NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS 

E.D. Tabs June 2001

Teacher Preparation and 

Professional Development: 

2000 

Basmat Parsad 

Laurie Lewis 

Elizabeth Farris 

Westat 

Bernard Greene 

Project Officer 

National Center for Education Statistics 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 2001–088 
U.S. Department of Education 

Rod Paige

Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics 

Gary W. Phillips 

Acting 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 

1990 K Street, NW Suite 900 

Washington, DC 20006–5650 

June 2001

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is: 

http://nces.ed.gov

Suggested Citation 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Teacher Preparation and 

Professional Development: 2000, NCES 2001–088, by Basmat Parsad, Laurie Lewis, and Elizabeth 

Farris. Project Officer: Bernard Greene. Washington, DC: 2001. 

Contact: 

Bernard Greene 

202–502–7348 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–9328 
iii 

Executive Summary 

Concerns about the quality of the nation’s public education system have increased attention to key 

elements of teacher effectiveness within recent years (Darling-Hammond 2000; Lewis et al. 1999; Mayer, 

Mullens, and Moore 2001; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future 1996). While there 

is little consensus on what constitutes high-quality teachers, past research has emphasized two broad 

dimensions of teacher effectiveness: (1) the level of knowledge and skills that teachers bring to the 

classroom, as measured by teacher preparation and qualifications, and (2) classroom practices. In 1998, 

NCES conducted a survey through its Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) to provide a national profile 

on the first dimension of teacher quality—teacher preparation and qualifications (Lewis et al. 1999). 

In 2000, NCES conducted a second FRSS survey to revisit the issue of teacher preparation and 

qualifications and measure change since 1998. The sample for the 2000 survey consisted of 5,253 fulland part-time teachers in regular elementary, middle, and high schools in the 50 states and the District of 

Columbia. The survey repeated some of the indicators of teacher quality examined in the 1998 survey, in 

addition to exploring issues such as follow up to professional development. Specifically, this survey 

provides a national profile on (1) teacher education, (2) teacher participation in formal professional 

development and collaborative activities related to teaching, and (3) teachers’ feelings of preparedness for 

various classroom demands. This report summarizes key findings from the 2000 survey and also makes 

comparisons with the 1998 data. 

Key Findings 

Teacher Education 

One measure of teacher education is the type of degree held, including advanced degrees. Findings 

from the 2000 survey indicate that: 

• Virtually all public school teachers had a bachelor’s degree, and 45 percent held a master’s 

degree (table 1). One percent held either a doctorate or some other degree, and 18 percent 

reported having other certificates. 

• Newer teachers were less likely than more experienced teachers to report having a master’s 

degree, ranging from 20 percent of teachers with 3 or fewer years of teaching experience to 

54 percent of teachers with 10 or more years of teaching experience (table 1). 

Teacher Professional Development

Formal professional development and collaboration with other teachers are key mechanisms for 

providing teachers with ongoing training opportunities (Henke, Chen, and Geis 2000; National 

Commission on Teaching and America’s Future 1996; Sprinthall, Reiman, and Theis-Sprinthall 1996). 
iv 

Formal professional development as commonly practiced, typically consisting of school and district staff 

development programs, however, has been criticized for being short term and lacking in continuity and 

adequate follow up (Fullan with Stiegelbauer 1991; Lewis et al. 1999; Mullens et al. 1996). Results of 

the 2000 survey indicate that during the 12 months preceding the survey: 

• Public school teachers were most likely to have participated in professional development 

that focused on state or district curriculum and performance standards (80 percent; table 2). 

More than one-half participated in professional development programs focused on the 

integration of educational technology into the grade or subject taught (74 percent), in-depth 

study in the subject area of the main teaching assignment (72 percent), implementing new 

methods of teaching (72 percent), and student performance assessment (62 percent). 

Teachers were less likely to have participated in professional development that focused on 

addressing the needs of students with disabilities (49 percent), encouraging parent and 

community involvement (46 percent), classroom management, including student discipline 

(45 percent), and addressing the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds (41 

percent). The professional development area in which teachers were least likely to 

participate was addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency (26 

percent). 1

• For all but one content area of professional development, teachers typically reported that 

they had spent 1 to 8 hours or the equivalent of 1 day or less on the activity during the 12 

months preceding the survey (table 2). In-depth study in the subject area of the main 

teaching assignment was the only area of professional development in which participation 

typically lasted more than 8 hours. 

• The number of hours teachers spent in professional development activities was related to the 

extent to which they believed that participation improved their teaching (table 6). For every 

content area examined in the survey, teachers who participated for more than 8 hours were 

more likely than those who spent 1 to 8 hours to report that participation improved their 

teaching a lot. 

Teacher Collaboration 

Collaboration with other teachers may revolve around joint work (e.g., team teaching and 

mentoring) and teacher networks (e.g., school-to-school and school-university partnerships). The 2000 

survey findings indicate that: 

• The most frequently attended collaborative activity among public school teachers was 

collaboration with other teachers (69 percent; table 8). This activity was followed by 

networking with teachers outside their school (62 percent), a common planning period for 

team teachers (53 percent), and individual or collaborative research on a topic of 

professional interest (52 percent). Teachers were least likely to mentor another teacher in a 

formal relationship (26 percent) or to be mentored by another teacher (23 percent). 

 

1

 The estimate for teacher participation in professional development on addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency was 

based on all public teachers rather than teachers who taught students with those needs. 
v 

• Frequency of participation in a collaborative activity was generally positively related to 

teachers’ beliefs about the extent to which the activity improved their classroom teaching 

(table 10). For example, teachers who engaged in regularly scheduled collaboration with 

other teachers at least once a week were more likely to believe that participation had 

improved their teaching a lot (45 percent), compared with teachers who participated two to 

three times a month (23 percent), once a month (15 percent), or a few times a year (7 

percent). 

Teachers’ Feelings of Preparedness

Teachers in the 2000 survey reported the extent to which they felt prepared for the overall demands 

of their teaching assignments and for eight specific classroom activities. The survey data indicate that: 

• Sixty-one percent of public school teachers felt very well prepared to meet the overall 

demands of their teaching assignments (table 11). Thirty-five percent felt moderately well 

prepared, and 4 percent felt somewhat well prepared. 

• Teachers most often reported feeling very well prepared to maintain order and discipline in 

the classroom (71 percent; table 11). They were less likely to report feeling very well 

prepared to implement new methods of teaching (45 percent), implement state or district 

curriculum (44 percent), use student performance assessment (37 percent), address the needs 

of students from diverse cultural backgrounds (32 percent), and integrate educational 

technology into the grade or subject taught (27 percent). 

• Among teachers who taught students with special needs, relatively few felt very well 

prepared to address those students’ needs (table 11). Twenty-seven percent of teachers 

indicated that they felt very well prepared to address the needs of students with limited 

English proficiency, and 32 percent of the teachers who taught students with disabilities felt 

very well prepared to address those students’ needs. 

• The extent to which teachers felt very well prepared for most classroom activities varied 

with the amount of time spent in recent professional development in those activities (table 

13). With two exceptions (classroom management and state or district curriculum and 

performance standards), teachers who spent over 8 hours in professional development on the 

activity were more likely than those who spent 1 to 8 hours or those who did not participate 

at all to indicate that they felt very well prepared for that activity. 

• For three collaborative activities related to teaching—regularly scheduled collaboration with 

other teachers, networking with teachers outside the school, and mentoring another teacher 

in a formal relationship—teachers who participated in the activity were more likely than 

those who did not participate to report feeling very well prepared for the overall demands of 

their classroom assignments (table 15). 
vi 

Selected Comparisons With the 1998 Survey

The 2000 survey was designed to provide trend data that would allow an examination of change 

since 1998 along two key dimensions—teacher participation in professional development and 

collaborative activities, and teachers’ feelings of preparedness. For these analyses, a subset of teachers 

was selected from the 2000 survey that was similar to the teachers sampled for the 1998 survey—that is, 

regular full-time public school teachers in grades 1 through 12 whose main teaching assignment was in 

English, mathematics, social studies, foreign languages, or science, or who taught in a self-contained 

classroom. Findings from the 1998 and 2000 surveys indicate that: 

• The proportion of regular full-time teachers indicating that they participated in professional 

development was lower in 2000 than in 1998 for three of the seven content areas that were 

comparable across years—new methods of teaching (73 versus 77 percent), student 

performance assessment (62 versus 67 percent), and classroom management, including 

student discipline (43 versus 49 percent; table 16). 

• In 1998 and 2000, participation of regular full-time public school teachers in professional 

development was likely to be short term, typically lasting for 1 to 8 hours (table 16). This 

pattern held for every content area of professional development examined in the surveys 

except for programs on in-depth study in the subject area of the main teaching assignment, 

where participation typically lasted more than 8 hours. 

• In 1998 and 2000, regular full-time public school teachers most often reported that they felt 

very well prepared to maintain order and discipline in the classroom (71 and 72 percent, 

respectively; table 18). In both years, teachers were least likely to report feeling very well 

prepared to integrate educational technology into the grade or subject taught (20 and 27 

percent, respectively) and address the needs of students with disabilities (21 and 29 percent, 

respectively). 

• For all but one classroom activity examined in the surveys, regular full-time public school 

teachers in 2000 were more likely than those in 1998 to report that they felt very well 

prepared (table 18). The exception was maintaining order and discipline in the classroom. 
vii 

Table of Contents 

 Page 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... iii 

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

Selected Findings............................................................................................................................... 3 

Teacher Education.................................................................................................................... 3 

Teacher Professional Development and Collaboration............................................................ 4 

Participation in Formal Professional Development ......................................................... 4 

Continuity and Relevance of Professional Development................................................. 5 

Perceived Impact of Professional Development .............................................................. 6 

Teacher Collaboration...................................................................................................... 7 

Teachers’ Feelings of Preparedness ......................................................................................... 8 

Selected Comparisons With the 1998 Survey .......................................................................... 10 

Teacher Professional Development and Collaboration.................................................... 10 

Teachers’ Feelings of Preparedness................................................................................. 11 

References.......................................................................................................................................... 12 

List of Appendices 

Appendix 

A Methodology and Technical Notes .......................................................................................... A-1

B Survey Instrument .................................................................................................................... B-1 
viii 

Table of Contents (continued) 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

1. Percent of public school teachers who hold bachelor’s, master’s, doctorates, other 

degrees, and/or other certificates, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 2000 ......... 13 

1a. Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers who hold bachelor’s, master’s, 

doctorates, other degrees, and/or other certificates, by selected teacher and school 

characteristics: 2000................................................................................................................. 14 

2. Percent of public school teachers who participated in professional development 

activities during the last 12 months that focused on various content areas, by the 

number of hours spent on the activity: 2000............................................................................ 15 

2a. Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers who participated in 

professional development activities during the last 12 months that focused on various 

content areas, by the number of hours spent on the activity: 2000 .......................................... 16 

3. Percent of public school teachers who participated in professional development 

activities during the last 12 months, by content area and selected teacher and school 

characteristics: 2000................................................................................................................. 17 

3a. Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers who participated in 

professional development activities during the last 12 months, by content area and 

selected teacher and school characteristics: 2000 .................................................................... 18 

4. Percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which their participation in 

professional development during the last 12 months has been linked to or followed by 

various school-based activities related to the teachers’ professional development 

experience: 2000 ...................................................................................................................... 19 

4a. Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which 

their participation in professional development during the last 12 months has been 

linked to or followed by various school-based activities related to the teachers’ 

professional development experience: 2000 ............................................................................ 20 

5. Percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which participation in 

professional development activities in various content areas during the last 12 months 

improved their teaching: 2000.................................................................................................. 21 

5a. Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which 

participation in professional development activities in various content areas during the 

last 12 months improved their teaching: 2000 ......................................................................... 22 
ix 

Table of Contents (continued) 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

6. Percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which participation in 

professional development activities in various content areas during the last 12 months 

improved their teaching, by the number of hours spent in professional development in 

the content area: 2000 .............................................................................................................. 23 

6a. Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which 

participation in professional development activities in various content areas during the 

last 12 months improved their teaching, by the number of hours spent in professional 

development in the content area: 2000..................................................................................... 24 

7. Percent of public school teachers indicating that participation in professional 

development activities in various content areas during the last 12 months improved 

their teaching a lot or moderately, by the extent to which professional development 

has been linked to various school-based activities: 2000......................................................... 25 

7a. Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating that participation in 

professional development activities in various content areas during the last 12 months 

improved their teaching a lot or moderately, by the extent to which professional 

development has been linked to various school-based activities: 2000 ................................... 26 

8. Percent of public school teachers who participated in various activities related to 

teaching during the last 12 months, by frequency of participation: 2000 ................................ 27 

8a. Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers who participated in various 

activities related to teaching during the last 12 months, by frequency of participation: 

2000.......................................................................................................................................... 28 

9. Percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which participation in 

various teaching-related activities during the last 12 months improved their teaching: 

2000.......................................................................................................................................... 29 

9a. Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which 

participation in various teaching-related activities during the last 12 months improved 

their teaching: 2000.................................................................................................................. 30 

10. Percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which participation in 

various teaching-related activities improved their teaching, by the frequency with 

which they participated in that activity during the last 12 months: 2000................................. 31 
x 

Table of Contents (continued) 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

10a. Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which 

participation in various teaching-related activities improved their teaching, by the 

frequency with which they participated in that activity during the last 12 months: 2000........ 32 

11. Percent of public school teachers indicating how well prepared they felt for various 

activities in the classroom: 2000 .............................................................................................. 33 

11a. Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating how well prepared 

they felt for various activities in the classroom: 2000.............................................................. 34 

12. Percent of public school teachers indicating they felt very well prepared for various 

activities in the classroom, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 2000.................... 35 

12a. Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating they felt very well 

prepared for various activities in the classroom, by selected teacher and school 

characteristics: 2000................................................................................................................. 36 

13. Percent of public school teachers indicating how well prepared they felt for various 

activities in the classroom, by the number of hours spent in professional development 

in the content area of the activity during the last 12 months: 2000.......................................... 37 

13a. Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating how well prepared 

they felt for various activities in the classroom, by the number of hours spent in 

professional development in the content area of the activity during the last 12 months: 

2000.......................................................................................................................................... 38 

14. Percent of public school teachers indicating how well prepared they felt to meet the 

overall demands of their teaching assignments, by the extent to which their 

participation in professional development has been linked to various school-based 

activities: 2000 ......................................................................................................................... 39 

14a. Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating how well prepared 

they felt to meet the overall demands of their teaching assignments, by the extent to 

which their participation in professional development has been linked to various 

school-based activities: 2000 ................................................................................................... 40 

15. Percent of public school teachers indicating how well prepared they felt for meeting 

the overall demands of their teaching assignments, by whether they participated in 

various teaching-related activities during the last 12 months: 2000 ........................................ 41 
xi 

Table of Contents (continued) 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

15a. Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating how well prepared 

they felt for meeting the overall demands of their teaching assignments, by whether 

they participated in various teaching-related activities during the last 12 months: 2000 ........ 42 

16. Percent of full-time public school teachers indicating that they participated in 

professional development activities during the last 12 months that focused on various 

content areas, by the number of hours spent in the activity: 1998 and 2000 ........................... 43 

16a. Standard errors of the percent of full-time public school teachers indicating that they 

participated in professional development activities during the last 12 months that 

focused on various content areas, by the number of hours spent in the activity: 1998 

and 2000................................................................................................................................... 44 

17. Percent of full-time public school teachers who participated in various teachingrelated activities during the last 12 months, by frequency of participation: 1998 and 

2000.......................................................................................................................................... 45 

17a. Standard errors of the percent of full-time public school teachers who participated in 

various teaching-related activities during the last 12 months, by frequency of 

participation: 1998 and 2000.................................................................................................... 46 

18. Percent of full-time public school teachers indicating how well prepared they felt for 

various activities in the classroom: 1998 and 2000.................................................................. 47 

18a. Standard errors of the percent of full-time public school teachers indicating how well 

prepared they felt for various activities in the classroom: 1998 and 2000............................... 48 
1 

Introduction 

Concerns about the quality of the nation’s public education system have drawn attention to key 

elements of teacher effectiveness (Darling-Hammond 2000; Lewis et al. 1999; Mayer, Mullens, and 

Moore 2001; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future 1996). While there is little 

consensus on what constitutes high-quality teachers, past research has emphasized two broad dimensions 

of teacher effectiveness: (1) the level of knowledge and skills that teachers bring to the classroom, as 

measured by teacher preparation and qualifications, and (2) classroom practices. In 1998, the National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) conducted a survey to provide a national profile on the first 

dimension of teacher quality—teacher preparation and qualifications (Lewis et al. 1999). 

