sizes for teachers, by school type, teacher status, teacher’s grade 

level, teacher experience, and minority status: 2004–05 ................................................................. 26 

5. Treatment groups, by distribution mode, incentive offered, and sample size: 2004–05.................. 32 

6. Data collection time schedule: 2004–05 .......................................................................................... 33 

7. Unweighted and base-weighted response rates (in percent) of sampled teachers, by sector 

and teaching status: 2004–05 ........................................................................................................... 40 

8. Base-weighted response rates (in percent) for SASS teacher data files and TFS data files, by 

sector: 2003–04 and 2004–05 .......................................................................................................... 40 

9. Summary of weighted item response rates for the Teacher Follow-up Survey, by 

questionnaire: 2004–05 .................................................................................................................... 41 

10. Number of teachers in sample and base-weighted unit response rates, by selected reporting 

characteristics: 2004–05................................................................................................................... 43 

11. Base-weighted frame distribution of TFS teachers, interviewed distribution, and t statistic, 

by selected reporting characteristics: 2004–05 ................................................................................ 45 

12. Number of questionnaire items, by response rate category and data file: 2004–05......................... 47 

13. Summary of changes made to variables in the computer edits, by data file: 2004–05 .................... 54 

14. Preliminary and final interview status recode (ISR) counts and percentage change, by ISR 

category and data file: 2004–05 ....................................................................................................... 55 

15. Number of source codes imputed among former teacher items, by percentage of records 

receiving imputation and imputation stage: 2004–05 ...................................................................... 63 

16. Number of source codes imputed among current teacher items, by percentage of records 

receiving imputation and imputation stage: 2004–05 ...................................................................... 64 

17. Distribution of final weights, by data file: 2004–05 ........................................................................ 66 

18. Comparison of number of stayer and nonstayer teachers (both sectors) in 2004–05 TFS 

population to teachers in 2003–04 SASS, by TFS sampling strata and selected SASS teacher 

and school characteristics: 2003–04 and 2004–05........................................................................... 75 

19. Comparison of number of public and private sector school stayer and nonstayer teachers in 

2004–05 TFS population to teachers in 2003–04 SASS, by TFS sampling strata and selected 

SASS teacher and school characteristics: 2003–04 and 2004–05.................................................... 77 

20. Comparison of number of traditional public and public charter school stayer and nonstayer 

teachers in 2004–05 TFS population to teachers in 2003–04 SASS, by TFS sampling strata 

and selected SASS teacher and school characteristics: 2003–04 and 2004–05 ............................... 80 

21. Names of data files and the questionnaires from which the data were drawn: 2004–05 ................. 83 

22. Number of missing cases in combined SASS datasets, by nonresponding component and 

dataset providing unit of analysis: 2003–04..................................................................................... 87 

23. Number of missing cases in combined datasets, by merged SASS data file and TFS data file 

by sector providing unit of analysis: 2003–04 and 2004–05 ........................................................... 88 

C-1. Description of interview participants: 2004................................................................................... C-2 
Contents vii 

Table Page 

E-1. Characteristics of treatment groups: 2004–05................................................................................ E-3 

E-2. Timing of treatments, by group and mode: 2004–05..................................................................... E-4 

E-3. Total, mail, and internet weighted response rates, by group: 2004–05.......................................... E-5 

E-4. Weighted response rates, by type of group: 2004–05 .................................................................... E-5 

E-5. Total weighted response rates for the mail only groups, the internet without mention of mail 

option groups, and the internet with mention of mail option groups: 2004–05 ............................. E-6 

E-6. Total, mail, and internet weighted response rates, by type of internet group: 2004–05 ................ E-6 

E-7. Total weighted response rates, by incentive treatment: 2004–05 .................................................. E-6 

E-8. Additional response as a result of incentives, by type of group: 2004–05..................................... E-7 

E-9. Internet weighted response rates, by incentive treatment and type of internet group: 2004–05 .... E-7 

G-1. Total number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edits for the 

former teacher data file, by variable: 2004–05 ..............................................................................G-2

G-2. Total number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edits for the 

current teacher data file, by variable: 2004–05..............................................................................G-3 

H-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 imputation of 

the former teacher data file, by variable: 2004–05 ........................................................................H-1 

H-2. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 imputation of 

the current teacher data file, by variable: 2004–05........................................................................H-4 
viii Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

List of Exhibits 

Exhibit Page 

1. Items with weighted response rates of less than 85 percent, by questionnaire: 2004–05 ................41 

2. Items with a response rate below 70 percent, by data file: 2004–05................................................47 

3. TFS critical item table, by questionnaire: 2004–05 .........................................................................52 

4. Flags used in processing TFS questionnaires: 2004–05...................................................................56 

5. Adjustment factors and collapsing criteria as applied to TFS weights: 2004–05 ............................67 

D-1. Respondent characteristics, by teaching status and internet access: 2004 .....................................D-3 

F-1. Cumulative key from paper (KFP) data keying verification report, by questionnaire: 

2004–05...........................................................................................................................................F-2 

F-2. Distribution of keying errors, by questionnaire and type of error: 2004–05...................................F-3 

F-3. Docuprint quality assurance summary, by type of inspection and form: 2004–05.........................F-5 

F-4. Duplo Booklet Maker inspection, by type of inspection and form: 2005.....................................F-10 

F-5. Package assembly quality assurance, by type of inspection and form: 2004–05..........................F-11 
1 

Chapter 1. Overview 

The Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) is sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education and is conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

TFS is a follow-up survey of selected elementary and secondary school teachers who participated in the 

Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS).1

 SASS is the largest, most extensive survey of kindergarten through 

12th grade (K–12) school districts, schools, teachers, and administrators in the United States today. It 

provides data on the characteristics and qualifications of teachers and principals, teacher hiring practices, 

professional development, class size, and other conditions in schools across the nation. TFS focuses on a 

sample of teachers who participated in SASS, including those teachers who left the K–12 teaching 

profession and those who continue to teach. 

TFS includes teacher data from public (including public charter) and private schools, similar to SASS. 

However, TFS does not include teachers who taught in a school funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) during the SASS school year due to insufficient sample sizes in TFS. Together, SASS and TFS 

data provide a multitude of opportunities for analysis and reporting on elementary and secondary 

educational issues. 

Background 

TFS is a follow-up of selected teachers from the SASS teacher surveys and is conducted during the school 

year following the SASS administration. It was conducted in the 1988–89, 1991–92, 1994–95, 2000–01, 

and 2004–05 school years (after the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000, and 2003–04 

administrations of SASS, respectively). NCES currently plans to conduct the next survey in the 2008–09 

school year; it will collect data from a subsample of teachers who participate in the 2007–08 SASS. 

Over time, the philosophy behind TFS has changed. The 2004–05 TFS more closely resembled the SASS 

teacher questionnaires than in any of the previous TFS administrations. There was a greater overlap of 

TFS and SASS teacher items, and there were fewer items unique to TFS, other than items pertaining to 

leaving last year’s teaching position. When examined together, the results of TFS and SASS can give 

researchers insight on many different educational issues, including the retention of teachers in public and 

private schools and teachers’ job satisfaction. 

Congress, state education departments, federal agencies, private school associations, teacher associations, 

and educational organizations have used data from the 1988–89, 1991–92, 1994–95, and 2000–01 

surveys. In particular, results of these prior administrations have been used to analyze changes in the 

teacher labor force over time, to develop incentive programs to encourage teacher retention, and to 

understand the effects of school practices and policies on a teacher’s decision to continue teaching or 

leave the K–12 teaching profession. 

Purpose and Content of the Survey 

TFS is a one-time follow-up to the SASS teacher questionnaires and is conducted during the school year 

following SASS. The major objectives of the 2004–05 TFS are to measure the attrition rate for teachers, 

examine the characteristics of teachers who stayed in the teaching profession and those who left or 

retired, obtain activity or occupational data for those who left the position of a K–12 teacher, obtain 

 

1

 For a complete description of the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, see Documentation for the 2003–04 

Schools and Staffing Survey (Tourkin et al. 2007). 
2 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

current teaching assignment information for those who are still teaching, and collect data on attitudes 

about the teaching profession in general and job satisfaction in particular. All basic demographic 

information about each teacher (e.g., race and ethnicity information) is collected on the SASS teacher 

questionnaires. TFS data can be linked to SASS data to provide contextual data on relationships between 

local districts and school policies and practices, teacher characteristics, and teacher attrition and retention. 

TFS is composed of two questionnaires: the Questionnaire for Former Teachers (Form TFS-2), which 

collects information about sampled teachers who left the K–12 teaching profession after the 2003–04 

school year, and the Questionnaire for Current Teachers (Form TFS-3), which collects information on 

sampled teachers who currently teach students in any of grades prekindergarten through 12. 

Questionnaire for Former Teachers (Form TFS-2) 

The purpose of the 2004–05 former teacher questionnaire was to obtain information about those 

respondents who left teaching within the year after SASS, such as their present occupation or activity, 

educational plans, reasons for leaving teaching, intent to return to teaching, attitudes about teaching, and 

demographic characteristics. 

The 2004–05 Questionnaire for Former Teachers had the following six sections: 

• Section I—Employment Status collected general information about employment, salary and 

supplemental income, attitude on remaining in current position, retirement, and retirement plans. 

• Section II—Information on Leaving the Teaching Profession obtained information about the 

factors that influenced the decision to leave the position of a K–12 teacher. 

• Section III—Your Impressions of Teaching and of Your Current Job collected information about 

the performance of last year’s principal or school head, state or district assessment programs, and 

satisfaction with current job relative to teaching. 

• Section IV—Education Activities and Future Plans collected information about recent enrollment 

in college or university courses and the possibility of returning to the position of a K–12 teacher 

in the future. 

• Section V—Background Information obtained information about family income, household 

characteristics, marital status, and internet access. 

• Section VI—Contact Information requested that respondents provide their personal contact 

information as well as contact information for two additional people who would be able to reach 

them in the event that they relocate. 

Questionnaire for Current Teachers (Form TFS-3) 

The purpose of the 2004–05 current teacher questionnaire was to obtain information about current 

teachers, including teachers who continued to teach in the same school as in the previous year and those 

who changed schools. It contains information about their current teaching assignments, attitudes about 

teaching, attitudes about last year’s school, expected duration in teaching, plans for further education, and 

demographic characteristics. 

The 2004–05 Questionnaire for Current Teachers had the following six sections: 

• Section I—Certification and Assignments at Your Current School collected information about 

general teaching status, subjects taught, teaching certification, grade levels taught, organization of 

classes, students taught having an Individual Education Plan (IEP), and students taught who had 

limited-English proficiency (LEP). 
Chapter 1. Overview 3 

• Section II—Your Current School: Conditions and Experiences obtained information on 

experiences and working conditions at the current school, student problems, school problems, 

attitudes and perceptions about teaching at the current school, hours worked and time allocation, 

and participation in additional school-related activities. 

• Section III—Information About Changes From Last School Year to This School Year collected 

information about whether the teacher is teaching at the same school as the previous year, general 

information about the new school (if the teacher changed schools), factors that influenced the 

decision to leave the previous school (if the teacher changed schools), performance of last year’s 

principal or school head, attitudes and perceptions about state or district assessment programs at 

last year’s school, and satisfaction with current teaching position relative to last year’s teaching 

position. 

• Section IV—Education Activities and Future Plans collected information about recent enrollment 

in college or university courses, attitude about remaining in teaching, attempt to leave the position 

of a pre-K–12 teacher, and retirement. 

• Section V—General Employment and Background Information obtained information about 

teacher salary and supplemental income, family income, household characteristics, marital status, 

and internet access. 

• Section VI—Contact Information requested that respondents provide their personal contact 

information as well as contact information for two additional people who would be able to reach 

them in the event that they relocate. 

Target Population and Estimates 

Target Population 

The 2004–05 TFS sample was based on interviewed public (including public charter) and private school 

teachers who taught students in any of grades K–12 or in comparable ungraded levels during the previous 

year’s SASS. The sample of teachers selected included those who left the position of a K–12 teacher 

within the year after SASS (leavers). It also included those who continued to teach students in any of 

grades pre-K–12 or in comparable ungraded levels, including teachers who remained in the same school 

as in the previous year (stayers) and who changed schools (movers); prekindergarten was included so that 

sampled teachers who changed assignments from teaching students in any of grades K–12 to teaching 

only prekindergarten students would not be considered leavers. 

In SASS, the sampling frame for public schools was an adjusted version of the 2001–02 Common Core of 

Data (CCD), and the sampling frame for private schools was a modified version of the 2003–04 Private 

School Universe Survey (PSS) sample. The sampling frame for the SASS teacher questionnaires 

consisted of lists of teachers provided by schools in the SASS sample. A teacher was defined as a staff 

member who taught a regularly scheduled class to students in any of grades K–12 or comparable 

ungraded levels. 

Estimates 

SASS was designed to produce national, regional, and state estimates for public elementary and 

secondary schools teachers; and national, regional, and affiliation group estimates for private school 

teachers. 

The SASS teacher survey was designed to support comparisons between new and experienced public 

school teachers (3 years or less of experience vs. more than 3 years of experience) at the state level and 
4 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

new and experienced private school teachers at the affiliation level. Comparisons among teachers by race 

and by full-time or part-time status are possible at the national level. 

TFS was designed to produce national comparisons for current teachers and former teachers by school 

type (public or private), school level (elementary, secondary, or combined), new versus experienced, and 

nonminority versus minority. 

Methodology 

TFS is a survey that uses paper-based questionnaires that are mailed to sampled teachers for their 

completion. In addition to the two paper questionnaires, the 2004–05 TFS included an internet reporting 

option. The internet version of TFS included all of the same items from the paper questionnaires, but had 

automated skip patterns that presented only the appropriate questions to the respondent. An internet 

option was offered to a portion of the respondents with the hope that it would increase, or at least 

maintain, overall survey response rates while helping to reduce reporting errors by respondents in the 

surveys through the use of these automated skip patterns and edits.2

In order to draw the sample for TFS, the first step was to mail a Teacher Status Form (Form TFS-1) to all 

schools in which teachers completed a SASS teacher questionnaire in the 2003–04 administration of 

SASS. A knowledgeable person at the school, such as the principal, was asked to complete the status 

form by indicating the current teaching status of each teacher listed on the form. All of the teachers listed 

on the Teacher Status Form were sampled for SASS, but they may not have responded to the survey. If a 

teacher listed on the Teacher Status Form did not respond to SASS, he or she was not included on the 

sampling frame for TFS. The current teaching status as reported for the SASS teacher was used to 

determine which form, either the current or former teacher questionnaire, would be mailed to each 

sampled teacher. Then the Census Bureau clerical processing staff in Jeffersonville, Indiana, mailed either 

the current or former teacher questionnaires or letters providing an internet user name and password to the 

sampled teachers who had provided a home address on the SASS questionnaire. When no home address 

was provided by movers and leavers, these cases became part of an address research operation conducted 

by the Census Bureau to find a valid address. For stayers without home addresses, questionnaires or 

letters providing the internet user name and password were sent to their current school. 

Approximately 5 weeks after the first mailout of both TFS questionnaires, respondents for which an 

interview was not obtained were sent a second paper questionnaire for completion. This second mailout 

group included those who either had not yet completed and returned their paper questionnaires or had not 

yet completed the internet form. An additional 5 weeks later, the cases for which a questionnaire still was 

not completed were sent to Census Bureau field staff who conducted follow-up using a combination of 

telephone interviews and personal visits. 

If an interview was still not obtained during field follow-up, the case was determined to be a 

noninterview. TFS respondents who were deceased, had moved out of the United States, or had never 

been teachers (i.e., incorrectly completed the 2003–04 SASS teacher questionnaire) were determined to 

be out of scope for the survey. For more information about the interview status of TFS questionnaires, 

refer to the interview status recode (ISR) sections of chapter 6. 

 

2

 The internet option was implemented as part of a test. For a complete description of the test and results, see 

“Appendix E. (Inter) Net Gain? Experiments to Increase Response.” 
Chapter 1. Overview 5 

Contents of the Manual 

This report contains chapters on preparation for the 2004–05 TFS, frame creation and sample selection 

procedures, data collection, response rates, data processing, imputation procedures, weighting and 

variance estimation, a review of the quality of TFS data, structure of TFS data files and information on 

merging data files, and user notes and cautions. 

Information in the chapters is supported by material in the following appendixes. 

• A. Key Terms for TFS; 

• B. TFS Questionnaire Availability; 

• C. Summary of TFS Interview Findings and Recommendations; 

• D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations; 

• E. (Inter) Net Gain? Experiments to Increase Response; 

• F. Quality Assurance for TFS Keying and Mailout Operations; 

• G. Changes Made to TFS Variables During Computer Edits, by Data File; 

• H. Percentage of TFS Variables Changed During Three Stages of Imputation, by Data File; 

• I. Weighting Adjustment Cells; 

• J. Frame and Created Variables; and 

• K. Crosswalk of 2004–05 TFS Items with 2000–01 TFS and 2003–04 SASS Teacher 

Questionnaire. 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
7 

Chapter 2. Preparation for the 2004–05 TFS 

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the U.S. Census Bureau continually work to 

improve questionnaires and procedures for the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and the Teacher 

Follow-up Survey (TFS). Prior to the administration of the 2004–05 TFS, the survey items and 

methodology were tested and improved. In an effort to develop questionnaire items that would accurately 

capture current and former teachers’ responses to the key questionnaire items, a series of cognitive 

interviews were conducted to identify problems that could be corrected prior to the survey’s 

administration. The results from the first cognitive study were used to make revisions to the survey items, 

and a second, small-scale study was conducted to test some of these key revisions. This second study also 

was a usability test3

 on an internet instrument, which was added as a reporting method for the 2004–05 

administration of TFS. 

Cognitive Interviews and Usability Tests 

Study One 

In March 2004, the Census Bureau contracted with ORC Macro, a research and evaluation company in 

Calverton, Maryland, to carry out an initial round of cognitive interviews. The purpose of these interviews 

was to gather feedback from both current and former teachers on several proposed questions for the 

2004–05 administration of TFS. Details on methodology and findings can be found in “Appendix C. 

Summary of TFS Interview Findings and Recommendations.” 

The test included items on 

• employment outside of teaching; 

• remaining in current position; 

• retirement; 

• decision to leave K–12 teaching/last year’s position; 

• last year’s/current school; 

• last year’s/current teaching position; 

• last year’s/current principal or school head; 

• state or district assessment exams; 

• certification; 

• education activities; 

• returning to teaching; and 

• marital status. 

Methods 

All cognitive interviews were conducted by trained interviewers, with each interview lasting 

approximately 90 minutes. Interviews were predominantly conducted on an individual basis, but some 

were conducted in pairs or groups, and some were conducted over the telephone. The interviews were 

conducted using a “think aloud” protocol, where each respondent was asked to describe what they were 

 

3

 A usability test is a way to identify how users actually interact with a system (in this case, the TFS internet 

instrument). The goal of a usability test is to find out what is and is not working well in the instrument. In this test, 

respondents were instructed to describe aloud what they were thinking as they moved through the TFS internet 

questionnaire. Meanwhile, trained interviewers observed, asked probing questions, listened, and took notes. 
8 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

thinking out loud as they completed the questions. In addition, some follow-up questions were asked after 

the respondent completed certain questionnaire items. 

Interviews were carried out with current and former teachers in Alaska, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Respondents were offered a $60 

incentive for their participation in these cognitive interviews. 

Key Findings 

A summary of the recommendations from the cognitive interviews follows: 

• Eliminate items concerning future eligibility for retirement benefits. 

• Adjust the order in which retirement items appear to make them seem less redundant. 

• Eliminate items that were difficult for the respondent to answer, such as the respondent’s second 

and third most important reasons for leaving teaching. 

• Eliminate items about performance on assessments at the current school, because assessment 

exams may not have been administered prior to the survey in the current school year. 

• Reword several questions and instructions for better clarity and uniform understanding. 

• Modify answer choices to questions concerning how long the respondent plans to remain in his or 

her current position to include specific life events that may occur (e.g., parenthood or marriage). 

• Change column title from “No difference” to “No better/worse in either position” in items that 

compare the current position to the former position. 

Study Two 

The Questionnaire for Former Teachers (Form TFS-2) and the Questionnaire for Current Teachers (Form 

TFS-3) were revised based upon the recommendations from the previous cognitive interview study. As a 

result, in July and August 2004, Census Bureau staff conducted a second series of cognitive interviews to 

test some of the key revisions. This second set of cognitive interviews also was a usability test of the 

newly developed internet instrument. Details on methodology and findings can be found in “Appendix D. 

Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations.” 

The test focused on 

• questionnaire content and wording— 

o if respondents were able to interpret the questions uniformly; 

o if respondents were able to provide the information that was requested; and 

o if respondents were able to accurately answer the series of retirement questions; and 

• internet usability— 

o if respondents were able to log in and use the internet version of the instrument; 

o if navigation through the instrument was clear and efficient; 

o if respondents found it challenging to respond using the radio buttons; and 

o if automated edits were clear, helpful, and appropriate given the respondent’s answers. 

Methods 

All interviews were conducted by trained interviewers and were video recorded with the respondent’s 

permission. The sample contained 24 respondents and was drawn from current and former teachers in the 

District of Columbia and Baltimore, Maryland, metropolitan areas. Interviews were conducted in the 
Chapter 2. Preparation for the 2004–05 TFS 9 

Census Bureau usability lab or the respondent’s home or workplace. Each respondent was offered a $50 

incentive for participating in this cognitive interview study. 

Key Findings 

A summary of the recommendations from the pretest cognitive interviews follows: 

• Questionnaire content and wording— 

o Change wording of items to provide clarity. 

o Change all items that contain the phrase “K–12 teaching” to instead say “the position of a K–

12 teacher” to prevent respondent confusion. 

o Change answer formats of Individual Education Plan (IEP)/limited-English proficiency (LEP) 

questions from write-ins to answer choices. 

o Add specific directions to items so that the respondent could more accurately provide the 

requested information. 

o Change wording and merge together some of the retirement items. 

• Internet usability— 

o Change the organization of the main menu to eliminate respondent confusion about starting 

or resuming the questionnaire. 

o Change the navigation portion of each screen, allowing respondents to advance or return to 

other items or sections on the questionnaire. 

o Modify dropdown boxes to make it easier for respondents to select the appropriate answer 

choice. 

Content Changes 

The TFS questionnaires were revised substantially from the 2000–01 versions prior to the testing. After 

both cognitive interview studies, both questionnaires were revised further based upon the results of the 

studies. As a result of both processes, the following additions, deletions, and revisions were made to the 

TFS questionnaires between the 2000–01 and 2004–05 administrations. 

Changes to the Questionnaire for Former Teachers 

Items Added to the Questionnaire for Former Teachers 

The following topics were added to the former teacher questionnaire between the 2000–01 and 2004–05 

administrations of TFS: 

• maternity or paternity leave, disability leave, or sabbatical; 

• supplemental income; 

• retirement items; 

• most important reason for leaving the position of a K–12 teacher; 

• impressions of state or district assessment programs; 

• enrollment in college or university courses since last school year; 

• lowest teaching salary accepted to return to teaching; 

• last year’s marital status; 

• living situation; 

• internet access; and 

• contact information. 
10 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

Items Deleted From the Questionnaire for Former Teachers 

The following topics were deleted from the former teacher questionnaire between the 2000–01 and 2004–

05 administrations of TFS: 

• main activity during the next school year; 

• factors that influence retirement; 

• years to remain in teaching if retirement were not an option; 

• impressions of last year’s school; 

• impressions of teaching; 

• degree programs and degrees earned in the past 12 months; and 

• changes to teaching certification. 

Items Revised on the Questionnaire for Former Teachers 

The following items on the former teacher questionnaire were revised between the 2000–01 and 2004–05 

administrations of TFS: 

• Questions concerning current occupation were revised, and the new series does not ask for 

specific employer and type of business or industry. 

• Question concerning how long the respondent plans to remain in current position was revised to 

give more options concerning retirement, retirement benefits, and specific life events. 

• The section on reasons for leaving teaching was revised and includes fewer reasons. 

• Questions that rate current position relative to teaching were revised to incorporate social aspects, 

personal life, accomplishment, and influencing the lives of others. 

• Factors influencing the decision to return to teaching were revised to incorporate more factors. 

Changes to the Questionnaire for Current Teachers 

Items Added to the Questionnaire for Current Teachers 

The following topics were added to the current teacher questionnaire between the 2000–01 and 2004–05 

administrations of TFS: 

• class organization; 

• Individual Education Plan (IEP) and limited-English proficiency (LEP); 

• general and student problems at current school; 

• opinions about current school and the teaching profession; 

• hours and time allocation; 

• participation in school-related activities; 

• grades offered in current school; 

• most important reason for leaving last year’s school; 

• impressions of state or district assessment programs; 

• rating current teaching position relative to last year’s teaching position; 

• enrollment in college or university courses since last school year; 

• attempt to leave teaching; 

• collecting pension or drawing funds from 401(k) or 403(b) plan; 

• contributions to teacher retirement plan or 401(k) or 403(b) plan; 

• last year’s marital status; 
Chapter 2. Preparation for the 2004–05 TFS 11 

• living situation; 

• internet access; and 

• contact information. 

Items Deleted From the Questionnaire for Current Teachers 

The following topics were deleted from the current teacher questionnaire between the 2000–01 and 2004–

05 administrations of TFS: 

• secondary teaching assignment fields and certifications; 

• overall satisfaction with teaching in current school; 

• overall satisfaction with teaching in last year’s school; 

• overall satisfaction with the teaching profession; 

• impressions of instructional leader at current school; 

• impression of administrators and staff at current school; 

• impression of administrators and staff at last year’s school; 

• impressions of last year’s school; 

• planning and preparation time; 

• hours and time allocation outside of teaching; 

• computer use in the classroom; 

• technology in the classroom; 

• whether the new school is a public charter school; and 

• degree programs and degrees earned in the past 12 months. 

Items Revised on the Questionnaire for Current Teachers 

The following items on the current teacher questionnaire were revised between the 2000–01 and 2004–05 

administrations of TFS: 

• Questions concerning current school conditions and experiences were revised to include fewer 

items. 

• Reasons for leaving last year’s school were revised to include fewer items. 

• Question concerning how long the respondent plans to remain in teaching was revised to give 

more options concerning retirement, retirement benefits, and specific life events. 

Final Content of the 2004–05 TFS 

The following is a brief summary of the major content areas for the 2004–05 TFS. For further details 

about the specific sections and content of each survey, please refer to chapter 1. 

• The Questionnaire for Former Teachers obtained information such as present occupation or 

activity, educational plans, reasons for leaving teaching, intent to return to teaching, attitudes 

about teaching, plans for further education, and demographic characteristics. 

• The Questionnaire for Current Teachers obtained information about current teaching assignments, 

attitudes about teaching, attitudes about last year’s school, expected duration in teaching, plans 

for further education, and demographic characteristics. 

Copies of the 2004–05 TFS questionnaires may be obtained on the Internet at 

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/questionnaire.asp or by e-mail to SASSdata@ed.gov. 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
13 

Chapter 3. TFS Frame Creation and 

Sample Selection Procedures 

This chapter describes the frame creation and sampling process for the Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) 

sample. Teachers sampled for TFS were drawn from the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) sampled 

teachers who had completed interviews; those teachers were in turn drawn from the SASS sampled 

schools. This chapter begins with a brief description of the creation of the SASS school sampling frames. 

Next, the school sampling procedure is described, followed by the SASS teacher sampling process, and 

finally the TFS teacher sampling process. 

Note that Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools and teachers were included in the SASS school 

and teacher sampling process and thus were also included in the TFS teacher frame. However, because 

there were so few teachers from BIA-funded schools in the TFS frame, they were dropped from the TFS 

sample. Therefore, the TFS sampling section of this chapter will not include any details on teachers from 

BIA-funded schools. 

SASS Sampling Frames 

Public School Sampling Frame 

The public school sampling frame was based on the 2001–02 school year Common Core of Data (CCD). 

CCD is collected annually by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) from all state 

education agencies and is believed to be the most complete public school listing available. The frame 

includes traditional public schools, schools on Department of Defense military bases, BIA-funded 

schools, public charter schools, and nonregular schools such as special education, vocational, and 

alternative schools. Extensive modifications to CCD (as described below) resulted in 90,239 schools on 

the SASS public school sampling frame.4

In order to include only schools that met the definition of a school in SASS, schools were eliminated from 

and added to the sampling frame. In SASS, a school was defined as an institution or part of an institution 

that provides classroom instruction to students, has one or more teachers to provide instruction, serves 

students in one or more of grades 1–12 or the ungraded equivalent, and is located in one or more 

buildings. SASS is confined to the 50 states plus the District of Columbia and excludes territories and 

overseas schools. The SASS definition of a school was generally similar to CCD with some exceptions. 

CCD contained some schools that did not offer teacher-provided classroom instruction that included 

academic subjects in grades 1–12 or the equivalent ungraded levels. In some instances, schools in CCD 

were essentially administrative units that may have overseen entities that provided classroom instruction, 

or the school on CCD may have provided funding and oversight only. CCD also included schools located 

overseas that were operated by the Department of Defense. Consequently, schools that were ineligible for 

SASS and deleted from the sampling frame included schools operated overseas by the Department of 

Defense, adult education centers, schools in which the highest grade offered was prekindergarten or 

kindergarten, homeschools, tutoring services, or administrative units. 

In addition, school records that appeared to have a common administration and were housed in one 

building were collapsed into a single school. The schools that met the criteria often offered grades K–12 

in the same building or administrative unit. Because of this, these schools often perceive themselves 

differently than the state does (i.e., as a single entity as compared to several separate schools). For this 

 

4

 For the 2001–02 school year, CCD included data on 97,623 schools. 
14 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

reason, it was decided for the 2003–04 SASS to collapse the CCD records whenever it was believed that 

this problem was likely to occur. 

SASS added schools in Pennsylvania and California after having directly contacted their administrative 

units as reported on CCD. These administrative units oversee certain types of educational entities (e.g., 

special education schools, juvenile justice facilities) within various California and Pennsylvania counties. 

This type of education is often provided at a number of locations within a particular county, but not 

necessarily at schools listed on CCD. To avoid confusion, these administrative units were contacted by 

phone, and requested to provide a list of the schools they oversaw. These lists were subsequently matched 

to CCD. If any of the schools from these lists were not already on CCD, they were added to the SASS 

sampling frame at that time. (For more details, see Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing 

Survey [Tourkin et al. 2007].) 

Finally, corrections and/or imputations to the school records were made to facilitate the school sampling 

process. These corrections included filling in and/or modifying missing grade ranges, total enrollments, 

enrollment by race, teacher totals, physical location components, and the school’s name. 

The resulting number of schools on the 2003–04 SASS public school frame was 90,239. Of these, 166 

were BIA-funded schools and 2,309 were public charter schools. Additional out-of-scope schools were 

detected during data collection and the processing of the sampled schools’ SASS school questionnaires. 

These schools were eliminated from further processing of the school sample and were not part of any 

SASS estimates of the number of schools. 

Private School Sampling Frame 

The sampling frame for private schools was the updated 2003–04 Private School Universe Survey (PSS) 

list frame updated with the 2001–02 PSS area frame. The area frame serves as a coverage improvement 

for the list frame. 

• List frame. The list frame used for the 2003–04 SASS private school sample was the same list 

used for the 2001–02 PSS, updated in the spring of 2003 using lists from 26 private school 

associations and all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The resulting frame was also used for 

the 2003–04 PSS. 

• Area frame. The SASS area frame consisted of a list of private schools that had not been included 

in the PSS universe and had not been reported by state or private school associations during the 

list frame updating operation. These schools were located in 116 selected primary sampling units 

(PSUs) throughout the United States. 

Closed schools and out-of-scope schools (i.e., adult education centers, schools where the highest grade 

was prekindergarten or kindergarten, homeschools, or tutoring services) were deleted from the private 

school file before sampling. As with the public school frame, there were several corrections and/or 

imputations that needed to be made to school records in order for sampling to proceed. These corrections 

and/or imputations included modifying or filling in information for the school’s grade range, affiliation, 

total student enrollment, and teacher counts. 

The resulting number of schools on the 2003–04 SASS private school frame was 29,303 list frame 

schools and 179 area frame schools. As with the public schools, any additional out-of-scope schools 

detected during data collection or the questionnaire processing were eliminated from any SASS estimates. 

Thus, SASS estimates do not agree with the frame counts. 
Chapter 3. TFS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 15 

SASS School Stratification 

Stratification refers to the process of subdividing the population frame into mutually exclusive subsets 

(called strata) from which samples of schools are selected at appropriate rates. 

Public School Stratification 

The first level of stratification for public and BIA-funded schools was assignment to school types A 

through E, as follows: 

• school type A included BIA-funded schools, which were selected with certainty (automatically in 

sample); 

• school type B included public schools with high American Indian or Alaska Native enrollment 

(schools with 19.5 percent or more American Indian or Alaska Native students); 

• school type C included schools in Delaware, Maryland, Florida, Nevada, and West Virginia, 

where at least one school from each district was selected, as described in the “SASS School 

Sample Selection” section below;5

 

• school type D included public charter schools; and 

• school type E included all other schools. 

Schools falling into more than one category were assigned to types A, B, D, C, and E, in that order. For 

example, if a school were identified as BIA-funded as well as public charter, the school would be 

considered BIA-funded for stratification purposes. 

The second level of stratification varied by school type, as described below: 

• All type A schools were selected for the sample, so no additional stratification was needed. 

• Type B schools (i.e., high American Indian or Alaska Native enrollment schools) were stratified 

by state, as follows: Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Washington, the remaining 

Western states, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, the remaining Midwestern states, North 

Carolina, Oklahoma, and the remaining states. Note that Alaska was excluded from this group of 

strata because most schools in Alaska have a high Alaska Native enrollment and because the 

sampling rate applied to Alaska schools was higher than the sampling rate applied to other 

schools with high American Indian or Alaska Native student enrollment. Thus, schools in Alaska 

were generally included in type E. 

• Type C schools (i.e., schools in Delaware, Maryland, Florida, Nevada, and West Virginia) were 

stratified first by state and then school district. For details, see Documentation for the 2003–04 

Schools and Staffing Survey (Tourkin et al. 2007). 

• Type D schools (i.e., public charter schools) were stratified by state, as follows: Arizona, 

California, Colorado, the remaining Western states, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, the remaining 

Midwestern states, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, the remaining Southern states, Pennsylvania, 

and the remaining Northeastern states. 

• Type E schools (i.e., all other schools) were stratified by state, as follows: all states including the 

District of Columbia, except those states in type C (i.e., Delaware, Maryland, Florida, Nevada, 

and West Virginia). 

 

5

 A 2003 simulation study showed that standard errors from Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Nevada, and West 

Virginia were high relative to the sampling rate in SASS. To reduce the standard error, all districts in these states 

were defined as school sampling strata. For more details, see Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing 

Survey (Tourkin et al. 2007). 
16 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

Each of the school types, B through E, was then stratified by school level (i.e., elementary, secondary, and 

combined), as defined below: 

• Elementary = lowest grade ≤ 6 and highest grade ≤ 8. 

• Secondary = lowest grade ≥ 7 and highest grade ≤ 12. 

• Combined = lowest grade ≤ 6 and highest grade > 8, or school is ungraded.6

Private School Stratification 

List Frame 

The list frame was partitioned into an initial set of cells using affiliation stratum (17 groups), school level 

(3 groups), and Census region (4 groups). These cells were defined using 2001–02 PSS data. For any 

school records that were missing information for these three variables, the data were imputed. 

The first level of stratification was school affiliation stratum (17 groups): 

• Catholic—parochial; 

• Catholic—diocesan; 

• Catholic—private; 

• Amish; 

• Assembly of God; 

• Baptist; 

• Episcopal; 

• Jewish; 

• Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod; 

• Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod; 

• Mennonite; 

• Pentecostal; 

• Seventh-Day Adventist; 

• other religious; 

• nonsectarian—regular; 

• nonsectarian—special emphasis; and 

• nonsectarian—special education. 

Within each affiliation stratum, schools were stratified by school level (i.e., elementary, secondary, and 

combined schools). The definitions are provided below: 

• Elementary = lowest grade ≤ 6 and highest grade ≤ 8. 

• Secondary = lowest grade ≥ 7 and highest grade ≤ 12. 

• Combined = lowest grade ≤ 6 and highest grade > 8, also includes ungraded schools.6

Within affiliation stratum/school level, all private schools were stratified by the four Census regions: 

• Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont); 

 

6

 Ungraded schools refer to schools that serve students whose grade levels are not defined as grade 1 through 12. For 

example, special education centers and alternative schools often classify their students as ungraded. 
Chapter 3. TFS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 17 

• Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North 

Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin); 

• South (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, 

Virginia, West Virginia); and 

• West (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, 

Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming). 

Area Frame 

All private schools from the area frame were automatically included in the sample, so no stratification 

was necessary. 

SASS School Sample Selection 

Public School Sample Selection 

To facilitate the calculation of school district weights, it was important that within a stratum all schools 

belonging to the same school district be listed together. This could have been achieved by sorting by the 

district’s CCD identification number, called the Local Education Agency (LEA) ID, first. However, to 

increase the efficiency of the school sampling design, it was better to sort by other variables first before 

LEA ID. To achieve both these goals, the ZIP code variables were recoded to make them the same for 

every school within a stratum/school district. After the ZIP code was recoded, non-BIA-funded schools 

were sorted, hierarchically, by the following variables: 

1. Stratum code (assigned as described in the “SASS School Stratification” section above); 

2. State (one for each state and the District of Columbia); 

3. Locale code— 

1 = large central city, 

2 = midsize central city, 

3 = urban fringe of large central city, 

4 = urban fringe of mid-size central city, 

5 = large town, 

6 = small town, 

7 = rural, outside Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), and 

8 = rural, inside MSA; 

4. Recoded ZIP code (all schools in a specific stratum/district have the same value for this variable); 

5. LEA ID (school district’s CCD ID); 

6. School’s highest grade offered (in descending order); 

7. Recoded percent minority (in descending order) and defined as: 

1 = less than 5.5 percent minority enrollment or unknown, 

2 = at least 5.5 percent but less than 20.5 percent minority enrollment, 

3 = at least 20.5 percent but less than 50.5 percent minority enrollment, and 

4 = at least 50.5 percent minority enrollment; 

8. Total enrollment (in serpentine sort order defined as: enrollment sorted first in ascending then 

descending order within the other sort variables); and 

9. CCD school ID. 

This sort order differs slightly from the sort used in previous SASS cycles. The third and fourth variables 

(locale code and recoded ZIP code) allowed a geographic balance within locale at the state level to be 
18 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

achieved. The fifth variable (LEA ID) guaranteed that schools within a district and school stratum would 

stay together. The sixth variable (school’s highest grade) allowed the sample size requirements for middle 

schools to be met,7

 and the seventh variable (recoded percent minority) allowed a balance with respect to 

race/ethnicity. The eighth variable (school enrollment) also allowed a balance with respect to school size. 

The ninth variable, school ID, made the sort unique and therefore possible to reproduce. 

Within each stratum, all non-BIA-funded schools were systematically selected for the sample from a 

hierarchically sorted list using a probability proportional to size algorithm. In applying this algorithm, a 

measure of size for each non-BIA-funded school was used to determine whether the school was selected 

with certainty, or whether a probability sampling procedures was applied. The measure of size, used to 

define the probability of selection for the schools, was the square root of the number of full-time 

equivalent teachers reported for each school or imputed during the sampling frame creation. Any school 

with a measure of size greater than the sampling interval (a measure of the spread between selected 

sample units in systematic sampling) was included in the sample with certainty (automatically) and 

excluded from the probability sampling operation. The BIA-funded schools were also selected for the 

sample with certainty. This produced a non-BIA sample of 10,202 (455 public schools with a high 

American Indian enrollment, 303 public charter schools, and 9,444 other public schools) and a BIAfunded sample of 166 schools for a total of 10,368 public and BIA-funded sample schools in 2003–04 

SASS. 

Private School Sample Selection 

Within each stratum, sorting took place on the variables listed below. Sorting serves to improve the 

efficiency of the overall design. 

1. State (one for each state and the District of Columbia); 

2. School’s highest grade offered (in descending order); 

3. Locale code based on 1990 Census geography— 

1 = large central city, 

2 = mid-size central city, 

3 = urban fringe of large city, 

4 = urban fringe of mid-size city, 

5 = large town, 

6 = small town, 

7 = rural, outside MSA, and 

8 = rural, inside MSA; 

4. ZIP code; 

5. Enrollment as reported or imputed in the 2001–02 PSS (in descending order); and 

6. PIN number (a unique number assigned to identify the school on PSS). 

Within each stratum, private schools in the list frame were systematically selected using a probability 

proportional to size algorithm. The measure of size used was the square root of the 2001–02 PSS number 

of teachers in the school. Any school with a measure of size larger than the sampling interval was 

excluded from the probability sampling process and included in the sample with certainty. All of the area 

frame schools identified in the 2001–02 PSS area frame within noncertainty (selected with probability 

less than one) PSUs that had not already been added as part of the 2003–04 PSS list frame updating 

operation were also selected for the sample with certainty. This produced a list frame sample of 3,443 and 

an area frame sample of 179 schools, totaling 3,622 schools in the SASS private school sample. 

 

7

 Since middle schools were not stratified explicitly into one grade level stratum, some of them were classified as 

elementary and some as secondary. For more information, see chapter 4 of Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools 

and Staffing Survey (Tourkin et al. 2007). 
Chapter 3. TFS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 19 

SASS Teacher Sample Selection 

Selecting the teacher sample in both public and private schools involved the following steps: 

• The selected schools were asked to provide teacher lists. 

• From the lists, 53,188 teachers from public schools (including public charter and BIA-funded 

schools) and 9,947 teachers from private schools were selected. 

The public and private teacher sample selections are described together because identical methodologies 

were used. The only differences were in the average number of teachers selected within a school, as 

shown on table 1. 

SASS Teacher Frame 

In previous SASS enumerations, sampled schools were asked to provide a list of their teachers primarily 

by mail. This cumulative list of teacher rosters formed the teacher sampling frame. For the 2003–04 

SASS, sampled schools provided teacher rosters to field representatives during personal visits to the 

sampled schools. The field representatives keyed the roster information into a laptop computer and 

teachers were sampled from the school, sometimes during the same personal visit. 

Along with the names of its teachers, sampled schools were asked to provide the following descriptive 

characteristics of each teacher: 

• New/experienced—Teachers in their 1st, 2nd, or 3rd year of teaching during the 2003–04 school 

year were classified as new teachers, while those in their 4th year or more were classified as 

experienced. 

• Teaching status (as defined by the school): 

o part time; or 

o full time. 

• Race/ethnicity (as reported by the school): 

o White (non-Hispanic); 

o Black (non-Hispanic); 

o Hispanic—regardless of race; 

o Asian or Pacific Islander; or 

o American Indian or Alaska Native. 

• Subject matter taught—Teachers were classified as teaching special education, general 

elementary, math, science, English/language arts, social studies, vocational/technical, or other. 

The above information for each teacher in a selected SASS school comprised the teacher frame. 

Within each sampled school, teachers were stratified into one of four teacher types in the following 

hierarchical order: 

1. Asian or Pacific Islander; 

2. American Indian or Alaska Native; 

3. New (3 or fewer years in the teaching profession); and 

4. Experienced (more than 3 years of teaching). 

To illustrate the hierarchical ordering, if a teacher was both new and Asian, then that teacher would be 

classified as Asian. 
20 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

Within-School SASS Teacher Allocation 

The goals of the teacher sampling for SASS were to simultaneously achieve the following: 

• Select a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 20 teachers per school. 

• Select an average of three to eight teachers per school depending upon school level and school 

type as shown in table 1. 

• Select at least 1,600 Asian or Pacific Islander teachers and 1,600 American Indian or Alaska 

Native teachers. 

• Select a minimum of 2,300 new teachers per school type (public, private). For new teachers in 

public schools, oversampling was not required due to the large number of sampled schools with 

new teachers. Therefore, teachers were allocated to the new and experienced categories 

proportional to their numbers in the school. However, for private school teachers, new teachers 

were oversampled by a factor of 1.5. This factor was used to ensure that the sample size goal set 

per school type was met. 

• Minimize the variance of teacher estimates within school stratum by attempting a self-weighting 

design (all teachers having the same probability of selection). This constraint was relaxed when 

necessary to accommodate the other goals of teacher sampling. 

Table 1. Average expected number of new and experienced teachers selected per school, by 

school level and school type: 2003–04 

School level 

School type Elementary Secondary Combined

Public (including public charter and BIA-funded1) 3.8 7.5 5.7

Private 3.8 4.7 2.8

1

 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

NOTE: These averages do not include Asian or Pacific Islander or American Indian or Alaska Native teachers. 

SOURCE: Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 2003–04, U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Before teachers were allocated to the new/experienced strata, schools were first allocated an overall 

number of teachers to be selected. This overall sample size was chosen so as to equalize the teacher 

weights within school stratum (i.e., state/school level for public schools and affiliation/school level/region 

for private schools). Teacher weights within stratum were not always equalized, however, due to the 

differential sampling for Asian or Pacific Islander and American Indian or Alaska Native teachers. 

The final SASS teacher sample met all the goals presented above with one exception—the targeted 

number of American Indian or Alaska Native teachers selected was not met. Both the unweighted and 

weighted totals are given in the sample breakdown presented in table 2. The weighted totals are used in 

TFS weighting to calculate an adjustment factor. Chapter 8 gives the details of the TFS weighting 

process. 
Chapter 3. TFS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 21 

Table 2. Final unweighted and weighted number of teachers selected for the SASS teacher 

sample, by teacher type and school type: 2003–04 

Teacher type 

Total Experienced New 

American Indian 

or Alaska Native 

Asian or Pacific 

Islander 

School type Unwtd. Wtd. Unwtd. Wtd. Unwtd. Wtd. Unwtd. Wtd. Unwtd. Wtd.

 Total 63,135 3,721,994 49,263 3,049,257 10,528 617,431 1,530 11,034 1,814 44,272

 

Private 9,947 467,373 7,008 370,368 2,496 87,169 95 1,052 348 8,784

Public charter 1,486 41,689 970 27,552 471 13,196 8 78 37 862

Traditional public 

 and BIA-funded1 51,702 3,212,932 41,285 2,651,337 7,561 517,066 1,427 9,904 1,429 34,625 1

 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 2003–

04. 

There were 10,368 traditional public, BIA-funded, and public charter schools selected for the sample in 

SASS and from these schools 53,188 teachers were selected for the sample. There were 3,622 private 

schools sampled in SASS and from these schools 9,947 teachers were selected for the sample. About 11 

percent of public schools and 16 percent of private schools that met the SASS definition of a school did 

not provide teacher lists. No teachers were selected from these schools. 

TFS Teacher Sampling Frame, Stratification, and Allocation 

TFS Teacher Sampling Frame 

The 2004–05 TFS sample consisted of 7,429 teachers out of the 51,223 public and private school teachers 

who participated in the 2003–04 SASS. The TFS teacher sample was selected from the pool of teachers 

who participated in the previous year’s SASS. Similar to SASS, the 2004–05 TFS sample includes 

teachers from the public (including public charter) and private school sectors. 

The sampling frame for TFS consisted of the 51,748 public, BIA-funded, and private school teachers who 

completed interviews for SASS. Any SASS teacher who did not complete an interview or was otherwise 

found to be out of scope for SASS was not included in the TFS frame. Teachers from BIA-funded schools 

were included in the sampling frame, so are included in this count. This number is slightly lower than the 

total number of interviewed teachers in SASS (51,847) since it excludes 99 teachers who were reported to 

have died or left the country at the time of the teacher status collection in the fall of 2004. 

As described earlier, one purpose of TFS was to measure attrition rates a year after the 2003–04 SASS 

data collection. In SASS, schools were selected first and then teachers were selected within the sampled 

schools. The TFS teachers were then selected from the SASS eligible teacher sample. 

TFS Teacher Stratification 

The TFS sample is a stratified sample that was allocated in order to allow comparisons of teachers by 

status (stayers, movers, and leavers) within school type (traditional public, public charter, and private), 

experience groups, school level, and minority status. For TFS, the responding 2003–04 SASS teachers 

were stratified by these five variables in the order shown below: 
22 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

1. School type (traditional public, public charter, private school): 

o traditional public—teachers who taught in the public school system in the 2003–04 school 

year; 

o public charter—teachers who taught in a public charter school in the 2003–04 school year; 

and 

o private—teachers who taught in a private school in the 2003–04 school year. 

2. Teacher status (leaver/stayer/mover/unknown)—Each SASS sampled school was mailed a 

questionnaire asking for current information about the previous year’s teachers. The information 

collected on this form was used to stratify each teacher who responded to SASS in the following 

categories: 

o leavers—teachers in the 2003–04 school year who left the teaching profession before the 

2004–05 school year began; 

o stayers—teachers in the 2003–04 school year who remained teachers at the same school for 

the 2004–05 school year or teachers whose status was not reported (left blank) by the school8

; 

o movers—teachers in the 2003–04 school year who remained teachers for the 2004–05 school 

year but in a different school or teachers who worked in a school in the 2003–04 school year 

that closed or merged with another school; and 

o unknowns—teachers whose status was reported by the school as having left, without any 

other information given. 

3. Experience (new/experienced): 

o new—teachers who had less than 4 years of teaching experience completed at the end of the 

2003–04 school year; and 

o experienced—teachers who had at least 4 years of teaching experience completed at the end 

of the 2003–04 school year. 

4. Teacher’s grade level (elementary/middle/secondary): 

o elementary—teachers who taught elementary school students (any grade K–8, but at least one 

of grades K–4) in the 2003–04 school year regardless of the level of the school in which they 

taught; 

o middle—teachers who taught middle school students (grades 5–8 exclusively) in the 2003–04 

school year regardless of the level of the school in which they taught; and 

o secondary—teachers who taught secondary school students (any grade 6–12, but at least one 

of grades 9–12) in the 2003–04 school year regardless of the level of the school in which they 

taught. 

5. Minority status (minority/nonminority): 

o minority—teacher with any racial/ethnic background other than White, non-Hispanic; and 

o nonminority—any teacher who did not fall into the above category. 

The characteristics defined above were used in all aspects of the TFS sampling. The results of this 

stratification are shown in table 3. 

 

8

 Teachers whose status was not reported in the Teacher Status Form (Form TFS-1) were assumed to be stayers 

because in any given year most teachers are stayers. These teachers account for approximately 1–2 percent of all 

stayers. 
Chapter 3. TFS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 23 

Table 3. TFS sampling frame counts for teachers, by school type, teacher status, teacher’s grade 

level, teacher experience, and minority status: 2004–05 

Status, grade level, experience, School type 

and minority status of teachers Total Public1 Public charter Private

 Total 51,748 42,624 1,176 7,948

Leavers2

 (total) 4,766 3,410 247 1,109

 Elementary (total) 1,614 887 93 634

 New 

 Minority 144 64 19 61

 Nonminority 449 186 26 237

 Experienced 

 Minority 184 120 15 49

 Nonminority 837 517 33 287

 Middle (total) 981 709 41 231

 New 

 Minority 99 62 14 23

 Nonminority 207 123 6 78

 Experienced 

 Minority 143 108 7 28

 Nonminority 532 416 14 102

 Secondary (total) 2,171 1,814 113 244

 New 

 Minority 144 99 13 32

 Nonminority 563 431 47 85

 Experienced 

 Minority 240 201 14 25

 Nonminority 1,224 1,083 39 102

Movers (total) 3,208 2,696 102 410

 Elementary (total) 1,150 900 31 219

 New 

 Minority 75 57 6 12

 Nonminority 340 239 12 89

 Experienced 

 Minority 121 105 5 11

 Nonminority 614 499 8 107

 Middle (total) 732 615 20 97

 New 

 Minority 41 36 1 4

 Nonminority 201 160 5 36

 Experienced 

 Minority 96 83 6 7

 Nonminority 394 336 8 50

See notes at end of table. 
24 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

Table 3. TFS sampling frame counts for teachers, by school type, teacher status, teacher’s grade 

level, teacher experience, and minority status: 2004–05—Continued 

Status, grade level, experience, School type 

and minority status of teachers Total Public1 Public charter Private

 Secondary (total) 1,326 1,181 51 94

 New 

 Minority 84 61 14 9

 Nonminority 385 324 16 45

 Experienced 

 Minority 132 117 9 6

 Nonminority 725 679 12 34

Stayers (total) 43,774 36,518 827 6,429

 Elementary (total) 14,505 10,562 394 3,549

 New 

 Minority 691 451 63 177

 Nonminority 2,451 1,527 97 827

 Experienced 

 Minority 1,754 1,403 55 296

 Nonminority 9,609 7,181 179 2,249

 Middle (total) 8,549 7,158 137 1,254

 New 

 Minority 427 354 18 55

 Nonminority 1,407 1,130 32 245

 Experienced 

 Minority 1,024 908 15 101

 Nonminority 5,691 4,766 72 853

 Secondary (total) 20,720 18,798 296 1,626

 New 

 Minority 795 681 40 74

 Nonminority 3,550 3,084 78 388

 Experienced 

 Minority 1,981 1,826 39 116

 Nonminority 14,394 13,207 139 1,048

1

 Teachers in Bureau of Indian Affairs-funded schools were included in the sampling frame as public teachers and dropped after 

sampling occurred. 

2

 Teachers classified as having an unknown status are included in the leaver category in this table since most of them are found to 

be leavers. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), 

“Unpublished Sampling Frame,” 2004–05. 
Chapter 3. TFS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 25 

TFS Teacher Allocation 

The 2004–05 TFS sample was allocated to strata to best achieve the goals of the sampling design. To 

accomplish this, the following rules were applied: 

• Optimize the reliability of comparisons of current versus former teachers (i.e., leavers versus 

nonleavers) by selecting all leavers. 

• Optimize the comparison of movers versus nonmovers (stayers) by selecting all private school 

movers. 

• Optimize the reliability of comparisons of minority versus nonminority movers. 

To that end, the following procedures were applied: 

• Select approximately 70 percent of the traditional public and public charter minority movers. 

• Select approximately 50 percent of the traditional public and public charter nonminority movers. 

Since teachers with an unknown status could be movers or leavers, sample using the mover sampling rate, 

as follows: 

• Select all private teachers with an unknown status. 

• Select approximately 50 percent of traditional public and public charter teachers with an 

unknown status. 

• Select a fixed sample size of stayers as follows in order to optimize the comparison of stayers 

versus movers or leavers and to increase the number of reporting categories for publication: 

o 1,760 traditional public school stayers (approximately 5 percent of the traditional public 

school stayers in the sampling frame); 

o 120 public charter school stayers (approximately 15 percent of the public charter school 

stayers in the sampling frame); and 

o 900 private school stayers (approximately 15 percent of the private school stayers in the 

sampling frame). 

Once the sample sizes were determined at the teacher status/school type/minority status level based on 

these rules, the sample was allocated to strata proportional to the cumulative measure of size (SASS 

teacher initial basic weight) within each stratum relative to the cumulative measure of size of the teacher 

status/school type/minority status level. This maximized the reliability of teacher status/school 

type/minority status estimates. 

The final TFS sample allocation is shown below. Note that the actual selected sample was the same as the 

allocated sample for TFS. 
26 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

Table 4. Final allocated TFS sample sizes for teachers, by school type, teacher status, teacher’s 

grade level, teacher experience, and minority status: 2004–05 

Status, grade level, experience, School type 

and minority status of teachers Total Traditional public1 Public charter Private

 Total 8,297 5,553 325 2,419

Leavers2

 (total) 3,582 2,330 143 1,109

 Elementary (total) 1,485 786 65 634

 New 

 Minority 126 54 11 61

 Nonminority 411 154 20 237

 Experienced 

 Minority 173 115 9 49

 Nonminority 775 463 25 287

 Middle (total) 798 539 28 231

 New 

 Minority 72 40 9 23

 Nonminority 187 106 3 78

 Experienced 

 Minority 107 73 6 28

 Nonminority 432 320 10 102

 Secondary (total) 1,299 1,005 50 244

 New 

 Minority 77 40 5 32

 Nonminority 319 215 19 85

 Experienced 

 Minority 140 108 7 25

 Nonminority 763 642 19 102

Movers (total) 1,934 1,462 62 410

 Elementary (total) 950 707 24 219

 New 

 Minority 75 57 6 12

 Nonminority 285 189 7 89

 Experienced 

 Minority 121 105 5 11

 Nonminority 469 356 6 107

 Middle (total) 534 421 16 97

 New 

 Minority 30 25 1 4

 Nonminority 135 96 3 36

 Experienced 

 Minority 96 83 6 7

 Nonminority 273 217 6 50

See notes at end of table. 
Chapter 3. TFS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 27 

Table 4. Final allocated TFS sample sizes for teachers, by school type, teacher status, teacher’s 

grade level, teacher experience, and minority status: 2004–05—Continued 

Status, grade level, experience, School type 

and minority status of teachers Total Traditional public1 Public charter Private

 Secondary (total) 450 334 22 94

 New 

 Minority 41 25 7 9

 Nonminority 138 88 5 45

 Experienced 

 Minority 61 49 6 6

 Nonminority 210 172 4 34

Stayers (total) 2,781 1,761 120 900

 Elementary (total) 1,315 772 71 472

 New 

 Minority 112 68 12 32

 Nonminority 437 246 18 173

 Experienced 

 Minority 102 68 9 25

 Nonminority 664 390 32 242

 Middle (total) 639 451 25 163

 New 

 Minority 58 45 4 9

 Nonminority 206 148 6 52

 Experienced 

 Minority 46 36 2 8

 Nonminority 329 222 13 94

 Secondary (total) 827 538 24 265

 New 

 Minority 58 42 3 13

 Nonminority 297 190 7 100

 Experienced 

 Minority 53 39 3 11

 Nonminority 419 267 11 141

1

 Teachers in Bureau of Indian Affairs-funded schools were included in the allocation. 2

 Teachers classified as having an unknown status are included in the leaver category in this table since most of them are found to 

be leavers. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “TFS 

Sample File,” 2004–05. 
28 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

TFS Teacher Sample Selection 

Sorting 

Within each TFS stratum, teachers who had completed interviews (i.e., had a final interview status recode 

[ISR] = 1) in the 2003–04 SASS were sorted by measure of size, subject taught, Census region, affiliation 

membership (private teachers only), school locale, school enrollment, and SASS teacher control number 

to achieve a random, balanced sample. The variables used in the sort are described below: 

1. Measure of size—this is the 2003–04 SASS teacher initial basic weight (inverse of the probability 

of selection prior to any corrections identified during data collection). 

2. Recoded teacher subject (based on SASS teacher responses)—this is the main subject that a 

teacher taught during the 2003–04 school year: 

o special education; 

o general elementary; 

o math; 

o science; 

o English/language arts; 

o social studies; 

o vocational/technical; or 

o other. 

3. Census region—the region in which the school is located: 

o Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont); 

o Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North 

Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin); 

o South (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Texas, Virginia, West Virginia); or 

o West (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, 

Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming). 

4. Recoded affiliation stratum (private school teachers only, based on the SASS private school 

stratification)—the affiliation with which the school is associated, including: 

o Catholic—parochial; 

o Catholic—diocesan; 

o Catholic—private; 

o Amish; 

o Assembly of God; 

o Baptist; 

o Episcopal; 

o Jewish; 

o Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod; 

o Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod; 

o Mennonite; 

o Pentecostal; 

o Seventh Day Adventist; 

o other religious; 
Chapter 3. TFS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 29 

o nonsectarian—regular; 

o nonsectarian—special emphasis; or 

o nonsectarian—special education. 

5. Locale based on 1990 Census geography—that is, the area in which the school is located. The 

categories are as follow: 

o large central city; 

o mid-size central city; 

o urban fringe of large central city; 

o urban fringe of mid-size central city; 

o large town; 

o small town; 

o rural, outside MSA; and 

o rural, inside MSA. 

6. School enrollment—that is, the number of students enrolled in the school during the 2003–04 

school year. 

7. Teacher control number—that is, the number assigned to each 2003–04 SASS sampled teacher. 

Sample Selection 

After the teachers were sorted using the above variables they were selected within each stratum using a 

systematic probability proportional to size sampling procedure. This procedure was similar to that used in 

the SASS school selection. Any teacher with a measure of size (SASS teacher initial basic weight) greater 

than the sampling interval was included in the sample with certainty (automatically included). Since TFS 

selection probabilities were not conditioned on anything, the selected sample sizes equaled the allocated 

sample size. At this point, teachers from BIA-funded schools were dropped from the TFS sample.9

 

9

 There were 40 teachers from BIA-funded schools who were deleted from the TFS sample. 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
31 

Chapter 4. Data Collection 

The U.S. Census Bureau conducted the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) during the 2004–05 

school year. TFS data collection began with teacher sampling procedures; schools were mailed a Teacher 

Status Form to complete by indicating the occupational or teacher status of each teacher listed on the 

form. If a school did not respond to the Teacher Status Form, those teachers were still eligible for 

sampling in TFS. Next, a sample of teachers was mailed a Questionnaire for Former Teachers or a 

Questionnaire for Current Teachers to complete. A portion of the sampled teachers was given the option 

to complete the questionnaire on the Internet. Finally, follow-up efforts were conducted to collect TFS 

questionnaire data from those sampled teachers who had not yet completed a questionnaire. 

Overview of Data Collection Procedures 

TFS data collection began as part of the sample selection operation in the fall of 2004. The Teacher Status 

Form was mailed to each school that had at least one teacher who participated in the 2003–04 Schools and 

Staffing Survey (SASS). A knowledgeable person at the school (e.g., a school administrator, a member of 

the office staff) was asked to complete the Teacher Status Form by indicating the current teaching or 

other occupational status of each teacher listed on the form. The sample for TFS was selected based on 

the status of teachers obtained in the Teacher Status Form operation.10 For additional information about 

the sample selection procedures for TFS, see chapter 3. 

Because paper questionnaires were the primary data collection method for the 2004–05 TFS, valid 

addresses were needed to distribute the questionnaires to respondents. The addresses that typically were 

used were home addresses that the respondent provided on the 2003–04 SASS teacher questionnaire. 

However, because some respondents did not provide a home address on SASS, Census Bureau clerical 

staff conducted an initial address research operation in order to obtain a valid home mailing address so 

that the questionnaires could be distributed. A similar operation was used for cases that were returned by 

the post office as “undeliverable as addressed.” 

In January 2005, as part of an experiment on response rates for mailed vs. internet questionnaires, 

approximately one-third of the selected teachers were mailed paper questionnaires. The remaining 

respondents were offered the option to complete the questionnaire on the Internet and were mailed a letter 

that included the user name and password that they could use to access the survey on the Internet. At the 

end of January, these internet respondents were also mailed paper questionnaires. The internet option was 

offered in the context of an experiment that included providing monetary incentives to roughly half of the 

respondents in order to increase response rates, specifically internet responses. With increased response 

rates, the number of cases sent to field for follow-up would be reduced. 

After the initial and follow-up mailing of questionnaires, approximately 58 percent of respondents had not 

completed the TFS questionnaire on paper or on the Internet. Census Bureau field staff was responsible 

for completing data collection for these cases. As fieldwork progressed, 6 percent of the questionnaires in 

the initial field workload were mailed in late by respondents who had completed them on their own before 

field staff had a chance to contact them. These cases were removed from the field staff workload. Field 

staff contacted all nonrespondents, and this resulted in a 70 percent response rate for cases assigned to 

field. Supervisors at 12 Regional Offices coordinated the field staff’s work. Regional Office staff was 

responsible for making assignments, supervising fieldwork, and sending completed questionnaires to the 

processing staff. 

 

10 The focus primarily was to distinguish between teachers still teaching at the same school as in the 2003–04 school 

year, teachers who moved to new schools, and teachers no longer teaching in grades pre-K–12. 
32 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

The Census Bureau processing staff in Jeffersonville, Indiana, was responsible for checking-in completed 

questionnaires, capturing data, and implementing quality control procedures. 

