NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

February 1997

Teacher Professionalization

and Teacher Commitment: A

Multilevel Analysis

U. S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 97-069
2

U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Marshall Smith

Acting Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Pascal D. Forgione, Jr.

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

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208–5651

February 1997

Contact:

Peggy Quin

(202) 219-1743
Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments .......................................................... v

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

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

Characteristics of Professions and Professionals .................................... 5

Credentials ......................................................... 5

Induction ........................................................... 5

Professional Development .............................................. 6

Authority .......................................................... 6

Compensation ....................................................... 7

Data and Methods .......................................................... 9

Data ............................................................... 9

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

All Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Public Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Private Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

The Problems and Prospects of Beginning Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Power, Authority, and Decisionmaking in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Comparing Public and Private Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Appendix: Additional Resources on the Schools and Staffing Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
iv Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

List of Tables

Table 1 Means of measures used in the multilevel regression analysis, by

school sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 2 Multilevel regression analysis of the relationship between teacher

professionalization and teacher commitment, by school sector . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 3 HLM statistics for the teacher commitment measure, by school

sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

List of Figures

Figure 1 Measures used in the multilevel regression analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 2 Percentage of schools with high teacher commitment, by selected school

characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 3 Percentage of public and private schools with high teacher commitment, by

school levels of selected professional characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment v

Acknowledgments

This report was produced under the direction of the Education Surveys Program of the

Surveys and Cooperative Systems Group of the National Center for Education Statistics

(NCES). Peggy Quinn and Sharon Bobbitt were the Project Officers. Daniel Kasprzyk was

the Program Director. Paul Planchon was the Group’s Associate Commissioner.

Thanks are due to a number of staff at the American Institutes for Research who greatly

helped with this report: Mei Han, who undertook the preliminary statistical work; Shannon

Daugherty, who edited the manuscript; and Don McLaughlin, who directed the overall

contract of which this report was one part.

Thanks are also due to Steve Raudenbush of Michigan State University for helpful comments

on the analysis and to a number of individuals in the Department of Education who reviewed

the manuscript through its many versions and provided many helpful comments. These

include Peggy Quinn, Daniel Kasprzyk, and Marilyn McMillen of the Surveys and

Cooperative Systems Group of NCES; Alex Sedlacek and Shelley Burns of the Data

Development and Longitudinal Studies Group of NCES; Sue Ahmed and Bob Burton of the

Statistical Standards and Services Group of NCES; Sharon Bobbitt of the Office of Reform,

Assistance, and Dissemination; and Alan Ginsburg of the Planning and Evaluation Service.
vi Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment
Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment vii

Executive Summary

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

conditions of teachers—has received a great deal of interest in recent years. This report is

concerned with the effects of teacher professionalization on elementary and secondary

teachers in the United States. The analysis assesses the effects of teacher professionalization

by examining the relationships between a selected set of characteristics, traditionally

associated with professions and professionals, and one of the most important aspects of the

quality and performance of teachers: their commitment to their teaching careers.

The following characteristics of professions and professionals are focused on in this report:

Credentials:

C the use of professional criteria for hiring teaching job candidates

Induction:

C the provision of mentoring programs for beginning teachers

C the effectiveness of assistance provided to new teachers

Professional Development:

C the extent of participation of teaching staffs in activities sponsored by professional

teaching organizations

C the provision of financial support for teachers’ continuing education

Authority:

C the extent of influence collectively wielded by faculties over school policymaking

C the degree of individual autonomy exercised by teachers over planning and teaching

within their classrooms

Compensation:

C the highest salary levels offered by schools

The data source for this analysis is the nationally representative 1990–91 Schools and Staffing

Survey (SASS), conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The

analysis uses hierarchical linear modeling, a multiple regression statistical method designed for

use with multilevel data, to assess the relationships between the above measures of

professionalization and teacher commitment, while holding equal, or controlling for, a number

of background characteristics of both schools and teachers.

The results show that some characteristics of professionalization are related to teacher

commitment, and some are not. Four aspects of professionalization, in particular, stood out for
Executive Summary

viii Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

their association with commitment: the reported amounts of teacher classroom autonomy; the

reported amounts of faculty policymaking influence; the reported effectiveness of assistance for

new teachers; and teachers’ maximum end-of-career salaries. When comparing across the

population of elementary and secondary schools, those with higher levels of each of these

characteristics had higher levels of teacher commitment, after controlling for the other factors.

For example, 60 percent of schools with high levels of faculty policymaking influence had

high teacher commitment; in contrast, only 18 percent of schools with low faculty

policymaking influence had high teacher commitment. Likewise, 39 percent of schools with

highly effective assistance for new teachers had high commitment; in contrast, only

23 percent of schools without effective assistance for new teachers had high teacher

commitment.

On the other hand, several traditional indicators of teacher professionalization were not

associated with higher teacher commitment to a statistically significant degree. These

included the use of professional criteria for hiring teaching job candidates (certification,

completion of teacher education program, passage of a teacher examination, college

major/minor in the field to be taught); the provision of financial support for teachers’

continuing education; and the degree of participation of teaching staffs in activities sponsored

by professional teaching organizations. The results of this analysis also suggest that a school

having a mentor program to assist beginning teachers is less important for teacher

commitment than is the quality of assistance provided to new teachers. That is, simply

offering formal mentoring programs did not appear to improve the commitment of teachers.

But, the average commitment of teachers increased if, according to the teaching staff as a

whole, new teachers were effectively assisted in matters of discipline, instruction, and

adjustment to the school environment, whether from a mentor program or some other

mechanism.
Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 1

Introduction

Since the mid-1980s, a growing number of education reformers, policymakers, and researchers

have argued that many of the well-publicized shortcomings of the elementary and secondary

education system in the United States are, to an important extent, due to inadequacies in the

working conditions, resources, and support afforded to school teachers. Proponents of this

view hold, for example, that teachers are underpaid, have too little say in the operation of

schools, are afforded too few opportunities to improve their teaching skills, suffer from a lack

of support or assistance, and are not adequately rewarded or recognized for their efforts. The

key to improving the quality of schools, these critics claim, lies in upgrading the status,

training, and working conditions of teaching, that is, in furthering the professionalization of

teachers and teaching. The rationale underlying this view is that upgrading the teaching

occupation will lead to improvements in the motivation and commitment of teachers, which,

in turn, will lead to improvements in teachers’ performance, which will ultimately lead to

improvements in student learning (e.g., Carnegie Forum 1986; Darling-Hammond 1984;

Rosenholtz 1989; Sergiovanni and Moore 1989; Weis et al. 1989; Conley and Cooper 1991;

Holmes Group 1986; Darling-Hammond 1995; Talbert and McLaughlin 1993).

This interest in the professionalization of teaching has gained recognition and impetus from a

number of quarters. At the federal level, increased support for the professional development

of elementary and secondary teachers was added to the national education goals through the

Goals 2000 legislation (National Education Goals Panel 1995). At the state and local levels,

numerous initiatives have been directed to upgrading the status, training, working conditions,

resources, and support afforded to school teachers (Bacharach 1990; Darling-Hammond

1995).

But, although there has been a great deal of interest in the subject of teacher

professionalization, confusion surrounds this topic. In the first place, among those concerned

with the status of teaching as a profession, there has been little consensus as to what

constitutes the proper target of research and reform. The rhetoric, research, and reform

surrounding teaching as a profession has focused on a wide range of different aspects of

teachers, teaching, and schools. There are, moreover, wide differences in what is meant by

profession, professionals, professionalism, and professionalization. For example, staff

development—training and educational programs designed to upgrade the skills and

knowledge of teachers—is the primary focus of many researchers and reformers. To others,

however, the degree of staff collegiality and collaboration is the key focus. Some seek to alter

the individual attitudes teachers hold towards their work, such as the degree to which teachers

support high academic standards, while others are concerned with changing the organizational

conditions in which teachers work, such as the degree to which school decisionmaking is

centralized. Finally, to others, occupational characteristics, such as increasing the licensing

and certification requirements for entry into teaching, are the primary concern. As a result of
Introduction

2 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

this wide range of emphases, it is often unclear whether researchers and reformers are referring

to the same aspects and phenomena when they discuss or criticize the current status of

teaching as a profession. (For examples of recent discussions of teaching as a profession, see

Little 1990; Lieberman 1988; Rowan 1994; Talbert and McLaughlin 1993.)

Second, researchers and reformers alike have tended to assume that changing the teaching

occupation will be highly beneficial and have primarily directed their focus to the ways and

means of altering the current state of affairs. There has been much less attention, and

empirical research, directed to empirically testing these many claims.

As a result of this wide variation in the definition of what constitutes a profession and

professionalization, together with a shortage of empirical research, there is little consensus as

to what degree schools currently exhibit the characteristics of professionalized workplaces and

to what extent these characteristics vary across different kinds of schools. Moreover, it is

unclear to what extent the teaching occupation has undergone changes over this period of

school reform. Finally, little is known of what ways the many different aspects of

professionalization affect teachers and teaching.

In order to address these issues, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has

sponsored several recent research projects on the teaching occupation. America’s Teachers:

Profile of a Profession provides a comprehensive compendium of a wide range of information on

elementary and secondary teachers and teaching in the United States (Choy et al. 1993a). A

second, briefer report, America’s Teachers Ten Years After “A Nation at Risk,” examines changes

in the state of the teaching occupation from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s (Smith 1995).

Finally, a third report, The Status of Teaching as a Profession, provides an empirical

examination of the state of elementary and secondary teaching as a profession in the United

States (Ingersoll 1996a). Focusing on a series of characteristics traditionally used to

distinguish professions and professionals from other kinds of work and workers, this latter

report describes the levels and variations in the extent to which elementary and secondary

teaching can and cannot be considered a profession. The results show that, in fact, there is

wide variation in the degree to which different kinds of schools exhibit the characteristics of

professionalized workplaces.

The present report builds on these other projects by turning to the topic of what difference the

degree of professionalization makes for those in schools. It assesses the impact of

professionalization by examining the relationship between a number of different kinds and

examples of teacher professionalization and the commitment of teachers to their teaching

careers.

To education researchers, the degree of teacher commitment is one of the most important

aspects of the performance and quality of school staff. Commitment is defined here as the

degree of positive, affective bond between the teacher and the school. It does not refer to a

passive type of loyalty where teachers stay with their jobs, but are not really involved in the

school or their work. Rather, it reflects the degree of internal motivation, enthusiasm, and job

satisfaction teachers derive from teaching and the degree of efficacy and effectiveness they

achieve in their jobs. Proponents of teacher professionalization have argued that

improvements in the commitment of teachers is one of the outcomes most likely to be

positively affected by the new teacher reform efforts. They argue that increasing the
Introduction

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 3

commitment of teachers is an important first step in the process of school reform:

professionalization of teachers will result in higher commitment, which will positively affect

teachers’ performance, which will ultimately lead to improvements in student learning. Not

surprisingly, teacher commitment has been the subject of a great deal of educational research.

(For reviews, see Miskel and Ogawa 1988; Reyes 1990; Rowan 1990; Rosenholtz 1989.)

This analysis focuses on the first step in this theory of school improvement—understanding

the impact of teacher professionalization on teacher commitment. It assesses this impact by

using hierarchical linear modeling, otherwise known as HLM, which is a multiple regression

statistical method designed for use with multilevel data. The objective of the analysis is to

estimate the relationship between teacher professionalization and teacher commitment, while

holding equal, or controlling for, a number of demographic characteristics of both teachers

and the schools in which they teach.

This analysis is based on a series of traditional characteristics used to distinguish professions,

professionals, and professionalized worksites from other kinds of work, workers, and

workplaces. These characteristics are drawn from the sociology of work, occupations, and

professions. Sociology has been among the most prominent disciplines to study the

characteristics of professions. Sociologists have developed what is known as the professional

model—a series of organizational and occupational characteristics associated with professions

and professionals and, hence, useful to distinguish professions and professionals from other

kinds of work and workers (Hughes 1965; Vollmer and Mills 1966; Hall 1968; Wallace 1994).