In 2000, NCES conducted a second survey on Teacher Professional Development and Training to 

revisit the issue of teacher preparation and qualifications and measure change since 1998. The 2000 

survey repeated key indicators of teacher quality examined in the 1998 survey, in addition to exploring 

issues such as follow up to professional development. This survey was designed to provide a national 

profile of all public school teachers, unlike the 1998 survey, which collected data on regular, full-time 

public school teachers whose main assignment was in a core academic field (English/language arts, 

mathematics, foreign languages, social studies, and science) or who taught a self-contained class 

(typically elementary level).2 Specifically, the 2000 survey examines the following indicators of teacher 

quality: 

• Teacher education; 

• Teacher participation in formal professional development and collaborative activities related 

to teaching; and 

• Teachers’ feelings of preparedness for various classroom demands. 

In addition to presenting current findings on teacher professional development and training from 

the 2000 survey, this report makes comparisons with the 1998 data. 

The 2000 survey was conducted by NCES using the Fast Response Survey System (FRSS). The 

FRSS is a survey system designed to collect small amounts of issue-oriented data with minimal burden on 

the respondents and disseminate findings within a relatively short time period. Questionnaires were 

mailed to a nationally representative sample of 5,253 public school teachers in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. Data have been weighted to yield national estimates. Detailed information about 

the survey methodology is provided in appendix A, and the questionnaire can be found in appendix B. 

 

In addition to national estimates, selected survey findings are presented by the following teacher 

and school characteristics: 

 

2

 The 2000 sample universe was expanded to all public school teachers to correct for the sample limitations of the 1998 study. The findings of 

the 1998 study could be generalized only to regular full-time public school teachers in grades 1 through 12 whose main teaching assignment was 

in English, mathematics, social studies, foreign languages, or science, or who taught in a self-contained setting. See appendix A, survey 

methodology and technical notes, for more details. 
2 

• Teachers’ years of teaching experience (3 or fewer years, 4 to 9 years, 10 or more years); 

• School instructional level3

 (elementary, middle, secondary, combined); 

• School enrollment size (less than 500, 500 to 999, 1,000 or more); 

• School locale (central city, urban fringe/large town, rural/small town); 

• Percent minority enrollment in the school (5 percent or less, 6 to 20 percent, 21 to 50 

percent, more than 50 percent); and 

• Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (less than 35 percent, 35 to 49 

percent, 50 to 74 percent, 75 percent or more). 

 

All specific statements of comparisons made in this report have been tested for statistical 

significance through chi-square tests and t-tests adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni 

adjustment and are significant at the 95 percent confidence level or better. However, not all significant 

comparisons have been presented in the report. 

 

3

 Definitions of instructional levels (elementary, middle, secondary, and combined) may differ from other NCES publications. See appendix A 

for a description of the variable. 
3 

Selected Findings 

This E.D. Tabs report presents key findings from the 2000 survey on teacher professional 

development and training.4

 To provide a national profile of teacher quality in public schools, selected 

findings on important indicators of teacher preparation and qualifications are organized into three 

sections: (1) teacher education; (2) teacher participation in formal professional development and activities 

related to teaching; and (3) teachers’ feelings of preparedness for the classroom. A fourth section focuses 

on selected comparisons between the 1998 and 2000 survey data. 

Teacher Education 

One measure of teacher education is the type of degree held, including advanced degrees. Findings 

from the 2000 survey indicate that: 

• Virtually all public school teachers had a bachelor’s degree, and 45 percent held a master’s 

degree (table 1). One percent held either a doctorate or some other degree, and 18 percent 

reported having other certificates. 

• Newer teachers were less likely than more experienced teachers to report having a master’s 

degree, ranging from 20 percent of teachers with 3 or fewer years of teaching experience to 

54 percent of teachers with 10 or more years of teaching experience (table 1). 

• The proportion of teachers with a master’s degree differed by school enrollment size and 

locale. Teachers in small schools were less likely than those in large schools to hold a 

master’s degree (40 versus 49 percent; table 1). 5 Teachers in rural/small town schools were 

less likely than those in schools located in central cities and urban fringes/large towns to 

report having a master’s degree (39 percent versus 46 and 47 percent, respectively). 

• The proportion of teachers with a master’s degree was 42 percent for schools with the 

highest poverty concentration (75 percent or more of students were eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch) and 48 percent in schools with the lowest poverty concentration (less 

than 35 percent of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; table 1). These 

differences are not statistically significant because of large standard errors surrounding 

estimates of teachers with master’s degrees broken out by categories of poverty 

concentration. 

 

4

 E.D. Tabs are typically a collection of tabular summaries whose sole purpose is to make relevant data available to the public within a relatively 

short time period. The structure of the report includes highlights of selected findings and tables. 

5

 Small schools are defined as having enrollments of less than 500, medium-sized schools have enrollments of 500 to 999, and large schools have 

1,000 or more students. 
4 

Teacher Professional Development and Collaboration

Formal professional development and collaboration with other teachers are key mechanisms for 

providing teachers with ongoing training opportunities (Henke, Chen, and Geis 2000; National 

Commission on Teaching and America’s Future 1996; Sprinthall, Reiman, and Theis-Sprinthall 1996). 

Formal professional development, typically consisting of school and district staff development programs, 

however, has been criticized for being short term and lacking in continuity and adequate follow up 

(Fullan with Stiegelbauer 1991). This criticism was partially supported by past data indicating that 

formal professional development typically lasts for the equivalent of 1 day (Lewis et al. 1999; Mullens et 

al. 1996). 

The 2000 survey on teacher professional development and training asked about teacher 

participation in formal professional development, the duration of professional development training, and 

the perceived impact of professional development on teaching. In addition, the survey asked about the 

extent to which formal professional development in which teachers participated was linked to or followed 

up by various school-based programs and activities.

Participation in Formal Professional Development 

Public school teachers surveyed in 2000 were asked about their participation in professional 

development that focused on 10 content areas: state or district curriculum and performance standards, 

integration of educational technology in the grade or subject taught, in-depth study in the subject area of 

the main teaching assignment, new methods of teaching, student performance assessment, encouraging 

parent and community involvement, classroom management, and addressing various needs of special 

student populations (i.e., students with disabilities, those from diverse cultural backgrounds, and those 

with limited English proficiency). Findings from the 2000 survey indicate that: 

• Public school teachers were most likely to have participated in professional development 

that focused on state or district curriculum and performance standards (80 percent; table 2). 

This was followed by professional development on integration of educational technology 

into the grade or subject taught (74 percent), in-depth study in the subject area of the main 

teaching assignment (72 percent), implementing new methods of teaching (72 percent), and 

student performance assessment (62 percent). 

• Teachers were less likely to have participated in professional development that focused on 

addressing the needs of students with disabilities (49 percent), encouraging parent and 

community involvement (46 percent), classroom management, including student discipline 

(45 percent), and addressing the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds (41 

percent; table 2). The professional development area in which teachers were least likely to 

participate was addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency (26 

percent). 6

• For all but one content area of professional development, teachers typically reported that 

they had spent 1 to 8 hours or the equivalent of 1 day or less on the activity during the 12 

 

6

 The estimate for teacher participation in professional development on addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency was 

based on all public teachers rather than teachers who taught students with those needs. 
5 

months preceding the survey (table 2). Moreover, teachers were least likely to spend more 

than 32 hours on professional development for each content area examined. For example, of 

the teachers who participated in professional development on the integration of educational 

technology in the grade or subject taught, 61 percent spent 1 to 8 hours, 28 percent spent 9 to 

32 hours, and 11 percent spent more than 32 hours on professional development in that 

content area. In-depth study in the subject area of the main teaching assignment was the 

only area of professional development in which participation typically lasted more than 8 

hours. 

• More experienced teachers were less likely than newer teachers to have participated in 

professional development on classroom management, ranging from 39 percent of teachers 

with 10 or more years of teaching experience to 63 percent of teachers with 3 or fewer years 

of teaching experience (table 3). Moreover, very experienced teachers (with 10 or more 

years of teaching experience) were less likely than less experienced teachers to participate in 

professional development that focused on in-depth study in the main teaching assignment 

and new methods of teaching. Teaching experience did not make a difference to teachers’ 

participation in any of the other professional development activities examined in the survey. 

• Public school teachers in schools with the highest poverty concentration were more likely 

than those who taught in schools with the lowest poverty concentration to report that they 

participated in professional development programs on 4 of the 10 content areas examined in 

the survey—in-depth study in the subject area of the main teaching assignment, classroom 

management, addressing the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds, and 

addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency (table 3). 

• Public school teachers in schools with the highest concentration of minority students were 

more likely than teachers who taught in schools with the lowest concentration of minority 

students to report that they participated in professional development programs that were 

relevant to students who may have special needs—students from diverse cultural 

backgrounds and those with limited English proficiency (table 3). 

Continuity and Relevance of Professional Development 

A core argument against formal professional development as commonly practiced is that the 

programs are not likely to have lasting effects unless they are designed to provide continuity between 

what teachers learn and what goes on in the classroom (Fullan with Steigelbauer 1991). To address issues 

of linkages and continuity in professional development improvement activities, the survey asked about the 

extent to which professional development was linked to other program activities at the school, followed 

by school administration support in applying what the teacher had learned, followed by needed follow-up 

sessions or additional training, and followed by school activities in which the teacher helped other 

teachers put the new ideas to use. These analyses are restricted to public school teachers who participated 

in at least one professional development activity examined in the survey (99 percent).7

 The 2000 survey 

findings show that: 

 

7

 It is important to note that it might not be reasonable to expect the school to follow up on teacher participation in professional development 

activities that are initiated by teachers themselves. 
6 

• Of the public school teachers who participated in any of the professional development 

activities examined in the survey, 18 percent indicated that their professional development 

was linked to other program improvement activities at their school to a great extent, 38 

percent reported it was linked to a moderate extent, and 29 percent indicated it was linked to 

a small extent (table 4). Fifteen percent indicated that their professional development was 

not linked to other program activities at the school. 

• The proportion of teachers reporting that their professional development was followed by 

related school-based activities to a great extent ranged from 10 percent for activities in 

which the teachers helped others to put new ideas to use to 15 percent for school 

administration support in applying what the teachers had learned (table 4). 

• About one-fourth of teachers (24 percent) indicated that their professional development was 

not followed by school administration support in applying what they had learned. Thirtytwo percent reported no follow-up sessions or additional training, and 35 percent indicated 

that their professional development was not followed by school activities in which they help 

other teachers put new ideas to use (table 4). 

Perceived Impact of Professional Development 

In the 2000 survey, public school teachers were asked to assess the extent to which participation in 

professional development programs in a specific content area improved their teaching. These data were 

analyzed to determine whether teachers’ perceptions of the impact of professional development were 

related to (1) the amount of time spent in professional development activities, and (2) linkages and 

follow-up activities for professional development in which teachers had participated. Findings from the 

2000 survey indicate that: 

• The proportion of teachers who participated in professional development in a specific 

content area who believed it improved their teaching a lot ranged from 12 percent for 

programs on encouraging parent and community involvement to 27 percent for in-depth 

study in the subject area of their main teaching assignment (table 5). The proportion of 

teachers who felt that professional development did not improve their teaching at all ranged 

from 2 percent for programs on in-depth study in the subject area of the main teaching 

assignment to 11 percent for programs on encouraging parent and community involvement, 

and those on state or district curriculum and performance standards. 

• The number of hours teachers spent in professional development activities was related to the 

extent to which they believed that participation improved their teaching (table 6). For every 

content area, teachers who participated for more than 8 hours were more likely than those 

who spent 1 to 8 hours to report that it improved their teaching a lot. For example, 33 

percent of teachers who spent more than 8 hours in professional development on new 

methods of teaching reported that their participation in the program improved their teaching 

a lot, compared with 11 percent of the teachers who spent 1 to 8 hours on that activity. 

• Teachers’ assessment of the impact of professional development on teaching was related to 

the extent to which they felt that their professional development was linked to other program 

activities at the school (table 7). For every content area, teachers who reported that their 
7 

professional development was linked to other program activities at their school to a large or 

moderate extent were more likely than those who felt that it was linked to a small extent or 

not at all to report that participation improved their teaching a lot or moderately. 

• For every professional development activity examined in the survey, the extent to which 

teachers felt that participation in the activity improved their teaching depended on whether 

that activity was followed by various school-based activities (table 7). For example, teachers 

who reported that their professional development was followed by needed follow-up 

sessions or additional training to a large or moderate extent were more likely than those who 

felt it was followed up to a small extent or not at all to report that participation in 

professional development on the integration of educational technology improved their 

teaching a lot or moderately (72 versus 54 percent). 

Teacher Collaboration 

Collaboration with other teachers may revolve around joint work (e.g., team teaching and 

mentoring) and teacher networks (e.g., school-to-school and school-university partnerships). These 

networks can be powerful learning mechanisms for teachers to share subject and pedagogical knowledge 

across classrooms and schools (Lieberman and Grolnick 1996; Little 1993). In 2000, teachers were asked 

about their participation in the following activities during the 12 months preceding the survey: regularly 

scheduled collaboration with other teachers, networking with teachers outside the school, common 

planning period for team teachers, individual or collaborative research on a topic of interest 

professionally, mentoring another teacher in a formal relationship, and being mentored by another 

teacher. Teachers were also asked about the frequency with which they participated in each activity, and 

the extent to which they believed that participation improved their teaching. The 2000 survey findings 

indicate that: 

• The most frequently attended collaborative activity among public school teachers was 

regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers (69 percent; table 8). This activity was 

followed by networking with teachers outside their school (62 percent), a common planning 

period for team teachers (53 percent), and individual or collaborative research on a topic of 

professional interest (52 percent). Teachers were least likely to mentor another teacher in a 

formal relationship (26 percent) or to be mentored by another teacher (23 percent). 

• The activities that teachers were more likely to report participating in were not necessarily 

the activities that they participated in most regularly, that is, once a week (table 8). For 

example, while 62 percent of teachers participated in networking with teachers outside their 

school, 10 percent of them actually participated in the activity at least once a week. In 

contrast, while 26 percent of teachers participated in mentoring another teacher in a formal 

relationship, 44 percent of them did so at least once a week. 

• The proportion of teachers who felt that participation in various teaching-related activities 

improved their teaching a lot ranged from 18 percent for mentoring another teacher in a 

formal relationship to 37 percent for being mentored by another teacher in a formal 

relationship (table 9). The proportion of teachers who felt that participation did not improve 

their teaching at all ranged from 2 percent for individual or collaborative research to 10 

percent for mentoring another teacher in a formal relationship. 
8 

• Frequency of participation in a collaborative activity was generally positively related to 

teachers’ beliefs about the extent to which the activity improved their classroom teaching 

(table 10). For example, teachers who engaged in regularly scheduled collaboration with 

other teachers at least once a week were more likely to believe that participation had 

improved their teaching a lot (45 percent), compared with teachers who participated two to 

three times a month (23 percent), once a month (15 percent), or a few times a year (7 

percent). 