An overview of the purpose and content of each TFS questionnaire is discussed in chapter 1. The 

preparation for the 2004–05 TFS is described in chapter 2. 

Internet and Incentive Experiment 

The goal of the 2004–05 TFS internet and incentive experiment was to use monetary incentives to 

increase overall response rates and responses via the Internet, when both mail and internet choices were 

offered. The current and former teachers who were selected to be in the TFS sample were randomly 

divided into six different treatment groups. The groups varied on three dimensions, which included 

offering an internet option, offering a prepaid $10 incentive, and notifying respondents in the internet 

groups that they also would receive a paper questionnaire. 

There was an initial group of movers and leavers who did not provide a home address on the 2003–04 

SASS and therefore could not be mailed a TFS questionnaire. Then, as TFS operations progressed, 

additional cases were returned to clerical processing staff with inaccurate or unreachable addresses. These 

cases were all sent to address research operations and were removed from the internet and incentive 

experiment. For more information about this operation, see the “Address Research Operations” section of 

this chapter. The resulting sample sizes for the TFS internet and incentive experiment can be found in 

table 5. 

Groups 1 and 2 were sent only paper questionnaires throughout the duration of the experiment. Group 1 

was given a $10 incentive card with the first mailing of TFS materials, and group 2 was not given any sort 

of incentive. Groups 1 and 2 were included in the experiment so that Census Bureau analysts could 

evaluate the impact of the incentive on mail-only questionnaires. 

Groups 3 through 6 initially were given the internet option and shortly afterwards were given the paper 

option as well. However, groups 3 and 4 were not made aware that they would receive a paper version of 

the TFS a week later, while groups 5 and 6 were told of the forthcoming paper questionnaire in the initial 

letters they received requesting their participation. Finally, the four internet groups were further broken 

down into incentive panels. Groups 3 and 5 were given a $10 incentive card with the first mailing of TFS 

materials. The remaining groups were not offered any kind of monetary incentive. Table 5 below gives 

the characteristics of the six treatment groups. 

Table 5. Treatment groups, by distribution mode, incentive offered, and sample size: 2004–05 

Group and distribution mode Incentive offered Sample size

1: No Internet Yes 1,074

2: No Internet No 1,147

3: Internet, without mention of mailout 1 week later Yes 1,096

4: Internet, without mention of mailout 1 week later No 1,100

5: Internet, with mention of mailout 1 week later Yes 1,067

6: Internet, with mention of mailout 1 week later No 1,131

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

and Former Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2004–05.

At the beginning of the experiment, all teachers were mailed either a letter offering the internet option 

(groups 3–6) or a letter and questionnaire at the same time (groups 1–2). The $10 incentive card was 

included in this mailing for groups 1, 3, and 5. The incentive card was a prepaid $10 American Express 
Chapter 4. Data Collection 33 

gift card that could be used wherever it was accepted. The cards expired approximately 6 months from 

when they were received by the sampled teachers. Respondents who received the incentive were given an 

800-number to call if they had any problems using the card. Respondents offered the internet reporting 

option were given an 800-number as well as an e-mail address to assist with any questions or problems 

they encountered. 

Key findings from the 2004–05 TFS internet and incentive experiment can be summarized as follows: 

• The best response to TFS was achieved by offering only the mailed paper questionnaires. 

• While adding an internet option negatively impacted the total number of responses, the negative 

effect was offset by not mentioning the forthcoming mail option. 

• Offering a small, prepaid incentive increased responses by 5.5 percent, which is statistically 

significant (p < .05). 

For a detailed description of the background, methodology, and results of the TFS internet and incentive 

experiment, refer to “Appendix E. (Inter) Net Gain? Experiments to Increase Response.” 

Timing of Data Collection 

Data collection for the 2004–05 TFS began in October 2004 and continued through June 2005. Table 6 

summarizes the specific data collection activities and the time frame in which each occurred. 

Table 6. Data collection time schedule: 2004–05 

Activity Date of activity

Teacher Status Forms and letters mailed to sampled schools Oct. 2004

Reminder postcards for the Teacher Status Form mailed to sampled schools Oct. 2004

Nonresponse follow-up of schools that did not return the Teacher Status Form Nov. 2004

Address research operation (before mailout) Jan. 2005

Initial mailing of paper current and former teacher questionnaires to non-internet groups; 

 initial mailing of letter containing user name and password to access survey on the Internet to 

 internet groups Jan. 2005

Mailing of current and former teacher questionnaire reminder postcards to non-internet groups Jan. 2005

Initial mailing of paper current and former teacher questionnaires to internet groups Jan. 2005

Initial mailing of current and former teacher questionnaires to address research cases Feb. 2005

E-mail reminders sent to respondents with valid e-mail addresses from the Teacher Status Form Feb. 2005

Telephone and personal visit follow-up for cases with no success in the address research 

 operation Feb.–Mar. 2005

“Undeliverable as addressed” address research operation Feb.–Mar. 2005

Second mailing of current and former teacher questionnaires to both internet and non-internet 

 groups Mar. 2005

Mailing of current and former teacher questionnaires to “undeliverable as addressed” address 

 research cases Mar. 2005

Telephone and personal visit follow-up of current and former teacher questionnaire 

 nonrespondents Apr.–Jun. 2005

SOURCE: Documentation for the 2003–04 Teacher Follow-up Survey, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), 2004–05, U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 
34 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

Data Collection Procedures 

Collecting Teacher Status Information 

In October 2004, the Census Bureau’s clerical processing staff mailed the Teacher Status Form to 

sampled schools that provided lists of teachers during the 2003–04 SASS. The schools were asked to 

complete the form by indicating whether each teacher listed was still teaching in that school (stayer), was 

teaching in another school (mover), or had left the position of a K–12 teacher (leaver). The status of the 

teacher was needed to select the sample for TFS. The Teacher Status Form also requested an e-mail 

address for each current or former teacher listed; reminders were sent to these addresses later in the data 

collection phase. 

One week after the Teacher Status Form mailing, reminder postcards were sent to the sampled schools. 

After the Teacher Status Forms and reminder postcards were distributed to schools, approximately 49 

percent of schools had not completed a Teacher Status Form. Census Bureau clerical staff was responsible 

for the nonresponse follow-up of these cases. Nonresponse efforts consisted of staff following a script to 

make telephone calls to the schools in order to obtain teacher status information. Staff documented each 

call attempt by entering an outcome code in a call record; this outcome code indicated what had happened 

during each follow-up attempt (e.g., a complete interview was collected, a partial interview was collected, 

the school refused to participate, etc.). A handful of nonresponse cases were Amish schools that did not 

have telephone numbers and, therefore, could not be contacted by clerical staff during nonresponse 

follow-up. Census Bureau staff conducted the follow-up with personal visits for these cases. Of the 28 

cases assigned to staff, 25 interviews were completed. The final response rate for the Teacher Status Form 

operation was 99 percent. For further information about the Teacher Status Form operation and TFS 

sample selection procedures refer to chapter 3. 

Initial Mailings of Questionnaires to Current and Former Teachers 

In January 2005, the first mailing of questionnaires took place. All teachers were mailed a version of the 

TFS introductory letter that explained the purpose of the survey and included a statement of authority and 

assurance of confidentiality. Each of the six treatment groups had its own version of the letter. The 

respondents in the internet groups (groups 3–6) were provided a user name and password to use to access 

the survey on the Internet in this initial letter. The respondents in the non-internet groups (groups 1–2) 

received paper versions of either the Questionnaire for Former Teachers or the Questionnaire for Current 

Teachers with the letter. Finally, the respondents in the incentive groups (groups 1, 3, and 5) received 

their $10 incentive card with the letter. 

The non-internet groups were mailed a reminder postcard approximately 10 days after the first mailing in 

January 2005. At the same time, the internet groups were mailed the paper current or former teacher 

questionnaires and were reminded about the internet option. In February 2005, e-mail reminders were sent 

to respondents whose e-mail addresses were provided on the Teacher Status Form. The e-mail reminders 

sent to respondents in the internet groups included a link to the TFS questionnaire website. 

The Questionnaire for Former Teachers was sent to sampled persons who were reported by school 

administrators as having left the K–12 teaching profession at the home address that was provided in the 

2003–04 SASS teacher questionnaire. The Questionnaire for Current Teachers was sent to sampled 

persons who were reported as still teaching at the elementary or secondary level, either in the same school 

as the previous year (stayers) or in a different school (movers). Questionnaires were sent to the stayers’ 

home address when one was provided on SASS. Otherwise, they were sent to the stayers’ school address. 
Chapter 4. Data Collection 35 

Current teacher questionnaires were sent to the movers’ home address that was provided on SASS, if one 

was provided. 

Address Research Operations 

Movers and leavers who did not provide a home address on the 2003–04 SASS could not be mailed a 

questionnaire. Therefore, in January 2005, clerical staff began an address research operation. Staff began 

the operation by calling the sampled teacher’s contact person(s). On the 2003–04 SASS teacher 

questionnaires, teachers were asked to provide the address and telephone number of two people who 

would know how to get in touch with them during the coming years. If the sampled teacher did not 

provide a contact person(s) on SASS, or the contact person(s) was not helpful, staff called the former 

school and used online databases to try to obtain new contact information for the sampled person. This 

included a new home address, work address, and/or telephone numbers at both. If a new address of some 

sort was found, the questionnaire was sent to the new address in February 2005 to be completed by the 

sampled teacher. If no new address was found, the questionnaire was labeled with his or her former 

school address and sent to one of the 12 Regional Offices11 to be assigned to field staff. Investigative 

follow-up for these cases took place throughout February and March 2005. Staff contacted the schools 

where the teachers worked the year before to try to obtain location information. All cases included in the 

address research operation were removed from the incentive experiment because data collection began 

later for this group, making the collection process incomparable to cases included in the incentive 

experiment. 

Throughout February and March 2005 and after the first mailing, cases that were returned to the Census 

Bureau’s clerical processing center as “undeliverable as addressed” by the post office were sent to clerical 

staff for address research. If a new address was found, the questionnaire was sent to the new address in 

March 2005 to be completed by the sampled teacher. If no new address was found, the questionnaire was 

addressed to the teacher at his or her former school and sent to one of the 12 Regional Offices to be 

assigned to field staff with the nonresponse cases. These cases were removed from the TFS incentive 

experiment analysis. 

Follow-up Mailings 

In March 2005, approximately 6 weeks after the first mailing, each sampled person who had not 

completed a TFS questionnaire, either on the paper form initially mailed to them or on the Internet, was 

mailed a second questionnaire. The internet groups were once again reminded about the internet option. 

“Switchers” 

Throughout the data collection period, many respondents returned the questionnaire they received 

indicating that it did not apply to them. This happened when the sample teacher’s 2003–04 school 

incorrectly reported the sample teacher’s current teaching status on the Teacher Status Form. These cases 

were referred to as “switcher” cases. For example, if sampled teacher A’s 2003–04 school reported her as 

leaving the teaching profession, she was categorized as a “leaver” and mailed a Questionnaire for Former 

Teachers. However, it may have been the case that this teacher left her previous (2003–04) school and 

was working as a teacher elsewhere. This would make her a “mover,” meaning that she was currently 

teaching and should complete the Questionnaire for Current Teachers rather than the Questionnaire for 

Former Teachers that she was mailed originally. Teacher A is called a “switcher.” 

 

11 The Census Bureau has Regional Offices in Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Kansas 

City, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, and Seattle. 
36 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

In the case of switchers, the sampled teacher, Teacher A, was instructed to return the incorrect form that 

she received (in this case, a Questionnaire for Former Teachers) to clerical processing staff who would 

then send her the correct form (a Questionnaire for Current Teachers) for completion. Among TFS cases, 

4.6 percent were switchers. 

The internet version contained both versions of TFS. Respondents’ answers to the initial screening 

questions determined if they followed the former or current teacher questionnaire path. In addition, the 

internet instrument automated skip patterns and presented the appropriate questions based on the 

respondent’s answers. 

Nonresponse Follow-up 

Follow-up efforts began in April 2005. Cases were included in nonresponse follow-up when the sampled 

teachers had not returned a completed paper questionnaire or completed the questionnaire on the Internet. 

The majority of the nonresponse cases had valid telephone numbers and home addresses, so field staff 

contacted teachers by telephone and personal visit to complete the TFS interview. For the remaining 

cases, nonresponse efforts consisted of telephone calls to all sources of information available—contact 

persons from SASS, information found during the address research operation, and the prior year’s 

school—in order to obtain information about the person’s current home address or employer. If at least 

four attempts were made by telephone and no contact was established or there was no valid telephone 

number or no way to obtain a valid one, personal visits were permitted. Field staff members were 

instructed to visit the former schools and attempt to obtain information to locate the sampled persons. 

Field staff members were supplied with a preprinted labeled questionnaire for each nonresponse case. The 

questionnaires were labeled with any and all available information, including home address, former or 

current school address, contact information, and any information that was obtained during the address 

research operations, where applicable. In addition, they were instructed to have blank former and current 

teacher questionnaires on hand at all times in case they encountered “switcher cases” that required the 

other type of questionnaire. 

After the field staff member completed a follow-up action (e.g., conducted an interview, picked up a 

completed questionnaire, left a message, verified that the questionnaire had been mailed), he or she 

indicated what had occurred by entering an outcome code and notes into the TFS Excel spreadsheet, 

which kept track of the status of all TFS nonresponse follow-up cases. The Regional Offices mailed all 

completed questionnaires to the clerical processing staff weekly. Progress reports for the nonresponse 

cases were run twice weekly. Final response rates are presented in detail in chapter 5. 

Information about questionnaire check-in, data capture methods used to convert data from paper to 

electronic format, and criteria for determining final response rates can be found in chapter 6. 

Changes in Data Collection Methods from the 2000–01 TFS 

A number of new data collection methods were implemented in the 2004–05 administration of TFS. 

These methods included a series of address research operations, an internet reporting option, the offering 

of monetary incentives to respondents, and the use of e-mail reminders to respondents. Each of these 

methods was employed with the ultimate goal of increasing overall response to TFS. 
Chapter 4. Data Collection 37 

Address Research Operation 

In the 2000–01 TFS, all cases without addresses were sent directly to field staff, who called the contacts 

provided by the teachers in SASS (if they were provided) or the teachers’ former schools. The 2004–05 

TFS conducted a centralized research operation for these cases, which included researching addresses in 

an extensive U.S. address database, in addition to calling the contacts that the sampled teacher provided 

on the 2003–04 SASS teacher questionnaire and the sampled teacher’s 2003–04 school. 

Internet and Incentives 

The 2000–01 TFS questionnaires were distributed and data were collected by mail only. However, for the 

2004–05 TFS, an internet reporting option was implemented for two-thirds of the respondents. Census 

Bureau analysts and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) wanted to encourage responses 

on the Internet because internet questionnaires can reduce nonsampling error due to the automated skip 

patterns, edits, and range checks that are embedded in internet questionnaires. Additionally, internet 

questionnaires can provide data processing advantages such as faster turnaround times and lower 

processing costs. 

While one of the most important goals of TFS was to maximize the overall response rates, simply 

offering an internet reporting option typically does not increase total response rates for mailed 

questionnaires.12 Census Bureau analysts and NCES wanted to implement an additional data collection 

method that would increase internet response (in addition to mail response). Consequently, a $10 

monetary incentive was offered to approximately half of the TFS respondents. By offering an internet 

option as well as a monetary incentive, analysts hoped that the overall response rate would be higher than 

it would be if these methods were not employed. This was tested in the 2004–05 internet and incentive 

experiment, which is described further in “Appendix E. (Inter) Net Gain? Experiments to Increase 

Response.” 

E-mail Reminders 

The Teacher Status Forms that were mailed to schools requested an e-mail address, in addition to teaching 

or other occupational status, for each of the teachers listed. Later during data collection, respondents for 

whom an e-mail address had been collected were sent an e-mail reminder. These e-mail reminders were 

sent prior to the second questionnaire mailings and served as a way of reminding sampled teachers that 

they should complete the appropriate TFS questionnaire. In addition, the reminders e-mailed to 

respondents who received the internet reporting option contained a link directly to the internet survey, 

making it easy for respondents to get to the survey. Census Bureau analysts and NCES hoped that 

reminding respondents of TFS using another mode of communication (i.e., e-mail) would help to increase 

the self-administered response on the survey. 

 

12 Several studies have obtained this result. See “Appendix E. (Inter) Net Gain? Experiments to Increase Response.” 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
39 

Chapter 5. Response Rates 

This chapter presents the overall survey, or unit, and item response rates for the 2004–05 Teacher Followup Survey (TFS). The unit response rates for each TFS survey are presented in detail, and the item 

response rates for both the Questionnaire for Former Teachers and the Questionnaire for Current Teachers 

are summarized. Nonresponse bias analyses were conducted on both the unit (i.e., type of TFS 

questionnaire, meaning the current teacher or former teacher questionnaire) and the individual items for 

TFS. These analyses are described and the major findings are presented following the response rate 

sections. 

Survey Response Rates 

Sampled cases fall into one of three categories: a completed interview, a noninterview, or out of scope. A 

completed interview means that a sampled teacher who met the criteria for inclusion13 in TFS 

substantially completed14 the appropriate TFS questionnaire (i.e., the former teacher questionnaire or the 

current teacher questionnaire). Noninterviews refer to sampled teachers who met the criteria for inclusion 

in TFS, but did not complete the questionnaire. Out-of-scope cases were deemed ineligible to participate 

in TFS and were not included in the TFS sample. SASS respondents were designated as out of scope if 

they moved out of the United States following the 2003–04 school year, were deceased, or had never been 

teachers (i.e., incorrectly reported their teaching status in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

[SASS]). 

A unit response rate is the rate at which the sampled units responded by sufficiently completing the 

questionnaire. Unit response rates can be calculated as unweighted or weighted. The unweighted response 

rates are the number of interviewed cases divided by the number of eligible sampled units (i.e., including 

interviews and noninterviews, but not out-of-scope cases). The weighted response rates are the baseweighted (initial basic weight multiplied by the sampling adjustment factor) number of interviewed cases 

divided by the base-weighted number of eligible cases. The initial base weight for each sampled unit is 

the inverse of the probability of selection. For further discussion of the weighting procedures followed for 

the 2004–05 TFS, see chapter 8. 

Tables 7 and 8 summarize the weighted and unweighted response rates for cases in the 2004–05 TFS by 

data file and by the sector of the teacher’s base-year school (i.e., public or private). The response rate 

tables are useful as indicators for possible nonresponse bias. The unweighted response rates provide an 

indication of the general success of the data collection efforts, while the weighted response rates provide 

measures of the quality of the data and the potential for nonresponse bias. 

The weighted unit response rate for all teachers in the 2004–05 TFS was 91.82 percent.15 Table 7 

summarizes the weighted and unweighted response rates for cases in the 2004–05 TFS by data file (i.e., 

current and former teachers) and by the sector of the teacher’s base-year school (i.e., public or private). 

The response rate for current teachers (shown in tables 7 and 8) includes teachers who stayed in the same 

school for the 2004–05 school year (stayers) and those who moved to a new school (movers). Both 

stayers and movers completed the current feacher questionnaire. The weighted response rate for movers 

 

13 Sampled teachers met the criteria for inclusion in the TFS if they completed a 2003–04 Schools and Staffing 

Survey teacher questionnaire and were living in the United States. 14 To be classified as a completed interview, the respondent had to answer three required questions on the Former 

Teacher Questionnaire and four required questions on the Current Teacher Questionnaire and at least 10 percent of 

the remaining questionnaire items. (See the “Final Interview Status Edit” section in chapter 6 for more details.) 

15 For the formula to calculate the unit response rate, see Standard 1-3 in the NCES Statistical Standards (Seastrom 

2003). 
40 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

(90.91 percent) was lower than the weighted response rate for stayers (92.11 percent), reducing the 

response rate for current teachers to 92.03 percent. The response rate for former teachers who completed 

the former teacher questionnaire was slightly lower at 89.64 percent. 

Table 7. Unweighted and base-weighted response rates (in percent) of sampled teachers, by 

sector and teaching status: 2004–05 

Sector and teaching status Unweighted response rate Base-weighted response rate 

 Total 91.02 91.82

 Current teachers 92.17 92.03

 Former teachers 89.95 89.64

Public1

 92.03 91.90

 Current teachers 92.49 92.06

 Former teachers 91.16 90.25

Private 88.33 91.14

 Current teachers 90.96 91.86

 Former teachers 84.56 86.58

1

 The public sector includes teachers from traditional public and public charter schools. 

NOTE: Weighted response rates use the inverse of the probability of selection and the sampling adjustment factor. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

and Former Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2004–05. 

The overall response rate represents the response rate to the survey taking into consideration each stage of 

data collection. For a teacher to be eligible for TFS, it was necessary to have received the Teacher Listing 

Form from the school during the 2003–04 SASS data collection, which provided a sampling frame for 

teachers at that school, and for the teacher to have responded to the SASS teacher questionnaire. This 

overall response rate is the product of the survey response rates shown in table 8: (SASS Teacher Listing 

Form response rate) x (SASS teacher questionnaire response rate) x (TFS questionnaire response rate). 

Table 8. Base-weighted response rates (in percent) for SASS teacher data files and TFS data 

files, by sector: 2003–04 and 2004–05 

Base-weighted 2004–05 

TFS response rate 

Overall 2004–05 

TFS response rates 

Sector 

Base-weighted 

2003–04 SASS 

Teacher Listing 

Form response rate 

Base-weighted 

2003–04 SASS 

teacher data file 

response rate 

Current 

teachers

Former 

teachers

Current 

teachers 

Former 

teachers

 Total 88.27 84.55 92.03 89.64 68.68 66.90

 

Public1

 89.20 84.90 92.06 90.25 69.72 68.35

Private 85.40 82.40 91.86 86.58 64.64 60.92

1

 The public sector includes teachers from traditional public and public charter schools. 

NOTE: Base-weighted response rates use the inverse of the probability of selection and the sampling adjustment factor. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public 

and Private School Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2003–04; Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current and Former 

Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2004–05. 
Chapter 5. Response Rates 41 

Item Response Rates 

Item response rates indicate the percentage of respondents that answered a given survey question, or item. 

The weighted TFS item response rates are produced by dividing the number of sampled teachers who 

responded to an item by the number of sampled teachers who were eligible to answer that item, adjusting 

by the final weight. For all TFS items, a counted response is any item that is not missing and that has a 

value of “0” for the associated imputation flag. For detailed information on imputations performed on 

TFS datasets, see chapter 7. 

The weighted item response rates for the former teacher questionnaire ranged from 41 percent to 100 

percent. The weighted item response rates for the current teacher questionnaire ranged from 63 percent to 

100 percent. Table 9 provides a brief summary of the item response rates for both questionnaires. The 

item response rates in these tables are weighted and do not reflect additional response loss due to 

respondents’ refusal to participate in the survey. 

Table 9. Summary of weighted item response rates for the Teacher Follow-up Survey, by 

questionnaire: 2004–05 

Questionnaire 

Range of item 

response rates 

(percent) 

Percentage of items 

with a response rate of 

85 percent or more

Percentage of items 

with a response rate of 

70.0–84.9 percent 

Percentage of items 

with a response rate of 

less than 70 percent

Questionnaire for 

 Former Teachers 40.81–100.00 94.00 2.00 4.00

Questionnaire for 

 Current Teachers 63.00–100.00 95.85 3.55 0.60

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

and Former Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2004–05. 

On the former teacher questionnaire, there were six items that had a weighted response rate of less that 85 

percent. On the current teacher questionnaire, there were seven items that had a weighted response rate of 

less than 85 percent. These items are described in exhibit 1. 

Exhibit 1. Items with weighted response rates of less than 85 percent, by questionnaire: 2004–05 

Questionnaire Item 

Questionnaire for Former Teachers 7 (How much) 

26 

26 Yes (1 or 2) 

31 

35 

35 (Other) 

 

Questionnaire for Current Teachers 3 

5 (Main assignment) 

4a 

15 

20 (ZIP code) 

20 (School district) 

44 

NOTE: Numbers in this exhibit refer to questionnaire item numbers, while letters or parenthetical descriptions refer to subitems. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

and Former Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2004–05. 
42 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

Nonresponse Bias Analysis 

A comprehensive nonresponse bias analysis was conducted for the 2004–05 TFS. The analysis evaluated 

the extent of potential bias introduced by teacher nonresponse at both unit and item levels. 

Unit-level Nonresponse 

Overview of Methodology 

The first step in conducting the bias analysis was to examine the overall response rate by the reporting 

characteristics (i.e., urbanicity, school level, teacher status, teaching experience, and race/ethnicity). If the 

response rate fell below 50 percent, that population would not be reported separately in a published table; 

instead, the data would be replaced with a double dagger, although the estimates would be included in the 

total. The footnote would read, “Reporting standards not met. The base-weighted unit response rate was 

below 50 percent.” For any characteristic where the response rate was less than 85 percent, a more 

detailed analysis was done on the characteristics used in stratification. The results were highlighted if that 

particular cell had a significantly higher or lower response rate than the file as a whole and bolded if the 

difference was noteworthy. A noteworthy difference had to meet the following conditions: 

• The difference relative to the overall response rate, or frame proportion, was greater than 10 

percent. 

• The absolute difference was greater than one percentage point. 

• The coefficient of variation was less than 15 percent. 

• The cell had at least 30 interviews. 

In addition, the base-weighted distribution of the respondents was compared to the distribution on the 

frame, which was adjusted for sampled units identified as out of scope. As discussed above, significant 

differences were highlighted and noteworthy cells were bolded. 

Comparing the overall response rate of each file to the tabulation cells helped to identify areas of potential 

concern. Comparing the base-weighted distribution of the respondents to the adjusted frame helped to 

identify areas of potential bias for data items that were not particularly well correlated with the weighting 

cells. 

Summary of Conclusions. Evidence of substantial bias was not found on the data files. 

Summary for TFS Teachers 

The overall response rate for the teachers was 91.8 percent. The more detailed analysis was performed by 

the primary reporting characteristics (i.e., urbanicity, teacher’s grade level, school type, teaching 

experience, teacher status, school size, percent minority enrollment, teacher’s age, teacher’s 

race/ethnicity, and region). The overall response rate for Hispanic teachers was below 85 percent. No 

other group had a noteworthy response rate below 85 percent. The response rate breakdown is listed in 

table 10. 
Chapter 5. Response Rates 43 

Table 10. Number of teachers in sample and base-weighted unit response rates, by selected 

reporting characteristics: 2004–05 

Reporting characteristic 

Number of 

eligible teachers

Response rate 

(percent)

Standard error 

(percent) t statistic

 Total 8,168 91.8 0.55 †

All teachers in sample 

 Urbanicity 

 Central city 2,495 91.4 1.15 -0.3054

 Suburban 3,794 90.9 0.88 -0.9297

 Rural 1,879 94.5 1.00 2.3600

 Teacher’s grade level 

 Elementary 3,681 92.1 0.82 0.3069

 Middle 1,941 92.2 1.21 0.2993

 Secondary 2,546 91.0 1.15 -0.6292

 School type

 Traditional public 5,463 91.9 0.66 0.0872

 Public charter 321 92.7 2.37 0.3472

 Private 2,384 91.1 2.04 -0.3191

 Teaching experience 

 New 3,024 91.0 0.90 -0.7744

 Experienced 5,144 92.1 0.70 0.2652

 Teacher status 

 Leaver 1,588 93.0 1.37 0.7839

 Mover 1,903 91.5 1.17 -0.2276

 Stayer 2,771 92.0 0.66 0.2021

 Unknown 1,906 89.0 1.62 -1.6342

 School size 

 Less than 200 1,699 91.8 2.73 -0.0192

 200–349 1,299 93.1 1.41 0.8666

 350–499 1,347 91.9 1.68 0.0488

 500–749 1,490 91.9 1.09 0.0449

 750 or more 2,333 91.3 0.96 -0.5090

 Percent minority enrollment 

 Less than 10 percent 2,678 91.8 1.07 -0.0127

 10–34 percent 2,315 93.1 1.25 0.9638

 35 percent or more 3,175 90.9 0.90 -0.8666

 Teacher’s age 

 Less than 30 1,938 89.7 1.68 -1.1836

 30–39 1,944 90.7 1.31 -0.7913

 40–49 1,619 93.4 0.96 1.4428

 50–64 2,511 92.5 0.98 0.5724

 65 or more 156 92.1 4.14 0.0673

See notes at end of table. 
44 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

Table 10. Number of teachers in sample and base-weighted unit response rates, by selected 

reporting characteristics: 2004–05—Continued 

Reporting characteristic 

Number of 

eligible teachers

Response rate 

(percent)

Standard error 

(percent) t statistic

All teachers in sample—Continued 

 Teacher’s race/ethnicity 

 Hispanic, any race 395 82.8 3.27 -2.7216

 Asian or Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 259 90.7 3.66 -0.3005

 Black, non-Hispanic 657 90.6 2.31 -0.5221

 More than one race, non-Hispanic 76 97.9 1.23 4.4928

 American Indian or Alaska Native, 

 non-Hispanic 110 92.5 6.86 0.0988

 White, non-Hispanic 6,671 92.4 0.63 0.6430

 Region 

 Northeast 1,465 86.1 1.72 -3.1513

 Midwest 1,944 95.2 0.90 3.2268

 South 2,976 93.2 0.92 1.2550

 West 1,783 90.6 1.38 -0.8419

Teachers in sample of Hispanic ethnicity, any race 

 Overall 395 82.8 3.27 -2.7216

 Teacher’s grade level 

 Elementary 198 85.6 4.05 0.5335

 Middle 86 87.1 6.54 0.5931

 Secondary 111 71.2 10.17 -1.0852

 School type 

 Traditional public 239 82.9 3.79 0.0162

 Public charter 35 93.3 5.22 1.6984

 Private 121 79.5 6.15 -0.4710

 Teaching experience 

 New 175 85.1 4.29 0.4279

 Experienced 220 81.9 4.45 -0.1673

 Teacher status 

 Leaver 53 95.8 2.53 3.1370

 Mover 90 77.5 7.95 -0.6124

 Stayer 127 82.4 4.07 -0.0844

 Unknown 125 88.1 3.22 1.1631

 Minority status 

 Minority 392 82.7 3.28 -0.0170

 Nonminority 3 98.0 31.26 0.4828

† Not applicable. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

Teacher Data File” and “Former Teacher Data File,” 2004–05. 

The frame distribution was compared to the base-weighted respondent distribution for the stratification 

characteristics (i.e., urbanicity, teacher’s grade level, school type, teaching experience, teacher status, 

school size, percent minority enrollment, teacher’s age, teacher’s race/ethnicity, and region). Since the 

Hispanic response rate was below 85 percent, the distributions were compared for Hispanic teachers 

broken down by stratification characteristics. The results are as listed in table 11. 
Chapter 5. Response Rates 45 

Table 11. Base-weighted frame distribution of TFS teachers, interviewed distribution, and 

t statistic, by selected reporting characteristics: 2004–05 

Frame distribution 

(adjusted for out-of-scope 

teachers) 

and standard error 

Interviewed distribution 

(adjusted for out-of-scope 

teachers) 

and standard error 

Reporting characteristic Proportion

Standard 

error Proportion

Standard 

error 

t statistic 

(frame 

proportion 

compared to 

interviewed 

proportion)

 Overall 1.0000 0.0137 1.0000 0.0237 0.0000

All teachers in sample 

 Urbanicity 

 Central city 0.2732 0.0046 0.2677 0.0107 -0.4759

 Suburban 0.5038 0.0085 0.5040 0.0166 0.0139

 Rural 0.2231 0.0111 0.2283 0.0128 0.3096

 Teacher’s grade level 

 Elementary 0.4542 0.0172 0.4556 0.0226 0.0494

 Middle 0.2494 0.0064 0.2512 0.0115 0.1378

 Secondary 0.2964 0.0045 0.2932 0.0128 -0.2377

 School type 

 Traditional public 0.8780 0.0300 0.8788 0.0342 0.0172

 Public charter 0.0108 0.0005 0.0109 0.0009 0.0883

 Private 0.1112 0.0391 0.1103 0.0343 -0.0169

 Teaching experience 

 New 0.2236 0.0059 0.2218 0.0086 -0.1665

 Experienced 0.7764 0.0111 0.7782 0.0212 0.0730

 Teacher status 

 Leaver 0.0277 0.0014 0.0281 0.0013 0.2169

 Mover 0.0648 0.0032 0.0646 0.0034 -0.0274

 Stayer 0.8499 0.0103 0.8513 0.0227 0.0599

 Unknown 0.0577 0.0078 0.0559 0.0086 -0.1525

 School size 

 Less than 200 0.0895 0.0313 0.0827 0.0270 -0.1640

 200–349 0.1363 0.0039 0.1347 0.0072 -0.1940

 350–499 0.1796 0.0074 0.1916 0.0112 0.8962

 500–749 0.2414 0.0088 0.2382 0.0139 -0.1916

 750 or more 0.3532 0.0102 0.3527 0.0163 -0.0254

 Percent minority enrollment 

 Less than 10 percent 0.3117 0.0204 0.3321 0.0224 0.6734

 10–34 percent 0.2850 0.0074 0.2796 0.0114 -0.3998

 35 percent or more 0.4033 0.0111 0.3884 0.0170 -0.7338

 Teacher’s age 

 Less than 30 0.1590 0.0049 0.1612 0.0087 0.2217

 30–39 0.2453 0.0039 0.2385 0.0114 -0.5637

 40–49 0.2420 0.0052 0.2527 0.0145 0.6935

 50–64 0.3429 0.0115 0.3349 0.0138 -0.4424

 65 or more 0.0108 0.0020 0.0127 0.0022 0.6196

See notes at end of table. 
46 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

Table 11. Base-weighted frame distribution of TFS teachers, interviewed distribution, and 

t statistic, by selected reporting characteristics: 2004–05—Continued 

Frame distribution 

(adjusted for out-of-scope 

teachers) 

and standard error 

Interviewed distribution 

(adjusted for out-of-scope 

teachers) 

and standard error 

Reporting characteristic Proportion

Standard 

error Proportion

Standard 

error 

t statistic 

(frame 

proportion 

compared to 

interviewed 

proportion)

All teachers in sample—Continued 

 Teacher’s race/ethnicity 

 Hispanic, any race 0.0536 0.0033 0.0412 0.0042 -2.3260

 Asian or Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 0.0150 0.0007 0.0192 0.0031 1.3068

 Black, non-Hispanic 0.0704 0.0028 0.0688 0.0054 -0.2563

 More than one race, non-Hispanic 0.0075 0.0010 0.0099 0.0023 0.9808

 American Indian or Alaska Native, 

 non-Hispanic 0.0054 0.0008 0.0087 0.0020 1.5317

 White, non-Hispanic 0.8480 0.0142 0.8521 0.0239 0.1448

 Region 

 Northeast 0.1942 0.0032 0.1839 0.0109 -0.9011

 Midwest 0.2440 0.0047 0.2533 0.0114 0.7567

 South 0.3802 0.0116 0.3843 0.0157 0.2097

 West 0.1816 0.0041 0.1785 0.0091 -0.3147

Teachers in sample of Hispanic ethnicity, any race 

 Overall 1.0000 0.0610 1.0000 0.1022 0.0000

 Teacher’s grade level 

 Elementary 0.5544 0.0538 0.6241 0.0933 0.6471

 Middle 0.1953 0.0226 0.1926 0.0441 -0.0548

 Secondary 0.2503 0.0136 0.1833 0.0451 -1.4229

 School type 

 Traditional public 0.8942 0.0617 0.8871 0.1040 -0.0591

 Public charter 0.0181 0.0025 0.0247 0.0053 1.1105

 Private 0.0876 0.0155 0.0882 0.0156 0.0265

 Teaching experience 

 New 0.2814 0.0234 0.2939 0.0348 0.2986

 Experienced 0.7186 0.0494 0.7061 0.0943 -0.1177

 Teacher status 

 Leaver 0.0124 0.0027 0.0169 0.0038 0.9636

 Mover 0.0546 0.0077 0.0579 0.0092 0.2725

 Stayer 0.8534 0.0566 0.8252 0.0980 -0.2492

 Unknown 0.0795 0.0107 0.1000 0.0145 1.1355

 Minority status 

 Minority 0.9953 0.0604 0.9939 0.1016 -0.0118

 Nonminority 0.0047 0.0027 0.0061 0.0054 0.2304

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

Teacher Data File” and “Former Teacher Data File,” 2004–05. 

Conclusion/Course of Action. Based on this analysis, evidence of substantial bias was not found. 
Chapter 5. Response Rates 47 

Item Nonresponse Bias Analysis 

Overview of Methodology 

The item bias analysis examined the overall response rate for each item on both TFS data files. The 

analysis included examining the item response rates by the reporting characteristics (i.e., urbanicity, 

teacher’s grade level, school type, school size, percent minority enrollment, teacher status, teaching 

experience, teacher’s age, teacher’s race/ethnicity, and region) using the final weight for all in-scope 

sampled units. If the overall response rate for the item fell below 70 percent, the item will be footnoted in 

NCES publications with “Item response rate is below 70 percent” as a method of cautioning the user that 

the low item response rate introduces some potential for bias in the imputation procedure. For any 

characteristic where the item response rate was less than 85 percent, a more detailed analysis was done by 

stratification characteristics. The results were highlighted if that particular cell had a significantly higher 

or lower response rate than the file as a whole and bolded if the difference was noteworthy. A noteworthy 

difference met the following conditions: 

• The difference relative to the overall response rate for the particular item was greater than 10 

percent. 

• The absolute difference was greater than one percentage point. 

• The coefficient of variation was less than 15 percent. 

• The cell had at least 30 interviews. 

Table 12 presents the number of items by response rate for each file. Of particular concern are the items 

with an overall response rate below 70 percent. These items are listed in exhibit 2. 

Table 12. Number of questionnaire items, by response rate category and data file: 2004–05 

Number of items with a response rate of... 

Data file 

Total 

number 

of items 

95.0 percent 

or above

85.0 to 94.9 

percent

70.0 to 84.9 

percent 

Below 

70 percent

Current teacher 170 126 37 6 1

Former teacher 100 41 53 2 4

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

Teacher Data File” and “Former Teacher Data File,” 2004–05. 

Exhibit 2. Items with a response rate below 70 percent, by data file: 2004–05 

Data file Item 

Current teacher Item 44: How many family members living in your household during 2004 were under the 

 age of 5? 

 

Former teacher Item 26: Would any factors other than the ones listed above influence your decision to return 

 to the position of a K–12 teacher? 

 Item 26 factors: If “Yes,” what factors? 

 Item 31: How many family members living in your household during 2004 were under the 

 age of 5? 

 Item 35 (other): Where is your access to the Internet—at home, work, or elsewhere? 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

Teacher Data File” and “Former Teacher Data File,” 2004–05. 
48 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

Summary of Conclusions. 

Current Teachers—Seven items had a response rate below 85 percent, requiring a closer examination. 

One item had a response rate below 70 percent, necessitating a footnote. A closer examination of response 

rates revealed no substantial evidence of a bias. 

Former Teachers—Six items had a response rate below 85 percent, requiring a closer examination. Four 

items had a response rate below 70 percent, necessitating a footnote. A closer examination of response 

rates revealed no substantial evidence of a bias. 
49 

Chapter 6. Data Processing 

Once the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) data collection was completed, data processing 

began. U.S. Census Bureau clerical processing staff in Jeffersonville, Indiana, was responsible for the first 

phase of data processing. This involved using the Automated Tracking and Control (ATAC) system to 

assign a check-in code for each paper TFS questionnaire received to indicate its status; TFS 

questionnaires completed on the Internet were automatically assigned check-in codes by the internet 

instrument. The data from completed questionnaires then were captured (converted from paper to 

electronic format) and sent to Census Bureau analysts in reformatted SAS datasets so the analysts could 

more easily review the data. Census Bureau analysts were responsible for resolving outcome codes, 

conducting preliminary data reviews, and assigning preliminary interview status. They performed a series 

of computer edits on the data to identify and resolve inconsistencies and assigned a final interview status 

to each case. The final interview status is the final determination of whether each case was an interview, a 

noninterview, or out of scope for TFS, using stricter criteria than those used to determine the preliminary 

interview status of each TFS case. After these steps were completed, there were still items that were “not 

answered.” These items were imputed during the final stages of data processing. Once all stages of data 

processing were completed, the final data products were created. 

Questionnaire Check-in 

Check-in of Paper Questionnaires 

The Census Bureau clerical processing staff received questionnaires directly from both the sample 

teachers and from the 12 Regional Offices’ field follow-ups.16 Upon receipt, staff assigned a check-in 

code (e.g., completed questionnaire, blank questionnaire, refusal, teacher deceased) to each questionnaire 

to indicate its status. A paper questionnaire was checked-in as a “completed questionnaire”17 when the 

respondent completed at least one item. The exception to this rule was when item 1 on either 

questionnaire indicated that the respondent was sent the incorrect questionnaire type due to the former 

school’s inaccurate reporting of the respondent’s teaching or other occupational status on the Teacher 

Status Form18; these respondents were assigned a unique “switcher” check-in code indicating this. See 

chapter 4 for further information about “switchers.” The remaining check-in codes were assigned based 

upon any notes or indicators written on the cover of or attached to the returned questionnaire. If staff 

members were unsure of what check-in code to assign, they sent the case to Census Bureau headquarters 

analysts for reconciliation. 

All TFS questionnaires were assigned a check-in code. The code was entered into the ATAC system. If 

there was a change to the address either marked on the questionnaire label or indicated by the post office, 

the address information was updated in the ATAC system as well. The questionnaires were then grouped 

 

16 The Census Bureau has Regional Offices in Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Kansas 

City, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, and Seattle. 

17 The check-in code indicating a “completed questionnaire” does not necessarily indicate that a case is a “complete 

interview.” Interview status was assigned both during the preliminary and final interview status (ISR) stages of data 

processing. See the “Preliminary ISR Classification” and “Final Interview Status Edit” sections of this chapter for a 

detailed description of the criteria for former and current teacher questionnaire complete interviews. 18 The Teacher Status Form was mailed to TFS sampled schools that provided lists of teachers during the 2003–04 

Schools and Staffing Survey. These schools were asked to complete the form by indicating whether each teacher 

listed was still teaching in that school (stayer), was teaching in another school (mover), or left the teaching 

profession all together (leaver). 
50 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

into batches by questionnaire type, doc type,19 and check-in code. Only completed interviews were sent 

on for the next step of data processing, which was data capture. 

Check-in of Internet Questionnaires 

Approximately 12 percent of respondents completed the internet version of the TFS questionnaire that 

included the questions for both the current and former teacher questionnaires. As respondents submitted 

their questionnaires online, the internet instrument automatically edited them for critical items, which are 

those items that must be answered in order for a questionnaire to be considered complete. While the paper 

questionnaires were assigned a check-in code of “completed questionnaire” if at least one item was 

completed, the internet questionnaires were assigned a check-in code of complete as long as long as all 

critical items were complete. The automated edits on these internet forms helped to reduce the amount of 

editing and review that these cases would have had to go through at later stages of data processing. For a 

description of the critical items for TFS, refer to exhibit 3 in the “Preliminary Data Review” section of 

this chapter. 

Several of the critical items on the TFS internet version served as screener questions because the 

respondent’s answers to these questions determined which questionnaire path the respondent would 

follow. The combination of the first two items determined whether the respondent went down the leaver 

(i.e., former teacher) path or stayer/mover (i.e., current teacher) path. The first item asked the respondent 

if he or she currently taught any regularly scheduled classes in any of grades prekindergarten through 12. 

If not, the respondent would automatically follow the former teacher path of questions. Otherwise, the 

second item asked the respondent to classify his or her current position at the current school. 

As long as the respondent was not a short-term substitute, a student teacher, or a teacher aide, he or she 

would follow the current teacher path of questions.20 Further down the current teacher questionnaire path, 

a question asked whether the respondent was teaching at the same school as previous year. This question 

determined whether the current teacher respondent would follow the “mover” path of questions. 

If all of the above screener items (when applicable, depending on the questionnaire type) as well as a few 

additional items were completed, the check-in code automatically reflected that the case was a complete 

interview. See the “Final Interview Status Edit” section of this chapter for a detailed description of the 

criteria for former and current teacher questionnaire complete interviews. 

Data Capture 

Data Capture of Paper Questionnaires 

The 2004–05 TFS data were captured (i.e., converted from paper to electronic format) using manual data 

keying. During check-in, the questionnaires were split into groups called “batches” by questionnaire type, 

doc type, and check-in code, and then they were manually keyed. Manual data keying for both TFS 

questionnaires was accomplished using a Key from Paper (KFP) data capture system. Analysts wrote 

specifications for data keying, and programmers used these specifications to develop the KFP system for 

each survey prior to keying. It was programmed to present screens of questionnaire items to data keying 

 

19 The doc type indicates if the questionnaire that was received by the clerical staff was from the first mailing, 

second mailing, or field follow-up. 

20 For TFS, teacher aides, student teachers, and short-term substitute teachers were not considered regular classroom 

teachers. If a respondent was a regular classroom teacher during the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey school 

year and changed assignments to one of these three positions for the 2004–05 school year, then he or she was 

considered to be a leaver and should have completed the former teacher questionnaire. 
Chapter 6. Data Processing 51 

staff, who worked through each page of the questionnaire and keyed any entries into the appropriate fields 

on the screens. 

All KFP entries were 100 percent verified by the keying staff, meaning that each field was keyed twice 

and the results were compared automatically for discrepancies and, subsequently, verified. The 

verification during this operation allowed up to a 1 percent error on a field-to-field basis. Error rates were 

calculated by dividing the total number of keying errors by the total number of keyed fields. 

If an entire batch of questionnaires had a total error of more than 1 percent (i.e., all keying errors for that 

batch divided by the total keyed fields in that batch exceeded 1 percent), the batch was unacceptable, and 

all questionnaires within the batch were 100 percent verified a second time. A more detailed discussion of 

data capture and results of the keying verification for the TFS questionnaires are provided in “Appendix 

F. Quality Assurance for TFS Keying and Mailout Operations.” 

Images of each questionnaire were captured after data entry was completed. The image files were used 

during subsequent steps of data processing to view the images of the actual questionnaires electronically. 

Internet Questionnaires 

Data for the internet questionnaires did not go through a separate data capture operation; as respondents 

completed questions on the TFS website, data were automatically captured and saved by the system. At 

this point, the data were already in electronic format. Unlike the TFS paper questionnaires, there were no 

images of the internet questionnaires to be captured and stored as image files (since this was a web-based 

survey). Therefore, during subsequent steps of data processing, Census Bureau analysts were not able to 

refer back to the actual questionnaires as a reference. 

Reformatting 

After the paper questionnaire data were captured, the output files were reformatted into SAS datasets. The 

internet data were in a different electronic format and also needed to be reformatted. Census Bureau 

analysts provided specifications to programmers that mapped the internet variables to the variables in the 

reformatted paper questionnaire data. This allowed analysts to proceed with data processing and cleaning 

with the paper and internet data together in the same SAS datasets. 

Preliminary Data Review 

Once all of the data were reformatted, Census Bureau analysts began an extensive preliminary data 

review process. During data review, analysts examined frequencies of each data item in order to identify 

any suspicious values (e.g., if an item’s response was an extreme value or outside of the range of possible 

answer choices or if an answer seemed unlikely given the respondent’s other responses within the 

survey). When suspicious values were found, analysts looked at the image of the questionnaire (for paper 

questionnaires only) to verify that the data were keyed correctly. Fixes were made to the data files when 

necessary. 

The TFS data were split into two different files when undergoing the preliminary stages of data review. 

There was a former teacher data file for leavers and a current teacher data file for stayers and movers. 

During data review, analysts checked that the appropriate cases were in each data file. They also checked 

survey counts by type to make sure that there was consistency between the actual counts of stayers, 

movers, and leavers and the variable that programmers created to indicate stayer/mover/leaver status. This 
52 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

variable kept track of “switcher cases” (i.e., cases where the respondent’s actual teaching or other 

occupational status differed from that reported by the school on the Teacher Status Form). 

In addition, analysts reviewed cases in which any critical item was not answered or an insufficient 

number of other questionnaire items were completed. Analysts viewed these cases as potential problems 

and verified that data were keyed correctly by reviewing an electronic image of the questionnaire (for 

paper questionnaires only). See exhibit 3 for a detailed list of critical items for TFS. 

Exhibit 3. TFS critical item table, by questionnaire: 2004–05 

Questionnaire Page Item Source code1 Description 

5 1a F0050 Do you currently teach any regularly scheduled class(es) in 

any of grades pre-K–12? 

(Response should be “No” in order to continue with the 

former teacher questionnaire path.) 

OR: 

5 1c F0051 How do you classify your position at your current school, 

that is, the activity at which you spend most of your time 

during the school year? 

(Response should be short-term substitute, student teacher, 

or teacher aide in order to continue with the former teacher 

questionnaire path.) 

Questionnaire for 

Former Teachers— 

 3 critical items 

6 2 F0553 What is your main occupational status? 

 

5 1a F0050 Do you currently teach any regularly scheduled class(es) in 

any of grades pre-K–12? 

(Response should be “Yes” in order to continue with the 

current teacher questionnaire path.) 

5 1b F0051 How do you classify your position at your current school, 

that is, the activity at which you spend most of your time 

during the school year? 

(Response should not be short-term substitute, student 

teacher, or teacher aide.) 

8 7 F0058–F0072 In which grades are the students you teach at your current 

school? 

Questionnaire for 

Current Teachers— 

 4 critical items 

14 19a F0136 Are you currently teaching in the same school as you were 

last year (2003–04)?2

1

 Source codes are used to identify specific items on the Schools and Staffing Survey questionnaires. For each questionnaire item, 

the four-digit source code can be found to the left of the first answer choice. 2

 Although each respondent’s stayer or mover status was provided by his or her 2003–04 school on the Teacher Status Form, it 

was not always accurate. This item determined each respondent’s final stayer/mover status. If he or she responded “yes” to the 

question, “Are you currently teaching in the same school as you were last year (2003–04)?” then the respondent was a stayer. If

the respondent responded “no,” then he or she was a mover. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

and Former Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2004–05. 

If critical item data were in fact missing, analysts attempted to use nonintrusive means of obtaining the 

data (e.g., imputation from other items on the questionnaire) so that these cases would not become 

noninterviews due to insufficient data in later stages of data processing. 

Finally, Census Bureau analysts were responsible for resolving the ATAC check-in codes of a handful of 

former and current teacher questionnaire cases during the preliminary stages of data review. This 

occurred in cases in which both former and current teacher questionnaires was received by the clerical 

processing staff. In some cases, both were completed interviews, and analysts had to determine which 
Chapter 6. Data Processing 53 

questionnaire represented the respondent’s current situation by looking at images of both questionnaires. 

The analysts adjusted the check-in codes to indicate which to keep as a complete interview and which to 

drop. 

In other cases, more than one of the same questionnaire type was received from a particular respondent, 

and analysts had to remove the duplicate case by deciding which questionnaire to keep and which to drop 

based upon the data in each independent questionnaire. 

Preliminary Interview Status Recode (ISR) Classification 

The next step in data processing was the preliminary determination of each case’s interview status recode 

(ISR); that is, whether each case was an interview, a noninterview, or out of scope for TFS. In general, 

cases with an “out-of-scope” outcome code (ISR = 3) for the preliminary ISR were teachers who were 

deceased, had moved out of the United States, or had never been teachers (e.g., school administrators who 

had reported incorrectly on the Schools and Staffing Survey [SASS] during the previous school year). An 

out-of-scope code for each out-of-scope case was created to indicate the reason why the case was out of 

scope. 

Cases with data entries were classified as completed interviews (ISR = 1). Cases without any data or 

cases in which the respondent refused to complete the survey were classified as noninterviews (ISR = 2). 

A noninterview code was created for each noninterview case to indicate the reason why the case was a 

noninterview. 

During the data review of the preliminary ISR data, Census Bureau analysts looked at the specific cases 

that were checked-in as “complete questionnaires” but changed to out of scopes or noninterviews during 

the preliminary ISR classification. Analysts looked at the electronic images of these cases and, in some 

cases, found notes and other indications from the respondent within the questionnaire that led the analysts 

to believe that an inconsistent out-of-scope or noninterview code had been assigned. They reassigned 

appropriate codes to these cases during this stage of data processing. 

A more detailed discussion of interview status can be found in the “Final Interview Status Edit” section of 

this chapter. 

Computer Edits 

After preliminary data review and preliminary ISR classification, the cases that were classified as 

complete interviews during the preliminary ISR were submitted to a series of computer edits. These edits 

consisted of a range check, a consistency edit, and a blanking edit. 

The first of the computer edits was the range check, which was used to delete entries that were outside the 

range of acceptable values that were set prior to the administration of TFS. For example, the range of 

acceptable values for item 38 on the current teacher questionnaire (“During the current school year, what 

is your academic year base teaching salary?”) was $0 to $200,000. Therefore, a salary entry of $310,000 

would be deleted and recoded as a missing item by the range check. The purpose of this check was to 

eliminate any extreme values, such as this $310,000 salary, a highly unlikely base salary for a teacher. 

Actual changes to the data were made during the consistency edit. The consistency edits identified 

inconsistent entries within each case and, whenever possible, corrected them. If the inconsistencies could 

not be corrected, the entries were deleted and recoded as missing items. These inconsistencies were 
54 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

• within items (e.g., if the yes/no part of current teacher questionnaire item 37a—whether the 

respondent had any earnings from teaching summer school in the current or any other school—

was “no,” but the earning amount was greater than zero for the second part of the item); and 

• between items (e.g., if former teacher questionnaire item 4c indicated that the respondent was 

working without pay in a family business, farm, or volunteer job, but item 6 indicated that the 

earnings at this job were greater than zero). 

In addition, the consistency edit filled in some items where data were missing or incomplete by using 

other information on the same data record. For example, if former teacher questionnaire item 9 (“Do you 

consider yourself to be retired from the position of a K–12 teacher?”) was not answered, but item 2 

(“What is your main occupational status?”) was marked “retired,” then “yes” was marked for item 9 

during the consistency edit. 

The blanking edits deleted extraneous entries (e.g., in situations where skip patterns were not followed 

correctly) and assigned the “not answered” code to items that the respondent should have answered but 

did not. 

The only records that were put through this series of edits were those classified as completed interviews 

during the preliminary ISR. The tables in “Appendix G. Changes Made to TFS Variables During 

Computer Edits, by Data File” show the number of edit changes made to entries for each of the variables 

within each data file. These changes are summarized in table 13 below. 

Table 13. Summary of changes made to variables in the computer edits, by data file: 2004–05 

Number of variables changed during edits, by percentage 

of all TFS data records on which the variable was changed 

Data file 

Total number 

of cases 

Total number 

of variables in 

questionnaire None 1–15 percent 16–30 percent 

More than 

30 percent

Former teacher 2,681 104 34 69 1 0

Current teacher 4,806 200 121 79 0 0

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

and Former Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2004–05. 

Final Interview Status Edit 

After the range checks, consistency edits, and blanking edits were run and reviewed by analysts, the 

records were put through an edit to make a final determination of whether the case was eligible for the 

survey and, if so, whether sufficient data had been collected for the case to be classified as a completed 

interview. A final ISR value was assigned to each case as a result of this edit. 

1. Questionnaire for Former Teachers

• A case was classified as out of scope (ISR = 3) if 

o the sampled person was deceased; or 

o the sampled person moved outside of the United States; or 

o the sampled person had never been a teacher. 

• A case was classified as an interview (ISR = 1) if 

o none of the conditions for out-of-scope cases was met; and 

o the sampled person reported that he/she did not currently teach any regularly scheduled 

classes in any of grades pre-K–12 (F0050) or reported that his/her job classification was a 

short-term substitute, student teacher, or teacher aide (F0051); and 
Chapter 6. Data Processing 55 

o the sampled person reported his or her main occupational status (F0553); and 

o there were data in at least 10 percent of the remaining items (nine answered items). 

• A case was classified as a noninterview (ISR = 2) if an eligible case did not meet the 

requirements to be an interview case. 

2. Questionnaire for Current Teachers

• A case was classified as out of scope (ISR = 3) if 

o the sampled teacher was deceased; or 

o the sampled teacher had moved outside of the United States; or 

o the sampled person had never been a teacher. 

• A case was classified as an interview (ISR = 1) if 

o none of the conditions for out-of-scope cases was met; and 

o the sampled teacher indicated that he/she taught any regularly scheduled class(es) in any of 

grades pre-K–12 (F0050); and 

o the sampled teacher reported his/her job classification (F0051); and 

o the sampled teacher reported the grades in which the students that he/she currently taught 

were (F0058–F0072); and 

o the sampled teacher indicated whether he/she was teaching in the same school as the previous 

year (F0136); and 

o there were data in at least 10 percent of the remaining items (16 answered items). 

• A case was classified as a noninterview (ISR = 2) if an eligible case did not meet the 

requirements to be an interview case. 

The preliminary ISR and final ISR counts for each data file and the percentage of change for each ISR 

classification are shown in table 14. 

Table 14. Preliminary and final interview status recode (ISR) counts and percentage change, by 

ISR category and data file: 2004–05 

Preliminary ISR Final ISR Percentage change1

Data file 

Sample 

size 

Interviews 

Noninterviews

Out of 

scope

Interviews

Noninterviews

Out of 

scope

Interviews 

Noninterviews

Out of 

scope

Former teacher 3,039 2,681 300 58 2,653 328 58 -1.04 9.33 0

Current teacher 5,218 4,806 381 31 4,776 411 31 -0.62 7.87 0

1

 The percentage change for each ISR category (interview, noninterview, out of scope) is computed by subtracting the number of 

cases in the preliminary ISR count from the number of cases in the final ISR count, and dividing by the number of cases in the 

preliminary ISR count. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

and Former Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2004–05. 

Creating Imputation Flags 

After the final ISR edits were run, there were still cases with “not answered” values on the files for some 

variables. Values were created for these items in the next step of the processing, which was imputation. 

There were three different stages of imputation: stage 1, stage 2, and clerical imputation. After each stage 

of imputation, the computer edits (described in the “Computer Edits” section of this chapter) were re-run 

to ensure that the imputed data were consistent with the existing questionnaire data. The imputation stage 

of data processing is described further in “Chapter 7. Imputation Procedures.” 
56 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

Because the consistency edits and imputations made actual changes to the TFS data, different processing 

flags were created to indicate these changes. Flags that were used in the consistency edit stage of data 

processing are in the format ef_[source code]+1. That is, each time a change was made to an item due to a 

consistency edit, the value of the flag for that item increased by one. This way analysts could keep track 

of how many times a consistency edit changed the data throughout the duration of data processing. 

Flags that were used in the imputation stage of data processing were different than those used for 

consistency edits. Rather than simply counting how many times an imputation edit changed data, 

imputations flags were assigned specific values to indicate exactly how items were being imputed. 

Imputation flags are in the format f_[source code] = __. The definitions for each imputation flag used in 

the TFS are described in exhibit 4 below. 

Exhibit 4. Flags used in processing TFS questionnaires: 2004–05 

Imputation flag values Description of flag 

f_[source code] = 0 Not imputed 

f_[source code] = 1 Original value was ratio adjusted 

f_[source code] = 2 Value was imputed by using data from other variables in same record 

f_[source code] = 3 Value was imputed by using data from school or teacher record 

f_[source code] = 7 Imputed from donor 

f_[source code] = 8 Clerical imputation 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

and Former Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2004–05. 

Data Products 

After all stages of imputation were completed and the blanking and consistency edits were run once 

again, the data were split into two files by questionnaire type. One file contained the records for current 

teachers (Questionnaire for Current Teachers data) and the other contained records for former teachers 

(Questionnaire for Former Teachers data). 

Each of these files included all variables, including frame variables, survey variables, created variables, 

weighting variables, and imputation flags. These files were used as the source files for the restricted-use 

datasets, in which some of the processing and sampling variables were removed, and data nondisclosure 

procedures were implemented. (See chapter 10 for additional description of the restricted-use data files.) 
57 

Chapter 7. Imputation Procedures 

Overview 

Once the computer edits were run on the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) data and reviewed by 

U.S. Census Bureau analysts, “not answered”21 items still remained in the datasets. (For more details on 

computer edits see chapter 6.) In order to fill these items with data, questionnaires were put through three 

independent stages of imputation. From one stage to the next, more assumptions were made about how 

the participant might have responded to the item. The first stage of imputation involved using items from 

the same TFS questionnaire or items from the corresponding 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

(SASS) school or teacher questionnaire to impute data for the missing items. Any remaining unanswered 

items were imputed in the second stage of imputation. This stage included “hot deck” imputation (in 

which donor records were established and used to impute data), ratio imputation by subsamples of data, 

and random ratio imputation by subsamples of data. Once the first two stages of imputation were 

completed, any remaining unanswered items were imputed clerically by Census Bureau analysts in the 

third and final stage of imputation. 

Each time an unanswered TFS item was imputed, a numerical flag corresponding to the stage and type of 

imputation was assigned to the imputed item. These flags identify to data users which items were 

imputed, and the method by which they were imputed. Therefore, data users can decide whether to 

include imputed data in their analyses, and if so, which types of imputed data they want to use. 

First-Stage Imputation 

During the first stage of imputation, unanswered survey items were imputed with a response using data 

either from other items in the same TFS questionnaire or from items in the related 2003–04 SASS school 

or teacher questionnaires. Imputed values were valid responses because they were within the range of 

acceptable values that was set prior to the administration of TFS and were consistent with the 

respondent’s answers to related items. During this stage of imputation, data from the Questionnaire for 

Former Teachers and the Questionnaire for Current Teachers were kept in two separate files. 

• Imputing with other items on the same TFS questionnaire record. Based on entries from related 

items on the TFS record, assumptions were made about how the respondent might have answered 

items. For example, item 8 on the current teacher questionnaire asked how the sampled teacher’s 

classes were organized. If the teacher indicated that he or she was a general kindergarten or 

elementary grade teacher in item 5 (main teaching assignment field), then item 8 was marked to 

indicate that the respondent instructed the same group of students all or most of the day in 

multiple subjects (self-contained class). 

• Imputing with related items on the 2003–04 SASS school or teacher record. Since each TFS 

sampled teacher participated in the 2003–04 SASS, information from the SASS record was used 

to impute values in the first stage of imputation. For example, item 17 on the former teacher 

questionnaire (item 28 on the current teacher questionnaire) asked if any of the respondent’s 

students participated in a required state or district assessment program in the subject that the 

respondent taught the prior school year. If this item was blank and the respondent indicated in the 

2003–04 SASS teacher questionnaire that his or her students did, in fact, participate in such an 

assessment program, then the item was marked “yes”; otherwise, it was marked “no.” 

 

21 Some items were correctly left blank by the respondent because of skip patterns in the questionnaire. For these 

respondents, the items were changed to “valid skips” during the blanking edit stage of data processing. Valid skips 

were not imputed and were not classified as “not answered” items. 
58 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

In addition, many sampled teachers’ corresponding school completed the 2003–04 school 

questionnaire; if this was the case, information from the SASS school record was used to impute 

values during the first stage of imputation. 

Since there were two different sources for stage 1 imputation, each source was assigned a separate value 

for the stage 1 imputation flag. The definitions of these flags are as follows: 

 0 Data were reported by the sampled teacher. No adjustment or imputation was made. 

 2 The item was imputed based on data from another item within the same TFS questionnaire. 

 3 The item was imputed based on data from the 2003–04 SASS school or teacher questionnaire 

associated with the TFS sampled teacher. 

Tables 15 and 16 at the end of the chapter include a summary of the amount of imputation performed in 

stage 1 processing. 