These characteristics include rigorous training requirements, positive working conditions, high

prestige, substantial authority, relatively high compensation, and an active professional

organization or association. From this viewpoint, occupations can be assessed according to the

degree to which they do or do not exhibit the characteristics of the professional model. The

“established professions”—law and medicine, in particular—are usually regarded as the

strongest examples of the professional model. The process whereby occupations seek to

upgrade their professional status by adopting the attributes of the professional model is known

as professionalization.

Sociologists have been careful to distinguish professionalization from professionalism. The

former refers to the degree to which occupations exhibit the structural attributes,

characteristics, and criteria identified with the professional model. The latter refers to the

attitudinal attributes and ideology of those who are considered to be, or aspire to be considered

as, professionals. These include a belief in the value of expertise, rigorous standards, and a

public-service orientation. Although professionalism is often considered part of the

professionalization process, it is not considered a reliable indicator of the professional model.

On the one hand, some occupational groups that express the ideas and ideology of

professionalism, in reality, may not be very advanced in regard to professionalization. On the

other hand, some established professions that are advanced in regard to professionalization, in

reality, do not widely exhibit the ideology and attitudes of professionalism (e.g., Hughes 1965;

Vollmer and Mills 1966; Hall 1968).

The objective of this report is to examine the relationships between a number of different

kinds and examples of teacher professionalization and the commitment of teachers to their

teaching careers. The following section summarizes these traditional characteristics and
Introduction

4 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

describes what effect education reformers have expected them to have on teachers’ attitudes,

performance, quality, and, specifically, their commitment to their careers.
Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 5

Characteristics of Professions and

Professionals

Credentials

Social scientists traditionally have distinguished professions from other kinds of occupations

by the degree of expertise and complexity involved in the work itself. The assumption is that

professional work involves highly complex sets of skills, intellectual functioning, and

knowledge that are not easily acquired and not widely held. For this reason, professions are

often referred to as the “knowledge-based” occupations (e.g., Hughes 1965; Hodson and

Sullivan 1995). But, even if laypeople were to acquire these complex sets of skills and

knowledge, they would not be able to practice as professionals. Professions require credentials.

That is, nearly all professions require completion of an officially sanctioned or accredited

training program and passage of examinations in order to obtain certification or licensure to

practice. Indeed, it is illegal to practice most professions without a license (Collins 1979).

These credentials serve as screening devices. Their objective is to protect the interests of the

public by assuring that practitioners hold an agreed-upon level of knowledge and skill, and by

filtering out those with substandard levels of knowledge and skill. The importance of such

credentials is evidenced by the practice, commonly used by professionals, such as physicians,

dentists, architects, and attorneys, of prominently displaying official documentation of their

credentials in their offices (e.g., Hughes 1965; Etzioni 1969; Abbott 1988).

Upgrading the training and licensing requirements for new teachers has been an important

focus of school reform over the past decade (e.g., National Commission on Excellence in

Education 1983; Darling-Hammond 1984; Darling-Hammond 1995). Advocates of such

reforms argue that teachers, like traditional professionals, should not be generalists, amateurs,

or dilettantes, but experts. In this view, efforts to upgrade credential requirements, such as

tightening the entry-level standards for new teachers, would not only help insure that teachers

possess expertise in the bodies of knowledge they will teach, but would also increase their

commitment to professional careers.

Induction

In addition to initial formal training and preparation, professional work requires extensive

training of new practitioners once on the job. Such training is designed to pick up where preservice training has left off. That is, although entry examinations in many professions are

usually designed to insure that new entrants have a minimum or basic level of knowledge and

skill, induction programs for practitioners are designed to augment basic levels of knowledge

and skill. As a result, entry to professions typically involves both formal and informal
Characteristics of Professions and Professionals

6 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

mechanisms of induction, such as internships, apprenticeships, or mentoring programs

(Hughes 1965; Etzioni 1969; Larson 1977; Abbott 1988). Sometimes, these periods of

induction can be prolonged and intensive, as in the case of physicians’ internships. The

objective of such programs and practices is to aid new employees in adjusting to the working

environment, to familiarize them with the concrete realities of their jobs, and to provide a

second opportunity to filter out those with substandard levels of skill and knowledge.

Mentoring or other programs designed to assist new teachers have also been the subject of

recent school reform efforts. The teaching occupation has long been plagued by high

attrition rates among new staff. School reformers have argued that one of the best ways to

increase the efficacy and retention of new teachers is to assist them in coping with the

practicalities of teaching, of managing groups of students, and of adjusting to the school

environment (Sclan 1993; Murnane et al. 1991).

Professional Development

Beyond both pre-service basic training and mentoring, professions also expect ongoing inservice technical development and growth on the part of practitioners throughout their

careers. The assumption is that achieving a professional-level mastery of the complex skills

and knowledge required of a profession is a prolonged and continuous process of learning.

Moreover, in addition to upgrading, this view holds that professionals must continually update

their skills with advances in their field of technology, skill, and knowledge. As a result,

professionalized workplaces typically both require and provide support for employee

development and, in addition, recognize and reward employee growth through formal avenues

of promotion and mobility (Hall 1968; Wallace 1994; Hodson and Sullivan 1995).

School reformers also have recognized the importance of professional development to foster

the continuing engagement, enthusiasm, effectiveness, and retention of teachers. Indeed, as

mentioned earlier, the national education goals formalized in the Goals 2000 federal

legislation specifically call for increased support for the professional development of the

teaching workforce in the United States (National Education Goals Panel 1995).

Authority

Another of the traditional attributes of professionals is the exercise of substantial authority in

regards to workplace policies and processes. A key distinction in any organization is whether

key policies and decisions concerned with technical and production processes are controlled

from the administrative center or whether these are delegated to employees and, hence,

decentralized. Professionalized employees have authority approaching that of management

when it comes to decisions concerned with technical and substantive issues (e.g., Hall 1968;

Larson 1977; Friedson 1986). The rationale behind a high degree of professional authority is

to place appropriate levels of control and autonomy into the hands of those who are closest to

and most knowledgeable of technical processes. That is, professionals are considered experts,

in whom substantial authority should be vested. For example, in hospitals, physicians

traditionally have had substantial control over medical decisions concerning the care of

patients (Friedson 1986; Hodson and Sullivan 1995). Likewise, attorneys employed by law

firms have traditionally had similar control over decisions concerning the provision of legal

services for clients (Wallace 1994).
Characteristics of Professions and Professionals

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 7

Increasing the authority of teachers has also been a key subject of recent education reform.

Indeed, it is fundamental to site-based management, restructuring, and other such reforms

designed to decentralize school decisionmaking (Johnson 1990; Ingersoll 1994, 1996b).

Two forms of teacher authority are usually highlighted: the influence collectively wielded by

faculties over school policymaking and the individual autonomy exercised by teachers over

planning and teaching in their classrooms. Both are deemed of importance. Advocates of

increases in faculty influence and increases in teacher autonomy argue that teachers will not

only make better informed decisions about education issues than district or state officials, but

that top-down decisionmaking often fails precisely because it lacks the support of those who

are responsible for the implementation and success of the decisions. In short, reformers have

argued that teachers cannot be expected to be highly committed to school decisions over

which they have had no say (Shedd and Bacharach 1991; Conley and Cooper 1991; McNeil

1988).

Compensation

Professionals are typically well-compensated and are provided with relatively high salary and

benefit levels throughout the career span (Hodson and Sullivan 1995). The assumption is

that, given the complexity of the knowledge and skills required, relatively high levels of

compensation are necessary to recruit and retain capable and motivated individuals (Etzioni

1969; Hodson and Sullivan 1995). Advanced or end-of-career salary levels, in particular,

provide an indication of the ability of particular kinds of workplaces to provide opportunity

for promotion, to foster ongoing motivation and commitment, and, hence, to retain capable

individuals. (For an analysis of the determinants of teacher compensation, see Chambers

1996.)

In summary, the above series of characteristics have been widely used to distinguish

professional from nonprofessional work, workers, and workplaces. These, of course, are not

the only characteristics used to define professions, nor are they the only kinds of criteria used

to distinguish among or to classify work and occupations in general. For instance, another

traditional aspect of professions, not described here, is high prestige; professionals consistently

are rated highly in surveys of occupational prestige (National Opinion Research Center 1983).

Another traditional hallmark, also not described here, is self-governance. Professional

organizations undertake much of the regulation of practitioners. For example, such

organizations may set and enforce behavioral and ethical standards for practitioners, and may

also exert substantial control over the curriculum, admissions, and accreditation of

professional training schools (Hodson and Sullivan 1995). But, the above-described

characteristics are among the most widely used indicators of professions and professionals, are

the subject of much discussion in reference to teachers and schools, and are those for which

national data are available.

The objective of this report is to evaluate the consequences of teacher professionalization in

elementary and secondary schools by analyzing the relationship between teacher commitment

and the above-described characteristics of professions and professionals.
8 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment
 For information concerning survey design and sample estimation of SASS, see Kaufman and Huang 1

(1993). For information about the quality of the data in SASS, see Jabine (1994). For manuals on

the use of SASS, see Gruber, Rohr, and Fondelier (1993). For an extensive report summarizing the

data used in this investigation and providing an overview of SASS, see Choy et al. (1993b). 

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 9

Data and Methods

Data

The data source for this study is the 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), a

nationally representative survey conducted by NCES. The U.S. Census Bureau collected

these data for NCES in the 1990–91 school year from a complex random sample stratified by

state, sector, and school level. Because all figures and estimates in this report are based on

samples, they are subject to sampling error. Standard errors indicating the accuracy of selected

estimates are included in the tables. All comparisons and differences discussed in the text are

statistically significant at the .05 level, unless otherwise noted.

SASS includes four sets of linked questionnaires: for each school sampled; for the principal or

headmaster of each school; for the district office of each public school system; and for a

subsample of the faculty within each school. From 3 to 20 teachers (an average of 4) were

randomly sampled within each school, depending on the level, size, and sector of the school.

SASS is particularly useful for analyzing the professional aspects of teachers, teaching, and

schools. It is the largest and most comprehensive dataset available on the staffing,

occupational, and organizational characteristics of schools in the United States. Indeed, this

survey was conducted because there had been a paucity of nationally representative data on

such issues. It includes a wide range of information on the characteristics and work of teachers

and the characteristics and conditions of schools and school districts across the country.

Because of its unusually large and comprehensive teacher and school samples, SASS is also

especially useful for examining both teacher-to-teacher and school-to-school differences in the

professional aspects of teachers and schools. The samples used in this analysis contain 11,589

schools and 53,347 teachers. More detail on the technical aspects of the 1990–91 SASS are

included in the Technical Notes at the end of this report.1
Data and Methods

10 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

Methods

This study drew items from the Teacher Demand and Shortage Questionnaire for Public

School Districts, the Public and Private School Questionnaires, and the Public and Private

Teacher Questionnaires of SASS to develop a series of empirical measures representing the

five above-described characteristics of professions and professionals, for the case of teachers

and schools.

For the measure of teacher commitment, the analysis uses a questionnaire item asking teachers

to reflect on whether they actually want to be teachers: “If you could go back to your college

days and start over again, would you become a teacher or not?” The premise underlying this

analysis is that teachers who report they “certainly would become a teacher” in answer to this

question, do so because they feel enthusiasm, engagement, and satisfaction with their teaching

jobs. But, it should be noted that this item, of course, represents only one aspect of the

multifaceted concept of commitment.

Along with professionalization, many other factors could affect the attitudes, and specifically,

the commitment of teachers. It is reasonable to expect that some kinds of teachers would

have more commitment than others and also that some kinds of schools would foster more

commitment than others, regardless of how professionalized.

For example, not surprisingly, previous research has shown that, at the individual level, the

demographic characteristics of teachers, such as their teaching experience, sex, race, and

education, are often found to be strongly related to their attitudes and experiences in schools.