Teachers’ Feelings of Preparedness

To explore the extent to which teachers might be prepared for new and ongoing challenges in the 

classroom, the 2000 survey asked about how prepared teachers felt for the overall demands of their 

teaching assignments. Teachers were also asked about how prepared they felt for specific classroom 

activities: maintaining order and discipline in the classroom, implementing new methods of teaching, 

implementing state or district curriculum and performance standards, using student performance 

assessment, and integrating educational technology into the grade or subject taught. Moreover, teachers 

were asked about their preparedness to address the needs of special student populations (i.e., students 

from diverse cultural backgrounds, those with disabilities, and those with limited English proficiency).8

 

The 2000 survey data indicate that: 

• Sixty-one percent of public school teachers felt very well prepared to meet the overall 

demands of their teaching assignments (table 11). Thirty-five percent felt moderately well 

prepared, and 4 percent felt somewhat well prepared. 

• The classroom activity for which teachers most often reported feeling very well prepared 

was maintaining order and discipline in the classroom; 71 percent indicated that they felt 

very well prepared for this activity (table 11). Teachers were less likely to report feeling 

very well prepared to implement new methods of teaching (45 percent) or implement state or 

district curriculum (44 percent). This was followed by the proportion of teachers who 

reported feeling very well prepared to use student performance assessment (37 percent), 

address the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds (32 percent), and integrate 

educational technology in the grade or subject taught. 

• Among teachers who taught students with special needs (students with limited English 

proficiency and those with disabilities), relatively few felt very well prepared to address 

those students’ needs (table 11). For example, 27 percent of teachers who taught students 

with limited English proficiency indicated that they felt very well prepared to address the 

needs of those students, 33 percent felt moderately well prepared, 28 percent felt somewhat 

well prepared, and 12 percent indicated that they were not prepared at all to address those 

students’ needs. 

• For all but one classroom activity examined in the survey, the proportion of teachers who 

reported feeling very well prepared differed by years of teaching experience (table 12). For 

example, newer teachers were less likely than more experienced teachers to report that they 

 

8

 The analyses for teachers’ feelings of preparedness to address the needs of students with disabilities and the needs of students with limited 

English proficiency, respectively, were based on subsets of teachers who taught students with those special needs at the school. 
9 

felt very well prepared to maintain order and discipline in the classroom, ranging from 51 

percent of teachers with 3 or fewer years of teaching experience to 77 percent of teachers 

with 10 or more years of teaching experience. The exception was integrating educational 

technology into the grade or subject taught. 

Teacher preparedness incorporates what the teacher brings to the classroom from preservice 

training and on-the-job learning. Therefore, the extent to which public school teachers felt prepared for 

the classroom was examined against (1) the amount of time spent on professional development activities, 

(2) the extent to which professional development in which teachers participated was linked to 

development programs and follow-up activities at the school, and (3) whether teachers participated in 

collaborative activities related to teaching. Results of the 2000 survey indicate that: 

• The extent to which teachers felt very well prepared to meet most classroom demands varied 

with the amount of time spent in recent professional development in that activity (table 13). 

For example, teachers who spent over 8 hours in professional development on student 

performance assessment were more likely than those who spent 1 to 8 hours or those who 

did not participate at all to indicate that they felt very well prepared to meet the classroom 

requirement (46 percent versus 37 and 32 percent, respectively). This pattern held for all 

but two classroom requirements—classroom management and state or district curriculum 

and performance standards. 

• Among teachers who did not participate in professional development on the integration of 

educational technology into the grade or subject taught, 22 percent indicated that they felt 

very well prepared and 17 percent said they did not feel prepared at all for this classroom 

activity (table 13). Similarly, among teachers who did not participate in any professional 

development on addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency, 20 

percent indicated that they felt very well prepared and 19 percent did not feel prepared at all 

for the activity. 

• The likelihood of teachers reporting that they felt very well prepared to meet the overall 

demands of their classroom assignments was related to the extent to which professional 

development was linked to other program improvements and follow-up activities at the 

school (table 14). This relationship held for every program improvement and follow-up 

activity examined in the survey. For example, teachers who indicated that their professional 

development was linked to other program improvements at the school to a large or moderate 

extent were more likely to report feeling very well prepared to meet the overall demands of 

their classroom assignments, compared with teachers whose professional development was 

linked to a small extent or not at all (65 versus 56 percent). 

• For three collaborative activities related to teaching—regularly scheduled collaboration with 

other teachers, networking with teachers outside the school, and mentoring another teacher 

in a formal relationship—the proportion of teachers who felt very well prepared for the 

overall demands of their classroom assignments differed by whether the teacher participated 

in the activity (table 15). For example, teachers who engaged in regularly scheduled 

collaboration with other teachers were more likely than those who did not participate in the 

activity to indicate that they felt very well prepared for the overall demands of their teaching 

assignments (63 versus 57 percent). 
10 

Selected Comparisons With the 1998 Survey

The 2000 survey was designed to provide trend data that would allow an examination of changes in 

teacher education and professional development. To analyze possible changes since 1998, data from the 

two surveys were compared along two dimensions—teacher participation in professional development 

and collaborative activities, and teachers’ feelings of preparedness. 

These findings are presented in a separate section because comparisons are based on a subset of 

teachers from the 2000 study that is similar to the teachers sampled for the 1998 survey. For these 

analyses, the 2000 survey sample was restricted to regular full-time public school teachers in grades 1 

through 12 whose main teaching assignment was in English, math, social studies, foreign languages, or 

science, or who taught in a self-contained classroom. Part-time, itinerant, and substitute teachers were 

excluded, as were “pull-out” teachers and those whose main teaching assignment was not a core subject 

area (see appendix A for details). 

Teacher Professional Development and Collaboration 

Comparisons between 1998 and 2000 are presented for regular full-time public school teachers 

who participated in professional development that focused on seven topics that were comparable across 

the surveys: state or district curriculum and performance standards, integration of educational technology 

in the grade or subject taught, new methods of teaching, in-depth study in the subject area of the main 

teaching assignment, student performance assessment, addressing the needs of students with disabilities, 

and classroom management, including student discipline. Comparisons between 1998 and 2000 are also 

presented for teachers who reported that they participated in six activities related to teaching: regularly 

scheduled collaboration with other teachers, networking with teachers outside the school, common 

planning period for team teachers, individual or collaborative research on a topic of interest 

professionally, mentoring another teacher in a formal relationship, and being mentored by another 

teacher. 

• The proportion of regular full-time teachers indicating that they participated in professional 

development was lower in 2000 than 1998 for three of the seven content areas that were 

comparable across years—new methods of teaching (73 versus 77 percent), student 

performance assessment (62 versus 67 percent), and classroom management, including 

student discipline (43 versus 49 percent; table 16). 

• In 1998 and 2000, teacher participation in professional development was likely to be short 

term, typically lasting for 1 to 8 hours (table 16). For example, in both years, 62 percent of 

the teachers spent 1 to 8 hours while 38 percent spent more than 8 hours on professional 

development that focused on the integration of technology in the grade or subject taught. The 

one exception was professional development programs on in-depth study in the subject area 

of the main teaching assignment; teacher participation in these programs was relatively long 

term, typically lasting more than 8 hours. 

• Teachers in 2000 were less likely than those in 1998 to participate in two of the six activities 

related to teaching—regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers (71 versus 81 

percent) and common planning period for team teachers (56 versus 62 percent; table 17). 
11 

However, a higher proportion of teachers reported being mentored by another teacher in 

2000 than in 1998 (22 versus 19 percent). 

Teachers’ Feelings of Preparedness 

Comparisons between 1998 and 2000 are presented for regular full-time public school teachers 

who reported the extent to which they felt prepared to meet the following classroom demands: 

maintaining order and discipline in the classroom, implementing new methods of teaching, implementing 

state or district curriculum and performance standards, using student performance assessment, addressing 

the needs of students with disabilities, and integrating educational technology into the grade or subject 

taught. 

• In 1998 and 2000, regular full-time public school teachers most often reported that they felt 

very well prepared to maintain order and discipline in the classroom (table 18). In both 

years, teachers were least likely to report feeling very well prepared to integrate educational 

technology in the grade or subject taught (20 and 27 percent, respectively) and address the 

needs of students with disabilities (21 and 29 percent, respectively). 

• For all but one classroom activity examined in the surveys, regular full-time public school 

teachers in 2000 were more likely than those in 1998 to report that they felt very well 

prepared to meet the requirement (table 18). The exception is maintaining order and 

discipline in the classroom; for both years, a similarly high proportion of teachers (71 and 72 

percent) felt very well prepared for this classroom demand. 
12 

References 

Chowdhury, S., Chu, A., and Kaufman, S. (forthcoming). Minimizing Overlap in NCES Surveys. 

Proceedings of the Survey Methods Research Section. American Statistical Association. 

Choy, S., and Chen, X. (1998). Toward Better Professional Development in 1993–94. (NCES 98–230). 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy 

Evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 1. Available: http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/ 

Fullan, M., with Steigelbauer, S. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: 

Teacher’s College Press. 

Henke, R., Chen, X., and Geis, S. (2000). Progress Through the Teacher Pipeline: 1992–93 College 

Graduates and Elementary/Secondary School Teaching as of 1997. (NCES 2000–152). U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

Lewis, L., Parsad, B., Carey, N., Bartfai, N., Farris, E., and Smerdon, B. (1999). Teacher Quality: A 

Report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers. (1999). (NCES 1999–

080). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Lieberman, A., and Grolnick, A. (1996). Networks and Reform in American Education. Teachers 

College Record, 1,1, 7–49. 

Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ Professional Development in a Climate of Educational Reform. New 

York: National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools and Teaching. 

Mayer, D., Mullens, J., and Moore, M. (2001). Monitoring School Quality. (NCES 2001–030). U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

Mullens, J., Leighton, M., Laguarda, K., and O’Brien, E. (1996). Student Learning, Teacher Quality, and 

Professional Development: Theoretical Linkages, Current Measurement, and Recommendations 

for Future Data Collection. (NCES 96–28). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What Matters Most: Teaching for 

America’s Future. New York: NCTAF. 

Sprinthall, N., Reiman, A., and Theis-Sprinthall, L. (1996). Teacher Professional Development. In 

Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. Eds. J. Sikula, T. Buttery, and E. Guyton. New 

York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. 
13 

Table 1.—Percent of public school teachers who hold bachelor’s, master’s, doctorates, other 

degrees, and/or other certificates, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 2000 

Teacher and school characteristic Bachelor’s 

degree 

Master’s 

degree 

Doctorate 

degree Other degree Other certificate(s) 

 

Public school teachers...................................... 100* 45 1 1 18 

 

Teaching experience 

3 or fewer years ................................................... 100* 20 1 1 11 

4 to 9 years........................................................... 100* 37 1 1 17 

10 or more years .................................................. 99 54 1 1 20 

 

School instructional level 

Elementary school................................................ 100* 44 †† 1 18 

Middle school ...................................................... 100 44 1 1 16 

High school.......................................................... 100* 48 1 1 19 

Combined school ................................................. 99 37 2 2 19 

 

School enrollment size 

Less than 500 ....................................................... 100 40 †† 2 17 

500 to 999 ............................................................ 100* 46 1 1 17 

1,000 or more....................................................... 100* 49 1 1 21 

 

School locale 

Central city .......................................................... 100* 46 1 2 19 

Urban fringe/large town....................................... 100* 47 1 1 21 

Rural/small town.................................................. 100* 39 †† 1 13 

 

Percent minority enrollment in school 

 5 percent or less ................................................... 100 45 †† 1 13 

 6 to 20 percent ..................................................... 100* 47 1 1 19 

 21 to 50 percent ................................................... 100* 44 †† 1 19 

 More than 50 percent ........................................... 100* 43 2 1 22 

 

Percent of students in school eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent ............................................ 100* 48 1 1 18 

35 to 49 percent ................................................... 100* 37 †† 1 15 

50 to 74 percent ................................................... 100 42 †† 1 18 

75 percent or more ............................................... 100* 42 2 2 18 

†† Less than 0.5 percent. 

*Rounds to 100 percent for presentation in the tables. 

NOTE: Analyses are based on all public school teachers. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
14 

Table 1a.—Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers who hold bachelor’s, master’s, 

doctorates, other degrees, and/or other certificates, by selected teacher and school 

characteristics: 2000 

Teacher and school characteristic Bachelor’s 

degree 

Master’s 

degree 

Doctorate 

degree Other degree Other certificate(s) 

 

Public school teachers...................................... 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.8 

 

Teaching experience 

3 or fewer years ................................................... 0.3 1.8 0.5 0.6 1.4 

4 to 9 years........................................................... 0.1 2.2 0.4 0.3 1.6 

10 or more years .................................................. 0.1 1.4 0.2 0.2 1.2 

 

School instructional level 

Elementary school................................................ 0.1 1.7 †† 0.3 1.2 

Middle school ...................................................... †† 1.3 0.2 0.3 0.9 

High school.......................................................... 0.2 1.8 0.5 0.4 1.4 

Combined school ................................................. 0.5 3.7 1.0 0.9 3.5 

 

School enrollment size 

Less than 500 ....................................................... †† 2.1 †† 0.5 1.6 

500 to 999 ............................................................ 0.1 1.2 0.3 0.2 1.1 

1,000 or more....................................................... 0.3 1.9 0.4 0.4 1.7 

 

School locale 

Central city .......................................................... 0.2 1.9 0.4 0.5 1.6 

Urban fringe/large town....................................... 0.3 1.4 0.3 0.3 1.2 

Rural/small town.................................................. 0.1 1.8 †† 0.3 1.3 

 

Percent minority enrollment in school 

5 percent or less ................................................... †† 2.3 †† 0.5 1.1 

6 to 20 percent ..................................................... 0.3 2.2 0.3 0.4 1.7 

21 to 50 percent ................................................... 0.1 1.9 †† 0.4 1.6 

More than 50 percent ........................................... 0.2 1.9 0.6 0.3 1.8 

 

Percent of students in school eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch 

Less than 35 percent ............................................ 0.1 1.5 0.2 0.3 1.1 

35 to 49 percent ................................................... 0.2 2.8 †† 0.5 2.1 

50 to 74 percent ................................................... †† 2.6 †† 0.4 2.0 

75 percent or more ............................................... 0.3 2.7 0.8 0.5 2.2 

†† Estimate of standard error is not derived because it is based on a statistic estimated at 0 or 100 percent. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
15 

Table 2.—Percent of public school teachers who participated in professional development activities 

during the last 12 months that focused on various content areas, by the number of hours 

spent on the activity: 2000 

Total hours spent 

Content area Participated 

in activity 1 to 8 9 to 32 More than 

32 

 

State or district curriculum and performance standards............................... 80 57 31 12 

Integration of educational technology in the grade or subject taught........... 74 61 28 11 

In-depth study in the subject area of main teaching assignment .................. 72 43 34 23 

New methods of teaching (e.g., cooperative learning)................................. 72 59 29 11 

Student performance assessment (e.g., methods of testing, applying 

results to modify instruction) ................................................................... 62 67 25 8 

Addressing the needs of students with disabilities....................................... 49 72 19 8 

Encouraging parent and community involvement........................................ 46 75 18 8 

Classroom management, including student discipline ................................. 45 73 20 7 

Addressing the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds.......... 41 71 20 9 

Addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency............. 26 68 20 12 