Second-Stage Imputation 

Those items still unanswered after stage 1 imputation entered the second stage of imputation. Before 

entering this stage, the former and current teacher questionnaire datasets were split up further. The former 

teacher questionnaire data file became two separate files; one file contained former teacher questionnaire 

data for sampled teachers from traditional public and public charter schools, and the other file contained 

former teacher questionnaire data for sampled teachers from private schools. 

Two main approaches were used in the second stage of imputation for TFS. In one approach (hot deck 

imputation), data were imputed from items found on questionnaires of the same type (former or current 

teacher questionnaire) that had certain characteristics in common. These records are called “donor 

records.” In the second approach to stage 2 imputation, data were split into subsamples based upon grade 

levels offered in their 2003–04 school (in subsample ratio imputation) or other variables related to the 

item being imputed (in random subsample ratio imputation), and items were imputed so that the 

distribution of responses in each of these subsamples was preserved. Both hot deck imputation and 

subsample ratio imputation are explained further in this chapter. 

Items that were imputed during the second stage of imputation were assigned a particular numerical flag. 

The definition of the flag is as follows: 

 7 The item was imputed during the second stage of imputation by hot deck or subsample ratio 

imputation. 

Hot Deck Imputation 

During hot deck imputation, donor records were established, and imputation was based on the data within 

the donor’s record. Donors were selected based on the way they answered specific items; these items are 

called “matching variables.” If two sampled teachers answered the selected matching items the same way, 

it was assumed that they were comparable and that imputation of one data item from the donor record was 

reasonable and would provide a response similar to one the sampled teacher would have given on his or 

her own. 

The matching variables used to establish donor relationships were selected based on the type of data the 

donor would supply to the record being imputed. For example, if a current teacher questionnaire 

respondent’s answer to a given item might be influenced by the respondent’s teaching field and the 
Chapter 7. Imputation Procedures 59 

proximity of the school to a city, then these variables were used to find another sampled teacher in a 

school with similar characteristics. 

The datasets were sorted by matching variables in the order of their importance, that is, how much 

influence the matching variables had in predicting the value of the variable being imputed. Sorting the 

data helped to ensure that the appropriate donors were the most similar to the record undergoing 

imputation. 

For stage 2 hot deck imputation among public school sampled teachers, the states in which the sampled 

teachers’ 2003–04 schools (as reported in SASS) were located were combined into four groups by their 

geographic region in order to increase the size of the data pool. These four regions were the Northeast, 

Midwest, South, and West. All imputation was done within the geographic region group; that is, the 

donor record had to be from a sampled teacher within the same region as the incomplete record. 

• Former public school sampled teachers. Within each region group, the records were sorted by the 

following variables: 

o STATE State in which respondent’s 2003–04 school was located; 

o WORK Whether the respondent was currently working; and 

o T0416 Sampled teacher’s birth year (from which age was derived). 

The records were sorted by STATE / WORK / T0416. 

• Current public school sampled teachers. Within each region group, the records were sorted by the 

following variables: 

o STATE State in which respondent’s 2003–04 school was located, 

o STAYER Whether the respondent was teaching at the same school as during the 

2003–04 school year, 

o TFSLEVEL Grade levels taught as reported in TFS, and 

o TEACHCODE Respondent’s main teaching assignment field during the 2003–04 school 

year. 

The records were sorted by STATE / STAYER / TFSLEVEL / TEACHCODE. 

For stage 2 hot deck imputation among private school sampled teachers, the typologies of the sampled 

teachers’ 2003–04 schools (as reported in SASS) were combined into three groups of affiliations. These 

three affiliations were Catholic, other religious, and nonsectarian. All imputation was done within the 

affiliation group; that is, the donor record had to be from a sampled teacher within the same affiliation 

group as the incomplete record. 

• Former private school sampled teachers. Within each affiliation group, the records were sorted 

by the following variables: 

o TYPOLOGY Typology of respondent’s 2003–04 school; 

o WORK Whether the respondent was currently working; and 

o T0416 Sampled teacher’s birth year (from which age was derived). 

 The records were sorted by TYPOLOGY / WORK / T0416. 

• Current private school sampled teachers. Within each affiliation group, the records were sorted 

by the following variables: 

o TYPOLOGY Typology of respondent’s 2003–04 school; 

o STAYER Whether the respondent was teaching at the same school as during the 

2003–04 school year; 

o TFSLEVEL Grade levels taught as reported in TFS; and 
60 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

o TEACHCODE Respondent’s main teaching assignment field during the 2003–04 school 

year. 

The records were sorted by TYPOLOGY / STAYER / TFSLEVEL / TEACHCODE. 

When there were not enough donor records within any given stratification cell, a collapsing routine was 

instituted. This was done to ensure that values inconsistent with other data on the same record would not 

be imputed simply because a record was close to the boundary between the stratification cells (e.g., there 

were other records that were suitable donors or the record was not similar enough to be a donor). For 

example, for the current teacher questionnaire, the collapsing routine for the matching variable 

TEAEXPER (the sampled teacher’s level of teaching experience) is shown in the matrix below. Each row 

of the matrix represents a separate situation. An explanation follows. 

(1, 2, 0, 

 2, 3, 1, 

 3, 2, 0) 

The values for the variable TEAEXPER are as follows: 

• TEAEXPER = 0 No donor record was found for the case. 

• TEAEXPER = 1 The sampled teacher has been teaching full and/or part time for 3 years or 

fewer. 

• TEAEXPER = 2 The sampled teacher has been teaching full and/or part time for 15 years or 

fewer. 

• TEAEXPER = 3 The sampled teacher has been teaching full and/or part time for 16 or more 

years. 

If the value for TEAEXPER on the record with missing data was 1 and there was no available donor 

where TEAEXPER = 1, the collapsing program looked for a donor where TEAEXPER = 2. It did not 

look for cases where TEAEXPER = 3. When the collapsing routine hit 0, there was no donor available for 

this case. Likewise, if the value for TEAEXPER on the record with missing data was 2 and there was no 

available donor where TEAEXPER = 2, the collapsing program searched for a donor where TEAEXPER 

= 3, then TEAEXPER = 1. Finally, if the value for TEAEXPER on the record with missing data was 3 

and there was no available donor where TEAEXPER = 3, the collapsing program looked for a donor 

where TEAEXPER = 2. It did not look for cases where TEAEXPER = 1. When the collapsing routine hit 

0, there was no donor available for this case. In instances where no donor was available, the value was 

either imputed using subsample ratio imputation or was clerically imputed in the third stage of 

imputation. 

Once the donor relationship was established, the donor record provided data items either directly or 

indirectly to the imputed record. For some items, such as item 8 on the former teacher questionnaire (how 

long the respondent planned to remain in his or her current position), data were copied directly to the 

record with the missing data. For other items, entries on the donor records were used as factors along with 

other data from the questionnaire to fill the incomplete item. For example, the unanswered item 

requesting the sampled teacher’s current salary (Questionnaire for Current Teachers item 38) was filled 

by accepting the donor’s ratio of the previous year’s salary (T0399 on the SASS teacher questionnaires) 

to the current year’s salary and applying the ratio to the sampled teacher’s previous year’s salary on the 

imputed record. 

If an unanswered item was imputed using a donor record and the donor answered using the “other” 

option, then the write-in “please specify” portion was typically not imputed. In addition, open-ended 
Chapter 7. Imputation Procedures 61 

items that required the sampled teacher to write down his or her response, rather than selecting a provided 

response, were not imputed. This is because many of the write-in items asked about things that were very 

specific to each sampled teacher. For instance, Questionnaire for Former Teachers item 4a asked for the 

usual activities or duties at the respondent’s job. Items such as these were not imputed and were given a 

value of -9, meaning “missing data,” in the final data files. 

There was one exception to this for an item that was not very respondent-specific; this exception was 

Questionnaire for Former Teachers item 35/Questionnaire for Current Teachers item 48 which asked 

where the respondent had access to the Internet. If a donor answered using the “other” option, the write-in 

“where” portion was also imputed. 

In order to prevent a single record from having an undue impact on the data, a record could only be used 

as a donor a maximum of five times. There were no exceptions to this procedure. 

Subsample Imputation 

After the hot deck portion of the stage 2 imputation was completed, the data for sampled teachers from 

traditional public and public charter schools were merged with the data for sampled teachers from private 

schools by questionnaire type (i.e., former or current teacher questionnaire). Therefore, all former teacher 

questionnaire data were in one file, and all current teacher questionnaire data were in a second file. Data 

remained in these two files for the subsample ratio and random subsample ratio portions of the stage 2 

imputations and the stage 3 clerical imputations. 

Subsample Ratio Imputation 

Items that remained unanswered after the hot deck imputation and that were categorical variables were 

imputed using subsample ratio imputation. First, data were divided into three subsamples (or groupings) 

based on the grade levels offered at the sampled teacher’s school from the 2003–04 SASS school year 

(LEVEL). The groups were defined as follows: 

• LEVEL = 1 Grades K through 6 (elementary); 

• LEVEL = 2 Grades 7 through 12 (secondary); and 

• LEVEL = 3 Combined grades (K through 12 and ungraded). 

Next, the distribution (ratio) of responses to each unanswered categorical item was found within each 

LEVEL grouping (subsample). Finally, the unanswered items were assigned answers according to the 

subsample to which they belonged in order to preserve the response ratios within that subsample. 

For example, among the subsample of LEVEL = 1 schools where a particular item with four answer 

categories was answered, that item had the following distribution (ratios) of answers: 40 percent chose the 

first category, 20 percent chose the second, 30 percent chose the third, and 10 percent chose the fourth 

category. This distribution would then be used to impute the records with missing data for this item where 

LEVEL = 1, so that the distribution of responses was preserved. Similarly, the percentage distribution of 

responses for records where LEVEL = 2 was calculated and the records with missing data that had the 

same LEVEL value were imputed accordingly. This operation was performed for all LEVEL values 

(subsamples). 
62 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

Random Subsample Ratio Imputation 

Random subsample ratio imputation is a method similar to subsample ratio imputation. However, it is 

more effective at handling items that are continuous variables—numeric variables for which the 

respondent is not provided with a fixed set of answer choices (e.g., salary). The program sorted the data 

into groupings based on the value of any variables that might have impacted the sampled teacher’s answer 

to the item with missing data. Continuous variables were assigned a random probable value (e.g., a value 

between the 5th and 95th percentile) to cases with missing responses based on the range of values provided 

by sampled teachers with similar characteristics. 

Census Bureau analysts determined which variables might have impacted the sampled teacher’s answer to 

the item with missing data and used them to define a subsample within the dataset. For example, when 

imputing Questionnaire for Former Teachers item 27, the lowest acceptable teaching salary that would be 

required for the sampled teacher to return to teaching, the data were sorted into subsets based on 

• item 25f, how an increase in salary would influence the decision to return to teaching; 

• item 13f, the influence salary had on the respondent’s decision to leave teaching; 

• item 29, the respondent’s total combined family income; and 

• the base salary received as a teacher the prior year as indicated on the 2003–04 SASS survey. 

If a record within this subsample had an unanswered item, an answer was randomly assigned so that the 

distribution of responses to that item remained the same for all records within the subsample. For 

example, if teachers who indicated that an increase in salary would be “extremely important” in 

influencing the decision to return to teaching reported 

• that better salary and benefits were “very important” in the decision to leave, 

• a combined family income of less than $35,000, 

• a previous base teaching salary of less than $20,000, and 

• a value for item 27 that ranged from $20,000 in the 5th percentile to $50,000 in the 95th percentile, 

then the imputation procedure randomly assigned values to teachers with missing data that fell within this 

percentile range. 

Tables 15 and 16 at the end of the chapter include a summary of the amount of imputation performed in 

stage 2 processing. 

Third-Stage Imputation 

In some cases, items still remained “not answered” after the first two stages of imputation. This happened 

when there was no available donor or the value imputed by the computer was inconsistent with values in 

other items.22 Historically, certain types of items on SASS and TFS questionnaires have been imputed 

clerically during a third stage of imputation. For the 2004–05 TFS, all items still unanswered after the 

first two stages of imputation were imputed clerically during this third stage of imputation. 

Items that were imputed during the third stage of imputation were assigned a particular numerical flag, 

which was defined as follows: 

 

22 After the second stage of imputation was complete, the blanking and consistency computer edits were re-run. If an 

imputed entry was inconsistent, it was adjusted or deleted by the consistency edit. For more information about 

computer edits, see chapter 6. 
Chapter 7. Imputation Procedures 63 

 8 The item was imputed clerically during the third stage of imputation. 

In order to determine an appropriate value for each unanswered item, Census Bureau analysts reviewed 

• the original image of the questionnaire (for paper questionnaires only) to see if the sampled 

teacher had made any notes in the margin that might provide insight; 

• other items within the same record with related information; 

• similar cases to get an understanding of what the sampled teacher might have answered; and 

• average responses for that item. 

Tables 15 and 16 include a summary of the amount of imputation performed in the third stage of 

processing. 

Post-Imputation Processing 

After both the second and third stages of imputation were completed, the computer edits were re-run and 

any remaining data issues were resolved by Census Bureau analysts. (See chapter 6 for details on 

computer edits.) At this point, any item that was imputed more than 15 percent of the time was analyzed 

as part of the item bias analysis. (See chapter 5 for details about nonresponse bias analysis.) The computer 

edits were run again to ensure that values imputed in each stage of imputation were within acceptable 

ranges and were consistent with other items on the questionnaire. 

Final File Imputation Tables 

After the hot deck portion of stage 2 processing, the datasets were merged so that the data were in two 

files: one file for the former teacher questionnaire data and the other for the current teacher questionnaire 

data. The number of source codes23 (specific items) that were imputed for a given percentage of records 

during a given stage of processing appears for each file below in tables 15 and 16. For example, during 

stage 1 imputation 12 survey items were imputed for between 1 and 15 percent of the former teacher 

items. 

Table 15. Number of source codes imputed among former teacher items, by percentage of records 

receiving imputation and imputation stage: 2004–05 

Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation 

Imputation stage 

Not imputed 

 for any record 

Imputed for 

1–15 percent 

of the records

Imputed for 

16–30 percent 

of the records 

Imputed for

 more than 30 percent 

of the records

Stage 1 82 12 0 2

Stage 2 15 81 0 0

Stage 3 90 6 0 0

NOTE: Every question item and data entry in the questionnaires has a corresponding source code. The source codes are the 

4-digit numbers found to the left of each item or data entry field in the questionnaires, which become the survey names for these 

data. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Former 

Teacher Restricted Use Data File,” 2004–05. 

 

23 Source codes are used to identify specific items on the SASS and TFS questionnaires. For each questionnaire 

item, the four-digit source code can be found to the left of the first answer choice. 
64 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

Table 16. Number of source codes imputed among current teacher items, by percentage of records 

receiving imputation and imputation stage: 2004–05 

Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation 

Imputation stage 

Not imputed 

 for any record 

Imputed for 

1–15 percent 

of the records

Imputed for 

16–30 percent 

of the records 

Imputed for

 more than 30 percent 

of the records

Stage 1 164 24 0 0

Stage 2 46 141 1 0

Stage 3 176 12 0 0

NOTE: Every question item and data entry in the questionnaires has a corresponding source code. The source codes are the 

4-digit numbers found to the left of each item or data entry field in the questionnaires, which become the survey names for these 

data. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

Teacher Restricted Use Data File,” 2004–05. 

“Appendix H. Percentage of TFS Variables Changed During Three Stages of Imputation, by Data File” 

contains the total number of imputations applied at each stage to each source code. 
65 

Chapter 8. Weighting and Variance Estimation 

Contained in this chapter is a discussion of the weighting and variance procedures used for the 2004–05 

Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS). The chapter discusses first the weighting procedure used to compute 

final weights for the interviewed teachers and next variances. Weighting is the last step in data 

processing. Variances are computed to estimate the reliability and are a product of the weighting 

procedure. 

Weighting 

This section describes the weighting procedure for each teacher who responded to TFS. The general 

purpose of weighting is to scale up the sample estimates to represent the target survey population. The 

steps for weighting types of respondents were similar to those used for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing 

Survey (SASS). For TFS, a base weight (the inverse of the sampled teacher’s probability of selection) 

was used as the starting point. Then, a weighting adjustment was applied that reflected the impact of the 

SASS teacher weighting procedure. Next, a nonresponse adjustment factor was calculated and applied 

using information known about the respondents from the sampling frame data. Finally, a ratio adjustment 

factor was calculated and applied to the sample to adjust the sample totals to frame totals in order to 

reduce sampling variability. The product of these factors was the final weight for TFS. See table 17 for a 

distribution of the final weights for the 2004–05 TFS. 

Most of the steps in the weighting procedure employed weighting classes in the calculation of the 

weighting adjustments. Weighting classes partition the sample by key variables (such as race or age 

categories) and allow for differential adjustment factors to be computed for each step in the weighting 

procedure. This technique is especially useful when the computed factors are presumed to differ 

substantially, such as when patterns of nonresponse vary across subpopulations (such as by age or race). 

A description of how the final weight was computed as well as a brief description of each step in the 

weighting procedure is presented below. When computations were done within weighting classes (cells), 

such as nonresponse adjustments, the cells are described. Sometimes a cell did not have enough data to 

produce a reliable estimate; in such cases, cells were collapsed. The most important variables were always 

collapsed last. The collapsing criteria and the cells are described in exhibit 5. 

The final TFS sample weight is the product of 

(TFS base weight) and (TFS-to-SASS weighting adjustment factor) and (TFS 

noninterview adjustment) and (TFS ratio adjustment) 

where: 

TFS base weight is the inverse of the probability of selecting a teacher for TFS. This weight is the 

product of the SASS teacher base weight (described above) and TFS subsampling adjustment 

factor. The TFS subsampling adjustment factor is an adjustment that accounts for the 

subsampling of teachers from SASS sampled teachers. Thus, this base weight reflects the TFS 

probability of selection from all three stages of selection (i.e., SASS school sampling, SASS 

teacher sampling within school, and TFS sampling from SASS teachers). 

The TFS-to-SASS weighting adjustment factor is used to adjust for the fact that the SASS teacher 

base weights were used in selecting the TFS sample, whereas the SASS final teacher weights are 
66 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

more reflective of the teacher population.24 The weighting adjustment factor adjusts for all stages 

of weighting that occurred between the base and final weighting calculations for SASS teachers. 

For more information about the SASS teacher weighting procedure, see Documentation for the 

2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (Tourkin et al. 2007). 

The TFS noninterview adjustment is the factor used to adjust for teachers who participated in the 

2003–04 SASS and were selected and determined to be eligible for the 2004–05 TFS, but did not 

participate in TFS. It is the weighted (product of the base weight and TFS-to-SASS weighting 

adjustment factor) ratio of the total eligible in-scope teachers (i.e., interviewed teachers plus 

noninterviewed teachers) to the total responding in-scope teachers (i.e., interviewed teachers) 

within cells. Variables used to define cells are presented in exhibit 5. 

TFS ratio adjustment is the factor used to adjust the TFS sample totals to SASS sample totals. 

This adjustment ensures that the weighted number of TFS teachers (including interviews, 

noninterviews, and out of scopes) will be consistent with the weighted number of teachers from 

the 2003–04 SASS. Since the teachers who were out of scope for TFS were included in the SASS 

numerators, they were included in the denominators for consistency. The TFS estimates resulting 

from this step will not be precisely equal to SASS estimates due to the small loss of SASS 

teachers from eligibility for TFS due to emigration or death. 

The TFS ratio adjustment is equal to the ratio of the total number of SASS teachers not selected 

with certainty for TFS (i.e., those teachers not automatically included in the TFS sample as 

mentioned in chapter 3) to the weighted TFS sample estimate of the total number of noncertainty 

teachers within each weighting class, or cell, defined for this step in the weighting procedure. 

Certainty teachers (teachers automatically included in sample for TFS based on their stratum or 

their measure of size) were excluded from both the numerator and denominators and were 

assigned a factor equal to one. Variables used to define cells are presented in exhibit 5. 

Table 17. Distribution of final weights, by data file: 2004–05 

Weight at given percentile 

Data file 

Minimum 1st 5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th 99th

Maximum Mean

Former 

 teacher 2.22 6.80 11.23 15.36 33.42 64.38 127.20 230.66 345.35 1,063.77 5,819.03 125.41

Current 

 teacher 4.25 8.84 31.92 49.29 103.86 290.62 902.19 2,095.43 2,587.98 3,598.04 7,556.59 700.90

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

and Former Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2004–05. 

Exhibit 5 presents the criteria for collapsing weighting classes, the definition of the weighting classes, and 

the collapsing ordering. Note that public charter school teachers and traditional public school teachers 

were adjusted separately from private school teachers. “Leavers” refer to former teachers, or teachers who 

left the K–12 teaching profession. “Movers” refer to teachers who moved to another school. “Stayers” 

refer to teachers who were still teaching at the same school as the previous year. New teachers were 

defined as teachers who had 3 or fewer years of teaching experience at the time of SASS (the previous 

year). The education (i.e., bachelor’s degree or less and master’s or more) and sex (male and female) 

categories were the same for each weighting class; but the age categories varied. The age categories were 

based on the distribution of the sampled teachers and designed to reduce the amount of collapsing within 

each weighting class. For example, the age categories used in the new public school leavers category (less 

 

24 SASS teacher weighting was not completed in time to use final teacher weights in the TFS sample selection, 

necessitating the use of the SASS teacher base weights in the TFS sampling. 
Chapter 8. Weighting and Variance Estimation 67 

than 24, 24–25, 26–27, 28–30, 31–34, 35–39, 40–46, 47–53, and 54 and older) were different from the 

age categories used in the new movers (less than 24, 24–25, 26–27, 28–30, 31–34, 35–41, and 42 and 

older). These age categories suggest that the new public school movers tend to be younger than the new 

public school leavers. The specific age categories for each weighting class are included in “Appendix I. 

Weighting Adjustment Cells.” Cells not meeting the collapsing criteria were collapsed with other cells 

according to the collapsing order. Thus, cells needing collapsing were initially collapsed with cells having 

all other variables in common, but with an adjacent age category. 

Exhibit 5. Adjustment factors and collapsing criteria as applied to TFS weights: 2004–05 

Nonresponse adjustment factor First-stage adjustment factor 

Type of teacher Collapsing criteria Collapsing order Collapsing criteria Collapsing order

Public school (including public charter) teachers 

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ .667 and ≤ 1.5 New leavers Interviews ≥ 15 Interviews ≥ 15 

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ .667 and ≤ 1.5 Experienced leavers Interviews ≥ 15 Interviews ≥ 15 

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ .667 and ≤ 1.5 New movers Interviews ≥ 15 Interviews ≥ 15 

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ .667 and ≤ 1.5 Experienced movers Interviews ≥ 15 Interviews ≥ 15 

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ .667 and ≤ 1.5 New stayers Interviews ≥ 15 Interviews ≥ 15 

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ .667 and ≤ 1.5 Experienced stayers Interviews ≥ 15 

Education, 

sex, 

age 

Interviews ≥ 15 

Age, 

teaching 

assignment, 

ethnicity, 

sex 

Private school teachers 

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ .667 and ≤ 1.5 New leavers Interviews ≥ 15 Interviews ≥ 15 

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ .667 and ≤ 1.5 Experienced leavers Interviews ≥ 15 Interviews ≥ 15 

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ .667 and ≤ 1.5 New movers Interviews ≥ 15 Interviews ≥ 15 

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ .667 and ≤ 1.5 Experienced movers Interviews ≥ 15 Interviews ≥ 15 

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ .667 and ≤ 1.5 New stayers Interviews ≥ 15 Interviews ≥ 15 

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ .667 and ≤ 1.5 Experienced stayers Interviews ≥ 15 

Education, 

sex, 

age 

Interviews ≥ 15 

Age, 

teaching 

assignment, 

ethnicity, 

sex 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), 2004–05. 

Variance Estimation 

In surveys with complex sample designs, such as SASS or TFS, direct estimates of sampling errors that 

assume a simple random sample will typically underestimate the variability in the estimates. The SASS 

sampling design and estimation included procedures that deviated from the assumption of simple random 

sampling, such as stratifying the school sample, oversampling new school teachers, and sampling with 

differential probabilities. 

The preferred method of calculating sampling errors to reflect these aspects of the complex sample design 

of SASS is replication. Replication methods involve constructing a number of subsamples (i.e., replicates) 

from the full sample and computing the statistic of interest for each replicate. The mean square error of 
68 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

the replicate estimates around the full sample estimate provides an estimate of the variance of the statistic. 

The replicate weights are used to compute the variance of a statistic, Y, as given below: 

Variance ⎟∑ − ⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = r

Yr Y

n

Y 2 ( ) 1 ( )

 where: Yr = the estimate of Y using the r

th set of replicate weights; and 

 n = the number of replicates. 

The SASS surveys completed before 1993 used a procedure known as balanced repeated replication 

(BRR) for the calculation of sampling variance. BRR assumes sampling is done with replacement, and 

hence, BRR does not reflect the increase in precision due to sampling a high proportion of a finite 

population (termed the finite population correction, or FPC). For most surveys, where the sampling rates 

are low, the increase in precision will be small and can safely be disregarded. However, in SASS, the 

public sector surveys (i.e., school, principal, school district, teacher, and library media center) are 

designed to produce reliable state estimates. This necessarily implies high sampling rates, which can lead 

to very large overestimates of variance with BRR. Likewise, the private sector surveys (i.e., school, 

principal, and teacher) are designed to produce detailed affiliation estimates, which also imply high 

sampling rates and subsequent overestimation of variance with BRR. 

It is possible to adjust BRR to include a finite population correction. However, since SASS uses a 

probability proportional to size systematic selection procedure (described in chapter 4 of Documentation 

for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey [Tourkin et al. 2007]), it is not clear what the appropriate 

FPC would be. It is even possible for an appropriate FPC to be greater than one, which conventional 

methods of variance estimation are not equipped to handle. (See Kaufman 2001.) 

To overcome this limitation, a bootstrap variance estimator, which estimates the variance by simulating 

the sampling procedure (described in Kaufman 2001) was implemented for the 1993–94 SASS and its 

role was expanded in 1999–2000 and even more so in the 2003–04 SASS. The bootstrap variance 

estimator was used for public schools, most private schools, and public school districts in 1993–94. (See 

chapter 9 in Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey [Tourkin et al. 2007].) In 1999–

2000, an additional bootstrap estimator was also included for public schools and most private schools. 

The bootstrap estimator used in the 2003–04 SASS was modified from the 1999–2000 estimator to make 

it more stable. In the 2003–04 SASS a new bootstrap estimator for both public and private school teachers 

was included. The bootstrap variance reflects the increase in precision due to large sampling rates because 

the bootstrap sampling is done systematically, without replacement, as was the original sampling. 

Public schools, public school teachers, private schools sampled from the list frame, and private school 

teachers from schools sampled from the list frame were calculated using the updated bootstrap system. 

This system is based on a series of assumptions about the sampling design: 

1) The traditional systematic probability proportional to size first-stage sample can be approximated 

using a randomized systematic sample. 

2) The stratified equal probability systematic sample can be approximated by a stratified, without 

replacement, simple random sample. 

Using these assumptions, the bootstrap replicate weights were computed from a single sample. Again, the 

appropriate bootstrap replicate base weights (inverse of the probability of selection) generated for the 

sample were subsequently reweighted by processing each set of replicate basic weights through the 

weighting procedure. 
Chapter 8. Weighting and Variance Estimation 69 

Since the number of certainty schools (i.e., schools guaranteed selection) was substantial, it was desirable 

to address the variance that results from nonresponse. Therefore, it was decided to treat nonresponse as a 

stage of sample selection. For certainty schools, this allowed for the reflection of a variance component 

that otherwise would be regarded as a bias. The nonresponse sampling model was as follows: 

• For noncertainty schools, nonresponse was considered a nested random process within selected 

primary sampling units. That is, school nonresponse was assumed to be a random process within 

the random sample. Within appropriately defined cells (weighting classes), it was assumed 

nonresponse followed a “missing-at-random process.” 

• For certainty schools, nonresponse was considered the first stage of selection. It was assumed that 

this process followed a simple random sample without replacement model within appropriately 

defined cells. The frame size for this selection was assumed to be the number of selected certainty 

schools in the cell and the sample size was the number of responding certainty schools in the cell. 

This procedure also allowed for correctly estimating variances for school-based estimates that used school 

teacher averages generated from the 2003–04 SASS teacher files. 

To be consistent with the bootstrap procedures described above, the nonresponse modeling of certainty 

schools was reflected through an appropriately defined bootstrap procedure. For more details on the 

bootstrap methodology and how it applies to SASS, see Efron (1982), Kaufman (1992, 1993, 1994, 1998, 

2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004), and Sitter (1990). 

The newest version of the bootstrap procedure made it possible to compute teacher bootstrap replicate 

weights at the same time as the school weights, considerably reducing the processing time to form the 

replicates. 

Each SASS data file includes a set of 88 replicate weights designed to produce variance estimates. 

Replicate weights were created for each of the 88 samples using the same estimation procedures used for 

the full sample and are included in the data files. Most of the replicate weights were produced using a 

bootstrap procedure. For TFS, the replicate weights were derived based on the SASS teacher replicate 

weights, making appropriate adjustments for the TFS sampling procedure. 

As described above, the replicate weights are used to compute the variance of a statistic, Y, as given 

below. 

Variance ∑=

⎟ − ⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = 1

2 ( ) 88

1 ( ) r

Y Yr Y

 where: Yr = the estimate of Y using the r

th set of replicate weights, and the number of replicate 

weights is 88 for SASS and TFS. 

Analysis of the bootstrap replicate weights revealed that approximately 3 percent of the school (public 

and private) and teacher (public and private) weights fell outside a 95 percent confidence interval. These 

were nearly the expected 5 percent, indicating the bootstrap replicate weights were close to being 

normally distributed. Since the TFS replicate weights were based on the SASS teacher replicate weights, 

the same distribution applied. 

TFS Teachers. Since the TFS sample was a proper subsample of the SASS teacher sample (i.e., TFS is 

representative of the whole SASS teacher sample), the SASS teacher replicates were used for the TFS 

sample. The TFS base weight for each TFS teacher was multiplied by each of the 88 SASS replicate 
70 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

weights divided by the SASS teacher full-sample base weight for that teacher. To calculate 88 replicate 

weights, which should be used for variance calculations, these TFS replicate basic weights were 

processed through the remainder of the TFS weighting system. The replicate weights for TFS teachers are 

TFRPWT1 through TFRPWT88. 

The SASS teacher replicate weights were generated at the same time as the school replicate weights as 

part of the 2003–04 bootstrap system. BRR methodology was employed rather than bootstrap if a teacher 

was in the private school area frame. Teacher records were assigned replicate weights by multiplying the 

school BRR replicate weight times the teacher’s conditional probability of selection given the school was 

selected in the SASS school sample. 

A variance estimate was obtained by first calculating the estimate for each replicate, then summing the 

squared deviations of the replicate estimates from the full-sample estimate, and finally dividing by the 

number of replicates: 

∑=

−

88

1

2 ( ˆ ˆ) / 88

k

k y y

where k = 1, 2 .....88; 

yk = k

th replicate estimate; and 

y = full sample estimate. 

When calculating variance estimates for some small subdomains of interest (e.g., vocational education 

teachers), sparseness of the data may result in there being no data for some replicates. This can result in 

either an extremely large variance estimate or failure of the software used to calculate the variance, with 

possibly a warning message. 

The computation of sampling errors for either TFS or SASS data using these replicate weights can be 

done easily with one of the following software programs: WesVar Complex Sample Software, SUDAAN 

(Research Triangle Institute 2001), AM Statistical Software, or STATA 9. 

• WesVar. The user needs to create a new WesVar data file by specifying the full sample weight 

variable and the replicate weight variables as defined above, and the replication method, BRR. 

The replicate weights and the full sample weight can be highlighted and dragged to their 

appropriate place on the “New WesVar Data File” window. For more information, visit 

www.westat.com/wesvar/. 

• SUDAAN. The user needs to specify the sample design as a “Balanced Repeated replication” 

design as well as the replicate weight variables. Specifying the sample design (DESIGN = BRR) 

is done in the procedure call statement (i.e., PROC DESCRIPT DESIGN = BRR;). The 

specification of the replicate weighs is done with the REPWGT statement (i.e., to produce the 

sampling errors for estimates from TFS data files use the statement: REPWGT TFRPWT1-

TFRPWT88;). For more information, visit www.rti.org/sudaan/. 

• AM. The user needs to set the replicate weights along with the replication method using the rightclick context menu in the variable list window. Once the “Set Replicate Weights” window is 

displayed, the replicate weights as identified above can be highlighted and dragged into the 

window. At the bottom of the window are four options for replication method; BRR should be 

selected. For more information, visit http://am.air.org/. 

• STATA. The use of replicate weights for the generation of standard errors is a new feature to 

STATA 9. First, the user needs to survey set the data (SVY SET) by defining the probability 

weight ([pw = ]), balanced repeated replication weights (brrweight(varlist)), variance estimation 
Chapter 8. Weighting and Variance Estimation 71 

type ((vce(brr)), and turn on the mse formula (mse). Once these parameters are set, users can call 

up the survey settings and tell STATA which type of standard errors to produce using the SVY 

BRR command. SVY BRR also allows users to specify the statistics to be collected (exp_list) and 

the command to perform (e.g., mean or tab). For more information visit http://www.stata.com/. 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
73 

Chapter 9. Reviewing the Quality of TFS Data 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) program staff members have the responsibility of 

ensuring that data files are acceptable for public release. Before files are released to the public, staff 

members review the data for errors associated with the edit, imputation, and weighting programs. This 

review incorporates a number of checks including univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses that 

rigorously examine as many aspects of the data as possible without delaying timely release of Teacher 

Follow-up Survey (TFS) datasets. 

Below are aspects of the datasets that were reviewed: 

• general data quality; 

• nonresponse; 

• weighting; and 

• external data checks, including an examination of response variance. 

General Data Quality 

General data quality included a number of reviews that could be characterized as consistency edits. These 

checks involved an examination of the individual responses, patterns of response, and summary statistics 

for variables and files to ensure consistency within items, respondents, and files. In addition, key 

variables and crosstabulations of key variables were examined for distributions and relationships that 

were expected based upon prior administrations and other research to check the data’s face validity. The 

specific data checks included: 

• Edits. The validity of the skip patterns in each TFS questionnaire was established during the 

processing of the data; that is, U.S. Census Bureau analysts verified that each item in each 

questionnaire had the number of responses it should have if skip instructions were followed 

correctly. Quality checks on the edit specifications were performed and resulted in some 

corrections (which were treated as a form of imputation). 

• Frequency counts. Unweighted record counts for every variable were examined from the 

restricted-use data files. Variables with out-of-range values or inconsistent values were identified, 

and these values were corrected. 

• Reasonableness of data. Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate tabulations of key survey 

variables were obtained and compared to estimates from the previous TFS survey. Tabulations 

were reviewed to determine whether the basic relationships observed were within reasonable 

bounds, allowing for elements of change (such as random fluctuations in variance, or a trend such 

as overall population growth in a state). The distributions and relationships observed were 

consistent with expectations. 

Nonresponse 

Response rates were examined for possible bias, and no evidence of bias at the unit or item level was 

found. The details of this analysis are discussed in greater detail in chapter 5, but the nonresponse analysis 

included a detailed analysis of unit nonresponse and item nonresponse. 

• Unit nonresponse. Response rates were calculated by sector and current or former teacher status 

and for selected reporting characteristics. (See chapter 5 for unit response rate information.) No 

evidence of substantial bias was found. 
74 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

• Item nonresponse. The extent of item nonresponse for each TFS data file was determined. (See 

chapter 5 for item response rate information.) Items with high nonresponse rates were identified 

and reported in tables. Following this review, no items were removed from the data files. 

However, items with a response rate lower than 70 percent are footnoted as such in published 

tables. 

Weighting 

The weighting review consisted of reviewing the distribution of TFS replicate weights. The following was 

done: 

• For each replicate, the weights were totaled. Each replicate total, as well as the average of those 

numbers, was checked against the full-sample estimate. The standard errors of the replicate totals 

were computed and checked for reasonableness. 

• A check was performed to verify that 95 percent of the replicate weights were contained in an 

appropriately computed 95 percent confidence interval. This was done with both the basic 

replicate weights and the final replicate weights. 

External Data Checks 

One way to verify the external validity of TFS data was to compare the total number of teachers in the 

2004–05 TFS to the total number of teachers in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). The 

ratio of teachers in TFS to teachers in SASS indicates whether TFS population totals were within 

reasonable bounds of the SASS population totals since the magnitude of the sampling error relates 

directly to sample size and the percentage of the universe covered by that sample. 

The following three tables compare the number of TFS teachers to SASS teachers within all three school 

types (i.e., traditional public, public charter, and private schools) and by selected SASS teacher and 

school characteristics. Table 18 compares the overall number of stayer and non-stayer (i.e., movers and 

leavers) teachers in TFS to the total number of teachers in SASS. Table 19 compares the number of TFS 

teachers to the number of SASS teachers in public and private schools, and table 20 compares the number 

TFS teachers to the number of SASS teachers in traditional public and public charter schools. 
Chapter 9. Reviewing the Quality of TFS Data 75 

Table 18. Comparison of number of stayer and nonstayer teachers (both sectors) in 2004–05 TFS 

population to teachers in 2003–04 SASS, by TFS sampling strata and selected SASS 

teacher and school characteristics: 2003–04 and 2004–05 

TFS sampling strata and 

selected SASS teacher and 

school characteristics 

Number of 

stayer 

teachers in 

TFS

Number of 

nonstayer 

teachers in 

TFS

Total

number of 

teachers in 

TFS 

Total 

number of 

teachers in 

SASS 

Ratio of total 

number of 

teachers in 

TFS to total

 in SASS

 Total 3,058,779 621,427 3,680,206 3,717,998 99.0

TFS sampling strata 

 TFS status 

 Leaver or mover 37,343 313,689 351,031 345,838 101.5

 Stayer 3,007,676 106,959 3,114,636 3,154,368 98.7

 Don’t know 13,760 200,779 214,539 217,792 98.5

 Teaching level in SASS year 

 Elementary 1,622,634 344,906 1,967,540 1,979,869 99.4

 Secondary 1,436,145 276,521 1,712,666 1,738,129 98.5

 Teaching experience in SASS 

 Three or fewer years 512,085 161,478 673,563 618,630 108.9

 More than 3 years 2,546,693 459,949 3,006,643 3,099,368 97.0

SASS teacher characteristics 

 Main teaching assignment 

 Early childhood/general elementary 1,094,331 207,145 1,301,476 1,305,043 99.7

 Special education 341,864 93,440 435,304 432,744 100.6

 Arts/music 193,261 38,146 231,407 251,385 92.1

 English /language arts 306,854 63,130 369,983 385,428 96.0

 ESL/bilingual education 30,857 5,741 36,598 44,480 82.3

 Foreign languages 88,128 19,556 107,684 108,085 99.6

 Health/physical education 178,596 31,811 210,407 197,479 106.5

 Mathematics 233,592 42,759 276,351 267,592 103.3

 Natural science 217,366 29,984 247,350 240,427 102.9

 Social sciences 183,561 32,060 215,620 219,479 98.2

 Vocational/technical education 139,005 33,508 172,513 182,290 94.6

 Other 51,366 24,147 75,512 83,568 90.4

 Sex 

 Male 742,266 146,496 888,762 922,749 96.3

 Female 2,316,513 474,931 2,791,444 2,795,249 99.9

 Race/ethnicity 

 White, non-Hispanic 2,623,847 516,341 3,140,188 3,113,249 100.9

 Black, non-Hispanic 203,716 55,594 259,310 276,275 93.9

 Hispanic 123,118 31,837 154,956 225,019 68.9

 Asian, non-Hispanic 45,864 9,305 55,168 50,703 108.8

 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 

 non-Hispanic 6,479 1,036 7,515 6,913 108.7

 American Indian/Alaska Native, 

 non-Hispanic 24,862 2,699 27,561 18,916 145.7

 More than one race, non-Hispanic 22,708 3,377 26,085 17,933 145.5

See notes at end of table. 
76 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

Table 18. Comparison of number of stayer and nonstayer teachers (both sectors) in 2004–05 TFS 

population to teachers in 2003–04 SASS, by TFS sampling strata and selected SASS 

teacher and school characteristics: 2003–04 and 2004–05—Continued 

TFS sampling strata and 

selected SASS teacher and 

school characteristics 

Number of 

stayer 

teachers in 

TFS

Number of 

nonstayer 

teachers in 

TFS

Total

number of 

teachers in 

TFS 

Total 

number of 

teachers in 

SASS 

Ratio of total 

number of 

teachers in 

TFS to total

 in SASS

SASS teacher characteristics—Continued 

 Age 

 Less than 25 147,646 42,850 190,496 155,439 122.6

 25–29 365,241 126,293 491,533 473,060 103.9

 30–39 730,162 141,414 871,576 900,304 96.8

 40–49 838,071 122,541 960,612 959,146 100.2

 50–59 863,010 144,116 1,007,126 1,062,268 94.8

 60–64 87,122 35,461 122,582 130,647 93.8

 65 or more 27,527 8,753 36,280 37,135 97.7

 Highest degree earned 

 Associate’s or no degree 57,819 21,021 78,840 78,439 100.5

 Bachelor’s 1,570,739 328,514 1,899,253 1,910,663 99.4

 Master’s 1,249,945 219,322 1,469,267 1,468,290 100.1

 Education specialist or certificate 

 of advanced graduate studies 154,585 45,062 199,646 211,788 94.3

 Doctorate or professional 25,691 7,508 33,199 48,817 68.0

 Total school income 

 Less than $35,000 871,944 238,877 1,110,821 1,064,979 104.3

 $35,000–$49,999 1,282,239 238,835 1,521,073 1,546,997 98.3

 $50,000–$74,999 810,588 122,497 933,085 977,858 95.4

 $75,000–$99,999 85,447 19,080 104,527 118,664 88.1

 $100,000 or more 8,560 2,139 10,699 9,500 112.6

SASS school characteristics 

 Minority enrollment 

 Less than 10 percent 981,907 161,668 1,143,576 1,071,472 106.7

 10–35 percent 833,078 152,787 985,865 1,030,074 95.7

 More than 35 percent 1,243,793 306,972 1,550,765 1,616,452 95.9

 Census region 

 Northeast 623,030 118,755 741,785 787,071 94.2

 Midwest 754,749 151,040 905,789 874,744 103.5

 South 1,140,325 226,054 1,366,379 1,367,920 99.9

 West 540,675 125,579 666,253 688,263 96.8

 Community type 

 Central city 826,598 204,352 1,030,950 1,111,660 92.7

 Urban fringe/large town 1,675,231 314,028 1,989,259 1,939,920 102.5

 Rural/small town 556,949 103,047 659,996 666,419 99.0

 School enrollment 

 Fewer than 200 248,824 77,618 326,442 345,746 94.4

 200–499 954,004 205,944 1,159,948 1,149,302 100.9

 500–749 745,574 133,153 878,727 905,747 97.0

 750–999 410,318 75,778 486,096 500,582 97.1

 1,000 or more 700,058 128,934 828,992 816,622 101.5

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public 

Teacher and Private Teacher Data Files,” 2003–04, and Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Final TFS Documentation Data Files 

and TFS Sample File,” 2004–05. 
Chapter 9. Reviewing the Quality of TFS Data 77 

Ninety-nine percent of the total weighted estimate of teachers in SASS is represented by the TFS sample 

across all school types (i.e., traditional public, public charter, and private school teachers) (table 18). For 

public school teachers, 98.9 percent of the SASS population estimate is captured by TFS, and for private 

school teachers 99.6 percent is captured (table 19). 

Table 19. Comparison of number of public and private sector school stayer and nonstayer 

teachers in 2004–05 TFS population to teachers in 2003–04 SASS, by TFS sampling 

strata and selected SASS teacher and school characteristics: 2003–04 and 2004–05 

Public sector (as identified in SASS) Private sector (as identified in SASS) 

TFS sampling strata and 

selected SASS teacher 

and school characteristics 

Number 

of 

stayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Number 

of nonstayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers

in 

SASS

Ratio of 

total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in TFS 

to total 

in SASS

Number 

of 

stayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS

Number 

of nonstayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in 

SASS

Ratio of 

total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in TFS 

to total 

in SASS

 Total 2,684,202 530,690 3,214,893 3,250,625 98.9 374,576 90,737 465,313 467,373 99.6

 

TFS sampling strata 

 TFS status 

 Leaver or mover 33,661 277,449 311,110 305,888 101.7 3,682 36,240 39,922 39,950 99.9

 Stayer 2,638,061 92,426 2,730,487 2,769,522 98.6 369,615 14,534 384,149 384,846 99.8

 Don’t know 12,481 160,816 173,297 175,215 98.9 1,279 39,963 41,242 42,577 96.9

 Teaching level in SASS year 

 Elementary 1,410,247 288,549 1,698,796 1,716,404 99.0 212,387 56,357 268,744 263,465 102.0

 Secondary 1,273,955 242,142 1,516,097 1,534,220 98.8 162,189 34,380 196,569 203,908 96.4

 Teaching experience in SASS 

 Three or fewer years 434,025 127,757 561,781 513,772 109.3 78,061 33,721 111,782 104,858 106.6

 More than 3 years 2,250,178 402,934 2,653,111 2,736,852 96.9 296,516 57,016 353,531 362,516 97.5

 

SASS teacher characteristics 

 Main teaching assignment 

 Early childhood/ 

 general elementary 953,605 174,305 1,127,911 1,131,010 99.7 140,726 32,840 173,565 174,033 99.7

 Special education 325,552 87,153 412,705 414,195 99.6 16,311 6,288 22,599 18,548 121.8

 Arts/music 163,661 29,622 193,283 212,606 90.9 29,600 8,524 38,124 38,779 98.3

 English/language arts 268,981 54,320 323,301 339,518 95.2 37,873 8,809 46,683 45,910 101.7

 ESL/bilingual 

 education 29,772 5,609 35,381 43,190 81.9 1,085 132 1,217 1,290 94.4

 Foreign languages 70,219 13,813 84,032 81,490 103.1 17,909 5,743 23,652 26,595 88.9

 Health/physical 

 education 158,510 27,486 185,996 174,808 106.4 20,086 4,324 24,411 22,671 107.7

 Mathematics 201,428 36,556 237,984 231,115 103.0 32,164 6,202 38,366 36,477 105.2

 Natural science 189,320 24,639 213,959 208,140 102.8 28,046 5,345 33,391 32,287 103.4

 Social sciences 160,720 27,003 187,724 189,235 99.2 22,840 5,056 27,897 30,243 92.2

 Vocational/technical 

 education 133,070 31,638 164,708 175,120 94.1 5,935 1,870 7,805 7,170 108.9

 Other 29,364 18,544 47,908 50,198 95.4 22,002 5,602 27,604 33,370 82.7

 Sex 

 Male 657,669 126,057 783,726 812,533 96.5 84,597 20,439 105,036 110,216 95.3

 Female 2,026,533 404,634 2,431,167 2,438,092 99.7 289,980 70,297 360,277 357,158 100.9

See notes at end of table. 
78 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

Table 19. Comparison of number of public and private sector school stayer and nonstayer 

teachers in 2004–05 TFS population to teachers in 2003–04 SASS, by TFS sampling 

strata and selected SASS teacher and school characteristics: 2003–04 and 2004–05—

Continued 

Public sector (as identified in SASS) Private sector (as identified in SASS) 

TFS sampling strata and 

selected SASS teacher 

and school characteristics 

Number 

of 

stayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Number 

of nonstayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers

in 

SASS

Ratio of 

total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in TFS to 

total in 

SASS

Number 

of 

stayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS

Number 

of nonstayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in 

SASS

Ratio of 

total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in TFS 

to total 

in SASS

SASS teacher characteristics— 

 Continued 

 Race/ethnicity 

 White, non-Hispanic 2,287,806 439,083 2,726,889 2,701,752 100.9 336,040 77,258 413,298 411,497 100.4

 Black, non-Hispanic 192,299 50,164 242,463 257,484 94.2 11,417 5,430 16,847 18,792 89.7

 Hispanic 111,052 26,744 137,795 202,463 68.1 12,067 5,094 17,160 22,556 76.1

 Asian, non-Hispanic 35,062 8,031 43,092 42,167 102.2 10,802 1,274 12,076 8,536 141.5

 Native Hawaiian/ 

 Pacific Islander, 

 non-Hispanic 5,236 933 6,169 5,969 103.3 1,243 103 1,346 943 142.7

 American Indian/ 

 Alaska Native, 

 non-Hispanic 22,997 1,715 24,712 16,857 146.6 1,865 984 2,849 2,059 138.3

 More than one race, 

 non-Hispanic 22,203 2,991 25,194 16,322 154.4 505 386 891 1,612 55.3

 Age 

 Less than 25 127,357 32,880 160,237 126,549 126.6 20,289 9,969 30,259 28,889 104.7

 25–29 325,044 107,917 432,961 413,766 104.6 40,196 18,376 58,572 59,293 98.8

 30–39 644,979 120,940 765,919 797,714 96.0 85,183 20,474 105,657 102,590 103.0

 40–49 742,315 104,672 846,988 840,342 100.8 95,756 17,869 113,625 118,804 95.6

 50–59 758,511 129,139 887,650 941,650 94.3 104,499 14,977 119,476 120,618 99.1

 60–64 67,312 29,614 96,926 105,364 92.0 19,809 5,846 25,656 25,283 101.5

 65 or more 18,684 5,528 24,212 25,239 95.9 8,843 3,225 12,068 11,896 101.4

 Highest degree earned 

 Associate’s or no 

 degree 29,521 10,212 39,734 35,241 112.8 28,298 10,809 39,107 43,199 90.5

 Bachelor’s 1,351,664 276,254 1,627,919 1,651,425 98.6 219,074 52,260 271,335 259,238 104.7

 Master’s 1,141,534 196,885 1,338,419 1,330,642 100.6 108,412 22,436 130,848 137,649 95.1

 Education specialist or 

 certificate of 

 advanced graduate 

 studies 146,121 41,737 187,858 194,993 96.3 8,464 3,324 11,788 16,795 70.2

 Doctorate or 

 professional 15,362 5,601 20,963 38,325 54.7 10,329 1,906 12,235 10,493 116.6

 Total school income 

 Less than $35,000 648,240 163,553 811,793 756,374 107.3 223,704 75,323 299,028 308,606 96.9

 $35,000–$49,999 1,176,840 225,654 1,402,493 1,432,828 97.9 105,399 13,181 118,580 114,169 103.9

 $50,000–$74,999 768,561 120,369 888,930 937,269 94.8 42,028 2,128 44,156 40,588 108.8

 $75,000–$99,999 82,229 19,020 101,250 115,018 88.0 3,218 59 3,277 3,646 89.9

 $100,000 or more 8,333 2,094 10,427 9,136 114.1 228 45 273 365 74.9

See notes at end of table. 
Chapter 9. Reviewing the Quality of TFS Data 79 

Table 19. Comparison of number of public and private sector school stayer and nonstayer 

teachers in 2004–05 TFS population to teachers in 2003–04 SASS, by TFS sampling 

strata and selected SASS teacher and school characteristics: 2003–04 and 2004–05—

Continued 

Public sector (as identified in SASS) Private sector (as identified in SASS) 

TFS sampling strata and 

selected SASS teacher 

and school 

characteristics 

Number 

of 

stayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Number 

of nonstayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers

in 

SASS

Ratio of 

total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in TFS 

to total 

in 

SASS

Number 

of 

stayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS

Number 

of nonstayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in 

SASS

Ratio of 

total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in TFS 

to total 

in 

SASS

SASS school characteristics 

 Minority enrollment 

 Less than 10 percent 800,287 126,394 926,681 868,756 106.7 181,620 35,274 216,895 202,715 107.0

 10–35 percent 698,645 118,720 817,365 853,818 95.7 134,433 34,067 168,500 176,256 95.6

 More than 35 percent 1,185,270 285,577 1,470,847 1,528,050 96.3 58,523 21,395 79,918 88,402 90.4

 Census region 

 Northeast 520,291 97,565 617,856 662,348 93.3 102,739 21,190 123,929 124,723 99.4

 Midwest 666,738 130,042 796,779 768,491 103.7 88,012 20,998 109,010 106,253 102.6

 South 1,017,142 192,719 1,209,861 1,214,670 99.6 123,183 33,335 156,518 153,251 102.1

 West 480,031 110,365 590,396 605,117 97.6 60,643 15,214 75,857 83,146 91.2

 Community type 

 Central city 680,843 172,502 853,345 929,391 91.8 145,756 31,850 177,605 182,269 97.4

 Urban fringe/large 

 town 1,481,358 266,197 1,747,555 1,704,231 102.5 193,873 47,831 241,704 235,689 102.6

 Rural/small town 522,002 91,991 613,993 617,003 99.5 34,948 11,056 46,003 49,416 93.1

 School enrollment 

 Fewer than 200 117,491 28,791 146,282 167,473 87.3 131,333 48,827 180,160 178,273 101.1

 200–499 814,215 175,904 990,118 978,881 101.1 139,789 30,040 169,830 170,420 99.7

 500–749 703,942 126,527 830,469 850,272 97.7 41,632 6,626 48,258 55,475 87.0

 750–999 373,228 72,741 445,969 466,332 95.6 37,091 3,036 40,127 34,250 117.2

 1,000 or more 675,327 126,727 802,054 787,667 101.8 24,731 2,207 26,938 28,955 93.0

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public 

Teacher and Private Teacher Data Files,” 2003–04, and Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Final TFS Documentation Data Files 

and TFS Sample File,” 2004–05. 

Comparisons were made by TFS sampling strata as well as by selected SASS teacher and school 

characteristics. These identified a few areas where the TFS population differed from the SASS population 

(tables 19 and 20). The TFS sample of public school teachers (including public charter) contained a larger 

proportion of non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native and non-Hispanic multirace racial/ethnic 

groups and a smaller proportion of teachers who were Hispanic and teachers who had doctorate or 

professional degrees (table 19). Comparisons of private school teachers revealed a larger proportion of 

non-Hispanic Asian, non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and non-Hispanic American 

Indian/Alaska Native racial/ethnic groups and a smaller proportion of the non-Hispanic multirace 

racial/ethnic group (table 19). Among only public charter school teachers who participated in TFS, there 

was a larger proportion of the non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native racial/ethnic group and 

teachers whose total school income was in the range of $75,000 to $99,999. There was a smaller 

proportion of public charter school teachers who were 60 to 64 years old, had doctorate or professional 

degrees, and whose total school income was in the range of $50,000 to $74,999 (table 20). 
80 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

These imbalances are not unusual since TFS only controls for status (stayers, movers, leavers, and 

unknown), within school type (traditional public, public charter, and private), experience groups 

(new/experienced), teacher’s grade level (elementary/middle/secondary), and minority status 

(minority/nonminority). The uncontrolled variables tend to have high variances and produce random 

fluctuations. 

Table 20. Comparison of number of traditional public and public charter school stayer and 

nonstayer teachers in 2004–05 TFS population to teachers in 2003–04 SASS, by TFS 

sampling strata and selected SASS teacher and school characteristics: 2003–04 and 

2004–05 

Traditional public (as identified in SASS) Public charter (as identified in SASS) 

TFS sampling strata and 

selected SASS teacher and 

school characteristics 

Number 

of 

stayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Number 

of nonstayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers

in 

SASS

Ratio of 

total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in TFS 

to total 

in 

SASS

Number 

of

stayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS

Number 

of nonstayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in 

SASS

Ratio of 

total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in TFS 

to total 

in 

SASS

 Total 2,654,960 518,461 3,173,421 3,208,486 98.9 29,242 12,229 41,472 42,139 98.4

 

TFS sampling strata 

 TFS status 

 Leaver or mover 33,450 273,020 306,470 301,374 101.7 211 4,428 4,639 4,514 102.8

 Stayer 2,609,380 90,794 2,700,174 2,738,194 98.6 28,681 1,631 30,312 31,328 96.8

 Don’t know 12,130 154,646 166,776 168,917 98.7 351 6,170 6,520 6,297 103.5

 Teaching level in SASS year 

 Elementary 1,390,913 282,023 1,672,936 1,691,179 98.9 19,334 6,526 25,860 25,225 102.5

 Secondary 1,264,047 236,438 1,500,485 1,517,307 98.9 9,908 5,704 15,612 16,913 92.3

 Teaching experience in SASS 

 Three or fewer years 424,182 122,475 546,657 498,284 109.7 9,843 5,281 15,124 15,488 97.6

 More than 3 years 2,230,778 395,986 2,626,764 2,710,202 96.9 19,400 6,948 26,348 26,650 98.9

 

SASS teacher characteristics 

 Main teaching assignment 

 Early childhood/general 

 elementary 940,582 169,674 1,110,256 1,113,193 99.7 13,024 4,631 17,655 17,817 99.1

 Special education 322,569 86,236 408,804 410,862 99.5 2,984 917 3,901 3,334 117.0

 Arts/music 162,007 28,428 190,435 209,967 90.7 1,654 1,195 2,849 2,638 108.0

 English/language arts 266,086 53,408 319,494 335,588 95.2 2,894 912 3,807 3,930 96.9

 ESL/bilingual education 29,515 5,577 35,092 42,852 81.9 257 32 289 338 85.6

 Foreign languages 69,212 13,065 82,277 79,995 102.9 1,007 748 1,754 1,495 117.3

 Health/physical educ. 158,105 27,214 185,319 173,031 107.1 405 272 677 1,777 38.1

 Mathematics 199,288 35,673 234,961 227,810 103.1 2,140 883 3,023 3,304 91.5

 Natural science 187,765 23,908 211,673 205,781 102.9 1,555 732 2,286 2,359 96.9

 Social sciences 158,198 26,119 184,317 186,632 98.8 2,522 884 3,407 2,604 130.9

 Vocational/technical 

 education 133,070 31,081 164,151 174,006 94.3 0 558 558 1,114 50.1

 Other 28,563 18,079 46,643 48,769 95.6 801 465 1,266 1,429 88.6

 Sex 

 Male 650,605 121,974 772,579 801,148 96.4 7,064 4,083 11,147 11,385 97.9

 Female 2,004,355 396,487 2,400,841 2,407,338 99.7 22,178 8,147 30,325 30,753 98.6

See notes at end of table. 
Chapter 9. Reviewing the Quality of TFS Data 81 

Table 20. Comparison of number of traditional public and public charter school stayer and 

nonstayer teachers in 2004–05 TFS population to teachers in 2003–04 SASS, by TFS 

sampling strata and selected SASS teacher and school characteristics: 2003–04 and 

2004–05—Continued 

Traditional public (as identified in SASS) Public charter (as identified in SASS) 

TFS sampling strata and 

selected school and 

teacher characteristics 

Number 

of 

stayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Number 

of nonstayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers

in 

SASS

Ratio of 

total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in TFS 

to total 

in SASS

Number 

of

stayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS

Number 

of nonstayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in 

SASS

Ratio of 

total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in TFS 

to total 

in SASS

SASS teacher characteristics— 

 Continued 

 Race/ethnicity 

 White, non-Hispanic 2,266,555 430,780 2,697,335 2,672,192 100.9 21,251 8,303 29,554 29,560 100.0

 Black, non-Hispanic 187,963 48,427 236,389 251,079 94.1 4,336 1,737 6,074 6,404 94.8

 Hispanic 108,428 25,432 133,860 198,188 67.5 2,623 1,312 3,935 4,275 92.0

 Asian, non-Hispanic 34,347 7,887 42,234 41,364 102.1 715 144 859 802 107.0

 Native Hawaiian/Pacific 

 Islander, non-Hispanic 5,236 823 6,060 5,820 104.1 0 109 109 150 72.8

 American Indian/Alaska 

 Native, non-Hispanic 22,730 1,474 24,204 16,489 146.8 267 241 508 368 137.9

 More than one race, 

 non-Hispanic 22,203 2,649 24,851 15,969 155.6 0 342 342 352 97.1

 Age 

 Less than 25 125,839 31,528 157,367 123,718 127.2 1,518 1,353 2,870 2,831 101.4

 25–29 319,347 105,221 424,569 404,367 105.0 5,697 2,696 8,392 9,399 89.3

 30–39 634,374 116,774 751,148 784,087 95.8 10,605 4,166 14,772 13,627 108.4

 40–49 736,051 103,084 839,135 832,467 100.8 6,265 1,588 7,853 7,875 99.7

 50–59 753,672 127,096 880,769 934,422 94.3 4,839 2,043 6,881 7,227 95.2

 60–64 67,312 29,316 96,628 104,585 92.4 0 298 298 779 38.2

 65 or more 18,364 5,442 23,806 24,840 95.8 319 86 405 399 101.5

 Highest degree earned 

 Associate’s or no degree 28,853 9,659 38,512 33,878 113.7 668 553 1,221 1,362 89.6

 Bachelor’s 1,333,170 269,000 1,602,170 1,624,390 98.6 18,494 7,254 25,748 27,035 95.2

 Master’s 1,132,753 193,383 1,326,135 1,319,103 100.5 8,781 3,503 12,284 11,539 106.5

 Education specialist or 

 certificate of advanced 

 graduate studies 144,878 41,063 185,941 193,236 96.2 1,242 675 1,917 1,757 109.1

 Doctorate or 

 professional 15,305 5,356 20,662 37,879 54.5 57 245 302 446 67.7

 Total school income 

 Less than $35,000 636,876 156,288 793,165 736,836 107.6 11,364 7,265 18,629 19,538 95.3

 $35,000–$49,999 1,162,417 221,556 1,383,973 1,415,783 97.8 14,423 4,097 18,520 17,044 108.7

 $50,000–$74,999 765,881 119,502 885,383 931,934 95.0 2,680 867 3,547 5,335 66.5

 $75,000–$99,999 81,453 19,020 100,473 114,797 87.5 776 0 776 221 350.9

 $100,000 or more 8,333 2,094 10,427 9,136 114.1 0 0 0 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
82 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

Table 20. Comparison of number of traditional public and public charter school stayer and 

nonstayer teachers in 2004–05 TFS population to teachers in 2003–04 SASS, by TFS 

sampling strata and selected SASS teacher and school characteristics: 2003–04 and 

2004–05—Continued 

Traditional public (as identified in SASS) Public charter (as identified in SASS) 

TFS sampling strata and 

selected school and 

teacher characteristics 

Number 

of 

stayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Number 

of nonstayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers

in 

SASS

Ratio of 

total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in TFS 

to total 

in SASS

Number 

of

stayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS

Number 

of nonstayer 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in 

TFS 

Total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in 

SASS

Ratio of 

total 

number 

of 

teachers 

in TFS 

to total 

in SASS

SASS school characteristics 

 Minority enrollment 

 Less than 10 percent 796,938 125,183 922,121 864,360 106.7 3,350 1,210 4,560 4,396 103.7

 10–35 percent 691,510 114,872 806,382 842,362 95.7 7,135 3,848 10,983 11,456 95.9

 More than 35 percent 1,166,512 278,405 1,444,918 1,501,764 96.2 18,758 7,171 25,929 26,286 98.6

 Census region 

 Northeast 512,717 95,686 608,403 654,940 92.9 7,574 1,879 9,454 7,408 127.6

 Midwest 659,220 127,089 786,309 758,386 103.7 7,517 2,953 10,470 10,105 103.6

 South 1,012,086 189,256 1,201,343 1,204,104 99.8 5,056 3,462 8,518 10,566 80.6

 West 470,937 106,430 577,366 591,057 97.7 9,095 3,935 13,030 14,060 92.7

 Community type 

 Central city 666,000 165,665 831,665 906,496 91.7 14,843 6,837 21,680 22,895 94.7

 Urban fringe/large town 1,470,339 261,959 1,732,299 1,688,535 102.6 11,019 4,237 15,256 15,696 97.2

 Rural/small town 518,621 90,836 609,457 613,456 99.3 3,381 1,155 4,536 3,547 127.9

 School enrollment 

 Fewer than 200 112,333 25,054 137,386 157,615 87.2 5,158 3,738 8,896 9,858 90.2

 200–499 804,073 170,407 974,480 963,866 101.1 10,142 5,497 15,638 15,015 104.1

 500–749 697,807 125,500 823,307 842,581 97.7 6,135 1,027 7,163 7,690 93.1

 750–999 369,552 71,691 441,243 462,013 95.5 3,675 1,050 4,726 4,319 109.4

 1,000 or more 671,195 125,810 797,004 782,411 101.9 4,132 918 5,050 5,256 96.1

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public 

Teacher and Private Teacher Data Files,” 2003–04, and Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Final TFS Documentation Data Files 

and TFS Sample File,” 2004–05. 
83 

Chapter 10. Information on Data Files and Merging 

Components 

The 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) is composed of two survey questionnaires—the 

Questionnaire for Current Teachers and the Questionnaire for Former Teachers. The questionnaires were 

administered to a sample of teachers from public (including public charter) and private schools that 

responded to the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). These two questionnaires became two 

data files that followed the populations targeted by the questionnaires: the current teacher data file, which 

includes teachers who remained in the same school as during the SASS school year (stayers) and teachers 

who moved to a new school in the 2004–05 school year (movers), and the former teacher data file, which 

includes teachers who left the pre-K–12 teaching profession after the 2003–04 school year (leavers). 