Moreover, at the school level, among the key sources of such differences in teachers are the

context of the school, its community setting, and the type of students enrolled (e.g., Pallas

1988; Rowan et al. 1991). The socioeconomic status of the community and students served

by schools, in particular, has been shown to affect the experiences, behavior, and attitudes of

teachers (e.g., Bidwell and Quiroz 1991; Kozol 1991). Sector differences also have been the

focus of a number of studies of school organization, leading many to conclude that private

schools are far different than public schools in the characteristics of their teaching staff

(e.g., Chubb and Moe 1990). In addition, recent analyses have also shown distinct differences

in teachers’ experiences and attitudes among different kinds of private schools (McLaughlin,

O’Donnell, and Ries 1995; Baker, Han, and Broughman 1996).

Hence, in order to discern the relationship between teacher professionalization and the degree

of teacher commitment in schools, it is necessary to hold these other variables constant, or, in

other words, to control for them. Thus, this analysis, in addition to teacher professionalization, also controls for the relationships between a series of teacher and school characteristics

and teacher commitment. Following previous research, these other variables include school

sector; size; urbanicity; level; and the race-ethnicity of the student population, as well as

several key demographic characteristics of the teacher-respondents: levels of education; sex;

experience; and race-ethnicity. Moreover, because public and private schools have been

found to be distinctly different, the analysis will also examine the relationships between

professionalization and commitment in each sector separately. Finally, for public schools, also

included are the level of poverty of the student population served by the school and the size of

the school district. For private schools, also included is the orientation or affiliation of the

school.
Data and Methods

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 11

These three sets of measures—teacher characteristics, school characteristics, and

characteristics of professions and professionals—are defined in figure 1. Means of each of the

empirical measures, by sector, are displayed in table 1. Further discussion of selected measures

is provided in the Technical Notes at the end of the report.

The analysis proceeds by exploring whether levels of teacher commitment are statistically

associated with these three sets of variables by using the statistical method known as multiple

regression. The objective of this method is to estimate a mathematical equation, known as a

model, indicating the relative association of each of these variables with teacher commitment.

That is, the statistical association of each variable with commitment is individually

determined, while the other variables are held constant, or, in other words, controlled.

Over the past two decades, there has been a growing debate concerning the most appropriate

multiple regression method for modeling multilevel data, such as those used here, that are

measured at more than one level (e.g., Bidwell and Kasarda 1980; Pfeffer 1982; Rowan et al.

1991; Arnold 1992). Accurately predicting an outcome, such as commitment, for members of

an organization, such as teachers, while taking into account the characteristics of both the

teachers and the organization, is a complex statistical task. Conventional multiple regression

techniques, such as ordinary least squares (OLS), operate at one level of analysis and, hence,

cannot properly model an outcome that is a product of factors at more than one level. (For a

clear discussion of multilevel analysis, see Arnold 1992.) Recently, a number of statistical

techniques have been developed to be used specifically for modeling multilevel data. This

analysis uses one such technique, known as Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) (Bryk and

Raudenbush 1992).

HLM has the advantage of allowing the analysis to simultaneously model the relationships

between both individual teachers’ demographic characteristics and their own commitment

and between those of the characteristics of schools and the average commitment of the

teachers in those schools. That is, HLM does not assume that schools are entirely uniform

entities, nor does it assume that they are entirely nonuniform entities. In this report, HLM

allows the analysis to account for variation in teacher commitment, both between teachers

within schools and between teaching staffs across schools.
Data and Methods

12 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

Figure 1— Measures used in the multilevel regression analysis

• Teacher Commitment: on a scale of 1 = certainly would not become a teacher to 5 =

certainly would become a teacher, teachers’ responses to the question—“If you could go back

to your college days and start over again, would you become a teacher or not?”

Teacher-Level Variables

• Male: a dichotomous variable where 0 = female and 1 = male

• MA Degree or Beyond: a dichotomous variable where 0 = BA degree or less and 1 = MA

degree or beyond

• Teaching Experience: total years of K–12 teaching experience, both full-time and part-time

• White: a dichotomous variable where 0 = minority (black, Hispanic, American Indian,

Alaska Native, Asian, Pacific Islander) and 1 = white

School-Level Variables

School Characteristics

• % Minority Enrollment: percentage of faculty that are minority (black, Hispanic, American

Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Pacific Islander)

• Secondary Level: a dichotomous variable where 0 = elementary/combined and 1 = secondary

• Elementary Level: a dichotomous variable where 0 = secondary/combined and 1 =

elementary

• Urban: a dichotomous variable where 0 = rural/small town or urban fringe/large town and 1

= central city

• Suburban: a dichotomous variable where 0 = rural/small town or central city and 1 = urban

fringe/large town

• School Size: student enrollment of school

• Private: a dichotomous variable where 0 = public and 1 = private

For public schools:

• District Size: student enrollment of school district

• % Poverty Enrollment: percentage of students receiving publicly funded free or reducedprice lunches

For private schools:

• Other Religious: a dichotomous variable for school orientation where 0 = Catholic or

nonsectarian and 1 = other religious

• Nonsectarian: a dichotomous variable for school orientation where 0 = other religious or

Catholic and 1 = nonsectarian

For more details on the definition and construction of these measures, see the Technical Notes.
Data and Methods

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 13

Figure 1— Measures used in the multilevel regression analysis (continued)

Professional Characteristics

Credentials

• Professional Hiring Requirements: on a scale of 0–4, the sum of four possible criteria

required of candidates for teaching positions: (1) full standard state certification for the field

to be taught, (2) graduation from a state-approved teacher education program, (3) college

major or minor in the field to be taught, and (4) passage of a national, state, or local

teachers’ examination (a local district test of basic skills or subject knowledge, a state test of

basic skills, a state test of subject knowledge, or the National Teachers Examination)

Induction

• Mentor/Master Program: a dichotomous variable where 1 = availability of “formal program

to help beginning teachers (such as mentor/master teacher programs),” as reported by school

administrators

• Effectiveness of Assistance: on a scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree, the

school mean of amount of agreement of all teachers with the statement “this school is

effective in assisting new teachers” in each of the following matters: student discipline,

instructional methods, curriculum, and adjusting to the school environment

Professional Development

• Continuing Education Support: a dichotomous variable where 1 = reimbursement available

for teachers’ tuition and course fees for additional college coursework, as reported by school

administrators

• Participation in Professional Organization: on a scale of 0 = none, 1 = less than once a

year, 2 = once or twice a year, 3 = three or more times a year, the school mean of teachers’

reports of their participation in workshops, seminars, or conferences sponsored by a

professional organization

Authority

• Teacher Autonomy: on a scale of 1 = none to 6 = complete control, the school mean of

teachers’ reports of individual teacher control in their classrooms over 6 areas of planning

and teaching: course texts, course content, teaching techniques, evaluating students,

disciplining students, determining homework

• Faculty Influence: on a scale of 1 = none to 6 = a great deal, the school mean of teachers’

reports of collective faculty influence over school policy in four areas: discipline, faculty inservice programs, grouping students in classes by ability, establishing curriculum

Compensation

• Maximum Salary: normal yearly base salary for teacher at highest possible step on salary

schedule, or if no salary schedule, the highest salary offered, as reported by school

administrators. This measure excludes private school teachers whose effort is contributed as

a free service.
Data and Methods

14 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

Table 1— Means of measures used in the multilevel regression analysis, by school sector

All Schools Public Schools Private Schools

Teacher Commitment (scale: 1–5) 3.8 3.8 4.2

Teacher Characteristics

% Male 28% 28% 23%

% MA or beyond 46% 47% 32%

Teaching experience 14.8 yrs. 15.1 yrs. 12.3 yrs.

% White 87% 87% 92%

School Characteristics

% Minority enrollment 25% 26% 21%

% Secondary level 22% 25% 11%

% Elementary level 69% 71% 65%

% Urban 27% 23% 40%

% Suburban 27% 26% 32%

School size 442 503 210

% Private 21% -- --

Public district size -- 34,416 --

% Poverty enrollment -- 33.6% --

% Other religious private -- -- 43%

% Nonsectarian private -- -- 16%

Professional Characteristics

Prof. hiring requirements (scale: 0–4) 2.6 2.8 1.6

% with mentor/master program 60% 67% 33%

Effectiveness of assistance (scale: 1–4) 3.1 3.0 3.3

% with cont. education 37% 36% 42%

Participation in professional org. (scale: 1–3) 1.3 1.4 1.2

Teacher autonomy (scale: 1–6) 5.0 5.0 5.2

Faculty influence (scale: 1–6) 3.7 3.7 4.2

Maximum salary ($) $36,011 $39,293 $24,110

(--) not applicable

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

Staffing Survey (Teacher Demand and Shortage, School, and Teacher Questionnaires).
Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 15

Results

This section displays and discusses the results of the HLM multilevel multiple regression

analysis. In table 2, the numbers displayed for each variable, known as coefficients, represent

estimates of the association of each variable with commitment, after taking account of the

other variables. Regression coefficients are presented for three different models of the

relationship between the independent variables and teacher commitment: for all schools, for

public schools only, and for private schools only. Each model includes two levels of analysis: a

within-school level that examines the relationship between the characteristics of individual

teachers in each school and their own commitment scores; and a between-schools analysis

that examines the relationship between the general characteristics of each school, the

professional characteristics of each school, and the mean commitment score of each school’s

teachers. The “proportion of school-level variance explained,” noted at the bottom of the

table, refers to the school-level variance accounted for by both the school-level and the

teacher-level characteristics. It should be noted that the relationships depicted and discussed

between the variables and commitment do not imply causality, but indicate associations.

All Schools

Among the overall population of elementary and secondary school teachers, all four of the

individual teacher demographic characteristics examined were associated with commitment.

That is, the data show that there were differences among different types of teachers in how

committed they felt to their career choice of teaching. Male teachers reported slightly less

commitment than did female teachers. Teachers with graduate degrees reported slightly less

commitment than did teachers with bachelor’s degrees or less. Minority teachers reported

slightly less commitment than did white teachers. Teachers with more teaching experience

reported slightly less commitment than did teachers with less experience. It should be noted,

however, that in each case, the relationship is statistically significant, but is weak.
Results

16 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

Table 2— Multilevel regression analysis of the relationship between teacher professionalization

and teacher commitment, by school sector

All Schools Public Schools Private Schools

(b) (se) (b) (se) (b) (se)

Teacher Characteristics

Male –.03* .007 –.03* .01 –.09* .01

MA or beyond –.02* .006 –.03* .007 –.0004 .07

Teaching experience –.001* .0003 –.002* .0004 .001 .001

White .03* .006 .04* .007 .01 .02

School Characteristics

% Minority enrollment .0002 .0004 .001 .001 .0005 .001

Secondary level –.13* .042 –.04 .063 –.14 .07

Elementary level .01 .038 .11 .059 –.1* .05

Urban –.08* .026 –.07* .03 –.01 .05

Suburban –.08* .025 –.11* .038 –.03 .05

School size (x1,000) –.02 .026 .02 .028 –.16 .09

Private .30* .036 -- -- -- --

Public district size (x10,000) -- -- –.000 .000 -- --

Poverty enrollment -- -- .001 .001 -- --

Other religious private -- -- -- -- .07 .05

Nonsectarian private -- -- -- -- –.08 .062

Professional Characteristics

Prof. hiring requirements .008 .008 .004 .01 .02 .015

Mentor/master program –.05* .02 –.05* .023 .03 .039

Effectiveness of assistance .26* .018 .24* .025 .25* .038

Cont. education support .01 .02 .02 .021 –.04 .038

Participation in prof. org. .01 .014 .01 .018 .05 .026

Teacher autonomy .13* .021 .15* .024 .07 .04

Faculty influence .11* .015 .13* .02 .06* .026

Maximum salary (x10,000) .04* .01 .08* .02 –.03 .03

N 10,186 7,944 2,184

Proportion of school-level

 variance explained .23 .20 .19

(* p<.05)

(--) not applicable

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

Staffing Survey (Teacher Demand and Shortage, School, and Teacher Questionnaires).
Results

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 17

Moreover, some general characteristics of schools were related to the degree of teacher

commitment in schools, and some were not. After controlling for other factors, neither the

racial composition of a school’s student population nor the school’s size were related to the

average level of teacher commitment. That is, differences in the average commitment of

teaching staffs across the overall population of schools were not related to these characteristics

of schools. But, some other school factors were associated with commitment. For example,

teachers in both urban and suburban schools had slightly less commitment on average than

did teachers in rural schools. Moreover, secondary schools, although not elementary schools,

had less average commitment than did combined schools. The strongest school effect was

sector; other factors held equal, teachers in private schools reported more commitment than

those in public schools.

As expected by the literature on teacher professionalization, the association between all of the

types of teacher professionalization and teacher commitment were in a positive direction, with

only one exception—the provision of mentoring programs for beginning teachers. But, for

only four of the types of professionalization was the positive association of statistical

significance: (1) Schools that offered higher end-of-career salaries to teachers had higher

levels of teacher commitment than did schools with lower end-of-career salaries. Both types

of teacher authority were positively associated with increased teacher commitment. That is,

(2) increases in the reported influence collectively wielded by faculties over school

policymaking and (3) increases in the reported individual autonomy exercised by teachers in

their classrooms were both associated with increases in teacher commitment. Finally, (4) the

reported effectiveness of assistance provided to new teachers was related to commitment;

schools with more effective assistance to newcomers also had higher levels of teacher

commitment.

Public Schools

The middle set of columns in table 2 displays the results of the analysis for public schools

alone. These results show that the factors that explain the differences in teacher commitment

among public schools were, for the most part, similar to those for all schools.

Among public school teachers, males reported slightly less commitment than did females,

white teachers reported slightly more commitment than did minority teachers, more

experienced teachers reported less commitment than less experienced teachers, and teachers

with graduate degrees reported less commitment than those without such degrees.

Among public schools, after controlling for the above teacher differences, differences in the

average teacher commitment were not statistically significant in schools with more minority

students, in schools with more poverty-level students, in larger schools or schools in larger

school districts, and among school levels. There were, however, differences according to the

degree of urbanicity of schools. Both urban and suburban schools had less average

commitment than did rural schools.

As before, four aspects of teacher professionalization stood out. Among public schools, those

with higher end-of-career teacher salaries, with higher levels of reported teacher autonomy

and reported faculty influence, and with higher levels of reported effectiveness of assistance for

newcomers all had higher levels of reported teacher commitment.
Results

 Schools with “high” teacher commitment refer to those with a mean level of 4.5 or more on a scale of 2

1 to 5. See the Technical Notes for the definitions of “high” and “low” for the variables in figures 2

and 3. Note that the “middle” levels of poverty, assistance, autonomy, and influence are not shown in

the figures.

 Note that private school differences in commitment according to both urbanicity and affiliation are 3

no longer significant once other factors are controlled, as in the multiple regression analysis. 

18 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

Private Schools

The last set of columns in table 2 displays the results of the analysis for private schools alone.

These results show that many of the factors that explain differences in teacher commitment

among private schools were similar to those for public schools.

Among private school teachers, female teachers reported slightly more commitment than did

male teachers. There were not, however, statistically significant differences between teachers

with more teaching experience and those with less experience, between teachers with graduate

degrees and those without, and between white and minority teachers.

Among private schools, after controlling for the above teacher differences, there were

some differences according to the level of the school. Elementary private schools had slightly

less teacher commitment, on average, than did combined schools. On the other hand, there

were not statistically significant differences in average teacher commitment according to

school size, the affiliation or orientation of the school, the racial composition of the school’s

student population, or the location of the school.

Two aspects of teacher professionalization accounted for differences in teacher commitment

among private schools. As in the public sector, private schools with higher levels of reported

effectiveness of assistance for newcomers had higher levels of reported teacher commitment.

In addition, higher levels of reported faculty influence were associated with increases in

commitment.

The final portion of this section of the report follows up the above multilevel regression

analysis by presenting several figures designed to more concretely illustrate the actual levels of

teacher commitment among different kinds of schools.

Figure 2 presents the percentages of schools with high teacher commitment for several basic

school types. Parallel to the regression analysis, there were distinct differences in teacher 2

commitment between public and private schools: private schools were far more likely to have

high levels of teacher commitment than public schools. Moreover, in both the public and

private sectors, teachers in rural schools, on average, reported higher levels of commitment

than did teachers in either suburban and urban schools. Among private schools, there were

also some differences in the commitment of teachers between schools of different orientation;

teachers in Catholic schools reported less commitment than did teachers in other religious

schools. Notably, among public schools, the differences between schools serving 3

predominantly low-poverty and high-poverty student populations were not statistically

significant.
43

20

35

26

56

15

EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE 

(scale: 1-4) 

Schools with 

high assistance 

(3.5 or more)

Schools with 

low assistance 

(less than 1.5)

TEACHER AUTONOMY 

(scale: 1-6)

Schools with 

high autonomy 

(5.5 or more) 

Schools with 

low autonomy 

(less than 2.5)

FACULTY INFLUENCE 

(scale: 1-6)

Schools with 

high influence 

(5.5 or more)

Schools with 

low influence 

(less than 1.5)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent 

Results

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 19

Figure 2— Percentage of schools with high teacher commitment, by selected school

characteristics

NOTE: The middle category of poverty enrollment is not shown. High teacher commitment refers to schools with

a mean level of 4.5 or more on a scale of 1 to 5.

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

Staffing Survey (School and Teacher Questionnaires).

Figure 3 illustrates the differences in teacher commitment according to the school levels of

effective assistance, teacher autonomy, and faculty policymaking influence. Parallel to the

regression analysis, these factors are clearly and strongly related to differences in commitment.

For example, 56 percent of schools with high levels of faculty influence had high teacher

commitment; in contrast, only 15 percent of schools with low faculty influence had high

commitment. Likewise, 43 percent of schools with high effective assistance for new teachers

had high commitment; in contrast, only 20 percent of schools with low effective assistance for

new teachers had high teacher commitment. Finally, 35 percent of schools with high teacher

autonomy had high commitment, while 26 percent of schools with low autonomy had high

commitment.
18

17

20

20

17

15

43

37

49

42

52

39

40

TOTAL PUBLIC

Low-poverty

High-poverty

Rural

Suburban

Urban

TOTAL PRIVATE

Catholic

Other religious

Nonsectarian

Rural

Suburban

Urban

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent

% Poverty Enrollment

Community

Community

Orientation

Results

20 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

Figure 3— Percentage of public and private schools with high teacher commitment, by school

levels of selected professional characteristics

NOTE: The middle categories of assistance, autonomy, and influence are not shown. High teacher commitment

refers to schools with a mean level of 4.5 or more on a scale of 1 to 5.

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

Staffing Survey (School and Teacher Questionnaires).
Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 21

Summary

Does the professionalization of teachers have a positive impact on the commitment of

elementary and secondary teachers to their teaching careers? Do schools with more

professional working conditions have higher levels of teacher commitment? This report has

presented a multilevel analysis of the relationships between a number of traditional aspects of

professionalization and teacher commitment, while controlling for a number of key

characteristics of schools and teachers.

The results of this analysis show that for the overall population of elementary and secondary

teachers and schools in the United States, there were distinct teacher-to-teacher and schoolto-school differences in teacher commitment. For example, male teachers, teachers with

graduate degrees, minority teachers, and teachers with more teaching experience all reported

slightly less commitment than did other teachers.

Moreover, there were distinct school differences in the average level of commitment of

teaching staffs. The strongest school effect was sector; other factors held equal, teachers in

private schools reported more commitment than did those in public schools. Moreover,

within the public sector, both urban and suburban schools had lower levels of average teacher

commitment than did rural schools.

The heart of the analysis focused on the effects of professionalization, after controlling for the

above teacher-to-teacher and school-to-school differences in teacher commitment levels. The

results show that some aspects of professionalization were related to teacher commitment, and

some were not. Four aspects of professionalization, in particular, stood out for their

relationships to commitment: the reported amounts of teacher classroom autonomy; the

reported amounts of faculty policymaking influence; the reported effectiveness of assistance for

new teachers; and teachers’ end-of-career salaries. Schools with higher levels of each of these

characteristics had higher levels of teacher commitment, after controlling for the other factors.

It is important to interpret these results with some caution for several reasons. First, the

relationships estimated between the range of variables and teacher commitment do not, of

course, imply causality, but indicate associations. That is, the statistical models themselves do

not determine whether the professionalization of teachers causes higher levels of commitment

in teachers.

Second, although a number of the relationships are of statistical significance, none of the

relationships can be described as strong. Moreover, in each model, only a portion of the

variance in average reported teacher commitment is accounted for by the variables examined.

This is to be expected. The objective of the analysis was not to provide a comprehensive
Summary

22 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

explanation of teacher commitment. There are many factors affecting teachers’ engagement

and commitment, of which only a sample are measured here.

Third, the questionnaire item used as a dependent variable in the analysis—“If you could go

back to your college days and start over again, would you become a teacher or

not?”—represents only one aspect of the multifaceted concept of commitment. The factors

that were related to this particular aspect of commitment may not be related to other equally

important aspects of teacher commitment.

Fourth, teacher commitment is also only one of many important outcomes in schools. The

factors that were related to commitment may not be related to other equally important teacher

and school outcomes. Likewise, a lack of relationship between other characteristics of

professionalization, such as more stringent hiring requirements, and commitment does not

mean that these kinds of professionalization are not important, nor that they are

inconsequential for teachers or schools.

Although commitment may be only one of the many important outcomes in schools, it is

widely recognized as an important aspect of teacher behavior, quality, and performance and is

one that is expected to be directly affected by teacher professionalization. The primary

contribution of this analysis is to show that teacher commitment distinctly varies across

different types of schools and to highlight those particular characteristics and aspects of

professionalization in schools that show a strong association with commitment.
Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 23

Implications

These findings suggest several important implications for contemporary education research

and policy.

The Problems and Prospects of Beginning Teachers

The problems confronting new teachers in their jobs are of great interest in current education

research. Researchers have consistently shown that new teachers leave the occupation at very

high rates. As a result, policymakers have advocated a range of reform efforts, such as

mentoring, apprenticeship, and induction programs, designed to aid new teachers and cut

down on their high attrition rates (e.g., Sclan 1991; Murnane et al. 1991). But, the

importance attached to improved induction for new teachers has not, as of yet, resulted in the

prevalence of effective programs in schools. Another NCES report on this topic (Ingersoll

1996a) showed that although a majority of schools offered formal mentoring programs for

beginning teachers, in only a minority of schools did teaching staffs strongly agree that

effective assistance was provided for new teachers, regardless of the program or source.

Moreover, the data indicated that whether a school had a mentor program or not little

affected the distribution of teachers’ reports of the effectiveness of assistance. In either case, in

only about 20 percent of schools did the staff strongly agree that assistance was effective. The

results of the present analysis substantiate, moreover, that a school having a program to assist

beginning teachers is less important for teacher commitment than the quality of help

reportedly provided to newcomers. That is, simply offering formal mentoring programs did

not appear to improve the commitment of teachers. Only if teaching staffs reported that new

teachers were effectively assisted in matters of discipline, instruction, and adjustment to the

school environment did the commitment of teachers appear to improve. This suggests the

importance of conducting further research on what distinguishes effective from ineffective

induction and assistance programs.

Professional Development

There has also been a recent upsurge in recognition of the importance of professional

development to foster the continuing engagement, enthusiasm, effectiveness, and retention of

teachers. Indeed, as mentioned earlier, the national education goals specifically call for

increased support for the professional development of the teaching workforce in the United

states (National Education Goals Panel 1995).

The results of this analysis show that neither of two traditional forms of professional

development—funding for continuing education and teaching staff participation in seminars

sponsored by professional organizations—have a positive effect on reported teacher
Implications

 In this regard, NCES has recently sponsored a project using national data to examine different forms 4

of professional development and their relationships to teaching quality and student learning (Mullens

1996).

24 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

commitment. It is unclear what this means for professional development in general. Possibly

these kinds of programs are not effective, at least for raising the commitment of teachers, but

other kinds of programs may be. Or possibly the measures used here do not effectively assess

the quality of programs, and like mentoring for new teachers, having a program is less

important than the quality of developmental assistance. Further research is also warranted on

what types of professional development exist and which are more effective.4

Power, Authority, and Decisionmaking in Schools

The distribution of power, authority, and control in schools is one of the most important

issues in contemporary education research and policy. Indeed, this issue lies at the crux of

many current reforms—teacher empowerment, site-based management, and related forms of

school decentralization. But, although the importance of the distribution of power in school

systems has become increasingly recognized among both education researchers and

policymakers, it is a subject marked by substantial disagreement and confusion. (For

discussions of this topic and debate, see, for example, Johnson 1990; Shedd and Bacharach

1991; Conley and Cooper 1991; McNeil 1988; Ingersoll 1994.)

Disagreement surrounds the degree to which schools ought to be centralized or decentralized.

Some reformers, for example, have argued that too much decentralization in school systems is

a prime cause of incoherence and disorder in the operation of schools, and, ultimately, poor

performance on the part of staff and students. In this view, the education system would

greatly benefit by increasing the centralized control and accountability of school programs and

staff. Others, however, argue precisely the opposite—that too much centralization in school

systems is a prime cause of dissatisfaction, disruption, and, ultimately, poor performance on the

part of staff and students inside schools. In this view, the education system would greatly

benefit by delegating decisionmaking downwards to the local and school levels.

This debate, moreover, suffers from a great deal of confusion because different researchers and

policy analysts concerned with power in school systems have at different times focused on

different groups, on different levels of analysis, and on different aspects of power. So, for

instance, some discussions of decentralization focus on parent and local community input into

school policy, while others focus on teacher and school staff empowerment. Some analysts are

concerned with an interorganizational level of analysis and focus on the interface between

state or district agencies and school-level staff, while others are concerned with an

intraorganizational level and focus on the interface between teachers and administrators

within schools. In addition, different researchers have focused on different kinds, forms, and

aspects of power. Some, for instance, are concerned with the mechanisms and degree of

organizational control of teachers and their work, while others are interested in the degree of

professional authority collectively exercised by school faculty. Even others focus on the effects

of how much autonomy teachers exercise in their individual classrooms. Given this variation

in emphases, it is not surprising that many have come to different conclusions as to the

distribution and effects of power in schools. Resolution of the debate has, moreover, suffered
Implications

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 25

from a shortage of empirical work devoted to specifying and examining which kinds and

aspects of power have what effects on which outcomes in schools and why.

Another NCES report on this topic (Ingersoll 1996a) shows that although much importance

has been attached to teacher authority, this has not, as of yet, resulted in the prevalence of

high levels of teacher empowerment in schools. The results showed, for example, that in few

schools did principals report their faculties to have as much decisionmaking authority and

influence over several key educational issues as they themselves had.

This analysis provides an empirical examination of the effects of two distinct, but often

confounded, forms of teacher authority—collective faculty policy influence and individual

teacher classroom autonomy. The results show that both of these are related to improvements

in teacher commitment in schools—hence providing empirical support for those advocating

the benefits of increased teacher empowerment. Moreover, these results are also consistent

with other recent research using SASS data showing that increases in the authority of teachers

are among the strongest predictors of decreased rates of teacher turnover (Ingersoll 1995) and

reduced school conflict (Ingersoll 1996b).

Comparing Public and Private Schools

Over the past decade, there has been an upsurge of interest among both education researchers

and policymakers in comparing public and private elementary and secondary schools in the

United States. Numerous researchers, for instance, have sought to carefully isolate key

differences between public and private schools and to explore what impact these differences

have on student outcomes (e.g., Coleman and Hoffer 1987; Bryk et al. 1994; Chubb and Moe

1990). The primary emphasis of much of this research has been to separate out the effects of

schools, of student characteristics, and of family background on student performance.

Although highly contested, many have come to the conclusion that, in important ways,

private schools are distinctly different than public schools and, in general, are better places for

student growth and learning.

Other NCES analyses (Ingersoll 1996a) showed that the teaching job in private schools was in

many, but not all, ways less professionalized than in public schools. For example, public

schools were more likely than private schools to use a full range of professional hiring

requirements (e.g., certification in area of specialization, substantive training in area of

specialization, completion of accredited training program, passage of examination). Public

school teachers did less teaching out of their fields of training. Public schools more often

provided a full range of paid benefits (medical, dental, life insurance, retirement). Finally,

starting and end-of-career teachers’ salaries were higher for public than for private school

teachers.

On the other hand, teachers in private schools were more likely to report that effective

assistance to new teachers was provided; moreover, private school principals more often

reported their faculties to have substantial decisionmaking influence over key educational

issues. Hence, it appears that although private school were less professionalized in many ways,

they had higher levels of some of those very characteristics of professionalization that have the

greatest effect on teacher commitment. The differences in these characteristics could possibly
Implications

26 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

account for the higher levels of commitment in private schools than in public schools. On

the other hand, other research with SASS data has shown that even with higher levels of

teacher commitment, private schools still have substantially higher levels of teacher turnover

(Ingersoll 1995). Clearly, the differences in public and private schools and teachers are issues

that warrant further research.
 For a detailed description of the sample design of the 1990–91 SASS, see Kaufman and Huang 5

(1993).

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 27

Technical Notes

Part 1—The Schools and Staffing Survey

The primary data source for this report is the 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), a

nationally representative survey of teachers, principals, and schools conducted by the U.S.

Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The U.S.

Census Bureau collected the SASS data for NCES in 1991 using a mail survey with telephone

followup. The objective of SASS was to obtain information on the staffing, occupational, and

organizational characteristics of schools in the United States.

Sample Selection5

Schools were the primary sampling unit for SASS. Each selected school received a school

questionnaire and an administrator questionnaire. Next, a sample of teachers was selected

within each school, and each received a teacher questionnaire. A Teacher Demand and

Shortage (TDS) questionnaire was sent to the local education agency (LEA) associated with

each selected public school. Also, an additional sample of public school districts not

associated with the sampled schools received the TDS questionnaire. The private school

questionnaire included TDS questions for the school. The sample for the SASS conducted

during the 1990–91 school year included 12,856 schools and administrators, 65,217 teachers,

and 5,515 local education agencies. The response rates are discussed below.

SASS was designed to provide national estimates for public and private schools; state

estimates for public schools; state elementary, state secondary, and national combined

estimates for public schools; affiliation- and grade-level estimates for private schools; estimates

of change from 1988 to 1991 in school-level characteristics; and national estimates for schools

with greater than 25 percent Indian enrollment. The teacher survey was designed to support

comparisons between new and experienced teachers. Comparisons between bilingual and

nonbilingual teachers are possible at the national level.

Selection of Schools

The public school sample of 9,586 schools was selected primarily from the 1988–89 school

year Common Core of Data (CCD) file. The CCD is based on survey data collected annually

by NCES from all state education agencies and is believed to be the most complete list of

public schools available. The frame includes regular public schools, Department of Defense
Technical Notes

 Copies of the questionnaires may be obtained by writing to the address given at the end of this report. 6

28 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

operated military base schools, and nonregular schools such as special education, vocational,

and alternative schools.

The private school sample of 3,270 schools was selected from two sampling frames, a list frame

and an area frame. The 1989–90 Private School Survey (PSS) list frame was based on the

1989 Quality of Education Data (QED) private school list, updated with 20 private school

association lists provided to the Census Bureau in the spring of 1989.

To improve private school coverage, an area frame of schools was developed consisting of 123

sampling units (PSUs) selected with probability proportional to the square root of the PSU

population. Within each PSU, a telephone search was conducted to find all in-scope private

schools. Sources included yellow pages, religious institutions (except for Roman Catholic

religious institutions, because each Catholic diocese is contacted annually when the QED list

is updated), local education agencies, chambers of commerce, and local government offices.

PSU schools not on the QED file nor the lists from private school associations were listed in

the area school frame. From the frame, additional schools were eligible to be selected for the

SASS private school sample.

The private school sample was designed to support estimates at the national and affiliation

levels. The affiliation groups for private schools were determined by the school’s orientation

or affiliation group listed on the 1988–89 Private Schools Survey (the list frame).

Selection of LEAs

All LEAs that had at least one school selected for the school sample were included in the LEA

sample for the TDS Survey. Each Bureau of Indian Affairs and Department of Defense school

was defined to be an LEA. Some LEAs did not have schools, but hired teachers who taught in

schools in other LEAs. To ensure representation of these teachers, a sample of 135 LEAs

without eligible schools was selected. Only 14 of the 135 were actually in scope (that is, were

an operating public school agency that reported hiring teachers). All LEAs in Delaware,

Nevada, and West Virginia were included to reduce high standard errors in these states. The

total LEA sample was 5,515. (LEAs without schools were not included in this analysis.)

Selection of Teachers

All 56,051 public and 9,166 private school teachers in the teacher samples were selected from

the sampled public and private schools. The average number of teachers selected per school

was 3.49, 6.98, and 5.23 teachers for public elementary, secondary, and combined schools,

respectively, and 3.78, 4.72, and 2.83 teachers for private elementary, secondary, and

combined schools, respectively.

Data Collection

The data were collected for NCES by the United States Bureau of the Census. Questionnaires

were mailed to school districts and administrators in December 1990 and to schools and

teachers in January and February 1991. Six weeks later, a second questionnaire was sent to 6
Technical Notes

 For a detailed description of the imputation procedures in the 1990–91 SASS, see Kaufman and 7

Huang (1993), pp. 60–87.

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 29

each nonrespondent. A telephone follow-up of nonrespondents was conducted between

March and June.

Weighting

Weights of the sample units were developed to produce national and state estimates for public

schools, teachers, administrators, and LEAs. The private-sector data were weighted to

produce national estimates and affiliation group estimates. The basic weights were the inverse

of the probability of selection, and were adjusted for nonresponse and also to adjust the sample

totals (based on responding, nonresponding, and out of scope cases) to the frame totals in

order to reduce sampling variability.

Response Rates and Imputation

The final weighted questionnaire response rates were as follows:

Public Private

Teacher Demand and Shortage 93.5 --

Administrator 96.7 90.0

School 95.3 83.9

Teacher* 90.3 84.3

(--) not applicable

*The response rates for public school teachers do not include the 5 percent of the public schools that did not

provide teacher lists, and the response rates for private school teachers do not include the 11 percent of the

private schools that did not provide teacher lists. The effective response rate for public schools was 85.8 percent

and for private schools, 75.9 percent.

Values were imputed for items with missing data by: (1) using data from other items on the

questionnaire or a related component of the SASS (a school record to impute district data, for

example); (2) extracting data from the sample file, such as the CCD or PSS; or (3) extracting

data from a respondent with similar characteristics.7

Standard Errors

The data in this report are based on samples and, hence, are subject to sampling variability. In

order to make proper inferences about the larger population which the samples represent, the

accuracy of all statistics and estimates in this report were checked. All comparisons discussed

in the text were tested for statistical significance using the student’s t statistic at an alpha level

of .05. Whenever comparisons were multiple, the Bonferroni procedure was used to adjust the

alpha level for the t tests.

Standard errors were calculated by the HLM software program to indicate the accuracy of each

estimate in the regression tables. If all possible samples of the same size were surveyed under
Technical Notes

30 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

the same conditions, an interval of 1.96 standard error units below to 1.96 standard error units

above a particular statistic would include the universe value in approximately 95 percent of

the cases. Note, however, that the standard errors do not take into account the effect of biases

due to item nonresponse, measurement error, data processing error, or other possible

systematic error.

Measures of School Characteristics

Poverty Enrollment of School: The measure of poverty used in the analysis is the proportion of a

school’s student population that received the publicly funded free or reduced-price lunch

program. The proportion of free-lunch recipients is a standard measure of poverty level in

school populations because almost all public schools participate in the program. But, it must

be interpreted with some caution. The number of children reported to be recipients may be

an underestimate, because not all children who are eligible may identify themselves as such

(especially at the secondary level). Note that this measure is not available for private schools.

Urban: a large central city (a central city of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical

Area—SMSA—with population greater than or equal to 400,000 or a population density

greater than or equal to 6,000 per square mile, or a mid-size central city (a central city of an

SMSA, but not designated as a large central city).

Suburban: Urban fringe of a large or mid-size city (a place within an SMSA of a large or midsize central city and defined as urban by the U.S. Bureau of the Census) or a large town (a

place not within an SMSA, but with a population greater than or equal to 25,000 and defined

as urban by the U.S. Bureau of the Census).

Rural/Small Town: Rural area (a place with a population of less than 2,500 and defined as rural

by the U.S. Bureau of the Census) or a small town (a place not within an SMSA, with a

population of less than 25,000 but greater than or equal to 2,500, and defined as urban by the

U.S. Bureau of the Census).
Technical Notes

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 31

SASS Questionnaire Items used in the Measures of Teacher Professionalization

Credentials

C Professional Hiring Requirements:

TDS Questionnaire (question # 23) and Private

School Questionnaire (question # 58)

Items: DISTEST, STABASIC, STASUBJ,

NTEPASS, FULLCERT, TEACHED,

MAJORFLD.

Induction

C Mentor/Master Program:

Public School Questionnaire (question # 35) and

Private School Questionnaire (question # 55)

Item: MENTOR.

C Effectiveness of Assistance:

Public and Private Teacher Questionnaires

(question # 37)

Items: TSC237 - TSC240.

Professional Development

C Continuing Education Support:

TDS Questionnaire (question # 13) and Private

School Questionnaire (question # 53)

Item: TUITION.

Participation in Professional

 Organization Activities

C Public and Private Teacher Questionnaires

(question # 27)

Items: TSC108, TSC109

Authority

C Teacher Autonomy:

Public and Private Teacher Questionnaires

(question # 40)

Items: TSC248 - TSC253.
Technical Notes

32 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

C Faculty Influence :

Public and Private Teacher Questionnaires

(question # 39)

Items: TSC244 - TSC247.

Compensation

C Maximum Salary:

TDS Questionnaire (questions # 15-17) and

Private School Questionnaire (questions # 46-48)

Items: SALSCHED, HIGHSAL, MAXSALRY.
Technical Notes

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 33

Measures of Effective Assistance, Participation in Organizations,

Teacher Autonomy, and Faculty Influence

In the analysis, four school-level measures of teacher professionalization are based on the

reports of individual teachers: the effectiveness of assistance provided to new teachers; the

extent of participation of teaching staffs in professional activities; the extent of influence

collectively wielded by faculties over school policymaking; and the degree of individual

autonomy exercised by teachers over planning and teaching within their classrooms.

In these four measures, teacher-respondents are treated as informants of workplace and

organizational conditions in their schools. In essence, these measures assess the characteristics

of schools indirectly, by aggregating members’ perceptions of these structures. Use of

employee respondent perceptions to construct such variables is standard practice in both

research on school organization and in research on organizations in general (e.g., Pallas 1988;

Lee et al. 1991; Rowan et al. 1991; Pfeffer 1982). Indeed, the argument is often made that

members and employees are in the best position to know what these conditions are.

Nevertheless, there is reason to treat these measures with some caution.

Because such data represent members’ perceptions of school conditions, these responses are, by

definition, subjective attributions. It is reasonable to expect that some individual’s reports

could be inaccurate because of attribution bias. For example, highly satisfied individuals could

both overestimate their commitment and overestimate the degree of professionalization in

their schools. Alternatively, highly disgruntled individuals could do the opposite. What

might appear as a relationship between professionalization and commitment could actually be

a spurious effect of the respondent’s bias.

In a series of background analyses, we explored whether this may be the case by also

examining the associations between individual teacher commitment and their own scores for

each of these four professional characteristics. That is, we estimated both level-1 and level-2

HLM models which included teacher-level measures of effective assistance, participation in

organizations, teacher autonomy, and faculty influence. In all cases, the effects of these

teacher-level predictors were smaller than those of school-level versions of the same

predictors. This suggested that the attribution bias described above may not be a problem in

this analysis. It also provided justification for the use of only the school-level measures of

professionalization—which is consistent with the theoretical focus of the study.

In a series of other background analyses, we also explored the use of a second version of the

measure of faculty influence—one based on school principals’ reports. In the Administrator

Questionnaire, principals were asked to answer two of the same questions asked of teachers:

faculty influence over school policy in two areas: discipline and establishing curriculum.

Principals were also asked to report these levels for several other groups (state departments of

education, school boards, parent associations) in addition to themselves. The data indicate

that principals and teachers in the same schools often did not agree as to faculty

influence—principals often reported that faculty had more influence than teachers did of

themselves. Our analyses suggested that although the principals’ reports were useful to

compare the relative influence of the different groups, principals’ reports were less valid and

less reliable than those of teachers for faculty influence. For instance, teachers’ mean reports
Technical Notes

 For detailed analyses of teacher influence and autonomy using SASS data, see Ingersoll (1994, 1996b). For an 8

analysis of teacher turnover using SASS data, see Ingersoll (1995).

34 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

of faculty influence were strongly related to principals’ reports of actual teacher turnover,

while principals’ reports of faculty influence showed no relationship. Hence, in this analysis, 8

we used teachers’ reports of faculty influence.

Measures of Teacher Commitment, Poverty, and Professionalization in Figures 2 and 3

Teacher commitment is defined as “high” if the rounded mean school score was greater than

or equal to 5 on a scale of 1 to 5.

% Poverty Enrollment is defined as “high” if the percentage of students in each school

receiving publicly funded free or reduced-price lunches was 50 percent or more.

% Poverty Enrollment is defined as “low” if the percentage of students in each school

receiving publicly funded free or reduced-price lunches was less than 15 percent.

Faculty influence is defined as “high” if the rounded mean school score was greater than or

equal to 6 on a scale of 1 to 6.

Faculty influence is defined as “low” if the rounded mean school score was less than or equal to

1 on a scale of 1 to 6.

Effective assistance is defined as “high” if the rounded mean school score was greater than or

equal to 4 on a scale of 1 to 4.

Effective assistance is defined as “low” if the rounded mean school score was less than or equal

to 1 on a scale of 1 to 4.

Teacher autonomy is defined as “high” if the rounded mean school score was greater than or

equal to 6 on a scale of 1 to 6.

Teacher autonomy is defined as “low” if the rounded mean school score was less than or equal

to 2 on a scale of 1 to 6.
Technical Notes

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 35

Part 2—The HLM Analysis

Models

Summary of the models specified (in equation format):

All Schools

Level-1 Model

Y = B0 + B1*(MALE) + B2*(MASTERS) + B3*(EXPER) + B4*(WHITE) + R

Level-2 Model

B0 = G00 + G01*(%MINENR) + G02*(SECOND) + G03*(ELEMENT) + G04*(URBAN)

+ G05*(SUBURBAN) + G06*(ENRK12UG) + G07*(PRIVATE) + G08*(MAX.SAL)

+ G09*(HIRE.REQ) + G010*(CONT.ED) + G011*(MENTOR) + G012*(T.AUTON)

+ G013*(PARTIC) + G014*(FAC.INFLU) + G015*(EFF.ASS) + U0

B1 = G10

B2 = G20

B3 = G30

B4 = G40

Public Schools

Level-1 Model

Y = B0 + B1*(MALE) + B2*(MASTERS) + B3*(EXPER) + B4*(WHITE) + R

Level-2 Model

B0 = G00 + G01*(%MINENR) + G02*(SECOND) + G03*(ELEMENT) + G04*(URBAN)

+ G05*(SUBURBAN) + G06*(%POVENR) + G07*(ENRK12UG) + G08*(DIST.SIZE)

+ G09*(MAX.SAL) + G010*(HIRE.REQ) + G011*(CONT.ED) + G012*(MENTOR)

+ G013*(T.AUTON) + G014*(PARTIC) + G015*(FAC.INFLU) + G016*(EFF.ASS) + U0

B1 = G10

B2 = G20

B3 = G30

B4 = G40

Private Schools

Level-1 Model

Y = B0 + B1*(MALE) + B2*(MASTERS) + B3*(EXPER) + B4*(WHITE) + R
Technical Notes

36 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

Level-2 Model

B0 = G00 + G01*(%MINENR) + G02*(SECOND) + G03*(ELEMENT) + G04*(URBAN)

+ G05*(SUBURBAN) + G06*(ENRK12UG) + G07*(MAX.SAL) + G08*(HIRE.REQ)

+ G09*(CONT.ED) + G010*(MENTOR) + G011*(T.AUTON) + G012*(PARTIC)

+ G013*(FAC.INFLU) + G014*(EFF.ASS) + G015*(RELIG) + G016*(NON-SECT) + U0

B1 = G10

B2 = G20

B3 = G30

B4 = G40

The level-1 (within-school) model for each of the three sets of analyses (all schools, public

schools, and private schools) investigated the changes in teacher commitment for each

teacher in each school as a function of four of each teacher’s background demographic

characteristics (sex, education, teaching experience, and race) and random error. The B

regression coefficients are structural relations occurring with each school that indicate how

commitment in each school is distributed across the measured teacher characteristics.

The level-2 (between-school) models for each of the three sets of analyses (all schools, public

schools, and private schools) investigated the changes in each school’s mean teacher

commitment, adjusted for teacher characteristics, as a function of a number of school

characteristics and of the eight professional characteristics. The G regression coefficients

represent structural relationships between school-level characteristics and the adjusted mean

of teacher commitment for each school.

Because HLM models are more general than multiple regression models of the type estimated

by ordinary least squares or probability weighted least squares, there are additional choices to

make regarding the specification of the model. These include: (1) whether to treat the slope

coefficients in the level-1 model as random or fixed and (2) whether to center teacher

characteristics data around the mean value for teachers in each school.

The models estimated here treat the intercept in the level-1 model as random and comprised

of two components: a component that is common to all teachers within a school and a

component that is unique to each teacher. The common school component arises from

unmeasured school-level characteristics. Each of the remaining terms in the level-1 model

(years of teaching experience, sex, education, and minority status) are modeled as having fixed

effects. This is how the slope coefficients in a standard linear regression analysis are modeled.

They are fixed parameters to be estimated, as opposed to random parameters with means and

standard deviations. For the model estimated here, there are no reasons to suspect that the

effects of teacher characteristics have random effects on teacher commitment, and the

available data is not extensive enough (in terms of teachers per school) to estimate such a

complex model, so it is not pursued in this analysis.

The models estimated here also do not center the teacher characteristics data around the

school means. That is, the coefficients for the teacher characteristics will not be expressed as

deviations from the school mean but as deviations from the entire sample. If one centers

around the mean value for teachers in each school, then one uses the variation in teacher

characteristics within schools to estimate the effect of the teacher characteristics on
Technical Notes

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 37

commitment. If one does not center, then both within- and between-school variation in

teacher characteristics are used to estimate the effects of the teacher characteristics on

commitment.

Because there are not compelling theoretical reasons to do so and also because of limitations

in the within-school sample size, this analysis does not center the teacher data. Hence, in this

analysis, the effects on commitment of, for instance, being a male or a female teacher do not

refer to comparisons within each school but across the entire sample of teachers.

Variance Components of the Dependent Variable

Prior to estimating the models themselves, a first step in many HLM analyses is to partition

the variance in the outcome of interest—the dependent variable—into its within-level and

between-level components. This is done by estimating a base or unconditional model—one

that includes no controls or other variables for either teachers or schools. In this case, the

unconditional model indicates how much variation in teacher commitment lies between

schools and how much lies within schools. It is useful to partition the total variance into

these two components because the effects of the variables at each level of interest can only be

evaluated on the portion of variance that actually lies at their level.

Table 3 provides information from the unconditional model on the background properties of

the teacher commitment measure. It decomposes the variance in the teacher commitment

measure into two components: within-school variance, or that which is unique to each

teacher, and between-school variance or that which is common to all teachers within a

school. The former represents actual teacher-to-teacher differences in commitment and also

error in the measurement of commitment. The latter represents differences in the average

commitment across schools. The proportion of the total variance that lies between schools is

referred to as the intraclass correlation (intraclass correlation = (between-school variance) /

(within-school variance + between-school variance)). This latter statistic indicates the extent

to which teachers in particular schools agree as to their commitment. The school-level

variance in commitment is the principal focus of this analysis. That is, the primary objective

of the analysis is to examine the extent to which the professional characteristics of schools

account for the between-school variance in teacher commitment, while controlling for effects

of the general characteristics of schools and for the effects of the characteristics of teachers.

Table 3— HLM statistics for the teacher commitment measure, by school sector

All Schools Public Schools Private Schools

Within-school variance 2.92 2.6 1.33

Between-school variance .23 .23 .19

Intraclass correlation .073 .082 .123

NOTE: intraclass correlation = (between-school variance) / (within-school variance + between-school variance)

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

Staffing Survey (Teacher Questionnaire).
Technical Notes

38 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

As indicated in table 3, only a small portion of the total variance in commitment actually lies

between schools. This signals the existence of substantial heterogeneity in the responses of

teachers to the questionnaire item on commitment, regardless of the conditions of the school

in which they teach.

There are several reasons for such a large proportion of the diversity in teacher commitment to

lie within schools. First, commitment is a subjective phenomenon and could vary according

to the perceptions and inclinations of different individuals, regardless of the characteristics of

their schools. Second, teachers in different departments and units within schools may have

differing experiences and, hence, vary in their reports of commitment. Finally, such a measure

is probably subject to substantial measurement error. That is, it is difficult to precisely measure

commitment, especially with a survey questionnaire. For these reasons, it is to be expected

that the within-school variance will be larger than the between-school variance, and the

above ratio may underestimate the actual proportion of between-school variance.

It is important to acknowledge, however, that the above indicated school-level variance may

not be an optimal amount. There is not enough between-school variance, for example, to

disprove the null hypothesis that there are no school differences in teacher commitment,

using a chi-square significance test and at a 95 percent level of confidence. (This does not, of

course, disprove the alternative hypothesis that there are school-level effects and school

differences). Although it is important to acknowledge these limits, in practice, HLM analyses

are often confronted with limited amounts of between-school variance and despite these limits

are able to identify important and statistically significant relationships (see, for example, Lee

et al. 1991 or Lee and Smith 1995). As the analysis shows, there are, indeed, school

differences in teacher commitment, and there are also significant relationships between

school-level characteristics and commitment.

Comments and More Information

SASS and TFS data on CD-ROM with Electronic Codebooks, as well as user’s manuals, are

available (free single copies) from the National Data Resource Center at 703–845–3151

(fax: 703–820–7465).

Special requests for data tapes of the SASS and TFS data may be made to NCES at the

address listed below.

Schools and Staffing Survey

Elementary and Secondary Education Statistics Division

National Center for Education Statistics

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20208-5653
Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 39

References

Abbott, A. (1988). The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Arnold, C. (1992). “Methods, Plainly Speaking: An Introduction to Hierarchical Linear

Models.” Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 25: 58–90.

Bacharach, S. (1990). Education Reform: Making Sense of it All. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Baker, D., Han. M., and Keil, C.T. (1996). How Different? How Similar?: Comparing Key

Organizational Qualities of American Public and Private Secondary Schools. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES

96–322).

Bidwell, C. and Karsarda, J. (1980). “Conceptualizing and Measuring the Effects of School

and Schooling.” American Journal of Education, 89: 401–431.

Bidwell, C. and Quiroz, P. (1991). “Organizational Control in the High School Workplace:

A Theoretical Argument.” Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1: 211–229.

Bryk, A. and Raudenbush, S. (1992). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data

Analysis Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bryk, A., Lee, V., and Smith, J. (1990). “High School Organization and its Effects on

Teachers and Students: An Interpretive Summary of the Research.” In Clune, W.H.

and Witte, J.F. (Eds.) Choice and Control in American Education, Volume 1: The Theory

of Choice and Control in Education (135–226). New York: Falmer Press.

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the

21st Century. New York: Carnegie Forum.

Chambers, J. (1996). Patterns of Teacher Compensation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

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

Choy, S., Bobbitt, S., Henke, R., Medrich, E., Horn, L., and Lieberman, J. (1993a).

America’s Teachers: Profile of a Profession. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 93–025).
References

40 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

Choy, S., Henke, R., Alt, M., Medrich, E., and Bobbitt, S. (1993b). Schools and Staffing in the

United States: A Statistical Profile, 1990–91. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 93–146).

Chubb, J.E. and Moe, T. (1990). Politics, Markets and America’s schools. Washington, DC:

Brookings Institute.

Coleman, J. and Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and Private Schools: The Impact of Communities.

New York: Basic.

Collins, R. (1979). The Credential Society. New York: Academic Press.

Conley, S. and Cooper, B. (1991). The School as a Work Environment: Implications for Reform.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1984). Beyond the Commission Reports: The Coming Crisis in Teaching.

Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). The Current Status of Teaching and Teacher Development in the

United States. Paper prepared for the National Commission on Teaching and

America’s Future.

Etzioni, A. (1969). (Ed.) The Semi-Professions and Their Organizations: Teachers, Nurses and

Social Workers. New York: Free Press.

Friedson, E. (1986). Professional Powers: A Study in the Institutionalization of Formal Knowledge.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gruber, K., Rohr, C., and Fondelier, S. (1993). 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Data File

User’s Manual Volumes I–III. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 93–441–I–III).

Hall, R. (1968). “Professionalization and Bureaucratization.” American Sociological Review, 33:

92–104.

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s Teachers. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group.

Hodson, R. and Sullivan, T. (1995). “Professions and Professionals.” In XXX (Ed.) The

Social Organization of Work (287–314). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Hughes, E. (1965). “Professions.” In K.Lynn (Ed.) and the editors of Daedalus. The

Professions in America (1–14). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Ingersoll, R. (1994). “Organizational Control in Secondary Schools.” Harvard Educational

Review, 64: 150–172.

——. (1995). Teacher Supply, Teacher Quality, and Teacher Turnover: 1990–91. Washington,

DC: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 95–744).
References

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 41

——. (1996a). The Status of Teaching as a Profession. Washington, DC: National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES 95–104).

——. (1996b). “Teachers’ Decision-making Power and School Conflict.” Sociology of

Education, 69: 159–176.

Jabine, T. (1994). A Quality Profile for SASS: Aspects of the Quality of Data in the Schools and

Staffing Surveys. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center

for Education Statistics (NCES 94–340).

Johnson, S. (1990). Teachers at Work. New York: Basic Books.

Kaufman, S. and Huang, H. (1993). 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and

Estimation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES 93–449).

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

Larson, M. (1977). The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.

Lee, V., Dedrick, R., and Smith, J. (1991). “The Effect of the Social Organization of Schools

on Teachers’ Efficacy and Satisfaction.” Sociology of Education, 64: 190–208.

Lee, V., and Smith, J. (1995). “The Effects of High School Restructuring and Size on Early

Gains in Achievement and Engagement.” Sociology of Education, 68: 241–270.

Lieberman, A. (1988). Building a Professional Culture in Schools. New York: Teacher’s College

Press.

Little, J. (1990). “Conditions of Professional Development in Secondary Schools.” In M.

McLaughlin, J. Talbert, and N. Bascia (Eds.) The Contexts of Teaching in Secondary

Schools: Teachers’ Realities (187–218). New York: Teachers College Press.

McLaughlin, D., O’Donnell, C., and Ries, L. (1995). Private Schools in the United States: A

Statistical Profile, 1990–91. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics (NCES 95–330).

McNeil, L. (1988). Contradictions of Control. New York: Routledge.

Miskel, C. and Ogawa, R. (1988). “Work Motivation, Job Satisfaction, and Climate.” In N.

Boyan (Ed.) Handbook of Educational Administration. New York: Longman.

Mullens, J. (1996). Student Learning, Teaching Quality and Professional Development:

Theoretical Linkages and Current Measurement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
References

42 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

Murnane, R., Singer, J., Willett. J., Kemple, J., and Olsen, R. (Eds.) (1991). Who Will

Teach?: Policies That Matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative

for Educational Reform. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

National Education Goals Panel. (1995). National Education Goals Panel Report: Building a

Nation of Learners. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

National Opinion Research Center (NORC). (1983). General Social Surveys, 1972–1983:

Cumulative Codebook. Chicago, IL.

Pallas, A. (1988). “School Climate in American High Schools.” Teachers College Record, 89:

541–543.

Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organizations and Organization Theory. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

Reyes, P. (1990). Teachers and their Workplace: Commitment, Performance, Productivity.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teacher’s Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools. New York:

Longman.

Rowan, B. (1990). “Commitment and Control: Alternative Strategies for the Organizational

Design of Schools.” Review of Research in Education, 16. Washington, D.C.:

American Educational Research Association.

Rowan, B. (1994). “Comparing Teachers’ Work with Work in Other Occupations: Notes on

the Professional Status of Teaching.” Educational Researcher, 23(6): 4–17.

Rowan, B., Raudenbush, S., and Kang, S. J. (1991). “Organizational Design in High Schools:

A Multilevel Analysis.” American Journal of Education, 99: 238–260.

Sclan, E. (1993). The Effect of Perceived Workplace Conditions on Beginning Teachers’ Work

Commitment, Career Choice Commitment and Planned Retention. Ann Arbor, MI:

University Microfilms International.

Shedd, J. and Bacharach, S. (1991). Tangled Hierarchies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T.J. and Moore, J. (1989). Schooling for Tomorrow. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Smith, T. (1995). America’s Teachers Ten Years After “A Nation at Risk.” Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES

95–766).

Talbert, J. and McLaughlin, M. (1993). “Teacher Professionalism in Local School Contexts.”

American Journal of Education, 102: 123–153.
References

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 43

Vollmer, H. and Mills, D. (1966). Professionalization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Wallace, J. (1994). Organizational and Professional Commitment in Professional and

Nonprofessional Bureaucracies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Sociological Association, Los Angeles, CA.

Weis, L., Altbach, P., Kelly, G., Petrie, H., and Slaughter, S. (1989). Crisis in Teaching.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
44 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment
Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 45

Appendix

Additional Resources on the

Schools and Staffing Survey
46 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment
Appendix

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 47

Additional Resources on the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)

SASS Data Products

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

U.S. Department of Education

National Center for Education Statistics

SASS Data Products

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Room 422

Washington, D.C. 20208-5651

Reports

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

P Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile: 1993–94 (NCES

96–124)

P Private School Universe Survey, 1993–94 (NCES 96–143)

P SASS by State, 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey: Selected State Results (NCES

96–312)

P How Different? How Similar?: Comparing Key Organizational Qualities of American

Public and Private Secondary Schools (NCES 96–322)

P Schools and Staffing in the United States: Selected Data for Public and Private

Schools, 1993-94 (E.D. Tab, NCES 95-191)

P Private Schools in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1990–91 (NCES 95–330)

P Teacher Supply in the U.S.: Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and Private

Schools, 1988–1991 (NCES 95–348)
Appendix

48 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

P Characteristics of American Indian and Alaska Native Education, Results from the

1990–91 SASS (NCES 95–735)

P Teacher Supply, Teacher Qualifications and Teacher Turnover, Aspects of Teacher

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

P The Patterns of Teacher Compensation (NCES 95–829)

P Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers: Results from the Teacher Followup

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

P SASS by State (NCES 94-343)

P Private School Universe Survey, 1991-92 (NCES 94-350)

P Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce: 1988 and 1991 (NCES

94–665)

P America*s Teachers: Profile of a Profession (NCES 93-025)

P Private School Universe Survey, 1989-90 (NCES 93-122)

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

P Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1990-91 (NCES

93-146)

P Schools and Staffing in the United States: Selected Data for Public and Private

Schools, 1990-91 (E.D. Tab, NCES 93-453)

P Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1987-88 (NCES

92-120)

P Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers: Results from the Teacher Followup

Survey, 1988-89 (E.D. Tab, NCES 91-128)

Forthcoming Reports

P Characteristics of American Indian and Alaska Native Education, Results from the

1993–94 SASS

P America’s Teachers: Profile of a Profession, 1993–94

P The Status of Teaching as a Profession, 1990–91

P The Effects of Professionalization on Teachers: A Multi-Level Analysis, 1990–91
Appendix

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 49

P Time Spent Teaching Core Academic Subjects in Elementary Schools: Comparisons

Across Community School, Teacher, and Student Characteristics

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

Background Characteristics, and Teacher Compensation, 1993–94

P A Profile of Administration Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficiency

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

P Private Schools in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993–94

P Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and Private Schools, 1988–94

P Characteristics of Students’ Programs: Results from Their Student Records, 1993–94

P Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers: Results from the Teacher Followup

Survey, 1994-95

P Characteristics of Public School Districts, 1993–94

P School Principals in the United States, 1993–94

Issue Briefs

P Are High School Teachers Teaching Core Subjects Without College Majors or

Minors in Those Subjects? (Issue Brief, NCES 96–839)

P Where Do Minority Principals Work? (Issue Brief, NCES 96–840)

P What Academic Programs are Offered Most Frequently in Schools Serving American

Indian and Alaska Native Students? (Issue Brief, NCES 96–841)

P How Safe are the Public Schools: What Do Teachers Say? (Issue Brief, NCES

96–842)

P Extended Day Programs in Elementary and Combined Schools (Issue Brief, NCES

96–843)

P What Criteria are Used in Considering Teacher Applicants? (Issue Brief, NCES

96–844)

P Private School Graduation Requirements (Issue Brief, NCES 95–145)

P How Much Time Do Public and Private School Teachers Spend in Their Work?

(Issue Brief, NCES 95–709)

P Migration and Attrition of Public and Private School Teachers: 1991–92 (Issue Brief,

NCES 95–770)
Appendix

50 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

P Which Types of Schools Have the Highest Teacher Turnover? (Issue Brief, NCES

95–778)

P Libraries/Media Centers in Schools: Are There Sufficient Resources? (Issue Brief,

NCES 95–779)

P Who Influences Decisionmaking About School Curriculum: What Do Principals Say?

(Issue Brief, NCES 95–780)

P Public and Private School Principals: Are There Too Few Women? (Issue Brief,

NCES 94-192)

P Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and Private Schools, 1988-91 (Issue Brief,

NCES 94-481)

P What are the Most Serious Problems in Schools? (Issue Brief, NCES 93-149)

P Teacher Salaries—Are They Competitive? (Issue Brief, NCES 93-450)

P Teaching and Administrative Work Experience of Public School Principals (Issue

Brief, NCES 93-452)

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

Video

P America’s Teachers: Profile of a Profession

Methods

P 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation (Technical

Report, NCES 96-089)

P An Exploratory Analysis of Nonrespondents in the 1990–91 Schools and Staffing

Survey (NCES 96–338)

P Design Effects and Generalized Variance Functions for the 1990–91 Schools and

Staffing Surveys (SASS) Volume I—User’s Manual (NCES 95–342I)

P Design Effects and Generalized Variance Functions for the 1990–91 Schools and

Staffing Surveys (SASS) Volume II—Technical Report (NCES 95–340II)

P Quality Profile for SASS: Aspects of the Quality of Data in the Schools and Staffing

Surveys (Technical Report, NCES 94-340)

P 1990-91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation (Technical

Report, NCES 93-449)
Appendix

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 51

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

Development Report, NCES 93-461)

P 1987-88 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation (Technical

Report, NCES 91-127)

CD-ROMs

P Schools and Staffing Survey: 1993–94 Electronic Codebook and Public Use Data

P Schools and Staffing Survey: 1990–91 Electronic Codebook and Public Use Data

P Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 Microdata and Documentation

Questionnaires

P SASS and PSS Questionnaires 1993–1994 (NCES 94–674)

P SASS and TFS Questionnaires 1990–1991

P SASS and TFS Questionnaires 1987–1988

User*s Manuals

P 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Data File User*s Manual Volume I: Survey

Documentation (NCES 93-144-I)

P 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Data File User*s Manual Volume II:

Restricted-Use codebook (NCES 93-144-II)

P 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Data File User*s Manual Volume III:

Public-Use codebook (NCES 93-144-III)

P 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Data File User*s Manual Volume IV: Bureau of

Indian Affairs (BIA) Restricted-Use Codebooks: Administrator, Schools, and

Teachers (NCES 93-144-IV)

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

(NCES 94-331)

P 1991–92 Teacher Followup Survey Data File User*s Manual—Restricted-Use Version

(NCES 94-478)

P 1988–89 Teacher Followup Survey Data File User*s Manual—Public-Use Version

(NCES 92-058)
Appendix

52 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

Forthcoming User*s Manuals

P 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User’s Manual Volume I: Survey

Documentation

P 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User’s Manual Volume II: RestrictedUse Codebook

P 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User’s Manual Volume III: PublicUse Codebook

P 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User*s Manual Volume IV: Bureau of

Indian Affairs (BIA) Restricted-Use Codebooks: Administrator, Schools, and

Teachers

P 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User’s Manual Volume V:

Restricted-Use Codebook Students’ Records

Conference Papers

P Using Classroom Instructional Process Items in National Center for Education

Statistics Study To Measure Student Opportunity to Learn: A Progress Report

P Heaven or Hell? The Teaching Environment of Beginning Teachers

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

P Characteristics of Public and Private School Teachers

P Characteristics of Mathematics and Science Teachers

P Teacher Training, Certification and Assignment

P Teacher Turnover: Patterns of Entry To and Exit from Teaching

P Moonlighting Among Public and Private School Teachers

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

P Highlights of Minority Data from the Schools and Staffing Survey

P Teacher Incentive Research with SASS

P Teacher Salaries: Comparing States After Adjusting for Teacher Experience and

Education

P What are the Characteristics of Principals Identified as Effective by Teachers?
Appendix

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 53

P Schools at Risk: Results of the 1987–88 Schools and Staffing Survey

P Destinations of Movers and Leavers: Where Do They Go?

P Classroom Environment and Support of Beginning Teachers: A Test of the “Crucible

versus Cradle” Theory of Teacher Induction

P Why do Teachers Leave Teaching? Reasons for Teacher Attrition from the Teacher

Followup Survey

NCES Working Papers Related to SASS

WP 94–01 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). Papers Presented at the Meetings of the

American Statistical Association

Section on Survey Research Methods, August 1992

a. “The Schools and Staffing Survey: Research Issues”

b. “The Schools and Staffing Survey: How Reinterview Measures Data Quality”

c. “Mail Versus Telephone Response in the 1991 Schools and Staffing Surveys”

d. “Questionnaire Research in the Schools and Staffing Survey: A Cognitive

Approach”

e. “Balance Half-Sample Replication with Aggregation Units”

f. “Characteristics of Nonrespondents in the Schools and Staffing Surveys’ School

Sample”

g. “Improving Reliability and Comparability on NCES Data on Teachers and Other

Education Staff”

Establishment Surveys Conference, June 1993

a. “Sampling Frames at the United States National Center for Education Statistics”

b. “Monitoring Data Quality in Education Surveys”

Section on Survey Research Methods, August 1993

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

b. “A Bootstrap Variance Estimator for the Schools and Staffing Survey”

c. “Adjusting for Nonresponse Bias of Correlated Items Using Logistic Regression”

d. “Comparisons of School Locale Setting: Self-Reported Versus Assigned”

e. “Characteristics of Nonrespondents to the 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey”

Social Statistics Section, August 1993

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

b. “Who Decides? Principals’ and Teachers’ Views on Decision-Making”

c. “Determinants of Pupil-Teacher Ratios at School Sites: Evidence from the Schools

and Staffing Survey”
Appendix

54 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

WP 94–02 Generalized Variance Estimates for Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)

WP 94–03 1991 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) Reinterview Response Variance

Report

WP 94–04 The Accuracy of Teachers’ Self-report on Their Postsecondary Education:

Teacher Transcript Study, Schools and Staffing Survey

WP 94–06 Six Papers on Teachers from the 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey and

Other Related Surveys

a. “The Results of the 1993 Teacher List Validation Study (TLVS)”

b. “Designing the Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS): Issues and Content)”

c. “Understanding the Supply of Elementary and Secondary Teachers: The Role of

the School and Staffing Survey and the Teacher Followup Survey”

d. “Teacher Retention/Attrition: Issues for Research”

e. “Reflections on a SASS Longitudinal Study”

f. “Whither Didst Thou Go? Retention, Reassignment, Migration, and Attrition of

Special and General Education Teachers in National Perspective”

WP 95–01 Schools and Staffing Survey: 1994. Papers Presented at the 1994 Meeting of

the American Statistical Association (95–01)

Estimation Issues in School Surveys

a. “Intersurvey Consistency in School Surveys”

b. “Estimation Issues Related to the Student Component of the SASS”

c. “Properties of the Schools and Staffing Survey’s Bootstrap Variance Estimator”

d. “Optimal Periodicity of a Survey: Sampling Error, Data Deterioration, and Cost”

Response and Coverage Issues in School Surveys

a. “Some Data Issues in School-Based Surveys”

b. “The 1991–92 Teacher Follow-up Survey Reinterview and Extensive

Reconciliation”

c. “Improving Coverage in a National Survey of Teachers”

d. “Improving the Coverage of Private Elementary-Secondary Schools”

Education Research Using the Schools and Staffing Surveys and the National

Education Longitudinal Study

a. “Adding Value to the Value-Added Educational Production Function

Specification”

b. “Teacher Quality in Public and Private Schools”

c. “Teacher Shortages and Teacher Quality”

d. “Work Experience, Local Labor Markets, and Dropping out of High School”
Appendix

Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment 55

WP 95–02 QED Estimates of the 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Deriving and

Comparing QED School Estimates with CCD Estimates

WP 95–03 Schools and Staffing Survey: 1990–91 SASS Cross-Questionnaire Analysis

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

WP 95–09 The Results of the 1993 Teacher List Validation Study (TLVS)

WP 95–10 The Results of the 1991–92 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) Reinterview and

Extensive Reconciliation

WP 95–11 Measuring Instruction, Curriculum Content, and Instructional Resources: The

Status of Recent Work

WP 95–15 Classroom Instructional Processes: A Review of Existing Measurement

Approaches and Their Applicability for the Teacher Followup Survey

WP 95–16 Intersurvey Consistency in NCES Private School Surveys

WP 95–17 Estimates of Expenditures for Private K–12 Schools

WP 95–18 An Agenda for Research on Teachers and Schools: Revisiting NCES’ Schools

and Staffing Survey

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

Truly Longitudinal Study

WP 96–02 Selected papers presented at the meeting of the 1995 American Statistical

Association (96–02)

Overcoming the Bureaucratic Paradigm: Memorial Session in Honor of Roger

Herriot

a. “1995 Roger Herriot Award Presentation”

b. “Space/Time Variations in Survey Estimates”

c. “Out of the Box: Again and Again, Roger Herriot at the Census Bureau”

Design and Estimation Issues for School Based Surveys

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

b. “Improving GLS Estimation in NCES Surveys”

c. “Optimal Periodicity of a Survey: Alternatives under Cost and Policy Constraint”

d. “Properties of the Schools and Staffing Survey’s Bootstrap Variance Estimator”
Appendix

56 Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment

Data Quality and Nonresponse in Education Surveys

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

b. “Documentation of Nonresponse and Consistency of Data Categorization Across

NCES Surveys”

c. “Multivariate Modeling of Unit Nonresponse for 1990–91 Schools and Staffing

Surveys”

d. “Evaluation of Imputation Methods for State Education Finance Data”

e. “Variance Estimates Comparison by Statistical Software”

f. “Teacher Supply and Demand in the U.S.”

WP 96–05 Cognitive Research on the Teacher Listing Form for the Schools and Staffing

Survey

WP 96–06 The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) for 1998–99; Design

Recommendations to Inform Broad Education Policy

WP 96–07 Should SASS Measure Instructional Processes and Teacher Effectiveness?

WP 96–09 Making Data Relevant for Policy Discussions: Redesigning the School

Administrator Questionnaire for the 1998–99 SASS

WP 96–10 1998–99 Schools and Staffing Survey: Issues Related to Survey Depth

WP 96–11 Towards an Organizational Data Base on America’s Schools: A Proposal for the

Future of SASS, with Comments on School Reform, Governments, and

Finance

WP 96–12 Predictors of Retention, Transfer, and Attrition of Special and General

Education Teachers: Data from the 1989 Teacher Followup Survey

WP 96–15 Nested Structures: District Level Data in the SASS

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