NOTE: Percentages for total hours spent in the activity are based on public school teachers who participated in professional development over 

the 12 months preceding the survey. Percents are computed across each row but may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
16 

Table 2a.—Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers who participated in 

professional development activities during the last 12 months that focused on various 

content areas, by the number of hours spent on the activity: 2000 

Total hours spent 

Content area Participated 

in activity 1 to 8 9 to 32 More than 

32 

 

State or district curriculum and performance standards............................... 0.7 1.1 1.2 0.8 

Integration of educational technology in the grade or subject taught........... 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.7 

In-depth study in the subject area of main teaching assignment .................. 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 

New methods of teaching (e.g., cooperative learning)................................. 0.9 1.1 1.2 0.8 

Student performance assessment (e.g., methods of testing, applying 

results to modify instruction) ................................................................... 1.0 1.4 1.2 0.7 

Addressing the needs of students with disabilities....................................... 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.7 

Encouraging parent and community involvement........................................ 1.2 1.4 1.0 0.9 

Classroom management, including student discipline ................................. 1.1 1.3 1.0 0.7 

Addressing the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds.......... 1.1 1.6 1.5 0.9 

Addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency............. 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.2 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
17 

Table 3.—Percent of public school teachers who participated in professional development activities 

during the last 12 months, by content area and selected teacher and school characteristics: 

2000 

Content area 

Teacher and school characteristic 

State or 

district 

curriculum 

Integration 

of 

education 

technology 

In-depth 

study in 

main 

subject 

area 

New 

methods 

of 

teaching 

Student 

performance 

assessment 

Needs of 

students 

with 

disabilities 

Parent and 

community 

involvement 

Classroom 

management 

Needs of 

students 

from 

diverse 

cultural 

backgrounds 

Needs of 

students 

 with limited 

English 

proficiency 

 

All public school teachers..... 80 74 72 72 62 49 46 45 41 26 

 

Teaching experience 

3 or fewer years ........................ 80 72 76 76 61 51 46 63 45 30 

4 to 9 years................................ 82 76 75 79 65 50 48 50 43 27 

10 or more years ....................... 80 74 70 68 61 49 45 39 40 24 

 

Instructional level 

Elementary school..................... 81 75 78 73 66 52 48 47 44 28 

Middle school ........................... 80 73 69 73 62 51 46 47 41 27 

High school............................... 80 74 66 70 57 44 43 42 41 23 

Combined school ...................... 76 70 61 67 49 44 45 41 28 16 

 

School enrollment size 

Less than 500 ............................ 82 78 73 73 63 53 49 45 37 20 

500 to 999 ................................. 80 71 74 73 63 50 46 47 42 27 

1,000 or more............................ 80 73 67 70 59 44 43 44 46 30 

 

School locale 

Central city ............................... 82 72 75 74 65 50 45 50 51 32 

Urban fringe/large town............ 80 75 72 72 61 49 46 43 43 27 

Rural/small town....................... 80 74 69 69 61 49 47 44 30 16 

 

Percent minority enrollment in 

school 

 5 percent or less ........................ 80 74 68 70 60 50 43 42 22 10 

 6 to 20 percent .......................... 78 76 72 68 59 49 46 40 40 20 

 21 to 50 percent ........................ 80 74 72 73 62 46 44 47 47 31 

 More than 50 percent ................ 83 72 77 77 67 51 50 52 58 42 

 

Percent of students in school 

eligible for free or reducedprice lunch 

Less than 35 percent ................. 80 75 70 70 60 48 43 41 35 20 

35 to 49 percent ........................ 78 74 71 70 59 52 49 46 44 25 

50 to 74 percent ........................ 82 73 74 74 66 47 48 49 45 32 

75 percent or more .................... 83 70 78 78 67 54 52 58 56 40 

NOTE: Data presented in this table are based on teachers’ reports of their participation in professional development during the 12 months preceding 

the survey. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
18 

Table 3a.—Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers who participated in 

professional development activities during the last 12 months, by content area and 

selected teacher and school characteristics: 2000 

Content area 

Teacher and school characteristic 

State or 

district 

curriculum 

Integration 

of 

education 

technology 

In-depth 

study in 

main 

subject 

area 

New 

methods 

of 

teaching 

Student 

performance 

assessment 

Needs of 

students 

with 

disabilities 

Parent and 

community 

involvement 

Classroom 

management 

Needs of 

students 

from 

diverse 

cultural 

backgrounds 

Needs of 

students 

 with limited 

English 

proficiency 

 

All public school teachers ..... 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 

 

Teaching experience 

3 or fewer years......................... 1.8 2.3 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.0 1.8 2.2 1.9 

4 to 9 years................................ 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.3 

10 or more years........................ 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 

 

Instructional level 

Elementary school..................... 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.9 1.6 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.1 

Middle school............................ 1.2 1.7 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.2 

High school ............................... 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.5 

Combined school....................... 3.8 3.1 3.1 3.2 4.2 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.2 

 

School enrollment size 

Less than 500 ............................ 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.4 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.2 1.8 1.8 

500 to 999 ................................. 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 

1,000 or more ............................ 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.7 2.0 2.1 1.7 

 

School locale 

Central city................................ 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.6 2.1 1.8 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.8 

Urban fringe/large town ............ 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 

Rural/small town ....................... 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.1 

 

Percent minority enrollment in 

school 

5 percent or less......................... 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.4 2.1 1.7 1.9 1.8 1.4 1.2 

6 to 20 percent........................... 1.8 1.7 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.9 

21 to 50 percent......................... 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 2.1 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.2 

More than 50 percent ................ 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.4 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.0 

 

Percent of students in school 

eligible for free or reducedprice lunch 

Less than 35 percent.................. 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.3 

35 to 49 percent......................... 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.9 3.0 2.4 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.7 

50 to 74 percent......................... 1.8 2.0 2.4 2.1 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.7 

75 percent or more .................... 2.3 2.6 2.2 2.4 2.9 2.7 3.3 3.3 2.9 2.8 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
19 

Table 4.—Percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which their participation in 

professional development during the last 12 months has been linked to or followed by 

various school-based activities related to the teachers’ professional development 

experience: 2000 

School-based activity 

To a 

great 

extent 

To a 

moderate 

extent 

To a 

small 

extent 

Not 

 at all 

 

Professional development has been: 

Linked to other program improvement activities at the school ........................... 18 38 29 15 

Followed by school administration support in applying what was learned ......... 15 28 33 24 

Followed by needed follow-up sessions or additional training ........................... 11 24 33 32 

Followed by school activities in which teachers help other teachers put the 

new ideas to use .............................................................................................. 10 22 32 35 

NOTE: Data presented in this table are based on public school teachers who participated in professional during the 12 months preceding the 

survey (99 percent). Percents are computed across each row but may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
20 

Table 4a.—Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which 

their participation in professional development during the last 12 months has been 

linked to or followed by various school-based activities related to the teachers’ 

professional development experience: 2000 

School-based activity 

To a 

great 

extent 

To a 

moderate 

extent 

To a 

small 

extent 

Not 

 at all 

 

Professional development has been: 

Linked to other program improvement activities at the school ........................... 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.7 

Followed by school administration support in applying what was learned ......... 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.7 

Followed by needed follow-up sessions or additional training ........................... 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 

Followed by school activities in which teachers help other teachers put the 

new ideas to use .............................................................................................. 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.8 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
21 

Table 5.—Percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which participation in 

professional development activities in various content areas during the last 12 months 

improved their teaching: 2000 

Improved classroom teaching 

Content area A lot Moderately Somewhat Not at all 

 

In-depth study in the subject area of main teaching assignment .................. 27 44 27 2 

Integration of educational technology in the grade or subject taught........... 23 38 33 6 

New methods of teaching (e.g., cooperative learning)................................. 20 41 34 4 

Addressing the needs of students with disabilities....................................... 18 35 42 6 

Student performance assessment (e.g., methods of testing, applying results 

to modify instruction) ................................................................................. 16 40 37 7 

Classroom management, including student discipline ................................. 16 40 37 7 

Addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency............. 16 34 43 7 

Addressing the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds.......... 15 35 42 8 

State or district curriculum and performance standards............................... 14 35 39 11 

Encouraging parent and community involvement........................................ 12 34 42 11 

NOTE: Data presented in this table are based on public school teachers who participated in professional development during the 12 months 

preceding the survey. Percents are computed across each row but may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
22 

Table 5a.—Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which 

participation in professional development activities in various content areas during the 

last 12 months improved their teaching: 2000 

Improved classroom teaching 

Content area A lot Moderately Somewhat Not at all 

 

In-depth study in the subject area of main teaching assignment .................. 1.0 1.3 1.0 0.3 

Integration of educational technology in the grade or subject taught........... 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.5 

New methods of teaching (e.g., cooperative learning)................................. 0.8 1.2 1.2 0.5 

Addressing the needs of students with disabilities....................................... 1.4 1.4 1.5 0.7 

Student performance assessment (e.g., methods of testing, applying results 

to modify instruction) ................................................................................. 0.8 1.4 1.3 0.7 

Classroom management, including student discipline ................................. 1.2 1.8 1.4 0.7 

Addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency............. 1.5 2.0 1.8 0.9 

Addressing the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds.......... 1.1 1.3 1.7 0.7 

State or district curriculum and performance standards .............................. 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.6 

Encouraging parent and community involvement........................................ 0.9 1.6 1.6 0.7 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
23 

Table 6.—Percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which participation in 

professional development activities in various content areas during the last 12 months 

improved their teaching, by the number of hours spent in professional development in 

the content area: 2000 

Improved classroom teaching 

Content area and hours spent A lot Moderately Somewhat Not at all 

 

In-depth study in the subject area of main teaching assignment 

1 to 8 hours............................................................................................. 13 45 37 4 

More than 8 hours................................................................................... 37 43 19 †† 

 

New methods of teaching (e.g., cooperative learning) 

1 to 8 hours............................................................................................. 11 41 43 6 

More than 8 hours................................................................................... 33 43 22 2 

 

State or district curriculum and performance standards 

1 to 8 hours............................................................................................. 8 33 45 14 

More than 8 hours................................................................................... 23 39 30 9 

 

Integration of educational technology in the grade or subject taught 

 1 to 8 hours.............................................................................................. 13 38 42 7 

 More than 8 hours ................................................................................... 38 38 20 3 

 

Student performance assessment (e.g., methods of testing, applying results 

to modify instruction) 

1 to 8 hours............................................................................................. 11 37 43 10 

More than 8 hours................................................................................... 26 46 25 3 

 

Classroom management, including student discipline 

1 to 8 hours............................................................................................. 10 39 44 8 

More than 8 hours................................................................................... 33 45 19 3 

 

Addressing the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds 

 1 to 8 hours.............................................................................................. 8 31 51 10 

 More than 8 hours ................................................................................... 32 44 21 3 

 

Addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency 

1 to 8 hours............................................................................................. 8 31 52 10 

More than 8 hours................................................................................... 34 39 24 2 

 

Addressing the needs of students with disabilities 

1 to 8 hours............................................................................................. 11 33 49 7 

More than 8 hours................................................................................... 34 41 23 2 

 

Encouraging parent and community involvement 

1 to 8 hours ............................................................................................. 7 32 48 14 

More than 8 hours................................................................................... 28 42 26 4 

†† Less than 0.5 percent. 

NOTE: Data presented in this table are based on public school teachers who participated in professional development during the 12 months 

preceding the survey. Percents are computed across each row but may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
24 

Table 6a.—Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which 

participation in professional development activities in various content areas during the 

last 12 months improved their teaching, by the number of hours spent in professional 

development in the content area: 2000 

Improved classroom teaching 

Content area and hours spent A lot Moderately Somewhat Not at all 

 

In-depth study in the subject area of main teaching assignment 

1 to 8 hours............................................................................................. 1.2 1.8 1.6 0.8 

More than 8 hours................................................................................... 1.4 1.7 1.2 †† 

 

New methods of teaching (e.g., cooperative learning) 

1 to 8 hours............................................................................................. 1.0 1.3 1.6 0.7 

More than 8 hours................................................................................... 1.9 2.0 1.4 0.5 

 

State or district curriculum and performance standards 

1 to 8 hours............................................................................................. 0.9 1.5 1.2 0.8 

More than 8 hours................................................................................... 1.3 1.5 1.3 0.9 

 

Integration of educational technology in the grade or subject taught 

 1 to 8 hours.............................................................................................. 1.2 1.4 1.4 0.7 

 More than 8 hours ................................................................................... 1.6 1.7 1.3 0.6 

 

Student performance assessment (e.g., methods of testing, applying results 

to modify instruction) 

1 to 8 hours............................................................................................. 0.9 1.9 1.7 0.9 

More than 8 hours................................................................................... 1.5 2.5 1.8 0.7 

 

Classroom management, including student discipline 

1 to 8 hours............................................................................................. 1.1 2.1 2.1 0.9 

More than 8 hours................................................................................... 2.8 2.8 2.0 0.8 

 

Addressing the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds 

 1 to 8 hours.............................................................................................. 1.0 1.5 1.9 1.0 

 More than 8 hours ................................................................................... 2.9 3.3 2.1 0.9 

 

Addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency 

1 to 8 hours............................................................................................. 1.2 2.2 2.5 1.2 

More than 8 hours................................................................................... 3.5 3.6 2.2 0.9 

 

Addressing the needs of students with disabilities 

1 to 8 hours............................................................................................. 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.0 

More than 8 hours................................................................................... 2.9 2.8 1.8 0.9 

 

Encouraging parent and community involvement 

1 to 8 hours ............................................................................................. 0.7 1.9 1.9 0.9 

More than 8 hours................................................................................... 2.7 2.7 2.6 1.1 

†† Estimate of standard error is not derived because it is based on a statistic estimated at less than 0.5 percent. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
25 

Table 7.—Percent of public school teachers indicating that participation in professional development 

activities in various content areas during the last 12 months improved their teaching a lot 

or moderately, by the extent to which professional development has been linked to various 

school-based activities: 2000 

Content area 

School-based activity 

State or 

district 

curriculum 

Integration 

of 

education 

technology 

In-depth 

study in 

main 

subject 

area 

New 

methods 

of 

teaching 

Student 

performance 

assessment 

Needs of 

students 

with 

disabilities 

Parent 

and community 

involvement 

Classroom 

management 

Needs of 

students 

from 

diverse 

cultural 

backgrounds 

Needs of 

students 

with 

limited 

English 

proficiency 

 

Professional development has 

been: 

 

Linked to other program 

improvements at the school 

 

 To a large/moderate extent.. 57 68 76 67 62 58 53 61 56 56 

 To a small extent/not at all .. 39 50 64 53 46 45 37 50 41 41 

 

Followed by needed follow-up 

sessions or additional 

training 

 To a large/moderate extent.. 63 72 80 72 69 64 58 64 60 59 

 To a small extent/not at all .. 42 54 65 55 47 46 38 51 43 43 

 

Followed by school activities 

in which teachers helped 

other teachers put the new 

ideas to use 

 To a large/moderate extent.. 63 73 79 72 66 63 58 66 61 59 

 To a small extent/not at all .. 43 54 66 56 50 46 39 51 43 44 

 

Followed by school 

administration support in 

applying what was learned 

 To a large/moderate extent.. 62 71 79 73 68 62 57 64 58 60 

 To a small extent/not at all .. 41 52 64 52 45 45 36 49 43 41 

NOTE: Data presented in this table are based on public school teachers who participated in professional development during the 12 months preceding 

the survey; 99 percent of teachers participated in at least one of the professional development activities examined in the survey. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
26 