Table 21 identifies each data file and the questionnaire data used to build the file. 

Table 21. Names of data files and the questionnaires from which the data were drawn: 2004–05 

Data file Questionnaire source

Current teacher Questionnaire for Current Teachers

Former teacher Questionnaire for Former Teachers

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), 2004–05. 

Availability of Data 

The 2004–05 TFS raw data are available in a restricted-use form only. The restricted-use files include 

confidentiality edits, which add “noise” to the data in order to make the identification of respondents in 

published data less certain. (See the section below on “Confidentiality Edits to the Data.”) Access to 

restricted-use data files is limited to individuals associated with organizations that have received a license 

to use SASS and TFS data. How to receive a restricted-use license is discussed in the next section. 

Restricted-use data are accessed through an ECB, which is a searchable codebook, or data dictionary, on a 

CD-ROM that produces data files as specified by the user. Data are restricted-use because they contain 

identifiable information, which is confidential and protected by law. While direct identifiers, such as the 

respondent’s name, are not included on the files, the restricted-use files do feature more variables that can 

indirectly identify a respondent or that can be used to link SASS and TFS with the Common Core of Data 

(CCD) or other data files, which could provide the name of the school and lead to the identification of 

individual respondents. 

The 2004–05 TFS restricted-use data are released in accordance with the provisions of the Education 

Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Public Law 107-279 (20 U.S.C. 9873), the Privacy Act of 1974, the USA 

Patriot Act of 2001, and the E-Government Act of 2002. NCES is responsible for protecting the 

confidentiality of individual respondents and releases data (CD-ROMs) for statistical purposes only. 

Record matching or deductive disclosure by any user is prohibited by federal law. 

How to Get Restricted-Use Data Files 

Researchers who can demonstrate a need for more detailed information may request access to the 

restricted-use datasets for statistical research purposes, provided that they follow computer security 

requirements and fill out an Affidavit of Nondisclosure. 

Researchers requesting access to the restricted-use datasets must obtain a license to use those data by 

providing the following information: 
84 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

• the title of the survey(s) to which access is desired (e.g., 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey to 

the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey); 

• a detailed discussion of the statistical research project that necessitates accessing the NCES 

survey; 

• the name of the principal project officer at the institution who will be heading up the research 

effort and who will enforce the legal provisions of the license agreement; 

• the number, name(s), and job title(s) of professional and technical staff, including graduate 

students, who will be accessing the survey dataset; and 

• the estimated loan period necessary for accessing the NCES survey dataset. 

Return all of the above information to 

NCES Data Security Office 

Department of Education/NCES/ODC/SSP 

1990 K Street NW 

Room 9061 

Washington, DC 20006 

All of these procedures are detailed in the NCES Restricted-Use Data Procedures Manual, available for 

download at http://nces.ed.gov/statprog/confid6.asp. 

After the access request has been reviewed, the requestor will be informed whether a license to use the 

restricted data has been approved. 

Requestors and/or institutions that violate the agreement are subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 

(under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3559 and 3571) or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both. 

The confidentiality provisions that NCES must follow by law can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/statprog. 

Researchers requesting TFS data will also receive the SASS data files from the previous year. 

Understanding the Data Files 

Confidentiality Edits to the Data 

The restricted-use data files have been altered according to NCES standards. Known as confidentiality 

edits, “noise” was added to the data in order to make the identification of respondents less certain. These 

edits directly alter some data for individual respondents, but preserve the overall distributions and level of 

detail in all variables included on the file. There are several ways in which data can be altered, including 

blanking and imputing for randomly selected records; blurring (e.g., combining multiple records through 

some averaging process into a single record); adding random noise; and data swapping or switching (e.g., 

switching the variable for age from a predetermined pair of individuals). Both restricted-use TFS data 

files (i.e., Current Teacher and Former Teacher) were altered through one or more of these methods. 

Treatment of Public Charter Schools and Schools Funded by the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs 

Teachers who taught in schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and public charter schools 

in the 2003–04 school year were included in the SASS sample. While teachers from public charter 

schools were included in TFS, those from BIA-funded schools were excluded from the data collection. 

BIA-funded school teachers were not included because of insufficient sample sizes in TFS. In SASS, the 
Chapter 10. Information on Data Files and Merging Components 85 

data from BIA-funded schools, principals, teachers, and school library media centers were placed on 

separate data files that only include BIA-funded school-related components. 

Public charter schools were first included in the 1999–2000 administration of SASS. At that time, the 

number of public charter schools was small enough that all known to be operational in 1998–99 and still 

operating in 1999–2000 were surveyed. The number of public charter schools has continued to grow, 

making it more feasible to sample public charter schools. A sample of 303 public charter schools was 

selected for the 2003–04 SASS. (See chapter 4 in the Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and 

Staffing Survey [Tourkin et al. 2007] for details.) Data from these respondents were included in the public 

sector SASS and TFS data files. The variable CHARFLAG, which identifies whether the public school is 

a traditional public school or a public charter school, can be used for separately analyzing public charter 

data. 

There were instances when schools did not fit exclusively into a single category of traditional public, 

public charter, or BIA-funded schools. In these instances, the following criterion for determining school 

type was applied: 

• Schools included on the BIA Directory of schools were categorized as BIA-funded schools and 

included on the BIA SASS files. 

• Schools that were on the BIA Directory of schools but also indicated that they were public charter 

schools were categorized as BIA-funded schools and included on the BIA SASS files. 

In addition, how a school was classified on CCD (as public, public charter, or BIA) may not match how 

the school classified itself on the questionnaire. The following decisions were made to assign the school’s 

type in SASS: 

• Schools that were classified as public charter schools on CCD but did not claim charter school 

status on the questionnaire were categorized as traditional public schools. 

• Schools that were classified as public schools on CCD but claimed to be charter schools on the 

questionnaire were categorized as public charter schools. 

• Schools were not asked on the questionnaire whether they were funded by BIA; there were no 

inconsistencies with the school’s type as it was assigned on the SASS sampling frame or on the 

SASS data files. 

Categories of Variables 

Variables on TFS data files were organized into the following five categories on each record layout: 

frame, survey, created, weighting, and imputation flag variables. Each of these categories was further 

separated into subcategories that provide more detail on each variable’s source. The purpose of these 

categories is to help the user better understand what types of variables are included on the files and what 

the sources were for the variables. 

Variables were classified as frame variables if they were drawn from or based on the TFS sampling 

frame, the SASS sampling frame, the CCD, or the Private School Universe Survey (PSS). There are four 

types of frame variables, or subcategories, identifying the source of each frame variable: TFS frame, 

2003–04 SASS frame, 2001–02 CCD or PSS, or 2003–04 CCD or PSS. Frame variables used in the 

SASS or TFS sampling operations are explained in greater detail in chapter 3. Variables that were not 

used for sampling purposes but were classified as frame variables and placed on the files were selected 

because they provided potentially valuable information to the user that was not available from the survey 

itself. Examples of frame variables include the respondent’s control, or identification, number (i.e., 
86 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

CNTLNUMS for schools and CNTLNUMT for teachers) and locale codes (i.e., SLOCP_03 and 

URBANS03). The frame variables are listed in “Appendix J. Frame and Created Variables.” 

Survey variables are the actual variables drawn from the questionnaire responses. Each item on a 

questionnaire has a small number printed to the left. This series of numbers is the source code. A single 

letter was added to the beginning of the series to signify which type of respondent (i.e., teacher, school) is 

associated with a source code. All source codes for TFS begin with the letter “F.” For example, on the 

Questionnaire for Current Teachers, item 1a has the source code 0050 printed to the left. On the data file, 

the source code for this item is F0050. In SASS, the letter “D” was added for district, “S” for school, “A” 

for principal or administrator, “T” for teacher, and “M” for school library media center. 

Created variables are based on survey variables, frame variables, other created variables, or a combination 

of these. These variables are frequently used in NCES publications and have been added to the files to 

facilitate data analysis. The code used to create these variables can be found in the description of each 

variable in the Codebook Window of the restricted-use Electronic Codebook. There are two subcategories 

for created variables based on whether the data used to create the variable were from “within” the 

teacher’s record (either from SASS or TFS data files) or from “other” data files in SASS. For example, 

the variable TOTEXPER on the current and former teacher data files is categorized as a “within” created 

variable, because it identifies the teacher’s total years of teaching experience as reported on the SASS 

teacher questionnaire. Likewise, STTUS_TF is included on the current and former teacher data files and 

is considered a “within” created variable, because it identifies whether the respondent has continued to 

teach at the same school as the previous year (stayer), has moved to a new school for the 2004–05 school 

year (mover), or has stopped teaching in grades pre-K–12 (leaver), as reported on the TFS surveys. A 

created variable labeled as being “other” is based on data from a file other than the teacher files. “Other” 

created variables were typically based on the SASS school or district data files and then placed on the 

TFS data files as a convenience to the user. For example, ENRK12UG is found on both the current and 

former teacher data files and is classified as an “other” created variable, because it provides the total 

student enrollment of the SASS school, as reported on the SASS school survey. The created variables are 

listed in “Appendix J. Frame and Created Variables.” 

There are two types of weighting variables on each file. (For more information on weighting and standard 

errors, see chapter 8.) The first is the sampling weight, or final weight for the respondent, and the second 

includes the 88 replicate weights. The final weight adjusts for nonresponse and oversampling and is used 

so that estimates represent the population rather than simply the sample. The replicate weights are used as 

a set to generate standard errors for estimates. On the TFS files, the final weight is called TFSFINWT and 

the replicate weights are TFRPWT1 through TFRPWT88. 

The imputation flags identify whether a survey item was imputed for missing data (described in detail in 

chapter 7) or whether a created variable was imputed because of a nonresponding school or district. All 

survey variables have a corresponding imputation flag that indicates whether a value was imputed and, if 

so, what method was used. All survey imputation flags begin with “F_” and are followed by the name of 

the variable. For example, the imputation flag for F0601 from the teacher files is F_F0601. In addition, 

there are three frame variables (SLOCP_03, STATE, and SC_ZIP) that have a corresponding imputation 

flag (FL_SLC03, FL_STAT, and FL_ZIP). The variable SLOCP_03 only applies to TFS respondents who 

taught in a public sector school in the 2003–04 school year. This variable and its flag were pulled directly 

from the 2003–04 CCD. The imputation flags for STATE and SC_ZIP identify the source of the data 

when they were imputed, so that the user is aware of whether the school’s or the respondent’s address was 

used to identify the respondent’s current state and ZIP code. 

Certain created variables on TFS were also given imputation flags. The imputation flag for these created 

variables indicates whether the school or district failed to respond to SASS and, if so, then what type of 
Chapter 10. Information on Data Files and Merging Components 87 

imputation was used as the source for the data. If the school or district did not respond to SASS, data are 

still present for these variables on the TFS files. All created variable imputation flags begin with “FL_” 

and are followed by at least the beginning of the name of the created variable. For example, the variable 

ENRK12UG comes from the SASS school file and provides the total K–12 and ungraded enrollment in 

the base-year school. It is placed on both the current and former teacher data files. The variable’s 

imputation flag is called FL_ENRK. These created variables were built with data from either the SASS 

district or school data files and placed on the TFS current and former teacher data files. However, if the 

district or school failed to respond to SASS, data would not be available to place on other files. These 

data were imputed using data from the sampling frame, if available, or imputed by hand. 

Nonresponding Units 

As described in chapter 3 on sample selection, the school was the primary sampling unit for SASS. For 

each sampled school, the principal, selected teachers, and the library media center and district, if 

applicable, were included in SASS. Not all of these types of respondents chose to participate in SASS. 

Consequently, it is possible to have several teacher records but no corresponding school record, because 

the school did not complete the SASS school questionnaire. Similarly, the district could have agreed to 

allow its schools to participate in SASS but failed to complete its questionnaire, resulting in having 

completed questionnaires for schools and principals but no corresponding district data. Table 22 below 

identifies the number of cases that have a corresponding unit that did not respond to the 2003–04 SASS. 

This information is particularly useful when match merging data files to identify how many cases are 

missing. 

Table 22. Number of missing cases in combined SASS datasets, by nonresponding component and 

dataset providing unit of analysis: 2003–04 

Nonresponding public component 

Unit of analysis Observations

Public school 

districts Principals Schools 

School library 

media centers

Public school principal 8,143 1,288 † 407 1,249

Public school 7,991 1,221 255 † 1,213

Public school teacher 43,244 6,637 2,166 2,965 5,607

Public school library media center 7,229 1,126 335 451 †

Nonresponding private component 

Unit of analysis Observations †1 Principals Schools †1

Private school principal 2,376 † † 88 †

Private school 2,456 † 168 † †

Private school teacher 7,979 † 509 475 †

Nonresponding BIA-funded component2

Unit of analysis Observations †3 Principals Schools 

School library 

media centers

BIA-funded school principal 146 † † 5 24

BIA-funded school 145 † 4 † 23

BIA-funded school teacher 624 † 21 30 81

BIA-funded school library media center 124 † 2 2 †

† Not applicable. 

1

 Private sector components did not include the School District Questionnaire and private schools did not receive the School 

Library Media Center Questionnaire. 

2

 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

3

 BIA-funded sector components did not include the School District Questionnaire. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 2003–04. 
88 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

Table 23 provides similar information for TFS. The TFS data files are divided by sector (i.e., current 

public school teacher, current private school teacher, former public school teacher, and former private 

school teacher data files) and match merged with each SASS data file to identify which TFS cases do not 

have a matching component for analysis. Districts, principals, schools, and library media centers that did 

not have a teacher who was sampled for and responded to TFS are excluded from this table. 

Table 23. Number of missing cases in combined datasets, by merged SASS data file and TFS data 

file by sector providing unit of analysis: 2003–04 and 2004–05 

Nonresponding SASS public component 

Unit of analysis Observations

Public school 

districts Principals Schools 

School library 

media centers

Public school current teacher 3,497 283 143 187 396 

Public school former teacher 1,826 181 94 115 243 

Nonresponding SASS private component 

Unit of analysis Observations †1 Principals Schools † 1

Private school current teacher 1,279 † 54 53 †

Private school former teacher 827 † 59 50 †

† Not applicable. 

1

 Private schools did not receive the School District Questionnaire or the School Library Media Center Questionnaire. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 2003–

04; Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), 2004–05. 

Linking Files Within and Across TFS and SASS 

In SASS, when each school was selected for the school sample, its principal or school head was selected 

for the principal sample, along with a sample of teachers at that school. For public schools, the school 

district having jurisdiction over the sampled school was selected for the district sample. For public and 

BIA-funded schools, a staff member who was responsible for the school library media center, if any, was 

also included in the school library media center sample. The School Library Media Center Questionnaire 

was not given to private schools. In the following school year, a sample of teachers from those who 

responded to the teacher questionnaire in SASS were contacted to complete TFS. 

On restricted-use TFS and SASS data files, any combination of the school, principal, teacher, and library 

media center (if applicable) datasets within each school sector can be merged using the school’s control 

number (CNTLNUMS). Consequently, all of the SASS files can be merged with the TFS data files. The 

one exception is that no teachers who taught in a BIA-funded school during the SASS school year were 

included in the 2004–05 TFS. The school control number is present on all TFS and SASS files, except for 

the district data file,25 and will link them together. The SASS and TFS teacher data files can be linked to 

provide data on two school years using the teacher’s control number (CNTLNUMT). 

The public teacher, school, principal, and library media center datasets may be merged with the district 

dataset. School and district datasets can be merged using the district’s control number (CNTLNUMD) or 

by parsing out the first five digits of the school’s control number and the district’s control number. 

There are two ways in which files can be merged. The first involves match merging files. An example of 

this is when the user would like to merge a school’s record with the records of its teachers. The school 

 

25 The school control number is not included on the district data file because usually there is more than one school 

associated with a district. Consequently, the school’s control number cannot be used to merge the district and school 

data files. 
Chapter 10. Information on Data Files and Merging Components 89 

and the teachers are linked through the school’s control number. Instructions on how to match merge files 

in SAS, SPSS, and Stata are provided below. The second method of merging is appending, or 

concatenating, files. For example, if a user would like to analyze the current and former teacher data, 

these two files can be appended together. Because these files do not need to be “matched,” no control 

number needs to be specified to append the files. This type of merging is not discussed in this chapter. 

Refer to the manual for the statistical program being used to determine how to append files and for 

additional information on how to merge files. 

Sample SAS Syntax for Merging Data Files and Attaching Variable Labels 

Merging Restricted-Use Data Files Using the Teacher Control Number (CNTLNUMT) 

When merging records for teachers from the TFS data files to their records in the SASS data files, the 

teacher’s control number, CNTLNUMT, is used to match files. In the SAS syntax below, please note that 

both data files being merged must be sorted by the variable listed in the “by” statement prior to 

performing the merge. Comments to explain lines of syntax are contained within “/* */”; words in italics 

are meant to be replaced by meaningful file or variable names. 

proc sort data = TFSdataset; 

by CNTLNUMT; 

run; 

proc sort data = SASSdataset; 

by CNTLNUMT; 

run; 

data newfilename; /* create new merged file name */ 

merge TFSdataset (in=a) SASSdataset; /* merge the two files and specify the TFS dataset as 

 unit of analysis */ 

by CNTLNUMT;

if a=1; /* keep all TFS records and only the matching SASS 

 records */

run;

Merging Restricted-use Data Files Using the School Control Number (CNTLNUMS) 

When merging any of the school, principal, teacher, or school library media center data files together for a 

given school, the school’s control number, CNTLNUMS, is used to match data files. In the SAS syntax 

below, please note that both data files being merged must be sorted by the variable listed in the “by” 

statement prior to performing the merge. Comments to explain lines of syntax are contained within “/* 

*/”; words in italics are meant to be replaced by meaningful file or variable names. 

proc sort data = dataset1; 

by CNTLNUMS; 

run; 

proc sort data = dataset2; 

by CNTLNUMS; 

run; 

data newfilename; /* create new merged file name */ 

merge dataset1 (in=a) dataset2; /* merge the two files and specify dataset1 as unit of 

 analysis */

by CNTLNUMS; 
90 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

if a=1; /* keep all dataset1 records and only matching dataset2 

 records */

run;

Merging the Restricted-use Public School District Data File with Other Public Sector Data Files 

There are two ways to merge the public school district data file with other public sector data files. The 

first is with the district’s control number (CNTLNUMD). This variable is included on the public school 

district data file as well as the public school data file. The sample syntax provided above is correct, except 

that the merging variable will be CNTLNUMD. 

The second method is by parsing out the first five digits of the district’s and the school’s control number. 

Users will need to use this method if the school did not respond to SASS. The first five digits of 

CNTLNUMS and CNTLNUMD are identical, so users can create a new variable using a substring of 

these control numbers and merge the data files by the new variable name. The SAS syntax provided 

below illustrates how to merge the public school district data file with other data files using a substring. 

Please note that the data files being merged must be sorted by the variable listed in the “by” statement 

prior to performing the merge. Comments to explain lines of syntax are contained within “/* */”; words in 

italics are meant to be replaced by meaningful file or variable names. 

data workfilename1; 

set school_or_principal_or_teacher_pr school library media centerdatafile; 

newvariablename = substr (CNTLNUMS,1,5); 

run; 

proc sort; 

by newvariablename; 

run; 

data workfilename2; 

set districtdatafile; 

newvariablename = substr (CNTLNUMD,1,5); 

run; 

proc sort; 

by newvariablename; 

run; 

data mergedfilename; 

merge workfilename1 workfilename2; /* No unit of analysis file is identified, so all records 

 from both files will remain */ 

by newvariablename;

run; 

Attaching Value Labels to Variables Extracted from the Electronic Codebook (ECB) 

While the formatting syntax is provided, it is up to the user to call up the labels. There are three primary 

ways to accomplish this. First, value labels for each variable can be reviewed within the ECB. When 

variables are extracted from the ECB there is a box on the right-hand side of the pop-up window that 

requests the creation of a codebook. Check this box in order to have the ECB create a text file with the 

codebook information for all extracted variables. Then within this text file use the find function to locate 

the variable and determine the value labels. 

Second, labels may be manually attached using the PROC step in SAS. To do this, review the syntax 

created from the extraction process to determine the value label name associated with each variable. In 
Chapter 10. Information on Data Files and Merging Components 91 

general, the Format name drops the last digit or letter in the variable name and adds the letter “F” at the 

end. There are exceptions to this rule. 

As an example, the appropriate SAS syntax for a PROC FREQ is given below. Words in italics are meant 

to be replaced by meaningful file or variable names. 

proc freq; 

format varname valuename.; 

tables varname; 

run; 

A third method is to create a permanent value label library in SAS. This requires users to manipulate the 

SAS syntax generated from the extraction. To begin, users need to create a permanent library for the 

value formats that includes all of the value formats they would like to keep. In the SAS syntax that 

follows, please note that comments to explain lines of syntax are contained within “/* */” and words in 

italics are meant to be replaced by meaningful file or variable names. 

libname library ‘C:\librarypath’; /*assigns format library, libname must be “library”*/ 

proc format library=library; /*creates permanent formats in the directory specified 

 in library libname statement*/ 

[List all of the value formats here] 

VALUE URBANIF 

1 = “Large or mid-size central city” 

2 = “Urban fringe of large or mid-size city” 

3 = “Small town/Rural” 

; 

VALUE VIOLPRF 

0 = “School does not have a violence prevention program” 

1 = “School has a violence prevention program but no formal procedure for assessing its 

effectiveness” 

2 = “School has a violence prevention program and a formal procedure for assessing its 

effectiveness”; 

The above syntax is written before the user’s first data step and set statements. Within the data step 

programming that follows, the following format commands must be included: 

FORMAT varname valuename.; 

Sample SPSS Syntax for Merging Data Files 

NOTE: Both data files being merged must be sorted by the variable listed in the “by” statement prior to 

performing the merge. In SPSS, value labels are attached automatically during the extraction process. 

Merging Restricted-use Data Files Using the Teacher Control Number (CNTLNUMT) 

When merging records for teachers from the TFS data files to their records in the SASS data files, the 

teacher’s control number, CNTLNUMT, is used to match files. The SPSS syntax is provided below. 

Words in italics are meant to be replaced by meaningful file or variable names. 
92 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

get file = ‘dataset1.sav’; 

sort cases by CNTLNUMT(A); 

save outfile = ‘dataset1.sav’; 

get file = ‘dataset2.sav’; 

sort cases by CNTLNUMT(A); 

save outfile = ‘dataset2.sav’; 

match files file = ‘dataset1.sav’; 

 /table ‘dataset2’ 

 /by CNTLNUMT.

save outfile = ‘mergeddatafile.sav’; 

Merging Restricted-use Data Files Using the School Control Number (CNTLNUMS) 

When merging any of the school, principal, teacher, or library media center files together for a given 

school, the school’s control number, CNTLNUMS, is used to match files. The SPSS syntax is provided 

below. Words in italics are meant to be replaced by meaningful file or variable names. 

get file = ‘dataset1’.

sort cases by CNTLNUMS(A).

save outfile = ‘dataset1’.

get file = ‘dataset2’.

sort cases by CNTLNUMS(A). 

save outfile = ‘dataset2’. 

match files file = ‘dataset1’ 

 /table ‘dataset2’ 

 /by CNTLNUMS.

save outfile = ‘mergeddatafilelocation’. 

Merging Restricted-use Public School District File with Other Public Sector Files 

There are two ways to merge the district file with other public sector files. The first is with the district’s 

control number (CNTLNUMD). This variable is included on the district file as well as the public school 

file. The sample code provided above is correct, except that the merging variable will be CNTLNUMD. 

The second method is by parsing out the first five digits of the district’s and the school’s control number. 

Users will need to use this method if the school did not respond to SASS. The first five digits of 

CNTLNUMS and CNTLNUMD are identical, so users can create a new variable using a substring of 

these control numbers and merge the files by the new variable name. The SPSS syntax provided below 

illustrates how to merge the public school district file with other data files using a substring. Please note 

that the data files being merged must be sorted by the variable listed in the “by” statement prior to 

performing the merge. In addition, including “(a5)” for the substring specifies the new variable as a fivecharacter alphanumeric variable. Words in italics are meant to be replaced by meaningful file or variable 

names. 

get file = ‘school_or_principal_or_teacher_or_librarydatafile.sav’;

string newvariablename (a5);

compute newvariablename = substr(CNTLNUMS,1,5);

sort cases by newvariablename; 

save outfile = ‘temporarydatafile.sav’;

get file = ‘districtdatafile.sav’;

string newvariablename (a5);
Chapter 10. Information on Data Files and Merging Components 93 

compute newvariablename = substr(CNTLNUMD,1,5);

sort cases by newvariablename; 

save outfile = ‘temporarydistrictdatafile.sav’;

match files file = ‘temporarydatafile.sav’ 

/table ‘temporarydistrictdatafile’

/by newvariablename;

save outfile = ‘mergeddatafile.sav’; 

Sample Stata Syntax for Merging Data Files 

Merging Restricted-use Data Files Using the School Control Number (CNTLNUMS) 

When merging any of the school, principal, teacher, or school library media center data files together for a 

given school, the school’s control number, CNTLNUMS, is used to merge data files. The Stata syntax is 

provided below. Notice that both data files being merged must be sorted by the school control number 

prior to performing the merge. Words in italics are meant to be replaced by meaningful file or variable 

names. 

use dataset1

sort CNTLNUMS 

save dataset1, replace

use dataset2

sort CNTLNUMS 

save dataset2, replace

merge CNTLNUMS using dataset1

Merging the Restricted-use Public School District Data File with Other Public Sector Data Files 

There are two ways to merge the public school district data file with other public sector data files. The 

first is with the district’s control number (CNTLNUMD). This variable is included on the public school 

district data file as well as the public school data file. The sample syntax provided above is correct, except 

that the merging variable will be CNTLNUMD. However, since CNTLNUMD is not included on the 

principal, teacher, or school library media center data file, merging the public school district data file with 

these data files requires a different approach. Users will also need to use this method if the school did not 

respond to SASS. 

The second method parses out the first five digits of the district’s and the school’s control number. The 

first five digits of CNTLNUMS and CNTLNUMD are identical, so users can create a new variable using 

a substring of these control numbers and merge the data files by the new variable name. The Stata syntax 

provided below illustrates how to merge the public school district data file with other data files using a 

substring. Please note that the data files being merged must be sorted by the variable listed in the “sort” 

statement prior to performing the merge. Users may need to increase memory before beginning the 

merge. 

use districtfile 

generate newvariablename = substr(CNTLNUMD,1,5) 

sort newvariablename

save tempdistrictfile, replace

use school_or_principal_or_teacher_or_libraryfile 

generate newvariablename = substr(CNTLNUMS,1,5) 

sort newvariablename
94 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

save tempschool_or_principal_or_teacher_or_libraryfile, replace

merge newvariablename using tempdistrictfile 

drop if _merge= =2 

save mergedfile, replace

Unless specified, the default name of the merge variable created during the merging of files is _merge. 

The variable _merge identifies the various categories of data in a one-to-one merge. For example, if users 

merge the public school district (“using” data file) file onto the principal file (“master” data file): 

_merge= =1 observations from principal data file, no public school district data added (occurs 

with district nonresponse) 

_merge= =2 observations from only public school district data file (e.g., district responded, 

but there is no principal from that district) 

_merge= =3 observations from public school district and principal data files 

By dropping the _merge= =2 observations, the merged data file will contain only principals, regardless of 

whether their district responded. No observations will remain when a district responded without a 

principal. 
95 

Chapter 11. User Notes and Cautions 

The following notes cover cautions concerning change estimates with particular emphasis on the locale 

codes, population estimates for teachers that were produced by the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

(TFS) and the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), imputation of missing data for the created 

variable for percent minority enrollment (MINENR), and user notes and cautions for the 2003–04 SASS. 

Users may also be interested in examining the crosswalk of variables contained in “Appendix K. 

Crosswalk of Items in 2004–05 TFS with 2000–01 TFS and 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire.” This 

appendix has crosswalks for both TFS questionnaires. 

Cautions Concerning Change Estimates 

Care must be taken in estimating change over time in a TFS data element, because some of the measured 

change may not be attributable to a change in the educational system, but due to changes in the sampling 

frame, questionnaire item wording, or other changes. For example, the definitions of the locale codes 

based on the U.S. Census were revised in 2000 and again in 2003. Changes in how schools’ locales are 

categorized over time may account for at least some changes that are noted from previous administrations. 

This impacts the urbanicity variables included in the data files, which are based on the 2000 Census 

definitions for locale codes. 

The definition of locale codes changed between the 1999–2000 and 2003–04 administrations of SASS. To 

facilitate the transition, locale codes based on geographic concepts from both the 1990 and 2000 

Decennial Census are included on the 2003–04 SASS data files. (SLOCP_99 uses the 1990 Census 

metropolitan areas, and SLOCP_03 and URBANS03 use the 2000 Census metropolitan areas.) The 

specific categories reported in the locale codes are based, respectively, upon the 1990 or 2000 definitions 

for central city, urban fringe of large or medium-sized central city, large or small town, and rural areas 

either inside a metropolitan area or outside a metropolitan area. The 1990 Decennial Census geographic 

areas were based upon countywide definitions of metropolitan or nonmetropolitan areas. By the 2000 

Census, urban and rural classifications were based on a subcounty level. 

In 2003, the Office of Management and Budget changed the geographic classifications, replacing “central 

city” with “principal city” and “Standardized Metropolitan Statistical Area” (SMSA) with “Core-based 

Statistical Area” (CBSA). However, these newer terms and locale codes could not be used in the 2003–04 

SASS because the 2003 geographic classification of schools or school districts had not been completely 

implemented into the Common Core of Data (CCD) or the Private School Universe Survey (PSS), which 

serve as the sampling frames for SASS, by the time the 2003–04 SASS data were collected. Since then, 

the 2003–04 CCD and 2003–04 PSS have incorporated a new set of 12-level locale codes. 

Only the urbanicity variables that utilize the 2000 definitions (SLOCP_03 and URBANS03) are included 

on the 2004–05 TFS data files. Therefore, caution should be taken when comparing urbanicity estimates 

from the 2004–05 TFS of the respondent’s base-year school with previous administrations, because the 

locale codes are not based on the same definitions. 

Estimates for Total Teachers 

The total population estimate of teachers produced in TFS is slightly lower than that produced in SASS. 

The discrepancy is due to the fact that there were 99 respondents in SASS who were out of scope for TFS, 

because they had died or moved out of the country. These teachers were removed from the TFS sampling 
96 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey 

frame. (See chapter 3 for more details on the sampling frame and chapter 8 for more details on 

weighting.) 

Minority Enrollment 

The variable measuring the number of minority students as reported by the SASS school (NMINST_S) is 

copied from data on the SASS school data files and placed on the TFS data files. The variable was 

imputed for 486 teachers on TFS whose schools did not respond to SASS. 

There are three respondents in the TFS data files who have a value for the variable measuring the 

percentage of minority students in the SASS school (MINENR) in TFS but have missing data (-9) in the 

SASS data files. The values for MINENR were clerically imputed for the TFS data files. The missing data 

were imputed on TFS in order to produce the variable NMINST_S (number of minority students as 

reported by the SASS school) for TFS teachers whose corresponding base-year school did not respond to 

SASS. 

User Notes and Cautions for SASS 

Please see chapter 12 in Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (Tourkin et al. 

2007) for more details on user notes and cautions for data collected in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing 

Survey (SASS). Notes and cautions were provided on the following: 

• editing of the created variable for percent minority enrollment (MINENR); 

• deletion of Title I data in Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools; 

• data anomalies in created variables; 

• the effect of missing data across files; 

• locale codes used on the 2003–04 SASS; 

• departmentalized and elementary enrichment teachers with no reported classes; and 

• the existence of leading spaces on certain character variables in extracted SPSS files. 
97 

References 

Efron, B. (1982). The Jackknife, the Bootstrap, and Other Resampling Plans. Philadelphia: SIAM. 

Kaufman, S. (1992). Balanced Half-sample Replication with Aggregation Units. 1992 Proceedings of the 

Section on Survey Research Methods (pp. 440–445). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical 

Association. 

Kaufman, S. (1993). A Bootstrap Variance Estimator for the Schools and Staffing Survey. 1993 

Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods (pp. 675–680). Alexandria, VA: American 

Statistical Association. 

Kaufman, S. (1994). Properties of the Schools and Staffing Survey’s Bootstrap Variance Estimator. 1994 

Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods (pp. 1116–1121). Alexandria, VA: American 

Statistical Association. 

Kaufman, S. (1998). A Bootstrap Variance Estimator for Systematic PPS Sampling. 1998 Proceedings of 

the Section on Survey Research Methods (pp. 769–774). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical 

Association. 

Kaufman, S. (2001). A New Model for Estimating the Variance under Systematic Sampling. 2001 

Proceedings of the American Statistical Association. Survey Research Methods Section [CD-ROM]. 

Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. 

Kaufman, S. (2002). Using the Bootstrap in a Two-Stage Nested Complex Sample Design. 2002 

Proceedings of the American Statistical Association (pp. 1776–1781). Survey Research Methods 

Section [CD-ROM]. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. 

Kaufman, S. (2003). The Efficiency of the Bootstrap under a Locally Random Assumption for Systematic 

Samples. 2003 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association (pp. 2097–2102). Survey 

Research Methods Section [CD-ROM]. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. 

Kaufman, S. (2004). Using the Bootstrap in a Two-Stage Sample Design When Some Second-Stage 

Strata Only Have One Unit Allocated. 2004 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association (pp. 

3766–3773). Survey Research Methods Section [CD-ROM]. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical 

Association. 

Research Triangle Institute. (2001). User Manual, Release 8.0. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research 

Triangle Institute. 

Seastrom, M.M. (2003). NCES Statistical Standards (NCES 2003-601). U.S. Department of Education. 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved November 30, 2006, from 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003601. 

Sitter, R.R. (1990). Comparing Three Bootstrap Methods for Survey Data (Tech. Rep. No. 152). Ottawa, 

Canada: Carleton University, Laboratory for Research in Statistics and Probability. 

Tourkin, S.C., Warner, T., Parmer, R., Cole, C., Jackson, B., Zukerberg, A., Cox, S., and Soderborg, A. 

(2007). Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2007-337). U.S. 

Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
A-1 

Appendix A. Key Terms for TFS 

The following terms are defined as they apply to the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) and, if 

applicable, to the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). 

Affiliation stratum. SASS uses 17 mutually exclusive categories into which all private schools are 

hierarchically divided based on religious or nonreligious orientation/affiliation. These categories are 

Catholic—Parochial, Catholic—Diocesan, Catholic—Private, Amish, Assembly of God, Baptist, 

Episcopal, Jewish, Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, 

Mennonite, Pentecostal, Seventh-Day Adventist, Other Religious, Nonsectarian—Regular, 

Nonsectarian—Special Emphasis, and Nonsectarian—Special Education. 

Age. As reported in the Teacher Attrition and Mobility report (NCES 2007-307), the age of the 

respondent during the 2003–04 SASS data collection is based on the reported year of birth. 

Assessment, state or district. State or district tests that assess student performance in various subject 

areas. 

Base weight. This is the inverse of the probability of selecting a teacher for TFS. This weight is the 

product of the SASS teacher base weight and the TFS subsampling adjustment factor. The TFS 

subsampling adjustment factor is an adjustment that accounts for the subsampling of teachers from SASS 

sampled teachers. Thus, this base weight reflects the TFS probability of selection from all three stages of 

selection (i.e., SASS school sampling, SASS teacher sampling within school, and TFS sampling from 

SASS teachers). See also definitions for “final weight” and “weighting adjustment factor.” 

Certification. A license or certificate awarded to teachers by the state to teach in a public school. The 

SASS and TFS surveys include five types of certification: regular or standard state certification or 

advanced professional certificate; probationary certificate—issued after satisfying all requirements except 

the completion of a probationary period; provisional or other type of certificate—given to persons who 

are still participating in what the state calls an “alternative certification program”; temporary 

certification—requires some additional college coursework, student teaching, and/or passage of a test 

before regular certification can be obtained; and waiver or emergency certificate—issued to persons with 

insufficient teacher preparation who must complete a regular certification program in order to continue 

teaching. 

Charter school. See “public charter school.” 

Combined school. See “school with combined grades.” 

Common Core of Data (CCD). The Common Core of Data is a group of surveys that acquire and 

maintain public elementary and secondary education data from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, 

Department of Defense schools, and the outlying areas through the state-level (or equivalent) education 

agencies. Information about staff and students in public schools is collected annually at the school, LEA 

(Local Education Agency or School District), and state levels. Information about revenues and 

expenditures is also collected at the state level. CCD is the basis for the SASS sampling frame for 

traditional public, public charter, and BIA-funded schools. 

Community type. A three-level categorization based on the eight-level U.S. Census Bureau definition of 

locale. A central city school is a school located in a large or midsize central city. An urban fringe/large 

town school is a school located in the urban fringe of a large or midsize city, in a large town, or in a rural 
A-2 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

area within an urbanized metropolitan area. A rural/small town school is a school located in a small town 

or rural setting, and located outside an urbanized metropolitan area. 

Current teachers. Teachers who continued to teach any of grades pre-K–12 in the 2004–05 school year. 

Current teachers include those who remained at the same school as in 2003–04 or moved to a different 

school. See also the definitions for “movers” and “stayers.” 

District. A Local Education Agency (LEA), or public school district, is defined as a government agency 

that employs elementary- or secondary-level teachers and is administratively responsible for providing 

public elementary and/or secondary instruction and educational support services. 

Elementary school. See “school, elementary.” 

Final weight. This is the product of the TFS base weight (described under “base weight”), the TFS-toSASS weighting adjustment factor (described under “weighting adjustment factor”), the TFS 

noninterview adjustment factor, and the TFS ratio adjustment. The final weight is used to produce 

weighted estimates from the survey data. See chapter 8 for details of the weighting procedure. See also 

the definitions for “base weight” and “weighting adjustment factor.” 

Former teachers. See “leavers.” 

Full standard state administrative certification. See “certification.” 

Itinerant teacher. See “teacher.” 

Leavers. Teachers who left the teaching profession or teachers who were no longer teaching in any of 

grades pre-K–12 after the 2003–04 school year (includes teachers whose status changed to short-term 

substitute, student teacher, or teacher aide). 

Main assignment field. As reported in the Teacher Attrition and Mobility report (NCES 2007-307), the 

field in which the respondent taught the most classes during the 2003–04 school year. Among the 73 

possible choices for assignment fields, eight general subject matter areas are presented in the report: early 

childhood/general elementary, special education, arts/music, English/language arts, mathematics, natural 

sciences, social sciences, and other. 

Minority. Minority includes Black, non-Hispanic; American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic; Asian, 

non-Hispanic; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic; Hispanic, single or multiple 

races; and multiple races, non-Hispanic. 

Missing data. TFS is a fully imputed dataset. Consequently, the only survey items that lack responses are 

either those that are part of a skip pattern and should not have been answered by a particular respondent 

or write-in responses, which include data too specific to reasonably impute from another respondent’s 

data. Data pulled from the frame (i.e., the Common Core of Data or the Private School Universe Survey) 

are not necessarily imputed for missing data. In these instances, a value of -9 (indicating missing data) is 

provided for that variable. 

Movers. Teachers who were still teaching any of grades pre-K–12 in 2004–05, but had moved to a 

different school after the 2003–04 school year. 

Multiple races, non-Hispanic. All non-Hispanic respondents who selected more than one race. 
Appendix A. Key Terms for TFS A-3 

Private school. A private school is defined as a school not in the public system that provides instruction 

for any of grades 1–12 (or comparable ungraded levels). The instruction must be given in a building that 

is not used primarily as a private home. 

Private School Universe Survey (PSS). The Private School Universe Survey is a biennial survey 

designed to collect data from all K–12 private schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is 

the universe from which the sample for the private school component of SASS is selected. 

Public charter school. A public charter school is a public school that, in accordance with an enabling 

state statute, has been granted a charter exempting it from selected state or local rules and regulations. A 

public charter school may be a newly created school or it may previously have been a public or private 

school. 

Public school. A public school is an institution or part of an institution that provides classroom 

instruction to students, has one or more teachers to provide instruction, serves students in one or more 

grades of 1–12 or the ungraded equivalent, and is located in one or more buildings. It is possible for two 

or more schools to share the same building; in this case they were treated as different schools if they had 

different administrations (i.e., principals). Public schools include regular, special education, 

vocational/technical, alternative, and public charter schools. Schools in juvenile detention centers and 

schools located on domestic military bases and operated by the Department of Defense are included. See 

also the definitions for “public charter school” and “traditional public school.” 

Race/ethnicity. As reported in the Teacher Attrition and Mobility report (NCES 2007-307), the 

race/ethnicity category of the respondent. In the 2003–04 SASS, respondents identified whether or not 

they were of Hispanic or Latino ethnic origin as well as which race(s). Respondents could choose more 

than one race. Among the 62 possible racial and ethnic combinations, six are presented in the report: nonHispanic White; non-Hispanic Black; Hispanic (single or multiple race); non-Hispanic Asian, Native 

Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander; non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native; and more than one 

race, non-Hispanic. 

Regular full-time teacher. See “teacher.” 

Salary, base. As reported in the Teacher Attrition and Mobility report (NCES 2007-307), the 

respondent’s 2003–04 academic year base teaching salary. 

School, elementary. A school is classified as elementary if it has one or more of grades K–6 and none of 

grades 9–12; for example, schools with grades K–6, 1–3, or 6–8 are classified as elementary. Schools 

with only kindergarten or prekindergarten were not included in the survey. 

School, secondary. A school is classified as secondary if it has any of grades 7–12 and none of K–6; for 

example, schools with grades 9–12, 7–9, 10–12, or 7–8 are classified as secondary. 

School with combined grades. A combined school or combined grade school has one or more of grades 

K–6 and one or more of grades 9–12; for example, schools with grades K–12, 6–12, 6–9, or 1–12 were 

classified as having combined grades. Schools in which all students are ungraded (i.e., not classified by 

standard grade levels) are also classified as combined. 

Secondary school. See “school, secondary.” 

Stayers. Teachers who were still teaching any of grades pre-K–12 and in the same school in 2004–05 as 

in 2003–04. 
A-4 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Teacher. A teacher is defined as a full-time or part-time teacher who teaches any regularly scheduled 

classes in any of grades pre-K–12. This includes administrators, librarians, and other professional or 

support staff who teach regularly scheduled classes on a part-time basis. Itinerant teachers are included, as 

well as long-term substitutes who are filling the role of regular teacher on a long-term basis. An itinerant 

teacher is defined as a teacher whose assignment requires teaching at more than one school (e.g., a music 

teacher who teaches 3 days per week at one school and 2 days per week at another). Itinerant teachers, 

who teach full-time in any district, but teach part time in a particular school are considered part-time 

teachers at that particular school. A regular full-time teacher is any teacher whose primary position in a 

school is not an itinerant teacher, a long-term substitute, a short-term substitute, a student teacher, a 

teacher aide, an administrator, a library media specialist or librarian, another type of professional staff 

(e.g., counselor, curriculum coordinator, social worker) or support staff (e.g., secretary), or a part-time 

teacher. Short-term substitute teachers, student teachers, and teacher aides are not included. 

Teacher status. Respondents’ status as a stayer, mover, or leaver in the 2004–05 school year. See also 

the definitions for “stayer,” “mover,” and “leaver.” 

Teaching experience, full-time. As reported in the Teacher Attrition and Mobility report (NCES 2007-

307), the number of years worked as a full-time elementary or secondary teacher in a traditional public, 

public charter, private, or Bureau of Indian Affairs-funded school up to and including the 2003–04 school 

year. 

Teaching status. As reported in the Teacher Attrition and Mobility report (NCES 2007-307), teachers 

who worked full- or part-time during the 2003–04 school year. 

Traditional public school. Traditional public schools are the subset of all public schools that are not 

public charter schools. They include regular, special education, vocational/technical, and alternative 

schools. They also include schools in juvenile detention centers, and schools located on domestic military 

bases and operated by the Department of Defense. See also the definitions for “public school” and “public 

charter school.” 

Valid skip. An item that was not applicable due to a response to a previous item on the same 

questionnaire and was provided with a value of -8, indicating a valid skip. Certain survey items direct 

respondents to skip subsequent items based on their answers to the original item, or stem. For instance, if 

a respondent answered “Yes” to item 19a on the Questionnaire for Current Teachers (“Are you currently 

teaching in the same school as you were last year?”), he or she was directed to skip items 19b through 25 

(these items collect data about the new school) and to “GO TO item 26 on page 16.” Because the 

respondent answered that he or she is teaching at the same school as in the previous year, subsequent 

questions about the school and reasons for moving to a different school were not applicable. In instances 

when an item should not have been answered by the respondent, a value of -8, which designates a valid 

skip, is applied to that variable(s). 

Weighting adjustment factor. The TFS-to-SASS weighting adjustment factor adjusts for all stages of 

weighting that occurred between the base and final weighting calculations for SASS teachers. It adjusts 

for the fact that SASS teacher base weights were used to select the TFS sample, but the SASS final 

teacher weights are more reflective of the teacher population.1

 

1

 SASS teacher weighting was not completed in time to use final teacher weights in the TFS sample selection, 

necessitating the use of the SASS teacher base weights in the TFS sampling. 
B-1 

Appendix B. TFS Questionnaire Availability 

Online, Downloadable PDF Files 

Questionnaires for every data collection component in every survey cycle since the first 1988–89 Teacher 

Follow-up Survey (TFS) and the first 1987–88 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) are available online 

as downloadable portable document format (PDF) files at 

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/questionnaire.asp

Select the survey year of interest and then proceed to select the specific questionnaire to browse or 

download. Within the listing of SASS questionnaires, the Teacher Listing Form is the form that gathers 

the data used to select the SASS teacher sample. While no data for this form are reported publicly, the 

questionnaire form is available on the SASS website only for those interested in survey methodology. 

In general, as the 4-year SASS survey cycle advances toward the next data collection, the questionnaires 

will be posted online as they are finalized and sent to the printer. The TFS survey cycle is administered 

1 year post-SASS. The surveys will be posted approximately 2 months prior to the data collection phase 

of each of the survey cycles. The next TFS survey cycle is planned for the 2008–09 school year. 

PDF files of the questionnaires are also available on the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and 

2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) CD-ROM with Electronic Codebook (ECB). All of the 2003–

04 SASS questionnaires and the 2004–05 TFS questionnaires are available on the restricted-use version 

(forthcoming). No public-use version of the ECB will be produced. 

All of the SASS and TFS questionnaires are in the public domain. All survey items may be copied by 

anyone who wishes to use them in another survey, without any restrictions. 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
C-1 

Appendix C. Summary of TFS Interview Findings and 

Recommendations 

This appendix contains an April 9, 2004, report by Michael Long of ORC Macro. The material is 

organized as follows: 

Background ........................................................................................................................................ C-2

Summary of Methodology.................................................................................................................. C-2

Recruitment.................................................................................................................................. C-2

Description of Participants........................................................................................................... C-2

Interview Protocol........................................................................................................................ C-3

Summary of Participant Feedback and Recommendations ................................................................ C-3

Items 3, 6, 7 (Former Teacher): Employment Outside of Teaching ............................................ C-4

Item 8 (Former Teachers): “How long do you plan to remain in this job?” ................................ C-5

Items 9–14 (Former Teacher): Retirement................................................................................... C-6

Items 15 and 16 (Former Teacher): Decision to Leave Teaching................................................ C-7

Item 17 (Former Teacher)/Item 27 (Current Teacher): Last Year’s Teaching Position and 

Item 9 (Current Teacher): Current Teaching Position ............................................................... C-9

Item 18 (Former Teacher)/Item 28 (Current Teacher): Last Year’s School and Item 10 

(Current Teacher): Current School .......................................................................................... C-10

Item 20 (Former Teacher)/Item 30 (Current Teacher): Last Year’s Instructional Leader and 

Item 12 (Current Teacher): Current Instructional Leader........................................................ C-11

Items 21–23 (Former Teacher)/Items 31–33 (Current Teacher): Assessments in Last 

Year’s School and Items 13–15 (TFS-3): State or District Assessments in This Year’s 

School ...................................................................................................................................... C-13

Item 25 (Former Teacher): Comparing Last Year’s Teaching Position to Current NonTeaching Job............................................................................................................................ C-15

Items 27a–c (Former Teacher)/Items 38a–c (Current Teacher): Education Activities.............. C-17

Items 28–32 (Former Teacher): Possibility of Return to Teaching ........................................... C-18

Items 36–37 (Former Teacher)/Items 52–53 (Current Teacher): Marital Status ....................... C-20

Item 6 (Current Teacher): Teaching Certificate......................................................................... C-21

Items 35–36 (Current Teacher): Decision to Leave Last Year’s School ................................... C-22

Item 37 (Current Teacher): Comparing Current Teaching Position to Last Year’s Teaching 

Position .................................................................................................................................... C-23

Items 39–40 (Current Teacher): Possibility of Leaving Teaching............................................. C-25

Items 41–43 (Current Teacher): Retired/Rehired Teachers....................................................... C-26
C-2 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Background 

In March 2004, the U.S. Census Bureau contracted with ORC Macro, a research and evaluation company 

in Calverton, Maryland, to plan and carry out a series of cognitive interviews with current and former 

teachers. The purpose of these interviews was to gather feedback from teachers on a number of proposed 

questions for the Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), which is administered by the Census Bureau every 4 

years. 

This report is a summary of the methodology that ORC Macro used in these interviews, as well as the 

feedback received from interview participants. The report also provides Macro’s recommendations for 

revisions to the proposed TFS questions. 

Summary of Methodology 

Recruitment 

ORC Macro recruited teachers in the eight categories shown in table C-1, using a database of potential 

participants that the company has built up through its experience doing educational research in the area. 

The majority of these participants lived in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. In order to 

recruit teachers from other states, staff contacted a number of state retired teacher associations; some of 

these associations sent out information about this study to their members. Each interview participant was 

provided with an honorarium of $60. 

Description of Participants 

ORC Macro conducted interviews with 31 current and former teachers in the categories shown in table C1 below. The total number of teachers in table C-1 is greater than 31, because some participants fell into 

more than one category. 

Table C-1. Description of interview participants: 2004 

Group 

Number of 

participants who qualify 

for each category

A. Current teachers who have switched schools in the past year 6

B. Current teachers who are within 3 years of retirement age 4

C. Current teachers who retired and then returned to teaching 3

D. Current teachers who self-identify as gay or lesbian 2

E. Former teachers who left teaching before retirement age 4

F. Former teachers who retired in the last 2 years 3

G. Former teachers who received early retirement incentives from their state/district 4

H. Current teachers who do not fit the above categories 7

SOURCE: Summary of TFS Interview Findings and Recommendations, OCR Macro, 2004. 

Interviews were conducted with participants in Alaska, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New York, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Participants were recruited in multiple 

states for two reasons: 

• It proved difficult to find Maryland teachers who had received early retirement incentives, since 

these incentives have not been given recently in this state. 
Appendix C. Summary of TFS Interview Findings and Recommendations C-3 

• For questions about retirement plans and certification, staff felt it would be valuable to get 

feedback from teachers in a number of states. 

Interview Protocol 

ORC Macro conducted individual cognitive interviews with 19 participants. Eight participants were 

interviewed in pairs, and a group interview session was held with four participants. Six of the individual 

interviews were conducted by phone. 

Each interview was approximately 90 minutes long. The methodology used in these cognitive interviews 

was a “think-aloud” protocol. Participants were asked to answer the proposed TFS items as they normally 

would. As they answered each item they were asked to describe aloud what they were thinking. At certain 

points in the interview, the interviewer would ask follow-up questions or probes, or ask other questions 

related to the topics being covered. 

Although the protocol contained interview questions for all TFS items being studied, due to time 

constraints each interview participant was only given a selection of items to review. Slight modifications 

were made to the protocol on an ongoing basis, based on feedback coming out of the interviews. 

Summary of Participant Feedback and Recommendations 

The following pages contain the feedback received from interview participants for each of the proposed 

TFS items. This summary is limited to feedback received from at least two participants independently, or 

to comments made by a single participant that were felt to be particularly important to consider. 

For each item, there is a section describing participant feedback, followed by a list of OCR 

recommendations for modifications that should be made to the questions. Particularly important feedback 

that directly led to the recommended changes is provided first and is shown in boldface. 

Some questions appear on both the Questionnaire for Former Teachers (Form TFS-2) and the 

Questionnaire for Current Teachers (Form TFS-3). In the following sections, the item numbers are 

followed by either “(Former Teacher)” or “(Current Teacher)” to identify the questionnaire in which the 

item appeared. 
C-4 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Items 3, 6, 7 (Former Teacher): Employment Outside of Teaching 

Feedback From Participants 

• Two participants were unsure of whether to include their spouse’s income in item 7; both made 

the decision not to. 

• All six participants who were former teachers and now have another job answered “No” to item 

7. Based on their descriptions of what sources of income they had excluded from their answers, 

all participants followed the directions as written without any problem. 

• Participants were given several hypothetical sources of income and asked if they would include 

them in their answers for item 7. Almost all followed the directions as written without any 

problem. 

o All said that they would not include proceeds from selling a house. 

o All but one said that they would not include a retirement pension that they received. 

o All said that they would include money from a part-time job. 

Recommendations 

o Reword directions for item 7 as follows: “Do not include income earned by a spouse, or 

dividends, interest, rent...” 
Appendix C. Summary of TFS Interview Findings and Recommendations C-5 

Item 8 (Former Teachers): “How long do you plan to remain in this job?” 

Feedback From Participants 

• Answer choice 1. Most participants felt that this choice meant they would work until they were no 

longer physically healthy enough, or until “extenuating circumstances” forced them to switch 

jobs. One, who was self-employed, thought that this option meant that she would stay in her job 

as long as she could support herself. 

• Answer choice 5. The phrase “something better” meant different things to different participants, 

from a full-time job to something “more challenging,” or something with better benefits or salary. 

Some participants felt that the implication was that people who chose option 5 were not actively 

looking for work. 

• Answer choice 6. Participants interpreted this choice to mean that they hated their job and wanted 

to get out of it. Most felt that a person who selected this option would be actively looking for a 

job. 

Recommendations 

OCR recommends the following two changes in order to keep the answer choices in this item parallel to 

those in Questionnaire for Current Teachers item 39. 

o Change the wording of answer choice 5 to “Will continue unless a more desirable opportunity 

comes along.” 

o Add an additional option: “Until a specific life event occurs (e.g., parenthood, marriage, etc.).” 
C-6 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Items 9–14 (Former Teacher): Retirement 

Feedback From Participants 

NOTE: Staff discussed teacher retirement plans with public school teachers from Maryland, Alaska, 

Maine, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. 

• Some teachers who answered these items felt that items 9 and 13 were redundant. However, all of 

these teachers taught in public schools and did not take into account private school teachers who 

may not receive a pension when they retire. 

• Some participants who had left the field of teaching before retirement age had difficulty with item 

13, “Do you consider yourself to be retired from teaching?” Three of four found it difficult to 

interpret what was meant by the word “retire,” since they had not officially “retired” but were not 

planning on returning to the field. Two of the three participants answered “No” to item 13, while 

the other answered “Yes.” 

• Two teachers commented that the criteria for “early retirement incentive” given in item 10 would 

be met by a state or district policy that allowed teachers to retire early at a lower pension rate (as 

most states do). One also pointed out that early retirement incentives can be given to teachers 

who are already at retirement age, not just those that have not yet reached that age. 

• All participants said that the retirement age in their state was based on a combination of years of 

service and age. Most said that an early retirement option was available for teachers, but that in 

order to do take it teachers had to give up a portion of their benefits. 

• Younger teachers knew very little about their state’s retirement plans, so it was difficult to get 

information from them on this subject. Some states seem to be moving away from a traditional 

“pension plan” for teachers and replacing it with a 403(b). However, all the teachers that staff 

spoke to who were at or near retirement age receive (or were anticipating) a pension. 

• Staff interviewed two teachers from private schools. One said that his school offers a 403(b), but 

does not offer a pension or any retirement benefits that begin at a particular age or length of 

service (e.g., lifelong health coverage). The other, who works at a Catholic school, said that her 

retirement plan was administered by the “church conference” and that she did not know any 

details about it. 

• All participants had heard of early retirement incentives being given to people in other fields, but 

most had never heard of them being given to teachers. 

Recommendations 

o Move items 13 and 14 before item 9, because switching the order in which respondents encounter 

items 9 and 13 may lessen how redundant they perceive those two items to be. 

o Consider eliminating item 12, unless there is important data that will come out of it. 

o In item 10, change the description of an early retirement incentive to “An early retirement 

incentive is a state or district policy that provides a monetary bonus or reward to encourage 

teachers to retire.” 
Appendix C. Summary of TFS Interview Findings and Recommendations C-7 

Items 15 and 16 (Former Teacher): Decision to Leave Teaching 

Feedback From Participants 

• Subitem A. Several participants felt that subitem A seemed strange, since it so clearly did not 

apply to them. One felt that subitem A should not be first because she believed it was a relatively 

unlikely option. 

• Subitem F. One participant thought that the inclusion of this subitem as a reason for leaving 

teaching was inappropriate; she felt that if teachers “took a break” from teaching, they would be 

able to identify some other reason for doing so. One participant did not interpret this subitem as 

meaning “temporary”; she rated it as “very important” even though she had no intention of 

returning to teaching. 

• Subitem K. One participant said that this subitem should be broken down further because there are 

so many reasons that teachers could leave the field. In particular, she commented that this 

subitem would not be able to distinguish between teachers who simply “weren’t cut out for 

teaching” and those that had simply become frustrated with recent developments in the field (e.g., 

loss of classroom autonomy). 

• Before viewing this item, participants were asked to brainstorm reasons that teachers (including 

themselves) would leave teaching. The following reasons were mentioned by more than two 

participants: 

o low salary (5 participants); 

o safety (4 participants); 

o old/tired (3 participants); 

o recent changes (job becoming more bureaucratic, less creative) (3 participants); 

o lack of support from the administration (3 participants); 

o workload (3 participants); 

o pressure on teachers from state/district assessments (3 participants); 

o spouse retired (3 participants); and 

o need to care for family member (3 participants). 

• In two cases (out of 11 participants who answered this item), respondents’ three answers to item 

16 did not match their highest-ranking answers in item 35. However, their first answer to item 36 

always matched their highest-ranking answer in item 15. 

• Two participants who were retired seemed confused as to why they would be asked this item; 

they thought that they should be able to skip it by saying that they chose to retire. Another 

thought that retirees should only have to answer items A, C, D, E, K, and L. 

• Subitem D. All participants felt that the meaning of this subitem was clear. One, however, felt that 

this subitem should be eliminated because it does not identify why the respondent retired. 

• Subitem E. Most participants did not have any difficulty interpreting this subitem. One rated it as 

“somewhat important” because a principal was assigned to her school with whom she did not get 

along. 

• Subitem L. Two participants rated this as “slightly important” or higher; in both cases they left 

teaching to care for an ailing parent. 
C-8 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

• Subitem 16: Several participants left the third space blank because they could identify only two 

reasons for why they left teaching. 

Recommendations 

o Change the wording of subitem A to “Change in residence.” This would make the wording more 

parallel to the other subitems in this item. 

o Eliminate subitem F. Some participants had difficulty answering the question (see above), and 

respondents’ intentions to return to teaching will be captured in other questions in the survey. 

o Add an additional subitem to item 15: “Dissatisfied with some aspect of my last school or 

teaching position.” When asked to identify reasons why teachers leave the field, a number of 

interview participants mentioned factors that fall into this category (e.g., safety, lack of 

administrative support, etc.) 

o In item 16, only ask for respondents’ most important reason for leaving, not their second or third 

most important reason. This will eliminate some problems in analysis, since the reasons 

respondents list as second or third most important in item 16 will sometimes not be consistent 

with their answers to item 15. 
Appendix C. Summary of TFS Interview Findings and Recommendations C-9 

Item 17 (Former Teacher)/Item 27 (Current Teacher): Last Year’s Teaching 

Position and Item 9 (Current Teacher): Current Teaching Position 

Feedback From Participants 

• Subitem I. Participants interpreted this subitem in two different ways. Most thought of this 

subitem as the amount of freedom that they had in their teaching. Five of the 21 participants who 

answered these subitems, however, answered this subitem in terms of their “classroom 

management,” that is, the degree to which they are able to keep students on task. These teachers 

focused on the word “control” in the subitem, rather than the word “autonomy.” 

• Subitem L. Participants who disagreed with this subitem did so for two very different reasons. 

Some disagreed because they did not feel that mainstreaming made it difficult for them to teach, 

while others disagreed because there was no mainstreaming in their schools. 

• Before viewing item 17, participants were asked to list factors that determined whether teachers 

were satisfied with their working conditions. The following were mentioned by four or more 

teachers: 

o support from administration (14 participants); 

o physical facilities/cleanliness of school (11 participants); 

o sufficient materials/resources (10 participants); 

o support from other teachers (8 participants); 

o salary (6 participants); 

o parent involvement (5 participants); 

o class size (5 participants); 

o workload/amount of paperwork (4 participants); 

o collaboration with colleagues (4 participants); and 

o recognition/appreciation from administrators (4 participants). 

• Two participants complained that they wanted an answer choice between “strongly agree” and 

“somewhat agree” called simply “agree.” They said that to them “somewhat agree” implied that 

they did not completely agree and “strongly agree” meant that they felt strongly about that 

particular issue. They wanted to be able to say that they simply felt the statement was true. 

• Subitem H. Participants interpreted “teaching workload” very broadly. In addition to “teachingrelated” activities such as planning and correcting papers, most teachers thought of their workload 

as including tasks such as parent conferences, meetings, and paperwork. 

Recommendations 

o Reword subitem I as follows: “I am satisfied with the amount of autonomy I have in choosing 

teaching strategies and techniques.” This change would clear up the interpretation of this subitem 

(see above). 

o If subitem L is to be included, it must be preceded by a screening question that asks respondents 

if special needs students are mainstreamed in last year’s school or their current school. 
C-10 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Item 18 (Former Teacher)/Item 28 (Current Teacher): Last Year’s School and 

Item 10 (Current Teacher): Current School 

Feedback From Participants 

• Subitem E. One participant recommended that the words “in this school” be added to the end of 

subitem E. She worried that without this change teachers would be reluctant to agree with this 

statement for fear of reflecting badly on their own classes. 

• As in item 17, two participants complained that they wanted an answer choice between “strongly 

agree” and “somewhat agree” called simply “agree.” They felt that “somewhat agree” implied 

that they did not completely agree, and “strongly agree” meant that they felt strongly about that 

particular issue. They wanted to be able to simply say that they felt the statement was true. 

• Subitems B, C, and D. Because these subitems all relate to security, participants were asked 

whether they found the subitems redundant. Almost all participants did not, and thought that all 

three subitems should remain in the question. 

• Subitem M. Teachers interpreted the phrase “professional caliber of colleagues” in slightly 

different ways. In this subitem, teachers most commonly thought that this subitem was referring 

to their colleagues’ “professionalism” (e.g., good manners, appropriate dress, etc.). Some teachers 

thought that it referred to their colleagues’ skill or ability as teachers, or to the level of advanced 

degrees they had achieved. 

• Subitem N. Almost all teachers interpreted this subitem as asking whether they had enough time 

during the school day to meet and plan with other teachers. 

• Subitem P. Most teachers, particularly those in elementary and middle schools, assumed that 

“professional advancement” meant moving out of teaching and into administration. Some felt that 

there were other ways to advance, including earning higher degrees, being selected to teach in 

elite programs, or becoming a “team leader.” 

Recommendations 

o For the reason described above, reword subitem E as follows: “Student behavior is a problem at 

this school” (or “was a problem at last year’s school”). 

o Consider rewording subitem M so that respondents will interpret it consistently. 
Appendix C. Summary of TFS Interview Findings and Recommendations C-11 

Item 20 (Former Teacher)/Item 30 (Current Teacher): Last Year’s Instructional 

Leader and Item 12 (Current Teacher): Current Instructional Leader 

Feedback From Participants 

• Subitem F. Teachers interpreted this subitem in two different ways. Most thought the phrase 

“student evaluation results” meant standardized assessments, classroom tests, or report cards. 

Four, however, interpreted the phrase to mean student evaluations of teachers. 

• Subitem G. In general, teachers had difficulty with this subitem and did not like the phrase “broad 

agreement among the teaching staff.” Some assumed that “broad agreement” meant consensus, 

and said that this was an impossible task. Two noted that the other subitems in this question 

measure the degree to which leaders encourage or facilitate things in a school, rather than whether 

they accomplish them; they felt that this subitem should be reworded accordingly. 

• No participants had trouble understanding the directions to this item, or had difficulty identifying 

an “instructional leader.” All participants thought of a single instructional leader as they answered 

all subitems in this item. 

• All 15 elementary and middle school teachers who answered this item chose their principal as the 

leader for this item. High school teachers chose leaders in a variety of positions; two chose their 

principals, one chose a Dean of Academics, one chose the resource teacher, and one chose the 

“lead teacher of his team.” 

• Most participants felt that the instructional leader they chose was responsible for performing all 

the subitems on the list, although one who did not choose a principal noted that sometimes his 

“leader” was told what to do by higher administrators. 

• One participant said that for some subitems he had not observed how effective his instructional 

leader was; in those cases he selected “somewhat effectively.” 

• Subitem C. Teachers did not have a problem answering this subitem. However, upon re-reading 

the subitem, a number of them noted that their leader does not actually help develop the 

standards, which are provided for the school from the state or district. Others (particularly those 

that teach in minor subjects, or in private schools) said that their leader does help develop 

standards. 

• When teachers were asked if there were other aspects of instructional leadership that should be 

included in this item, the following suggestions were mentioned by more than one participant: 

o relationship with students (5 participants); and 

o encouraging parental involvement (3 participants). 

• Some participants were asked to evaluate the following hypothetical subitem I: “Develops 

positive and respectful relationships with students”; 7 of 9 thought it was a good addition. 

However, staff recommends not adding this subitem, both because some “instructional leaders” 

may not interact with students, and because the rest of the subitems in the question deal with 

leaders’ relationships with teachers. 
C-12 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Recommendations 

o In subitem F, change the wording from “student evaluation results” to “student assessment 

results.” A number of participants were asked in their interviews if the phrase “student 

assessment results” was clearer; all but one said that it was. 

o Change the wording of subitem G to, “Worked to develop broad agreement among the teaching 

staff...” 
Appendix C. Summary of TFS Interview Findings and Recommendations C-13 

Items 21–23 (Former Teacher)/Items 31–33 (Current Teacher): Assessments in 

Last Year’s School and Items 13–15 (Current Teacher): State or District 

Assessments in This Year’s School 

Feedback From Participants 

• One participant noted that, for Questionnaire for Current Teachers item 14, the timing of the 

survey might affect respondents’ answers. For example, his students have not participated in an 

assessment program yet, but will later in the year. 

• Subitem A. Participants interpreted this subitem in two different ways. Most saw the subitem as 

asking whether they were given support in preparing students to take the assessments (i.e., by 

teaching them the skills and content that would be tested). About a third of the teachers, however, 

thought the subitem was referring to the administration of the test to students, rather than the 

preparation leading up to it. Some participants were also confused by the word “program” in this 

item and did not understand what it meant. 

• Subitems A and B. One high school teacher said that these subitems were not relevant to her 

because students were not tested in the subject that she taught. 

• The following hypothetical subitem F was recommended by one participant: “The content tested 

on the assessment matches the curriculum I teach.” Other participants who were asked this 

subitem felt that it was a good addition to the subitem and did not feel that it was redundant with 

subitem C. 

• One participant said that it was difficult to answer this question because she would have given 

very different answers about her state assessments versus her district assessments. She chose to 

answer based on her state assessments. No other teachers brought this issue up. 

• Subitem D. Almost all participants disagreed with this subitem, and most “strongly disagreed.” 

The most common reason given was that the assessments measure students’ test-taking ability, 

not their academic knowledge and abilities. Other reasons mentioned by more than one teacher 

included the following: 

o Students’ scores can be negatively impacted by factors outside of teachers’ control (e.g., 

parent behavior, “partying”). 

o Students from disadvantaged backgrounds do not have the vocabulary or life experience to 

understand some items on the test (i.e., “cultural bias”). 

o Non-English speakers and special education students are unfairly expected to take the same 

assessment. 

• Before looking at this item, participants were asked to brainstorm strong opinions that teachers 

have about state or district assessment programs. The following were mentioned by at least four 

participants independently (out of 19 who were asked), and are not currently covered among the 

items on the survey: 

o I feel that I do not have enough freedom or autonomy in my classroom because I have to 

focus on preparing students for the assessments. (10 participants) 

o There is too much pressure put on students to do well on assessments. (5 participants) 

o There is too much emphasis placed on assessments by my school or district. (4 participants) 

o Assessments provide important information about what students are learning in school. (4 

participants) 
C-14 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

o Too much time in the school year is devoted to giving assessments. (4 participants) 

o The assessments are too difficult for my students. (4 participants) 

Recommendations 

o Reword subitem A as follows: “I did not receive adequate support in preparing my students for 

the assessment.” This change will ensure that respondents interpret this subitem consistently. 

o Eliminate subitem B because, given the new wording of subitem A, respondents will be unlikely 

to disagree with this statement. 

o Add an additional subitem to this item: “The content tested on the assessments matches the 

curriculum I teach.” 

o Reword Questionnaire for Former Teachers item 22 and Questionnaire for Current Teachers item 

32 as follows: “LAST SCHOOL YEAR, did any of your students participate in a REQUIRED 

state or district assessment program in at least one subject that you teach?” 

o Reword Questionnaire for Current Teachers item 14 as follows: “THIS SCHOOL YEAR, will 

any of your students participate (or have they participated) in a REQUIRED state or district 

assessment program in at least one subject that you teach?” 

o In Questionnaire for Current Teachers item 15, eliminate subitem D because most teachers will 

not be able to answer this question for assessments given in the current year. 
Appendix C. Summary of TFS Interview Findings and Recommendations C-15 

Item 25 (Former Teacher): Comparing Last Year’s Teaching Position to Current 

Non-Teaching Job 

Feedback From Participants 

• Subitem K. Most participants interpreted this subitem to mean benefits such as health insurance 

and retirement plans. However, some thought primarily of other “psychic” benefits, such as a 

more positive work environment. 

• Subitem R. Of seven people who answered this subitem, three felt that the phrase “professional 

caliber of colleagues” referred to educational level or advanced degrees. Two interpreted it to 

mean the quality of their colleagues’ work, and two others thought it was asking about 

colleagues’ professionalism (e.g., coming to work on time, professional dress, etc.). Two 

participants said that they found it very difficult to compare the “professional caliber” of 

colleagues in two different fields. 

• Two participants said that due to the nature of their jobs they wanted to be able to select “not 

applicable” on some subitems. One was a nanny who wanted to select “not applicable” for 

subitem L, “Procedures for performance evaluation,” and the other was self-employed and 

wanted that option for subitem F, “recognition and support from managers,” and subitem L. 

• Subitem B. Most participants interpreted “professional advancement” as a move into 

administration; others interpreted it as the achievement of an advanced degree. 

• Subitem C. Participants interpreted this to mean coursework, conferences, workshops, or 

trainings. They saw the difference between subitems B and C as being that “professional 

advancement” leads to a new position, while “professional development” referred to getting 

better in your current position. Some also felt that the implication was that “advancement” 

improved your salary, while “development” did not necessarily. 

• Subitem P. Participants interpreted the phrase “general work conditions” in a number of ways. 

Most thought the subitem was referring to the cleanliness and upkeep of physical facilities. 

Others felt the subitem was asking about the people that teachers work with, the “climate” of the 

workplace, the amount of autonomy or control teachers have over their work, or their relationship 

with theirr administrator or manager. 

Recommendations 

o Change the heading of the third column from “No difference” to “No better/worse in either 

position.” This would allow for the possibility that the two positions are different, but that neither 

is better as a whole. (See participant comments for Questionnaire for Current Teachers item 37.) 

o Reword subitem B as follows: “Opportunities for professional ADVANCEMENT (i.e., 

promotion).” This change will make the subitem clearer for respondents, and this is the way that 

professional advancement is already defined in Questionnaire for Former Teachers item 18 and 

Questionnaire for Current Teachers items 10 and 28. 

o Move subitem K directly under subitem A, and reword it as follows: “Benefits (e.g., health 

insurance, etc.).” This would ensure that respondents would focus on fringe benefits and not 

consider other “psychic” benefits in their answer. 
C-16 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

o Eliminate subitem R; based on the feedback received from participants in interviews, it will be 

difficult for respondents to compare the “professional caliber” of teachers with employees in a 

different field. 
Appendix C. Summary of TFS Interview Findings and Recommendations C-17 

Items 27a–c (Former Teacher)/Items 38a–c (Current Teacher): Education Activities 

Feedback From Participants 

• When asked if there were additional answer choices that should be included in item 27b, several 

teachers pointed out that most teachers must periodically take classes as part of their certification 

requirements. Those that had taken classes for this purpose answered “1: Individual courses” for 

item 27b and “1: To obtain or for use in a K–12 TEACHING POSITION” for item 27c. 

Participants suggested that including another choice (e.g., “Courses required for certification”) 

would help distinguish between teachers who took education classes for their own interest and 

those who were “forced to.” 

• Participants felt that these three items were very clear, and none had any difficulty answering any 

of them. 

• Most teachers were unsure what was meant by answer choice 7, “Certificate of Advanced 

Graduate Studies program.” They interpreted it to be a step above a Master’s degree that would 

provide the additional skills and certification to enter a more specialized position, such as that of 

an administrator or reading specialist. 

Recommendations 

o In item 27c, change the answer choices to the following: 

1. To obtain a teaching certificate 

2. To renew or maintain a teaching certificate 

3. To obtain or for use in a position in the FIELD OF EDUCATION but NOT AS A K–12 

TEACHER 

4. To obtain or for use in a position OUTSIDE THE FIELD OF EDUCATION 

5. For other reasons (e.g., personal fulfillment or interest) 
C-18 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Items 28–32 (Former Teacher): Possibility of Return to Teaching 

Feedback From Participants 

• Subitem A. Several teachers were confused by the use of the word “seniority,” which they did not 

associate with a pay scale. 

• Subitem E. A number of teachers felt that this subitem did not need to be included, since it 

seemed obvious that the availability of a position would influence whether or not they returned to 

teaching. They did not have this issue with subitem D, which they saw as important because it 

would measure teachers’ interest in working part time. 

• One participant warned that to some teachers the phrase “base-year teaching salary” means the 

salary that is given at the lowest rung of the district salary scale. 

• Of 11 participants who were asked this item, 4 answered that they would consider returning to 

teaching, but 2 of these said that they would only return to teaching at the postsecondary level. 

• Subitem B. This subitem was interpreted in different ways by retired and non-retired teachers. 

Retired teachers took this to mean that they would be able to return to teaching while still 

collecting their pensions (and retaining retirement-level health benefits, etc.). Non-retired 

teachers had more difficulty interpreting it because most knew very little about their retirement 

benefits; one saw it as being able to put back into her pension the money that she had taken out 

when she left teaching. 

• Subitem C. This subitem was clear to all participants. One noted that even within her own state, 

one factor that would influence her decision to return would be how easy it would be for her to 

have her certification reinstated. 

• Of 11 people who answered item 31a, 10 answered that they would not return for an increase in 

salary. The one participant who answered “Yes” provided a figure of $38,000 in item 31b. 

• When asked what other factors might influence their decision to return to teaching, participants 

mentioned a number of school-based factors, including amount of support provided by 

administrators, amount of classroom autonomy they would have, class size, being able to teach a 

particular grade or subject, and characteristics of the student population. No single factor was 

mentioned by more than one participant. 

Recommendations 

o Reword subitem A as follows: “Ability to come back at same or higher level on the salary scale.” 

A number of participants were asked if this wording would be clearer than what is currently on 

the survey; all thought that the new wording was better or no worse than the old wording. 

o Eliminate subitem E because teachers had difficulty interpreting how they should answer this 

subitem. Since the purpose of this subitem is to determine how eager teachers are to return to 

teaching, it should be made into a separate question; the “importance” scale is inappropriate. One 

possible wording of this subitem would be, “If a full-time teaching position were currently 

available at a school in your area, would you apply for it?” 
Appendix C. Summary of TFS Interview Findings and Recommendations C-19 

o Reword item 28 as follows: “Would you consider returning to K–12 teaching?” Also, eliminate 

answer choices 1 and 5 from item 29. These changes would ensure that respondents who 

answered items 30, 31, and 32 would be thinking only about K–12 teaching as they did so. 

o Reword item 31b as follows: “What is the lowest teaching salary you would accept to return to 

teaching?” 
C-20 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Items 36–37 (Former Teacher)/Items 52–53 (Current Teacher): Marital Status 

Feedback From Participants 

• No participants had any difficulty interpreting or answering these questions. When asked to 

interpret the use of the word “partner” in item 37b, participants said that it referred to a boyfriend 

or girlfriend, a “significant other,” a “live-in,” a “lover,” or a “mate.” 

• Staff interviewed two teachers who self-identified as gay or lesbian. Both said that they liked the 

wording of item 37b and found it to be inclusive. One noted that the word “partner” was 

preferable to “significant other,” a phrase which, in her mind, minimized the importance of gay or 

lesbian relationships. 

Recommendations 

o OCR has no recommendations for these items; all respondents found them clear and easy to 

understand. 
Appendix C. Summary of TFS Interview Findings and Recommendations C-21 

Item 6 (Current Teacher): Teaching Certificate 

Feedback From Participants 

NOTE: The participants who answered this question were from Maryland, Alaska, Maine, New 

Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. 

• Most teachers did not have difficulty answering this item; almost all chose option 1. However, 

when asked to carefully read the rest of the answer choices, many commented that the distinctions 

between them did not seem clear. 

• Most participants felt that option 2 (“probationary”) was fairly clear, although none thought that 

their states offered such a certificate. Participants thought that what distinguished option 2 from 3, 

4, and 5 was that a teacher would receive a regular certificate after a certain period of time—no 

other coursework was required. 

• Most participants had difficulty distinguishing between options 3 and 4. Almost none had heard 

of an “alternative certification program” in their states, and most were unsure how participation in 

such a program would differ from the coursework, student teaching, and/or testing described in 

option 4. 

• When asked about option 5, most said that they had heard of “waivers” being given to teachers in 

high-need areas or subjects. However, almost all felt that the description given in option 5 seemed 

similar to that provided for option 4. 

• Some teachers felt that the labels given to each choice (“probationary,” “provisional,” etc.) might 

be misleading. For example, two Maryland teachers initially answered that they had “provisional” 

certificates. However, upon going back and re-reading the descriptions of each answer choice, 

they said that the Maryland “provisional” certificate is actually closer to the description given for 

option 4. 

• Option 6: Most teachers were unsure as to what this option meant. Some thought that it referred 

to National Board certification, but the one teacher interviewed who is certified by the National 

Board chose option 1 because she still has a state-issued certificate. Other participants thought 

that option 6 meant that the teacher had been originally certified in another state. However, they 

pointed out that the item stem asks about a certificate in the current state. One participant chose 

option 6 because he got his teaching degree in a different state, even though his certificate was in 

his current state. 

Recommendations 

o Staff recommends that no changes be made to this item for this year, because the answer choices 

must remain parallel with the Schools and Staffing Survey. However, staff does recommend that 

respondents who choose option 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 always be aggregated for purposes of analysis 

because the interviews showed that the distinctions between them were not clear to teachers and 

therefore would not be valid. 
C-22 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Items 35–36 (Current Teacher): Decision to Leave Last Year’s School 

Feedback From Participants 

• Subitem A. Participants felt that this subitem should be rephrased so that it also includes teachers 

who did not move but wanted to work at a school closer to their home. 

• Subitem G. One participant was confused as to whether this subitem referred to changes in the job 

description between last year’s school and this year’s school or changes that occurred at last 

year’s school. 

• In one case, a respondent’s three answers to item 36 did not match that respondent’s highestranking answers in item 35. 

• Before they viewed this item, five participants were asked to list reasons that they or other 

teachers would switch schools. More than one teacher mentioned the following: 

o conflicts with administrators/lack of administrative support (4 participants); 

o location of new school is better (3 participants); 

o wanted to teach different grade level (2 participants); and 

o wanted to teach a different student population (2 participants). 

• Subitem E. Three participants recommended that this subitem be split into different parts since it 

encompasses so many different factors. 

• Subitem M. Participants who gave any importance to subitem M were referring to negative 

personal relationships with teachers, dissatisfaction with the student population at last year’s 

school, and lack of parental involvement. 

• Item 36. One participant said that she could identify only two reasons why she left her old school; 

however, she eventually opted to include a third reason rather than leave a box blank. 

Recommendations 

o Subitem A should be reworded as follows: “This year’s school is closer to my home.” This would 

allow for the possibility that teachers had not changed their residence, but that proximity to their 

school was a factor in their decision to switch schools. 

o Reword subitem G as follows: “I was dissatisfied with changes in my job description or 

responsibilities at last year’s school.” 

o In item 36, ask only for a respondent’s most important reason for leaving, not their second or 

third most important reason. This will eliminate some problems in analysis, since the reasons 

respondents list as second or third most important in item 36 will sometimes not be consistent 

with their answers to item 35. 
Appendix C. Summary of TFS Interview Findings and Recommendations C-23 

Item 37 (Current Teacher): Comparing Current Teaching Position to Last Year’s 

Teaching Position 

Feedback From Participants 

• Two participants said that for certain subitems (I and U) there were differences between their 

positions last year and this year, but neither was “better.” They asked if the “No Difference” 

option could be rephrased so that it included this possibility (e.g., “Not Better or Worse in Either 

Position”). 

• Subitem B. Most teachers assumed that “professional advancement” meant moving into 

administration since they took for granted that there is no opportunity for advancement within the 

field of teaching. One participant recommended that the subitem be reworded to read 

“Opportunities for professional ADVANCEMENT (i.e., promotion),” as in subitem P in item 18. 

• Subitem K. Most participants interpreted this subitem as referring to health and life insurance, 

pension plans, etc. However, some thought that it was overly broad, and said that they also 

considered “benefits” to include other things such as peace of mind or a less hectic workload. 

They suggested that the subitem could be rephrased to read “Benefits (e.g., health insurance, 

etc.).” They also said that if this subitem came immediately after “Salary,” the meaning of this 

subitem would be clearer. 

• Subitem R. Teachers interpreted the phrase “professional caliber of colleagues” to mean a number 

of different things. Most commonly teachers interpreted this phrase to mean the skill or quality of 

fellow teachers, or their “professionalism” at work (e.g., good manners, not arguing with other 

teachers in front of students, appropriate dress, etc.) A few teachers also thought the subitem 

referred to whether their colleagues had advanced degrees. 

• All teachers understood the directions for this item clearly. One teacher who had not changed 

schools in the past year felt that there was a danger that teachers who were in his situation might 

skip this item because they did not see how it applied to them. However, staff does not 

recommend any changes to the directions because participants did not seem to have any problem. 

• Subitem A. Several teachers answered “Better in Current Position” because they had not changed 

positions but did receive a raise. Other teachers in the same situation answered “No Difference” 

because they assumed that the subitem was not asking about their raises. 

• Subitem C. Teachers felt that the difference between subitems B and C was that “professional 

advancement” leads to a new position, while “professional development” is related to getting 

better in the current position. 

• Subitem G. One participant questioned whether this subitem was referring to teachers’ safety 

from people (e.g., students, parents, etc.) or safety from the disrepair of the school building (e.g., 

exposed wires). 

• Subitem N. Teachers consistently interpreted this subitem as referring to their workload at school, 

and whether they had to take work home. One felt that subitem N was redundant with subitem M, 

“Manageability of workload.” 
C-24 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

• Subitem P. Teachers interpreted the phrase “general work conditions” in a number of ways, 

including the upkeep or cleanliness of the building, the “atmosphere” of the school (or whether it 

is a “pleasant place to be”), their workload, how well they get along with their colleagues, and 

whether they have sufficient resources. 

Recommendations 

o Change the heading of the third column from “No difference” to “No better/worse in either 

position.” This would allow for the possibility that the two positions are different, but that neither 

is better as a whole. 

o Reword subitem B as follows: “Opportunities for professional ADVANCEMENT (i.e., 

promotion).” This change will make the subitem clearer for respondents, and this is the way that 

professional advancement is already defined in Questionnaire for Former Teachers item 18 and 

Questionnaire for Current Teachers items 10 and 28. 

o Move subitem K to be directly under subitem A, so that its meaning will be clearer from context. 

Also, reword subitem K as follows: “Benefits (e.g., health insurance, etc.).” 

o Consider rewording subitem R so that teachers will interpret it consistently. 
Appendix C. Summary of TFS Interview Findings and Recommendations C-25 

Items 39–40 (Current Teacher): Possibility of Leaving Teaching 

Feedback From Participants 

• Answer choice 3. Two of the 7 participants who answered this item commented that the wording 

was “harsh.” One of them would have picked this option but did not because he thought doing so 

would have been “insulting” to the field of teaching. 

• Answer choice 3. Two participants did not like the use of the word “probably” in this answer 

choice because it sounded “wishy-washy”; they thought it should be removed. 

• When asked if there were other choices that should be included in item 39, several teachers 

suggested that there be an option for teachers who plan to continue until “a life event,” such as 

pregnancy, marriage, or their children leaving home. 

• Item 40. None of the participants answered “Yes” to item 40. One noted that teachers might have 

a bias against saying that they were trying to “leave the profession” because they might feel 

guilty. 

• Item 40. Participants were unclear how administrative jobs fit into item 40. Almost all felt that 

administrative jobs were not “outside the profession,” but they found the wording of this item 

confusing. 

Recommendations 

o Change the wording of answer choice 5 to “Will continue unless a more desirable opportunity 

comes along.” Respondents felt that this alternative sounded less pejorative and harsh. 

o Add an option between 3 and 4: “Until a specific life event occurs (e.g., parenthood, marriage, 

etc.).” 

o Reword item 40 as follows: “In the last year, have you applied for a job in an attempt to leave 

classroom teaching?” Add a bullet that says, “Answer ‘Yes’ if this job would require that you 

leave the classroom, even if it is for another position in education (e.g., school administration).” 
C-26 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Items 41–43 (Current Teacher): Retired/Rehired Teachers 

Feedback From Participants 

• One teacher commented that item 42 was confusing because it referred to teachers retiring and 

then “continuing” to teach, but it does not allow for the possibility that they could have taken a 

break before coming back. 

• All teachers who had previously retired and then returned to teaching answered “No” to item 42 

because they do not consider themselves to be retired. 

Recommendations 

o Change item 41 to the following: “Some teachers retire from teaching, but then return to the 

classroom. Have you previously retired from a teaching position?” 

o Change item 42 to the following: “Have you ever collected a pension from a state or district 

retirement system?” It would be possible to add the following follow-up item for those who 

answer “Yes”: “Are you currently collecting a pension from a state or district retirement system?” 

However, given the small sample of the TFS, it may not be necessary to distinguish between 

teachers who received a stipend in the past and those who currently do so. 
D-1 

Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test 

Findings and Recommendations 

The material in this appendix was prepared by Shawna Cox of the U.S. Census Bureau and delivered 

November 9, 2004. It includes the following sections: 

Background ........................................................................................................................................D-2

Research Questions......................................................................................................................D-2

Methodology ......................................................................................................................................D-3

Detailed Findings and Recommendations ..........................................................................................D-4

Login............................................................................................................................................D-4

Form Actions Menu—Beginning the Survey ..............................................................................D-4

Navigation and Other Usability Issues ........................................................................................D-6

Current Teaching Status (Questionnaires for Current and Former Teachers) .............................D-8

Classify Your Position (Questionnaires for Current and Former Teachers)................................D-8

Transition From Teaching (Questionnaire for Former Teachers)................................................D-9

Occupation (Questionnaire for Former Teachers) .....................................................................D-10

Duties (Questionnaire for Former Teachers) .............................................................................D-10

Current Teaching Status (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) ................................................D-11

Students with an Individual Education Plan or Limited English Proficiency (Questionnaire 

for Current Teachers)...............................................................................................................D-13

Your Current School—Conditions and Experiences (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) .....D-14

Student Problems (Questionnaire for Current Teachers)...........................................................D-15

School Problems (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) ............................................................D-16

Attitudes Toward Teaching (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) ...........................................D-17

Hours Working (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) ..............................................................D-17

Extra Activities (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) ..............................................................D-18

School Information (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) ........................................................D-19

Decision to Leave ......................................................................................................................D-19

Principal’s Effectiveness (Questionnaires for Current and Former Teachers) ..........................D-23

Satisfaction with Current Position (Questionnaires for Current and Former Teachers) ............D-24

Job Satisfaction (Questionnaire for Former Teachers) ..............................................................D-27

College Courses—Enrollment, Type, Reason for Taking (Questionnaires for Current and 

Former Teachers).....................................................................................................................D-27

Return to Teaching (Questionnaire for Former Teachers).........................................................D-29

Remain in This Job (Questionnaire for Former Teachers).........................................................D-31

Remain in Teacher (Questionnaire for Current Teachers).........................................................D-32

Attempt to Leave (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) ...........................................................D-32

Retired from Teaching (Questionnaire for Former Teachers) ...................................................D-32

Pensions, Retirement Systems, and Employer-Sponsored Plans...............................................D-33

Earnings (Questionnaire for Former Teachers) .........................................................................D-37

Earnings (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) .........................................................................D-38

Family (Questionnaires for Current and Former Teachers).......................................................D-38

Living with a Partner (Questionnaires for Current and Former Teachers) ................................D-40

Internet (Questionnaires for Current and Former Teachers)......................................................D-40

Contact Information (Questionnaires for Current and Former Teachers)..................................D-41

Form Status Menu......................................................................................................................D-42

Form Actions Menu ...................................................................................................................D-43
D-2 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Background 

The Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) is a nationally representative sample survey that looks at teacher 

movement within the labor force. The TFS sample is made up of a selection of teachers who participated 

in the previous year’s Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). The survey identifies three categories of 

movement within the teacher labor force: Stayers (teachers who continue to teach at the same school); 

Movers (teachers who are still teaching but at another school); and Leavers (teachers who have left the 

K–12 teaching profession either to retire or to enter another profession). 

Prior to this research, in April 2004, over 30 cognitive interviews were conducted to evaluate new and 

revised items in the Questionnaire for Former Teachers and Questionnaire for Current Teachers. 

Significant revisions were made to the questionnaires based on the results of this test. See “Appendix C. 

Summary of TFS Interview Findings and Recommendations.” The questionnaires were significantly 

revised based upon this research. 

TFS consists of three forms: 

• Teacher Status Form (Form TFS-1), which is used to identify sampled teachers and determine if 

they are a mover, stayer, or leaver; 

• Questionnaire for Former Teachers (Form TFS-2), which is for leavers; and 

• Questionnaire for Current Teachers (Form TFS-3), which is for stayers and movers. 

The U.S. Census Bureau conducts TFS for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). At the 

request of the Office of Management and Budget, an internet reporting option was developed for the 

2004–05 administrations of TFS. The internet instrument combined the former and current teacher 

questionnaires into one instrument, utilizing automated skip patterns to present respondents with the items 

appropriate to their status. 

Research Questions 

The goal of this research was twofold. First, it was used to test the usability of the instrument. Second, it 

was used to test the revised questionnaire wording. 

The primary questions to understand the usability of the instrument were as follows: 

• Could respondents successfully log in and use the internet version of the instrument? 

• Was navigation through the instrument clear and efficient? 

• Did the radio buttons present any challenges to respondents (e.g., inability to clear responses)? 

• Were the edits clear, helpful, and appropriate for respondents? 

Questionnaire wording issues included the following: 

• Were respondents able to interpret the questions uniformly? 

• Were respondents able to provide the information requested? 

• Were respondents able to accurately answer the retirement series of questions? 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-3 

Methodology 

Trained Census Bureau researchers conducted 24 usability interviews with stayers, leavers, and movers 

from a variety of schools. Complete details can be found in exhibit D-1. Respondents received a $50 

payment for participating in the research. 

• Interviews were conducted in the Census Bureau usability lab or the respondents’ homes or 

workplace. 

• At least five respondents participated using a dial-up internet connection. 

• No more than two respondents from the same school were recruited for this study. 

Exhibit D-1. Respondent characteristics, by teaching status and internet access: 2004 

Teaching status and 

internet access 

School 

type Other criteria 

Respondent 

ID 

Number of 

respondents

 Total 24

 

Teaching status 

 Stayer Public Continue to teach at same school 2, 8, 13, 14 4

 Stayer Private Continue to teach at same school 4, 6, 11, 17 4

 

 Current (stayer/mover) Public Retired and returned to teaching within past 2 years † 0

 Current (stayer/mover) Private Retired and returned to teaching within past 2 years † 0

 Mover Public Still teaching but at another school 1, 10, 15, 18 4

 Mover Private Still teaching but at another school 5, 20, 21 3

 Leaver † Another education position (not K–12 teaching; e.g., 

 moved to administration or postsecondary teaching) 7, 16, 22 3

 Leaver † Left teaching within past 2 years to pursue other career 9, 19, 23 3

 Leaver Public Retired from teaching within past 2 years 3, 12, 24 3

 

Internet access 

 Dial-up connection † † — 8

 High-speed connection † † — 16

† Not applicable. 

— Not available. 

SOURCE: Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2004. 
D-4 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Detailed Findings and Recommendations 

Login 

Feedback From Participants 

• Four respondents mentioned that they would have liked to know the estimated amount of time the 

survey would take to complete before they began taking it. Respondent 9 suggested that this 

information be available on the Login page. 

Recommendations 

o The estimated length of time to take the survey should be included on the login screen, if it is not 

already included in the letter to the respondent or on the NCES background information page. 

Form Actions Menu—Beginning the Survey 

This initial page suffers from many usability problems. It is cluttered with information that is not relevant 

to the respondent’s task of taking the survey. 

Feedback From Participants 

• All 24 respondents mentioned that this page was either “unclear” or “confusing.” Frequent 

remarks included: 

o “I am confused” (respondent 1). 

o “I am not sure what I am supposed to do here” (respondent 9). 

o “I don’t get it. I am not sure what I’m supposed to do here” (respondent 12). 

o “This is not clear to me” (respondent 24). 

• Respondent 7 immediately mentioned, “Most of the options on this page are not needed before 

starting the survey.” 

• Respondent 22 did not realize that the “Go” buttons would do anything. She thought that they 

were simply graphics. She mentioned that there should be some indication that the buttons will 

perform an action, for instance, the cursor should change to a hand when it is moved over the 

“Go” button to make its purpose obvious. 

“Getting Started:” 

• Respondents 4 and 19 immediately clicked on the “Getting Started” hyperlink, expecting that it 

would begin the survey. “Getting started” opens up a new browser window, which is the same 

page that opens when user clicks on “Help.” One said that this was “redundant.” Another 

skimmed this menu and told the researchers that there are “too many directions at the beginning.” 

“Go” to Form 

• The majority of respondents scrolled up and down through the go to section dropdown box and 

showed the following signs of trouble, confusion, and misunderstanding: 

o Respondent 2 skipped over the directions that say new users should start with section 1, and 

instead began scrolling up and down the list of sections. She read the names of the sections 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-5 

aloud and said things like, “Outside the US? That’s not right because I don’t live in another 

country.” 

o Respondent 7 was confused by this wording and said, “It’s a survey, not a form.” She 

mentioned to the researchers that the page should have two options: to begin or to resume. 

From this page she suggested that if respondents wanted to resume, the next page should have 

a menu that would direct them to specific questions in the survey. 

o Respondent 9 began scrolling through the menu of sections and after a while she read the 

instructions, which say to begin with section 1. 

o Respondent 11 did not immediately follow the directions to begin in Section 1. She clicked 

on the dropdown list, and selected section 25, “Teach in a Private School,” thinking that she 

was answering a question rather than navigating to a section. 

o Respondent 19 immediately clicked on the go to section box and scrolled around for a brief 

moment. Then she said, “Maybe I should read the directions first.” 

• Of the 24 respondents, 4 clicked the dropdown menu and wanted to be able to highlight a section 

and immediately be sent there. After they selected their desired section, there was a long pause 

and nothing happened. They were unaware that they had to click on the “go” button. Respondent 

11 tried hitting the “Enter” key on the keyboard after choosing the appropriate section. 

Respondent 16 asked the researchers, “Am I supposed to push go?” 

• Respondents 3 and 23 mentioned that the first “Go” button is in a confusing location. One of 

them paused and said, “Where do I click?” She mentioned that the “Go” button should be next to 

the dropdown box because it is confusing to have to go back up and click on “Go.” 

• Respondents 22 and 24 told researchers that they clicked “Go” because it was the first button to 

click. One respondent mentioned that this should be made clearer—it should say “START 

HERE” rather than “Go.” 

Recommendations 

o The page should be set up as follows: 

New users will click the top box; returning users will click the middle box that should bring them 

to a new page that returns to the section where they left off; all other options can be found by 

clicking on the bottom box. It will eliminate the confusion about where to click to begin the 

survey, and users will not be confused by unnecessary options such as “Go to section,” “Form 

Status,” or “Generate Report.” 

NEW USERS 

CLICK HERE 

RETURNING USERS

CLICK HERE 

OTHER OPTIONS 
D-6 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Many users were misled by the “getting started” link. This link should more clearly state that it is 

actually a help menu by being labeled, “information on how to begin the survey.” However, 

researchers recommend that this link be omitted all together. This page should be simplified so 

that additional instructions are unnecessary. 

• Next to a “go to section” dropdown box, it should be made clear that after selecting a section, the 

user should click “go.” Researchers suggest that the instruction, “Select section then click ‘go’” 

should be included. 

Navigation and Other Usability Issues 

Feedback From Participants 

“Save & Next” 

• Many of the respondents initially had difficulty finding the “Save & Next” button at the bottom of 

the screen. Once they figured this out the first time, they had no difficulty finding it again in the 

survey. 

o Respondent 1 chose her first answer and then tried pressing “Enter” to get to the next page. 

She acknowledged that this did not work, so she tried double clicking the mouse on her 

response. It took her several seconds to realize that the “Save & Next” button was in the 

Navigation bar at the bottom of the screen. 

o Three of the respondents clicked on the “Go” icon to move forward, rather than “Save & 

Next.” When Respondent 12 clicked on the “Go” button in the right hand corner, it brought 

her back to the initial Login page. She somehow went to a page that the developers used to 

look at all their surveys at once. It appears to be the same as the normal login page, but the 

dropdown list includes every survey they design. She logged back in, but was brought to a 

survey called Boundaries and Annexation. 

o Four of the respondents told researchers that they expected the “Save & Next” button to be on 

the bottom right-hand side of the screen. 

o In reference to the Navigation tools, respondent 13 said, “This is confusing. If you just want 

people to take the survey, all you need is a ‘save and next’ button.” 

“Previous” 

• There were no problems when respondents used the “previous” button at the bottom of the page 

to navigate. However, most of the respondents used the “back” button on the browser instead of 

the “previous” button in the navigation tools. This logged out respondents 14 and 18 and brought 

them both back to the initial login page. About halfway through the survey, respondent 2 began 

using the “previous” button instead of the “back” button. 

• Whenever respondent 23 wanted to go back to a previous page, she would press Ctrl-H and look 

at the internet history. She would then go back to the login page, log back in, and return to the 

survey. 

“Other Navigation Options” 

• Most respondents did not notice the option to jump to different sections of the survey. 

o Respondents 7 and 23 mentioned that if they wanted to go back to check another question, 

they would have to flip through all of the previous pages, which would involve “a lot of 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-7 

clicking.” One respondent told the researchers that there should be a menu on the right-hand 

side of the screen from which users can choose a certain section to go to. She did not see that 

this Navigation menu actually does exist at the bottom of each page, but when she noticed it, 

she said it was unclear and recommended it be moved to another location on the screen. 

o Respondent 9 looked at the navigation portion of the screen and said “I wonder what other 

navigation is.” She clicked on the menu and saw that it was the same sections menu that she 

looked at on the previous page. She mentioned that she would not use this navigation tool to 

skip around to different sections on the survey because she would be afraid that her results 

would change or get “messed up.” 

o Respondent 19 did not notice the other navigation options until researchers asked her to 

explain the screen elements at the end of the interview. Once she saw them, she told us that it 

was good to have the option to jump around the survey, especially if trying to go back to fix 

things. 

o Respondent 14 was trying to get to the “form status” page, the last page of the survey on 

which the respondent signifies whether he or she is finished. She expected to see this section 

at the bottom of the dropdown navigation list, but it was not there as an option. In order to 

make sure that the survey was finished, she went to section “contact information” and clicked 

“save & next,” which brought her to the form status page. 

Errors 

• Throughout the survey there were several times when the respondent received an error message 

and either did not notice it or was unsure where the error occurred. The following are examples of 

this: 

o Respondent 12 typed in 1200.00 as her salary. The decimal led to an error. She finished the 

page and clicked “Save & Next.” This caused the page to reload with a warning at the top, 

and she never read it. Researchers had to guide her along to the box to correct it. She also 

never noticed the “Ignore Problems” check box at the bottom of the page. 

o One respondent did not know her contact’s complete information offhand. She filled in what 

she could and left the rest blank. The respondent did not follow the telephone number 

example and simply input the 10 digits without dashes. She received an error message and 

incorrectly thought that the error on the page was that she left things blank. She filled them in 

with miscellaneous information, then realized that there were error messages next to the two 

telephone areas. The reason for the error was not clear to her. 

o Respondent 21 received a consistency error message on a screen towards the end of the 

survey that was caused by the box next to “1st grade” being checked on a question much 

earlier. The error message he received was not helpful because it did not specify directly what 

screen contained the error. It simply informed him that he could not teach a grade that was 

not offered at the school. This respondent was tempted to input an incorrect answer to make 

the error go away. He mentioned that it would be helpful if the error messages indicated the 

exact location of where each error occurred. In the end, he decided to submit the survey with 

some errors remaining. 

Recommendations 

o The “Navigation” portion of the screen should be changed and should appear as follows: 

PREVIOUS SAVE & NEXT

Secure logout & finish later
D-8 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Designing these buttons in the shapes of arrows should eliminate confusion about how to move to 

the next question in the survey as well as eliminate usage of the “Back” button in the internet 

browser (which did cause a few problems for some users). These arrows should be centered at the 

bottom of the page. 

o The “Other navigation” dropdown list should be removed. It should be found on the “Form 

Status” page at the end of the survey, so that respondents can use it to easily jump to the pages 

that contain errors. 

o A “secure exit” option should be on the bottom of each page. It should be labeled “Secure Logout 

& Finish Later.” 

o Error icons should be made larger, the fonts should be larger, and both should be in more vivid 

colors to increase their visibility to the respondent. 

o The error messages should be more detailed, giving the respondent a more complete idea of 

where and why the error occurred. 

o Consistency edits should be removed unless the items are near one another. 

Current Teaching Status (Questionnaires for Current and Former Teachers) 

Do you CURRENTLY TEACH any regularly scheduled class(es) in any of grades pre-K–12? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondent 23, a former teacher who is now a substitute teacher, found this question confusing. 

She clicked “no” then clicked “yes.” She was unsure if she was a teacher teaching “regularly 

scheduled” classes. 

Recommendations 

o In order to reduce the confusion about whether or not a short-term substitute teacher “currently 

teaches regularly scheduled classes,” add a bullet below the question which states, “Click ‘No’ if 

you are a short-term substitute, student teacher, or teacher aide.” Change this item on the paper 

version of TFS as well to maintain consistency. 

Classify Your Position (Questionnaires for Current and Former Teachers) 

How do you classify your position at your CURRENT school, that is, the activity at which you 

spend most of your time during this school year? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Of 24 respondents, 3 felt that multiple options applied to them at this screen but that they were 

only allowed to pick one. One of the three could have been a “regular teacher,” an 

“administrator,” or “Other professional staff.” He decided not to choose the “Other professional 

staff” option because his specific duties were not listed in the parentheses following that option. 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-9 

Recommendations 

o Although short-term substitutes, student teachers, and teacher aides are addressed in the previous 

question, they cannot be removed from the answer choices because consistency between the 

paper and internet surveys must be maintained. 

Transition From Teaching (Questionnaire for Former Teachers) 

Which box did you mark in item 1c above? Last school year you reported teaching regularly 

scheduled classes. We are interested in learning more about your transition to a teacher aide, 

student teacher, or short-term substitute teacher. Please briefly explain the reason for the change 

below. 

Feedback From Participants 

• Two respondents answered this question. They both encountered problems: 

o Respondent 12 thought the write-in box for the reason for transition was actually a drop box 

that gave her options. She tried to scroll and nothing happened. She typed in an explanation 

that included that she loves teaching now because she gets to fulfill her teaching needs, 

without all of the hard work. Her explanation was too long and she received an error message 

on the next page. She, as well as the other user, indicated that she would like to know the 

limit for what she can write. 

o Respondent 23 practically wrote an essay describing her reason for the transition from fulltime teaching to substitute teaching. After typing her response, she went to the next page, 

which gave her a warning message because her previous response was too long. She did not 

notice this warning. It should either be made more prominent to the user or the question 

should mention the maximum character allowance. 

• Neither respondent noticed or read the “Note” underneath the box that describes their position as 

being not a “regular teacher,” a statement that is crucial to accurately responding to the remainder 

of the questions in this survey. 

Recommendations 

o The write-in box should be a single long line rather than a box. This way, it can indicate to users 

when they have run out of space by not allowing them to type anything else in the box. 

o The wording should be changed to “In 20 words or less, please explain the reason for the change 

below.” 

o The “Note” needs to be made more visible. It should be moved above the write-in box, and the 

colors and contrast should be changed so that it stands out more to respondents. 

o The wording of the error message should be changed to more specifically indicate the allowed 

length. 
D-10 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Occupation (Questionnaire for Former Teachers) 

What kind of work do you do, that is, what is your occupation? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondents 16 and 23 were somewhat confused by the examples for job title because none were 

education related. Respondent 23 laughed at the examples. She thinks that they should only be 

education related, since the survey is given to teachers and former teachers. Although they did not 

like these examples, they were able to answer the question properly. 

Recommendations 

o The examples of “occupation” are often different from the occupations former teachers enter. 

They should be changed from occupations such as “plumber, typist, or farmer” to occupations 

that might be more probable for teachers to transfer to such as an “accountant, nurse, or 

secretary.” 

Duties (Questionnaire for Former Teachers) 

What are your usual activities or duties at this job? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Three of the four respondents who completed this question wanted to enter numerous activities, 

but they were not able to do so. 

o Respondent 7 wanted to enter numerous activities that would have included “liaising with 

colleges; advising foreign undergraduates, graduates, and physicians; and composing 

correspondence,” but this list was too long; she was forced to make it shorter and simpler. 

o Respondent 22 paused when she was asked about her activities and duties. She mentioned 

that she had a lot of duties. She began typing “curriculum development, teacher training, 

grant wr” and ran out of space. She left it like this, and went on to the next page. 

o Respondent 24 typed in her “usual activities,” the activities that she does most frequently at 

work, and they included, “typing, filing, accounting functions, customer serv-.” She was cut 

off because she wrote too much. 

Recommendations 

o The answer box should be extended to allow respondents to enter their duties more easily. 

o “Selling cars, operating a printing press, and laying brick” should be changed to duties that a 

teacher would more likely perform after leaving teaching such as “filing, accounting, or serving 

customers.” 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-11 

Current Teaching Status (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) 

This school year (2004–05), how much time do you work as a TEACHER? 

Feedback From Participants 

• One respondent was a full-time teacher but also worked an outside job as a teacher and designer 

of an internet college course. Because she was a full-time employee, the skip patterns 

automatically skipped over the sections that deal with other occupations. 

• Respondent 18 had split responsibilities, so he was not sure if he considered himself a full-time 

teacher, since part of the day he attended to nonteaching responsibilities. He mentioned that this 

question was “tricky” to answer. 

Recommendations 

o If it is important to get additional information about respondents’ “other occupations” besides 

their earnings, consider removing the skip pattern here and allow all users to answer the questions 

concerning “other occupations.” Currently, respondents only answer these questions if they report 

teaching less than full time. 

This school year, what is your MAIN teaching assignment field at your current school? (Your main 

assignment is the field in which you teach the most classes.) 

Feedback From Participants 

• Overall, the dropdown box seemed to work here, aside from a few specific cases where 

respondents had problems: 

o After clicking the dropdown menu, three respondents did not realize that it scrolled down 

further. Once they did realize this, the list was so large that they actually had to scroll 

horizontally in order to click on the dropdown arrow. 

• Some respondents finally picked subjects that were either the general category (general subject 

areas without codes), or subjects that somewhat mirrored their own. 

o When respondent 4 opened the dropdown list, she said “whoa, hard” because there were so 

many choices. She selected “English and language arts” in the dropdown list, an item that did 

not have a code number. In reality she taught reading and neglected to choose this option 

from the menu. Choosing the subject heading did not give her an error message. 

• Confusion about which teaching assignment is the “MAIN” assignment field caused problems for 

respondents who taught multiple subjects. 

o One respondent taught three subjects, with her time divided equally among them. She 

wondered which one was her “MAIN” subject. She chose one of the three at random and 

moved on to the next question. 

Recommendations 

o The format of this question should be changed. The dropdown box should be eliminated and in its 

place should be a table with all of the options presented. The respondent would then click on a 

radio button next to the correct option. This would eliminate the problems of respondents not 

knowing to scroll down and choosing items without codes. 
D-12 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Which of the following best describes the teaching certificate you currently hold in this state? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondent 8 was looking for a “National Board Certification” option. He correctly marked 

“state certificate” since he has that as well as the National Board Certification. 

• One respondent mentioned that, in some states, provisional and probationary certificates are the 

same things. She mentioned that there should be fewer selections here because it is “wordy and 

unclear.” 

• Respondent 17 told researchers that private school teachers are not required to be certified. 

Recommendations 

o This question should remain as it is. 

In which grades are the STUDENTS you teach at your current school? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Of the 24 respondents, 2 overlooked the directions that said, “Check all that Apply,” and told the 

researchers that some people teach more than one grade in a school. 

Recommendations 

o This question should remain as it is. 

Which statement best describes the way YOUR classes at your current school are organized? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondents 13 and 20 told the researchers that the options were poorly organized and that they 

found this page too wordy. Respondent 13 suggested that the phrases in parentheses should come 

first, and the explanations should be shortened and in parentheses. Also, the most general option 

should be listed first and subsequent options should be presented in an increasing degree of 

specificity. 

• Respondent 17 said he was unsure if “classes” in the phrase “You instruct several classes” means 

actual classes or courses. 

Recommendations 

o An example should be included to ensure the respondent knows that “classes” means how many 

specific classes he or she teaches, not how many different courses he teaches. For example, “1st

period writing, 2nd period writing, and 3rd period reading. A total of 3 classes.” 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-13 

Students with an Individual Education Plan or Limited-English Proficiency 

(Questionnaire for Current Teachers) 

Of all the students you teach at your current school, how many have an Individual Education Plan 

(IEP) because they have disabilities or are special education students? 

Feedback From Participants 

• One public school teacher and one private school teacher did not know the answer to this 

question. One entered zero because she did not know the answer, and the other asked researchers 

if she could leave it blank. 

• Other private school teachers were unsure about IEPs, because private schools usually do not 

have them. In particular, one private school mover told researchers that students who enter the 

school from a public school with IEPs have those educational plans rewritten upon admittance. 

He estimated his number from the percentage of the student body that has an individual learning 

profile. 

• One current special education teacher said, “Special education teachers should not have to answer 

this question; it should be obvious that all of their students have an IEP.” 

• The instruction indicates, “Enter zero if none.” One respondent who tried to write in the word 

“zero” had difficulty because it would not fit in the box. 

Recommendations 

o The question and corresponding responses should be changed to the following: 

“Of all the students you teach at your current school, what percent have an Individual Education 

Plan (IEP) because they have disabilities or are special education students?” 

 None 

 1–24% 

 25–49% 

 50–99% 

 100% 

Of all the students you teach at your current school, how many are of limited-English proficiency? 

Recommendations 

o The question and corresponding responses should be changed to the following: 

“Of all the students that you teach at your current school, what percent are of limited-English 

proficiency?” 

(Students of limited-English proficiency are those whose native or dominant language is other 

than English, and who have sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the 

English language as to deny them then opportunity to learn successfully in an English-speakingonly classroom.) 
D-14 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

 None 

 1–24% 

 25–49% 

 50–99% 

 100% 

Your Current School—Conditions and Experiences (Questionnaire for Current 

Teachers) 

Feedback From Participants 

• Of the 24 total respondents, 5 told researchers that they want a neutral response in between 

“Somewhat Agree” and “Somewhat Disagree.” 

o Respondent 13 left her answers blank when she felt indifferent about a question. 

o Respondent 11 wanted either a “Not Applicable” option or the scale modified. She thought 

that using the word “strongly” is too extreme while “somewhat” implies that something is 

wrong. She asked for something in between those two choices or to simply remove the word 

“somewhat” from the choices. 

• Respondent 21 was one of several private school teachers who commented that the terminology 

differences between the public and private schools made some of these questions difficult. At his 

school, a Dean is in charge of discipline, not a headmaster or principal. Therefore, questions 

about the principal enforcing school disciplinary policy were difficult to interpret. 

I worry about the security of my job because of the performance of my students on state and/or 

local tests. 

• Several respondents who taught in private schools mentioned that this does not apply to teachers 

at private schools. 

• Other private school teachers thought about “state and/or local tests” as standardized tests such as 

the Standford or Iowa test. 

State or district content standards have had a positive influence on my satisfaction with 

teaching. 

• Respondent 4, a private school teacher, interpreted “State or district” as Archdiocese. 

• Several respondents who taught in private schools mentioned that this does not apply to teachers 

at private schools. 

I am given the support I need to teach students with special needs. 

• Respondent 2 thought the phrase “special needs” was too ambiguous and needed to be further 

explained. 

Recommendations 

o Add the term “school head” for the private school teachers. 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-15 

o Add a “Not Applicable” or “N/A” option for the items “I worry about the security of my job 

because of the performance of my students on state and/or local tests” and “State or district 

content standards have had a positive influence on my satisfaction with teaching.” 

Student Problems (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) 

To the best of your knowledge how often do the following types of problems occur with students at 

your current school? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Generally, all items were understood. The items “use of alcohol,” “use of illegal drugs,” 

“possession of weapons,” “student racial tensions,” “student verbal abuse of teachers,” “student 

acts of disrespect for teachers,” and “gang activities,” however, did cause minor problems and are 

discussed in further detail below. 

• Respondents 4 and 17 did not feel qualified to answer some of these questions about the whole 

school “in general.” One mentioned that not every negative incident is broadcast to the whole 

school, so he knew only about situations involving his own students. Although these people were 

concerned about this, they were ultimately able to answer the questions for the whole school 

rather than just their own classrooms. 

• One respondent did not know the answers to some of these questions and chose “never happens” 

instead of leaving it blank. This could be a problem if people check off “never happens” when 

they are uncertain about the answer. 

Use of alcohol 

• Respondent 5 wanted to know if this refers to “use of alcohol at school” or “use of alcohol by 

students.” 

Use of illegal drugs 

• Respondent 5 wanted to know what kinds of drugs are referred to in the question. “Does this 

include prescription drugs?” 

Possession of weapons 

• Respondent 18 told researchers that the term “weapons” was vague. He gave the example of a 

student who had cut another student with a nail clipper; something that hardly seemed like a 

weapon. However, it was considered a weapon incident because the parents of the injured student 

pressed the issue. 

Student racial tensions 

• Respondent 17 said, “There is always a racial tension, i.e., comments always perceived 

differently because of race.” He did not think that this question fit in with the others like “use of 

illegal drugs,” which to him appear to be more “Bad.” He thought it was odd to say that racial 

tensions “happened” because they have always existed. 
D-16 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

• Respondent 8 defined “racial tensions” as including both interracial and intraracial between 

students and between students and teachers. 

• Respondent 21 considered racial tension to be incidences of racial epithets being used as well as 

the bullying that apparently takes place between older and younger Korean students. 

Student verbal abuse of teachers 

• Four respondents mentioned that they would lump together “student verbal abuse of teachers” 

and “student acts of disrespect for teachers.” They thought the two meant the same thing. Another 

respondent thought it would be good to classify them under an “insubordination” category. 

Student acts of disrespect for teachers 

• See above. 

Gang activities 

• Respondent 21 indicated that his school was very affluent. When he reached this section, he 

reported that there was some gang activity and noted that each student had been assigned to a 

cluster of classrooms that had its own name. Students started to identify with each cluster so 

much that rivalries developed between the clusters, and he remarked that the teachers wondered 

whether they had accidentally created gangs. The gang activity he was reporting was the rivalries 

between the clusters of classrooms. 

• Respondent 8 defined “gangs” simply as “organized groups.” 

• Respondent 2 reported on gang activities at the neighborhood level, rather than in the schools 

themselves. 

Recommendations 

o “Student verbal abuse of teachers” should be dropped, because it is a subset of the larger category 

“student acts of disrespect for teachers.” 

o The term “racial tensions” should be clarified to avoid misinterpretation. 

School Problems (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) 

To what extent is each of the following a problem at your current school? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Aside from “teacher absenteeism” and “poor student health,” all items were generally understood. 

Teacher absenteeism 

• Respondent 1 asked the researchers if this included attending educational classes and training 

sessions. 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-17 

Poor student health 

• Three of the 24 respondents were unsure which “health” reasons were included here. “Are they 

things like nutrition? Or are common colds included?” They found this question “unclear.” 

Although they were confused, all given interpretations of “health” seemed reasonable. 

Recommendations 

o This question should remain as it is. 

Attitudes Toward Teaching (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondent 20 mentioned that there should be a “neutral” option available for the respondent. 

If I could get a higher paying job I’d leave teaching as soon as possible. 

• Respondent 5 found this question “insulting.” She said, “It’s not just about money.” 

Recommendations 

o The previous questions have the scale “Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Somewhat Disagree, 

Strongly Disagree” whereas this question has the scale, “Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, 

Strongly Disagree.” The questions appear this way on SASS and should remain as they are to 

maintain consistency. 

Hours Working (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) 

How many total hours do you spend on ALL teaching and other school-related activities during a 

typical FULL WEEK at your current school? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondents 5 and 10 found that the answer box did not allow for a decimal answer. One of them 

suggested that the question should say “approximately” for clarification. The other suggested that 

there should be an instruction that says to “round to the nearest whole number.” 

Recommendations 

o There should be a note that says, “Round to the nearest whole number.” There should be an apple 

bullet on the paper survey that notes this below the question. 

o An error message should appear when the respondents report decimal answers, prompting them to 

round to the nearest whole number. 
D-18 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

How many hours are you required to work to receive base pay during a typical FULL WEEK at 

your current school? 

Recommendations 

o There should be a note that says, “Round to the nearest whole number.” There should be another 

apple bullet on the paper survey that notes this below the question. 

How many hours a week do you spend delivering instruction to a class of students? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondent 17 said that this is missing the phrase “FULL WEEK.” The previous two questions 

say it, but this one does not. This is inconsistent. 

Recommendations 

o There should be a note that says, “Round to the nearest whole number.” There should be another 

apple bullet on the paper survey that notes this below the question. 

o The reference period in this item is different from the previous two. The question should read, 

“How many hours during a typical FULL WEEK at this school do you spend delivering 

instruction to a class of students?” to maintain consistency. This question should not be changed 

for the 2004–05 TFS but should be changed for the next SASS. 

Extra Activities (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) 

During this school year, do you or will you— 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondents generally understood this question, aside from the following comments: 

Serve as a department lead or chair? 

• Respondent 13 mentioned that “department lead or chair” and “lead curriculum specialist” are 

often the same thing. 

Serve as a lead curriculum specialist? 

• Respondent 8 did not know what “lead curriculum specialist” meant. 

• See above. 

Recommendations 

o This question should remain as it is. If a teacher holds one of these positions, he or she should not 

be confused by the title. 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-19 

School Information (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) 

Please provide the following information about your current school. 

Feedback From Participants 

• Several respondents were confused by the difference between “county” and “school district.” 

Recommendations 

o This question should remain as it is. 

Decision to Leave 

Indicate the level of importance EACH of the following played in your decision to leave the 

TEACHING PROFESSION. (Questionnaire for Former Teachers) 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondents generally understood this question. There were a few problems with the items 

“health,” “to retire,” “to pursue another career,” and “to take courses to improve career 

opportunities WITHIN the field of education.” These are mentioned in further detail below. 

• Some respondents pointed out a usability issue. On certain browsers, the right-hand side of the 

page on “Decision to Leave” is cut off. 

Health 

• Every single respondent mentioned both “mental” and “physical” health: 

o Respondent 22 considered “health” to be a variety of issues, such as “mental health, physical 

health, diseases, and age-related health issues.” 

o Respondent 23 told researchers that “health” meant mental health, such as having a high 

workload, being stressed out, and experiencing sleep deprivation as well as physical health, 

such as her broken shoulder, which was the result of an injury in the classroom. 

To retire 

• Respondent 12 told researchers that she does not understand this. She guessed it meant “just for 

the sake of retiring” but thinks it is “strange” because she thinks people do not retire “just for the 

sake of retiring.” 

To pursue another career 

• Respondent 16, a former teacher who moved to an administrative position within the field of 

education, asked, “Is that a career change?” She thought about this for a while and then decided 

that administration “is another avenue within education.” 
D-20 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

To take courses to improve career opportunities WITHIN the field of education 

• Respondent 22 had a hard time understanding what these two education questions were asking. 

She wondered what kind of courses were being referenced. 

• Respondent 24 did not initially recognize the difference between these two questions. “Within” 

and “Outside” did not stand out to her. 

Recommendations 

• The question should be reworded to, “Indicate the level of importance EACH of the following 

played in your decision to leave your K–12 TEACHING POSITION.” 

• “To pursue another career” should be reworded and should include an example as, “To pursue a 

position other than that of a K–12 teacher.” 

From the items above, which do you consider the most important reason in your decision to leave 

the TEACHING PROFESSION? (Questionnaire for Former Teachers) 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondents 7, 22, and 23 had difficulty finding their exact reasons for leaving teaching: 

o Respondent 7 said that everyone had a “particular situation” and that perhaps a fill in the 

blank option would be useful for this question. 

o Before Respondent 22 looked back to find her “most important” reason, she first thought of 

what she would say and looked for it above. Her reason was that “an opportunity that was 

better just came along so she decided to take it.” She chose “to pursue another career,” which 

was the answer closest to her reason, although she was “not necessarily looking to change her 

career.” 

o Respondent 23 scrolled back to see if her entire reason was covered by any of the sections. 

She chose “dissatisfied with teaching as a career,” although this was not really her reason. 

Her reason was the extreme burden and time requirements that the career imposed on her. 

She mentioned that most people retire for these reasons, and it would be a good idea to 

include an option such as that one. 

Recommendations 

o The question should be reworded as, “From the items above, which do you consider the most 

important reason in your decision to leave your K–12 TEACHING POSITION.” 

Indicate the level of importance EACH of the following played in your decision to leave LAST 

YEAR’S SCHOOL. (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondent 5 was unable to find the exact reason for her move from the previous school. Her 

reason was “the students.” She ended up choosing “working conditions.” She told researchers that 

they should consider adding a question concerning the students. Or, there should be a space to 

write in an “other” answer. 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-21 

• On certain browsers, the “Extremely important” option was partly cut off by the edge of the 

screen, and it almost appeared as though there was a higher option to the right but no scroll bar to 

access it. 

Recommendations 

o “Students” should be added as an option for reasons for leaving last year’s school. 

o The page should be centered so that the options on the right-hand side of the screen are no longer 

cut off. 

Decision to Leave, Usability (Questionnaires for Current and Former Teachers) 

• A dropdown box and an entry box were both tested for this item. 

• The Questionnaire for Former Teachers version has an entry box and appears as: 

Feedback From Participants 

• Seven of the nine respondents who answered this question found it “easy” to enter the number of 

the most important reason in the box. 
D-22 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

• An additional respondent mentioned that it would be nice to have a list of options to choose from 

(as in the Questionnaire for Current Teachers version, shown below). Then she decided that she 

liked it the way it was on the survey because she had to scroll up and down and, by doing this, 

she reminded herself how she answered each of the above categories. She wanted to make sure 

that whatever she considered to be the most important reason was something that she rated as 

being extremely important above. 

• The remaining respondent would have preferred a list of choices from which to choose, rather 

than having to enter a number. She had to scroll up and reread everything, and then she 

accidentally typed in the incorrect numbered choice below and said, “If I had a list to choose 

from, I wouldn’t have made a mistake.” 

• The Questionnaire for Current Teachers version has a dropdown box: 

Feedback From Participants 

• None of the respondents had difficulty choosing their response from the dropdown box. 

Recommendations 

o The “decision to leave” item on both versions of TFS should have the dropdown box format, as it 

currently is on the Questionnaire for Current Teachers. The Questionnaire for Former Teachers 

format caused extraneous scrolling and erroneous reporting by the respondents. 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-23 

Principal’s Effectiveness (Questionnaires for Current and Former Teachers) 

Indicate how effectively your principal or school head performed each of the following at LAST 

YEAR’S SCHOOL. 

Feedback From Participants 

• One respondent noticed the previous order of agreeability was positive to negative. He mentioned 

that the order here should be going from left to right, “extremely effective” to “not at all 

effectively,” or positive to negative, to be consistent with previous items. 

• Halfway through the question, Respondent 9 noticed the importance of the word “effectively” and 

started answering the questions with respect to how effective the principal actually was at each of 

these things, rather than simply how hard he or she may have tried. 

• Some of the questions in the “Principal’s effectiveness” section did not apply to one respondent 

who was a private school leaver, who suggested that a “not applicable” option be available. For 

example, curriculum standards and student assessments were not an issue in his school. 

• One leaver had a hard time remembering her formal principal. She became confused because she 

still worked closely as a substitute teacher with her old school, which has a new principal. She 

also told the researchers that a lot of these questions were “bad” because they forced her to mark 

the principal down for issues that were not necessarily in the principal’s control. This is an 

example of “social desirability.” She did not want to respond negatively, even though the 

principal may have, in reality, been ineffective. 