Table 7a.—Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating that participation in 

professional development activities in various content areas during the last 12 months 

improved their teaching a lot or moderately, by the extent to which professional 

development has been linked to various school-based activities: 2000 

Content area 

School-based activity 

State or 

district 

curriculum 

Integration 

of 

education 

technology 

In-depth 

study in 

main 

subject 

area 

New 

methods 

of 

teaching 

Student 

performance 

assessment 

Needs of 

students 

with 

disabilities 

Parent 

and community 

involvement 

Classroom 

management 

Needs of 

students 

from 

diverse 

cultural 

backgrounds 

Needs of 

students 

with 

limited 

English 

proficiency 

 

Professional development has 

been: 

 

Linked to other program 

improvements at the school 

 

 To a large/moderate extent.. 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.3 

 To a small extent/not at all .. 1.4 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 

 

Followed by needed follow-up 

sessions or additional 

training 

 To a large/moderate extent.. 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.6 2.6 2.5 

 To a small extent/not at all .. 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.3 

 

Followed by school activities 

in which teachers helped 

other teachers put the new 

ideas to use 

 To a large/moderate extent.. 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.6 

 To a small extent/not at all .. 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.2 1.6 2.5 

 

Followed by school 

administration support in 

applying what was learned 

 To a large/moderate extent.. 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.5 

 To a small extent/not at all .. 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.9 2.4 1.9 2.6 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
27 

Table 8.—Percent of public school teachers who participated in various activities related to 

teaching during the last 12 months, by frequency of participation: 2000 

Frequency of participation 

Activity Participated 

in activity 

At least 

once a 

week 

2 to 3 

times a 

month 

Once a 

month 

A few 

times a 

year 

 

Regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers, excluding 

meetings held for administrative purposes................................................. 69 31 18 24 27 

Networking with teachers outside the school................................................. 62 10 13 19 58 

Common planning period for team teachers .................................................. 53 60 13 9 17 

Individual or collaborative research on a topic of interest professionally ...... 52 20 16 17 47 

Mentoring another teacher in a formal relationship ....................................... 26 44 20 10 26 

Being mentored by another teacher ............................................................... 23 35 13 14 38 

NOTE: Percentages for the frequency of participation are based on teachers who participated in the activity during the 12 months preceding the 

survey. Percents are computed across each row but may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
28 

Table 8a.—Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers who participated in various 

activities related to teaching during the last 12 months, by frequency of participation: 

2000 

Frequency of participation 

Activity Participated 

in activity 

At least 

once a 

week 

2 to 3 

times a 

month 

Once a 

month 

A few 

times a 

year 

 

Regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers, excluding 

meetings held for administrative purposes................................................. 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 

Networking with teachers outside the school................................................. 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 

Common planning period for team teachers .................................................. 0.9 1.7 1.1 0.9 1.1 

Individual or collaborative research on a topic of interest professionally ...... 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.3 

Mentoring another teacher in a formal relationship ....................................... 0.8 2.0 1.6 1.0 1.6 

Being mentored by another teacher ............................................................... 0.9 1.7 1.3 1.6 2.0 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
29 

Table 9.—Percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which participation in various 

teaching-related activities during the last 12 months improved their teaching: 2000 

Improved classroom teaching 

Activity A lot Moderately Somewhat Not at all 

 

Being mentored by another teacher in a formal relationship.................. 37 29 27 8 

Common planning period for team teachers.......................................... 35 33 26 6 

Individual or collaborative research on a topic of interest 

professionally..................................................................................... 30 35 32 2 

Regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers, excluding 

meetings held for administrative purposes........................................ 24 35 36 4 

Networking with teachers outside the school......................................... 20 33 42 4 

Mentoring another teacher in a formal relationship ............................... 18 34 38 10 

NOTE: Data presented in this table are based on public school teachers who participated in the teaching-related activity during the 12 months 

preceding the survey. Percents are computed across each row but may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
30 

Table 9a.—Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which 

participation in various teaching-related activities during the last 12 months improved 

their teaching: 2000 

Improved classroom teaching 

Activity A lot Moderately Somewhat Not at all 

 

Being mentored by another teacher in a formal relationship.................. 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.0 

Common planning period for team teachers.......................................... 1.3 1.3 1.4 0.6 

Individual or collaborative research on a topic of interest 

professionally..................................................................................... 1.1 1.3 1.4 0.5 

Regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers, excluding 

meetings held for administrative purposes........................................ 1.0 1.3 1.1 0.5 

Networking with teachers outside the school......................................... 0.8 1.1 1.2 0.5 

Mentoring another teacher in a formal relationship ............................... 1.3 1.8 1.7 1.2 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
31 

Table 10.—Percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which participation in various 

teaching-related activities improved their teaching, by the frequency with which they 

participated in that activity during the last 12 months: 2000 

Improved classroom teaching 

Activity and frequency of participation A lot Moderately Somewhat Not at all 

 

Regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers, excluding 

meetings held for administrative purposes 

 

 At least once a week .......................................................................... 45 34 18 2 

 2 to 3 times a month........................................................................... 23 50 26 2 

 Once a month..................................................................................... 15 35 45 5 

 A few times a year ............................................................................. 7 28 56 8 

 

Common planning period for team teachers 

 At least once a week .......................................................................... 45 31 19 4 

 2 to 3 times a month........................................................................... 29 53 15 4 

 Once a month..................................................................................... 17 41 37 6 

 A few times a year ............................................................................. 12 22 50 16 

 

Networking with teachers outside the school 

 At least once a week .......................................................................... 42 38 20 1 

 2 to 3 times a month........................................................................... 33 43 24 1 

 Once a month..................................................................................... 26 39 33 2 

 A few times a year ............................................................................. 12 29 54 6 

 

Individual or collaborative research on a topic of interest 

professionally 

 At least once a week .......................................................................... 57 30 12 1 

 2 to 3 times a month........................................................................... 39 45 15 †† 

 Once a month..................................................................................... 26 41 32 1 

 A few times a year ............................................................................. 16 32 47 4 

 

Mentoring another teacher in a formal relationship 

 At least once a week .......................................................................... 28 39 26 7 

 2 to 3 times a month........................................................................... 15 36 38 11 

 Once a month..................................................................................... 13 32 46 9 

 A few times a year ............................................................................. 7 25 54 15 

 

Being mentored by another teacher in a formal relationship 

 At least once a week .......................................................................... 66 24 10 †† 

 2 to 3 times a month........................................................................... 38 35 21 5 

 Once a month..................................................................................... 31 37 28 3 

 A few times a year ............................................................................. 11 27 45 17 

†† Less than 0.5 percent. 

NOTE: Data presented in this table are based on public school teachers who participated in the teaching-related activity during the 12 months 

preceding the survey. Percents are computed across each row but may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
32 

Table 10a.—Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating the extent to which 

participation in various teaching-related activities improved their teaching, by the 

frequency with which they participated in that activity during the last 12 months: 2000 

Improved classroom teaching 

Activity and frequency of participation A lot Moderately Somewhat Not at all 

 

Regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers, excluding 

meetings held for administrative purposes 

 

 At least once a week .......................................................................... 1.8 2.0 1.6 0.7 

 2 to 3 times a month........................................................................... 2.5 2.8 2.3 0.9 

 Once a month..................................................................................... 1.7 2.6 2.6 1.0 

 A few times a year ............................................................................. 1.2 2.1 1.9 1.3 

 

Common planning period for team teachers 

 At least once a week .......................................................................... 1.5 1.5 1.3 0.6 

 2 to 3 times a month........................................................................... 3.9 4.4 2.6 1.3 

 Once a month..................................................................................... 4.1 4.3 3.6 2.0 

 A few times a year ............................................................................. 2.6 2.7 3.9 2.4 

 

Networking with teachers outside the school 

 At least once a week .......................................................................... 3.9 4.2 3.0 0.8 

 2 to 3 times a month........................................................................... 3.1 3.3 2.6 0.6 

 Once a month..................................................................................... 2.4 2.9 2.5 1.2 

 A few times a year ............................................................................. 1.0 1.4 1.6 0.8 

 

Individual or collaborative research on a topic of interest 

professionally 

 At least once a week .......................................................................... 2.7 2.7 1.7 0.6 

 2 to 3 times a month........................................................................... 3.0 3.4 2.1 ††

 Once a month..................................................................................... 2.8 2.6 2.8 0.4 

 A few times a year ............................................................................. 1.4 1.9 2.0 1.0 

 

Mentoring another teacher in a formal relationship 

 At least once a week .......................................................................... 2.3 2.7 2.3 1.5 

 2 to 3 times a month........................................................................... 2.9 5.0 4.5 3.2 

 Once a month..................................................................................... 5.2 5.6 5.7 3.4 

 A few times a year ............................................................................. 2.0 3.1 3.6 2.8 

 

Being mentored by another teacher in a formal relationship 

 At least once a week .......................................................................... 3.2 3.1 1.9 †† 

 2 to 3 times a month........................................................................... 5.8 4.9 4.2 2.4 

 Once a month..................................................................................... 5.6 6.8 4.6 2.2 

 A few times a year ............................................................................. 2.2 3.0 4.3 2.5 

†† Estimate of standard error is not derived because it is based on a statistic estimated at less than 0.5 percent. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
33 

Table 11.—Percent of public school teachers indicating how well prepared they felt for various 

activities in the classroom: 2000 

How well prepared teachers felt 

Activity Very well 

prepared 

Moderately 

well 

prepared 

Somewhat 

well 

prepared 

Not at all 

prepared 

 

Meet the overall demands of teaching assignments ............................... 61 35 4 †† 

Maintain order and discipline in the classroom ..................................... 71 24 4 1 

Implement new methods of teaching (e.g., cooperative learning).......... 45 42 12 2 

Implement state or district curriculum and performance standards........ 44 39 15 2 

Use student performance assessment (e.g., methods of testing, 

applying results to modify instruction) .............................................. 37 40 20 3 

Address the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds......... 32 39 23 6 

Address the needs of students with disabilities*.................................... 32 38 24 5 

Integrate educational technology in the grade or subject taught ............ 27 38 27 7 

Address the needs of students with limited English proficiency*.......... 27 33 28 12 

†† Less than 0.5 percent. 

* Data are based on teachers who reported that they taught students with these characteristics at the school—86 percent taught special education 

students with Individual Education Plans (IEPs), and 42 percent taught students with limited English proficiency. 

NOTE: Percents are computed across each row but may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
34 

Table 11a.—Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating how well prepared 

they felt for various activities in the classroom: 2000 

How well prepared teachers felt 

Activity Very well 

prepared 

Moderately 

well 

prepared 

Somewhat 

well 

prepared 

Not at all 

prepared 

 

Meet the overall demands of teaching assignments ............................... 0.9 0.8 0.4 ††

Maintain order and discipline in the classroom...................................... 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.2 

Implement new methods of teaching (e.g., cooperative learning) .......... 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.3 

Implement state or district curriculum and performance standards........ 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.3 

Use student performance assessment (e.g., methods of testing, 

applying results to modify instruction)............................................... 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.3 

Address the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds ......... 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.5 

Address the needs of students with disabilities...................................... 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.1 

Integrate educational technology in the grade or subject taught............. 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.5 

Address the needs of students with limited English proficiency ............ 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.1 

†† Estimate of standard error is not derived because it is based on a statistic estimated at less than 0.5 percent. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
35 

Table 12.—Percent of public school teachers indicating they felt very well prepared for various 

activities in the classroom, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 2000 

Activity 

Teacher and school characteristic 

Meet 

overall 

demands 

of 

teaching 

assignments 

Maintain 

order and 

discipline 

in the 

classroom 

Implement 

new 

methods 

of 

teaching 

Implement 

state or 

district 

curriculum 

Use 

Student 

performance 

assessment 

Address 

needs of 

students 

from 

diverse 

cultural 

backgrounds 

Address 

needs of 

students 

with 

disabilities* 

Integrate 

education 

technology 

Address 

needs of 

students 

with 

limited 

English 

proficiency* 

 

All public school teachers ...... 61 71 45 44 37 32 32 27 27 

 

Teaching experience 

 3 or fewer years.......................... 49 51 37 36 26 26 28 23 21 

 4 to 9 years................................. 54 69 40 41 34 31 30 29 24 

 10 or more years......................... 67 77 48 47 41 35 34 28 30 

 

Instructional level 

 Elementary school...................... 60 71 46 43 39 33 36 24 32 

 Middle school............................. 61 72 47 45 38 33 33 28 25 

 High school ................................ 63 69 43 43 33 31 27 31 21 

 Combined school........................ 61 72 32 46 29 26 29 28 25 

 

School enrollment size 

 Less than 500 ............................. 59 72 42 42 37 27 35 24 29 

 500 to 999 .................................. 61 71 46 44 38 33 32 26 26 

 1,000 or more ............................. 63 68 45 45 35 37 29 33 27 

 

School locale 

 Central city................................. 60 68 48 45 38 40 33 30 33 

 Urban fringe/large town ............. 63 72 46 45 38 34 32 26 25 

 Rural/small town ........................ 59 72 39 39 33 22 32 26 20 

 

Percent minority enrollment in 

school 

 5 percent or less.......................... 61 73 40 38 31 17 30 24 13 

 6 to 20 percent............................ 61 73 46 43 37 29 33 26 18 

 21 to 50 percent.......................... 62 72 46 48 39 37 34 31 28 

 More than 50 percent ................. 61 66 47 46 41 46 32 28 37 

 

Percent of students in school 

eligible for free or reducedprice lunch 

 Less than 35 percent................... 62 72 43 42 35 29 32 26 22 

 35 to 49 percent.......................... 60 71 42 42 38 29 33 28 24 

 50 to 74 percent.......................... 60 70 47 46 40 37 32 29 32 

 75 percent or more ..................... 60 67 48 47 40 40 34 30 35 

* Data are based on teachers who reported that they taught students with these characteristics at the school—86 percent taught special education 

students with Individual Education Plans (IEPs), and 42 percent taught students with limited English proficiency. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
36 

Table 12a.—Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating they felt very well 

prepared for various activities in the classroom, by selected teacher and school 

characteristics: 2000 

Activity 

Teacher and school characteristic 

Meet 

overall 

demands 

of 

teaching 

assignments 

Maintain 

order and 

discipline 

in the 

classroom 

Implement 

New 

methods 

of 

teaching 

Implement 

state or 

district 

curriculum 

Use 

Student 

performance 

assessment 

Address 

needs of 

students 

from 

diverse 

cultural 

backgrounds 

Address 

needs of 

students 

with 

disabilities 

Integrate 

education 

technology 

Address 

needs of 

students 

with 

limited 

English 

proficiency 

 

All public school teachers ...... 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.1 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.4 

 

Teaching experience 

 3 or fewer years.......................... 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.1 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.0 3.0 

 4 to 9 years................................. 2.3 1.8 2.1 2.0 1.9 2.1 1.8 1.7 2.7 

 10 or more years......................... 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.5 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.4 1.9 

 

Instructional level 

Elementary school...................... 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.7 1.6 1.6 2.6 

Middle school............................. 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.8 

High school ................................ 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.9 

Combined school........................ 4.1 4.0 3.6 4.7 3.2 2.7 3.5 2.9 6.5 

 

School enrollment size 

 Less than 500 ............................. 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.6 

 500 to 999 .................................. 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.4 2.1 

 1,000 or more ............................. 1.7 1.6 2.0 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.3 

 

School locale 

 Central city................................. 1.6 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.9 2.5 

 Urban fringe/large town ............. 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.3 2.2 

 Rural/small town ........................ 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.4 

 

Percent minority enrollment in 

school 

5 percent or less.......................... 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.6 

6 to 20 percent............................ 1.8 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.3 1.8 2.0 1.7 2.2 

21 to 50 percent.......................... 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.4 1.7 2.2 2.1 1.7 2.3 

More than 50 percent ................. 1.5 1.8 1.7 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.6 

 

Percent of students in school 

eligible for free or reducedprice lunch 

Less than 35 percent................... 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.9 

35 to 49 percent.......................... 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.2 2.6 4.0 

50 to 74 percent.......................... 2.2 2.6 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.7 3.0 1.9 3.9 

75 percent or more ..................... 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.9 3.6 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
37 

Table 13.—Percent of public school teachers indicating how well prepared they felt for various 

activities in the classroom, by the number of hours spent in professional development 

in the content area of the activity during the last 12 months: 2000 

How well prepared teachers felt 

Activity and hours spent Very well 

prepared 

Moderately 

well 

prepared 

Somewhat 

well 

prepared 

Not at all 

prepared 

 

New methods of teaching (e.g., cooperative learning) 

 0 hours ............................................................................................... 44 39 13 4 

 1 to 8 hours........................................................................................ 42 44 13 1 

 More than 8 hours.............................................................................. 50 40 9 1 

 

State or district curriculum and performance standards 

 0 hours ............................................................................................... 43 37 16 4 

 1 to 8 hours........................................................................................ 41 41 17 2 

 More than 8 hours.............................................................................. 48 39 11 2 

 

Integration of educational technology into the grade or subject taught 

 0 hours ............................................................................................... 22 30 32 17 

 1 to 8 hours........................................................................................ 22 42 30 6 

 More than 8 hours.............................................................................. 41 40 18 1 

 

Student performance assessment 

 0 hours ............................................................................................... 32 37 25 6 

 1 to 8 hours........................................................................................ 37 42 19 2 

 More than 8 hours.............................................................................. 46 40 14 1 

 

Classroom management, including student discipline 

 0 hours ................................................................................................ 74 22 4 1 

 1 to 8 hours........................................................................................ 66 27 5 1 

 More than 8 hours.............................................................................. 69 25 6 †† 

 

Addressing the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds 

 0 hours ............................................................................................... 27 37 27 9 

 1 to 8 hours........................................................................................ 37 44 18 1 

 More than 8 hours.............................................................................. 46 39 11 3 

 

Addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency* 

 0 hours ............................................................................................... 20 28 33 19 

 1 to 8 hours........................................................................................ 30 40 26 4 

 More than 8 hours.............................................................................. 47 38 14 1 

 

Addressing the needs of students with disabilities* 

 0 hours ............................................................................................... 24 38 30 9 

 1 to 8 hours........................................................................................ 32 41 23 3 

 More than 8 hours.............................................................................. 59 30 10 1 

†† Less than 0.5 percent. 

* Data are based on teachers who reported that they taught students with these characteristics at the school—86 percent taught special education 

students with Individual Education Plans (IEPs), and 42 percent taught students with limited English proficiency. 

NOTE: Teachers reported their participation in professional development during the 12 months preceding the survey. Percentages are computed 

across each row but may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
38 

Table 13a.—Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating how well prepared 

they felt for various activities in the classroom, by the number of hours spent in 

professional development in the content area of the activity during the last 12 months: 

2000 

How well prepared teachers felt 

Activity and hours spent Very well 

prepared 

Moderately 

well 

prepared 

Somewhat 

well 

prepared 

Not at all 

prepared 

 

New methods of teaching (e.g., cooperative learning) 

 0 hours ............................................................................................... 2.0 1.8 1.4 0.8 

 1 to 8 hours ........................................................................................ 1.4 1.4 1.1 0.3 

 More than 8 hours.............................................................................. 1.6 1.6 0.8 0.3 

 

State or district curriculum and performance standards 

 0 hours ............................................................................................... 2.2 2.1 1.7 0.8 

 1 to 8 hours ........................................................................................ 1.6 1.4 1.3 0.1 

 More than 8 hours.............................................................................. 1.8 1.7 1.0 0.1 

 

Integration of educational technology into the grade or subject taught 

 0 hours ............................................................................................... 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.5 

 1 to 8 hours ........................................................................................ 1.1 1.5 1.5 0.7 

 More than 8 hours.............................................................................. 1.6 1.4 1.5 0.1 

 

Student performance assessment 

 0 hours ............................................................................................... 0.9 1.4 1.3 0.7 

 1 to 8 hours ........................................................................................ 1.3 1.2 1.4 0.4 

 More than 8 hours.............................................................................. 1.8 2.2 1.4 0.2 

 

Classroom management, including student discipline 

 0 hours ................................................................................................ 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.3 

 1 to 8 hours ........................................................................................ 1.3 1.3 0.8 0.4 

 More than 8 hours.............................................................................. 2.6 2.5 1.4 †† 

 

Addressing the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds 

 0 hours ............................................................................................... 1.3 1.1 1.2 0.7 

 1 to 8 hours ........................................................................................ 1.8 1.5 1.3 0.3 

 More than 8 hours.............................................................................. 3.2 2.7 1.8 1.2 

 

Addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency 

 0 hours ............................................................................................... 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 

 1 to 8 hours ........................................................................................ 2.4 2.8 2.4 1.0 

 More than 8 hours.............................................................................. 4.7 4.9 2.9 0.5 

 

Addressing the needs of students with disabilities 

 0 hours ............................................................................................... 1.4 1.3 1.6 0.8 

 1 to 8 hours ........................................................................................ 1.5 1.8 1.6 0.5 

 More than 8 hours.............................................................................. 2.9 3.0 1.5 0.5 

†† Estimate of standard error is not derived because it is based on a statistic estimated at less than 0.5 percent. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
39 

Table 14.—Percent of public school teachers indicating how well prepared they felt to meet the 

overall demands of their teaching assignments, by the extent to which their 

participation in professional development has been linked to various school-based 

activities: 2000 

How well prepared teachers felt for meeting the overall 

demands of teaching assignments 

School-based activity Very well 

prepared 

Moderately 

well 

prepared 

Somewhat 

well 

prepared 

Not at all 

prepared 

 

Professional development has been: 

 

Linked to other program improvements at the school 

 To a large/moderate extent........................................................................... 65 32 3 †† 

 To a small extent/not at all........................................................................... 56 38 6 1 

 

Followed by needed follow-up sessions or additional training 

 To a large/moderate extent........................................................................... 67 31 2 0 

 To a small extent/not at all........................................................................... 58 36 5 †† 

 

Followed by school activities in which teachers help other teachers put the 

new ideas to use 

 To a large/moderate extent........................................................................... 70 28 2 0 

 To a small extent/not at all........................................................................... 57 38 5 †† 

 

Followed by school administration support in applying what was learned 

 To a large/moderate extent........................................................................... 69 29 2 0 

 To a small extent/not at all........................................................................... 55 39 6 †† 

†† Less than 0.5 percent. 

NOTE: Percentages are computed across each row but may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
40 

Table 14a.—Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating how well prepared 

they felt to meet the overall demands of their teaching assignments, by the extent to 

which their participation in professional development has been linked to various 

school-based activities: 2000 

How well prepared teachers felt for meeting the overall 

demands of teaching assignments 

School-based activity Very well 

prepared 

Moderately 

well 

prepared 

Somewhat 

well 

prepared 

Not at all 

prepared 

 

Professional development has been: 

Linked to other program improvements at the school 

 To a large/moderate extent........................................................................... 1.2 1.3 0.4 †† 

 To a small extent/not at all........................................................................... 1.6 1.4 0.7 0.2 

 

Followed by needed follow-up sessions or additional training 

 To a large/moderate extent........................................................................... 1.5 1.4 0.5 †† 

 To a small extent/not at all........................................................................... 1.1 1.0 0.5 †† 

 

Followed by school activities in which teachers help other teachers put the 

new ideas to use 

 To a large/moderate extent........................................................................... 1.8 1.8 0.5 †† 

 To a small extent/not at all........................................................................... 1.1 0.9 0.6 †† 

 

Followed by school administration support in applying what was learned 

 To a large/moderate extent........................................................................... 1.3 1.2 0.4 †† 

 To a small extent/not at all........................................................................... 1.3 1.1 0.6 †† 

†† Standard error is not derived because it based on a statistic estimated at less than 0.5 percent. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
41 

Table 15.—Percent of public school teachers indicating how well prepared they felt for meeting the 

overall demands of their teaching assignments, by whether they participated in various 

teaching-related activities during the last 12 months: 2000 

How well prepared teachers felt for meeting the overall 

demands of teaching assignments 

Participation in activity Very well 

prepared 

Moderately 

well 

prepared 

Somewhat 

well 

prepared 

Not at all 

prepared 

 

Common planning period for team teachers 

 Yes........................................................................................................ 63 33 4 †† 

 No ......................................................................................................... 60 36 4 †† 

 

Regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers, excluding 

meetings held for administrative purposes 

 Yes........................................................................................................ 63 33 4 †† 

 No ......................................................................................................... 57 38 5 †† 

 

Being mentored by another teacher in a formal relationship 

 Yes........................................................................................................ 57 39 4 0 

 No ......................................................................................................... 62 33 4 †† 

 

Mentoring another teacher in a formal relationship 

 Yes........................................................................................................ 71 26 2 †† 

 No ......................................................................................................... 58 37 5 †† 

 

Networking with teachers outside the school 

 Yes........................................................................................................ 63 33 3 †† 

 No ......................................................................................................... 57 37 6 1 

 

Individual or collaborative research on a topic of interest 

professionally 

 Yes........................................................................................................ 63 33 4 †† 

 No ......................................................................................................... 59 36 5 1 

†† Less than 0.5 percent. 

NOTE: Data are based on public school teachers who participated in the activity during the 12 months preceding the survey. Percentages are 

computed across each row but may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
42 

Table 15a.—Standard errors of the percent of public school teachers indicating how well prepared 

they felt for meeting the overall demands of their teaching assignments, by whether 

they participated in various teaching-related activities during the last 12 months: 2000 

How well prepared teachers felt for meeting the overall 

demands of teaching assignments 

Participation in activity Very well 

prepared 

Moderately 

well 

prepared 

Somewhat 

well 

prepared 

Not at all 

prepared 

 

Common planning period for team teachers 

 Yes........................................................................................................ 1.3 1.2 0.6 †† 

 No ......................................................................................................... 1.2 1.1 0.5 †† 

 

Regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers, excluding 

meetings held for administrative purposes 

 Yes........................................................................................................ 1.1 1.0 0.5 †† 

 No ......................................................................................................... 1.7 1.6 07 †† 

 

Being mentored by another teacher in a formal relationship 

 Yes........................................................................................................ 2.0 1.9 0.9 †† 

 No ......................................................................................................... 1.0 0.9 0.4 †† 

 

Mentoring another teacher in a formal relationship 

 Yes........................................................................................................ 1.8 1.7 0.5 †† 

 No ......................................................................................................... 1.0 0.9 0.5 †† 

 

Networking with teachers outside the school 

 Yes........................................................................................................ 1.2 1.0 0.5 †† 

 No ......................................................................................................... 1.5 1.4 0.6 0.3 

 

Individual or collaborative research on a topic of interest 

professionally 

 Yes........................................................................................................ 1.4 1.3 0.5 †† 

 No ......................................................................................................... 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.2 

†† Standard error is not derived because it based on a statistic estimated at less than 0.5 percent. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
43 

Table 16.—Percent of full-time public school teachers indicating that they participated in 

professional development activities during the last 12 months that focused on various 

content areas, by the number of hours spent in the activity: 1998 and 2000 

Participated in the 

activity Total hours spent*

Content area 1998 2000 

1998 2000 1 to 8 More 

than 8 1 to 8 More than 8 

 

State or district curriculum and performance standards ... 81 82 61 39 56 44 

Integration of educational technology in the grade or 

subject taught ............................................................... 78 76 62 38 62 38 

New methods of teaching (e.g., cooperative learning)..... 77 73 61 39 57 43 

In-depth study in the subject area of main teaching 

assignment ................................................................... 73 71 44 56 43 57 

Student performance assessment (e.g., methods of 

testing, applying results to modify instruction)............ 67 62 71 29 67 33 

Addressing the needs of students with disabilities........... 48 47 81 19 75 25 

Classroom management, including student discipline ..... 49 43 78 22 73 27 

* Data are based on teachers who participated in the activity during the 12 months preceding the survey. 

NOTE: Analyses are based on all full-time public school teachers who taught in a self-contained setting and departmentalized teachers whose 

main teaching assignment was in a core subject field: English language/language arts, social studies/social sciences, mathematics, science, and 

foreign languages. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74; and “Teacher Survey on Professional Development and Training,” 

FRSS 65. 
44 

Table 16a.—Standard errors of the percent of full-time public school teachers indicating that they 

participated in professional development activities during the last 12 months that 

focused on various content areas, by the number of hours spent in the activity: 1998 

and 2000 

Participated in the 

activity Total hours spent 

Content area 1998 2000 

1998 2000 1 to 8 More 

than 8 1 to 8 More than 8 

 

State or district curriculum and performance standards ... 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.4 

Integration of educational technology in the grade or 

subject taught ............................................................... 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 

New methods of teaching (e.g., cooperative learning)..... 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.3 

In-depth study in the subject area of main teaching 

assignment ................................................................... 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.4 

Student performance assessment (e.g., methods of 

testing, applying results to modify instruction)............ 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.6 

Addressing the needs of students with disabilities........... 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.3 1.3 

Classroom management, including student discipline ..... 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.7 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74; and “Teacher Survey on Professional Development and Training,” 

FRSS 65. 
45 

Table 17.—Percent of full-time public school teachers who participated in various teaching-related 

activities during the last 12 months, by frequency of participation: 1998 and 2000 

Participated in Frequency of participation*

activity 1998 2000 

Activity

1998 2000 

At 

least 

once a 

week 

2 to 3 

times 

a 

month 

Once 

a 

month 

A few 

times 

a year 

At 

least 

once a 

week 

2 to 3 

times 

a 

month 

Once 

a 

month 

A few 

times 

a year 

Regularly scheduled collaboration 

with other teachers.......................... 81 71 34 22 21 23 32 18 24 26 

Networking with teachers outside 

the school........................................ 61 60 10 12 18 60 11 12 18 59 

Common planning period for team 

teachers........................................... 62 56 60 14 11 15 63 13 8 15 

Individual or collaborative research 

on a topic of interest 

professionally.................................. 53 52 19 18 16 48 20 16 17 47 

Mentoring another teacher in a 

formal relationship.......................... 26 25 42 17 12 29 44 21 11 24 

Being mentored by another teacher .... 19 22 24 17 14 46 34 15 13 38 

* Data are based on teachers who participated in the activity during the 12 months preceding the survey. 