Encouraged the teaching staff to use student assessment results in planning curriculum and 

instruction 

• Respondent 17 asked the researchers if “student assessment results” refer to standardized tests, in 

which case, this question did not apply to private school teachers. 

Facilitated and encouraged professional development activities of teachers 

• Most respondents considered workshops to be the best example of “professional development 

activities.” 

Recommendations 

o In the next administration of SASS, the order of agreeability should be kept consistent throughout 

the survey. 

o The reference period should be clarified. The question should read, “Indicate how effectively 

your principal or school head performed each of the following at LAST SCHOOL YEAR’S 

SCHOOL.” 

o Some of the items mentioned in this question were not necessarily the principal’s duty. For this 

reason, a “not applicable” option should be available to respondents. 
D-24 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Satisfaction with Current Position (Questionnaires for Current and Former 

Teachers) 

How would you rate your CURRENT teaching position relative to LAST YEAR’S teaching position 

in terms of each of the following aspects? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Generally, all items were understood, with the exception of a few which caused some problems. 

These problems are mentioned below. 

Salary 

• Five of the current teachers told researchers that salaries do increase, but only by the slight 

amount that is the cost of living adjustment or simply moving up the pay scale from year to year. 

This increase is not due to teachers getting raises. These respondents found this question 

irrelevant, and marked “no better no worse.” One respondent mentioned this fact, but still 

responded with “better in current position” because of the slight adjustment. 

Benefits (e.g., health insurance, retirement plan) 

• One respondent was confused about what sorts of things were included in “Benefits.” The 

examples “threw her off” because they included only “health insurance and retirement plan.” She 

asked researchers if things like “time off and sick leave” were included in this benefits category. 

• One respondent was able to describe the differences in benefits at the same school between the 2 

years. 

Opportunities for professional ADVANCEMENT or PROMOTION 

• Stayers interpreted “opportunities for professional advancement or promotion” only in the context 

of education, whereas leavers interpreted it in a much more general sense: 

o To one stayer, “Professional Advancement or Promotion” meant gaining increased rank, such 

as moving from a teacher to an assistant principal, and gaining additional responsibilities, 

which would essentially be leaving teaching. 

o To one leaver, “opportunities for professional advancement or promotion” was interpreted as 

“moving to a position of autonomy and higher money, receiving more flexible hours, and 

becoming a mentor to others.” 

• All leavers said that their “opportunities for professional advancement or promotion” were better 

in their new careers. This might be a question that mostly applies to leavers since teachers have 

little room for promotion. 

Opportunities for professional DEVELOPMENT 

• Most respondents mentioned that “professional development” meant attending various types of 

workshops. 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-25 

Social relationships with colleagues 

• Stayers and leavers interpreted this question the same way: 

o One stayer said, “sharing materials, socializing outside school, and getting along together” 

were characteristics of a “social relationship with a colleague.” 

o Another stayer said a “social relationship with a colleague” meant “how she socially interacts 

and how social and friendly they are both in and out of the workplace.” 

o One leaver said that “social relationships” had many different meanings; she mentioned that 

this type of relationship could be strictly in school or both in and out of school. She gave 

some examples such as getting lunch together, getting a drink together after school, getting 

together on weekends, and getting their families together. 

o Respondent 16, a former teacher who now works in education as an administrator, defined 

“social relationships” as “How I interact with other teachers...going out to lunch with 

people...how friendly people are.” 

Safety of environment 

• Respondents had varied interpretations of what “safety of environment” meant. They appeared to 

think of it in terms of the students and others who surrounded them on a daily basis rather than as 

maintenance and building issues: 

o A stayer interpreted an aspect of “safety of environment” as “an environment in which 

autistic children and children with attention deficit disorder were in the classroom with the 

other students.” 

o Another stayer interpreted “safety of environment” as “whether or not the school itself is a 

safe and orderly environment, not the building condition and cleanliness.” 

o One leaver interpreted “safety of environment” as ranging from a secured building that not 

just anyone can simply enter to the presence of surprises and whether every day was the 

same. 

o Another leaver thought that “safety of environment” factored in the number of people around 

on a day-to-day basis, and the fact that students were often highly emotional and came with a 

lot of “baggage” whereas people in the office were more mature and could handle situations 

better. 

o Another leaver thought that “safety of environment” involved “the behavior of students.” 

Professional prestige 

• Stayers interpreted “professional prestige” in the context of their school’s prestige, whereas 

leavers interpreted it as position related: 

o One stayer said, “It has to do with scores on Standards of Learning or school recognition.” 

o Another stayer said “professional prestige” meant that “when I tell people where I teach, they 

say, ‘WOW! That’s a really good school.’” 

o A third stayer said that “professional prestige” meant the “personal prestige of being able to 

work in various schools with various economic backgrounds.” 

o One leaver described “professional prestige” as whether people admired and respected you 

when you told them what your career was. 

o One leaver mentioned that “professional prestige” involved saying “I am a substitute teacher” 

versus “I am a teacher” because people assume that others want a full-time job, and saying 

that you are a substitute teacher makes them think that you cannot get a full-time job. 

o A third leaver thought that “professional prestige” had to do with the fact that in her current 

position people “look up to her because her job is to help meet a lot of their needs.” 
D-26 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Procedures for performance evaluation 

• Two leavers were confused and did not answer this question. This was because they were 

working at jobs where their “performance evaluations” were not clearly defined, and they were 

unaware of the evaluation process or if they were being evaluated at all. 

Ability to balance family and work 

• Respondent 11 was unsure how to answer “ability to balance family and work” because she was a 

nun. She felt this would not apply so much to single people. The word “family” is an exclusive 

word. 

General work conditions 

• “General work conditions” is a very broad term and was interpreted in a number of different ways 

by the respondents: 

o Respondent 2 interpreted “general work conditions” as “safety and the school’s physical 

condition.” 

o Respondent 13 said “general work conditions” meant “safety of environment.” 

o Respondent 23 mentioned that her current position in substitute teaching had better “general 

work conditions” because she could pick and choose where she wanted to work, which was 

more satisfying. 

o Respondent 16 mentioned that her current “general work conditions” were better because her 

office had A/C and classrooms do not and also because she can call in sick without having to 

find a substitute now. 

• Two of the respondents above included the word “safety” in their definitions of “general work 

conditions.” This, along with an additional respondent, who mentioned that “general work 

conditions” and “safety of environment” were very similar to one another, suggested that there is 

some overlap in these two terms. 

Intellectual challenge 

• Three respondents were unsure of what “intellectual challenge” meant. 

• Stayers and leavers generally interpreted this question the same way: 

o A stayer interpreted “intellectual challenge” as “figuring out how each individual student 

learns best. Since every student is different, I have to find new ways to get them to learn how 

to read.” 

o A leaver talked about the “challenge of finding different ways to get students excited.” (She 

also discussed “having to think more about how to spend her time, or time management,” but 

this involved her new career, unrelated to teaching.) 

• However, other respondents had very different ways of defining “intellectual challenge.” 

o A stayer interpreted “intellectual challenge” as “working on a consortium and defining ‘best 

practices’ for the National Board Certification.” 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-27 

Sense of personal accomplishment 

• Stayers and leavers generally interpreted this question the same way: 

o One respondent defined personal accomplishment as “how I feel at the end of the year. Was I 

effective?” 

o Another respondent defined “personal accomplishment” as his “opportunity to make a 

difference in the lives of others.” He mentioned that this was now going to be enhanced in his 

new position as regional Technology Learning Coordinator because he would influence a 

larger number of children. 

Recommendations 

o In the phrase “ability to balance family and work,” the word “family” should be changed to 

“personal life” to make this question more applicable to those who are single. 

o If the question about “professional prestige” is really asking about the “professional prestige of 

teaching,” it should explicitly say this to avoid the different interpretations by stayers and leavers. 

Also, asking about a stayer’s “professional prestige” may not yield the correct information. If a 

teacher has remained in the same job at the same school for the past 2 years, his or her 

“professional prestige” should not have changed. 

Job Satisfaction (Questionnaire for Former Teachers) 

Thinking about all the factors that influence your job satisfaction, overall, how satisfied are you 

with your current position relative to teaching? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondent 22 understood this question up to the point of “relative to teaching”; these three 

words confused her. She had no idea what the question was actually asking and then thought 

about it for 5 minutes. She said we should either get rid of these three words or change them to 

“compared to teaching.” 

Recommendations 

o The question should be worded, “Thinking about all the factors that influence your job 

satisfaction, overall, how satisfied are you with your current position compared to that of a K–12 

teacher?” 

College Courses—Enrollment, Type, Reason for Taking (Questionnaires for 

Current and Former Teachers) 

Have you enrolled in college or university courses since the end of last school year? 

Feedback From Participants 

• There were many more leavers who were enrolled in college or university courses than there were 

stayers. 

• The respondents’ interpretations of “enrolled” were generally uniform. All respondents included 

the fact that they had to “pay” to be enrolled. 
D-28 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

o One respondent “paid money to take some course that would lead to some sort of 

certification,” which meant he was enrolled. 

o Another respondent defined “enrolled” as getting into a university and paying and signing up 

for classes. 

Recommendations 

o This question should remain as it is. 

Which of the following best describes your enrollment in these courses? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondent 13 was enrolled in college courses to obtain her doctorate. She told the researchers 

that the responses of “vocational certificate program, associate degree granting program and 

bachelor’s degree granting program” were “insulting” to her. She thought these should be 

eliminated because, assuming the user was already a teacher, he or she should already have 

something like a BA or Associate’s degree. Aside from this comment, she had no difficulty 

answering the question. 

• Four respondents had difficulty choosing the correct response to this question: 

o There was no category that exactly matched Respondent 3’s situation. He was taking classes 

towards certification in an e-commerce program, a skill set that included Oracle, Java, and 

SQL. He incorrectly chose the “Certificate of Advanced Graduate Studies program” response, 

but he said it was only a “guess.” He probably should have chosen the “vocational certificate 

program.” 

o Respondent 16 was confused by the phrase “education specialist.” She was trying to obtain a 

certificate in “Administration” and thought that this might apply to her because she already 

had a master’s degree and this option was also 1 year beyond the master’s. She suggested that 

“Education Specialist” be capitalized to indicate that it was, “in fact,” a specific degree. She 

also thought that there should be examples for “Professional Degree.” 

o Respondent 19 had difficulty selecting which type of enrollment she had. She wanted to 

become a counselor in Virginia, which required obtaining a national certificate. This typically 

takes 1 year beyond a Master’s. She had a hard time choosing between “Master’s degree,” 

“Educational specialist or professional diploma,” and “Certificate of Advanced Graduate 

studies program.” She mentioned that these options were not clear and suggested that there be 

an “Other” box, where the user had the opportunity to type in what his or her enrollment was. 

o Respondent 22 was enrolled in courses to obtain an “advanced professional” certificate. This 

was not one of her options, so she first chose “Certificate of Advanced Graduate Studies,” 

thinking it was the closest option. Then she thought about her choice and did not know if 

“Certificate of Advanced Graduate Studies” included teaching, so she settled on “individual 

courses” and changed her answer. 

Recommendations 

o The difference between “Education specialist or professional diploma” and “certificate of 

advanced studies program” should be clarified. This item will not be changed on the 2004–05 

TFS but should be changed on the next SASS. 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-29 

Which of the following best describes the reason you enrolled in these courses? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Before respondents saw this question, researchers asked each to describe, in their own words, 

why they enrolled in the course. 

• Four respondents had difficulty finding their reasons for enrollment in these courses. In some 

cases, several of the responses were correct for an individual respondent, and in others, the given 

responses seemed insufficient: 

o Respondent 3 chose that he was obtaining a certificate “for use in a position outside the field 

of education” but told researchers that this response was not entirely true. His next job would 

involve both consulting and training, both of which involve some sort of education. He felt as 

though the question did not provide him sufficient choices from which to choose. 

o Respondent 18 enrolled in courses that would lead to a Ph.D., something he wanted because 

he was the first in his family to go to college and felt that by getting a Ph.D. he would “raise 

the bar” for his son. He also had a long-term goal of being a superintendent. When he saw the 

available options, he settled on the “For reasons unrelated to obtaining or using in a job” 

because he felt that his main reason was personal in nature. He suggested that there be the 

option to choose more than one response here. 

o Respondent 7 wanted to “learn another language and increase her general marketability.” She 

said, “all of the choices describe me equally, and no single choice presents the entirely best 

reason for my enrollment.” Her courses were language courses, which “are useful almost 

everywhere these days.” She suggested that a scale of importance might be more useful here. 

Recommendations 

o There are situations where the respondent selected “For reasons unrelated to obtaining or for 

using in a job (e.g., personal fulfillment)” for the “personal fulfillment” aspect, when the 

respondent did, in fact, use the courses in his or her job. To avoid these situations from occurring, 

another question should be added and should follow this one, just to make sure that the course is, 

in fact, completely non-work related. The question should read as follows: 

“Are these courses useful in your current position?” 

 Yes 

 No 

Return to Teaching (Questionnaire for Former Teachers) 

Would you consider returning to K–12 teaching? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondent 12 mentioned that she would like to return to K–12 teaching, but indicated that she 

cannot in the state of Maryland because she is drawing from a pension. The question was not 

applicable to her. She marked “No,” when she should have marked “Yes” and gone to the 

question “Indicate how important each factor would be in influencing your decision to return to 

teaching.” This question specifically asks about “ability to maintain your teacher retirement 

benefits,” which is where her issue comes up in the survey. 
D-30 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

• Respondent 16 reread this question several times because it was confusing for her situation. 

When she discussed this item with researchers, she said, “I have not left teaching. I left the 

classroom. Being an administrator in a school is still teaching.” 

Recommendations 

o This question should be worded, “Would you consider returning to the position of a K–12 

teacher?” 

At what level would you most like to teach? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Three respondents had difficulty in deciding at which level they would like to teach. All of them 

were indifferent between “junior high” and “senior high.” One of these respondents suggested 

that the response options to this question could be broken up into just two choices: elementary 

and secondary. 

Recommendations 

o This question should remain as it is. 

Indicate how important each factor would be in influencing your decision to return to teaching. 

Recommendations 

o This question should be reworded, “Indicate how important each factor would be in influencing 

your decision to return to the position of a K–12 teacher.” 

Would any factors other than the ones listed above influence your decision to return to teaching? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondent 9 felt obliged to answer this section. She thought about this for several minutes, and 

it appeared that she was searching for additional reasons that were not necessarily of significant 

importance to her. 

Recommendations 

o This question should be reworded, “Would any factors other than the ones listed above influence 

your decision to return to the position of a K–12 teacher?” 

o There should be a skip pattern on this question. The question should appear as it is now, without 

the spaces for “list up to two factors.” If the respondent answers “yes” to this question, he or she 

should be directed to a new question that says, “List up to two factors that influenced your 

decision to return to the position of a K–12 teacher.” 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-31 

What is the LOWEST teaching salary you would accept to return to teaching? 

Feedback From Participants 

• “Salary” was unclear to two respondents. 

o Respondent 7 aksed, “Are you gonna give me anything else? What about benefits?” She 

paused for a moment, and while she was pausing she thought about how much she would 

accept solely in terms of money, no benefits included. 

o Respondent 9 did not know whether to enter a take-home amount, or a salary as documented 

in her contract. Distinguishing this seemed very important to her, as she mentioned it several 

other times during the interview. 

Recommendations 

o This question should be reworded, “What is the LOWEST teaching salary you would accept to 

return to the position of a K–12 teacher?” 

o Add a note to indicate they should provide the lowest salary they would accept to return to the 

position of a K–12 teacher, not including benefits. 

How soon might you return to teaching? 

Feedback From Participants 

• All of the respondents who answered this question preferred to have the years broken down into 

school years rather than calendar years. 

• One respondent mentioned that the gap between 2005 and 2010 seemed large and that we may 

want to consider breaking it down further. 

Recommendations 

o This question should be reworded, “How soon might you return to the position of a K–12 

teacher?” 

o There should be commas added to the numbers in the error messages. 

Remain in This Job (Questionnaire for Former Teachers) 

How long do you plan to remain in this job? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondent 16 asked researchers, “Do they mean job or field?” She then answered for field 

because she thought the question was asking in the “long term,” and she indicated that she would 

remain in this field “until I am eligible for retirement” option. 

• Respondent 22 was indifferent between several different choices and wanted to be able to choose 

more than one here. 
D-32 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

• One respondent mentioned that the “until I am eligible for Social Security benefits” choice is a bit 

tricky. This is because if someone is past the age of 62, he or she is eligible for Social Security 

benefits. However, benefits are provided at a reduced rate from age 62 to 65, which means that 

there are two types of Social Security benefits for which one is eligible: reduced and full. 

Respondent 23 wanted this to be specified, because she was already eligible but would not collect 

Social Security until age 65 and planned on teaching until then. 

Recommendations 

o This question should be reworded, “How long do to plan to remain in your current position?” 

Remain in Teacher (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) 

How long do you plan to remain in K–12 teaching? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondent 13 suggested that the question should ask, “How long do you plan to remain in K–12 

education” rather than “teaching.” She was trying to move up to the rank of assistant principal, so 

she did not know how to answer the question properly. 

• Respondent 21 asked the researchers whether “K–12 teaching” would include being an 

administrator at a “K–12 school.” 

Recommendations 

o This question should be reworded as “How long do you plan to remain a K–12 teacher?” to avoid 

this confusion of field versus position. 

Attempt to Leave (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) 

In the last 12 months, have you applied for a job in attempt to leave K–12 teaching? 

Recommendations 

o This question should be reworded, “In the last 12 months, have you applied for a job in attempt to 

leave the position of a K–12 teacher?” 

Retired from Teaching (Questionnaire for Former Teachers) 

Do you consider yourself to be retired from K–12 teaching? 

Feedback From Participants 

• The nine respondents defined “retired” in very different ways. To some, the term seemed unclear 

and confusing. 

o Respondent 3 was “retired” from teaching because he “did not plan on ever returning” in the 

future. 

o Respondent 7 thought “retired” was misleading because it made her think of “old” teachers 

who had been teaching for a long time. 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-33 

o Respondent 9 contradicted herself several times when talking about being “retired.” She 

thought people were “retired” when they were “old and ending their career.” But, she 

considered herself being “retired” at age 26. She later told us that she is considering returning 

to teaching as soon as the next school year, which would suggest that she was not retired. She 

seemed confused about what the word meant. 

o Respondent 12 did not initially consider herself “retired” in early questions due to her 

substitute teaching, but here said she was “retired” because she was drawing income from a 

retirement plan and could spend her time doing whatever she wanted to do. 

o Respondent 16 thought that the question was asking, “Do I see myself as retired from 

education?” She answered “no,” although it was unlikely she would return to teaching. 

o Respondent 19 defined “retired” as “never going back to teaching again” and mentioned that 

people do not necessarily have to be old to retire and that she did not consider herself retired 

from teaching because she planned on returning after grad school. 

o Respondent 22 defined “retire” as “going through the formal process of filling out retirement 

papers.” 

o Respondent 23 had a full-time teaching career of 40 years and was currently a substitute 

teacher. In her jurisdiction, substitutes are considered to be “active members,” and active 

members are not considered “retired.” 

o Respondent 24 defined “retired” as “will never do it again.” 

Recommendations 

o There was a lot of discrepancy within the definition of “retired.” Each would yield different 

results. The definition should be clarified. 

At what age did you retire from K–12 teaching? 

Recommendations 

o The question should be worded, “At what age did you retire from the position of a K–12 

teacher?” 

Pensions, Retirement Systems, and Employer-Sponsored Plans 

This section consisted of a series of four questions about pensions, retirement systems, and employersponsored plans. A surprisingly low number of respondents understood what plans and retirement options 

were available to them. Even in cases where the respondent had been participating in or collecting from 

such plans, they did not have a full understanding of the type of plan in which they were enrolled. 

Are you currently collecting a pension from a teacher retirement system? (Questionnaires for 

Current and Former Teachers) 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondents 6 and 13 told researchers the order of these questions should be reconsidered. One 

said that the salary questions should come before the retirement/pension questions. The other told 

researchers that the order of the pension questions should be reversed. She said that the user 

should be asked first, “Are you currently participating in a teacher retirement system pension 

plan?” and then “Are you currently collecting a pension from a teacher retirement system?” 
D-34 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Recommendations 

o Either put the word “collecting” in bold font or all capital letters to make sure that the respondent 

does not confuse this question with the next one, which asks if the respondent is “participating” in 

the same plan. 

Based on your years of teaching to date, are you eligible to collect a pension from a teacher 

retirement system in the future? (Questionnaire for Former Teachers) 

Feedback From Participants 

• Seven of the nine leavers associated a certain number of years with eligibility “to collect a 

pension from a teacher retirement system.” Many of the leavers already responded to this 

question when asked previously, “Are you currently participating in a teacher retirement system 

pension plan?” 

• Two respondents seemed confused about what the question was asking. For instance, one 

respondent thought “eligible for retirement” simply meant, “if you were employed by a school 

system and filled out all the paperwork to collect one.” 

Are you currently participating in a teacher retirement system pension plan? (Questionnaire for 

Current Teachers) 

Feedback From Participants 

• Some respondents showed an understanding of “pension” and “teacher retirement system.” These 

respondents gave examples to the researchers about their specific plans. Researchers found that 

the respondents had slightly less difficulty answering these questions when they knew some 

information about their own plans: 

o One private school stayer mentioned that she did not participate in this type program; she 

thought that there were options available through the Archdiocese, part of a benefit package 

that included life insurance. The respondent estimated that retirees from her school received 

roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of their salary as a retirement package. 

o One private school leaver understood the term pension. She told the researchers that her 

Archdiocese offered a pension in which teachers were eligible after 1 year, and the 

archdiocese contributed 4 percent of her salary to this pension fund. 

o One respondent asked, “like an IRA?” She seemed to understand the difference between a 

pension and a 401(k)/403(b) employer-sponsored plan. She told the researchers that they have 

a TIAA-CREF plan and explained a bit about pensions, but she indicated that she was not that 

familiar with all of the benefits. 

o Of the total 24 respondents, 4 thought that a “teacher retirement system pension plan” was the 

same thing as an “employer-sponsored 401(k) or 403(b) plan.” Some respondents mentioned 

that their pension plan was a 403(b), and some mentioned specific plans, such as a “thrift 

savings plan” or TIAA-CREF. 

• Many respondents showed very minimal understanding of “pension” and “teacher retirement 

system” and gave very broad definitions of what they thought these terms meant. Others admitted 

that they did not know much about these things. Respondents had more difficulty answering these 

questions when they did not know any information about their own “teacher retirement system 

pension plan”: 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-35 

o Respondent 14 admitted to the researchers that she did not know much about “retirement 

system pension plan.” She was not contributing to one when she was working part time. She 

mentioned that they took out a small amount from each check for this. 

o Respondent 20 told the researchers that he would have liked more of an explanation about 

“teacher retirement system pension plan” on these questions. 

o Respondent 19 defined “pension” to be when a person was paid after a certain number of 

years working, even when that person had stopped working all together. 

• When responding to this question, five of the nine leavers mentioned both whether they were 

collecting a pension and whether they were eligible to collect one, which was actually asked in 

the next Questionnaire for Former Teachers question. 

o Respondent 3 told researchers that he was not yet collecting a pension and that he was 

eligible to collect one due to the fact that he was vested for more than the minimum number 

of years required in order to collect a pension. 

o Respondent 7 was neither collecting a pension nor eligible to collect a pension. She said this 

was because she was formerly teaching part time, and a person had to be fully employed for 

at least 3 years before becoming eligible. 

o Respondent 9 thought that a pension was “collecting money for years of service.” She did not 

offer specific details about pensions and went on to mention that people were not eligible for 

retirement until they had been working full time for 5 years. 

Recommendations 

o Either put the word “participating” in bold font or in all capital letters to make sure that the 

respondent does not confuse this question with the previous one, which asks if the respondent is 

“collecting” from the same plan. 

Are you currently drawing money from an employer-sponsored 401(k) or 403(b) plan which 

includes funds you contributed as a teacher? (Questionnaires for Current and Former Teachers) 

Feedback From Participants 

• One respondent told researchers that the order of the employer-sponsored plan questions should 

be reversed. She said that the user should be asked first “Are you currently contributing to an 

employer-sponsored 401(k) or 403(b) plan?” and then “Are you currently drawing money from 

an employer-sponsored 401(k) or 403(b) plan which includes funds you contributed as a 

teacher?” 

• Two respondents told the researchers that a 401(k) plan was irrelevant to them because this 

option was very rarely available to teachers. One respondent mentioned that a 403(b) plan was 

common but that the term “Tax Sheltered Annuities,” or TSA, was an option with which most 

teachers would be familiar. Two others mentioned that TIAA-CREF was a common plan. 

• Respondents 17 and 19 thought that these two 401(k) questions were essentially asking the same 

thing. Respondent 19 answered yes that she was drawing from a 401(k) plan, even though this 

was not the case; she had only been contributing to one. 
D-36 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Recommendations 

o Put the word “drawing” either in bold font or in all capital letters to make sure that the respondent 

does not confuse this question with the next one, which asks if the respondent is “contributing” to 

the same plan. 

Are you currently contributing to an employer-sponsored 401(k) or 403(b) plan? (Questionnaires 

for Current and Former Teachers) 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondents who had little difficulty answering these questions and showed some understanding 

of “employer-sponsored plan” usually knew some information about their specific plans and gave 

some examples to researchers: 

o Respondent 16 had a 403(b) plan with T. Rowe Price. She clearly understood the difference 

between a 403(b) and a pension. She was also eligible for a “small” pension from her former 

school. 

o One respondent was contributing to a plan. She explained to us that, if she contributed to this 

type of plan, the employer would give her up to 5 percent based on tenure. She said this was 

like getting “free money.” She seemed to understand the concept fairly well. 

• Other respondents, who showed little to no understanding of what an “employer-sponsored plan” 

was, gave very broad definitions of what they thought it meant. Some admitted to researchers that 

they were very confused by this concept: 

o One respondent thought that “401(k) and 403(b)” should be changed to “retirement.” She did 

not understand the difference between a “retirement plan” and “employer-sponsored plan.” 

o Another respondent interpreted “employer-sponsored plan” as when “an employer is putting 

in money towards retirement by either matching money or just putting it into a retirement 

fund.” 

o Respondent 22 did not know whether she contributed to an employee-sponsored plan. She 

said “no,” then switched her response to “yes.” She seemed confused. 

o Respondent 24 said that a 401(k) was when “a company offers to contribute money to you.” 

She had one at her last job and rolled it over into a bank recently. 

o When asked about a 401(k) or 403(b) employer-sponsored plan, Respondent 9 told 

researchers that she was not sure if the plan she was involved in was employer-sponsored. 

She also mentioned that there was no employer matching was taking place. There had been 

some money coming out of her paycheck, but she did not think that it was a 401(k) type of 

plan; she was considered a public servant, and she thought that 401(k) plans were only for 

those working in private enterprises. 

o Respondent 21 answered “no” here but had to call someone to find out whether the TIAACREF was a 401(k) or 403(b). His business office described the plan as a “mutual fund” 

when in all likelihood it was a 403(b). 

Recommendations 

o Put the word “contributing” either in bold font or in all capital letters to make sure that the 

respondent does not confuse this question with the next one, which asks if the respondent is 

“drawing” from the same plan. 

o Consider putting the TIAA-CREF here as an example because this is a 403(b) to which teachers 

commonly contribute. 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-37 

General Recommendations 

o A surprisingly low number of respondents understood what these terms meant, even in cases 

where they had been participating in or collecting from such plans; they did not have a full 

understanding of these items. These four questions should be turned into three general questions 

concerning “teacher retirement systems”: 

“Are you currently collecting a pension from a teacher retirement system or drawing money 

from a school or system sponsored 401(k) or 403(b) plan which includes funds you 

contributed as a teacher?” 

And 

“Are you currently contributing to a teacher retirement system or a school or system 

sponsored 401(k) or 403(b) plan which includes funds you contributed as a teacher?” 

And 

“Is your school or system currently contributing to a teacher retirement system or a school or 

system sponsored 401(k) or 403(b) plan on your behalf?” 

Earnings (Questionnaire for Former Teachers) 

What are your estimated annual before-tax earnings at this job? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondent 12 typed in “1200.00,” which led to an error because the decimal place should not 

have been included; she never noticed the “.00” text after the text box. Then, she finished the 

page and clicked Save & Next. This caused the page to reload with a warning at the top but she 

did not notice it. She also never noticed the “Ignore Problems” check box at the bottom of the 

page. 

Recommendations 

o There should be an instruction to “Report in whole dollars only.” This will avoid the error of 

respondents entering decimals. 

Do you have any other earned income? 

Feedback From Participants 

• One respondent was unsure if “other earned income” included other things that related to teaching 

but were paid for separately, such as training, etc. She included this here and estimated $2,000, 

although she noted that the amount was very different from one year to the next. 

Recommendations 

o This question should remain as it is. 
D-38 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Earnings (Questionnaire for Current Teachers) 

The following questions refer to your before-tax earnings from teaching and other employment. 

DURING THE SUMMER OF 2004, did you have any earnings from: 

Teaching summer school in your current or any other school? 

Working in any NONSCHOOL job? 

Feedback From Participants 

• One respondent marked “yes” that she had received such earnings but then did not fill in the box. 

She may not have noticed it. 

Recommendations 

o Currently, a respondent is able to key in data without clicking the “yes” radio button first. This 

should not be allowed. The user should only be permitted to enter data into this box if he or she 

clicks “yes” first. 

o Line the “yes” box up with the open fill box, and move them closer to one another. 

DURING THE CURRENT SCHOOL YEAR, what is your academic year base teaching salary? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Two respondents typed in a salary with the decimal points, even though .00 is included beside the 

box. Neither noticed this. An error message was displayed, and both respondents fixed the 

problem. 

Recommendations 

o There should be a note that says, “Report in whole dollars only” to avoid the error of respondents 

entering decimals here. 

Family (Questionnaires for Current and Former Teachers) 

Which category represents the total combined income of ALL FAMILY MEMBERS in your 

household during 2004? 

Feedback From Participants 

• None of the respondents with children included their incomes “because they made so little money 

that it would not affect the household income.” 

Recommendations 

o This question should remain as it is. 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-39 

How many family members were living in your household during 2004? 

• Respondent 4 suggested that this series of questions be combined into one question that asks 

“How many family members were living in your household during 2004?” then, “of these, how 

many were under the age of 5?” 

• Four of the respondents who lived alone and considered themselves “single” did not include 

themselves in the number of family members living in their households and entered “0.” One of 

these respondents specifically asked the researchers if she should include herself. 

• All but one of the respondents who had roommates did not count them as members of their 

households. The one respondent who did was a nun, who included the five other sisters in her 

house. 

• Respondents 12 and 18 had additional relatives living in their homes and did not consider them 

members of their households. They included only “immediate family members, such as spouses 

and children.” 

• All respondents with college-aged children who did not live at home still considered them to be 

members of their households. One reason was because, as Respondent 22 told the researchers, 

“even though my two children do not physically live with me, I support them financially 100 

percent.” 

Recommendations 

o This question should be worded, “Including yourself, how many family members were living in 

your household during 2004?” 

o An error message for entries of “0” should be added. 

On December 31, 2003, what was your marital status? 

Feedback From Participants 

• When the majority of “not married” respondents saw this question, they all immediately 

responded “single” before reading the response choices. It seems as though this is the 

classification they were expecting in the response choices. 

• One respondent defined himself as “divorced,” but mentioned that he wanted to define himself as 

something different such as “single” because he did not like the title “divorced.” 

Recommendations 

o “December” should be in all capital letters to make the difference between this question and the 

next question more obvious to respondents. 
D-40 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

What is your current marital status? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Two respondents did not notice the difference between these two marriage questions. They said, 

“Those are the same question.” 

Recommendations 

o “Current” should be in all capital letters to make the difference between this question and the 

previous question more obvious to respondents. 

Living with a Partner (Questionnaires for Current and Former Teachers) 

Are you currently living with a partner? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Ten respondents who took this survey were either not married or divorced. Half of them talked 

specifically about sexual orientation, while the other half defined this term in a very broad sense. 

Two examples include: 

o One respondent defined “partner” as a person who is a “sort of romantic partner” with whom 

she “shares all the bills.” 

o Another respondent told researchers “partner” meant “someone whom she is romantically 

involved with, or a gay or lesbian partner.” She mentioned that this is a good word because it 

hits on every kind of relationship. 

• All respondents agreed that a roommate would not be considered a partner because a roommate is 

not someone whom you are “romantically involved with.” 

• Respondent 2 said that “partner” is defined too broadly, but she saw it as meaning in a 

“homosexual sense.” She mentioned that this might be a very sensitive question for others to 

answer. Researchers wondered if this was the only way she was interpreting “partner,” so they 

asked her whether she would consider herself living with a partner if her fiancé lived with her, 

and she said “yes.” 

Recommendations 

o This question should remain as it is. 

Internet (Questionnaires for Current and Former Teachers) 

Why did you choose to complete the interview on the paper questionnaire rather than on the 

Internet? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Of the 24 total respondents, 23 would choose to use the Internet because it was more convenient, 

quicker, and easier than the alternative. 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-41 

• The one respondent who did not prefer the internet option mentioned that she was 

“technologically handicapped” and would not have even taken the survey at all if she knew it was 

on the Internet. She also had very bad eyesight and had immense difficulty reading the survey 

questions and answers on the screen, which contributed to her aversion to the internet survey. 

• Several of these respondents mentioned that “older people might prefer to use the paper version 

because of lack of technological ability.” 

Did you use a computer at home, work, or elsewhere to complete this questionnaire? 

Feedback From Participants 

• There were very mixed responses about whether the respondent would complete this 

questionnaire at home or work. 

• Five stayers would complete it at home because, “the e-mail at work is to be used only for schoolrelated business, and even though this questionnaire has to do with education, it would not be 

considered school related or work related.” 

• Of nine leavers, six would complete this survey at work, one would be indifferent between 

completing this survey at home or work, and two would complete it at home. One respondent 

would have taken it at work rather than at home, because “most offices these days provide 

computers and Internet.” Another respondent would complete the survey at work and said, “I 

spend most of my time there, anyways.” 

Did you encounter any problems using the Internet questionnaire? 

Feedback From Participants 

• The majority of respondents thought “problems” meant technical problems, such as “freezing or 

not properly going on to the next page,” rather than interpretation questions. One respondent told 

researchers that this should be broken down into two questions: one about navigating the 

questionnaire and one about interpreting the questions. 

Contact Information (Questionnaires for Current and Former Teachers) 

The survey you have completed may involve a brief follow-up at a later time in order to gain 

additional information on teachers’ movements in the labor force. The following information would 

assist us in contacting you if you have moved or changed jobs. 

Feedback From Participants 

• Nine respondents had difficulty understanding and reading (###-###-####). One respondent 

suggested that an actual number (e.g., 222-222-2222) be used here as an example because the 

number signs are difficult to read because they blur together. Another respondent mentioned that 

the example should be below the phone number box to make it more visible to users. 

• Respondent 11 was not sure if the home or school address was wanted. 
D-42 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

• Respondent 7 thought that it was unclear whether she had to simply check the “my name” box or 

check the box and retype the name. She retyped it the first time she went through a contact 

information page, but she did not do it anymore on the next two series of information. 

• Respondent 12, a user with bad eyesight, could not read the contact information, especially in the 

areas in which she was typing. 

• Respondent 22 would never give out her mobile phone number because “if someone calls her, she 

has to pay for it.” 

Recommendations 

o NOTE: Respondents had some problems with the telephone number format, but this edit was 

removed from the survey. 

o The “Specify name” box should be moved up next to the “Other” check box. If this cannot be 

done, then “Specify name” should be replaced by, “If other, specify name.” 

What are the names and addresses of two other people who would know where to get in touch with 

you during the coming years? 

Feedback From Participants 

• Respondents 1 and 2 were irritated that they had to fill in the contact information about two 

additional people because the information was not handy, and it was inconvenient to have to 

leave the room to look up this information. Respondent 1 suggested that there should be a note at 

the beginning of the questionnaire stating that the respondent would need to refer to addresses. 

• Nine of 24 respondents skipped sections of this second contact information portion. Some 

skipped them because they had trouble remembering addresses of other contacts. Others 

mentioned they were sensitive or felt uncomfortable giving out nonfamily members’ contact 

information. Several of these respondents specifically asked the researchers if it was ok to skip 

these items. 

Form Status Menu 

Feedback From Participants 

• Six of the 24 respondents said, “I am not sure why I am on this page.” 

• Nine of the 24 respondents mentioned to the researchers that it was “confusing” to scroll down to 

see the form check results and then scroll back up to check whether or not they were finished. 

• When respondent 9 reached the “Form Status” page, her initial reaction was that “it is 

intimidating at first. It takes too long to read, but once you read it, it becomes clear.” 

• Three respondents admitted to never having read the page because it was “much too wordy.” 

They both checked “finished” immediately, because they had “answered the last question,” which 

meant that they were done. 

• Respondent 4 said, “This page should only appear if there are errors in my form.” 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-43 

• Respondent 18 recommended that if the form had no problems the radio button “Finished” should 

be pre-selected for the user. 

• Respondent 10 suggested that each page should not allow the user to proceed unless that page 

was completed successfully, in order to avoid this “confusing” page. 

• “Review check results?” three respondents asked. “Do I have to go back and review all my 

answers again?” When they saw “review check results” each mentioned that he or she would 

never want to go back through each item. 

Recommendations 

o The “finished/not finished” buttons should be removed. Respondents should only see the page if 

there were errors on their form. In the case of errors, they should be listed with detailed 

information about where the errors occurred, and a dropdown box should appear below this list so 

that respondents can jump to the pages with errors. 

o If this page cannot be omitted for cases without errors, it should be reorganized with the “Form 

check results” underneath “Review your form check results” to avoid having respondents scroll 

up and down to find this information. 

Form Actions Menu 

Feedback From Participants 

• Four of the 24 total respondents wondered why they were brought back to this page after having 

completed the survey. They thought that after the “Form Status” page the survey was completed. 

Respondent 10 thought that the survey should have ended simply with a page that says, “Thank 

you for completing this survey.” Another respondent thought that the survey should be reworked 

so that the user is not considered “finished” until he or she is done with all that can possibly be 

done, including generating a report, changing a password, etc. 

“Go” Form Status 

• Only one respondent of the total 24 respondents immediately knew that in order to go back into 

the survey once it was marked “finished,” she would first have to change her form to be “not 

finished.” However, even this respondent mentioned that was confusing. She suggested adding a 

sentence to the page explaining that if you want to go back to a finished survey, you must first 

change the form status to “not finished.” 

• The other 23 respondents showed signs of difficulty when returning to a section of the survey 

once it was marked “finished.” Typically, the respondent would select a section and click “go.” 

He or she would return to the main “form actions menu.” Once respondents realized that their 

first or second tries did not work correctly, they read the instructions carefully and eventually 

realized they had to change the form status to “not finished.” Respondent 9 said that this process 

“was a bit awkward.” 

• Respondent 4 incorrectly thought that the point of “Form Status” was to let the users know where 

they had left off. 
D-44 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

• Respondent 7 said, “I don’t know why you need this on this page” in reference to the “form 

status” option. She said that the program should already know if you are finished or not based on 

whether you have answered all of the questions. 

“Go” Generate Report 

• To many respondents the function of “generate report” was unclear. The majority of respondents 

mentioned that they would never look at their reports and that this option is unnecessary. For 

instance, Respondent 9 said that the “generate report” option “seemed like it was just there to 

complicate things.” 

• Many times, when respondents wanted to go to the “generate report” option, they clicked the 

“Report Types” hyperlink instead. This brought them to the “generate report” section of the 

“help” menu, which was very complicated and confusing to them. 

o Respondent 12 saw the instructions and said, “I don’t understand this. I don’t know anything 

here. Never mind.” 

o Respondent 13, an individual who was very proficient with computers, saw this menu and 

said, “I don’t know XML. This is too complicated.” 

o Respondent 16 was overwhelmed when the help page opened. She thought it contained “too 

much information that seemed unrelated to what I was looking for.” 

• Respondent 3 incorrectly thought the “Generate Report” action was used to “file the form 

electronically.” 

• Respondent 23 was the only user who expressed a desire to generate a full report. She was 

interested in looking back at how she responded to the questions, and she also mentioned that it 

would be nice to have for her records. 

“Go” Change Password 

• All 23 respondents mentioned that they would not need to change the password because they 

were only completing this survey once. 

• Respondent 23 suggested that on the login page, after logging in for the first time, a new window 

should pop up asking the user “would you like to change your password?” rather than asking it on 

the Form Actions Menu once the survey was already complete. 

“Go” Secure Exit/Logout 

• Respondents 6, 8, and 10 clicked the “Always logout properly to better protect your information” 

link instead of the “Go” button to logout. One of these respondents was lost in a help page and 

could not find her way back to the survey, because there were no directions on how to do so. She 

mentioned that some of these links should perform actions rather than take the user to a “help 

menu.” 

• Even after reading aloud the instruction to “always logout properly to better protect your 

information,” several respondents simply closed the browser window to exit the survey. 

• Respondent 23 did not see a need for a “secure logout.” She would complete this survey at home, 

she said, which is already secure. 
Appendix D. Summary of TFS Pretest and Usability Test Findings and Recommendations D-45 

Recommendations 

o The “Certificate” that states that the survey is successfully finished should be its own separate 

page to eliminate the respondents’ confusion about why they have returned to the beginning page. 

On this page, there should be a “generate report” (labeled “print my answers”) option and a 

“secure exit/logout” option. These are the only menu options that are useful to respondents once 

the survey has been completed. 

o Change “generate report” to “Print my Answers.” 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
E-1 

Appendix E. (Inter) Net Gain? Experiments to Increase 

Response 

The paper included in this appendix was presented at the National Conference of the American 

Association for Public Opinion Research in Miami, Florida on May 13, 2005. It focuses on using 

monetary incentives to increase overall response and internet response when both mail and internet 

choices are offered to respondents. It was written by Steven Tourkin, Randall Parmer, Shawna Cox, and 

Andrew Zukerberg, of the U.S. Bureau of the Census. 

This paper includes the following sections: 

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ E-2

Background ........................................................................................................................................ E-2

Methods.............................................................................................................................................. E-3

Results ................................................................................................................................................ E-4

Total Response Rates—Mode Treatment Effects........................................................................ E-5

Internet Response Rates Without Mail Mention (Groups 3 + 4) Versus Internet Response 

Rates With Mail Mention (Groups 5 + 6).................................................................................. E-6

Impact of Incentives..................................................................................................................... E-6

Implications........................................................................................................................................ E-7

Adding Internet Options—Net Gain? .......................................................................................... E-7

Providing Incentives .................................................................................................................... E-8

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ E-8

References .......................................................................................................................................... E-8
E-2 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Introduction 

The Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) is a component of the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). TFS 

uses self-administered questionnaires. A sample of teachers who completed the SASS Teacher 

Questionnaire last year was selected for participation in TFS. Researchers use the results to understand 

retention of teachers in public and private schools. In addition, the results provide researchers insight to 

teachers’ job satisfaction. TFS is unique in that it draws information from both current and former 

teachers. Results from prior TFS administrations have been used to 

• analyze changes in the teacher labor force over time; 

• develop incentive programs to encourage teacher retention; and 

• understand the effects of school practices and policies on teachers’ decisions to stay in or leave 

the profession. 

A goal of the 2004–05 TFS was to increase (or at least maintain) overall self-administered response rates 

by offering an internet reporting option (in addition to the paper questionnaire) and by providing a 

monetary incentive to respondents. It also was desirable to maximize the internet responses, as 

questionnaires administered via the Internet can reduce errors in survey data by invoking automatic edits. 

This can potentially save resources during data processing. 

TFS uses two different questionnaires—a current teacher questionnaire, with 53 questions, and a former 

teacher questionnaire, with 40 questions. Teachers are contacted at their home address if they provided 

one during SASS. It is not clear how many teachers have internet access at home, or how many might 

decide to use the internet access at their school or job to respond to TFS. In order to encourage internet 

response, the internet option was offered before the paper option. To further boost the internet response 

rate, a $10 incentive gift card was given to half of the respondents at the first contact (i.e., prior to the 

mail option). It was hoped that these treatments would yield higher internet response rates and total 

response rates. 

Background 

In recent years there has been a great push to offer an internet mode of data collection in government 

surveys. Griffin, Fischer, and Morgan (2001) suggest three potential advantages of an internet mode over 

mail: 1) improved response rates by offering an alternative mode of data collection; 2) potential for cost 

savings through reduction in mailing expenses; and 3) increased data quality compared to paper selfadministered questionnaires due to the automation of skip patterns, range checks, and consistency edits. 

Many studies are finding that adding an internet option does not increase response rates, and, in some 

cases, the internet option has been found to negatively impact response rates. Griffin et al. (2001) found 

that offering a combined mail and internet option lowered the overall initial response rate for a household 

survey by almost 6 percent. Warner (2004) also found a lower final response rate when respondents were 

offered both modes compared with groups offered only internet initially, followed by a mailed 

questionnaire. Interestingly, both studies noted a low internet completion rate. In the Griffin et al. (2001) 

study, response by Internet was less than 3 percent of overall response. In the study conducted by Warner 

(2004), response by Internet ranged from 11.2 percent to 19.6 percent depending on the treatment group. 

Tedesco, Zukerberg, and Nichols (1999) had an overall internet response rate of less than 2 percent in 

testing an internet version of the Library Media Center Survey (LMC, which was a component of the 

1999–2000 SASS). Improvements made to allow easier access during the full-scale survey in 2000 did 

increase internet response to nearly 20 percent. 
Appendix E. (Inter) Net Gain? Experiments to Increase Response E-3 

To combat this lower response rate, some self-administered surveys have experimented with different 

ways to encourage internet response. On the LMC, Nichols et al. (2001) attempted to increase web 

response by utilizing varying motivational messages. The group that received stronger encouragement at 

each stage of data collection had twice the internet response than the group with less encouragement 

(although total response was about the same). On the 2001–02 Private School Universe Survey (PSS), the 

internet option was offered three different ways: (1) internet and mail options were offered together 

(internet response of 11.2 percent); (2) the internet option was offered first, with a mention of 

forthcoming mail questionnaire (internet response of 16.5 percent); and (3) the internet option was offered 

first, with no mention of the mail questionnaire (internet response of 19.6 percent) (Warner 2004). As 

PSS was school-based (no specific respondent required) and TFS was person-based, the second and third 

treatments, those with the higher internet response rates, also were incorporated into the design of this 

TFS test. 

Incentives have long been recognized as an effective method to increase overall response to a mail 

survey. (See Church [1993] for a meta-analysis on the subject.) In recent years, government agencies, 

including the Census Bureau, have experimented with the use of incentives to boost response rates (Leslie 

and Bryson 2003). In order for incentives to be cost-effective for TFS, the number of respondents 

requiring field follow-up needs to be reduced. Most studies have not looked at the overall cost and 

response rate trade-off. 

Methods 

Of the 63,135 teachers who completed the SASS teacher questionnaire, 8,297 were selected by random 

sample to participate in TFS. Of these, 559 did not have sufficient contact information and were excluded 

from the experiment. The remaining 7,738 cases were divided into six treatment groups. The groups 

varied on three dimensions, which included offering an internet option, offering a prepaid $10 incentive, 

and notifying respondents in the internet groups of a paper option in the near future. 

Groups 1 and 2 were not given the option of completing the survey on the Internet and were sent only 

paper questionnaires throughout the duration of the experiment. Groups 3 through 6 were initially given 

the internet option and shortly afterwards were given the paper option as well. However, groups 3 and 4 

were not made aware that they would receive paper versions of TFS a week later. Groups 5 and 6 were 

told of the forthcoming paper questionnaire in the initial letters they received requesting their 

participation in TFS. Finally, these six groups were further broken down into incentive panels. Groups 1, 

3, and 5 were given a $10 incentive card with the first mailing of TFS materials. The remaining groups 

were not offered any kind of incentive. Table E-1 documents the number of respondents that were 

assigned to each group initially. Cases that had inaccurate or unreachable addresses were removed from 

the experiment. Table E-1 also shows the resulting final sample sizes. 

Table E-1. Characteristics of treatment groups: 2004–05 

Group and mode 

Incentive 

offered

Original 

sample size 

Final 

sample size

1: No Internet Yes 1,266 1,074

2: No Internet No 1,340 1,147

3: Internet, without mention of mailout 1 week later Yes 1,266 1,096

4: Internet, without mention of mailout 1 week later No 1,292 1,100

5: Internet, with mention of mailout 1 week later Yes 1,266 1,067

6: Internet, with mention of mailout 1 week later No 1,308 1,131

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

and Former Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2004–05.
E-4 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

At the beginning of the experiment, all teachers were mailed either a letter offering the internet option 

(Groups 3–6) or a letter and questionnaire (Groups 1–2) at the same time. The $10 incentive card was 

included in this mailing for Groups 1, 3, and 5. The non-internet groups were mailed a reminder postcard 

approximately 10 days later. At the same time, the internet groups were mailed questionnaires and 

reminded about their internet option. Approximately 6 weeks after the original mailout, nonresponding 

teachers were mailed a second questionnaire. The internet groups again were reminded about their 

internet option. Approximately 4 weeks following the second mailout, remaining nonrespondents were 

assigned for field follow-up. Table E-2 shows the dates of each of these treatments for each group. 

The incentive card was an American Express gift card preloaded with $10. Teachers could use the card 

anywhere the card is accepted. Respondents were given an 800-number to call if they had any problems 

using the card. 

Respondents offered the internet reporting option were given an 800-number as well as an e-mail address 

to assist with any questions or problems they encountered. 

Table E-2. Timing of treatments, by group and mode: 2004–05 

Original mailout First reminder 

Group and mode 

Advance 

letter 

with 

internet 

option 

Advance 

letter 

with 

questionnaire

Incentive 

card

Reminder 

postcard

Questionnaire 

with 

reminder 

letter

Second 

reminder, 

via e-mail1

Second 

mailout

End of 

mail/ 

internet 

phase

1: No Internet † Jan. 21 Jan. 21 Jan. 31 † Feb. 11 Mar. 10 Apr. 15

2: No Internet † Jan. 21 † Jan. 31 † Feb. 11 Mar. 10 Apr. 15

3: Internet, without 

 mention of mailout 

 1 week later Jan. 21 † Jan. 21 † Feb. 1 Feb. 11 Mar. 10 Apr. 15

4: Internet, without 

 mention of mailout 

 1 week later Jan. 21 † † † Feb. 1 Feb. 11 Mar. 10 Apr. 15

5: Internet, with 

 mention of mailout 

 1 week later Jan. 21 † Jan. 21 † Feb. 1 Feb. 11 Mar. 10 Apr. 15

6: Internet, with 

 mention of mailout 

 1 week later Jan. 21 † † † Feb. 1 Feb. 11 Mar. 10 Apr. 15

† Not applicable. 

1

 E-mail reminders were sent to approximately 1,500 teachers for whom staff was able to obtain addresses. The impact of this 

treatment is not covered in this report. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

and Former Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2004–05.

Results 

The design reveals the relative impact of the different treatments on increasing overall self-response rates 

and increasing response by Internet. The response rates were calculated at the end of the mail/internet 

phase of data collection. TFS has an in-person follow-up of nonrespondents after the mail/internet phase 

where we expect to convert the nonrespondents and obtain a final response rate of approximately 90 

percent across all treatment groups. As the field follow-up is more expensive, it is desirable to maximize 

response prior to field follow-up, and the analysis focuses on the response before field follow-up. 
Appendix E. (Inter) Net Gain? Experiments to Increase Response E-5 

In analyzing the results, the total, mail only, and Internet only weighted response rates for each treatment 

group as well as various combinations of these groups were calculated at the end of the mail/internet 

phase of data collection. The variance associated with these response rates (r) was calculated using the 

following formula: 

∑+

−

n

i

ir r

n 1

2 ) ) 1 . 

The response rates for each of the treatment groups, or combinations of groups, were compared against 

one another and tested at the 5 percent significance level. 

The total response rates, mail response rate, and internet response rates are summarized for each group in 

table E-3. Analyses of differences between groups follow. 

Table E-3. Total, mail, and internet weighted response rates, by group: 2004–05 

Total response Mail response Internet response 

Group Percent Variance Percent Variance Percent Variance

1 52.1 0.00044 52.1 0.00044 † †

2 45.5 0.00040 45.5 0.00040 † †

3 46.6 0.00050 21.9 0.00028 24.6 0.00042

4 44.1 0.00059 25.3 0.00034 18.8 0.00024

5 46.3 0.00051 23.7 0.00039 22.6 0.00021

6 38.6 0.00064 23.3 0.00035 15.3 0.00027

† Not applicable. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

and Former Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2004–05.

Total Response Rates—Mode Treatment Effects 

Mail Only (Groups 1 + 2) Versus Mail and Internet (Groups 3 + 4 + 5 + 6) 

The impact of providing an internet response option in addition to the mail option is shown in table E-4. 

As noted, the internet option was provided prior to the mailout of the questionnaire. The results show that 

the overall response of the mail only group, with a 48.8 percent response, exceeded that of the mail and 

internet groups, with a 43.9 percent response. This difference is significant (p < .05) and is consistent with 

some of the previous studies as noted earlier. 

Table E-4. Weighted response rates, by type of group: 2004–05 

Type of group Percent Variance

Mail only (groups 1 + 2) 48.8 0.00019

Mail and Internet (groups 3 + 4 + 5 + 6) 43.9 0.00016

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

and Former Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2004–05.

Mail Only (Groups 1 + 2) Versus Internet A (Groups 3 + 4) Versus Internet B (Groups 5 + 6) 

Table E-5 shows the impact of providing the mail only response option versus the internet response 

options broken out by the two variations—informing respondents that they would receive a paper 

questionnaire approximately a week later (groups 5 and 6), and offering the internet option without 
E-6 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

informing them (groups 3 and 4). The results show that the overall response for the mail only group is 

significantly higher than the internet with mention of mail group (p < .05). The rate difference between 

the mail only group and the internet without mention of mail group is not significant. Consequently, the 

worst outcome resulted from offering respondents a known choice of mail and internet responses. 

Table E-5. Total weighted response rates for the mail only groups, the internet without mention 

of mail option groups, and the internet with mention of mail option groups: 2004–05 

Type of group Percent Variance

Mail only (groups 1 + 2) 48.8 0.00019

Internet without mention of mail (groups 3 + 4) 45.4 0.00026

Internet with mention of mail (groups 5 + 6) 42.4 0.00030

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

and Former Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2004–05.

Internet Response Rates Without Mail Mention (Groups 3 + 4) Versus Internet 

Response Rates With Mail Mention (Groups 5 + 6) 

Table E-6 shows the impact on internet response rates of providing the internet response option broken 

out by the two variations—informing respondents that they would receive a paper questionnaire 

approximately a week later (groups 5 and 6), and offering the internet option without informing them 

(groups 3 and 4). While the internet response rate for the group without mention of the mail option is 

somewhat higher, the result is not significant. 

Table E-6. Total, mail, and internet weighted response rates, by type of internet group: 2004–05 

Total response Mail response Internet response 

Type of internet group Percent Variance Percent Variance Percent Variance

Internet without mention of mail (groups 3 + 4) 45.4 0.00026 23.6 0.00018 21.7 0.00017

Internet with mention of mail (groups 5 + 6) 42.4 0.00030 23.5 0.00019 18.9 0.00014

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

and Former Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2004–05.

Impact of Incentives 

Overall Impact of Incentives: Incentives (Groups 1 + 3 + 5) Versus No Incentives (Groups 2 + 4 + 6) 

The overall impact of incentives is shown by comparing the response rates of the teachers who were 

provided incentives against those who were not. The results in table E-7 show that the overall response of 

the incentive groups, with a 48.3 percent response, significantly exceeded that of the nonincentive groups, 

with a 42.8 percent response (p < .05). 

Table E-7. Total weighted response rates, by incentive treatment: 2004–05 

Incentive treatment Percent Variance

Incentive groups (groups 1 + 3 + 5) 48.3 0.00014

No incentive groups (groups 2 + 4 + 6) 42.8 0.00020

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

and Former Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2004–05.
Appendix E. (Inter) Net Gain? Experiments to Increase Response E-7 

Impact of Incentives Within Mode (Group 1 Response Minus Group 2 Response) Versus (Group 3 

Response Minus Group 4 Response) Versus (Group 5 Response Minus Group 6 Response) 

Table E-8 examines whether the incentive impacted the treatment groups differently. While the increase 

in response resulting from the incentive differed between the groups, the results were not significant. 

Table E-8. Additional response as a result of incentives, by type of group: 2004–05 

Type of group Percent Variance

Mail only (groups 1 + 2) 6.6 0.00083

Internet without mention of mail (groups 3 + 4) 2.5 0.00108

Internet with mention of mail (groups 5 + 6) 7.7 0.00115

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

and Former Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2004–05.

Impact of Incentives on Internet Response: Group 3 Versus Group 4 and Group 5 Versus Group 6 

Table E-9 examined whether or not the incentive impacted the internet response rate. The results show 

that both internet treatment groups had a higher internet response rate when offered the incentive (p < 

.05). 

Table E-9. Internet weighted response rates, by incentive treatment and type of internet group: 

2004–05 

Incentive No incentive 

Type of internet group Percent Variance Percent Variance

Internet without mention of mail (groups 3 + 4) 24.6 0.00042 18.8 0.00024

Internet with mention of mail (groups 5 + 6) 22.6 0.00021 15.3 0.00027

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

and Former Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2004–05.

Impact of Monetary Incentives and Internet Response on Costs 

The incentives cost approximately $50,000 in total, including administrative expenses. Table E-7 shows 

that the incentives increased the prefield response by 5.5 percent (approximately 200 cases). The variable 

cost per field case was approximately $150 per case; the provision of incentives saved $30,000 in field 

costs. Therefore, providing the incentives had a net cost of $20,000. 

The costs of adding the internet option included authoring and testing the internet questionnaire, 

preparing the internet case management system for this survey, and developing programs to reformat 

internet data to combine with the keyed questionnaire data at the beginning of data processing. Savings 

from the internet responses included data keying for those cases as well as less data review during 

processing as a result of automated edits in the questionnaire. The costs of adding the internet option far 

exceeded the savings, with the net costs exceeding $100,000. 

Implications 

Adding Internet Options—Net Gain? 

No, net loss. The impact on response of adding the internet option was negative—the response rate of the 

mail-only group exceeded the combined internet groups by 4.8 percent (table E-4). When the mail group 

was compared to the internet groups separately, the mail group’s response was significantly higher than 
E-8 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

the internet group with mention of the mail option, but not the internet group without mention of the mail 

option (table E-5). It appears that total response can be maximized for TFS by offering mail only. 

Recognizing that it may be desirable to add the internet option for reasons other than response rates, it 

should be offered without mentioning the mail option. 

Providing Incentives 

The overall impact of providing the $10 incentive did increase the response rate by 5.5 percent (table E7), but it did not pay for itself even with the reduction in field costs. While there was a net cost to 

providing the incentives, it appears to be a desirable treatment. Further, the incentive also increased 

internet response among both internet treatment groups (table E-9), but as noted, the total response of the 

internet groups was lower than the mail-only group. 

Conclusions 

It appears that the best response for TFS can be achieved by offering respondents mail questionnaires. 

Offering a small incentive increases initial response and may increase final response. It may be worth 

testing a $5 incentive to see if it could pay for itself. Adding an internet option negatively impacts total 

response. The negative impact can be reduced by offering the internet option initially without mentioning 

that there will be a mail option. When an incentive is included with this treatment, approximately half of 

the responses received at the end of the mail/internet phase of data collection are internet responses. 

While internet responses may lower data processing costs, the cost of adding the internet option far 

exceeds those savings. If managers of surveys administered by mail have limited resources, they should 

be spent on incentives rather than providing internet alternatives. 

References 

Church, A.H. (1993). Estimating the Effect of Incentives on Mail Survey Response Rates: A MetaAnalysis. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(1), 62–79. 

Griffin, D., Fischer, D., and Morgan, M. (2001, May). Testing an Internet Response Option for the 

American Community Survey. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Association for 

Public Opinion Research, Montreal, Quebec. 

Leslie, T., and Bryson, K.R. (2003). Incentives in Mail Surveys. Suitland, MD: U.S. Census Bureau. 

Nichols, E., Marquis, K., and Hoffman III, R. (2001). The Effect of Motivational Messaging on Mode 

Choice and Response Rates in the Library Media Center Survey. 2001 Proceedings of the American 

Statistical Association, Survey Research Methods Section [CD-ROM], Alexandria, VA: American 

Statistical Association. 

Tedesco, H., Zukerberg, A., and Nichols, E. (1999). Designing Surveys for the Next Millennium: Webbased Questionnaire Design Issues. In R. Banks et al. (Eds.), ASC ’99: Proceedings of the Third ASC 

International Conference: Edinburgh University, UK, September 22–24 1999 (pp. 103–112). Chesham, 

United Kingdom: Association for Survey Computing. 

Warner, T. (2004, February). 2001–02 Private School Survey (PSS) Computerized Self-Administered 

Questionnaire (CSAQ) Analysis. Internal Census Bureau Memorandum. 
F-1 

Appendix F. Quality Assurance for TFS Keying and Mailout 

Operations 

This appendix details the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) quality assurance (QA) for both data 

keying and mailout operations. An overview of the data keying operations is provided in chapter 6, and 

the mailout procedures are covered in chapter 4. “Data keying” is the method by which the TFS data are 

captured and converted from paper to electronic format. The “mailout operations” include all procedures 

necessary for preparing TFS packages for distribution to respondents, including printing of all forms 

(such as letters, questionnaires, reminder postcards, etc.) and assembly of packages for sampled teachers. 

The first section of this appendix, “2004–05 TFS Data Capture Operations,” describes the procedures for 

the data capture operations used by keying staff. The second section, “2004–05 TFS Cumulative Data 

Keying Verification Reports,” provides results of the verification of the data capture of the TFS 

questionnaires and the results, and the third section, “2004–05 TFS Mailout Operations Quality 

Assurance Summary,” provides the detailed procedures for quality assurance of the mailout operations 

and the results. 

2004–05 TFS Data Capture Operations 

The 2004–05 TFS data were captured, or converted from paper to electronic format, using manual data 

keying. The questionnaires were split up into groups called “batches” within questionnaire type and 

manually keyed. Manual data keying was accomplished using a Key from Paper (KFP) data capture 

system. The KFP system is programmed to present screens of questionnaire items to data keying staff, 

who page through the questionnaire and key any entries into the appropriate fields on the screens. The 

KFP system performs various edits as the data are keyed. 

Once all batches of questionnaires were keyed and data entry was complete, images of TFS former and 

current teacher questionnaires were captured. The image files were used during subsequent steps of data 

processing to view the actual questionnaires online. All KFP entries were 100 percent verified by the 

keying staff, meaning that each field was keyed twice, and the results were compared automatically for 

discrepancies, and subsequently verified. The verification during this operation allowed up to a 1 percent 

error on a field-to-field basis. Unacceptable batches of questionnaires in which there was more than a 

1 percent error were 100 percent verified a second time by keying staff. 

Once the keying and verification were complete, the TFS datasets were ready to be released to Census 

analysts to begin the next step of data processing. 
F-2 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

2004–05 TFS Cumulative Data Keying Verification Reports 

This section details the results of the verification of the data keying. Exhibit F-1 provides results from the 

verification of the TFS data keying. The total error rates in the table are computed by dividing the total 

number of keying errors by the total number of keyed fields. The total error rate was 0.66 percent for the 

former teacher questionnaires and 0.45 percent for the current teacher questionnaires, yielding an overall 

error rate of 0.49 percent for TFS data keying. 

Exhibit F-1. Cumulative key from paper (KFP) data keying verification report, by questionnaire: 

2004–05 

KFP data keying 

verification Total 

Questionnaire for Former Teachers

100 percent verified

Questionnaire for Current Teachers 

100 percent verified

Unit count (batches) 371 139 232

 Accepted 0 0 0

 Rejected 0 0 0

 

Keyed documents 6,670 2,419 4,251

Verified documents 6,670 2,419 4,251

 

Keyed records 109,953 28,545 81,408

Verified records 109,993 28,540 81,453

 

Keyed fields 1,572,310 341,882 1,230,428

Verified fields 1,571,932 341,506 1,230,426

 

Charge field errors 6,496 1,721 4,775

Charge error rate 0.41% 0.50% 0.39%

 

Total errors 7,780 2,238 5,542

Total error rate 0.49% 0.66% 0.45%

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for TFS Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
Appendix F. Quality Assurance for TFS Keying and Mailout Operations F-3 

Exhibit F-2 provides the distribution of keying errors (from exhibit F-1, above) by the type of error. 

Errors due to data omission (keying staff accidentally missing a field while keying), finger error (keying 

staff mistyping an entry), and procedure error (keying staff not following part of the keying procedure 

correctly) were the greatest in number for TFS. 

Exhibit F-2. Distribution of keying errors, by questionnaire and type of error: 2004–05 

Questionnaire for Former Teachers Questionnaire for Current Teachers

Type of error (code and description) Number of errors

Percentage 

of errors Number of errors 

Percentage 

of errors

 Total errors 2,238 100.00 5,542 100.00

1 Screening error 0 0.00 0 0.00

2 Data omission 622 27.79 2,186 39.44

3 Duplicate data 0 0.00 0 0.00

4 Did not hold down numeric shift 0 0.00 0 0.00

5 Did not hold down alpha shift 0 0.00 0 0.00

6 Manual duplication error 0 0.00 0 0.00

7 Auto duplication error 0 0.00 0 0.00

8 Finger error 500 22.34 1,150 20.75

9 Procedure error 599 26.76 1,439 25.97

10 Undeterminable data 0 0.00 0 0.00

11 Keyer/verifier in error 0 0.00 0 0.00

12 Code error 300 13.40 717 12.94

13 Machine error 0 0.00 0 0.00

14 Supervisor error 10 0.45 0 0.00

15 Explain in remarks 156 6.97 29 0.52

16 Procedure modification 51 2.28 21 0.38

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for TFS Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
F-4 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

2004–05 TFS Mailout Operations Quality Assurance Summary 

This section details the QA plan for the mailout operations for the 2004–05 TFS. All packages that were 

mailed to respondents and field representatives were mailed from Jeffersonville, Indiana, by the Census 

Bureau clerical processing staff. 

All TFS forms and questionnaires were custom produced on docuprint equipment. The docuprint 

equipment allowed for printing and labeling questionnaires in one operation. The system was loaded with 

images of each questionnaire page, and a file of variable data for each respondent. The system can be 

programmed to print variable data that are specific to that respondent on any page of the questionnaire. 

For the 2004–05 TFS, docuprint was used to print variable data—the name and address of the sample 

teacher, the control number and associated barcode—on the cover page of the questionnaires. It also 

printed identification barcodes on each questionnaire page. It inserted the sampled teachers’ names and 

addresses, as well as internet user names and passwords for respondents in the internet groups, directly 

into the letters. All blank questionnaires, letters, postcards, and other custom forms were also produced 

using the docuprint equipment. 

For questionnaire booklets, the docuprint equipment loaded one 17-inch by 11-inch sheet at a time. Four 

questionnaire pages (8.5 x 11 inches, front and back) were printed onto this sheet. Once all sheets for a 

questionnaire booklet were completed, a sample of the work was examined to ensure that no errors had 

occurred. When an error was found, an expanded inspection examined the questionnaires that were 

produced before and after the detected questionnaire to determine if a systematic error had taken place. 

Once quality assurance of the printing was completed, the sheets went through a binding operation using 

Duplo Booklet Maker equipment. The Booklet Maker read the barcode to determine when the designated 

number of sheets for a particular questionnaire was loaded into the machine, and then folded and stapled 

it twice in the spine, and trimmed the right-side vertical edge of the booklet. Booklets were subjected to 

sample inspections and expanded inspections when defects were detected. The docuprinting of all letters, 

questionnaires, postcards, and other forms was inspected for damage and incorrect presentation. 

The assembly of questionnaire packages for sampled teachers was inspected to assure that nothing was 

damaged, missing, contained undisclosed information, or was incorrectly presented. The results of the 

mailout QA, including error remarks, for all TFS mailout operations can be found in exhibits F-3 through 

F-5 in this section of the appendix. 
Appendix F. Quality Assurance for TFS Keying and Mailout Operations F-5 

Exhibit F-3. Docuprint quality assurance summary, by type of inspection and form: 2004–05 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form Mailout 

Number 

printed

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent 

defective

Number 

inspected 

Number 

defective 

Percent 

defective Date

 Printing total † 96,404 2,342 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 †

 

Principal letter (TFS-11) Advance 11,350 24 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 10/1/04

Teacher Status Form 

 (TFS-1) Initial 11,265 53 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 10/5/04

Postcard reminder (TFS-8) Reminder 11,252 80 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 10/6/04

Teacher Status Form 

 (TFS-1) 

Nonresponse 

 follow-up 52 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 10/22/04

Teacher Status Form 

 (TFS-1) 

Nonresponse 

 telephone 

 follow-up 5,535 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 10/25/04

 

Teacher Status Form 

 (TFS-1) 

Nonresponse 

 follow-up 54 4 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 10/26/04

Teacher Status Form 

 (TFS-1) 

Nonresponse 

 follow-up 48 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 11/9/04

Internet user name/ 

 password card (TFS-20) Initial panel 1 1,225 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/18/05

Panel 1 teacher letter 

 (TFS-12(L)) Initial panel 1 1,225 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/18/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) Initial panel 1 523 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/19/05

 

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) Initial panel 1 762 36 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/19/05

Panel 1 teacher letter 

 (TFS-12(L)) Initial panel 1 67 6 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/20/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) Initial panel 1 26 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/20/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teacher (TFS-3) Initial panel 1 77 6 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/20/05

Panel 1 teacher letter 

 (TFS-12(L)) Initial panel 1 38 2 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/21/05

 

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) Initial panel 1 2 2 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/21/05

Panel 2 teacher letter 

 (TFS-13(L)) Initial panel 2 1,292 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/18/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) Initial panel 2 554 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/20/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) Initial panel 2 739 31 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/20/05

Panel 2 teacher letter 

 (TFS-13(L)) Initial panel 2 97 6 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/20/05

See notes at end of exhibit. 
F-6 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Exhibit F-3. Docuprint quality assurance summary, by type of inspection and form: 2004–05—

Continued 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form Mailout 

Number 

printed

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent 

defective

Number 

inspected 

Number 

defective 

Percent 

defective Date

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) Initial panel 2 49 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/20/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) Initial panel 2 80 6 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/20/05

Panel 2 teacher letter 

 (TFS-13(L)) Initial panel 2 35 2 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/21/05

Panel 2 teacher letter 

 (TFS-13(L)) Initial panel 2 3 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/21/05

Panel 2 teacher letter 

 (TFS-13(L)) Initial panel 2 458 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2/10/05

 

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) Initial panel 2 300 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2/10/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) Initial panel 2 158 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2/10/05

Internet user name/ 

 password card (TFS-20) Initial panel 3 1,226 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/18/05

Panel 3 teacher letter 

 (TFS-14(L)) Initial panel 3 1,225 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/18/05

Internet user name/ 

 password card (TFS-20) Initial panel 3 86 6 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/20/05

 

Panel 3 teacher letter 

 (TFS-14(L)) Initial panel 3 86 6 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/20/05

Internet user name/ 

 password card (TFS-20) Initial panel 3 48 2 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/21/05

Panel 3 teacher letter 

 (TFS-14(L)) Initial panel 3 48 2 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/21/05

Internet user name/ 

 password card (TFS-20): Initial panel 4 773 63 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/18/05

Panel 4 teacher letter 

 (TFS-15(L)) Initial panel 4 1,254 67 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/19/05

 

Internet user name/ 

 password card (TFS-20) Initial panel 4 79 6 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/20/05

Panel 4 teacher letter 

 (TFS-15(L)) Initial panel 4 79 6 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/20/05

Internet user name/ 

 password card (TFS-20) Initial panel 4 54 2 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/21/05

Panel 4 teacher letter 

 (TFS-15(L)) Initial panel 4 54 2 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/21/05

Internet user name/ 

 password card (TFS-20) Initial panel 5 1,222 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/18/05

See notes at end of exhibit. 
Appendix F. Quality Assurance for TFS Keying and Mailout Operations F-7 

Exhibit F-3. Docuprint quality assurance summary, by type of inspection and form: 2004–05—

Continued 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form Mailout 

Number 

printed

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent 

defective

Number 

inspected 

Number 

defective 

Percent 

defective Date

Panel 5 teacher letter 

 (TFS-16(L)) 

Initial panel 

 5 1,226 64 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/20/05

Internet user name/ 

 password card (TFS-20) 

Initial panel 

 5 67 6 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/20/05

Panel 5 teacher letter 

 (TFS-16(L)) 

Initial panel 

 5 67 6 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/20/05

Internet user name/ 

 password card (TFS-20) 

Initial panel 

 5 47 2 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/21/05

Panel 5 teacher letter 

 (TFS-16(L)) 

Initial panel 

 5 47 2 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/21/05

 

Internet user name/ 

 password card (TFS-20) 

Initial panel 

 6 1,271 64 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/18/05

Panel 6 teacher letter 

 (TFS-17(L)) 

Initial panel 

 6 1,269 62 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/18/05

Internet user name/ 

 password card (TFS-20) 

Initial panel 

 6 82 6 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/20/05

Panel 6 teacher letter 

 (TFS-17(L)) 

Initial panel 

 6 82 6 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/20/05

Internet user name/ 

 password card (TFS-20) 

Initial panel 

 6 41 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/21/05

 

Panel 6 teacher letter 

 (TFS-17(L)) 

Initial panel 

 6 41 2 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/21/05

Postcard reminder (TFS-8) Reminder 

 panel 1–2 2,517 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/31/05

Postcard reminder (TFS-8) Reminder 

 panel 1–2 89 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/31/05

Internet user name/ 

 password card (TFS-20) 

Reminder 

 panel 3–6 5,132 91 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/31/05

Internet reminder letter 

 (panels 3–6) (TFS-18(L)) 

Reminder 

 panel 3–6 5,132 91 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/31/05

 

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) 

Reminder 

 panel 3–6 2,134 31 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/31/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

Reminder 

 panel 3–6 2,852 51 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/31/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

Reminder 

 panel 3–6 171 31 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2/2/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) 

Regional 

 Office 

 distribution 1,725 15 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2/7/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) 

Regional 

 Office 

 distribution 77 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2/9/05

See notes at end of exhibit. 
F-8 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Exhibit F-3. Docuprint quality assurance summary, by type of inspection and form: 2004–05—

Continued 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form Mailout 

Number 

printed

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent 

defective

Number 

inspected 

Number 

defective 

Percent 

defective Date

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

Regional 

 Office 

 distribution 25 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2/9/05

Internet user name/ 

 password card (TFS-20) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 2,831 90 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/7/05

Panel 2 teacher letter 

 (TFS-13(L)) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 686 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/8/05

Second mailout letter 

 (panels 3–6) (TFS-19(L)) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 2,831 90 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/8/05

Second mailout letter 

 (Panels 1–2) (TFS-21(L)) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 1,544 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/8/05

 

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 2,178 92 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/10/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 1,290 90 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/10/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 1,609 32 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/9/05

Panel 1 teacher letter 

 (TFS-12(L)) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 78 9 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/9/05

Panel 2 teacher letter 

 (TFS-13(L)) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 24 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/9/05

 

Panel 1 teacher letter 

 (TFS-12(L)) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 64 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/9/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 88 6 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/9/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 32 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/9/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 46 6 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/9/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2): 

1st follow-up 

 switcher 53 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/9/05

 

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3): 

 1st follow-up switcher 

1st follow-up 

 switcher 142 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/9/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2): UAA cases1

 116 6 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/28/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) UAA cases1

 73 6 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/28/05

Panel 1 teacher letter 

 (TFS-12(L)) UAA cases1

 70 6 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/28/05

Panel 2 teacher letter 

 (TFS-13(L)) UAA cases1

 119 6 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/28/05

See notes at end of exhibit. 
Appendix F. Quality Assurance for TFS Keying and Mailout Operations F-9 

Exhibit F-3. Docuprint quality assurance summary, by type of inspection and form: 2004–05—

Continued 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form Mailout 

Number 

printed

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent 

defective

Number 

inspected 

Number 

defective 

Percent 

defective Date

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) UAA cases1

 20 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/28/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) UAA cases1

 7 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/28/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) 

1st follow-up 

 switcher 13 4 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/30/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

1st follow-up 

 switcher 52 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/30/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) 

Nonresponse 

 field 

 follow-up 2,035 45 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 4/14/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

Nonresponse 

 field 

 follow-up 2,809 78 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 4/15/05

† Not applicable. 

1

 UAA refers to “Undeliverable as Addressed.” 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for TFS Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
F-10 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Exhibit F-4. Duplo Booklet Maker inspection, by type of inspection and form: 2005 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form Mailout 

Number 

printed

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent 

defective

Number 

inspected 

Number 

defective 

Percent 

defective Date

 Duplo total † 13,616 902 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 †

 

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) Initial panel 1 549 35 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/24/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) Initial panel 1 841 82 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/24/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) Initial panel 2 603 35 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2/2/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) Initial panel 2 822 64 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2/2/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) Initial panel 2 300 15 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2/11/05

 

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) Initial panel 2 158 15 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2/11/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) 

Regional 

 Office 

 distribution 77 15 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2/10/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

Regional 

 Office 

 distribution 25 15 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2/10/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 1,108 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/9/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 1,727 84 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/9/05

 

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 315 15 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/10/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 395 45 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/10/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 32 15 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/10/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 46 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/10/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 753 35 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/11/05

 

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 855 45 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/11/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) 

1st follow-up 

 switcher 53 15 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/9/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

1st follow-up 

 switcher 142 15 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/9/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) 

Nonresponse 

 field follow-up 2,006 102 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 4/15/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

Nonresponse 

 field follow-up 2,809 195 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 4/15/05

† Not applicable. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for TFS Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
Appendix F. Quality Assurance for TFS Keying and Mailout Operations F-11 

Exhibit F-5. Package assembly quality assurance, by type of inspection and form: 2004–05 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form Mailout 

Number 

printed

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent 

defective

Number 

inspected 

Number 

defective 

Percent 

defective Date

 Package assembly total † 11,306 297 1 0.34 0 0 0.00 †

 

Teacher Status Form 

 (TFS-1) Initial 11,252 243 1 0.41 0 0 0.00 10/5/04

Teacher Status Form 

 (TFS-1) 

Nonresponse 

 follow-up 54 54 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 10/28/04

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) Initial Panel 1 554 554 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/24/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) Initial Panel 1 781 781 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/24/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) Initial Panel 2 651 651 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/21/05

 

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) Initial Panel 2 770 770 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/21/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) Initial Panel 2 300 300 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2/11/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) Initial Panel 2 158 158 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2/11/05

Panel 3 Teacher Letter 

 (TFS-14(L)) Initial Panel 3 1,367 1,367 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/24/05

Panel 4 Teacher Letter 

 (TFS-15(L)) Initial Panel 4 1,419 1,419 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/21/05

 

Panel 5 Teacher Letter 

 (TFS-16(L)) Initial Panel 5 1,340 1,340 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/24/05

Panel 6 Teacher Letter 

 (TFS-17(L)) Initial Panel 6 1,387 1,387 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/21/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) 

Reminder 

 panel 3–6 2,112 2,112 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 1/31/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

Reminder 

 panel 3–6 2,849 2,849 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2/1/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

Reminder 

 panel 3–6 170 170 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 2/1/05

 

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 2,176 2,176 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/14/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 2,973 2,973 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/14/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 32 32 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/10/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

1st follow-up 

 panel 1–6 46 46 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/10/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) 

1st follow-up 

 switcher 53 53 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/10/05

See notes at end of exhibit. 
F-12 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Exhibit F-5. Package assembly quality assurance, by type of inspection and form: 2004–05—

Continued 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form Mailout 

Number 

printed

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent 

defective

Number 

inspected 

Number 

defective 

Percent 

defective Date

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

1st follow-up 

 switcher 142 142 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/10/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) UAA cases1 116 116 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/29/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) UAA cases1

 71 71 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/29/05

Questionnaire for Former 

 Teachers (TFS-2) 

1st follow-up 

 switcher 13 13 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/30/05

Questionnaire for Current 

 Teachers (TFS-3) 

1st follow-up 

 switcher 52 52 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 3/30/05

† Not applicable. 

1

 UAA refers to “Undeliverable as Addressed.” 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for TFS Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

Package Assembly error/remarks: 

1/ One contents inserted incorrectly. 
G-1 

Appendix G. Changes Made to TFS Variables During 

Computer Edits, by Data File 

Once the preliminary review of the Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) data was finished, the TFS records 

that were classified as completed interviews during the preliminary interview status recode (ISR) were 

submitted to a series of computer edits. These edits consisted of range checks, consistency edits, and 

blanking edits. 

The first of the computer edits was the range check. The range check was used to delete entries that were 

outside the range of acceptable values that were set prior to the administration of TFS. The purpose of the 

range checks is to eliminate any outrageous values from the data files. 

Most of the actual changes to the data were made during the consistency edit. The consistency edits 

identified inconsistent entries within each case and, whenever possible, corrected them. If the 

inconsistencies could not be corrected, the entries were deleted. These inconsistencies were both within 

an item and among several items. Consistency edits also filled in some items where data were missing or 

incomplete by using other information from the same data record. 

Finally, the blanking edits deleted extraneous entries (e.g., situations where skip patterns were not 

correctly followed) and assigned the “not answered” code to items that the respondent should have 

answered but did not. 

Tables G-1 and G-2 below show the percentage of total TFS records to which the computer edits made 

changes, by questionnaire item. Table G-1 corresponds to the Questionnaire for Former Teachers, and 

table G-2 corresponds to the Questionnaire for Current Teachers. 
G-2 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Table G-1. Total number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edits 

for the former teacher data file, by variable: 2004–05 

Variable 

Total 

number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected Variable

Total 

number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected Variable 

Total 

number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

F0050 0 0.00 F0174 0 0.00 F0601 188 7.09

F0550 9 0.34 F0175 0 0.00 F0208 3 0.11

F0051 106 4.00 F0176 0 0.00 F0209 1 0.04

F0552 94 3.54 F0177 0 0.00 F0210 20 0.75

F5552 74 2.79 F0178 0 0.00 F0211 114 4.30

 

F0553 22 0.83 F0179 0 0.00 F0602 0 0.00

F5553 13 0.49 F0180 0 0.00 F0603 7 0.26

F0554 391 14.74 F0181 0 0.00 F0604 10 0.38

F5555 11 0.41 F0182 115 4.33 F0605 10 0.38

F5556 3 0.11 F0183 36 1.36 F0606 10 0.38

 

F0557 7 0.26 F0184 35 1.32 F0607 11 0.41

F0558 7 0.26 F0185 35 1.32 F0608 10 0.38

F0559 4 0.15 F0186 34 1.28 F0609 11 0.41

F0560 51 1.92 F0187 35 1.32 F0610 10 0.38

F0561 3 0.11 F0580 459 17.30 F0611 53 2.00

 

F0562 22 0.83 F0581 179 6.75 F5611 8 0.30

F0563 20 0.75 F0582 180 6.78 F9611 5 0.19

F0564 10 0.38 F0583 180 6.78 F0612 9 0.34

F0214 0 0.00 F0584 178 6.71 F0613 13 0.49

F0565 1 0.04 F0585 181 6.82 F0231 46 1.73

 

F0566 59 2.22 F0586 181 6.82 F0232 26 0.98

F0567 0 0.00 F0587 180 6.78 F0233 0 0.00

F0568 0 0.00 F0588 181 6.82 F0234 0 0.00

F0569 0 0.00 F0589 180 6.78 F0235 1 0.04

F0570 0 0.00 F0590 180 6.78 F0236 119 4.49

 

F0571 0 0.00 F0591 181 6.82 F0237 302 11.38

F0572 0 0.00 F0592 178 6.71 F0238 0 0.00

F0573 0 0.00 F0593 180 6.78 F0278 0 0.00

F0574 0 0.00 F0594 181 6.82 F0279 7 0.26

F0575 0 0.00 F0595 180 6.78 F5238 0 0.00

 

F0576 0 0.00 F0596 179 6.75 F0269 0 0.00

F0577 0 0.00 F0597 179 6.75 F0270 0 0.00

F0578 0 0.00 F0598 181 6.82 F0271 0 0.00

F0579 0 0.00 F0599 181 6.82 F0272 0 0.00

F0173 0 0.00 F0600 181 6.82 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Former 

Teacher Documentation Data File,” 2004–05. 
Appendix G. Changes Made to TFS Variables During Computer Edits, by Data File G-3 

Table G-2. Total number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edits 

for the current teacher data file, by variable: 2004–05 

Variable 

Total 

number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected Variable

Total 

number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected Variable 

Total 

number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

F0050 1 0.02 F0083 0 0.00 F0118 0 0.00

F0051 8 0.17 F0084 0 0.00 F0119 0 0.00

F0052 73 1.53 F0085 0 0.00 F0120 0 0.00

F0053 517 10.82 F0086 0 0.00 F0121 0 0.00

F0054 668 13.99 F0087 0 0.00 F0122 0 0.00

 

F0055 158 3.31 F0088 0 0.00 F0123 0 0.00

F5055 67 1.40 F0089 0 0.00 F0124 0 0.00

F0056 6 0.13 F0090 0 0.00 F0125 0 0.00

F5056 6 0.13 F0091 0 0.00 F0126 0 0.00

F0057 0 0.00 F0092 0 0.00 F0127 0 0.00

 

F0058 145 3.04 F0093 0 0.00 F0128 59 1.24

F0059 0 0.00 F0094 0 0.00 F0129 150 3.14

F0060 0 0.00 F0095 0 0.00 F0130 593 12.42

F0061 0 0.00 F0096 0 0.00 F0131 0 0.00

F0062 0 0.00 F0097 0 0.00 F0132 0 0.00

 

F0063 0 0.00 F0098 0 0.00 F0133 0 0.00

F0064 0 0.00 F0099 0 0.00 F0134 0 0.00

F0065 0 0.00 F0100 0 0.00 F0135 0 0.00

F0066 0 0.00 F0101 0 0.00 F0136 3 0.06

F0067 0 0.00 F0102 0 0.00 F0137 31 0.65

 

F0068 0 0.00 F0103 0 0.00 F0138 204 4.27

F0069 0 0.00 F0104 0 0.00 F5138 0 0.00

F0070 0 0.00 F0105 0 0.00 F9000 77 1.61

F0071 0 0.00 F0106 0 0.00 F9005 77 1.61

F0072 0 0.00 F0107 0 0.00 F9010 78 1.63

 

F0073 140 2.93 F0108 0 0.00 F9015 73 1.53

F0074 0 0.00 F0109 0 0.00 F9020 69 1.44

F0075 2 0.04 F0110 0 0.00 F9025 47 0.98

F0076 0 0.00 F0111 0 0.00 F0144 76 1.59

F0077 0 0.00 F0112 0 0.00 F0145 65 1.36

 

F0078 0 0.00 F0113 0 0.00 F0146 73 1.53

F0079 0 0.00 F0114 0 0.00 F0147 70 1.47

F0080 0 0.00 F0115 0 0.00 F0148 73 1.53

F0081 0 0.00 F0116 0 0.00 F0149 77 1.61

F0082 0 0.00 F0117 0 0.00 F0150 69 1.44

See notes at end of table. 
G-4 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Table G-2. Total number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edits 

for the current teacher data file, by variable: 2004–05—Continued 

Variable 

Total 

number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected Variable

Total 

number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected Variable 

Total 

number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

F0151 70 1.47 F0186 21 0.44 F0221 9 0.19

F0152 64 1.34 F0187 21 0.44 F0222 0 0.00

F0153 67 1.40 F0188 0 0.00 F0223 0 0.00

F0154 52 1.09 F0189 0 0.00 F0224 64 1.34

F0155 41 0.86 F0190 0 0.00 F0225 0 0.00

 

F0156 41 0.86 F0191 0 0.00 F0226 19 0.40

F0157 44 0.92 F0192 0 0.00 F0227 0 0.00

F0158 10 0.21 F0193 0 0.00 F0228 27 0.57

F0159 34 0.71 F0194 0 0.00 F0229 0 0.00

F0160 61 1.28 F0195 0 0.00 F0230 38 0.80

 

F0161 6 0.13 F0196 0 0.00 F0231 145 3.04

F0162 6 0.13 F0197 0 0.00 F0232 33 0.69

F0163 5 0.10 F0198 0 0.00 F0233 0 0.00

F0164 5 0.10 F0199 0 0.00 F0234 0 0.00

F0165 5 0.10 F0200 0 0.00 F0235 1 0.02

 

F0166 5 0.10 F0201 0 0.00 F0236 224 4.69

F0167 5 0.10 F0202 0 0.00 F0237 436 9.13

F0168 5 0.10 F0203 0 0.00 F0238 0 0.00

F0169 5 0.10 F0204 0 0.00 F0278 0 0.00

F0170 5 0.10 F0205 0 0.00 F0279 10 0.21

 

F0171 5 0.10 F0206 0 0.00 F5238 0 0.00

F0172 46 0.96 F0207 0 0.00 F0269 0 0.00

F0173 0 0.00 F0208 4 0.08 F0270 0 0.00

F0174 0 0.00 F0209 5 0.10 F0271 0 0.00

F0175 0 0.00 F0210 68 1.42 F0272 0 0.00

 

F0176 0 0.00 F0211 136 2.85 

F0177 0 0.00 F0212 0 0.00 

F0178 0 0.00 F0213 0 0.00 

F0179 0 0.00 F0214 0 0.00 

F0180 0 0.00 F0215 0 0.00 

 

F0181 34 0.71 F0216 0 0.00 

F0182 137 2.87 F0217 21 0.44 

F0183 21 0.44 F0218 4 0.08 

F0184 21 0.44 F0219 16 0.34 

F0185 21 0.44 F0220 1 0.02 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

Teacher Documentation Data File,” 2004–05. 
H-1 

Appendix H. Percentage of TFS Variables Changed During 

Three Stages of Imputation, by Data File 

Table H-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the former teacher data file, by variable: 2004–05 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

F0173 70 2.64 0 0.00 70 2.64 0 0.00

F0174 82 3.09 0 0.00 82 3.09 0 0.00

F0175 75 2.83 0 0.00 75 2.83 0 0.00

F0176 82 3.09 0 0.00 82 3.09 0 0.00

F0177 76 2.86 0 0.00 76 2.86 0 0.00

 

F0178 83 3.13 0 0.00 83 3.13 0 0.00

F0179 75 2.83 0 0.00 75 2.83 0 0.00

F0180 76 2.86 0 0.00 76 2.86 0 0.00

F0181 35 1.32 35 1.32 0 0.00 0 0.00

F0182 82 3.09 82 3.09 0 0.00 0 0.00

 

F0183 90 3.39 0 0.00 90 3.39 0 0.00

F0184 88 3.32 0 0.00 88 3.32 0 0.00

F0185 96 3.62 0 0.00 96 3.62 0 0.00

F0186 104 3.92 0 0.00 104 3.92 0 0.00

F0187 92 3.47 0 0.00 92 3.47 0 0.00

 

F0208 26 0.98 0 0.00 26 0.98 0 0.00

F0209 31 1.17 31 1.17 0 0.00 0 0.00

F0210 11 0.41 0 0.00 11 0.41 0 0.00

F0211 10 0.38 0 0.00 10 0.38 0 0.00

F0214 27 1.02 23 0.87 4 0.15 0 0.00

 

F0231 186 7.01 186 7.01 0 0.00 0 0.00

F0232 66 2.49 0 0.00 47 1.77 19 0.72

F0233 1,097 41.35 991 37.35 99 3.73 7 0.26

F0234 35 1.32 3 0.11 32 1.21 0 0.00

F0235 35 1.32 3 0.11 32 1.21 0 0.00

 

F0236 51 1.92 0 0.00 51 1.92 0 0.00

F0237 120 4.52 0 0.00 120 4.52 0 0.00

F0238 287 10.82 0 0.00 287 10.82 0 0.00

F0269 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

F0270 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

 

F0271 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

F0272 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

F0278 287 10.82 0 0.00 287 10.82 0 0.00

F0279 287 10.82 0 0.00 287 10.82 0 0.00

F0550 30 1.13 0 0.00 0 0.00 30 1.13

See notes at end of table. 
H-2 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Table H-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the former teacher data file, by variable: 2004–05—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

F0552 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

F0553 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

F0554 20 0.75 0 0.00 19 0.72 1 0.04

F0557 79 2.98 0 0.00 79 2.98 0 0.00

F0558 55 2.07 0 0.00 55 2.07 0 0.00

 

F0559 211 7.95 5 0.19 203 7.65 3 0.11

F0560 100 3.77 0 0.00 100 3.77 0 0.00

F0561 107 4.03 0 0.00 106 4.00 1 0.04

F0562 56 2.11 0 0.00 56 2.11 0 0.00

F0563 6 0.23 0 0.00 6 0.23 0 0.00

 

F0564 94 3.54 94 3.54 0 0.00 0 0.00

F0565 21 0.79 6 0.23 15 0.57 0 0.00

F0566 11 0.41 0 0.00 11 0.41 0 0.00

F0567 77 2.90 0 0.00 77 2.90 0 0.00

F0568 82 3.09 0 0.00 82 3.09 0 0.00

 

F0569 90 3.39 0 0.00 90 3.39 0 0.00

F0570 85 3.20 0 0.00 85 3.20 0 0.00

F0571 76 2.86 0 0.00 76 2.86 0 0.00

F0572 84 3.17 0 0.00 84 3.17 0 0.00

F0573 83 3.13 0 0.00 83 3.13 0 0.00

 

F0574 95 3.58 0 0.00 95 3.58 0 0.00

F0575 96 3.62 0 0.00 96 3.62 0 0.00

F0576 84 3.17 0 0.00 84 3.17 0 0.00

F0577 84 3.17 0 0.00 84 3.17 0 0.00

F0578 83 3.13 0 0.00 83 3.13 0 0.00

 

F0579 96 3.62 48 1.81 0 0.00 48 1.81

F0580 130 4.90 130 4.90 0 0.00 0 0.00

F0581 68 2.56 0 0.00 68 2.56 0 0.00

F0582 70 2.64 0 0.00 70 2.64 0 0.00

F0583 71 2.68 0 0.00 71 2.68 0 0.00

 

F0584 70 2.64 0 0.00 70 2.64 0 0.00

F0585 70 2.64 0 0.00 70 2.64 0 0.00

F0586 70 2.64 0 0.00 70 2.64 0 0.00

F0587 76 2.86 0 0.00 76 2.86 0 0.00

F0588 73 2.75 0 0.00 73 2.75 0 0.00

 

F0589 6 0.23 0 0.00 6 0.23 0 0.00

F0590 77 2.90 0 0.00 77 2.90 0 0.00

F0591 73 2.75 0 0.00 73 2.75 0 0.00

F0592 82 3.09 0 0.00 82 3.09 0 0.00

F0593 71 2.68 0 0.00 71 2.68 0 0.00

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix H. Percentage of TFS Variables Changed During Three Stages of Imputation, by Data File H-3 

Table H-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the former teacher data file, by variable: 2004–05—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records

affected

F0594 69 2.60 0 0.00 69 2.60 0 0.00

F0595 72 2.71 0 0.00 72 2.71 0 0.00

F0596 70 2.64 0 0.00 70 2.64 0 0.00

F0597 71 2.68 0 0.00 71 2.68 0 0.00

F0598 73 2.75 0 0.00 73 2.75 0 0.00

 

F0599 67 2.53 0 0.00 67 2.53 0 0.00

F0600 69 2.60 0 0.00 69 2.60 0 0.00

F0601 63 2.37 0 0.00 63 2.37 0 0.00

F0602 39 1.47 0 0.00 39 1.47 0 0.00

F0603 32 1.21 0 0.00 32 1.21 0 0.00

 

F0604 34 1.28 0 0.00 34 1.28 0 0.00

F0605 39 1.47 0 0.00 39 1.47 0 0.00

F0606 37 1.39 0 0.00 37 1.39 0 0.00

F0607 44 1.66 0 0.00 44 1.66 0 0.00

F0608 41 1.55 0 0.00 41 1.55 0 0.00

 

F0609 33 1.24 0 0.00 33 1.24 0 0.00

F0610 44 1.66 0 0.00 44 1.66 0 0.00

F0611 1,955 73.69 1,879 70.83 76 2.86 0 0.00

F0612 136 5.13 0 0.00 115 4.33 21 0.79

F0613 29 1.09 0 0.00 29 1.09 0 0.00

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Former 

Teacher Restricted Use Data File,” 2004–05. 
H-4 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Table H-2. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the current teacher data file, by variable: 2004–05 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

F0052 83 1.7 0 0.0 73 1.5 10 0.2

F0053 96 2.0 1 0.0 86 1.8 9 0.2

F0054 76 1.6 66 1.4 0 0.0 10 0.2

F0055 10 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 0.2

F0056 43 0.9 29 0.6 14 0.3 0 0.0

 

F0057 18 0.4 6 0.1 12 0.3 0 0.0

F0058 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0059 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0060 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0061 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

F0062 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0063 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0064 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0065 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0066 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

F0067 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0068 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0069 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0070 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0071 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

F0072 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0073 128 2.7 123 2.6 5 0.1 0 0.0

F0074 26 0.5 0 0.0 26 0.5 0 0.0

F0075 26 0.5 0 0.0 26 0.5 0 0.0

F0076 36 0.8 0 0.0 36 0.8 0 0.0

 

F0077 35 0.7 0 0.0 35 0.7 0 0.0

F0078 43 0.9 0 0.0 43 0.9 0 0.0

F0079 50 1.0 0 0.0 50 1.0 0 0.0

F0080 54 1.1 0 0.0 54 1.1 0 0.0

F0081 38 0.8 0 0.0 38 0.8 0 0.0

 

F0082 46 1.0 0 0.0 46 1.0 0 0.0

F0083 47 1.0 0 0.0 47 1.0 0 0.0

F0084 42 0.9 0 0.0 42 0.9 0 0.0

F0085 53 1.1 0 0.0 53 1.1 0 0.0

F0086 44 0.9 0 0.0 44 0.9 0 0.0

 

F0087 35 0.7 0 0.0 35 0.7 0 0.0

F0088 46 1.0 0 0.0 46 1.0 0 0.0

F0089 40 0.8 0 0.0 40 0.8 0 0.0

F0090 64 1.3 0 0.0 64 1.3 0 0.0

F0091 54 1.1 0 0.0 54 1.1 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix H. Percentage of TFS Variables Changed During Three Stages of Imputation, by Data File H-5 

Table H-2. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the current teacher data file: 2004–05—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

F0092 132 2.8 0 0.0 132 2.8 0 0.0

F0093 92 1.9 0 0.0 92 1.9 0 0.0

F0094 72 1.5 0 0.0 72 1.5 0 0.0

F0095 50 1.0 0 0.0 50 1.0 0 0.0

F0096 43 0.9 0 0.0 43 0.9 0 0.0

 

F0097 50 1.0 0 0.0 50 1.0 0 0.0

F0098 67 1.4 0 0.0 67 1.4 0 0.0

F0099 54 1.1 0 0.0 54 1.1 0 0.0

F0100 74 1.5 0 0.0 74 1.5 0 0.0

F0101 76 1.6 0 0.0 76 1.6 0 0.0

 

F0102 70 1.5 0 0.0 70 1.5 0 0.0

F0103 64 1.3 0 0.0 64 1.3 0 0.0

F0104 60 1.3 0 0.0 60 1.3 0 0.0

F0105 53 1.1 0 0.0 53 1.1 0 0.0

F0106 61 1.3 0 0.0 61 1.3 0 0.0

 

F0107 53 1.1 0 0.0 53 1.1 0 0.0

F0108 50 1.0 0 0.0 50 1.0 0 0.0

F0109 70 1.5 0 0.0 70 1.5 0 0.0

F0110 51 1.1 0 0.0 51 1.1 0 0.0

F0111 48 1.0 0 0.0 48 1.0 0 0.0

 

F0112 56 1.2 0 0.0 56 1.2 0 0.0

F0113 62 1.3 0 0.0 62 1.3 0 0.0

F0114 66 1.4 0 0.0 66 1.4 0 0.0

F0115 58 1.2 0 0.0 58 1.2 0 0.0

F0116 79 1.7 0 0.0 79 1.7 0 0.0

 

F0117 49 1.0 0 0.0 49 1.0 0 0.0

F0118 59 1.2 0 0.0 59 1.2 0 0.0

F0119 56 1.2 0 0.0 56 1.2 0 0.0

F0120 67 1.4 0 0.0 67 1.4 0 0.0

F0121 63 1.3 0 0.0 63 1.3 0 0.0

 

F0122 58 1.2 0 0.0 58 1.2 0 0.0

F0123 58 1.2 0 0.0 58 1.2 0 0.0

F0124 58 1.2 0 0.0 58 1.2 0 0.0

F0125 55 1.2 0 0.0 55 1.2 0 0.0

F0126 55 1.2 0 0.0 55 1.2 0 0.0

 

F0127 58 1.2 0 0.0 58 1.2 0 0.0

F0128 760 15.9 0 0.0 717 15.0 43 0.9

F0129 303 6.3 0 0.0 287 6.0 16 0.3

F0130 727 15.2 0 0.0 716 15.0 11 0.2

F0131 30 0.6 5 0.1 25 0.5 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
H-6 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Table H-2. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the current teacher data file: 2004–05—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

F0132 31 0.6 6 0.1 25 0.5 0 0.0

F0133 39 0.8 13 0.3 26 0.5 0 0.0

F0134 42 0.9 16 0.3 26 0.5 0 0.0

F0135 30 0.6 4 0.1 26 0.5 0 0.0

F0136 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

F0137 54 1.1 54 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0138 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0144 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0145 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0146 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

F0147 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0148 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0149 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0150 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0151 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

F0152 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0153 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0154 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0155 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0156 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

F0157 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0158 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0159 85 1.8 13 0.3 62 1.3 10 0.2

F0160 9 0.2 1 0.0 7 0.1 1 0.0

F0161 93 1.9 0 0.0 93 1.9 0 0.0

 

F0162 101 2.1 0 0.0 101 2.1 0 0.0

F0163 97 2.0 0 0.0 97 2.0 0 0.0

F0164 95 2.0 0 0.0 95 2.0 0 0.0

F0165 94 2.0 0 0.0 94 2.0 0 0.0

F0166 99 2.1 0 0.0 99 2.1 0 0.0

 

F0167 100 2.1 0 0.0 100 2.1 0 0.0

F0168 105 2.2 0 0.0 105 2.2 0 0.0

F0169 103 2.2 0 0.0 103 2.2 0 0.0

F0170 96 2.0 0 0.0 96 2.0 0 0.0

F0171 104 2.2 0 0.0 104 2.2 0 0.0

 

F0172 148 3.1 102 2.1 0 0.0 46 1.0

F0173 113 2.4 0 0.0 113 2.4 0 0.0

F0174 131 2.7 0 0.0 131 2.7 0 0.0

F0175 122 2.6 0 0.0 122 2.6 0 0.0

F0176 118 2.5 0 0.0 118 2.5 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix H. Percentage of TFS Variables Changed During Three Stages of Imputation, by Data File H-7 

Table H-2. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the current teacher data file: 2004–05—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

F0177 119 2.5 0 0.0 119 2.5 0 0.0

F0178 136 2.8 0 0.0 136 2.8 0 0.0

F0179 129 2.7 0 0.0 129 2.7 0 0.0

F0180 125 2.6 0 0.0 125 2.6 0 0.0

F0181 80 1.7 80 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

F0182 182 3.8 168 3.5 0 0.0 14 0.3

F0183 175 3.7 0 0.0 175 3.7 0 0.0

F0184 170 3.6 0 0.0 170 3.6 0 0.0

F0185 173 3.6 0 0.0 173 3.6 0 0.0

F0186 186 3.9 0 0.0 186 3.9 0 0.0

 

F0187 174 3.6 0 0.0 174 3.6 0 0.0

F0188 88 1.8 0 0.0 88 1.8 0 0.0

F0189 93 1.9 0 0.0 93 1.9 0 0.0

F0190 108 2.3 0 0.0 108 2.3 0 0.0

F0191 92 1.9 0 0.0 92 1.9 0 0.0

 

F0192 98 2.1 0 0.0 98 2.1 0 0.0

F0193 99 2.1 0 0.0 99 2.1 0 0.0

F0194 102 2.1 0 0.0 102 2.1 0 0.0

F0195 100 2.1 0 0.0 100 2.1 0 0.0

F0196 105 2.2 0 0.0 105 2.2 0 0.0

 

F0197 104 2.2 0 0.0 104 2.2 0 0.0

F0198 103 2.2 0 0.0 103 2.2 0 0.0

F0199 103 2.2 0 0.0 103 2.2 0 0.0

F0200 102 2.1 0 0.0 102 2.1 0 0.0

F0201 98 2.1 0 0.0 98 2.1 0 0.0

 

F0202 99 2.1 0 0.0 99 2.1 0 0.0

F0203 98 2.1 0 0.0 98 2.1 0 0.0

F0204 92 1.9 0 0.0 92 1.9 0 0.0

F0205 3 0.1 0 0.0 3 0.1 0 0.0

F0206 3 0.1 0 0.0 3 0.1 0 0.0

 

F0207 95 2.0 0 0.0 95 2.0 0 0.0

F0208 28 0.6 0 0.0 28 0.6 0 0.0

F0209 51 1.1 51 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0210 22 0.5 0 0.0 22 0.5 0 0.0

F0211 41 0.9 0 0.0 41 0.9 0 0.0

 

F0212 47 1.0 0 0.0 47 1.0 0 0.0

F0213 42 0.9 0 0.0 42 0.9 0 0.0

F0214 55 1.2 32 0.7 23 0.5 0 0.0

F0215 68 1.4 0 0.0 68 1.4 0 0.0

F0216 115 2.4 0 0.0 115 2.4 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
H-8 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Table H-2. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the current teacher data file: 2004–05—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

F0217 97 2.0 12 0.3 85 1.8 0 0.0

F0218 57 1.2 0 0.0 57 1.2 0 0.0

F0219 157 3.3 64 1.3 93 1.9 0 0.0

F0220 36 0.8 0 0.0 36 0.8 0 0.0

F0221 158 3.3 60 1.3 98 2.1 0 0.0

 

F0222 73 1.5 0 0.0 73 1.5 0 0.0

F0223 310 6.5 0 0.0 310 6.5 0 0.0

F0224 103 2.2 57 1.2 46 1.0 0 0.0

F0225 128 2.7 0 0.0 128 2.7 0 0.0

F0226 111 2.3 23 0.5 88 1.8 0 0.0

 

F0227 35 0.7 0 0.0 35 0.7 0 0.0

F0228 88 1.8 3 0.1 85 1.8 0 0.0

F0229 91 1.9 0 0.0 91 1.9 0 0.0

F0230 25 0.5 0 0.0 25 0.5 0 0.0

F0231 247 5.2 21 0.4 226 4.7 0 0.0

 

F0232 127 2.7 0 0.0 106 2.2 21 0.4

F0233 1,848 38.7 664 13.9 1,172 24.5 12 0.3

F0234 20 0.4 0 0.0 20 0.4 0 0.0

F0235 498 10.4 0 0.0 498 10.4 0 0.0

F0236 48 1.0 0 0.0 48 1.0 0 0.0

 

F0237 290 6.1 0 0.0 290 6.1 0 0.0

F0238 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0269 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0270 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0271 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

F0272 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0278 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

F0279 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), “Current 

Teacher Restricted Use Data File,” 2004–05. 
I-1 

Appendix I. Weighting Adjustment Cells 

A detailed listing of the weighting classes, or cells, used in the Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) is 

contained in this appendix. Refer to “Chapter 8. Weighting and Variance Estimation” for a more general 

description of the weighting procedure. 

TFS Nonresponse Adjustment Cells 

The noninterview tables used in the weighting have the following categories in common: sex (i.e., male 

and female), education level (i.e., bachelor’s degree or less and master’s degree or more), and age 

(categories vary by stratum). Public charter school teachers were combined with traditional public school 

teachers for the purpose of weighting. Note that the characteristics (sex, education level, age, sector, etc.) 

used to define the weighting classes are based on data reported in the Schools and Staffing Survey 

(SASS). 

New Public School Leavers: Sex by Education Level by Age Category 

 Age: Less than 24, 24–25, 26–27, 28–30, 31–34, 35–39, 40–46, 

47–53, and 54 or older 

Experienced Public School Leavers: Sex by Education Level by Age Category 

 Age: Less than 26, 26–28, 29–30, 31–32, 33–34, 35–37, 38–41, 

42–46, 47–51, 52–54, 55–56, 57–58, 59–61, and 62 or older 

New Public School Movers: Sex by Education Level by Age Category 

 Age: Less than 24, 24–25, 26–27, 28–30, 31–34, 35–41, and 42 or 

older 

Experienced Public School Movers: Sex by Education Level by Age Category 

 Age: Less than 29, 29–31, 32–34, 35–38, 39–42, 43–46, 47–50, 

51–53, and 54 or older 

New Public School Stayers: Sex by Education Level by Age Category 

 Age: Less than 24, 24–25, 26–27, 28–30, 31–34, 35–39, 40–47, 

and 48 or older 

Experienced Public School Stayers: Sex by Education Level by Age Category 

 Age: Less than 30, 30–32, 33–35, 36–39, 40–42, 43–45, 46–48, 

49–51, 52–53, 54–56, and 57 or older 

New Private School Leavers: Sex by Education Level by Age Category 

 Age: Less than 25, 25–26, 27–29, 30–35, 36–42, and 43 or older 
I-2 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Experienced Private School Leavers: Sex by Education Level by Age Category 

 Age: Less than 32, 33–37, 38–43, 44–50, 51–57, and 58 or older 

New Private School Movers: Sex by Education Level by Age Category 

 Age: Less than 25, 25–26, 27–37, and 38 or older 

Experienced Private School Movers: Sex by Education Level by Age Category 

 Age: Less than 30, 30–34, 35–41, 42–50, and 51 or older 

New Private School Stayers: Sex by Education Level by Age Category 

 Age: Less than 25, 25–26, 27–29, 30–34, 35–41, 42–47, and 48 or 

older 

Experienced Private School Stayers: Sex by Education Level by Age Category 

 Age: Less than 31, 31–35, 36–40, 41–45, 46–49, 50–52, 53–56, 

57–59, and 60 or older 

TFS First-Stage Adjustment Cells 

The first-stage tables used in the weighting have the following categories in common: sex (i.e., male and 

female), race/ethnicity (i.e., minority, nonminority), teaching assignment (i.e., special education, general 

elementary, secondary math, secondary science, secondary English, secondary social science, secondary 

vocational/technical, and secondary other) and age (categories vary). Public charter school teachers were 

combined with traditional public school teachers for the purpose of weighting. Note that the 

characteristics (sex, race/ethnicity, teaching assignment, age, sector, etc.) used to define the weighting 

classes are based on data reported in SASS. 

Public School Teachers: Sex by Race/Ethnicity by Teaching Assignment by Age 

 Male by Minority: Less than 33, 33–43, and 44 or older 

 Male by Nonminority: Less than 30, 30–36, 37–46, 47–52, 53–57, and 58 or older 

 Female by Minority: Less than 30, 30–34, 35–43, 44–54, and 55 or older 

 Female by Nonminority: Less than 26, 26–27, 28–30, 31–34, 35–38, 39–43, 44–47, 

48–51, 52–55, 56–58, and 59 or older 

Private School Teachers: Sex by Race/Ethnicity by Teaching Assignment by Age 

 Male by Minority: No age categories used 

 Male by Nonminority: Less than 28, 28–34, 35–42, 43–51, and 52 or older 

 Female by Minority: Less than 32, 32–42, 43–55, and 56 or older 

 Female by Nonminority: Less than 25, 25–27, 28–32, 33–38, 39–46, 47–51, and 52 or 

older 
J-1 

Appendix J. Frame and Created Variables 

Variables were classified as frame variables if they were drawn from or based on the Teacher Follow-up 

Survey (TFS) sampling frame. These variables may be based on information from the Schools and 

Staffing Survey (SASS), the Common Core of Data (CCD), or the Private School Universe Survey (PSS). 

Frame variables may or may not have been used for sampling. Selected variables from these sources were 

included on the restricted-use data files if they provided potentially valuable information to the user that 

was not available on the survey. 

Created variables are based on survey variables, frame variables, other created variables, or a combination 

of these. These variables are frequently used in National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

publications and have been added to the data files to facilitate data analysis. 

The frame and created variables included on the 2004–05 TFS data files are listed below along with a 

brief description. The SAS code used to produce the created variables is also detailed. 

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

A03C2_TF Created Variable showing whether TFS teacher’s general field of main teaching assignment 

changed between 2003–04 SASS and 2004–05 TFS. Categories include: 

1 = General field of main teaching assignment in 2003–04 same as in 2004–05; 

2 = General field of main teaching assignment changed between 2003–04 and 

2004–05. 

Coded as follows: if ASSIGN03 = ASN03_TF then A03C2_TF = 1; else 

A03C2_TF = 2; 

A03CH_TF Created Variable showing whether TFS teacher’s detailed main teaching assignment 

changed between 2003–04 SASS and 2004–05 TFS. Categories include: 

1 = Detailed main teaching assignment in 2003–04 same as in 2004–05; 

2 = Detailed main teaching assignment changed between 2003–04 and 2004–05. 

Coded as follows: if t0069 in (101, 102) or t0075 in (101, 102) then mainasn = 1; 

if t0069 = 110 or t0075 = 110 then mainasn = 2; if t0069 = 141 or t0075 = 141 then 

mainasn = 3; if t0069 = 143 or t0075 = 143 then mainasn = 4; if t0069 = 144 or 

t0075 = 144 then mainasn = 5; if t0069 = 145 or t0075 = 145 then mainasn = 6; 

if t0069 = 151 or t0075 = 151 then mainasn = 7; if t0069 = 152 or t0075 = 152 then 

mainasn = 8; if t0069 = 153 or t0075 = 153 then mainasn = 9; if t0069 = 154 or 

t0075 = 154 then mainasn = 10; if t0069 = 155 or t0075 = 155 then mainasn = 11; 

if t0069 = 158 or t0075 = 158 then mainasn = 12; if t0069 = 159 or t0075 = 159 

then mainasn = 13; if t0069 in (160, 161, 162) or t0075 in (160, 161, 162) then 

mainasn = 14; if t0069 = 171 or t0075 = 171 then mainasn = 15; if t0069 = 172 or 

t0075 = 172 then mainasn = 16; if t0069 = 173 or t0075 = 173 then mainasn = 17; 

if t0069 = 174 or t0075 = 174 then mainasn = 18; if t0069 = 175 or t0075 = 175 

then mainasn = 19; if t0069 = 181 or t0075 = 181 then mainasn = 20; if t0069 = 

182 or t0075 = 182 then mainasn = 21; if t0069 = 191 or t0075 = 191 then mainasn 

= 22; if t0069 = 192 or t0075 = 192 then mainasn = 23; if t0069 = 193 or t0075 = 

193 then mainasn = 24; if t0069 = 194 or t0075 = 194 then mainasn = 25; if t0069 

= 195 or t0075 = 195 then mainasn = 26; if t0069 = 196 or t0075 = 196 then 

mainasn = 27; if t0069 = 197 or t0075 = 197 then mainasn = 28; if t0069 = 198 or 

t0075 = 198 then mainasn = 29; if t0069 = 199 or t0075 = 199 then mainasn = 30; 

if t0069 = 200 or t0075 = 200 then mainasn = 31; if t0069 = 201 or t0075 = 201 

then mainasn = 32; if t0069 = 210 or t0075 = 210 then mainasn = 33; if t0069 = 

211 or t0075 = 211 then mainasn = 34; if t0069 = 212 or t0075 = 212 then mainasn 

= 35; if t0069 = 213 or t0075 = 213 then mainasn = 36; if t0069 = 215 or t0075 = 

215 then mainasn = 37; if t0069 = 216 or t0075 = 216 then mainasn = 38; if t0069 

= 217 or t0075 = 217 then mainasn = 39; if t0069 = 220 or t0075 = 220 then 
J-2 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

mainasn = 40; if t0069 = 221 or t0075 = 221 then mainasn = 41; if t0069 = 225 or 

t0075 = 225 then mainasn = 42; if t0069 = 226 or t0075 = 226 then mainasn = 43; 

if t0069 = 227 or t0075 = 227 then mainasn = 44; if t0069 = 228 or t0075 = 228 

then mainasn = 45; if t0069 = 231 or t0075 = 231 then mainasn = 46; if t0069 = 

233 or t0075 = 233 then mainasn = 47; if t0069 = 234 or t0075 = 234 then mainasn 

= 48; if t0069 = 241 or t0075 = 241 then mainasn = 49; if t0069 = 242 or t0075 = 

242 then mainasn = 50; if t0069 = 243 or t0075 = 243 then mainasn = 51; if t0069 

= 244 or t0075 = 244 then mainasn = 52; if t0069 = 245 or t0075 = 245 then 

mainasn = 53; if t0069 = 246 or t0075 = 246 then mainasn = 54; if t0069 = 247 or 

t0075 = 247 then mainasn = 55; if t0069 = 248 or t0075 = 248 then mainasn = 56; 

if t0069 = 249 or t0075 = 249 then mainasn = 57; if t0069 = 250 or t0075 = 250 

then mainasn = 58; if t0069 = 251 or t0075 = 251 then mainasn = 59; if t0069 = 

252 or t0075 = 252 then mainasn = 60; if t0069 = 253 or t0075 = 253 then mainasn 

= 61; if t0069 = 254 or t0075 = 254 then mainasn = 62; if t0069 = 255 or t0075 = 

255 then mainasn = 63; if t0069 = 256 or t0075 = 256 then mainasn = 64; if t0069 

= 262 or t0075 = 262 then mainasn = 65; if t0069 = 264 or t0075 = 264 then 

mainasn = 66; if t0069 = 265 or t0075 = 265 then mainasn = 67; if t0069 = 266 or 

t0075 = 266 then mainasn = 68; if t0069 = 267 or t0075 = 267 then mainasn = 69; 

if t0069 = 268 or t0075 = 268 then mainasn = 70; if f0056 in (101, 102) then 

 mainasnt = 1; if f0056 = 110 then mainasnt = 2; if f0056 = 141 then mainasnt = 3; 

if f0056 = 143 then mainasnt = 4; if f0056 = 144 then mainasnt = 5; if f0056 = 145 

then mainasnt = 6; if f0056 = 151 then mainasnt = 7; if f0056 = 152 then mainasnt 

= 8; if f0056 = 153 then mainasnt = 9; if f0056 = 154 then mainasnt = 10; if f0056 

= 155 then mainasnt = 11; if f0056 = 158 then mainasnt = 12; if f0056 = 159 then 

mainasnt = 13; if f0056 in (160, 161, 162) then mainasnt = 14; if f0056 = 171 then 

mainasnt = 15; if f0056 = 172 then mainasnt = 16; if f0056 = 173 then mainasnt = 

17; if f0056 = 174 then mainasnt = 18; if f0056 = 175 then mainasnt = 19; if f0056 

= 181 then mainasnt = 20; if f0056 = 182 then mainasnt = 21; if f0056 = 191 then 

mainasnt = 22; if f0056 = 192 then mainasnt = 23; if f0056 = 193 then mainasnt = 

24; if f0056 = 194 then mainasnt = 25; if f0056 = 195 then mainasnt = 26; if f0056 

= 196 then mainasnt = 27; if f0056 = 197 then mainasnt = 28; if f0056 = 198 then 

mainasnt = 29; if f0056 = 199 then mainasnt = 30; if f0056 = 200 then mainasnt = 

31; if f0056 = 201 then mainasnt = 32; if f0056 = 210 then mainasnt = 33; if f0056 

= 211 then mainasnt = 34; if f0056 = 212 then mainasnt = 35; if f0056 = 213 then 

mainasnt = 36; if f0056 = 215 then mainasnt = 37; if f0056 = 216 then mainasnt = 

38; if f0056 = 217 then mainasnt = 39; if f0056 = 220 then mainasnt = 40; if f0056 

= 221 then mainasnt = 41; if f0056 = 225 then mainasnt = 42; if f0056 = 226 then 

mainasnt = 43; if f0056 = 227 then mainasnt = 44; if f0056 = 228 then mainasnt = 

45; if f0056 = 231 then mainasnt = 46; if f0056 = 233 then mainasnt = 47; if f0056 

= 234 then mainasnt = 48; if f0056 = 241 then mainasnt = 49; if f0056 = 242 then 

mainasnt = 50; if f0056 = 243 then mainasnt = 51; if f0056 = 244 then mainasnt = 

52; if f0056 = 245 then mainasnt = 53; if f0056 = 246 then mainasnt = 54; if f0056 

= 247 then mainasnt = 55; if f0056 = 248 then mainasnt = 56; if f0056 = 249 then 

mainasnt = 57; if f0056 = 250 then mainasnt = 58; if f0056 = 251 then mainasnt = 

59; if f0056 = 252 then mainasnt = 60; if f0056 = 253 then mainasnt = 61; if f0056 

= 254 then mainasnt = 62; if f0056 = 255 then mainasnt = 63; if f0056 = 256 then 

mainasnt = 64; if f0056 = 262 then mainasnt = 65; if f0056 = 264 then mainasnt = 

66; if f0056 = 265 then mainasnt = 67; if f0056 = 266 then mainasnt = 68; if f0056 

= 267 then mainasnt = 69; if f0056 = 268 then mainasnt = 70; 

if mainasn = mainasnt then A03CH_TF = 1; 

else A03CH_TF = 2; 

AGE_T Created Teacher’s age at the time of SASS. Calculated as follows: age_t = sum (2003, 

-t0416); 
Appendix J. Frame and Created Variables J-3 

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

AGE_TF Created Teacher’s age during TFS. Calculated by adding 1 year to age as reported in SASS 

(AGE_T). Calculated as follows: AGE_TF = sum (AGE_T, 1); 

AIFLAG Created Flag identifying Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools in the SASS 

sample and proportion of American Indian students enrolled in non-BIA schools. 

Categories include: 

1 = BIA-funded school; 

2 = Non-BIA school, 20 percent or more American Indian enrollment; 

3 = Non-BIA school, less than 20 percent American Indian enrollment; 

-8 = Valid skip, respondent taught in a private school in the 2003–04 SASS. 

Coded as follows: If BIAFLAG = 1 then AIFLAG = 1; if BIAFLAG = 2 and 

S0421/ENRK12UG ge .2 then AIFLAG = 2; if BIAFLAG = 2 and 

S0421/ENRK12UG lt .2 then AIFLAG = 3; if sector = 2 then do; if AIFLAG = . 

then AIFLAG = -8; end; 

ASGN03_S Created 2003–04 SASS main teaching assignment field (as reported in TFS First Look). 

Categories include: 

1 = Early Childhood/General Elementary; 

2 = Special Education; 

3 = Arts/Music; 

4 = English/Language Arts; 

5 = Mathematics; 

6 = Natural Sciences; 

7 = Social Sciences; 

 8 = Other. 

“Other” includes all vocational/technical teachers, all ESL/Bilingual teachers, 

teachers of foreign languages, teachers of health or physical education, computer 

science teachers, and all teachers under the miscellaneous and other categories. 

Coded as follows: if t0069 in (101, 102) or t0075 in (101, 102) then ASGN03_S = 

1; if t0069 = 110 or t0075 = 110 then ASGN03_S = 2; if t0069 in (141, 143, 144, 

145) or t0075 in (141, 143, 144, 145) then ASGN03_S = 3; if t0069 in (151, 152, 

153, 154, 155, 158, 159) or t0075 in (151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 158, 159) then 

ASGN03_S = 4; if t0069 in (191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201) or 

t0075 in (191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201) then ASGN03_S = 5; 

t0069 in (210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 217) or t0075 in (210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 

216, 217) then ASGN03_S = 6; t0069 in (220, 221, 225, 226, 227, 228, 233, 234) 

or t0075 in (220, 221, 225, 226, 227, 228, 233, 234) then ASGN03_S = 7; else 

ASGN03_S = 8; 
J-4 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

ASN03_TF Created General field of main teaching assignment in TFS. Categories include: 

1 = Early Childhood/General Elementary; 

2 = Special Education; 

3 = Arts and Music; 

4 = English/Language Arts; 

5 = ESL/Bilingual Education; 

6 = Foreign Language; 

7 = Health/Physical Education; 

8 = Mathematics; 

9 = Natural Sciences; 

10 = Social Sciences; 

11 = Vocational/Technical Education; 

12 = Other. 

Coded as follows: if f0056 in (101,102) then ASN03_TF = 1; if f0056 = 110 then 

ASN03_TF = 2; if f0056 in (141, 143, 144, 145) then ASN03_TF = 3; if f0056 in 

(151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 158, 159) then ASN03_TF = 4; if f0056 in (160, 161, 

162) then ASN03_TF = 5; if 171 le f0056 le 175 then ASN03_TF = 6; if f0056 in 

(181, 182) then ASN03_TF = 7; if f0056 in (191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 

199, 200, 201) then ASN03_TF = 8; if f0056 in (210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 

217) then ASN03_TF = 9; if f0056 in (220, 221, 225, 226, 227, 228, 231, 233, 

234) then ASN03_TF = 10; if 241 le f0056 le 256 then ASN03_TF = 11; if f0056 

in (197, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268) then ASN03_TF = 12; 

ASSIGN03 Created General field of main teaching assignment at time of SASS. Categories include: 

1 = Early Childhood/General Elementary; 

2 = Special Education; 

3 = Arts/Music; 

4 = English/Language Arts; 

5 = ESL/Bilingual Education; 

6 = Foreign Languages; 

7 = Health/Physical Education; 

8 = Mathematics; 

9 = Natural Science; 

10 = Social Sciences; 

11 = Vocational/Technical Education; 

12 = All Others. 

Coded as follows: if t0069 in (101,102) then ASSIGN03 = 1; if t0069 = 110 then 

ASSIGN03 = 2; if t0069 in (141, 143, 144, 145) then ASSIGN03 = 3; if t0069 in 

(151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 158, 159) then ASSIGN03 = 4; if t0069 in (160, 161, 

162) then ASSIGN03 = 5; if 171 le t0069 le 175 then ASSIGN03 = 6; if t0069 in 

(181, 182) then ASSIGN03 = 7; if t0069 in (191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 

199, 200, 201) then ASSIGN03 = 8; if t0069 in (210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 217) 

then ASSIGN03 = 9; if t0069 in (220, 221, 225, 226, 227, 228, 231, 233, 234) then 

ASSIGN03 = 10; if 241 le t0069 le 256 then ASSIGN03 = 11; if t0069 in (197, 

262, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268) then ASSIGN03 = 12; 
Appendix J. Frame and Created Variables J-5 

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

CHARFLAG Created Indicates whether or not the SASS school was a public charter school; a public 

charter school provides free elementary and/or secondary education to eligible 

students under a specific charter granted by the state legislature or other 

appropriate authority. Copied from S0661 on the public school file. Categories 

include: 

1 = School is a public charter school; 

2 = School is not a public charter school; 

-8 = Valid skip, respondent taught in a private school in the 2003–04 SASS. 

Coded for TFS as follows: if sector = 2 then do; if CHARFLAG = . then 

CHARFLAG = -8; end; 

CMODE_TF Frame TFS mode of data collection. Categories include: 

1 = Mail option only; 

2 = Internet option without advance notice of mail option; 

3 = Internet option with advance notice of mail option. 

Coded as follows: if TPNL in (1, 2) then CMODE_TF = 1; else if TPNL in (3, 4) 

then CMODE_TF = 2; else if TPNL in (5, 6) then CMODE_TF = 3; 

CNTLNUMD Frame SASS district control number. Digits 1–2: State FIPS code. Digits 3–5: District 

number (000 for private schools; 101–899—All public schools except public 

schools with no districts, state run schools, one-school districts, and some charter 

schools; 901–999—Public schools with no districts, state run schools, one-school 

districts, and some charter schools). Digit 6: Check digit—Computed from other 

parts of control number. 

if sector = 2 then do; CNTLNUMD = -8 (Valid skip, respondent taught in a private 

school in the 2003–04 SASS); end; 

CNTLNUMS Frame SASS school control number. Use this number to merge school, principal, teacher, 

and library records. 

SASS public schools: Digits 1–2: State FIPS code. Digits 3–5: District number 

(101–899—All public schools except public schools with no districts, state run 

schools, one school districts, and some charter schools, 901–999—Public schools 

with no districts, state run schools, one-school districts, and some charter schools). 

Digit 6: Type of school (1 = Regular public school; 2 = DOD school; 3 = BIA 

school; 7 = One-school districts; 8 = Charter school operated by regular District; 9 

= Charter school operated by an entity other than a school district; 0 = Independent 

charter school). Digits 7–9: School number (101–999—Schools are numbered 

sequentially starting with ‘101’ within each state and each District). Digit 10: Split 

school indicator (‘0’ for all schools). Digit 11: Questionnaire identifier (3 = 

school). Digit 12: Check digit—Computed from other parts of control number. 

SASS private schools: Digit 1–2: State FIPS code. Digit 3–5: District number—

’000’ for all private schools. Digit 6: Type of school (4 = Catholic list frame 

private school; 5 = Non-Catholic list frame private school; 6 = Area frame private 

school). Digit 7–9: School number (101–999—Schools are numbered sequentially 

starting with ‘101’ within each state and school type). Digit 10: Split school 

indicator (‘0’ for all schools). Digit 11: Questionnaire identifier (3 = school). Digit 

12: Check digit—Computed from other parts of control number. 
J-6 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

CNTLNUMT Frame Teacher control number used for merging TFS and SASS teacher records. 

Public school teacher: Digits 1–2: State FIPS code. Digits 3–5: District number 

(101–899—All public schools except public schools with no districts, state run 

schools, one-school districts, and some charter schools, 901–999—Public schools 

with no districts, state run schools, one school districts, and some charter schools). 

Digit 6: (1 = Regular public school; 2 = DoD school; 3 = BIA school; 7 = Oneschool districts; 8 = Charter school operated by a regular District; 9 = Charter 

school operated by an entity other than a school district; 0 = Independent charter 

school). Digits 7–9: School number (101–999—Schools are numbered sequentially 

starting with ‘101’ within each state and each District). Digit 10: Split school 

indicator (‘0’ for all schools). Digit 11–13: Teacher number (Teachers are 

numbered sequentially from ‘101’ to ‘120’ within each school). Digit 14: Check 

digit—Computed from other parts of control number. 

Private school teacher: Digit 1–2: State FIPS code. Digit 3–5: District number—

’000’ for all private schools. Digit 6: Type of school (4 = Catholic list frame 

private school; 5 = Non-Catholic list frame private school; 6 = Area frame private 

school). Digit 7–9: School number (101–999—Schools are numbered sequentially 

starting with ‘101’ within each type of school and each state). Digit 10: Split 

school indicator (‘0’ for all schools). Digit 11–13: Teacher number (Teachers are 

numbered sequentially from ‘101’ to ‘120’ within each school). Digit 14: Check 

digit—Computed from other parts of control number. 

EARNS_TF Created TFS teacher’s total yearly earnings from all school-related jobs. Calculated as 

follows: ARRAY d(218:227) F0218–F0227; do i = 218 to 227; if d(i) = -8 then d(i) 

= .; end; 

EARNSTF2 = sum (F0218, F0220, F0223, F0225, F0227); ARRAY d(218: 227) 

F0218–F0227; do i = 218 to 227; if d(i) = . then d(i) = -8; end; 

EARNT_TF Created TFS teacher’s total earnings for 12 months from end of 2003–04 school year to end 

of 2004–05 school year. Includes base salary for 2004–05 school year, additional 

compensation from the school district, earned income from other school sources, 

and any pay for teaching summer school, working in a nonteaching job in a school, 

or working at any nonschool job. Calculated as follows: ARRAY d(218:229) 

F0218–F0229; do i = 218 to 229; if d(i) = -8 then d(i) = .; end; EARNTTF2 = sum 

(F0218, F0220, F0222, F0223, F0225, F0227, F0229); ARRAY d(218:229) 

F0218-F0229; do i = 218 to 229; if d(i) = . then d(i) = -8; end; 

ENRK12UG Created Total K–12 and ungraded student enrollment in the SASS school. Copied from 

S0414 from SASS public school file and from S0422 from SASS private school 

file. 

ENRLEA Created Total K–12 and ungraded student enrollment in the SASS district. Copied from 

D0051 on the SASS district file. 

Coded as follows: ENRLEA= D0051; if sector = 2 then do; if ENRLEA = . then 

ENRLEA = -8 (Valid skip, respondent did not teach in a school associated with a 

district in the 2003–04 SASS); end; 

FTPT_S Created Two-level teaching status variable that shows whether respondent taught full-time 

or part-time at time of SASS. Categories include: 

1 = Full-time; 

2 = Part-time. 

Coded as follows: if t0026 = 1 or t0029 = 1 then FTPT_S = 1; else FTPT_S = 2; 
Appendix J. Frame and Created Variables J-7 

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

GENDER_S Created Respondent’s gender. Categories include: 

1 = Male, 

2 = Female. 

Coded as follows: if t0408 = 1 then GENDER_S = 1; if t0408 = 2 then 

GENDER_S = 2; 

HIDEGR_S Created Highest degree held by the teacher at the time of the 2003–04 SASS. Categories 

include: 

1 = Assoc. degree or no college degree; 

2 = Bachelor’s degree; 

3 = Master’s degree; 

4 = Education Specialist; 

5 = Doctorate or Professional degree. 

Coded as follows: if t0142 ne -8 then HIDEGR_S = 5; else if t0138 ne -8 or t0140 

ne -8 then HIDEGR_S = 4; else if t0123 = 1 then HIDEGR_S = 3; else if t0116 = 1 

then HIDEGR_S = 2; else HIDEGR_S = 1; 

IEP_T Created Percentage of SASS teacher’s students taught in most recent full week who had an 

Individual Education Plan (IEP), for teachers with self-contained or 

departmentalized classes. Calculated as follows: if t0066 = 1 then iep_t = round 

((100*(t0279/pupils_d)),.0001); if t0066 = 3 then iep_t = round 

((100*(t0279/pupils_s)),.0001); if iep_t gt 100 then iep_t = 100; if t0066 not in 

(1,3) then iep_t = -8; 

JOBDES_S Created Type of additional jobs that respondents held outside of their SASS school system. 

Categories include: 

1 = Teaching or tutoring; 

2 = Nonteaching; 

3 = Other. 

Copied from T0406. 

LEP_T Created Percentage of SASS teacher’s students taught by teachers of self-contained or 

departmentalized classes who have limited-English proficiency. Calculated as 

follows: if t0066 = 1 then lep_t = round ((100*(t0284/pupils_d)),.0001); if t0066 = 

3 then lep_t = round ((100*(t0284/pupils_s)),.0001); if lep_t gt 100 then lep_t = 

100; if t0066 not in (1, 3) then lep_t = -8; 

MINENR Created Percentage of students in SASS school who are of a racial/ethnic minority. 

Calculated as follows: MINENR = round (((NMINST_S/ENRK12UG)*100), 

.0001); 

MINTCH Created Percentage of teachers at the SASS school who are of a racial/ethnic minority. 

Calculated as follows: MINTCH = round (((sum(S0515, S0517, S0518, 

S0519)/S0520)*100), .0001); 
J-8 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

MOVER_TF Created Ten-level variable showing whether teacher moved from the base year school, and 

if so, what type of move (i.e., across districts, states, and/or sectors). Categories 

include: 

1 = Teacher in same school where he/she was during SASS; 

2 = Moved from one public school to another in the same district; 

3 = Moved from one public school district to another, same state; 

4 = Moved from one public school district to another, different state; 

5 = Moved from a private school to a public school, same state; 

6 = Moved from a private school to a public school, different state; 

7 = Moved from one private school to another, same state; 

8 = Moved from one private school to another, different state; 

9 = Moved from a public school to a private school, same state; 

10 = Moved from a public school to private school, different state. 

Coded as follows: if F0136 = 1 then MOVER_TF = 1; if F0159 = 1 then 

MOVER_TF = 2 ; if F0159 = 2 and F0137 = 1 then MOVER_TF = 3; if F0159 = 2 

and F0137 = 2 then MOVER_TF = 4; if F0159 = 3 and F0137 = 1 then 

MOVER_TF = 5; if F0159 = 3 and F0137 = 2 then MOVER_TF = 6; if F0159 = 4 

and F0137 = 1 then MOVER_TF = 7; if F0159 = 4 and F0137 = 2 then 

MOVER_TF = 8; if F0159 = 5 and F0137 = 1 then MOVER_TF = 9; if F0159 = 5 

and F0137 = 2 then MOVER_TF = 10; 

NEWTCH Created Identifies teachers with 3 or fewer years of teaching experience during the SASS 

base year. Calculated from the teacher’s total full-time and part-time teaching 

experience (TOTEXPER) as reported in SASS. Categories include: 

1 = Teacher has taught 3 or fewer years, 

2 = Teacher has taught more than 3 years. 

Coded as follows: if totexper le 3 then newtch = 1; else newtch = 2; 

NMINST_S Created Number of students in the SASS school who are of a racial/ethnic minority. 

Calculated as follows: NMINST_S = sum(S0417, S0419, S0420, S0421); 

NSLAPP_S Created Of SASS schools that participate in the National School Lunch Program, the 

percentage of their K–12 enrollment that was approved for free or reduced-price 

lunches. Calculated as follows: if S0632 = 2 then nslapp_s = -8 (Valid skip, School 

does not participate in NSLP); else nslapp_s = round (((S0634/ENRK12UG)*100), 

.0001); if nslapp_s gt 100 then nslapp_s = 100; 

OCODE_TF Created 2002 NAICS Occupation Classification. Origin: F5555 on the Former Teacher 

Questionnaire. For details on the occupation descriptions and groupings see 

Appendix B: Occupation Classification at 

http://www.census.gov/apsd/techdoc/cps/cpsmar05.pdf or see the ‘Census 

Occupation Codes’ table under supplemental materials in the restricted-use 2003–

04 SASS and 2004–05 TFS Electronic Codebook (ECB). 

PGMTYPE Created Program type of SASS school. Categories include: 

1 = Regular; 

2 = Montessori; 

3 = Special Program Emphasis; 

4 = Special Education; 

5 = Vocational Education; 

6 = Alternative; 

7 = Early Childhood Program/Daycare Center. 

Copied from variable S0441 on SASS public and private school files. 
Appendix J. Frame and Created Variables J-9 

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

PLANS_S Created SASS teacher’s plans on remaining in the teaching profession. Categories include: 

1=As long as I am able; 

2=Until I am eligible for retirement; 

3=Will probably continue unless something better comes along; 

4=Definitely plan to leave teaching as soon as I can; 

5=Undecided at this time. 

Copied from T0383. 

RACETH_T Created Teacher’s race/ethnicity. Coded as follows: 

Array Races (5) T0414 T0413 T0412 T0411 T0410; Racenum = 0; Do i = 1 to 5; if 

Races(i) = 1 then Racenum = Racenum + 10**(i-1); End; 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 1 then RACETH_T = 1; /* Hispanic, American 

Indian */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 10 then RACETH_T = 2; /* Hispanic, Hawaiian 

Native */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 11 then RACETH_T = 3; /* Hispanic, Hawaiian 

Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 100 then RACETH_T = 4; /* Hispanic, Asian */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 101 then RACETH_T = 5; /* Hispanic, Asian, 

American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 110 then RACETH_T = 6; /* Hispanic, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 111 then RACETH_T = 7; /* Hispanic, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 1000 then RACETH_T = 8; /* Hispanic, Black */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 1001 then RACETH_T = 9; /* Hispanic, Black, 

American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 1010 then RACETH_T = 10; /* Hispanic, Black, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 1011 then RACETH_T = 11; /* Hispanic, Black, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 1100 then RACETH_T = 12; /* Hispanic, Black, 

Asian */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 1101 then RACETH_T = 13; /* Hispanic, Black, 

Asian, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 1110 then RACETH_T = 14; /* Hispanic, Black, 

Asian, Hawaiian Native */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 1111 then RACETH_T = 15; /* Hispanic, Black, 

Asian, Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 10000 then RACETH_T = 16; /* Hispanic, White */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 10001 then RACETH_T = 17; /* Hispanic, White, 

American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 10010 then RACETH_T = 18; /* Hispanic, White, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 10011 then RACETH_T = 19; /* Hispanic, White, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 10100 then RACETH_T = 20; /* Hispanic, White, 

Asian */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 10101 then RACETH_T = 21; /* Hispanic, White, 

Asian, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 10110 then RACETH_T = 22; /* Hispanic, White, 

Asian, Hawaiian Native */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 10111 then RACETH_T = 23; /* Hispanic, White, 

Asian, Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 11000 then RACETH_T = 24; /* Hispanic, White, 
J-10 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

Black */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 11001 then RACETH_T = 25; /* Hispanic, White, 

Black, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 11010 then RACETH_T = 26; /* Hispanic, White, 

Black, Hawaiian Native */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 11011 then RACETH_T = 27; /* Hispanic, White, 

Black, Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 11100 then RACETH_T = 28; /* Hispanic, White, 

Black, Asian */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 11101 then RACETH_T = 29; /* Hispanic, White, 

Black, Asian, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 11110 then RACETH_T = 30; /* Hispanic, White, 

Black, Asian, Hawaiian Native */ 

if T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 11111 then RACETH_T = 31; /* Hispanic, White, 

Black, Asian, Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1 then RACETH_T = 32; /* non-Hispanic, American 

Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10 then RACETH_T = 33; /* non-Hispanic, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 11 then RACETH_T = 34; /* non-Hispanic, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 100 then RACETH_T = 35; /* non-Hispanic, Asian 

*/ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 101 then RACETH_T = 36; /* non-Hispanic, Asian, 

American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 110 then RACETH_T = 37; /* non-Hispanic, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 111 then RACETH_T = 38; /* non-Hispanic, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1000 then RACETH_T = 39; /* non-Hispanic, Black 

*/ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1001 then RACETH_T = 40; /* non-Hispanic, Black, 

American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1010 then RACETH_T = 41; /* non-Hispanic, Black, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1011 then RACETH_T = 42; /* non-Hispanic, Black, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1100 then RACETH_T = 43; /* non-Hispanic, Black, 

Asian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1101 then RACETH_T = 44; /* non-Hispanic, Black, 

Asian, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1110 then RACETH_T = 45; /* non-Hispanic, Black, 

Asian, Hawaiian Native */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1111 then RACETH_T = 46; /* non-Hispanic, Black, 

Asian, Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10000 then RACETH_T = 47; /* non-Hispanic, 

White */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10001 then RACETH_T = 48; /* non-Hispanic, 

White, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 111 then RACETH_T = 38; /* non-Hispanic, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1000 then RACETH_T = 39; /* non-Hispanic, Black 

*/ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1001 then RACETH_T = 40; /* non-Hispanic, Black, 

American Indian */ 
Appendix J. Frame and Created Variables J-11 

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1010 then RACETH_T = 41; /* non-Hispanic, Black, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1011 then RACETH_T = 42; /* non-Hispanic, Black, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 111 then RACETH_T = 38; /* non-Hispanic, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1000 then RACETH_T = 39; /* non-Hispanic, Black 

*/ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1001 then RACETH_T = 40; /* non-Hispanic, Black, 

American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1010 then RACETH_T = 41; /* non-Hispanic, Black, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1011 then RACETH_T = 42; /* non-Hispanic, Black, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1100 then RACETH_T = 43; /* non-Hispanic, Black, 

Asian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1101 then RACETH_T = 44; /* non-Hispanic, Black, 

Asian, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1110 then RACETH_T = 45; /* non-Hispanic, Black, 

Asian, Hawaiian Native */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1111 then RACETH_T = 46; /* non-Hispanic, Black, 

Asian, Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10000 then RACETH_T = 47; /* non-Hispanic, 

White */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10001 then RACETH_T = 48; /* non-Hispanic, 

White, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10010 then RACETH_T = 49; /* non-Hispanic, 

White, Hawaiian Native */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10011 then RACETH_T = 50; /* non-Hispanic, 

White, Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10100 then RACETH_T = 51; /* non-Hispanic, 

White, Asian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10101 then RACETH_T = 52; /* non-Hispanic, 

White, Asian, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10110 then RACETH_T = 53; /* non-Hispanic, 

White, Asian, Hawaiian Native */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10111 then RACETH_T = 54; /* non-Hispanic, 

White, Asian, Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 11000 then RACETH_T = 55; /* non-Hispanic, 

White, Black */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 11001 then RACETH_T = 56; /* non-Hispanic, 

White, Black, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 11010 then RACETH_T = 57; /* non-Hispanic, 

White, Black, Hawaiian Native */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 11011 then RACETH_T = 58; /* non-Hispanic, 

White, Black, Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 11100 then RACETH_T = 59; /* non-Hispanic, 

White, Black, Asian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 11101 then RACETH_T = 60; /* non-Hispanic, 

White, Black, Asian, American Indian */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 11110 then RACETH_T = 61; /* non-Hispanic, 

White, Black, Asian, Hawaiian Native */ 

if T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 11111 then RACETH_T = 62; /* non-Hispanic, 

White, Black, Asian, Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

drop i; drop racenum; 
J-12 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

REGION Frame Census region where SASS district or private school is located. Origin: for public 

sector, GCENRG from the SASS sampling frame and for the private sector, 

HREGION from the SASS sampling frame. Categories include: 

1 = Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 

New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont; 

2 = Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin; 

3 = South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia; 

4 = West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, 

Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming. 

REGON_TF Created Census region in which the current teacher’s TFS school or the former teacher’s 

home mailing address is located. Those missing this most current data use other 

survey information or frame information. Categories include: 

1 = Northeast; 

2 = Midwest; 

3 = South; 

4 = West. 

Coded as follows: if STTUS_TF = 2 then REGON_TF = REGION; *REGION 

variable from SASS; if STTUS_TF in (1, 3) then do; if STATE_TF in (‘09’, ‘23’, 

‘25’, ‘33’, ‘34’, ‘36’, ‘42’, ‘44’, ‘50’) then REGON_TF = 1; if STATE_TF in 

(‘17’, ‘18’, ‘19’, ‘20’, ‘26’, ‘27’, ‘29’, ‘31’, ‘38’, ‘39’, ‘46’, ‘55’) then 

REGON_TF = 2; if STATE_TF in (‘01’, ‘05’, ‘10’, ‘11’, ‘12’, ‘13’, ‘21’, ‘22’, 

‘24’, ‘28’, ‘37’, ‘40’, ‘45’, ‘47’, ‘48’, ‘51’, ‘54’) then REGON_TF = 3; if 

STATE_TF in (‘02’, ‘04’, ‘06’, ‘08’, ‘15’, ‘16’, ‘30’, ‘32’, ‘35’, ‘41’, ‘49’, ‘53’, 

‘56’) then REGON_TF = 4; end; 

RELIG Created Three-level SASS private school typology. For cases where the school was a 

noninterview, sample file data were used, if available. Categories include: 

1 = Catholic; 

2 = Other religious; 

3 = Nonsectarian; 

-8 = Valid skip, respondent was not a private school teacher in the 2003–04 SASS. 

This variable was created using TYPOLOGY. 

Coded as follows: if typology in (1, 2, 3) then relig = 1; if typology in (4, 5, 6) then 

relig = 2; if typology gt 6 then relig = 3; if sector = 1 then do; if RELIG = . then 

RELIG = -8; end; 

SC_ZIP Frame Five-digit ZIP code for the SASS school. Origin: for public schools and BIA 

schools, GCLZIP on SASS sampling frame; for private schools, ZIP5 on the 

Teacher Listing Form computer-assisted personal interviewing instrument 

(Blaise/CAPI). 

SCH_ISR Created Interview status of SASS school where teacher was selected for sample. Categories 

include: 

1 = Interview; 

2 = Noninterview; 

3 = Out of scope. 
Appendix J. Frame and Created Variables J-13 

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

SCHLEVE2 Created Four-category level of school based on grade levels offered as reported by the 

SASS school. Categories include: 

1 = Primary: schools with at least one grade lower than 5 and no grade higher than 

8; 

2 = Middle: schools with no grade lower than 5 and no grade higher than 8; 

3 = High: schools with no grade lower than 7 and at least one grade higher than 8; 

4 = Combined: schools with at least one grade lower than 7 and at least one grade 

higher than 8. Schools with only ungraded classes were included with combined 

schools. 

Coded as follows: SCHLEVE2 = 1 if the lowest grade is any of grades K–4 and 

the highest grade is any of grades 1–8; SCHLEVE2 = 2 if the lowest grade is any 

of grades 5–8 and the highest is any of grades 5–8; SCHLEVE2 = 3 if the lowest 

grade is any of grades 7–12 and the highest grade is any of grades 9–12; 

SCHLEVE2 = 4 for all other cases (e.g., all ungraded, K–12, 5–12, etc.). 

Coded as follows. 

Public and BIA code: 

if S0412 = 1 then LOWEST = 12; if S0411 = 1 then LOWEST = 11; if S0410 = 1 

then LOWEST = 10; if S0409 = 1 then LOWEST = 9; if S0408 = 1 then LOWEST 

= 8; if S0407 = 1 then LOWEST = 7; if S0406 = 1 then LOWEST = 6; if S0405 = 

1 then LOWEST = 5; if S0404 = 1 then LOWEST = 4; if S0403 = 1 then 

LOWEST = 3; if S0402 = 1 then LOWEST = 2; if S0401 = 1 then LOWEST = 1; 

if S0400 = 1 then LOWEST = 0; 

if S0400 = 1 then HIGHEST = 0; if S0401 = 1 then HIGHEST = 1; if S0402 = 1 

then HIGHEST = 2; if S0403 = 1 then HIGHEST = 3; if S0404 = 1 then 

HIGHEST = 4; if S0405 = 1 then HIGHEST = 5; if S0406 = 1 then HIGHEST = 6; 

if S0407 = 1 then HIGHEST = 7; if S0408 = 1 then HIGHEST = 8; if S0409 = 1 

then HIGHEST = 9; if S0410 = 1 then HIGHEST = 10; if S0411 = 1 then 

HIGHEST = 11; if S0412 = 1 then HIGHEST =12; 

if LOWEST le 4 and HIGHEST le 8 then SCHLEVE2 = 1; if LOWEST ge 7 and 

HIGHEST ge 9 then SCHLEVE2 = 3; if LOWEST ge 5 and HIGHEST le 8 then 

SCHLEVE2 = 2; if LOWEST le 6 and HIGHEST ge 9 then SCHLEVE2 = 4; if 

S0413 = 1 and LOWEST lt 1 and HIGHEST lt 1 then SCHLEVE2 = 4; 

Private code: 

if S0732 = 1 then LOWEST = 12; if S0730 = 1 then LOWEST = 11; if S0728 = 1 

then LOWEST = 10; if S0726 = 1 then LOWEST = 9; if S0724 = 1 then LOWEST 

= 8; if S0722 = 1 then LOWEST = 7; if S0720 = 1 then LOWEST = 6; if S0718 = 

1 then LOWEST = 5; if S0716 = 1 then LOWEST = 4; if S0714 = 1 then 

LOWEST = 3; if S0712 = 1 then LOWEST = 2; if S0710 = 1 or S0708 = 1 then 

LOWEST = 1; if S0704 = 1 or S0706 = 1 then LOWEST = 0; 

if S0704 = 1 or S0706 = 1 then HIGHEST = 0; if S0710 = 1 or s0708 = 1 then 

HIGHEST = 1; if S0712 = 1 then HIGHEST = 2; if S0714 = 1 then HIGHEST = 3; 

if S0716 = 1 then HIGHEST = 4; if S0718 = 1 then HIGHEST = 5; if S0720 = 1 

then HIGHEST = 6; if S0722 = 1 then HIGHEST = 7; if S0724 = 1 then 

HIGHEST = 8; if S0726 = 1 then HIGHEST = 9; if S0728 = 1 then HIGHEST = 

10; if S0730 = 1 then HIGHEST = 11; if S0732 = 1 then HIGHEST = 12; 

if LOWEST le 4 and HIGHEST le 8 then SCHLEVE2 = 1; if LOWEST ge 7 and 

HIGHEST ge 9 then SCHLEVE2 = 3; if LOWEST ge 5 and HIGHEST le 8 then 

SCHLEVE2 = 2; if LOWEST le 6 and HIGHEST ge 9 then SCHLEVE2 = 4; if 

S0700 = 1 and LOWEST lt 1 and HIGHEST lt 1 then SCHLEVE2 = 4; 
J-14 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

SCHLEVEL Created Three-category level of SASS school based on grade levels offered as reported by 

the SASS school. Categories include: 

1 = Elementary; 

2 = Secondary; 

3 = Combined. 

Coded as follows: SCHLEVEL = 1 if school has any of grades K–6 and none of 

grades 9–12 (elementary); SCHLEVEL = 2 if school has any of grades 7–12 and 

none of grades K–6 (secondary); SCHLEVEL = 3 for all other cases (combined). 

For cases where the school was a noninterview, the sample file information was 

used. 

Public schools: ARRAY t(400:413) s0400–s0413; do i = 400 to 413; if t(i) = -8 

then t(i) = .; end; EDKG6 = SUM(OF s0400 S0401 S0402 S0403 S0404 S0405 

S0406); ED912 = SUM(OF s0409 s0410 s0411 s0412); ED712 = SUM(OF s0407 

s0408 s0409 s0410 s0411 s0412); IF EDKG6 >= 1 AND ED912 < 1 AND S0413 

< 1 THEN SCHLEVEL = 1; ELSE IF S0413 = 1 AND EDKG6 >= 1 AND ED912 

< 1 THEN SCHLEVEL = 1; ELSE IF S0413 < 1 AND EDKG6 < 1 THEN 

SCHLEVEL = 2; ELSE IF S0413 = 1 AND EDKG6 < 1 AND ED712 >= 1 THEN 

SCHLEVEL=2; ELSE SCHLEVEL=3; ARRAY t(400:413) s0400–s0413; do i = 

400 to 413; if t(i) = . then t(i) = -8; end; 

Private schools: edkg6 = 0; ed912 = 0; ed712 = 0; Array elem[9] s0704 s0706 

s0708 s0710 s0712 s0714 s0716 s0718 s0720; do i = 1 to 9; if elem [i] = 1 then 

edkg6 + 1; drop I; end; Array sec[4] s0726 s0728 s0730 s0732; do I = 1 to 4; if 

sec[I] = 1 then ed912+1; drop I; end; Array comb[6] s0722 s0724 s0726 s0728 

s0730 s0732; do i = 1 to 6; if comb[I] = 1 then ed712+1; drop i; IF EDKG6 >= 1 

AND ED912 < 1 AND s0700 = 2 THEN SCHLEVEL=1; 

ELSE IF s0700 = 1 AND EDKG6 >= 1 AND ED912 < 1 THEN SCHLEVEL = 1; 

ELSE IF s0700 = 2 AND EDKG6 < 1 THEN SCHLEVEL = 2; ELSE IF s0700 = 1 

AND EDKG6 < 1 AND ED712 >= 1 THEN SCHLEVEL = 2; ELSE SCHLEVEL 

= 3; end; 

SCHSIZE Created Categorical measure of the total K–12 and ungraded enrollment in the SASS 

school. Categories include: 

1 = 1–49; 

2 = 50–99; 

3 = 100–149; 

4 = 150–199; 

5 = 200–349; 

6 = 350–499; 

7 = 500–749; 

8 = 750–999; 

9 = 1,000–1,199; 

10 = 1,200–1,499; 

11 = 1,500–1,999; 

12 = 2,000 or more. 

For cases where the school was a noninterview, sample file information was used. 

Coded as follows: if 1 le ENRK12UG lt 50 then SCHSIZE = 1; if 50 le 

ENRK12UG le 99 then SCHSIZE = 2; if 100 le ENRK12UG le 149 then 

SCHSIZE = 3; if 150 le ENRK12UG le 199 then SCHSIZE = 4; if 200 le 

ENRK12UG le 349 then SCHSIZE = 5; if 350 le ENRK12UG le 499 then 

SCHSIZE = 6; if 500 le ENRK12UG le 749 then SCHSIZE = 7; if 750 le 

ENRK12UG le 999 then SCHSIZE = 8; if 1000 le ENRK12UG le 1199 then 

SCHSIZE = 9; if 1200 le ENRK12UG le 1499 then SCHSIZE = 10; if 1500 le 

ENRK12UG le 1999 then SCHSIZE = 11; if ENRK12UG ge 2000 then SCHSIZE 

= 12; 
Appendix J. Frame and Created Variables J-15 

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

SCWT1FLG Frame SASS school-wide Title I program eligibility identifier. A program in which all the 

pupils in a school are designated under appropriate state and federal regulations as 

being eligible for participation in programs authorized by Title I of Public Law 

103-382. Origin: STITLI01 from 2001–02 CCD. Categories include: 

1 = School is eligible for school-wide Title I program; 

2 = School is not eligible for school-wide Title I program; 

-8 = Valid skip, respondent taught in a private school in the 2003–04 SASS. 

SECTOR Frame SASS school sector, determined by classification on sampling frames and/or 

survey data. Categories include: 

1 = Public; 

2 = Private. 

SLOCP_03 Frame 2000 Decennial Census school locale code based on the SASS school’s physical 

location relative to a populous area. Micropolitan areas are new, smaller 

designated metropolitan areas with populations as low as 10,000 residents. For 

more information on Core Based Statistical Areas see 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html or see 

Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2007-337). 

Origin: LOCALE03 from 2003–04 CCD. Categories include: 

1 = Large city: A central city of a Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) or 

Consolidated Statistical Area (CSA), with the city having a population greater than 

or equal to 250,000; 

2 = Mid-size city: A central city of a CBSA or CSA, with the city having a 

population less than 250,000; 

3 = Urban fringe of a large city: Any incorporated place, Census designated place, 

or non-place territory within a CBSA or CSA of a Large City and defined as urban 

by the Census Bureau; 

4 = Urban fringe of a mid-size city: Any incorporated place, Census designated 

place, or non-place territory within a CBSA or CSA of a Mid-size City and defined 

as urban by the Census Bureau; 

5 = Large town: An incorporated place or Census designated place with a 

population greater than or equal to 25,000 and located outside a CBSA or CSA; 

6 = Small town: An incorporated place or Census designated place with population 

less than 25,000 and greater than or equal to 2,500 and located outside a CBSA or 

CSA; 

7 = Rural, outside CBSA: Any incorporated place, Census designated place, or 

non-place territory not within a CBSA or CSA of a large or mid-size city and 

defined as rural by the Census Bureau; 

8 = Rural, inside CBSA: Any incorporated place, Census designated place, or nonplace territory within a CBSA or CSA of a large or mid-size city and defined as 

rural by the Census Bureau. 

SRVEY_TF Frame TFS Questionnaire used to collect data from the respondent. Categories include: 

1 = Former teacher (TFS-2); 

2 = Current teacher (TFS-3). 

Coded as follows: if UP_TFS_TYPE = 3 then SRVEY_TF = 1; Else if 

UP_TFS_TYPE in (1, 2) then SRVEY_TF = 2; 
J-16 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

STABB_TF Created Provides the two-letter state abbreviation for the state in which the current 

teacher’s TFS school or the former teacher’s home mailing address is located. 

Missing data were filled with other survey or frame information. Source of data is 

identified in flag variable, FL_STATF. 

Coded as follows: if STTUS_TF = 2 then STABB_TF = STAT_ABB; if 

STTUS_TF = 3 then do; STABB_TF = f9010; else if f5244 ne . then STABB_TF 

= f5244; else STABB_TF = final_state; end; if STTUS_TF = 1 then do; if f5244 ne 

. then STABB_TF = f5244; else STABB_TF = final_state; end; 

STATE Frame FIPS state code that identifies the state where the SASS private school is located or 

the state with administrative control over the SASS public district and the schools 

within that district. Origin: for public schools, GFIPST on the SASS sampling 

frame; for private schools, FIPS on the 2001–02 PSS. Department of Defense 

(DoD) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) school locations are based on the 

physical location of the school. For a complete list of FIPS codes, reference 

http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/fip5-2.htm. 

Alabama 01 Montana 30 

Alaska 02 Nebraska 31 

Arizona 04 Nevada 32 

Arkansas 05 New Hampshire 33 

California 06 New Jersey 34 

Colorado 08 New Mexico 35 

Connecticut 09 New York 36 

Delaware 10 North Carolina 37 

District of Columbia 11 North Dakota 38 

Florida 12 Ohio 39 

Georgia 13 Oklahoma 40 

Hawaii 15 Oregon 41 

Idaho 16 Pennsylvania 42 

Illinois 17 Rhode Island 44 

Indiana 18 South Carolina 45 

Iowa 19 South Dakota 46 

Kansas 20 Tennessee 47 

Kentucky 21 Texas 48 

Louisiana 22 Utah 49 

Maine 23 Vermont 50 

Maryland 24 Virginia 51 

Massachusetts 25 Washington 53 

Michigan 26 West Virginia 54 

Minnesota 27 Wisconsin 55 

Mississippi 28 Wyoming 56 

Missouri 29 
Appendix J. Frame and Created Variables J-17 

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

STATE_TF Created The state (FIPS code) in which the current teacher’s TFS school or the former 

teacher’s home mailing address is located. Missing data were filled with other 

survey or frame information. Source of data is identified in flag variable, 

FL_STATF. Coded as follows: if STTUS_TF = 2 then STATE_TF = STATE; if 

STTUS_TF in (1, 3) then do; if STABB_TF = ‘AL’ then STATE_TF = ‘01’; if 

STABB_TF = ‘AK’ then STATE_TF = ‘02’; if STABB_TF = ‘AZ’ then 

STATE_TF = ‘04’; if STABB_TF = ‘AR’ then STATE_TF = ‘05’; if STABB_TF 

= ‘CA’ then STATE_TF = ‘06’; if STABB_TF = ‘CO’ then STATE_TF = ‘08’; if 

STABB_TF = ‘CT’ then STATE_TF = ‘09’; if STABB_TF = ‘DE’ then 

STATE_TF = ‘10’; if STABB_TF = ‘DC’ then STATE_TF = ‘11’; if STABB_TF 

= ‘FL’ then STATE_TF = ‘12’; if STABB_TF = ‘GA’ then STATE_TF = ‘13’; if 

STABB_TF = ‘HI’ then STATE_TF = ‘15’; if STABB_TF = ‘ID’ then 

STATE_TF = ‘16’; if STABB_TF = ‘IL’ then STATE_TF = ‘17’; if STABB_TF = 

‘IN’ then STATE_TF = ‘18’; if STABB_TF = ‘IA’ then STATE_TF = ‘19’; if 

STABB_TF = ‘KS’ then STATE_TF = ‘20’; if STABB_TF = ‘KY’ then 

STATE_TF = ‘21’; if STABB_TF = ‘LA’ then STATE_TF = ‘22’; if STABB_TF 

= ‘ME’ then STATE_TF = ‘23’; if STABB_TF = ‘MD’ then STATE_TF = ‘24’; if 

STABB_TF = ‘MA’ then STATE_TF = ‘25’; if STABB_TF = ‘MI’ then 

STATE_TF = ‘26’; if STABB_TF = ‘MN’ then STATE_TF = ‘27’; if STABB_TF 

= ‘MS’ then STATE_TF = ‘28’; if STABB_TF = ‘MO’ then STATE_TF = ‘29’; 

if STABB_TF = ‘MT’ then STATE_TF = ‘30’; if STABB_TF = ‘NE’ then 

STATE_TF = ‘31’; if STABB_TF = ‘NV’ then STATE_TF = ‘32’; if STABB_TF 

= ‘NH’ then STATE_TF = ‘33’; if STABB_TF = ‘NJ’ then STATE_TF = ‘34’; if 

STABB_TF = ‘NM’ then STATE_TF = ‘35’; if STABB_TF = ‘NY’ then 

STATE_TF = ‘36’; if STABB_TF = ‘NC’ then STATE_TF = ‘37’; if STABB_TF 

= ‘ND’ then STATE_TF = ‘38’; if STABB_TF = ‘OH’ then STATE_TF = ‘39’; if 

STABB_TF = ‘OK’ then STATE_TF = ‘40’; if STABB_TF = ‘OR’ then 

STATE_TF = ‘41’; if STABB_TF = ‘PA’ then STATE_TF = ‘42’; if STABB_TF 

= ‘RI’ then STATE_TF = ‘44’; if STABB_TF = ‘SC’ then STATE_TF = ‘45’; if 

STABB_TF = ‘SD’ then STATE_TF = ‘46’; if STABB_TF = ‘TN’ then 

STATE_TF = ‘47’; if STABB_TF = ‘TX’ then STATE_TF = ‘48’; if STABB_TF 

= ‘UT’ then STATE_TF = ‘49’; if STABB_TF = ‘VT’ then STATE_TF = ‘50’; if 

STABB_TF = ‘VA’ then STATE_TF = ‘51’; if STABB_TF = ‘WA’ then 

STATE_TF = ‘53’; if STABB_TF = ‘WV’ then STATE_TF = ‘54’; if STABB_TF 

= ‘WI’ then STATE_TF = ‘55’; if STABB_TF = ‘WY’ then STATE_TF = ‘56’; 

end; 
J-18 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

STRATA Created SASS private school orientation stratum. Categories include: 

1 = Catholic—Parochial; 

2 = Catholic—Diocesan; 

3 = Catholic—Private; 

4 = Amish; 

5 = Assembly of God; 

6 = Baptist; 

7 = Episcopal; 

8 = Jewish; 

9 = Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod; 

10 = Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod; 

11 = Mennonite; 

12 = Pentecostal; 

13 = Seventh-Day Adventist; 

14 = Other Religious; 

15 = Nonsectarian—Regular; 

16 = Nonsectarian—Special Emphasis; 

17 = Nonsectarian—Special Education; 

-8 = Valid skip, respondent was not a private school teacher in the 2003–04 SASS. 

Coded as follows: if typology = 1 then strata = 1; else if typology = 2 then strata = 

2; else if typology = 3 then strata = 3; else if s0740 = 3 then strata = 4; else if 

s0740 = 4 then strata = 5; else if s0740 = 5 then strata = 6; else if s0740 = 13 then 

strata = 7; else if s0740 = 17 then strata = 8; else if s0740 = 19 then strata = 9; else 

if s0740 = 21 then strata = 10; else if s0740 = 23 then strata = 11; else if s0740 = 

25 then strata = 12; else if s0740 = 27 then strata = 13; else if s0740 in (2, 6, 7, 8, 

9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28) then strata = 14; else if typology = 

7 then strata = 15; else if typology = 8 then strata = 16; else if typology = 9 then 

strata = 17; if sector = 1 then do; if strata = . then strata = -8; end; 

STTUS_TF Frame Respondents to the TFS are classified as either stayers, movers, or leavers. Stayers 

are teachers who were teaching in the same school in the current school year as in 

the base year. Movers are teachers who were still teaching but had moved to a 

different school after the base year. Leavers are teachers who left the teaching 

profession after the base year. Categories include: 

1 = Leaver; 

2 = Stayer; 

3 = Mover. 

Coded as follows: if SRVEY_TF = 1 then STTUS_TF = 1; if f0136 = 1 then 

STTUS_TF = 2; if f0136 = 2 then STTUS_TF = 3; end; 

STU_TCH Created Estimated number of students per full-time equivalent teacher in the SASS school. 

Calculated as follows: STU_TCH = ROUND((ENRK12UG/NUMTCH),.0001); 
Appendix J. Frame and Created Variables J-19 

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

TELEV_TF Created Four-level variable identifying the grade levels being taught by respondents, as 

reported in TFS. Categories include: 

1 = Primary; 

2 = Middle school; 

3 = High school; 

4 = Combined school. 

Coded as follows: ARRAY f(58:72) F0058-F0072; do i = 58 to 72; if f(i) = -8 then 

f(i) = .; 

end; if f0056 in (101, 102) then e1 = 1; else if f0056 = 110 and f0073 = 3 then sp = 

1; if n(of f0059–f0071) > 0 then do; if n(of f0069–f0071) > 0 then TELEV_TF = 3; 

else if f0068 = 1 & n(of f0059–f0067, f0069–f0071)=0 then TELEV_TF = 3; else 

if n(of f0059–f0063) > 0 & n(of f0064–f0071)=0 then TELEV_TF = 1; else if 

e1=1 then TELEV_TF = 1; else if sp=1 then TELEV_TF = 1; else TELEV_TF = 

2; end; else do; TELEV_TF = 4; end; ARRAY f(58:72) F0058-F0072; do i = 58 to 

72; if b(i) = . then b(i) = -8; end; 

TLEV2_03 Created Divides teachers into elementary or secondary based on a combination of the 

grades taught, main teaching assignment, and the structure of their classes during 

the SASS school year. Those with only ungraded classes are categorized as 

elementary level teachers if their main assignment is early childhood/pre-K or 

elementary, or they teach either special education in a self-contained classroom or 

an elementary enrichment class. All other teachers with ungraded classes are 

classified as secondary level. Among teachers with regularly graded classes, in 

general, elementary level teachers teach any of grades pre-K through 5th; report an 

early childhood/pre-K, elementary, self-contained special education, or elementary 

enrichment main assignment; or teachers whose preponderance of grades taught 

are kindergarten through 6th. In general, secondary-level teachers instruct any of 

grades 7 through 12 but usually no grade lower than 5th. They also teach more of 

grades 7 through 12 than lower level grades. 

Categories include: 

1 = Elementary; 

2 = Secondary. 

Coded as follows: 

array t(51:75) t0051–t0075; do i = 51 to 75; if t(i) = -8 then t(i) = .; end; 

if T0065 = 1 and sum(of T0051–T0064) < 1 then do; /* UNGRADED, AND NO 

PRE-K - 12 */ 

if ((T0069 = 110 or T0075 = 110) and T0066 = 3) or T0069 in (101, 102) or T0075 

in (101, 102) or t0066 = 2 then TLEV2_03 = 1; /*ELEMENTARY*/ 

else TLEV2_03 = 2; /*SECONDARY*/ 

end; 

else if sum(of T0051–T0057) > 0 and /*PRE-K–5TH*/ sum(of T0062–T0064) < 1 

/*NO 10TH–12*/ then TLEV2_03 = 1; 

else if sum(of T0051–T0057) < 1 and /*NO PRE-K–5TH*/ sum(of T0061–T0064) 

> 0 /*9TH–12TH*/ then TLEV2_03 = 2; 

else if T0059 >= 1 or T0060 >= 1 or /*7TH OR 8TH*/ (sum(of T0051–T0058)>0 

and /*OR PRE-K–6TH AND 9TH–12TH*/ sum(of T0061–T0064)>0) then do; 

if T0069 in (101, 102) or T0075 in (101, 102) or T0066 = 2 then TLEV2_03 = 1; 

/*PRE-K,KG,GEN.ELEM or ELEM ENRICH*/ 

else if T0069 = 110 or T0075 = 110 then do; /*SPECIAL ED*/ 

if T0066 = 3 then TLEV2_03 = 1; /*IF SELF-CONTAINED, THEN 

ELEMENTARY*/ 

else TLEV2_03 = 2; /*ALL OTHERS, SECONDARY*/ 

end; 

else if sum(of T0057-T0061)>0 and /*5TH–9TH*/ sum(of T0065, T0051-

T0056)<1 then TLEV2_03 = 2; /*UG–4TH*/ 
J-20 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

else if T0066 = 2 then TLEV2_03 = 1; /*ELEM ENRICHMENT*/ 

else if sum(of T0059–T0064) = 6 and /*7TH–12TH*/ (T0069 >= 141 or T0075 >= 

141) then TLEV2_03 = 2; 

else if sum(of T0053–T0058) = 6 and /*1ST–6TH*/ (T0069 in (101, 102) or 

T0075 in (101, 102)) then TLEV2_03 = 1; 

else if sum(of T0053–T0058) > /*1ST–6TH*/ sum(of T0059–T0064) then 

TLEV2_03 = 1; /*7TH–12TH*/ 

else if sum(of T0053–T0058) < /*1ST–6TH*/ sum(of T0059–T0064) then 

TLEV2_03 = 2; /*7TH–12TH*/ 

else if sum(of T0053–T0058) = /*1ST–6TH*/ sum(of T0059–T0064) then do; 

/*7TH–12TH*/ 

if T0069 in (101, 102, 110) or T0075 in (101, 102, 110) or t0066 = 2 then 

TLEV2_03 = 1; 

/*ELEMENTARY*/ 

else TLEV2_03 = 2; /*SECONDARY*/ 

end; end; 

else if sum(of T0052–T0057) > /*K–5TH*/ sum(of T0059–T0064) then 

TLEV2_03 = 1; /*7TH–12TH*/ 

else if sum(of T0052–T0057) < /*K–5TH*/ sum(of T0059–T0064) then 

TLEV2_03 = 2; /*7TH–12TH*/ 

else if T0069 = 102 or T0075 = 102 then TLEV2_03 = 1; /*KG & GENL ELEM*/

else if (T0069 = 110 or T0075 = 110) and /*special ed*/ T0066 = 3 then 

TLEV2_03 = 1; /*self-cont*/ 

else if T0066 = 2 then TLEV2_03 = 1; /*elem enrich*/ 

else TLEV2_03 = 2; 

array t(51:75) t0051–t0075; do i = 51 to 75; if t(i) = . then t(i) = -8; end; 

TOTEXPER Created SASS teacher’s total number of years teaching full or part time in public and 

private schools. Calculated as follows: ARRAY t(36:40) t0036-t0040; do i = 36 to 

40; if t(i) = -8 then t(i) = .; end; totexper = sum (t0036, t0037, t0039, t0040); 

ARRAY t(36:40) t0036-t0040; do i = 36 to 40; if t(i) = . then t(i) = -8; end; 

TTEXP_TF Created TFS teacher’s total number of years teaching full or part time in public and private 

schools. For leavers, TTEXP_TF equals the total years of teaching experience 

(TOTEXPER) as reported on the SASS teacher record. For stayers and movers, 

1 year is added to TOTEXPER to include the 2004–05 school year. 

Coded as follows: if SRVEY_TF = 1 then TTEXP_TF = TOTEXPER; 

if SRVEY_TF = 2 the TTEXP_TF = sum (TOTEXPER, 1); 
Appendix J. Frame and Created Variables J-21 

Variable name Variable type Description and specifications 

TYPOLOGY Created Nine-level SASS private school typology. Categories include: 

1 = Catholic—Parochial; 

2 = Catholic—Diocesan; 

3 = Catholic—Private; 

4 = Other religious, Conservative Christian; 

5 = Other religious, Affiliated with a Religious School Association; 

6 = Other religious, Not Affiliated with a Religious School Association; 

7 = Nonsectarian—Regular; 

8 = Nonsectarian—Special Emphasis; 

9 = Nonsectarian—Special Education; 

-8 = Valid skip, respondent was not a private school teacher in the 2003–04 SASS. 

Coded as follows: if s0740 = 1 then do; if s0741 = 1 then typology = 1; else if 

s0741 = 2 then typology = 2; else if s0741 = 3 then typology = 3; end; else if s0738 

= 1 then do; if s0743 = 1 or s0744 = 1 or s0745 = 1 or s0758 = 1 then typology = 4; 

else if s0746 = 1 or s0747 = 1 or s0748 = 1 or s0749 = 1 or s0750 = 1 or s0751 = 1 

or s0752 = 1 or s0754 = 1 or s0756 = 1 or s0757 = 1 or s0759 = 1 or s0760 = 1 or 

s0761 = 1 then typology = 5; else typology = 6; end; else if s0441 in (1, 7) then 

typology = 7; else if s0441 in (2, 3, 5, 6) then typology = 8; else if s0441 in (4) 

then typology = 9; if sector = 1 then do; if TYPOLOGY = . then TYPOLOGY = -

8; end; 

UNION_S Created Variable showing whether teacher was a member of a teacher’s union or similar 

employee association during the SASS school year. Categories include: 

1 = Yes; 

2 = No. 

Copied from T0407. 

URBANS03 Frame This is a 3-level collapse of SLOCP_03 (SASS school locale code). Code was 

assigned using 2000 Decennial Census data. Categories include: 

1 = Large or mid-size central city; 

2 = Urban fringe of large or mid-size central city; 

3 = Small town/rural. 

Coded as follows: if slocp_03 in (1, 2) then urbans03 = 1; if slocp_03 in (3, 4, 5, 8) 

then urbans03 = 2; if slocp_03 in (6, 7) then urbans03 = 3. 

ZIP_TF Created The ZIP code in which the current teacher’s TFS school or the former teacher’s 

home mailing address is located. Missing data were filled with other survey or 

frame information. Source of data is identified in flag variable, FL_ZIPTF. 

Coded as follows: if STTUS_TF = 2 then ZIP_TF = SC_ZIP; if STTUS_TF = 3 

then do; if f9010 ne . then ZIP_TF = f9015; else if f5245 ne . then ZIP_TF = . then 

ZIP_TF = f5245; else ZIP_TF = final_zip; end; if STTUS_TF = 1 then do; if f5245 

ne . then ZIP_TF = f5245; else ZIP_TF = final_zip; end; 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
K-1 

Appendix K. Crosswalk of 2004–05 TFS Items With 2000–01 

TFS and 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire 

The crosswalks are presented in the following order: 

Crosswalk of 2004–05 Former Teacher Questionnaire with 2000–01 Former Teacher 

Questionnaire ...............................................................................................................................K-2 

Crosswalk of 2004–05 Current Teacher Questionnaire with 2000–01 Current Teacher 

Questionnaire and 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire..........................................................K-5 

The crosswalk for the current teacher questionnaire includes a comparison to the 2003–04 Schools and 

Staffing Survey (SASS) Teacher Questionnaire because many items on the Current Teacher 

Questionnaire were drawn from the 2003–04 SASS in order to provide direct comparisons in the teacher’s 

responses to various items between the 2003–04 and 2004–05 school years. 

Within each questionnaire crosswalk, variables are listed in 2004–05 item order. If there is a blank in the 

variable’s name for the 2000–01 TFS or the 2003–04 SASS, then that particular 2004–05 item did not 

have an equivalent item in the other survey administrations. Variables from the 2000–01 TFS and the 

2003–04 SASS are graded on how closely they “match” the corresponding variable in the 2004–05 

questionnaires: 

• Exact. The question wording and format are exactly the same. 

• Near. The question content is the same, but there have been minor changes to the question 

wording or format. 

• Content. The general content of or subject addressed by the item is the same, but the question 

wording or format has been changed significantly. 
K-2 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Crosswalk of 2004–05 Former Teacher Questionnaire with 2000–01 Former Teacher Questionnaire 

2004–05 TFS 2000–01 TFS 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments 

F0050 F0050 Content Did not include pre-K teachers 

F0550 

F0051 F0051 Near 

F0552 F0052 Near 

F5552 

 

F0553 F0053 Near 

F5553 F5053 Exact 

F0554 

F5555 F5055 Near 

F5556 F9055 Near 

 

F0557 F0056 Exact 

F0558 F0057 Exact 

F0559 F0058 Near 

F0560 

F0561 

 

F0562 F0059 Content New response categories 

F0563 

F0564 

F0214 F0078 Content Asked only about a teacher retirement system 

F0565 F0088 Near 

 

F0566 F0089 Near 

F0567 F0061 Near 

F0568 F0062 Near 

F0569 F0063 Near 

F0570 F0064 Near 

 

F0571 F0066 Near 

F0572 F0068 Near 

F0573 F0069 Near 

F0574 F0070 Near 

F0575 F0071 Near 

 

F0576 

F0577 

F0578 F0077 Near 

F0579 

F0173 

F0127 Content Question wording referred to instructional leader rather than 

principal/school head 

 

F0174 

F0128 Content Question wording referred to instructional leader rather than 

principal/school head 

F0175 

F0129 Content Revised wording to response; question wording referred to 

instructional leader rather than principal/school head 

F0176 

F0130 Content Question wording referred to instructional leader rather than 

principal/school head 
Appendix K. Crosswalk of 2004–05 TFS Items With 2000–01 TFS and 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire K-3 

Crosswalk of 2004–05 Former Teacher Questionnaire with 2000–01 Former Teacher Questionnaire—

Continued 

2004–05 TFS 2000–01 TFS 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments 

F0177 F0131 Content Question wording referred to instructional leader rather than 

principal/school head 

F0178 F0132 Content Revised wording to response; question wording referred to 

instructional leader rather than principal/school head 

F0179 F0133 Content Revised wording to response; question wording referred to 

instructional leader rather than principal/school head 

F0180 F0134 Content Question wording referred to instructional leader rather than 

principal/school head 

F0181 

 

F0182 

F0183 

F0184 

F0185 

F0186 

 

F0187 

F0580 F0135 Near 

F0581 F0136 Near 

F0582 F0145 Near 

F0583 F0137 Near 

 

F0584 F0138 Near 

F0585 F0139 Near 

F0586 

F0587 F0140 Near 

F0588 F0141 Near 

 

F0589 F0142 Near 

F0590 F0143 Near 

F0591 F0144 Near 

F0592 F0146 Near 

F0593 F0147 Near 

 

F0594 

F0595 F0148 Near 

F0596 F0149 Near 

F0597 F0150 Near 

F0598 F0152 Near 

 

F0599 

F0600 

F0601 F0153 Near 

F0208 F0154 Content Asked about degrees earned, rather than enrollment in courses 

F0209 F0157 Content Asked about type of degree, rather than description of enrollment

 

F0210 F0159–F0165 Near 

F0211 

F0602 F0176 Near 
K-4 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Crosswalk of 2004–05 Former Teacher Questionnaire with 2000–01 Former Teacher Questionnaire—

Continued 

2004–05 TFS 2000–01 TFS 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments 

F0603 F0184 Near 

F0604 F0179 Near 

F0605 F0180 Near 

F0606 F0181 Near 

 

F0607 

F0608 

F0609 

F0610 

F0611 F0182 Near 

 

F5611 F5182 Near 

F9611 F5182 Near 

F0612 

F0613 F0183 Near 

F0231 F0194 Content Response categories are comparable, but have been revised 

 

F0232 F0196 Content Asked about dependents rather than household size 

F0233 F0197 Near 

F0234 

F0235 F0195 Near 

F0236 

 

F0237 

F0238 

F0278 

F0279 

F5238 
Appendix K. Crosswalk of 2004–05 TFS Items With 2000–01 TFS and 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire K-5 

Crosswalk of 2004–05 Current Teacher Questionnaire with 2000–01 Current Teacher Questionnaire 

and 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire 

2004–05 TFS 2000–01 TFS 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

F0050 F0050 Content Did not include pre-K teachers T0028 Content Did not include pre-K teachers 

F0051 F0051 Near T0026 Near 

F0052 F0552 Exact T0029 Near 

F0053 F0553 Near 

F0054 F0554 Exact 

 

F0055 F0555 Near 

F5055 F5555 Exact 

F0056 F0556 Content Teaching assignment codes 

changed 

T0069 Near 

F5056 F5556 Content Teaching assignment codes 

changed 

T5069 Near 

F0057 F0558 Content Asked about certificate in 

main assignment; fewer 

response categories 

T0166 Near 

 

F0058 F0564 Near T0051 Near 

F0059 F0565 Near T0052 Near 

F0060 F0566 Near T0053 Near 

F0061 F0567 Near T0054 Near 

F0062 F0568 Near T0055 Near 

 

F0063 F0569 Near T0056 Near 

F0064 F0570 Near T0057 Near 

F0065 F0571 Near T0058 Near 

F0066 F0572 Near T0059 Near 

F0067 F0573 Near T0060 Near 

 

F0068 F0574 Near T0061 Near 

F0069 F0575 Near T0062 Near 

F0070 F0576 Near T0063 Near 

F0071 F0577 Near T0064 Near 

F0072 F0563 Near T0065 Near 

 

F0073 T0066 Near 

F0074 T0279 Content Asked for number of students 

rather than percentage 

F0075 T0284 Content Asked for number of students 

rather than percentage 

F0076 T0330 Near 

F0077 F0622 

& F0804 

Content Change in wording of main 

question and in response 

categories 

T0331 Near 

 

F0078 F0579 Content Change in response categories T0332 Near 

F0079 T0333 Near 

F0080 F0589 Content Change in wording of item and 

response categories 

T0334 Near 
K-6 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Crosswalk of 2004–05 Current Teacher Questionnaire with 2000–01 Current Teacher Questionnaire 

and 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire—Continued 

2004–05 TFS 2000–01 TFS 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

F0081 F0599 Content Change in wording of item and 

response categories 

T0335 Near 

F0082 T0336 Near 

F0083 F0623 Content Change in wording of main 

question and in response 

categories 

T0337 Near 

F0084 T0338 Near 

F0085 F0624 Change in wording of main 

question and in response 

categories 

T0339 Near 

 

F0086 T0340 Near 

F0087 F0625 Change in wording of main 

question and in response 

categories 

T0341 Near 

F0088 T0342 Near 

F0089 T0343 Near 

F0090 T0344 Near 

 

F0091 F0593 Change in wording of item and 

response categories 

T0345 Near 

F0092 F0605 Change in wording of item and 

response categories 

T0346 Near 

F0093 T0347 Near 

F0094 T0348 Near 

F0095 T0349 Near 

 

F0096 F0609 Change in question wording 

and response categories 

T0350 Near 

F0097 T0351 Near 

F0098 T0352 Near 

F0099 T0353 Near 

F0100 T0354 Near 

 

F0101 T0355 Near 

F0102 T0356 Near 

F0103 T0357 Near 

F0104 T0358 Near 

F0105 T0359 Near 

 

F0106 T0360 Near 

F0107 T0361 Near 

F0108 T0362 Near 

F0109 T0363 Near 

F0110 T0364 Near 

 
Appendix K. Crosswalk of 2004–05 TFS Items With 2000–01 TFS and 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire K-7 

Crosswalk of 2004–05 Current Teacher Questionnaire with 2000–01 Current Teacher Questionnaire 

and 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire—Continued 

2004–05 TFS 2000–01 TFS 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

F0111 T0365 Near 

F0112 T0366 Near 

F0113 T0367 Near 

F0114 T0368 Near 

F0115 T0369 Near 

 

F0116 T0370 Near 

F0117 T0371 Near 

F0118 T0372 Near 

F0119 T0373 Near 

F0120 T0374 Near 

 

F0121 T0375 Near 

F0122 T0376 Near 

F0123 T0377 Near 

F0124 T0378 Near 

F0125 T0379 Near 

 

F0126 T0380 Near 

F0127 T0381 Near 

F0128 T0297 Near 

F0129 T0298 Near 

F0130 T0299 Near 

 

F0131 T0300 Exact 

F0132 T0301 Exact 

F0133 T0302 Exact 

F0134 T0303 Exact 

F0135 T0304 Exact 

 

F0136 F0692 Exact 

F0137 F0697 Near 

F0138 

F5138 F0698 Near 

F9000 F0693 Exact 

 

F9005 

F9010 F0694 Exact 

F9015 F0696 Exact 

F9020 F0695 Exact 

F9025 

 

F0144 

F0145 

F0146 

F0147 

F0148 

 
K-8 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Crosswalk of 2004–05 Current Teacher Questionnaire with 2000–01 Current Teacher Questionnaire 

and 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire—Continued 

2004–05 TFS 2000–01 TFS 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

F0149 

F0150 

F0151 

F0152 

F0153 

 

F0154 

F0155 

F0156 

F0157 

F0158 

 

F0159 F0700 Near 

F0160 F0701 Near 

F0161 F0748 Content Asked about change in 

residence 

 

F0162 F0749 Near 

F0163 F0750 Near 

 

F0164 F0751 Near 

F0165 F0752 Near 

F0166 F0753 Near 

F0167 F0754 Near 

F0168 F0757 Near 

 

F0169 F0758 Near 

F0170 F0759 Near 

F0171 F0760 Near 

F0172 

F0173 F0127 Content Question wording referred to 

instructional leader rather 

than principal/ school head 

 

 

F0174 F0128 Content Question wording referred to 

instructional leader rather 

than principal/ school head 

 

F0175 F0129 Content Revised wording to response; 

question wording referred to 

instructional leader rather 

than principal/school head 

 

F0176 F0130 Content Question wording referred to 

instructional leader rather 

than principal/ school head 

 

F0177 F0131 Content Question wording referred to 

instructional leader rather 

than principal/ school head 

 
Appendix K. Crosswalk of 2004–05 TFS Items With 2000–01 TFS and 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire K-9 

Crosswalk of 2004–05 Current Teacher Questionnaire with 2000–01 Current Teacher Questionnaire 

and 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire—Continued 

2004–05 TFS 2000–01 TFS 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

F0178 F0132 Content Revised wording to response; 

question wording referred to 

instructional leader rather 

than principal/school head 

 

F0179 F0133 Content Revised wording to response; 

question wording referred to 

instructional leader rather 

than principal/school head 

 

F0180 F0134 Content Question wording referred to 

instructional leader rather 

than principal/ school head 

 

F0181 

F0182 

 

F0183 

F0184 

F0185 

F0186 

F0187 

 

F0188 

F0189 

F0190 

F0191 

F0192 

 

F0193 

F0194 

F0195 

F0196 

F0197 

 

F0198 

F0199 

F0200 

F0201 

F0202 

 

F0203 

F0204 

F0205 

F0206 

F0207 

 

F0208 F0154 Content Asked about degrees earned, 

rather than enrollment in 

courses 

 
K-10 Documentation for the 2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey

Crosswalk of 2004–05 Current Teacher Questionnaire with 2000–01 Current Teacher Questionnaire 

and 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire—Continued 

2004–05 TFS 2000–01 TFS 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

F0209 F0157 Content Asked about type of degree, 

rather than description of 

enrollment 

 

F0210 F0159–

F0165 

Near 

F0211 

F0212 F0783 Content Revised response categories T0383 Content Revised response categories 

F0213 

 

F0214 

F0215 

F0216 

F0217 F0790 Near T0393 Near 

F0218 F0791 Near T0394 Near 

 

F0219 F0792 Near T0395 Near 

F0220 F0793 Near T0396 Near 

F0221 F0794 Near T0397 Near 

F0222 F0795 Near T0398 Near 

F0223 F0796 Near T0399 Near 

 

F0224 F0797 Near T0400 Near 

F0225 F0798 Near T0401 Near 

F0226 F0799 Near T0402 Near 

F0227 F0800 Near T0403 Near 

F0228 F0801 Near T0404 Near 

 

F0229 F0802 Near T0405 Near 

F0230 F0803 Near T0406 Near 

F0231 F0194 Content Response categories are 

comparable, but have been 

revised 

 

F0232 F0196 Content Asked about dependents rather 

than household size 

 

F0233 F0197 Near 

 

F0234 

F0235 F0195 Near 

F0236 

F0237 

F0238 

 

F0278 

F0279 

F5238