NOTE: Analyses are based on all full-time public school teachers who taught in a self-contained setting and departmentalized teachers whose 

main teaching assignment was in a core subject field: English language/language arts, social studies/social sciences, mathematics, science, and 

foreign languages. Percentages for the frequency of participation are computed across each row but may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74; and “Teacher Survey on Professional Development and Training,” 

FRSS 65. 
46 

Table 17a.—Standard errors of the percent of full-time public school teachers who participated in 

various teaching-related activities during the last 12 months, by frequency of 

participation: 1998 and 2000 

Participated in Frequency of participation 

activity 1998 2000 

Activity

1998 2000 

At 

least 

once a 

week 

2 to 3 

times 

a 

month 

Once 

a 

month 

A few 

times 

a year 

At 

least 

once a 

week 

2 to 3 

times 

a 

month 

Once 

a 

month 

A few 

times 

a year 

Regularly scheduled collaboration 

with other teachers........................ 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.3 

Networking with teachers outside 

the school...................................... 0.9 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.5 

Common planning period for 

team teachers ................................ 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.9 1.3 1.0 1.2 

Individual or collaborative 

research on a topic of interest 

professionally................................ 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 

Mentoring another teacher in a 

formal relationship........................ 0.8 0.9 2.0 1.2 1.7 1.9 2.4 1.7 1.3 2.0 

Being mentored by another teacher .. 0.6 0.8 2.3 1.2 1.6 1.8 2.1 1.6 1.9 2.4 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74; and “Teacher Survey on Professional Development and Training,” 

FRSS 65. 
47 

Table 18.—Percent of full-time public school teachers indicating how well prepared they felt for 

various activities in the classroom: 1998 and 2000 

How well prepared teachers felt 

1998 2000 

Activity Very 

well 

prepared 

Moderately 

well 

prepared 

Somewhat 

well 

prepared 

Not at all 

prepared 

Very 

well 

prepared 

Moderately 

well 

prepared 

Somewhat 

well 

prepared 

Not at all 

prepared 

Maintain order and discipline in the 

classroom............................................... 71 24 4 1 72 23 4 1 

Implement new methods of teaching 

(e.g., cooperative learning) .................... 41 41 16 2 47 40 11 1 

Implement state or district curriculum 

and performance standards..................... 36 41 20 3 45 40 14 2 

Use student performance assessment 

(e.g., methods of testing, applying 

results to modify instruction) ................. 28 41 26 4 37 41 19 3 

Address the needs of students with 

disabilities*............................................ 21 41 30 7 29 39 26 6 

Integrate educational technology in the 

grade or subject taught........................... 20 37 34 9 27 39 27 7 

*Data are based on teachers who reported that they taught students with disabilities at the school—42 percent. 

NOTE: Analyses are based on all full-time public school teachers who taught in a self-contained setting and departmentalized teachers whose 

main teaching assignment was in a core subject field: English language/language arts, social studies/social sciences, mathematics, science, and 

foreign languages. Percentages are computed across each row but may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74; and “Teacher Survey on Professional Development and Training,” 

FRSS 65. 

 
48 

Table 18a.—Standard errors of the percent of full-time public school teachers indicating how well 

prepared they felt for various activities in the classroom: 1998 and 2000 

How well prepared teachers felt 

1998 2000 

Activity Very 

well 

prepared 

Moderately 

well 

prepared 

Somewhat 

well 

prepared 

Not at all 

prepared 

Very 

well 

prepared 

Moderately 

well 

prepared 

Somewhat 

well 

prepared 

Not at all 

prepared 

Maintain order and discipline in the 

classroom............................................. 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.2 

Implement new methods of teaching 

(e.g., cooperative learning) .................. 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.2 

Implement state or district curriculum 

and performance standards................... 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.3 

Use student performance assessment 

(e.g., methods of testing, applying 

results to modify instruction) ............... 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.4 

Address the needs of students with 

disabilities............................................ 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.4 

Integrate educational technology in the 

grade or subject taught......................... 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.5 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74; and “Teacher Survey on Professional Development and Training,” 

FRSS 65. 

 
A-1 

Appendix A 

Methodology and Technical Notes 
A-2 
A-3 

Methodology and Technical Notes 

Sample Selection 

The sample for the Survey on Professional Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 

1999–2000, consisted of 5,253 full- and part-time teachers in regular public elementary, middle, and high 

schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. To select the sample of teachers, a sample of 2,209 

public schools was first selected from the 1999–2000 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) universe file. 

The 1999–2000 SASS universe file was created from the 1997–98 NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) 

Public School Universe File. The sample for this study was designed to minimize the overlap with other 

large NCES studies being conducted concurrently. The sampling frame contained 81,405 regular public 

schools. Excluded from the sampling frame were special education, vocational, and alternative/other 

schools, schools in the territories, Department of Defense and Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, and 

schools with a high grade lower than one or ungraded, or that taught only adult education. The frame 

contained 49,691 regular elementary schools, 15,204 regular middle schools, and 16,510 regular 

high/combined schools. A school was defined as an elementary school if the lowest grade was less than 

or equal to grade 3 and the highest grade was less than or equal to grade 8. A middle school was defined 

as having a lowest grade greater than or equal to grade 4 and a highest grade less than or equal to grade 9. 

A school was considered a high school if its lowest grade was greater than or equal to grade 9 and the 

highest grade was greater than or equal to grade 10. Combined schools were defined as having a lowest 

grade less than or equal to grade 3 and a highest grade greater than or equal to grade 9 or the lowest grade 

is in grades 4 through 8 and the highest grade is in grades 10 through 12. High schools and combined 

schools were combined into one category for sampling. 

The public school sampling frame was stratified by instructional level (elementary, middle, and 

high school/combined), locale (city, urban fringe, town, and rural), and school size (less than 300, 300 to 

499, 500 to 999, 1,000 to 1,499, and 1,500 or more). Within the primary strata, schools were also sorted 

by percent minority enrollment in the school (less than 5 percent minority, 5 to 19 percent minority, 20 to 

49 percent minority, and 50 percent or more minority) to produce additional implicit stratification. A 

sample of 2,209 schools was then selected from the sorted frame with conditional probabilities that 

accounted for the selection of the schools for the other NCES studies. The conditional probabilities were 

designed to minimize the overlap with the samples selected for the other studies while at the same time 

ensuring that the overall probabilities of selection were proportionate to size, where the measure of size 

was the estimated number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers in the school (see Chowdhury, Chu, and 

Kaufman forthcoming). The sample contained 511 elementary schools, 855 middle schools, and 843 

high/combined schools. 

Each sampled school was asked to send a list of its teachers, from which a teacher sampling frame 

was prepared. The teacher sampling frame was designed to represent all public school teachers who 

taught one or more regularly scheduled classes in any of grades 1 through 12. This included special 

education teachers, general elementary teachers, vocational/technical education teachers, principals and 

all other staff members who taught at least one regularly scheduled class per week, itinerant, co-op, 

traveling, and satellite teachers who taught at the sampled school for more than 50 percent of their total 

teaching hours, current long-term substitute teachers, and other teachers who taught students in grades 1 

through 12. Schools were instructed to omit the following from the teacher list: teachers’ aides, student 

teachers, day care aides, unpaid volunteers, teachers who taught only kindergarten or preschool students, 
A-4 

short-term substitutes, itinerant teachers who taught more than half of their teaching hours at another 

school, and principals and all other staff members who did not teach a regularly scheduled class at the 

school. Schools were then instructed to indicate the primary subject taught for each teacher on the list, 

using the following categories: (1) self-contained, for teachers who teach all or most academic subjects in 

a self-contained classroom setting (including most elementary school teachers), (2) math teachers, (3) 

science teachers, (4) English teachers, (5) social studies teachers, and (6) other, for teachers of all other 

subjects. Schools were then asked to indicate the total years of teaching experience for each teacher on 

the list, using the categories of 3 or fewer years, or 4 or more years teaching experience, counting the 

current academic year as 1 full year. 

Within selected schools, eligible teachers were selected for the survey at rates that depended on 

instructional level, years of teaching experience (3 years or less versus 4 years or more), and subject 

taught. On average, 2.8 teachers (and no more than 4 teachers) were selected per school. A total of 5,253 

teachers were selected. The sample contained 1,222 elementary school teachers, 2,033 middle school 

teachers, and 1,998 high school/combined teachers. 

Respondent and Response Rates 

A letter, instruction sheet, and form for preparing the list of teachers was sent to the principal of 

each sampled school in early October 1999. The letter introduced the study, requested the principal’s 

cooperation to sample teachers, and asked the principal to prepare the list of teachers. Telephone follow 

up was conducted from November 1999 through March 2000 with principals who did not respond to the 

initial request for teacher lists. Of the 2,209 schools in the sample, 9 were found to be out of the scope of 

the survey (no longer in existence), for a total of 2,200 eligible schools. Teacher lists were provided by 

1,890 schools, or 86 percent of the eligible schools. The weighted response rate1

 to the teacher list 

collection was 88 percent. 

Questionnaires were mailed to the teachers in two phases, so that data collection on the teacher 

questionnaire would not be delayed while the list collection phase was being completed. The first phase 

of questionnaires was mailed in mid-March 2000, and the second in late April 2000. Telephone followup was conducted from April through September 2000 with teachers who did not respond to the initial 

questionnaire mailing. Teachers were called at their schools until late June. 

Beginning in late June, when schools were closed for the summer and teachers could no longer be 

reached in this way, teachers were called at home if a telephone number for them could be located. To 

facilitate telephone data collection with teachers at their home numbers, a shorter version of the 

questionnaire was developed that retained key items. This shorter version of the questionnaire was used 

until data collection ended in early September. All data presented in this report are based only on key 

items from this shorter questionnaire (see appendix B, survey instrument). 

Of the 5,253 teachers selected for the sample, 377 were found to be out of the scope of the survey. 

This left a total of 4,876 eligible teachers in the sample. Completed questionnaires were received from 

4,128 teachers, or 85 percent of the eligible teachers (table A-1). Of these 4,128 teachers, 3,347 

completed the full questionnaire, and 781 completed the shorter version of the questionnaire. The 

weighted teacher response rate was 84 percent. The unweighted overall response rate was 73 percent 

(85.9 percent for the list collection multiplied by 84.7 percent for the teacher questionnaire). The 

weighted overall response rate was 75 percent (88.3 percent for the list collection multiplied by 84.5 

 

1

 All weighted response rates were calculated using the base weight. 
A-5 

percent for the teacher questionnaire). Unweighted item nonresponse rates ranged from 0 percent to 6 

percent, with most under 1 percent and one item with a nonresponse of 6 percent. Because the item 

nonresponse was so low, imputation for item nonresponse was not implemented. 

Table A-1.—Number and percent of responding public school teachers in the study sample and 

estimated number and percent of public school teachers the sample represents, by 

selected teacher and school characteristics: 2000 

Respondent sample National estimate Teacher and school characteristic 

Number Percent Number Percent 

 All public school teachers......................................................... 4,128 100 2,407,580 100 

Teaching experience 

3 or fewer years ............................................................................. 732 18 415,104 17

4 to 9 years..................................................................................... 971 24 538,283 22

10 or more years ............................................................................ 2,425 59 1,454,192 60

School instructional level 

Elementary school ......................................................................... 943 23 1,111,001 46

Middle school ................................................................................ 1,592 39 538,757 22

High school.................................................................................... 1,313 32 625,729 26

Combined school ........................................................................... 280 7 132,093 6

School enrollment size 

Less than 500 ................................................................................. 1,152 28 772,489 32

500 to 999 ...................................................................................... 1,744 42 1,037,996 43

1,000 or more................................................................................. 1,232 30 597,095 25

School locale 

Central city..................................................................................... 1,152 28 733,163 31

Urban fringe/large town................................................................. 1,671 41 994,303 41

Rural/small town............................................................................ 1,305 32 680,113 28

Region 

Northeast........................................................................................ 716 17 458,360 19

Midwest ......................................................................................... 1,101 27 617,069 26

South .............................................................................................. 1,481 36 841,824 35

West ............................................................................................... 830 20 490,329 20

Percent minority enrollment in school 

5 percent or less ............................................................................. 1144 28 651,281 27

6 to 20 percent ............................................................................... 1008 24 568,729 24

21 to 50 percent ............................................................................. 971 24 556,847 23

 More than 50 percent..................................................................... 1,005 24 630,724 26 

Percent of students in school eligible for free or reduced-price 

school lunch 

Less than 35 percent ...................................................................... 2,312 57 1,280,357 54

35 to 49 percent ............................................................................. 617 15 332,182 14

50 to 74 percent ............................................................................. 597 15 383,933 16

 75 percent or more......................................................................... 555 14 382,638 16 

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals because of rounding or missing data. There were very small amounts of missing data for the percent of 

students in school eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (47 cases) and percent minority enrollment in the school (48 cases). Percents are 

computed within each classification variable, but may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Survey on Professional 

Development and Training in U.S. Public Schools, 1999-2000,” FRSS 74. 
A-6 

Sampling and Nonsampling Errors 

The responses were weighted to produce national estimates (see table A-1). The weights were 

designed to adjust for the variable probabilities of selection and differential nonresponse. The findings in 

this report are estimates based on the sample selected and, consequently, are subject to sampling 

variability. 

The survey estimates are also subject to nonsampling errors that can arise because of 

nonobservation (nonresponse or noncoverage) errors, errors of reporting, and errors made in data 

collection. These errors can sometimes bias the data. Nonsampling errors may include such problems as 

misrecording of responses; incorrect editing, coding, and data entry; differences related to the particular 

time the survey was conducted; or errors in data preparation. While general sampling theory can be used 

in part to determine how to estimate the sampling variability of a statistic, nonsampling errors are not easy 

to measure and, for measurement purposes, usually require that an experiment be conducted as part of the 

data collection procedures or that data external to the study be used. 

To minimize the potential for nonsampling errors, the questionnaire was pretested with respondents 

like those who completed the survey. During the design of the survey and the survey pretest, an effort 

was made to check for consistency of interpretation of questions and to eliminate ambiguous items. The 

questionnaire and instructions were extensively reviewed by the National Center for Education Statistics 

and the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Education. Manual and machine editing of the 

questionnaire responses were conducted to check the data for accuracy and consistency. Cases with 

missing or inconsistent items were recontacted by telephone. Data were keyed with 100 percent 

verification. 

An examination of the survey data on out-of-field teaching led to concerns over the stability of the 

estimates. In particular, when these data were compared to estimates from a larger ongoing survey, the 

magnitude of the differences was not entirely explicable and thus was a cause for concern. NCES 

anticipates releasing a report with out-of-field estimates from the larger survey in September 2001. 

Variances 

The standard error is a measure of the variability of estimates due to sampling. It indicates the 

variability of a sample estimate that would be obtained from all possible samples of a given design and 

size. Standard errors are used as a measure of the precision expected from a particular sample. If all 

possible samples were surveyed under similar conditions, intervals of 1.96 standard errors below to 1.96 

standard errors above a particular statistic would include the true population parameter being estimated in 

about 95 percent of the samples. This is a 95 percent confidence interval. For example, the estimated 

percentage of teachers who felt very well prepared for their overall teaching assignments is 61.1 percent, 

and the estimated standard error is 0.9 percent. The 95 percent confidence interval for the statistic 

extends from [61.1 – (0.9 times 1.96)] to [61.1 + (0.9 times 1.96)], or from 59.3 to 62.9 percent. 

Estimates of standard errors were computed using a technique known as jackknife replication. As 

with any replication method, jackknife replication involves constructing a number of subsamples 

(replicates) from the full sample and computing the statistic of interest for each replicate. The mean 

square error of the replicate estimates around the full sample estimate provides an estimate of the 
A-7 

variances of the statistics. To construct the replications, 50 stratified subsamples of the full sample were 

created and then dropped one at a time to define 50 jackknife replicates. A computer program (WesVar 

Complex Samples) was used to calculate the estimates of standard errors. WesVar is a stand-alone 

Windows application that computes sampling errors from complex samples for a wide variety of statistics 

(totals, percents, ratios, log-odds ratios, general functions of estimates in tables, linear regression 

parameters, and logistic regression parameters). 

The test statistics used in the analysis were calculated using the jackknife variances and thus 

appropriately reflected the complex nature of the sample design. In particular, an adjusted chi-square test 

using Satterthwaite’s approximation to the design effect was used in the analysis of the two-way tables. 

Finally, Bonferroni adjustments were made to control for multiple comparisons where appropriate. For 

example, for an “experiment-wise” comparison involving g pairwise comparisons, each difference was 

tested at the 0.05/g significance level to control for the fact that g differences were simultaneously tested. 

Definitions of Analysis Variables 

School instructional level—Schools were classified according to their grade span in the Common Core 

of Data (CCD). 

Elementary school—lowest grade less than or equal to grade 3 and highest grade less than or equal 

to grade 8. 

Middle school—lowest grade greater than or equal to grade 4 and highest grade less than or equal 

to grade 9. 

High school—lowest grade greater than or equal to grade 9 and highest grade greater than or equal 

to grade 10. 

Combined school—lowest grade less than or equal to grade 3 and highest grade greater than or 

equal to grade 9 or the lowest grade is in grades 4 through 8 and the highest grade is in grades 10 

through 12. 

School enrollment size—total number of student enrolled as defined by the CCD. 

Less than 500 students

500 to 999 students

1,000 or more students 

Locale—as defined in the CCD. 

Central city—a large or mid-size central city of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). 

Urban fringe/large town—urban fringe is a place within an MSA of a central city, but not 

primarily its central city; large town is an incorporated place not within an MSA, with a population 

greater than or equal to 25,000. 

Small town/rural—small town is an incorporated place not within an MSA, with a population less 

than 25,000 and greater than or equal to 2,500; rural is a place with a population less than 2,500 

and/or a population density of less than 1,000 per square mile, and defined as rural by the U.S. 

Bureau of the Census. 
A-8 

Percent minority enrollment in the school—The percent of students enrolled in the school whose race 

or ethnicity is classified as one of the following: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific 

Islander, black, or Hispanic, based on data in the 1997–98 CCD file. 

5 percent or less 

6 to 20 percent 

21 to 50 percent

More than 50 percent 

Percent of students at the school eligible for free or reduced-price lunch—This was based on 

information collected from the school during the teacher list collection phase; if it was missing from the 

list collection, it was obtained from the CCD file, if possible. Data on this variable were missing for 1.3 

percent of the teachers sampled. This item served as the measurement of the concentration of poverty at 

the school. 

Less than 35 percent

35 to 49 percent 

50 to 74 percent 

75 percent or more 

Teaching experience—total years of teaching experience, based on responses to question 11 on the 

survey questionnaire. 

3 or fewer years

4 to 9 years

10 or more years 

It is important to note that many of the school characteristics used for independent analyses may 

also be related to each other. For example, enrollment size and instructional level of schools are related, 

with middle and high schools typically being larger than elementary schools. Similarly, poverty 

concentration and minority enrollment are related, with schools with a high minority enrollment also 

more likely to have a high concentration of poverty. Other relationships between analysis variables may 

exist. Because of the relatively small sample size used in this study, it is difficult to separate the 

independent effects of these variables. Their existence, however, should be considered in the 

interpretation of the data presented in this report. 

Comparisons to the 1998 Survey on Professional Development and Training 

Data from this survey (referred to here as the 2000 survey) were compared to data from the 1998 

Teacher Survey on Professional Development and Training (referred to here as the 1998 survey). As a 

first step in these comparisons, a subset of teachers was selected from the 2000 survey that was similar to 

the teachers sampled for the 1998 survey. Regular full-time teachers who taught in grades 1 through 12 

in regular public schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia defined the overall eligible group of 

teachers. Within that group, teachers from the 2000 survey were selected for inclusion in the subset for 

these analyses if their main teaching assignment was in English/language arts, social studies/social 

sciences, foreign language, mathematics, or science, or if they taught a self-contained classroom. 

Specifically, regular full-time teachers whose main teaching assignment was a core academic subject that 

was taught in a departmentalized setting were defined on the 2000 questionnaire (see appendix B) as 

those with a main assignment at the school as a regular full-time teacher (question 1 = 1), and with 

classes organized as either departmentalized instruction or team teaching in a cluster setting (question 2 = 
A-9 

1 or 2), and with a main teaching assignment field in one of the core subjects (question 3a = codes 41 or 

42 or 43 or 44 or 45 or 46 or 47 or 48 or 49 or 50 or 51). Regular full-time teachers who taught in a selfcontained setting were defined on the 2000 questionnaire as those with a main assignment at the school as 

a regular full-time teacher (question 1 = 1), and with classes organized as either team teaching in a regular 

setting or a self-contained class (question 2 = 3 or 4). Of the 4,128 teachers who responded to the 2000 

survey, 3,251 were retained for the comparisons to the 1998 survey. 

Background Information 

The survey was performed under contract with Westat. Westat’s Project Director was Elizabeth 

Farris, and the Survey Manager was Basmat Parsad. Bernie Greene was the NCES Project Officer. The 

data were requested by Terry Dozier, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Education. 

This report was reviewed by the following individuals: 

Outside NCES

• Susan Choy, MPR Associates 

• Arthur Cole, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education 

• Stephanie Cronen, American Institutes for Research 

• Lawrence Lanahan, American Institutes for Research 

• Doug Levin, American Institutes for Research 

Inside NCES

• Shelley Burns, Early Childhood, International, and Crosscutting Studies Division 

• Kerry Gruber, Elementary/Secondary and Libraries Studies Division 

• Marilyn McMillen, Chief Statistician 

• Valena Plisko, Associate Commissioner, Early Childhood, International, and Crosscutting 

Studies Division 

• John Ralph, Early Childhood, International, and Crosscutting Studies Division 

• Linda Zimbler, Postsecondary Studies Division 

• Jeff Owings, Elementary/Secondary and Libraries Studies Division 

For more information about the survey, contact Bernie Greene, Early Childhood, International, and 

Crosscutting Studies Division, National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research 

and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, e-mail: 

Bernard.Greene@ed.gov, telephone 202–502–7348. 
B-1 

Appendix B 

Survey Instrument 
B-2 
B-3 

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FORM APPROVED 

 NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS O.M.B. NO.: 1850-0757 

 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20208-5651 EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31/2000 

SURVEY ON PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

 AND TRAINING IN U.S. PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 1999-2000 

This survey is authorized by law (P.L. 103-382). While you are not required to respond, your cooperation is needed to make the

results of this survey comprehensive, accurate, and timely. 

LABEL 

PLEASE FILL IN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: 

Name of person completing form:______________________________________ Telephone: ________________________ 

Title/position:_______________________________________________ E-mail: ___________________________________ 

Name of school : __________________________________________________ 

Best days and times to reach you (in case of questions): _______________________________________________________ 

THANK YOU. PLEASE KEEP A COPY OF THIS SURVEY FOR YOUR FILES. 

 PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO: IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONTACT: 

 WESTAT Basmat Parsad at Westat 

 Attention: Parsad, 716617 800-937-8281, ext. 8222 or 301-251-8222 

 1650 Research Boulevard Fax: 1-800-254-0984 

 Rockville, Maryland 20850 E-mail: Parsadb1@westat.com 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB 

control number. The valid OMB control number for this information is 1850-0757. The time required to complete this information collection is 

estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, 

and complete and review the information collected. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for 

improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. If you have comments or concerns regarding 

the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: National Center for Education Statistics, 1990 K Street, N.W., Washington, 

D.C. 20208. 

Form No. 74, 2/2000 
B-4 

1. How do you classify your main assignment at THIS school (i.e., the activity at which you spend most of your time) 

during this school year? (Circle one only.) 

Regular full-time teacher.............................................................................................................................. 1 

Regular part-time teacher............................................................................................................................. 2

Itinerant teacher, but you work more than half of your teaching hours at THIS school 

(i.e., your assignment requires you to provide instruction at more than one school, but you 

work the most hours at this school) .......................................................................................................... 3 

Long-term substitute (i.e., your assignment requires that you fill the role of a regular teacher on 

a long-term basis, but you are still considered a substitute)..................................................................... 4 

Other staff who teach regularly scheduled classes (e.g., administrator, library media specialist 

or librarian, support staff, other professional staff including counselor and social worker)...................... 5 

Other (specify)_______________________________________________________________________ 6 

2. Which best describes the way YOUR classes at this school are organized? (Check one only.) 

Departmentalized instruction (You teach subject matter courses 

(e.g., chemistry, history) to several classes of different students all or 

most of the day.)................................................................................................... 1 

Team teaching in a cluster setting (You collaborate with one or more 

teachers in teaching multiple subjects to more than one class of 

students.).............................................................................................................. 2 

Team teaching in a regular setting (You collaborate with one or more 

teachers in teaching multiple subjects to the same class of students.)................ 3 

Self-contained class (You teach multiple subjects to the same class of 

students all or most of the day.) ........................................................................... 4 

“Pull-out” class (You provide instruction (e.g., special education, reading) 

to certain students who are released from their regular classes.)........................ 5 

3. Considering your most recent FULL WEEK of teaching at THIS school: 

• Record in column A, your main, secondary, and other assignment fields. 

• Record in column B, the total number of classes taught. To calculate the number of classes taught, do NOT 

include homeroom periods, study halls, or classes taught at any other school. If you teach 2 or more classes of 

the same subject (e.g., Chemistry 1) to DIFFERENT GROUPS OF STUDENTS at this school, count them as 

separate classes (e.g., if you teach chemistry to 2 classes of students and physics to 2 classes of students, you 

would report 4 classes of different groups of students). 

• Record in column C, the total number of students enrolled in the classes or sections taught. Count each student 

only once. 

Teaching assignment field A. Teaching 

assignment 

field(s) 

B. Total number of 

classes taught during 

your most recent full 

week of teaching (see 

instruction on how to 

count classes) 

C. Total number of 

students enrolled in the 

classes or sections taught 

during your most recent full 

week of teaching (Count 

each student only once) 

a. MAIN teaching assignment field 

(i.e., the field in which you teach the 

most classes)?.................... ___________ _______________ ______________ 

b. SECONDARY teaching assignment 

field (i.e., the field in which you 

teach the second most classes ) ?.. ___________ _______________ ______________ 

c. OTHER teaching assignment field? ___________ _______________ ______________ 

4. Considering all the students you teach at THIS school:

Yes No 

a. Do you teach students with disabilities or special education students, that is, students 

who have an Individual Education Plan (IEP)? .............................................................. 1 2 

b. Do you teach students with limited English proficiency (i.e., students whose native or 

dominant language is other than English, and who have sufficient difficulty speaking, 

reading, writing, and understanding the English language as to deny them the 

opportunity to learn successfully in an English-speaking-only classroom)? ................. 1 2 

Continue with 

question 3.

Skip to question 4.
B-5 

5. Indicate in column A whether you hold each of the following degree or certificate. For each degree or certificate 

held, record in column B your major and minor fields of study. If you completed more than one degree or 

certificate at a level or had a double major or minor, please provide information for all fields of study at that level. 

A. B. If yes, record your: 

Degree or certificate Yes No Major field(s) of study Minor field(s) of study

(Record all that apply) 

Bachelor’s degree(s)?.................... 1 2 

Postbaccalaureate certificate(s)? .. 1 2 

Master’s degree(s)?....................... 1 2 

Post-master’s certificate(s)? .......... 1 2 

Doctorate degree(s)?..................... 1 2 

Other degree(s)? (specify) 

___________________________ 1 2 

 

6. Considering all of the professional development activities in which you participated during the last 12 months 

(excluding preservice training), in column A, how many total hours, if any, have you spent in activities in which 

the following content areas were a major focus? For any content area that was a major focus of professional 

development activities, indicate in column B, the extent to which you believe it has improved your classroom 

teaching. 

A. Total hours spent B. Improved my teaching 

Content area 0 1-8 9-32 33-80 

More 

than 80 A lot 

Moderately Somewhat Not at 

all 

(Circle one per line.) 

a. Indepth study in the subject area of 

your main teaching assignment .......... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 

b. New methods of teaching 

(e.g., cooperative learning) ................. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 

c. State or district curriculum and 

performance standards ....................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 

d. Integration of educational technology 

in the grade or subject you teach........ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 

e. Student performance assessment 

(e.g., methods of testing, applying 

results to modify instruction) ............... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 

f. Classroom management, including 

student discipline ................................ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 

g. Addressing the needs of students 

from diverse cultural backgrounds...... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 

h. Addressing the needs of students 

with limited English proficiency ........... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 

i. Addressing the needs of students 

with disabilities .................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 

j. Encouraging parent and community 

involvement......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 

k. Other (Please describe.) 

 ______________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 
B-6 

7a. During the last 12 months, did you teach mathematics at any grade level at THIS school? 

Yes............. 1 (Continue with question 7b.)

No .............. 2 (Go to question 8.)

7b. During the last 12 months, did you participate in any professional development activities (excluding preservice 

training) related to your mathematics teaching? (Include any relevant professional development activity reported 

in question 9.) 

Yes............. 1 (Continue with question 7c.)

No .............. 2 (Go to question 8.)

7c. Did the mathematics professional development activities in which you participated in during the last 12 months 

cover any of the following topics? (Circle one per line.) 

 Yes No 

a. Instructional methods in mathematics............................................................ 1 2 

b. Work with state and/or district mathematics content standards..................... 1 2 

c. Study of mathematics content/topics.............................................................. 1 2 

d. Reviewing student work or assessment results in mathematics.................... 1 2 

8. For the professional development activities in which you participated during the last 12 months, to what extent 

does each of the following statements describe your experience? (Circle one per line.) 

Professional development in which I participated has:

To a 

great 

extent

To a 

moderate 

extent

To a 

small 

extent

Not at 

all

a. Been linked to other program improvement activities at my school... 1 2 3 4 

b. Been followed by needed follow-up sessions or additional training... 1 2 3 4 

c. Been followed by school activities in which I help other teachers put 

the new ideas to use........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 

d. Been followed by school administration support in applying what I 

have learned....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 

9. During the last 12 months, how frequently have you participated in the following activities related to teaching? For 

any activity in which you participated, indicate the extent you believe the activity has improved your classroom 

teaching. Include any professional development activities you participated in, but exclude any activities you 

participated in during preservice training. 

Frequency of activities Improved my teaching 

Activity Never 

At least 

once a 

week 

2 to 3 

times a 

month 

Once a 

month 

A few 

times a 

year A lot 

Moderately Somewhat Not at 

all 

(Circle one per line.) 

a. Common planning period for team 

teachers..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 

b. Being mentored by another teacher 

in a formal relationship .............. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 

c. Mentoring another teacher in a 

formal relationship..................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 

d. Networking with teachers outside 

your school ................................ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 

e. Regularly scheduled collaboration 

with other teachers, excluding 

meetings held for administrative 

purposes.................................... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 

f. Individual or collaborative research 

on a topic of interest to you 

professionally ............................ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 

g. Other (please describe) 

_________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 
B-7 

10. How well prepared do you feel to do the following activities in the classroom? (Circle one per line.) 

Very 

well 

prepared 

Moderately 

well 

prepared 

Somewhat 

well 

prepared 

Not 

at all 

prepared 

a. Implement new methods of teaching 

(e.g., cooperative learning)...................................... 1 2 3 4 

b. Implement state or district curriculum and 

performance standards............................................ 1 2 3 4 

c. Integrate educational technology in the grade or 

subject you teach..................................................... 1 2 3 4 

d. Use student performance assessment 

(e.g., methods of testing, applying results to 

modify instruction) ................................................... 1 2 3 4 

e. Maintain order and discipline in the classroom ....... 1 2 3 4 

f. Address the needs of students from diverse 

cultural backgrounds ............................................... 1 2 3 4 

g. Address the needs of students with limited English 

proficiency ............................................................... 1 2 3 4 

h. Address the needs of students with disabilities....... 1 2 3 4 

i. Meet the overall demands of my teaching 

assignments ............................................................ 1 2 3 4 

11. Including this school year, how many years have you been employed as a teacher?_____ At THIS school? 

____ (Include years spent teaching both full and part time, in both public and private schools.) 

12. What grades do you currently teach at this school? (Circle all that apply.) 

PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

THANK YOU. PLEASE KEEP A COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS.