Elementary/Secondary 

School Teaching 

Among Recent

College Graduates:

1994 and 2001

U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2005–161

Statistical Analysis Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
U.S. Department of Education 

Institute of Education Sciences 

NCES 2005–161 

Elementary/Secondary 

School Teaching 

Among Recent 

College Graduates: 

1994 and 2001

Statistical Analysis Report 

July 2005 

Robin R. Henke 

Katharin Peter 

Xiaojie Li 

Sonya Geis 

MPR Associates, Inc. 

James Griffith 

Project Officer 

National Center for 

Education Statistics 
U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary 

Institute of Education Sciences 

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Director 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Grover J. Whitehurst 

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. Unless specifically noted, all information contained herein is 

in the public domain. 

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a 

variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information 

effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would 

like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to: 

 National Center for Education Statistics 

 Institute of Education Sciences 

 U.S. Department of Education 

 1990 K Street NW 

 Washington, DC 20006-5651 

July 2005 

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

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

Suggested Citation 

Henke, R.R., Peter, K., Li, X., and Geis, S. (2005). Elementary/Secondary School Teaching Among Recent 

College Graduates: 1994 and 2001 (NCES 2005–161). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

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

For ordering information on this report, write 

U.S. Department of Education 

ED Pubs 

P.O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398 

or call toll free 1-877-4ED-PUBS 

Content Contact: 

Aurora D’Amico 

(202) 502-7334 

Aurora.D’Amico@ed.gov
iii 

Executive Summary 

New bachelor’s degree recipients represent a 

small but essential component of the U.S. 

elementary/secondary teacher workforce. In 1999–

2000, nearly all (98 percent) of the approximately 

3.4 million K–12 teachers in the United States had 

earned a bachelor’s degree, and of those, about 5 

percent had first earned the degree between 1998 

and 2000.1 As increasing numbers of baby-boomer 

teachers reach retirement age in the coming years 

(National Commission on Teaching and America’s 

Future [NCTAF] 2003), new college graduates 

will continue to be an important source of new 

teachers. Beyond the rate at which new graduates 

enter teaching, their retention—which is 

associated with their professional preparation and 

early teaching experiences (NCTAF 2003)—

concerns educators and policymakers who staff 

the nation’s schools. Moreover, it is important to 

assess interest in teaching among graduates who 

do not teach immediately following bachelor’s 

degree receipt. The proportion of these graduates 

who become teachers later in their working lives 

may strongly affect the effort involved in staffing 

the nation’s schools. 

This study uses data from the 2000/01 

Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study 

(B&B:2000/01), the spring 2001 follow-up of 

bachelor’s degree recipients who were first 

surveyed as part of the 1999–2000 National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000), 

to examine teaching and teaching-related behavior 

among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients as 

 

1U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, “Teacher 

Questionnaires,” 1999–2000, unpublished tabulations. 

of 2001.2 It also compares teaching rates among 

this cohort with those of 1992–93 bachelor’s 

degree recipients as of 1994. 

The analysis uses standard t tests to determine 

statistical significance of differences between 

estimates, and one-way Analysis of Variance 

(ANOVA) to detect trends. All differences 

reported in the text are statistically significant at 

the p<.05 level unless otherwise noted. 

Teaching and Preparation to Teach 

Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree 

Recipients 

In this study, a “teacher” is defined as a 

bachelor’s degree recipient who had taught any of 

grades K–12, except those degree recipients who 

worked only as a substitute teacher (long- or shortterm) or teacher’s aide. Among those who 

received a bachelor’s degree in 1999–2000, 12 

percent had taught in a K–12 school between 

receipt of the degree and the 2001 interview 

(figure A and table 1). This 12 percent of 

graduates includes 9 percent who had state 

certification, 1 percent who had prepared 

(completion of a teacher education program or 

student teaching assignment) but were not 

certified, and 3 percent with neither certification 

nor preparation.3 Another 3 percent of all 

 

2In this analysis, “teaching-related behavior” includes 

working as a teacher’s aide or substitute teacher, having 

considered teaching, and having applied for a teaching 

position. 

3Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 
Executive Summary 

iv 

graduates were certified or had prepared to teach 

but had not taught as of 2001. 

Demographic Characteristics 

Both gender and race/ethnicity were associated 

with graduates’ propensity to teach. As has been 

the case for well over a century (Cremin 1961; 

Tyack 1974), women were more likely than men 

both to have taught and to have prepared to teach. 

Overall, 16 percent of women in this cohort had 

taught by 2001, compared with 8 percent of men 

(table 1). Women were also more likely than men 

to have prepared to teach without having taught by 

2001 (4 percent vs. 2 percent). As has also been 

the case historically (Frankel and Stowe 1990; 

Gray et al. 1993), among 1999–2000 graduates, 

Asian/Pacific Islanders were less likely than their 

Black, White, or Hispanic peers to have taught by 

2001.4 

 

4Black includes African American, Asian/Pacific Islander 

includes Native Hawaiian, and Hispanic includes Latino. 

Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified. 

Figure A.—Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by K–12 teaching status and percentage

Figure A.—of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who taught, by level of teacher preparation: 2001

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal 

Study (B&B:2000/01).

3

85

12

0 20 40 60 80 100

Taught

Had not taught, was

certified or prepared

Had not taught, was neither

certified nor prepared

Percent

9 1 3

0 10 20

Taught

Percent

Taught with certification Taught with preparation, no certification Taught with neither
 Executive Summary 

v 

Undergraduate Academic Experiences 

Teachers’ academic preparation, both in 

general and in the specific fields they teach, has 

been the object of intense interest among 

researchers and policymakers for many years 

(Murnane et al. 1991; NCTAF 1996, 1997, 2003; 

Weaver 1983). Combined with the specter of 

teacher shortages in the early 1990s, ambitions to 

encourage high achieving college graduates to 

teach spurred the development of such programs 

as Teach for America (Decker, Mayer, and 

Glazerman 2004; Raymond, Fletcher, and Luque 

2001). In recent years, legislators addressed this 

issue in the No Child Left Behind Act, which 

requires teachers of core academic subjects to be 

highly qualified in those respective subjects by 

2005–06. 

Other characteristics of teachers’ education and 

qualifications also interest policymakers. For 

example, the attention to teachers’ academic 

achievement and desire to expand the pool of 

potential teachers have also increased researchers’ 

and policymakers’ attention to the role of 

community colleges in the preparation of K–12 

teachers (Blair 2003). 

Institutions Attended 

Between 12 and 13 percent of 1999–2000 

graduates had taught as of 2001 (table 2), 

regardless of the type of institution in which they 

began postsecondary education. However, the type 

of institution from which 1999–2000 graduates 

received the bachelor’s degree was associated 

with whether they had taught by 2001. Graduates 

of non-doctorate-granting institutions (whether 

public or private not-for-profit) were more likely 

than graduates of other types of institutions to 

have taught by 2001 (14–17 percent vs. 11 percent 

or less). 

College Entrance Examination (CEE) 

Scores and Undergraduate Grades 

For at least two decades, policymakers and 

education researchers have stressed the 

importance of improving both the quality of K–12 

teaching and the training/qualifications of those 

who teach the nation’s children. Since the early 

1980s, researchers have noted that college 

graduates who become teachers tend to have lower 

college entrance examination (CEE) scores than 

those who do not become teachers (Henke et al. 

1996; Murnane et al. 1991; Schlecty and Vance 

1983; Weaver 1983). Comparisons of graduates’ 

undergraduate grade point averages (GPAs), 

however, indicate either that there were no 

differences between graduates who later taught at 

the K–12 level and those who did not, or that 

those who later taught had higher GPAs than their 

nonteaching peers (Book, Freeman, and Brousseau 

1985; Frankel and Stowe 1990; Gray et al. 1993; 

Henke et al. 1996). 

These two measures of academic achievement 

were again associated, in opposite directions, with 

1999–2000 graduates’ having taught by 2001. 

Overall, bachelor’s degree recipients who had 

taught were more likely than those who had not 

taught to have CEE scores in the lowest level of 

the CEE score distribution (figure B).5 Graduates’ 

cumulative undergraduate GPAs were positively 

related to having taught, and specifically to having 

been certified and taught. 

 

5However, relatively large proportions (24 to 31 percent) of 

graduates did not have test scores available for analysis. 

Additional analyses, related to these results and discussed in 

the technical appendix, indicate that findings concerning CEE 

scores may be confounded by the large proportions of 

graduates with missing scores. 
Executive Summary 

vi 

Undergraduate Major Field of Study 

Not surprisingly, education majors were more 

likely than graduates who had majored in other 

fields both to have taught, regardless of 

certification or preparation, and to have prepared 

to teach if they had not taught (figure 3 and table 

2). Two-thirds of 1999–2000 graduates who were 

education majors had taught by 2001, and 56 

percent had taught with certification. Another 6 

percent taught with preparation but not 

certification, and 13 percent had prepared but not 

taught as of the 2001 interview. After education 

majors, humanities majors were most likely to 

have taught by 2001 (17 percent), followed by 

social sciences majors (9 percent). 

Teaching-Related Experiences 

Newly qualified teachers who want to obtain a 

teaching position in a desired school or district, or 

to earn a living while looking for a position in 

their field of preparation, may work as a teacher’s 

aide or substitute teacher for some period of time. 

Other graduates may take teacher’s aide or 

substitute teaching positions to earn a living while 

pursuing other careers or to explore teaching as a 

potential career before investing time, money, and 

energy in a formal teacher preparation program. 

Working as a Teacher’s Aide or Substitute 

Teacher 

Among all 1999–2000 graduates, 6 percent had 

worked as a teacher’s aide or substitute teacher as 

of 2001 (table 4). Two percent of 1999–2000 

Figure B.—Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by college entrance examination score level,

Figure B.—by teaching status: 2001

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal 

Study (B&B:2000/01).

17

27

18

33

36

34

18

17

24

31

13

31

0 20 40 60 80 100

Had not taught

Taught

Total

Percent

Lowest level Middle level Highest level Did not take test or

score not reported
 Executive Summary 

vii 

graduates had done so in order to gain a 

permanent teaching position. Among graduates 

who had not taught, those who had prepared to 

teach were far more likely than those who had not 

to have worked as a teacher’s aide or substitute 

teacher. Of the 3 percent of all graduates who had 

prepared or were certified to teach but had not 

taught as of 2001 (figure A and table 1), one-half 

had worked as a teacher’s aide or substitute 

teacher (tables 4 and 5). Twenty-eight percent of 

them did so to gain a permanent teaching position. 

In comparison, graduates who had not taught and 

neither prepared to teach nor become certified 

were far less likely to have worked as an aide or 

substitute or to have done so to gain a permanent 

position: 3 percent had worked in such a capacity, 

and less than 1 percent had done so to gain a 

permanent teaching position. 

Considering Teaching and Applying for 

Teaching Positions 

Among graduates who had not taught as of 

2001, 37 percent had considered teaching (table 

6). Bachelor’s degree recipients who had not 

taught as of 2001, but who were certified, had 

otherwise prepared to teach, or had considered 

teaching were asked whether they had applied for 

a teaching position since completing their degree. 

Of this group, 9 percent had applied for a teaching 

position. Among those who were certified or 

otherwise prepared to teach but had not taught, 43 

percent had applied. Among those who had only 

considered teaching, 7 percent had applied.6 

 

6Those who had not taught but had applied for teaching jobs 

may not have received offers for teaching jobs or may have 

declined all offers received. 

Teaching Experiences of Those Who Had 

Taught 

Although new college graduates’ attrition from 

teaching is no more frequent than their attrition 

from other occupations held within the first year 

of completing the bachelor’s degree (Henke and 

Zahn 2001), from the perspectives of some 

education policymakers and administrators, the 

attrition of new teachers remains a concern 

(Ingersoll 2001; NCTAF 2003). Improving new 

teachers’ experiences in their first few years in the 

classroom is believed to be key to retaining more 

teachers (NCTAF 2003; National Governor’s 

Association 2000; Veenman 1984). 

Characteristics of First Teaching Jobs 

After 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree 

Among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree 

recipients who had taught as of 2001, 91 percent 

had taught in a public school and 9 percent in a 

private school in their first teaching job after 

receiving the bachelor’s degree (table 8). 

Compared with all 1999–2000 teachers and with 

1999–2000 teachers with less than 3 years of 

experience, 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree 

recipients were more likely to have taught in 

public schools.7

Among graduates who taught after completing 

the 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree, about two-thirds 

first did so in elementary schools, 30 percent in 

secondary schools, and 4 percent in combined 

schools (schools that combine elementary and 

secondary grades) (table 9). Among all U.S. 

teachers in 1999–2000, 63 percent taught in 

 

7U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, “Teacher 

Questionnaires,” 1999–2000, unpublished tabulations. 
Executive Summary 

viii 

elementary schools, 31 percent in secondary 

schools, and 6 percent in combined schools.8 

Teachers reported all of the subjects that they 

had taught in the first teaching job they held after 

receiving the bachelor’s degree. About 30 percent 

taught elementary or early childhood education; 

about one-fourth taught English, reading, or 

writing; about one-fifth taught mathematics; 17 

percent taught science; and 15 percent taught 

social studies or history (tables 10a–b).9 Eight 

percent or less taught each of several other 

subjects.10

Most graduates were certified in the subjects 

they had taught in their first teaching jobs after 

receiving the 1999–2000 degree. Eighty-five 

percent of those who had taught elementary or 

early childhood education classes—in which a 

teacher teaches multiple subjects to the same 

group of students for all or most of the school 

day—were certified in elementary or early 

childhood education (figure C). The proportion of 

teachers who taught the core subjects of 

English/reading/writing, mathematics, science, 

and social studies/history and were certified in 

those respective subjects ranged from 74 to 80 

percent. 

 

8U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, “Teacher 

Questionnaires,” 1999–2000, unpublished tabulations. 

9School level and teaching field are correlated to a limited 

degree. Teachers in elementary schools may teach specific 

subjects (e.g., mathematics, science, reading, art, PE, etc.) or 

specific populations (e.g., special education students, LEP 

students, bilingual/ESL classes, etc.). In addition, the 

definition of elementary level schools includes schools that 

serve grades six through eight, many of which have 

departmentalized organization. 

10Total sums to more than 100 percent because some 

graduates taught more than one subject. 

Satisfaction and Support in Most Recent 

Teaching Jobs 

Graduates who taught were asked to indicate 

whether they were very satisfied, somewhat 

satisfied, or not satisfied with seven aspects of 

their most recent teaching jobs. About three-fifths 

were very satisfied with the support they received 

from their school’s administration (table 11). 

More than one-half (56 percent) of teachers 

among 1999–2000 graduates were very satisfied 

with their school’s learning environment, and onehalf were very satisfied with their class size. 

Graduates were least likely to be very satisfied 

with society’s perception of the teaching 

profession: whereas 16 percent were very satisfied 

with this aspect of teaching, one-third or more 

were very satisfied with each of the other aspects 

of teaching. 

Graduates who had most recently taught in 

private schools were more likely than those who 

had most recently taught in public schools to be 

very satisfied with all seven aspects of teaching 

included in the interview. The level of the school 

in which they most recently taught was associated 

with teachers’ satisfaction with some aspects of 

their jobs. New teachers who most recently taught 

at an elementary school were more likely than 

those who most recently taught at a secondary 

school to report that they were very satisfied with 

student motivation, the school’s learning 

environment, student behavior, and class size. 

Between 73 and 83 percent of graduates agreed 

that the school in which they had most recently 

taught was effective in helping new teachers with 

four aspects of teaching: student discipline, 

instruction, curriculum, and adjusting to the 

school environment (table 12). Graduates who had 

most recently taught in public schools were less 

likely than their peers in private schools to agree 

that their schools effectively helped new 
 Executive Summary 

ix 

teachers with discipline and instruction. Whereas 

four-fifths (82 percent) of those who had most 

recently taught in elementary schools believed 

their schools were effective in helping new 

teachers with instruction, three-fourths (74 

percent) of those who had most recently taught in 

secondary schools did so. As the percentage of 

minority students in the school rose, the 

proportion of teachers who agreed that their 

schools were effective in helping new teachers 

with discipline, curriculum, and adjusting to the 

school environment declined. 

It is important to note that teachers’ responses 

indicate their perceptions of the help provided to 

new teachers. Previous research indicates that 

teachers in high-minority enrollment schools 

differ from teachers in lower-minority enrollment 

schools in a number of ways, some of which may 

be related to teachers’ perceptions of the support 

they receive and to their need for support. For 

example, teachers in urban or high-minority 

enrollment schools are often less experienced and 

less qualified than teachers in other schools 

(Lankford, Loeb, and Wyckoff 2002; NCTAF 

1996). Such teachers may feel the need for support 

more strongly than other teachers. 

Figure C.—Percentage of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were certified in the subjects taught in

Figure C.—their first teaching job after receiving the 1999–2000 degree, by subject: 2001

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).

47

62

63

68

74

76

76

80

83

85

0 20 40 60 80 100

Vocational/occupational education

Health/physical education

Foreign languages

Art/music/drama

Science

English/reading/writing

Mathematics

Social studies/history

Special education

Elementary/early childhood education

Percent
Executive Summary 

x 

Comparisons With 1992–93 

Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

The percentage of bachelor’s degree recipients 

who had taught in a K–12 school within about a 

year of receiving a bachelor’s degree increased 

from 10 percent to 12 percent between 1994 and 

2001 (table 13). This increase occurred primarily 

among graduates who were certified to teach: in 

1994, some 7 percent of graduates had taught with 

certification, 1 percent with preparation but no 

certification, and 2 percent with neither 

certification nor preparation, compared with 9 

percent, 1 percent, and 3 percent, respectively, in 

2001.11 The increase in certified teachers among 

recent bachelor’s degree recipients was 

accompanied by a decrease in the proportion who 

had prepared to teach but had not taught within a 

year of completing the bachelor’s degree. In 1994, 

some 5 percent of 1992–93 graduates had 

prepared to teach but not yet taught, whereas in 

2001, some 3 percent of 1999–2000 graduates had 

done so. 

This increase in the likelihood of teaching 

occurred among both men and women and among 

Whites. Among Black bachelor’s degree 

recipients, the proportion who had taught 

increased from 9 percent in 1994 to 13 percent in 

2001 and the proportion who taught with 

certification increased from 4 percent to 8 percent 

in the same time period. Teaching status 1 year 

after receiving a bachelor’s degree appeared to 

have changed over time among American 

Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, 

Hispanic, or graduates of other racial/ethnic 

groups. However, these estimates were associated 

with large standard errors, due to small samples, 

and the apparent differences were not statistically 

significant. 

 

11Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

Graduates were less likely to have prepared to 

teach but not taught in 2001 than in 1994 

regardless of the type of postsecondary institution 

they first attended (table 14). In addition, 

graduates who began postsecondary education in 

private not-for-profit or public 4-year institutions 

were more likely to have taught overall and with 

certification in 2001 than in 1994. Graduates who 

received their degrees from public 4-year nondoctorate-granting institutions were more likely to 

have taught overall and with certification in 2001 

than in 1994, and they were less likely to have 

prepared to teach but not taught. 

Graduates with CEE scores in the lowest and 

middle levels of the CEE score distribution were 

more likely to have taught overall and with 

certification in 2001 than in 1994. Furthermore, 

1999–2000 graduates with scores in the lowest 

level were less likely than their 1992–93 

counterparts to have neither prepared nor taught 

(77 percent vs. 82 percent) within a year of 

completing their degrees. 

Similarly, graduates whose cumulative 

undergraduate GPAs fell between 2.75 and 3.74 

were more likely to have taught overall and with 

certification in 2001 than in 1994. In addition, 

graduates whose GPAs were 2.75 or higher were 

less likely to have prepared but not taught in 2001 

than in 1994. 

Graduates who had majored in education, the 

humanities, and the social sciences were more 

likely to have taught overall and with certification 

in 2001 compared with 1994. In addition, whereas 

one-fourth of 1992–93 graduates with education 

majors had prepared to teach but not taught as of 

1994, 13 percent of 1999–2000 graduates had 

done so as of 2001. 
xi 

Foreword 

This report examines elementary/secondary teaching and teaching-related behavior among 

college graduates who received a bachelor’s degree from U.S. postsecondary institutions in 

academic year 1999–2000.1 It is based on data from the 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01), a spring 2001 follow-up of bachelor’s degree recipients 

from the 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000). This is the 

second Baccalaureate and Beyond cohort that has been surveyed by the National Center for 

Education Statistics. The first study examined 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients from the 

1992–93 NPSAS, with follow-ups in 1994, 1997, and 2003. 

This report discusses teaching in elementary and secondary schools, preparing to teach at 

the elementary/secondary level, and considering teaching among 1999–2000 college graduates as 

of 2001 (i.e., within about a year of completing the bachelor’s degree). It examines whether 

graduates who differed in demographic characteristics (gender and race/ethnicity) and 

undergraduate academic characteristics (types of institutions attended, college entrance 

examination scores, undergraduate grade point averages, and major fields of study) also differed 

in terms of teaching and teaching-related behaviors as of 2001. The report also compares 

teaching and teaching-related behaviors of the 1999–2000 cohort as of 2001 with those of the 

1992–93 cohort as of 1994. 

The estimates presented in the report were produced using the Data Analysis System 

(DAS), a microcomputer application that allows users to specify and generate tables for the 

B&B:2000/01 study. The DAS produces the design-adjusted standard errors necessary for testing 

the statistical significance of differences in the estimates. For more information about the DAS, 

readers should consult appendix B of this report. 

 

1 In this analysis, “teaching-related behavior” includes working as a teacher’s aide or substitute teacher, having considered 

teaching, and having applied for a teaching position. 
xii 

Acknowledgments 

The authors extend their thanks to all who contributed to the production of this report. At 

MPR Associates, the report was edited and produced by Barbara Kridl, Patti Gildersleeve, 

Andrea Livingston, Wes Nations, Francesca Tussing, and Annabelle Yang. Ellen Liebman and 

Joanna Wu provided considerable programming assistance. We appreciate the technical and 

moral support of Ellen Bradburn. 

We are also grateful for the helpful input provided by those who reviewed the report. The 

report was begun under the direction of Andrew G. Malizio as NCES program director, who 

provided considerable feedback regarding variable creation and the outline of the report. We 

appreciate the thoughtful reviews of other NCES staff, including Stephen P. Broughman, C. 

Dennis Carroll, James Griffith, Tracy Hunt-White, Paula Knepper, and Marilyn McMillen 

Seastrom. Robin Gurley, Michael Planty, and Gerard Rainville of the Education Statistics 

Services Institute reviewed the report and provided helpful comments. David A. Bergeron of the 

Office of Postsecondary Education reviewed the report, as did Antoinette Mitchell of the 

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education and Dawn Terkla of Tufts University. 

Lisa Bridges of the Institute of Education Sciences and two anonymous reviewers also read the 

report. We appreciate their ideas and suggestions. 
xiii 

Table of Contents 

Page 

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

Foreword.................................................................................................................................... xi

Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................... xii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. xiv

List of Figures............................................................................................................................ xvi

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

Data and Methodology .......................................................................................................... 2 

Organization of the Report.................................................................................................... 4 

Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients..... 5

Demographic Characteristics ................................................................................................ 5 

Undergraduate Academic Experiences.................................................................................. 7 

Teaching-Related Experiences.............................................................................................. 15 

Teaching Experiences of Those Who Had Taught................................................................ 26 

Comparisons With 1992–93 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients................................................... 41

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................. 47

References.................................................................................................................................. 51

Appendix A—Glossary ............................................................................................................. 59

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology .................................................................. 75 
xiv 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

Text 

1 Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by K–12 

teaching status, by gender and race/ethnicity: 2001 ........................................................ 7 

2 Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by K–12 

teaching status, by selected undergraduate academic characteristics: 2001.................... 10 

3 Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by undergraduate 

major field of study, by teaching status and level of school at which first taught after 

receiving the bachelor’s degree: 2001............................................................................. 14 

4 Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients, percentage who had worked as a 

teacher’s aide or substitute teacher and percentage who had done so in order to gain a 

permanent teaching position, by teaching status: 2001................................................... 16 

5 Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had not taught, percentage who had 

worked as a teacher’s aide or substitute teacher and percentage who had done so in 

order to gain a permanent teaching position, by selected characteristics: 2001.............. 17 

6 Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had not taught, percentage who had 

only considered teaching; of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had not 

taught but had at least considered teaching, percentage who had applied for a teaching 

position, by selected characteristics: 2001 ..................................................................... 20 

7 Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had not taught as of 2001 interview 

but had at least considered teaching, percentage who did not apply for teaching 

position; of those, percentage who did not apply for various reasons, by selected 

characteristics: 2001........................................................................................................ 23 

8 Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had taught as of 2001, percentage 

distribution by sector of school of first teaching job after receiving the 1999–2000 

degree, by selected characteristics: 2001......................................................................... 28 

9 Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had taught as of 2001, percentage 

distribution by level of school of first teaching job after receiving the 1999–2000 

degree, by selected characteristics: 2001......................................................................... 30 
List of Tables 

xv 

Table Page 

10a Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had taught as of 2001, percentage 

who taught various subjects in first teaching job after receiving the 1999–2000 

degree, by selected characteristics: 2001......................................................................... 32 

10b Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had taught as of 2001, percentage 

who taught various subjects in first teaching job after receiving the 1999–2000 

degree, by selected characteristics: 2001......................................................................... 34 

11 Among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had taught as of 2001, 

percentage who were very satisfied with various aspects of teaching in their current or 

most recent teaching job after receiving the 1999–2000 degree, by selected 

characteristics of that job: 2001 ...................................................................................... 38 

12 Among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had taught as of 2001, 

percentage who agreed that the schools in which they taught in their current or most 

recent teaching job helped them with various aspects of teaching, by selected 

characteristics of that job: 2001 ...................................................................................... 40 

13 Percentage distribution of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by 

K–12 teaching status, by gender and race/ethnicity: 1994 and 2001 .............................. 42 

14 Percentage distribution of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by 

K–12 teaching status, by selected undergraduate academic characteristics: 1994 and 

2001 ................................................................................................................................ 43

Appendix B 

B-1 Standard errors for table 14: Percentage distribution of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 

bachelor’s degree recipients by K–12 teaching status, by selected undergraduate 

academic characteristics: 1994 and 2001 ........................................................................ 79 

B-2 Variables with response rates less than 85 percent ......................................................... 82
xvi 

List of Figures 

Figure Page 

Executive Summary 

A Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by K–12 teaching 

status and percentage of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who taught, by level 

of teacher preparation: 2001............................................................................................ iv 

B Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by college entrance 

examination score level, by teaching status: 2001 .......................................................... vi 

C Percentage of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were certified in the 

subjects taught in their first teaching job after receiving the 1999–2000 degree, by 

subject: 2001 ................................................................................................................... ix

Text 

1 Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by K–12 teaching 

status and percentage of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who taught, by level 

of teacher preparation: 2001............................................................................................ 6 

2 Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by college entrance 

examination score level, by teaching status: 2001 .......................................................... 12 

3 Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by teaching status, 

by undergraduate major field of study: 2001................................................................... 13 

4 Percentage of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were certified in the 

subjects taught in their first teaching job after receiving the 1999–2000 degree, by 

subject: 2001 ................................................................................................................... 37 
1 

Introduction 

The potential for volatility in the labor market for elementary/secondary schoolteachers in 

the United States has been readily apparent in the past few years. Newspapers across the country 

have published accounts of elementary/secondary teacher shortages (Associated Press 2003; 

Booth 2002; Coeyman 2001; Coleman 2001; Ross 2001; Sack 2001; Schulhofer-Wohl 2001; 

Schulhofer-Wohl and Hetzner 2001; Seymour 2001). Whether attributed to high rates of attrition 

among new teachers, larger enrollments, or programs to reduce class size, such articles note that 

many school districts find staffing classrooms with trained teachers to be a significant challenge. 

Reported shortages often occur in specific subject areas—bilingual education, special education, 

mathematics, and science—that are harder to staff regardless of the overall teacher supply 

(Kuchera 2002; Lindelof 2003; Melendez and Go 2002; Rossi and Grossman 2002). Schools that 

serve high proportions of low-income, low-achieving, or racial/ethnic minority students have 

difficulty attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers (Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin 2004). 

Almost simultaneously, newspapers have also reported that substantial proportions of 

teachers in many districts have faced the possibility of layoffs in recent years, attributing these 

layoffs to state and local budget shortfalls in the wake of a more slowly growing national 

economy (Banchero and Sherlock 2003; Murphy 2003; Rado and Keilman 2003). In at least 

some districts, news reports indicate that the teachers most recently hired are the first to be laid 

off (Walsh and Nixon 2004). Administrators in these districts have been reported to speculate 

that laid off teachers who find jobs in other industries may not return to teaching once state and 

local governments’ fiscal crises ease and the demand for teachers again rises (Walsh and Nixon 

2004). 

New bachelor’s degree recipients represent a small but essential component of the U.S. 

elementary/secondary teacher workforce. In 1999–2000, nearly all (98 percent) of the 

approximately 3.4 million K–12 teachers in the United States had earned a bachelor’s degree, and 

of those with a bachelor’s degree, approximately 5 percent had first earned a bachelor’s between 

1998 and 2000.1 Approximately 11 percent of all teachers had less than 3 years of teaching 

 

1U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, “Teacher 

Questionnaires,” 1999–2000, unpublished tabulations. 
Introduction 

2 

experience in 1999–2000.2 Thus, new college graduates made up about one-half of all new 

teachers. 

As increasing numbers of baby-boomer teachers are expected to reach retirement age in the 

coming years, new college graduates will continue to be an important source of new teachers 

(National Commission for Teaching and America’s Future [NCTAF] 2003). Beyond new 

graduates’ rate of entry into the profession, their potential for retention, which is affected by their 

levels of preparation and early teaching experiences, is of significant interest to educators and 

policymakers responsible for staffing the nation’s schools (NCTAF 2003). Moreover, it is 

important to assess interest in teaching among graduates who do not teach immediately following 

bachelor’s degree receipt. The proportion of these graduates who become teachers later in their 

working lives may strongly affect the ease with which the nation’s schools are staffed. 

Data and Methodology 

This report uses data collected as part of the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal 

Studies (B&B) in 1994 and 2001 to examine teaching, preparation to teach, and other steps taken 

toward a teaching career by 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients. All 

participants in the B&B studies were first interviewed as part of the respective National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Studies, which were conducted in 1992–93 and 1999–2000 

(NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:2000). The earlier B&B cohort was interviewed again in 1994, and the 

later one in 2001 (B&B:93/94 and 2000/01).3 For most respondents, the B&B interview took 

place approximately 1 year after they graduated, but the time frame was somewhat longer for 

those who graduated early in the academic year. For convenience, the terms “a year later” or 

“after a year” are used in this report, although the actual time frame is not exactly 12 months for 

all graduates. 

The NPSAS studies sampled about 1,100 institutions. Each sampled institution provided a 

list of its students, and from these lists of students, a nationally representative sample of all 

students enrolled in postsecondary education institutions, including undergraduate, graduate, and 

first-professional students, was derived. Each NPSAS sample of undergraduates represents more 

than 16 million undergraduates who were enrolled at some time between July 1 and June 30 of 

the respective survey year. The sampling frames for NPSAS were built from the Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data Systems Institutional Characteristics (IPEDS-IC) file for 1990–91 

and 1998–99, respectively. 

 

2U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, “Teacher 

Questionnaires,” 1999–2000, unpublished tabulations. 

3The 1992–93 cohort was also interviewed in 1997 and 2003, but these data are not analyzed here. 
Introduction 

3 

From the lists of students provided by sampled institutions, about 12,500 students were 

selected for participation in the B&B sample in 1992–93 and 11,600 students in 1999–2000. Of 

the sampled students, approximately 10,000 students completed interviews in each first followup data collection. Students who, during the B&B interview or from transcripts, were determined 

not to have earned a bachelor’s degree during the relevant academic year (of whom there were 

760 in 1992–93 and 70 in 1999–2000) were excluded from the final sample. The unweighted 

response rate for B&B:93/94 was 92 percent (the weighted response rate was not reported) and 

the overall weighted response rate for B&B:2000/01 was 74 percent. The data presented in this 

report cover the 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The bachelor’s degree 

recipients interviewed in each study represent the approximately 1.2 million bachelor’s degree 

completers in each of the 2 years. 

Thus far, analyses of the 1992–93 cohort’s teaching experiences (Henke, Chen, and Geis 

2000; Henke et al. 1996) have focused on graduates’ location within a hypothetical teacher 

pipeline. However, because the 2001 follow-up of 1999–2000 college graduates differs from the 

1994 data collection in several ways, this report discusses graduates’ status vis-a-vis 

elementary/secondary teaching somewhat differently in order to facilitate comparisons over 

time.4 In this report graduates’ teaching status is defined in terms of both 

• whether they had taught (not including working as a substitute teacher or teacher’s 

aide), and 

• whether they had a) become certified to teach or b) prepared to teach (that is, 

completed a teacher education program or a student teaching assignment) but not yet 

been certified. 

Public schools and districts must hire state-certified teachers, even if that teacher has only 

an emergency certification or waiver when hired. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, only 

highly qualified teachers may teach in public schools that receive specified federal categorical 

funds (e.g., Title I funds) if the schools are to retain their federal funding. States regulate teacher 

certification, and there is enormous variation among states in the degree, course, and assessment 

requirements for all levels of teacher certification (U.S. Department of Education 2004). In 2001, 

for example, California teachers were required to major in a content area, not in education, as 

undergraduates and could not obtain initial certification without a fifth year (that is, 1 year 

beyond the traditional 4-year bachelor’s degree) of postsecondary education focused on 

professional training in teaching (U.S. Department of Education 2001). In other states, initial 

certification is available with a bachelor’s degree in education only. In addition to requirements 

for formal education or training, some states require teaching or other related experience before 

 

4Details concerning the differences between the two datasets are discussed in appendix B. 
Introduction 

4 

awarding teaching certificates to new teachers, and the amount and type of experience required 

varies among states (U.S. Department of Education 2001). 

Given the nature of and variation in some state requirements for teacher certification, 

graduates’ probability of being certified to teach within a year of completing a first bachelor’s 

degree may vary with the state in which they reside or teach. Differences among states in 

requirements for certification may lead to state-by-state variation in graduates’ perceptions of the 

difficulty of becoming certified to teach. Such differences in graduates’ perceptions could 

influence their decisionmaking regarding whether to pursue a certificate before teaching in a 

private school (where certificates are not required by the state). Thus, state policies, as well as 

individual graduates’ personal inclinations, may affect their teaching status within a year after 

completing a bachelor’s degree. 

The analysis uses standard t tests to determine statistical significance of differences 

between estimates, and one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to detect trends. All differences 

noted are statistically significant at the p<.05 level. When relevant to the discussion, the report 

points out apparent differences that do not reach statistical significance. More details regarding 

the data, definitions of variables, and statistical techniques used are available in the appendices to 

this report. 

Organization of the Report 

The report discusses teaching among recent college graduates in two major sections. The 

first section begins by describing the demographic and undergraduate academic characteristics of 

1999–2000 baccalaureate degree recipients who taught and/or prepared to teach by 2001. The 

section then examines how the characteristics of graduates differ with teaching status. It 

continues by discussing graduates’ teaching-related experiences: working as a teacher’s aide or 

substitute teacher, having considered teaching, and having applied for teaching. It concludes by 

discussing the teaching experiences of graduates who taught. 

The second section of the report compares the teaching status of 1999–2000 graduates in 

2001 with that of 1992–93 graduates in 1994. Differences between the cohorts are compared both 

in the aggregate and within subgroups defined by demographic and undergraduate academic 

characteristics. Appendix A presents definitions of the variables used in the analysis and 

appendix B discusses the B&B:2000/01 data in greater detail as well as the methodology used in 

the analysis. 
5 

Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 

Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

Working as an educator was common among 1999–2000 graduates: at the time of the 2001 

interview, 18 percent of graduates who were working described their occupation as “educator,” a 

proportion exceeded only by the proportion who worked in business or management (Bradburn et 

al. 2003). However, “educator” was defined broadly, including those who taught at the preschool 

and postsecondary levels, educators who worked in nonschool settings (e.g, private music 

teachers, religious educators associated with places of worship), instructional aides, substitute 

teachers, as well as those who taught any of grades K–12 in an elementary, middle, secondary, or 

combined school. Defining “teacher” more narrowly, as those who taught any of grades K–12 

excluding instructional aides and long- and short-term substitute teachers, 12 percent of 

graduates had taught in a K–12 school at some point between receiving the 1999–2000 

bachelor’s degree and the 2001 interview (figure 1 and table 1). This 12 percent of graduates 

includes 9 percent with state certification, 1 percent with preparation but no certification, and 3 

percent with neither certification nor preparation.5 Another 3 percent of all graduates were 

certified or had prepared to teach but had not taught. 

Demographic Characteristics 

Elementary/secondary students and teachers have differed from each other in terms of 

gender and race/ethnicity for decades. Two-thirds of public elementary/secondary school teachers 

were women in 1976, 69 percent were women in 1986, and 79 percent were women in 2001 

(Snyder, Tan, and Hoffman 2004). Although the population of elementary/secondary level 

students has become increasingly diverse in the last 25 years in terms of race/ethnicity, 

elementary and secondary school teachers are, and have been for some time, largely White. In 

1976, three-quarters of public elementary/secondary school students were White (Grant and 

Eiden 1980). By 1986, the percentage who were White had declined to 70 percent (Snyder and 

Hoffman 2003), and by 2001, 60 percent of elementary/secondary school children and youth 

were White (Snyder, Tan, and Hoffman 2004). Among public school teachers, in 1976, some 91 

 

5Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. For the purpose of this analysis, teachers were defined as having been 

certified if they had received advanced, regular, or probationary certification. Those with emergency or temporary certificates

were not defined as certified. 
Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

6 

percent were White, in 1986, some 90 percent were White, and in 1999–2000, approximately 84 

percent were White (Snyder and Hoffman 2003).6 

As has been the case for well over a century (Cremin 1961; Tyack 1974), among 1999–

2000 college graduates, women were more likely than men to have taught and to have prepared 

to teach. Overall, 16 percent of women in this cohort had taught by 2001, compared with 8 

percent of men (table 1). Furthermore, women were more likely than men to have taught 

 

6 Estimate for 1999–2000 obtained from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and 

Staffing Survey, “Teacher Questionnaires,” 1999–2000, unpublished tabulations. 

Figure 1.—Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by K–12 teaching status

Figure 1.—and percentage of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who taught, by level of teacher

Figure 1.—preparation: 2001

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).

3

85

12

0 20 40 60 80 100

Taught

Had not taught, was

certified or prepared

Had not taught, was neither

certified nor prepared

Percent

9 1 3

0 10 20

Taught

Percent

Taught with certification Taught with preparation, no certification Taught with neither
 Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

7 

regardless of certification or preparation. Women were also more likely than men to have 

prepared to teach without having taught by 2001 (4 percent compared with 2 percent). 

As has also been the case historically (Frankel and Stowe 1990; Gray et al. 1993), among 

1999–2000 graduates, Asian/Pacific Islanders were less likely than their Black, White, or 

Hispanic peers to have taught or to have prepared to teach by 2001.7 Although it appears that 

Hispanic graduates were more likely than all other racial/ethnic groups to have taught by 2001, 

the Hispanic sample was small and associated standard errors were large and these apparent 

differences were not significant. 

Undergraduate Academic Experiences 

Teachers’ academic preparation, both in general and in the specific fields they teach, has 

been the object of intense interest among researchers and policymakers for many years (Murnane 

et al. 1991; NCTAF 1996, 1997, 2003; Weaver 1983). Combined with the specter of teacher 

 

7Black includes African American, Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and Hispanic includes Latino. Race 

categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified. 

Table 1.—Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by K–12 teaching status,

Table 1.—by gender and race/ethnicity: 2001

Neither Neither

Prepared, certified Certified certified

but not nor or nor

Selected characteristics Total Certified certified prepared Total prepared prepared

 Total 12.2 8.5 1.2 2.6 87.8 2.9 84.9

Gender

 Male 7.6 5.2 0.5 1.8 92.5 2.1 90.4

 Female 15.7 11.0 1.6 3.1 84.3 3.6 80.7

Race/ethnicity

1

 American Indian 7.4 6.0 1.4 # 92.6 6.0 86.6

 Asian/Pacific Islander 2.4 1.0 0.4 1.1 97.6 1.6 95.9

 Black 12.9 7.8 1.0 4.1 87.1 3.2 83.9

 White 12.4 9.2 1.0 2.2 87.6 3.0 84.6

 Other 6.7 3.7 0.7 2.3 93.3 2.5 90.8

 Hispanic 18.8 9.8 3.5 5.5 81.2 2.9 78.3

# Rounds to zero.

1

American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, 

and Hispanic includes Latino. Other includes multiple races. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).

Taught Had not taught
Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

8 

shortages in the early 1990s, ambitions to encourage high achieving college graduates to teach 

spurred the development of such programs as Teach for America (Decker, Mayer, and Glazerman 

2004; Raymond, Fletcher, and Luque 2001). In recent years, legislators addressed this issue in the 

No Child Left Behind Act, which requires teachers of core academic subjects to be highly 

qualified in those respective subjects by 2005–06. Thus, the undergraduate academic experiences 

of graduates, and whether they differ with teaching status, are important issues for educators and 

policymakers. This section presents estimates of the proportion of graduates who pursued 

teaching in terms of the types of postsecondary institutions they attended, their achievement as 

measured by their college entrance examination (CEE) scores and grade point averages (GPAs), 

and the fields of study in which they majored as undergraduates. 

Institutions Attended 

College graduates begin and complete their undergraduate education in types of institutions 

that vary enormously in terms of their mission, the student populations they serve, their revenue 

sources, and so on. Institutions that typically do not grant 4-year degrees, including community 

colleges and private junior colleges or vocational/technical schools, are to a large degree oriented 

toward preparing students for the labor market or for completion of a 4-year degree at another 

institution. Public and private 4-year institutions vary in, among other characteristics, the degree 

to which faculty focus on teaching or research and the types of degrees they grant (e.g., 

doctorate-granting versus non-doctorate-granting). 

Given the teacher shortages experienced in the past decade and increased attention to 

teachers’ academic preparation, the role of community colleges in the preparation of K–12 

teachers has received increasing attention among researchers and policymakers (National Science 

Foundation 1998; Recruiting New Teachers 2002; SERVE 2000; Townsend and Ignash 2003). In 

more than 20 states, community colleges offer teacher education programs at the associate’s, and 

a few at the bachelor’s, degree level (Blair 2003). Furthermore, the prevalence of community 

college attendance among college graduates in general—20 percent of all 1999–2000 bachelor’s 

degree recipients first enrolled in a public 2-year institution (Bradburn et al. 2003)—has led 

educators and policymakers to pay greater attention to the role of nearly all community colleges 

in preparing K–12 teachers. Bachelor’s degree recipients who begin in 2-year institutions 

typically complete many of their required general education courses in those institutions before 

transferring to a 4-year institution to complete their major field of study requirements. Thus, 

especially for elementary grade teachers, much of their undergraduate-level education in 

academic subjects may be undertaken in community colleges. 
 Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

9 

In fact, bachelor’s degree recipients who had begun their postsecondary education in a lessthan-4-year institution were as likely as other graduates to have taught in the first year after 

completing the bachelor’s degree. Among bachelor’s degree recipients who began postsecondary 

education at a 2-year institution, 13 percent taught during the first year after obtaining a 

bachelor’s degree (table 2). Similarly, 12 percent of individuals who began at 4-year public and 

private not-for-profit institutions taught in the first postbaccalaureate year. 

At some point in their history, many public universities began as, or merged with, normal 

schools or teachers’ colleges, that is, institutions dedicated to the preparation of elementary and, 

to some degree, secondary school teachers (Altenbaugh and Underwood 1990; Herbst 1989). 

Therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that the type of institution from which graduates received 

their bachelor’s degrees was associated with whether they had taught by 2001. Graduates of nondoctorate-granting institutions (whether public or private not-for-profit) were more likely than 

graduates of other types of institutions to have taught by 2001 (14–17 percent compared with 11 

percent or less). 

College Entrance Examination (CEE) Scores and Undergraduate Grades 

For at least two decades, policymakers and education researchers have stressed the 

importance of improving both the quality of K–12 teaching and the training and qualifications of 

those who teach the nation’s children (Education Commission of the States 1983; Holmes Group 

1986; NCTAF 1996, 1997, 2003; National Commission on Excellence in Education 1983). In 

particular, teachers’ academic achievement has been associated, in some research, with their 

students’ academic achievement (e.g., Ehrenberg and Brewer 1995; Wayne and Youngs 2003). 

Two measures of teachers’ academic achievement that have been used are their college entrance 

examination (CEE) scores and undergraduate grade point averages (GPAs). 

Each of these measures has advantages and disadvantages as an indicator of what teachers, 

or other college graduates, know and are able to do. CEEs measure entering postsecondary 

students’ academic skill levels. These scores are of limited utility as measures of college 

graduates’ achievement because these examinations are taken before graduates’ postsecondary 

enrollment (or at least before their enrollment in a 4-year-institution). However, these scores 

provide the only measure of graduates’ academic skills on a common metric. In contrast to CEE 

scores, GPAs are more contemporary measures of graduates’ academic performance, but are not 

standardized among or within institutions. In addition, they are known to vary among graduates 

who major in different fields of study, and graduates’ propensity to teach is also related to 

undergraduate major (Henke et al. 1996). Despite their limitations as measures of graduates’ 

academic achievement, and in the absence of a valid and commonly taken measure of academic 
Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

10 

Table 2.—Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by K–12 teaching status,

Table 2.—by selected undergraduate academic characteristics: 2001

Neither Neither

Prepared, certified Certified certified

but not nor or nor

Selected characteristics Total Certified certified prepared Total prepared prepared

 Total 12.2 8.5 1.2 2.6 87.8 2.9 84.9

First institution type

1

 Public 2-year 13.1 9.3 1.4 2.4 86.9 3.2 83.8

 Public 4-year 12.4 8.7 1.2 2.5 87.7 2.8 84.8

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 12.0 8.0 1.0 3.0 88.0 2.7 85.2

Degree-granting institution type

 Public 

 Non-doctorate-granting 17.3 12.9 1.7 2.8 82.7 3.8 78.9

 Doctorate-granting 10.6 7.3 1.0 2.2 89.5 2.3 87.2

 Private not-for-profit

 Non-doctorate-granting 14.2 10.2 1.2 2.8 85.8 3.9 82.0

 Doctorate-granting 9.1 4.8 1.0 3.3 90.9 2.7 88.3

 Private for-profit 2-years or more2 1.1 0.3 # 0.8 98.9 1.9 97.1

College entrance examination score3

 Lowest level 18.4 13.8 1.4 3.1 81.6 4.2 77.5

 Middle level 13.1 9.6 1.3 2.2 86.9 2.9 84.0

 Highest level 8.6 4.7 1.1 2.8 91.4 1.2 90.2

 Did not take test or score not available 9.6 6.3 0.9 2.4 90.4 3.2 87.3

Cumulative undergraduate GPA

 Less than 2.25 8.9 4.9 0.2 3.8 91.1 4.4 86.7

 2.25–2.74 8.8 4.7 1.3 2.7 91.2 2.6 88.6

 2.75–3.24 12.4 8.8 1.3 2.4 87.6 3.0 84.6

 3.25–3.74 13.6 10.0 0.9 2.6 86.5 2.7 83.7

 3.75 or higher 14.1 10.5 1.3 2.3 85.9 3.3 82.6

Undergraduate field of study

 Business and management 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.6 98.8 0.8 98.0

 Education 66.5 56.4 5.9 4.2 33.5 13.0 20.5

 Humanities 16.8 9.8 2.0 5.1 83.2 2.9 80.3

 Mathematics, computer science,

 natural sciences 5.5 3.3 0.6 1.7 94.5 1.8 92.7

 Social sciences 9.1 4.7 0.6 3.8 90.9 2.6 88.3

 Other 4.4 2.5 0.4 1.5 95.6 1.9 93.7

# Rounds to zero.

1 The 2.2 percent of graduates who began in other types of institutions (public less-than-2-year, private not-for-profit less-than4-year, and private for-profit institutions) are included in the total row, but excluded from this variable. 2 Includes 4-year degree-granting institutions.

3 Derived from institution- or agency-reported SAT or ACT scores, where available. See glossary (appendix A) for definition of 

CEE score levels.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. See glossary for a list of which specific fields of study are included in 

each listed category.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).

Taught Had not taught
 Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

11 

achievement for postsecondary students or college graduates, these measures have been used 

consistently to study teachers’ academic skill levels and to compare their skills with those of 

other college graduates. 

Since the early 1980s, researchers have noted that college graduates who became teachers 

tended to have lower CEE scores than those who did not become teachers (Murnane et al. 1991; 

Schlecty and Vance 1983; Weaver 1983). Comparisons of graduates’ undergraduate grade point 

averages (GPAs), however, indicated either no difference between graduates who later taught at 

the K–12 level and those who did not, or that those who later taught had higher GPAs than their 

nonteaching peers (Book, Freeman, and Brousseau 1985; Henke et al. 1996). 

Among 1999–2000 graduates, CEE scores and undergraduate GPAs continued to be 

associated with whether they had taught by 2001, although again in opposite directions.8 As was 

found among 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients with test scores available for analysis (Henke 

et al. 1996), among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients with test scores, those with higher 

CEE scores were less likely than those with lower scores to have taught. Graduates with higher 

scores were also less likely than those with lower scores to have taught with certification. 

In this study, the data also indicate that among all bachelor’s degree recipients, teachers 

were more likely than nonteachers to have test scores available for analysis.9 Whereas one-fourth 

of teachers did not have CEE scores available for analysis, 31 percent of nonteachers did not 

(figure 2). Among bachelor’s degree recipients with CEE scores, teachers were more likely than 

nonteachers to have CEE scores in the lowest level of the cohort’s test score distribution. 

Graduates’ cumulative GPAs, however, were positively related to having taught and 

specifically to having been certified and taught (table 2). This finding is also consistent with past 

research:sStudies of 1985–86, 1989–90, and 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients 1 year after 

graduation found positive associations between preparing to teach and undergraduate GPAs 

(Frankel and Stowe 1990; Gray et al. 1993; Henke et al. 1996). 

Although there is some evidence that teachers’ academic achievement positively affects 

their students’ achievement, good measures of teachers’ academic achievement are difficult to 

obtain. The measures used in this study, teachers’ CEE scores and their undergraduate GPAs, are 

not ideal because teachers take CEEs years before they begin their teaching careers and because 

 

8CEE scores were derived from institution- or agency-reported SAT or ACT scores, where available. CEE score levels are 

defined as follows: the lowest level is the bottom 25 percent of scores within the cohort, the middle level is the middle 50 percent 

of scores within the cohort, and highest level is the top 25 percent of scores within the cohort. 

9Additional analyses, related to these results and discussed in appendix B, indicate that findings concerning CEE scores may be 

confounded by the large proportions of graduates that did not have scores available for analysis. 
Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

12 

GPAs have no single scale and vary among undergraduate majors and institutions. As previous 

research has demonstrated consistently, these two measures of achievement result in 

contradictory findings regarding achievement and teaching: graduates’ scores were negatively 

related to teaching while GPAs were positively related to teaching. 

Undergraduate Major Field of Study 

For some time, researchers and policymakers have paid particular attention to the depth of 

teachers’ postsecondary education in the fields they teach (Ingersoll and Gruber 1996; NCTAF 

1996, 1997; Seastrom et al. 2002; Wayne and Youngs 2003). As of 2001, 38 states (and Puerto 

Rico) required teachers to have a bachelor’s degree with a major or minor in an academic content 

area to be certified (U.S. Department of Education 2002).10 Furthermore, recent federal 

legislation requires that teachers in schools receiving certain types of federal funding be highly 

 

10These states did not necessarily require all teachers to have a major or minor in an academic content area. In some cases, only

middle or high school teachers were required to have them. 

Figure 2.—Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by college entrance

Figure B.—examination score level, by teaching status: 2001

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).

17

27

18

33

36

34

18

17

24

31

13

31

0 20 40 60 80 100

Had not taught

Taught

Total

Percent

Lowest level Middle level Highest level Did not take test or

score not reported
 Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

13 

qualified in their fields (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001). This section examines the degree to 

which graduates who studied various academic fields as undergraduates became elementary and 

secondary school teachers or prepared to do so. 

B&B:2000/01 data indicate, not surprisingly, that education majors were more likely than 

graduates who had majored in other fields both to have taught, regardless of certification or 

preparation, and to have prepared to teach if they had not taught. Two-thirds of education majors 

had taught by 2001, and 56 percent had taught with certification (figure 3 and table 2). Another 6 

Figure 3.—Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by teaching status, 

Figure 5.—by undergraduate major field of study: 2001

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).

1

4

6

9

17

67

2

2

3

3

13

98

94

93

88

80

20

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

 Business and

management

 Other

 Mathematics,

computer science,

natural sciences

 Social sciences

 Humanities

 Education

Percent

Taught Had not taught,

was certified

or prepared

Had not taught,

was neither certified

nor prepared
Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

14 

percent taught with preparation but not certification, and 13 percent had prepared but not taught 

as of the 2001 interview. Following education majors, humanities majors were most likely to 

have taught—17 percent had done so by 2001. Humanities majors were followed by social 

sciences majors, 9 percent of whom had taught. 

The B&B:2000/01 data also indicate that although education majors were considerably 

more likely than graduates who had majored in other fields to have taught and prepared to teach, 

many graduates who had taught by 2001 had not majored in education. About one-half (48 

percent) of graduates who had taught had majored in education, 22 percent had majored in the 

humanities, 14 percent had majored in the social sciences, and 8 percent had majored in 

mathematics, computer science, or the natural sciences (table 3). 

Among graduates who had taught with certification by 2001, about one-fifth (19 percent) 

were humanities majors, one-tenth were social sciences majors, and 7 percent majored in 

mathematics, computer science, or a natural science. About 30 percent of those who taught with 

preparation but not certification were humanities majors, another 10 percent were social sciences 

Table 3.—Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by undergraduate major field

Table 3.—of study, by teaching status and level of school at which first taught after receiving the bachelor’s 

Table 3.—degree: 2001

 Mathematics,

computer

 Business science, 

Teaching status and natural Social

and level of school management Education Humanities sciences sciences Other

 Total 21.1 8.9 16.5 17.4 18.3 17.9

Taught 2.1 47.5 22.3 8.1 13.5 6.5

 Certified 1.4 57.9 18.6 6.9 9.9 5.3

 Prepared, but not certified 1.7 44.8 28.0 8.9 9.9 6.8

 Neither certified nor prepared 4.9 14.2 32.0 11.7 27.0 10.1

Had not taught 23.9 3.3 15.3 19.2 18.8 19.5

 Certified or prepared 5.9 39.0 16.0 11.1 16.2 11.9

 Neither certified nor prepared 24.5 2.1 15.3 19.5 18.9 19.8

Level of school where first taught

 after receiving bachelor’s degree

 Elementary 0.8 61.2 18.2 6.2 9.4 4.2

 Secondary 2.5 31.0 31.6 12.0 13.0 9.8

 Combined 1.0 43.6 7.2 5.5 39.0 3.7

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).
 Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

15 

majors, and about 10 percent were mathematics, computer science, or natural sciences majors. In 

addition, 16 percent of those who had prepared to teach but not yet taught were humanities 

majors, another 16 percent were social sciences majors, and 11 percent were mathematics, 

computer sciences, or natural sciences majors. 

The level of the school in which graduates taught in their first teaching jobs since college 

graduation was associated with the fields in which they had majored as undergraduates. Among 

this cohort of graduates, 61 percent of those who first taught in elementary schools had majored 

in education as undergraduates, in contrast to 31 percent of those who first taught in secondary 

level schools. About one-third (32 percent) of teachers among this cohort who began teaching in 

secondary schools majored in the humanities, compared with 18 percent of those who began in 

elementary schools and 7 percent of those who began in combined schools. About 40 percent of 

teachers in the cohort who had first taught in combined schools after completing their bachelor’s 

degrees had majored in education (44 percent) and the social sciences (39 percent). Thus, 

although education majors were very likely to teach, graduates in other fields also pursued 

teaching, and particularly at the secondary level. 

Teaching-Related Experiences 

Newly qualified teachers who want to obtain teaching positions in particular schools or 

districts, or to earn a living while looking for positions in their field of preparation, may work as 

teacher’s aides or substitute teachers for some period of time. Other graduates may take teacher’s 

aide or substitute teaching positions to earn a living while pursuing other careers or as a means of 

exploring teaching as a potential career before investing time, money, and energy in a formal 

teacher preparation program. This section examines the proportions of 1999–2000 graduates who 

had not taught as of 2001, but who had worked in schools in an alternative capacity, had 

considered teaching, and had applied for a teaching position. The section also presents data 

concerning the reasons why graduates who had considered teaching but did not apply for a 

teaching position had chosen not to apply. 

Working as a Teacher’s Aide or Substitute Teacher 

Among all 1999–2000 graduates, 6 percent had worked as a teacher’s aide or substitute 

teacher as of 2001 (table 4). Two percent had done so in order to gain a permanent teaching 

position. Graduates who at some point taught were no more likely than all graduates to have 

worked as an aide or substitute, but were more likely to do so in order to gain a permanent 

position: among graduates who at some point did obtain a permanent teaching position, 6 
Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

16 

percent had also worked as a teacher’s aide or substitute teacher since receiving the bachelor’s 

degree, including 4 percent who had done so to gain a permanent teaching position. 

Overall, working as an aide or substitute teacher was not common among graduates who 

had not taught as of 2001. Among those who had not held a regular teaching position as of 2001, 

however, those who had become certified or who had prepared to teach were far more likely than 

those who had not prepared to teach to work as an aide or substitute (tables 4 and 5). Of the 3 

percent of all graduates who had prepared or were certified to teach but had not taught as of 2001 

(figure 1 and table 1), one-half had worked as a teacher’s aide or substitute teacher, and 28 

percent had done so to gain a permanent teaching position (tables 4 and 5). In comparison, only 3 

percent of graduates who had not taught, prepared to teach, or become certified had worked in 

such a capacity, and less than 1 percent had done so to gain a permanent teaching position. 

Among those who had not held a permanent teaching position as of 2001, some of the 

demographic and academic characteristics associated with teaching were also associated with 

whether they had worked as a teacher’s aide or substitute teacher. For example, continuing the 

pattern already noted, women were more likely than men to have worked as an aide or substitute 

(5 percent compared with 3 percent) (table 5). Also, those who had scored in the lowest level of 

the CEE score distribution were more likely than those in the upper three levels (7 percent 

compared with 3–4 percent) to have worked as an aide or substitute. Working as an aide or 

substitute teacher was not observed to vary with graduates’ cumulative undergraduate GPAs. 

As with regular teaching positions, working as an aide or substitute teacher was related to 

undergraduate field of study. Approximately one-fourth of education majors who had not held 

Table 4.—Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients, percentage who had worked as a teacher’s aide or

Table 4.—substitute teacher and percentage who had done so in order to gain a permanent teaching position,

Table 4.—by teaching status: 2001

To gain permanent

Teaching status Total teaching position

 Total 5.5 2.0

Taught 6.1 3.8

 Certified 5.5 3.4

 Prepared, but not certified 7.8 6.8

 Neither certified nor prepared 7.1 3.9

Had not taught 4.3 1.3

 Certified or prepared 49.6 27.6

 Neither certified nor prepared 2.7 0.4

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).

Worked as teacher’s aide or substitute teacher
 Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

17 

Table 5.—Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had not taught, percentage who had worked as a

Table 5.—teacher’s aide or substitute teacher and percentage who had done so in order to gain a permanent

Table 5.—teaching position, by selected characteristics: 2001

To gain permanent

Selected characteristics Total teaching position

 Total 4.3 1.3

Preparation to teach

 Certified or prepared 49.6 27.6

 Neither certified nor prepared 2.7 0.4

Gender 

 Male 3.3 0.9

 Female 5.1 1.7

Race/ethnicity

1

 American Indian 3.0 #

 Asian/Pacific Islander 1.9 #

 Black 4.9 1.3

 White 4.3 1.5

 Other 1.9 0.4

 Hispanic 6.2 1.7

First institution type

2

 Public 2-year 3.8 2.4

 Public 4-year 4.6 1.1

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 4.4 1.1

Degree-granting institution type

 Public 

 Non-doctorate-granting 4.5 2.3

 Doctorate-granting 4.3 0.9

 Private not-for-profit 

 Non-doctorate-granting 4.8 1.7

 Doctorate-granting 3.7 1.1

 Private for-profit 2-years or more

3 1.7 0.7

College entrance examination score4

 Lowest level 7.0 2.7

 Middle level 3.9 0.9

 Highest level 3.3 0.6

 Did not take test or score not available 3.8 1.5

See notes at end of table.

or substitute teacher

Worked as teacher’s aide 
Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

18 

regular teaching positions had worked as an aide or substitute as of 2001, a higher proportion 

than those observed in all other major fields. Social sciences and humanities majors were more 

likely than business/management or mathematics/computer science/natural sciences majors to 

have worked in these positions (5–7 percent vs. 1–2 percent). Thus, some factors associated with 

graduates’ teaching and preparation to teach (i.e., gender, CEE scores, undergraduate field of 

study) were also associated with graduates’ taking other teaching-related employment. 

Considering Teaching 

In several instances, whether graduates who had not taught reported that they had 

considered teaching varied with the characteristics observed in this study somewhat differently 

than did teaching or preparation to teach. For example, women and men considered teaching at 

Table 5.—Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had not taught, percentage who had worked as a

Table 5.—teacher’s aide or substitute teacher and percentage who had done so in order to gain a permanent

Table 5.—teaching position, by selected characteristics: 2001—Continued

To gain permanent

Selected characteristics Total teaching position

Cumulative undergraduate GPA 

 Less than 2.25 5.9 1.3

 2.25–2.74 3.8 0.9

 2.75–3.24 4.3 1.6

 3.25–3.74 4.6 1.0

 3.75 or higher 3.9 2.1

Undergraduate field of study

 Business and management 1.4 0.2

 Education 26.1 16.6

 Humanities 5.2 1.3

 Mathematics, computer science,

 natural sciences 1.9 0.8

 Social sciences 6.5 1.3

 Other 3.6 0.6

# Rounds to zero.

1 American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian,

and Hispanic includes Latino. Other includes multiple races. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified. 2 The 2.2 percent of graduates who began in other types of institutions (public less-than-2-year, private not-for-profit less-than4-year, and private for-profit institutions) are included in the total row, but excluded from this variable. 3 Includes 4-year degree-granting institutions.

4 Derived from institution- or agency-reported SAT or ACT scores, where available. See glossary (appendix A) for definition of 

CEE score levels.

NOTE: See glossary for a list of which specific fields of study are included in each listed category.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).

or substitute teacher

Worked as teacher’s aide 
 Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

19 

similar rates: among graduates who had not taught, nearly 37 percent—36 percent of men and 38 

percent of women—had considered teaching (table 6). Among graduates who had not taught, 

those who had begun their postsecondary education in private not-for-profit 4-year institutions 

were more likely than those who began in public 4-year institutions to have considered teaching 

(40 percent compared with 35 percent). Generally, the proportion of graduates who had not 

taught, but had considered teaching, ranged from 34 to 40 percent regardless of the type of 

institution from which they received their 1999–2000 degrees, their CEE scores, and their 

cumulative undergraduate GPAs.11 

As was observed with respect to teaching as of 2001, Asian/Pacific Islander graduates were 

less likely than Black and White graduates to have considered teaching (29 percent compared 

with 45 and 37 percent, respectively).12 In addition, undergraduate major field of study was 

related to having considered teaching in some ways that were similar to its relationship with 

teaching as of 2001: humanities and social sciences majors were more likely than 

business/management, education, and mathematics/computer science/natural sciences majors to 

have considered teaching.13

Otherwise, characteristics that were associated with teaching—gender, type of degreegranting institution, CEE score, cumulative GPA in undergraduate major field of study—were 

not associated with having considered teaching. In addition, the type of postsecondary institution 

in which graduates had begun postsecondary education, which was not associated with whether 

graduates had taught, was associated with their having considered teaching (if they had not 

taught). Considering teaching, therefore, may be something of a different phenomenon from 

teaching or preparing to teach. 

Applying for Teaching Among Those Who Had Considered 

Applying for a teaching position by 2001 could be considered an intermediate step between 

having considered teaching and preparing or having taught as of 2001. Bachelor’s degree 

 

11There was one exception to this pattern: among graduates who had not taught, graduates of public doctorate-granting 

institutions were less likely than graduates of private not-for-profit doctorate-granting institutions to have considered teaching. In 

addition, although the proportion of graduates of private for-profit institutions appears to be greater (49 percent), there was no 

statistical evidence to support the conclusion that this proportion was different from those observed among graduates of other 

institution types. 

12Although it appears that Asian/Pacific Islander graduates were also less likely than Hispanic graduates to have considered 

teaching, this difference was not statistically significant. 

13Note that because a large proportion of graduates who had majored in education had already taught or prepared/become 

certified to teach, fewer education majors merely considered teaching. In addition, some graduates who majored in education 

taught at the prekindergarten or postsecondary levels, in adult schools (i.e., schools for adults who have not yet completed 

secondary education), or other settings outside elementary/secondary education. These graduates may well have reported that 

they did not consider elementary/secondary education. 
Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

20 

Table 6.—Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had not taught, percentage who had only

Table 6.—considered teaching; of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had not taught but had at

Table 6.—least considered teaching, percentage who had applied for a teaching position, by selected

Table 6.—characteristics: 2001

Of graduates who

had not taught but

had at least considered

teaching, percent

Only considered who had applied for

Selected characteristics teaching1 teaching position2

 Total 37.0 9.0

Preparation to teach

 Certified or prepared † 43.5

 Neither certified nor prepared 38.3 7.4

Gender 

 Male 35.9 8.0

 Female 37.9 9.7

Race/ethnicity

3

 American Indian 44.2 ‡

 Asian/Pacific Islander 28.9 9.0

 Black 44.6 13.6

 White 36.8 8.1

 Other 33.9 6.5

 Hispanic 39.0 10.8

First institution type

4

 Public 2-year 38.5 8.5

 Public 4-year 34.9 9.2

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 40.0 9.0

Degree-granting institution type

 Public 

 Non-doctorate-granting 38.7 9.7

 Doctorate-granting 34.1 8.7

 Private not-for-profit 

 Non-doctorate-granting 40.0 9.5

 Doctorate-granting 39.0 8.6

 Private for-profit 2-years or more

5 49.3 6.9

College entrance examination score6

 Lowest level 34.9 10.1

 Middle level 34.3 9.4

 Highest level 38.4 5.8

 Did not take test or score not available 40.2 9.8

See notes at end of table.
 Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

21 

recipients who had not taught as of 2001, but who had at least considered teaching, were asked 

whether they had applied for a teaching position since completing the 1999–2000 degree.14 Of 

 

14Respondents who had not taught as of 2001, and a) were certified to teach, b) had completed a teacher education program or 

had completed a student teaching assignment, or c) had considered teaching were asked whether they had applied for a teaching 

position. 

Table 6.—Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had not taught, percentage who had only

Table 6.—considered teaching; of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had not taught but had at

Table 6.—least considered teaching, percentage who had applied for a teaching position, by selected

Table 6.—characteristics: 2001—Continued

Of graduates who

had not taught but

had at least considered

teaching, percent

Only considered who had applied for

Selected characteristics teaching1 teaching position2

Cumulative undergraduate GPA 

 Less than 2.25 35.8 12.5

 2.25–2.74 35.1 9.8

 2.75–3.24 39.1 9.1

 3.25–3.74 36.3 8.4

 3.75 or higher 36.2 8.2

Undergraduate field of study

 Business and management 32.5 6.5

 Education 31.4 25.7

 Humanities 48.9 10.0

 Mathematics, computer science,

 natural sciences 33.5 7.0

 Social sciences 43.3 10.0

 Other 31.5 7.4

† Not applicable.

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1 Numerator includes graduates who had neither taught nor prepared to teach, but had considered teaching.

2 Denominator includes graduates who had not taught, but who had become certified, otherwise prepared to teach, or considered

teaching.

3 American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian,

and Hispanic includes Latino. Other includes multiple races. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified. 4 The 2.2 percent of graduates who began in other types of institutions (public less-than-2-year, private not-for-profit less-than4-year, and private for-profit institutions) are included in the total row, but excluded from this variable. 5 Includes 4-year degree-granting institutions.

6 Derived from institution- or agency-reported SAT or ACT scores, where available. See glossary (appendix A) for definition of 

CEE score levels.

NOTE: See glossary for a list of which specific fields of study are included in each listed category.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).
Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

22 

this group as a whole, 9 percent had applied. Among those who had prepared to teach, 43 percent 

had applied, compared with 7 percent among those who had only considered teaching.15 

Of the demographic and undergraduate academic characteristics examined in this report, 

graduates’ CEE and undergraduate majors were associated with whether those who had not 

taught but had at least considered teaching had applied for a teaching position. Nonteachers who 

had at least considered teaching were less likely to have applied to teach if their CEE scores were 

in the highest level among 1999–2000 graduates than if their scores were in the lower levels (6 

percent compared with 9 to 10 percent). On the other hand, nonteaching graduates who had 

majored in education were more likely than those in other majors to have applied (26 percent 

compared with 10 percent or less). Thus, applying for a teaching position in the year following 

college graduation was associated with relatively few of the undergraduate academic 

characteristics observed in this study. 

Reasons for Not Applying 

Among graduates who had not taught but had indicated some interest in teaching (that is, 

had prepared to teach, worked as a substitute teacher or teacher’s aide, or reported considering 

teaching), 91 percent had not applied for a teaching position (table 7). These graduates were 

asked why they had not applied, and interviewers coded their responses into up to three reasons 

for not applying into the following specific categories: graduate was not interested in teaching, 

graduate thought/felt that teaching conditions were poor, graduate wanted a higher salary than 

s/he thought available in teaching, graduate already had another job, graduate had received an 

offer for a better job, graduate was unable to pass required tests, graduate had not yet taken the 

required tests, graduate was not yet certified, and all other reasons. 

It appears that some of these graduates may have intended to apply for a position when they 

had become certified to teach or had reached some milestone on the way to certification: Onefourth had not applied because they were not yet certified, and 7 percent had not applied because 

they had not yet taken the required tests. 

Some nonteachers who had at least considered teaching appeared to have rejected the 

profession because it no longer appealed to them or other careers seemed more appealing. Onefifth reported that they were not interested in teaching (presumably they had considered the 

profession previously but were no longer interested at the time of the interview). In addition, 13 

 

15Those who had applied for teaching jobs but have not taught for any of several reasons. For example, they may not have 

received offers for teaching jobs yet, have accepted an offer but not yet begun work, or have declined all offers received. 
Table 7.—Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had not taught as of 2001 interview but had at least considered teach

Table 7.—not apply for teaching position; of those, percentage who did not apply for various reasons, by selected characteristic

 Of those who had not taught but had at least considered Already Got Unable Had  teaching, percent Not Poor Wanted in better to ta

who had not applied interested teaching higher another job pass requi

Selected characteristics for teaching position in teaching conditions salary job offer tests t

 Total 91.0 19.6 1.9 12.7 17.0 2.9 0.1 Gender 1999–2000 Male 92.0 23.4 1.6 16.9 17.7 3.3 0.2  Female 90.3 16.6 2.2 9.5 16.4 2.6 # Race/ethnicity1  American Indian ‡ ‡‡‡‡‡‡ Asian/Pacific Islander 91.0 18.2 0.7 13.1 14.4 1.5 # 

 Black 86.4 18.1 2.6 10.5 18.7 1.3 #  White 91.9 20.5 1.8 12.9 17.5 3.2 0.1  Other 93.5 17.2 # 21.3 14.9 2.8 #  Hispanic 89.2 15.5 4.0 12.0 13.1 3.2 # 1First institution type2

 Public 2-year 91.5 20.1 2.0 13.1 16.7 1.0 0.4 

 Public 4-year 90.8 17.5 1.7 12.7 18.1 3.1 #  Private not-for-profit 4-year 91.0 22.8 1.5 12.3 16.6 3.6 # Degree-granting institution type Public  Non-doctorate-granting 90.3 15.8 1.3 12.5 14.3 4.2 #  Doctorate-granting 91.3 19.7 2.8 13.5 19.2 2.4 #  Private not-for-profit Non-doctorate-granting 90.6 21.1 1.2 8.6 15.4 2.4 0.3  Doctorate-granting 91.4 24.2 1.4 17.3 16.6 3.7 #  Private for-profit 2-years or more3 93.2 6.6 # 8.1 14.4 0.5 # 1

See notes at end of table.

Reason for not applying for teaching position
Table 7.—Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had not taught as of 2001 interview but had at least considered teach

Table 7.—not apply for teaching position; of those, percentage who did not apply for various reasons, by selected characteristi

 Of those who had

not taught but had

at least considered Already Got Unable Had 

teaching, percent Not Poor Wanted in better to ta

who had not applied interested teaching higher another job pass requi

Selected characteristics for teaching position in teaching conditions salary job offer tests tCollege entrance examination score4 Lowest level 89.9 18.4 1.6 10.1 16.6 2.0 0.4  Middle level 90.6 20.2 1.5 11.7 18.1 3.6 #  Highest level 94.2 25.3 2.3 16.3 14.5 3.4 #  Did not take test or score not available 90.3 16.5 2.3 13.0 17.5 2.4 # Cumulative undergraduate GPA Less than 2.25 87.5 19.9 0.4 9.8 9.7 2.3 1.8  2.25–2.74 90.3 17.0 3.0 15.3 14.8 2.3 #  2.75–3.24 90.9 19.5 1.5 12.0 19.8 2.2 #  3.25–3.74 91.6 21.3 1.8 13.1 15.2 3.6 #  3.75 or higher 91.8 19.5 2.8 12.4 18.4 3.7 # Undergraduate field of study Business and management 93.5 17.0 0.9 16.4 14.7 3.4 #  Education 74.3 16.0 # 7.2 17.1 1.0 2.1  Humanities 90.0 21.7 3.3 10.4 14.7 1.6 #  Mathematics, computer science, natural sciences 93.0 21.1 1.1 17.8 21.9 2.9 #  Social sciences 90.0 18.5 2.6 10.8 16.3 2.7 #  Other 92.6 21.0 1.9 9.2 18.2 4.3 # 

# Rounds to zero.‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1 American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and Hispanic includes Latino. 

Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

2 The 2.2 percent of graduates who began in other types of institutions (public less-than-2-year, private not-for-profit less-than-4-year, and private for-profit in

total row, but excluded from this variable.

3 Includes 4-year degree-granting institutions.4 Derived from institution- or agency-reported SAT or ACT scores, where available. See glossary (appendix A) for definition of CEE score levels.

NOTE: Includes those who had become certified or otherwise prepared to teach, had worked as teacher’s aide or substitute teacher, or considered teaching. Sespecific fields of study are included in each listed category.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).

Reason for not applying for teaching position
 Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

25 

percent indicated that they wanted a higher salary than that available in teaching, 3 percent had 

received a better job offer, and 2 percent cited poor teaching conditions. 

Men and women differed in their reasons for not applying for teaching positions. Men were 

more likely than women to report that they did not apply because they were not interested in 

teaching or wanted higher salaries (23 and 17 percent compared with 17 and 9 percent, 

respectively). Women, on the other hand, were more likely than men (30 percent versus 19 

percent) to report that they had not applied because they were not yet certified, perhaps indicating 

an intention to teach in the future. 

The types of postsecondary institutions in which graduates first enrolled and from which 

they received their bachelor’s degrees were also related to their reasons for not applying for 

teaching positions. Graduates who began postsecondary education in public 4-year institutions 

were more likely than those who began in private not-for-profit 4-year institutions to not apply 

because they were not yet certified. At the same time, graduates who began in public 4-year 

institutions were less likely than those who began in private not-for-profit 4-year institutions to 

not apply because they were not interested in teaching. 

Those who received their degrees from public 4-year non-doctorate-granting institutions 

were more likely than those from doctorate-granting institutions not to have applied because they 

were not certified (34 percent compared with 23 and 17 percent, respectively). Similarly, in 

private not-for-profit institutions, those who graduated from non-doctorate-granting institutions 

were more likely than their counterparts from doctorate-granting institutions to have given this 

reason for not applying for teaching positions (28 percent compared with 17 percent). 

Although graduates’ test scores were associated with their reasons for not applying to teach, 

their undergraduate grades appear not to have been. The higher graduates’ CEE scores, the more 

likely they were to not apply for a teaching position because they were not interested in teaching 

or wanted a higher salary. For example, one-fourth of graduates with scores in the highest level 

did not apply because they were not interested in teaching, compared with 18 percent of those 

with scores in the lowest level. Graduates’ scores were inversely related to not applying because 

they were not yet certified. 

Graduates’ majors in college were associated with some of the reasons they gave for not 

applying for teaching positions. Mathematics, computer science, and natural sciences majors 

were more likely than humanities and social sciences majors to have not applied for a teaching 

position because they wanted higher salaries. Mathematics, computer science, and natural 
Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

26 

sciences majors and business and management majors were also more likely than “other”16

majors to have not applied for this reason. Education majors were more likely than those who 

majored in business and management; mathematics, computer science, and the natural sciences; 

and “other” majors to have not applied because they were not yet certified (43 percent compared 

with 16 to 23 percent). In addition, those who majored in the humanities, social sciences, and 

“other” fields were more likely than mathematics, computer science, and natural sciences majors 

to have not applied because they were not yet certified. However, no difference was detected 

among graduates of different majors in the likelihood of not applying to teach because they were 

not interested in teaching. 

Thus, graduates with some of the characteristics that were associated with teaching and 

preparing to teach (i.e., being a woman; receiving the bachelor’s degree from a non-doctorategranting institution; having higher CEE scores; majoring in education, the humanities, or social 

sciences as an undergraduate) were more likely than other graduates to report that they had not 

applied for a teaching position because they were not yet certified or had yet to achieve 

milestones related to certification. To the degree that this reason indicates an inclination to teach 

once certified, these results are consistent with those observed with respect to teaching and 

preparing to teach. 

Teaching Experiences of Those Who Had Taught 

Although new college graduates’ attrition from teaching is no more frequent than their 

attrition from other occupations held within the first year of completing the bachelor’s degree 

(Henke and Zahn 2001), from the perspectives of some education policymakers and 

administrators, attrition remains a concern because of its implications for the cost and quality of 

the teacher workforce (Ingersoll 2001; NCTAF 2003). Recruiting students into teacher education 

programs, training them, and then recruiting new teachers, hiring them, and providing support 

and training for new teachers all cost valuable resources (NCTAF 2003). In addition, students’ 

achievement is positively correlated with their teachers’ years of experience (Murnane and 

Phillips 1981; Rockoff 2004; Wayne and Youngs 2003). 

New teachers, by definition, have the least seniority in their schools and districts, and 

therefore, it has been asserted, receive the most difficult teaching assignments (NCTAF 1996). 

Regardless of how difficult their teaching assignments, new teachers have, traditionally, assumed 

the same level of responsibility as highly experienced teachers, and, at least historically, have 

received little support (NCTAF 1996). Consequently, improving teachers’ experiences in their 

 

16See appendix A for a list of majors included in the “other” category. 
 Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

27 

first few years on the job is believed to be key to retaining more teachers (NCTAF 2003; 

National Governor’s Association 2000; Veenman 1984). Policy efforts related to this goal 

include providing new teachers with such support as mentor teachers, reduced teaching loads, 

and targeted professional development programs. 

This section addresses specific aspects of graduates’ first teaching experiences after 

receiving their bachelor’s degrees: the sector and level of the school in which they first taught, 

the subjects they taught in their first postgraduation teaching jobs, their satisfaction with various 

aspects of teaching, and their perceptions of the degree to which new teachers in their schools 

received support vis-a-vis various aspects of teaching. The discussions of their schools’ sector 

and level and of the subjects they taught in this job provide some context for understanding their 

work overall and in particular, their responses to the questions on satisfaction and support for 

new teachers. 

Sector of School Where First Taught After 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree 

Among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had taught as of 2001, 91 percent had 

taught in a public school and 9 percent in a private school in their first teaching job after 

receiving the bachelor’s degree (table 8). To put these estimates in context, the vast majority of 

teachers in U.S. schools teach in public schools: in 1999–2000, 87 percent of all teachers taught 

in public schools and 13 percent taught in private schools.17 In general, the proportion of teachers 

who teach in public schools increases with teachers’ experience. For example, in 1999–2000, 80 

percent of teachers with less than 3 years of teaching experience taught in public schools, 

compared with 91 percent of teachers with more than 20 years of experience.18 Compared with 

both all 1999–2000 teachers and all less experienced 1999–2000 teachers (i.e., those with 3 or 

fewer years of teaching experience), 1999–2000 college graduates who had taught as of 2001 

were more likely to have taught in a public school. 

About 90 percent of men, women, and White teachers had first taught in a public school 

after receiving the 1999–2000 degree. Black teachers were more likely than White teachers to 

have first taught in a public school after receiving the degree (99 percent versus 90 percent). 

Bachelor’s degree recipients who had begun their postsecondary education in private notfor-profit 4-year institutions were less likely than other graduates to have taught in a public 

school in their first teaching job after receiving the bachelor’s degree (79 percent versus 95 

 

17U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, “Teacher 

Questionnaires,” 1999–2000, unpublished tabulations. 

18U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, “Teacher 

Questionnaires,” 1999–2000, unpublished tabulations. 
Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

28 

Table 8.—Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had taught as of 2001, percentage distribution 

Table 8.—by sector of school of first teaching job after receiving the 1999–2000 degree, by selected

Table 8.—characteristics: 2001

Selected characteristics Public Private

 Total 90.8 9.2

Gender 

 Male 90.1 9.9

 Female 91.1 8.9

Race/ethnicity1

 American Indian ‡ ‡

 Asian/Pacific Islander ‡ ‡

 Black 98.9 1.1

 White 89.7 10.3

 Other ‡ ‡

 Hispanic 93.1 6.9

First institution type2

 Public 2-year 94.5 5.5

 Public 4-year 94.8 5.2

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 78.7 21.3

Degree-granting institution type

 Public 

 Non-doctorate-granting 96.1 3.9

 Doctorate-granting 94.9 5.1

 Private not-for-profit

 Non-doctorate-granting 80.7 19.3

 Doctorate-granting 80.4 19.6

 Private for-profit 2-years or more3 ‡ ‡

College entrance examination score4

 Lowest level 91.3 8.7

 Middle level 90.0 10.0

 Highest level 84.1 15.9

 Did not take test or score not available 94.6 5.4

Cumulative undergraduate GPA

 Less than 2.25 ‡ ‡

 2.25–2.74 91.5 8.5

 2.75–3.24 90.5 9.6

 3.25–3.74 91.8 8.2

 3.75 or higher 89.8 10.2

Undergraduate field of study

 Business and management ‡ ‡

 Education 90.6 9.4

 Humanities 91.2 8.8

 Mathematics, computer science, natural sciences 91.3 8.7

 Social sciences 91.0 9.0

 Other 88.5 11.5

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1 American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and 

Hispanic includes Latino. Other includes multiple races. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

2 The 2.2 percent of graduates who began in other types of institutions (public less-than-2-year, private not-for-profit less-than-4-year,

and private for-profit institutions) are included in the total row, but excluded from this variable.

3 Includes 4-year degree-granting institutions.

4 Derived from institution- or agency-reported SAT or ACT scores, where available. See glossary (appendix A) for definition of CEE

score levels.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).
 Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

29 

percent). Similarly, graduates who received their degrees from private not-for-profit institutions 

were less likely than those who received their degrees from public institutions to have first taught 

in a public school (80–81 percent versus 95–96 percent, respectively). Neither graduates’ 

undergraduate academic performance nor their undergraduate major field of study was observed 

to vary with the sector of school in which they first taught after receiving the bachelor’s degree. 

Level of School Where First Taught After 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree 

About two-thirds of all graduates who had taught within a year of completing a bachelor’s 

degree in 1999–2000 first did so in an elementary school (table 9). Thirty percent first taught in 

secondary schools and about 4 percent in combined schools (i.e., schools that combine 

elementary and secondary grades, such as K–12 schools). Among all U.S. teachers in 1999–2000, 

63 percent taught in elementary schools, 31 percent in secondary schools, and 6 percent in 

combined schools.19 

Among graduates who taught in their first year out of college, the percentage of women 

who taught at the elementary school level was higher than the percentage of men who taught at 

the elementary school level (70 vs. 53 percent, respectively), while the opposite holds true for 

teaching at the secondary school level (27 vs. 40 percent for women and men, respectively) and 

in combined elementary/secondary schools (3 vs. 7 percent for women and men, respectively). 

Both the type of institution in which graduates began postsecondary education and their 

CEE scores were associated with the level of school in which they first taught after receiving the 

bachelor’s degree. Graduates who began postsecondary education in community colleges were 

more likely than other graduates to have first taught in elementary schools (74 percent versus 60 

to 65 percent). In addition, graduates with CEE scores in the highest level of the score 

distribution were more likely than their peers to have first taught in a secondary school (48 

percent compared with 25 to 32 percent) and less likely to have first taught in an elementary 

school (48 percent versus 64 to 71 percent). 

Teachers who majored in education as undergraduates were more likely than their peers 

who majored in other fields to have first taught in an elementary school: 78 percent of education 

majors first taught in an elementary school, compared with 48 to 56 percent of graduates who 

majored in other fields. Similarly, education majors were less likely than those who majored in 

other fields to have first taught in a secondary school (19 percent versus 34 to 50 percent). These 

 

19U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, “Teacher 

Questionnaires,” 1999–2000, unpublished tabulations. 
Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

30 

Table 9.—Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had taught as of 2001, percentage distribution 

Table 9.—by level of school of first teaching job after receiving the 1999–2000 degree, by selected

Table 9.—characteristics: 2001

Selected characteristics Elementary Secondary Combined1

 Total 65.8 30.0 4.2

Gender 

 Male 52.8 39.8 7.4

 Female 70.3 26.7 3.1

Race/ethnicity

2

 American Indian ‡ ‡ ‡

 Asian/Pacific Islander ‡ ‡ ‡

 Black 71.5 25.3 3.3

 White 64.5 31.5 4.0

 Other ‡ ‡ ‡

 Hispanic 72.6 22.1 5.2

First institution type

3

 Public 2-year 74.5 22.6 3.0

 Public 4-year 64.7 32.2 3.2

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 60.1 32.6 7.3

Degree-granting institution type

 Public 

 Non-doctorate-granting 72.3 25.4 2.3

 Doctorate-granting 61.9 34.5 3.6

 Private not-for-profit

 Non-doctorate-granting 65.8 26.6 7.6

 Doctorate-granting 61.3 34.8 3.9

 Private for-profit 2-years or more4 ‡‡‡

College entrance examination score5

 Lowest level 70.7 25.1 4.2

 Middle level 64.3 31.8 3.9

 Highest level 47.6 47.7 4.7

 Did not take test or score not available 70.5 25.1 4.4

Cumulative undergraduate GPA

 Less than 2.25 ‡ ‡ ‡

 2.25–2.74 66.1 29.1 4.8

 2.75–3.24 67.7 27.8 4.6

 3.25–3.74 64.4 32.5 3.2

 3.75 or higher 63.1 32.0 5.0

See notes at end of table.
 Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

31 

differences may reflect, at least in part, many states’ requirements that middle- or secondarygrade teachers have undergraduate majors in an academic discipline (rather than in education) for 

state certification (U.S. Department of Education 2002). 

Subjects Taught in First Teaching Job After 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree 

In the 2001 interview, graduates who had taught reported all of the subjects that they had 

taught in the first teaching job they held after receiving the bachelor’s degree. Reflecting, in part, 

the distribution of teachers among elementary, secondary, and combined schools, about 30 

percent taught elementary or early childhood education; about one-fourth taught English, reading, 

or writing; about one-fifth taught mathematics; 17 percent taught science; and 15 percent taught 

social studies or history (tables 10a–b).20 Eight percent or less taught each of several other 

subjects.21

 

20School level and teaching field are correlated to a limited degree. Teachers in elementary schools may teach specific subjects 

(e.g., mathematics, science, reading, art, PE, etc.) or specific populations (e.g., special education students, LEP students, 

bilingual/ESL classes, etc.). In addition, the NCES definition of elementary-level schools, provided in appendix A, includes 

schools that serve grades 6 through 8, many of which have departmentalized organization.

21Total sums to more than 100 percent because some graduates taught more than one subject. 

Table 9.—Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had taught as of 2001, percentage distribution 

Table 9.—by level of school of first teaching job after receiving the 1999–2000 degree, by selected

Table 9.—characteristics: 2001—Continued

Selected characteristics Elementary Secondary Combined1

Undergraduate field of study

 Business and management ‡‡‡

 Education 78.0 18.5 3.5

 Humanities 56.0 42.5 1.5

 Mathematics, computer science, 

 natural sciences 51.2 45.9 2.9

 Social sciences 51.6 34.0 14.5

 Other 47.7 49.7 2.6

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1 Combined schools had grades ranging from below grade 7 to above grade 8.

2 American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, 

and Hispanic includes Latino. Other includes multiple races. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified. 3 The 2.2 percent of graduates who began in other types of institutions (public less-than-2-year, private not-for-profit less-than4-year, and private for-profit institutions) are included in the total row, but excluded from this variable. 4 Includes 4-year degree-granting institutions.

5 Derived from institution- or agency-reported SAT or ACT scores, where available. See glossary (appendix A) for definition of 

CEE score levels.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. See glossary for a list of which specific fields of study are included in 

each listed category.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).
Table 10a.—Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had taught as of 2001, percentage who taught various subjects in f

Table 10a.—receiving the 1999–2000 degree, by selected characteristics: 2001

Elementary/

 Art/ early English/ 

drama/ Economics/ childhood reading/ 

Selected characteristics music Business politics education writing ESL/bilingual  Total 7.8 0.7 0.3 30.6 25.8 2.5 Gender  Male 8.8 1.7 0.5 15.5 20.3 1.1  Female 7.4 0.4 0.3 36.2 27.8 3.1 Race/ethnicity1  American Indian ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡  Asian/Pacific Islander ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡  Black # 3.9 1.0 35.6 19.3 0.9  White 8.8 0.5 0.2 27.9 27.8 1.6  Other ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡  Hispanic 5.4 # # 45.9 16.8 8.4 First institution type2 Public 2-year 8.4 0.6 0.4 34.6 26.0 1.7  Public 4-year 7.8 0.2 0.3 30.3 26.4 2.8  Private not-for-profit 4-year 7.4 1.6 0.4 26.5 24.8 2.8 Degree-granting institution type Public  Non-doctorate-granting 3.9 0.4 0.5 33.6 29.1 3.1  Doctorate-granting 8.8 1.3 0.1 28.5 25.5 2.1  Private not-for-profit Non-doctorate-granting 9.8 0.4 0.3 31.4 21.3 1.3  Doctorate-granting 10.4 0.4 1.1 27.7 28.1 5.5  Private for-profit 2-years or more3 ‡‡‡‡‡‡

College entrance examination score4

 Lowest level 5.7 1.5 0.6 38.8 27.1 0.8  Middle level 8.0 0.2 0.3 28.7 24.2 2.6  Highest level 15.4 0.3 # 13.4 30.4 1.2  Did not take test or score not available 6.2 0.8 0.1 32.2 24.3 5.2 

See notes at end of table.
Table 10a.—Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had taught as of 2001, percentage who taught various subjects in f

Table 10a.—receiving the 1999–2000 degree, by selected characteristics: 2001—Continued

Elementary/

 Art/ early English/ 

drama/ Economics/ childhood reading/ 

Selected characteristics music Business politics education writing ESL/bilingual Cumulative undergraduate GPA Less than 2.25 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡  2.25–2.74 6.1 0.4 0.8 38.9 17.9 2.0  2.75–3.24 4.8 0.2 0.2 34.8 22.8 3.3  3.25–3.74 10.3 0.7 0.5 26.7 32.2 1.9  3.75 or higher 11.3 0.3 # 25.1 26.4 3.6 Undergraduate field of study Business and management ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡  Education 4.5 0.1 0.4 42.0 27.3 2.0  Humanities 23.3 # # 14.9 38.1 6.7  Mathematics, computer science, natural sciences 3.3 0.7 # 22.8 9.8 1.6  Social sciences 2.1 # 0.9 28.5 17.0 #  Other 0.8 # # 16.4 19.8 0.4 

# Rounds to zero.‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1 American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and Hispanic includes Latino. 

Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

2 The 2.2 percent of graduates who began in other types of institutions (public less-than-2-year, private not-for-profit less-than-4-year, and private for-profit in

total row, but excluded from this variable.

3 Includes 4-year degree-granting institutions.4 Derived from institution- or agency-reported SAT or ACT scores, where available. See glossary (appendix A) for definition of CEE score levels.

NOTE: See glossary for a list of which specific fields of study are included in each listed category.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).
Table 10b.—Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had taught as of 2001, percentage who taught various subjects in f

Table 10b.—receiving the 1999–2000 degree, by selected characteristics: 2001

Special Social studies/ Voc

Selected characteristics Mathematics Science education history occup Total 21.4 16.9 6.0 14.7 Gender  Male 18.9 19.9 6.1 16.2  Female 22.3 15.8 5.9 14.1 Race/ethnicity1 American Indian ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡  Asian/Pacific Islander ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡  Black 19.2 14.7 4.8 15.1  White 22.8 18.2 6.3 15.3  Other ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡  Hispanic 14.5 9.5 5.7 10.5 First institution type2 Public 2-year 22.4 14.9 5.7 11.8  Public 4-year 21.2 18.4 5.5 14.8  Private not-for-profit 4-year 22.0 16.6 7.0 16.3 Degree-granting institution type Public  Non-doctorate-granting 23.6 19.4 5.4 15.3  Doctorate-granting 16.7 15.5 5.9 14.3  Private not-for-profit Non-doctorate-granting 26.0 18.7 7.6 16.3  Doctorate-granting 22.9 11.5 4.2 10.7  Private for-profit 2-years or more3 ‡‡‡‡

College entrance examination score4

 Lowest level 19.0 12.7 8.1 12.7  Middle level 20.8 20.4 6.3 18.8  Highest level 22.3 16.3 2.1 9.5  Did not take test or score not available 24.5 16.7 4.9 13.2 

See notes at end of table.
Table 10b.—Of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had taught as of 2001, percentage who taught various subjects in f

Table 10b.—receiving the 1999–2000 degree, by selected characteristics: 2001—Continued

Special Social studies/ Voc

Selected characteristics Mathematics Science education history occupCumulative undergraduate GPA  Less than 2.25 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡  2.25–2.74 20.8 12.9 5.6 14.0  2.75–3.24 22.2 19.3 7.3 14.7  3.25–3.74 22.3 18.0 4.8 13.2  3.75 or higher 20.7 13.1 8.1 17.0 Undergraduate field of study Business and management ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡  Education 27.0 20.6 7.0 15.2  Humanities 11.6 8.4 2.5 10.6  Mathematics, computer science, natural sciences 32.9 25.5 2.3 9.7  Social sciences 13.6 11.5 7.9 29.6  Other 9.5 15.5 12.4 2.8 

# Rounds to zero.‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases).

1 American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, and Hispanic includes Latino. 

Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

2 The 2.2 percent of graduates who began in other types of institutions (public less-than-2-year, private not-for-profit less-than-4-year, and private for-profit in

total row, but excluded from this variable.

3 Includes 4-year degree-granting institutions.4 Derived from institution- or agency-reported SAT or ACT scores, where available. See glossary (appendix A) for definition of CEE score levels.

NOTE: See glossary for a list of which specific fields of study are included in each listed category.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).
Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

36 

Women were twice as likely as men (36 percent compared with 16 percent) to have taught 

elementary or early childhood education, and more likely than men (28 percent compared with 20 

percent) to have taught English, reading, or writing. Men were more likely than women to have 

taught in health or physical education in their first teaching jobs after receiving the bachelor’s 

degree (15 percent compared with 3 percent). 

Just as first teaching in an elementary or secondary school was associated with graduates’ 

CEE scores, so was teaching elementary/early childhood education. The higher graduates’ CEE 

scores, the less likely they were to have taught elementary/early childhood education in their first 

teaching jobs. In addition, graduates with scores in the highest level of the CEE score distribution 

were more likely than other graduates to have taught art, drama, or music in their first teaching 

jobs. Graduates with scores in the highest level were less likely than others to have taught health 

or physical education in their first teaching jobs. These data indicate no significant association 

between the proportion of graduates who taught a foreign language or mathematics in their first 

teaching job and graduates’ CEE scores. 

Among those who taught, graduates’ cumulative undergraduate GPAs were associated with 

the fields they taught in their first teaching jobs after graduation. For example, graduates with 

lower cumulative undergraduate GPAs were more likely to have taught elementary or early 

childhood education in their first jobs: nearly 40 percent of those with GPAs between 2.25 and 

2.74 taught this subject, compared with 25 percent of those who had GPAs of 3.75 or higher. 

Graduates with higher GPAs were more likely than those with lower GPAs to have taught art, 

drama, or music or English, reading or writing. These data did not indicate a relationship 

between the proportion of graduates who taught mathematics, science, and social studies or 

history and graduates’ cumulative undergraduate GPAs. 

In their first teaching jobs, graduates often, but not always, taught subjects related to the 

fields in which they had majored as undergraduates. For example, among new social sciences 

graduates who taught, 30 percent taught social studies or history in their first teaching jobs, and 

graduates in no other field were more likely to have taught social studies in their first teaching 

jobs. Likewise, education majors were more likely than any other major to have taught 

elementary/early childhood education in their first teaching position (42 percent compared with 

29 percent or less), and humanities graduates were more likely than others to have taught art, 

drama, or music. Mathematics, computer science, and natural sciences majors were more likely 

than graduates in other majors, with the exception of education majors, to have taught 
 Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

37 

mathematics in their first teaching jobs. Similarly, humanities graduates were more likely than all 

but education majors to have taught English, reading, or writing.22 

Most graduates were certified in the subjects they had taught in their first teaching jobs 

after receiving the 1999–2000 degree. Eighty-five percent of those who had taught elementary or 

early childhood education classes—in which a teacher teaches multiple subjects to the same 

group of students for all or most of the school day—were certified in elementary or early 

childhood education (figure 4). Among graduates who had taught the core subjects of 

 

22Again, these patterns are likely to have been influenced by state-level policies regarding teacher certification, as discussed 

above. 

Figure 4.—Percentage of 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who were certified in the subjects taught in

Figure C.—their first teaching job after receiving the 1999–2000 degree, by subject: 2001

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).

47

62

63

68

74

76

76

80

83

85

0 20 40 60 80 100

Vocational/occupational education

Health/physical education

Foreign languages

Art/music/drama

Science

English/reading/writing

Mathematics

Social studies/history

Special education

Elementary/early childhood education

Percent
Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

38 

English/reading/writing, mathematics, science, and social studies/history, 74 to 80 percent were 

certified in those areas. Graduates who had taught elementary/early childhood education were 

more likely than those who taught all other fields (except special education and social 

studies/history) to be certified in their respective subject. In turn, those who had taught special 

education and social studies/history were more likely than those who had taught art/music/drama, 

foreign languages, health/physical education, or vocational/occupational education to be certified 

in their respective subjects. 

Satisfaction with Teaching 

Graduates who had taught after receiving the 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree were asked to 

indicate whether they were very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, or not satisfied with seven aspects 

of their most recent teaching jobs, and this section focuses on the proportion of teaching 

graduates who were very satisfied with each of these aspects. About three-fifths were very 

satisfied with the support they had received from their school’s administration, a higher 

proportion than were very satisfied with all other aspects except their school’s learning 

environment (table 11). More than one-half (56 percent) of teachers among 1999–2000 graduates 

Table 11.—Among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had taught as of 2001, percentage who were

Table 11.—very satisfied with various aspects of teaching in their current or most recent teaching job after

Table 11.—receiving the 1999–2000 degree, by selected characteristics of that job: 2001

Most recent school/ Administeaching job Student Learning Student Class Parent Society’s tration

characteristic motivation environment behavior size support perception support

 Total 35.5 56.4 39.0 51.6 33.9 15.8 58.8

Type

 Public 33.2 55.6 37.8 48.5 30.4 14.4 57.9

 Private 53.6 64.9 49.9 74.4 59.9 27.5 68.1

Level

 Elementary 42.4 63.0 42.9 52.9 33.6 15.4 61.1

 Secondary 15.8 42.7 26.2 40.5 29.3 13.9 55.7

 Combined 25.7 58.3 47.6 66.1 33.4 19.6 84.2

Percent minority

 Less than 25 percent 37.4 66.7 41.1 53.1 43.8 16.4 69.4

 25–49 percent 34.3 58.1 37.5 48.0 35.9 21.1 60.0

 50–74 percent 29.3 52.6 38.7 52.3 17.5 12.4 58.2

 75 percent or higher 29.6 40.2 33.7 44.5 15.6 9.6 46.2

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).
 Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

39 

were very satisfied with their school’s learning environment, and one-half were very satisfied 

with their class size. Graduates were least likely to be very satisfied with society’s perception of 

the teaching profession: whereas 16 percent were very satisfied with this aspect of teaching, onethird or more were very satisfied with each of the other six aspects of teaching. 

Some characteristics of the schools in which they had most recently taught were associated 

with graduates’ satisfaction with various aspects of teaching. Graduates who had most recently 

taught in private schools were more likely than those who had most recently taught in public 

schools to be very satisfied with all seven aspects of teaching included in the interview. The level 

of the school in which they had most recently taught was associated with teachers’ satisfaction 

with some aspects of their jobs. New teachers who had most recently taught at an elementary 

school were more likely than those who had most recently taught at a secondary school to report 

that they were very satisfied with student motivation, the school’s learning environment, student 

behavior, and class size. 

The proportion of graduates who were very satisfied with their students’ motivation, 

students’ behavior, or class size did not vary significantly with the proportion of students who 

were of minority background in the schools where graduates had most recently taught. However, 

teachers’ satisfaction with some aspects of their jobs was related to the proportion of minority 

students who were enrolled in their schools. The greater the proportion of minority students, the 

less likely teachers were to be very satisfied with their school’s learning environment, parent 

support, society’s perception of the profession, and the support they received from their school 

administration. 

Teachers’ responses indicate their subjective sense of satisfaction with various aspects, 

which may vary with teacher characteristics as well as school or student characteristics. Previous 

research indicates that teachers in high-minority enrollment schools differ from teachers in 

lower-minority enrollment schools in a number of ways, some of which may be related to 

teachers’ perceptions of the support they receive and to their need for support. For example, 

teachers in high-minority enrollment schools are often less experienced than teachers in other 

schools (NCTAF 1996). Such teachers may feel the need for support more strongly than other 

teachers, and therefore be more likely to feel that the support they receive is inadequate. 

Whether School Helped New Teachers 

Between three-fourths and four-fifths of graduates agreed that the school in which they had 

most recently taught had been effective in helping new teachers with four aspects of teaching: 

student discipline, instruction, curriculum, and adjusting to the school environment (table 12). 
Teaching and Preparation to Teach Among 1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

40 

Teachers in public schools were less likely than their peers at private schools to agree that their 

schools had helped new teachers with discipline and instruction effectively. In addition, whereas 

four-fifths (82 percent) of those who first taught in elementary schools believed their schools had 

been effective in helping new teachers with instruction, three-fourths (74 percent) did so in 

secondary schools. 

As observed vis-a-vis teachers’ satisfaction with some aspects of their schools, as the 

percentage of minority students in the school rose, the proportion of teachers who agreed that 

their schools had been effective in helping new teachers with discipline, curriculum, and 

adjusting to the school environment declined. For example, in schools with less than one-fourth 

minority enrollment, 76 percent of teachers agreed that the schools had been effective in helping 

new teachers with discipline. In contrast, in schools with at least three-fourths minority students, 

63 percent of teachers agreed that the schools had been effective in helping new teachers with 

discipline. Again, these differences may reflect teacher characteristics as well as school or 

student characteristics. 

Table 12.—Among 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients who had taught as of 2001, percentage who 

Table 12.—agreed that the schools in which they taught in their current or most recent teaching job helped 

Table 12.—them with various aspects of teaching, by selected characteristics of that job: 2001

Most recent school/teaching Adjust to school

job characteristic Discipline Instruction Curriculum environment

 Total 73.1 79.4 79.5 83.0

Type

 Public 72.4 79.2 79.5 83.4

 Private 81.4 85.0 83.8 84.7

Level

 Elementary 72.7 81.8 81.1 84.9

 Secondary 71.3 73.9 76.3 77.5

 Combined 78.6 80.0 77.6 91.2

Percent minority

 Less than 25 percent 76.1 78.9 81.6 86.4

 25–49 percent 75.5 83.4 83.2 84.4

 50–74 percent 75.5 82.8 79.8 80.1

 75 percent or higher 62.7 75.7 72.7 77.2

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).
41 

Comparisons With 1992–93 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

This section compares this cohort’s teaching with that of a previous bachelor’s degree 

recipient cohort, students who graduated from college 7 years earlier, in 1992–93, and were 

followed up in 1994. In both 1994 and 2001, 85 percent of those who had received bachelor’s 

degrees in the previous academic year had neither taught nor prepared to teach. By 1994, 10 

percent of 1992–93 graduates had taught; by 2001, 12 percent of 1999–2000 graduates had taught 

(table 13). In 2001, 9 percent of 1999–2000 graduates had taught with certification, an increase 

from the 7 percent of 1992–93 graduates who had taught with certification in 1994. In 1994, 5 

percent of 1992–93 graduates had prepared to teach but not yet taught, and in 2001, 3 percent of 

1999–2000 graduates had done so. 

This pattern of change over time—the increases in the proportions who taught and who 

taught with certification and the decrease in the proportion who prepared but did not teach—

occurred among both men and women. This pattern was also observed among White graduates. 

Among Black bachelor’s degree recipients, the proportion who had taught increased from 9 

percent in 1994 to 13 percent in 2001 and the proportion who taught with certification increased 

from 4 percent to 8 percent in the same time period. The proportion of Black graduates who 

neither prepared nor taught decreased over time from 89 percent to 84 percent. 

Graduates who began postsecondary education in private not-for-profit or public 4-year 

institutions were more likely to have taught overall and with certification in 2001 than in 1994 

(table 14). In addition, regardless of the type of postsecondary institution first attended, in 2001 

graduates were less likely to have prepared but not taught than they were in 1994. 

Change over time also occurred among graduates who received their degrees from different 

types of institutions. Graduates who received their degrees from 4-year non-doctorate-granting 

institutions, whether public or private not-for-profit, were more likely to have taught overall and 

with certification in 2001 than in 1994. Graduates who received their degrees from public 4-year 

non-doctorate-granting institutions were also less likely to have prepared but not taught in 2001 

than in 1994. 

The overall patterns of change between cohorts were observed among graduates at some, 

but not all, levels of the CEE score distribution. Among the later cohort, graduates with CEE 

scores in the lowest and middle levels were more likely to have taught (18 percent in 2001 versus 
Comparisons With 1992–93 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

42 

Table 13.—Percentage distribution of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by K–12 teaching

Table 13.—status, by gender and race/ethnicity: 1994 and 2001

Neither Neither

Prepared certified Certified certified

but not nor or nor

Selected characteristics Total Certified certified prepared prepared prepared

1994

 Total 10.1 6.5 1.1 2.4 4.9 85.0

Gender

 Male 5.8 3.0 0.7 2.1 2.9 91.3

 Female 13.7 9.5 1.5 2.7 6.6 79.7

Race/ethnicity

1

 American Indian 10.8 9.3 # 1.5 2.6 86.6

 Asian/Pacific Islander 3.0 1.6 0.1 1.4 2.2 94.8

 Black 8.7 4.4 0.7 3.6 2.3 89.0

 White 10.4 6.9 1.2 2.3 5.5 84.1

 Other 4.0 2.1 1.9 # 1.5 94.5

 Hispanic 14.3 7.9 1.8 4.6 2.5 83.2

2001

 Total 12.2 8.5 1.2 2.6 2.9 84.9

Gender

 Male 7.6 5.2 0.5 1.8 2.1 90.4

 Female 15.7 11.0 1.6 3.1 3.6 80.7

Race/ethnicity

1

 American Indian 7.4 6.0 1.4 # 6.0 86.6

 Asian/Pacific Islander 2.4 1.0 0.4 1.1 1.6 95.9

 Black 12.9 7.8 1.0 4.1 3.2 83.9

 White 12.4 9.2 1.0 2.2 3.0 84.6

 Other 6.7 3.7 0.7 2.3 2.5 90.8

 Hispanic 18.8 9.8 3.5 5.5 2.9 78.3

# Rounds to zero.

1 American Indian includes Alaska Native, Black includes African American, Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian, 

and Hispanic includes Latino. Other includes multiple races. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).

Taught Had not taught
 Comparisons With 1992–93 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

43 

Table 14.—Percentage distribution of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by K–12 teaching

Table 14.—status, by selected undergraduate academic characteristics: 1994 and 2001

Neither Neither

Prepared, certified Certified certified

but not nor or nor

Selected characteristics Total Certified certified prepared Total prepared prepared

1994

 Total 10.1 6.5 1.1 2.4 89.9 4.9 85.0

First institution type

1

 Public 2-year 11.9 8.3 1.3 2.4 88.1 6.2 81.9

 Public 4-year 10.2 7.0 1.1 2.1 89.8 4.9 85.0

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 9.2 4.8 1.2 3.2 90.8 4.8 86.0

Degree-granting institution type

 Public 

 Non-doctorate-granting 13.3 9.7 1.4 2.2 86.7 7.7 79.0

 Doctorate-granting 9.6 6.5 1.0 2.1 90.4 3.5 86.9

 Private not-for-profit

 Non-doctorate-granting 9.3 5.4 1.3 2.6 90.7 5.5 85.2

 Doctorate-granting 7.8 3.2 1.1 3.5 92.2 3.9 88.3

 Private for-profit 2-years or more2 1.2 0.6 # 0.6 98.8 # 98.8

College entrance examination score3

 Lowest level 12.5 8.6 1.5 2.4 87.5 5.5 82.0

 Middle level 10.3 7.0 1.1 2.2 89.7 5.0 84.7

 Highest level 7.4 3.3 0.9 3.2 92.6 3.1 89.5

 Did not take test 9.8 6.4 1.1 2.3 90.2 5.8 84.4

Cumulative undergraduate GPA

 Less than 2.25 5.1 1.8 0.7 2.6 94.9 1.1 93.8

 2.25–2.74 6.7 3.5 0.8 2.4 93.3 2.3 91.1

 2.75–3.24 9.6 6.6 1.0 2.0 90.4 4.6 85.8

 3.25–3.74 11.4 7.6 1.3 2.4 88.6 5.8 82.8

 3.75 or higher 13.0 8.1 1.6 3.2 87.0 7.2 79.8

Undergraduate field of study

 Business and management 1.7 0.4 # 1.3 98.3 0.7 97.6

 Education 47.5 37.8 6.5 3.3 52.5 24.0 28.6

 Humanities 10.8 4.7 1.1 5.1 89.2 4.3 84.9

 Mathematics, computer science,

 natural sciences 6.2 3.2 0.9 2.1 93.8 2.1 91.7

 Social sciences 4.5 1.6 0.2 2.8 95.5 2.9 92.7

 Other 2.8 0.8 0.1 1.9 97.2 2.1 95.1

See notes at end of table.

Taught Had not taught
Comparisons With 1992–93 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

44 

Table 14.—Percentage distribution of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients by K–12 teaching

Table 14.—status, by selected undergraduate academic characteristics: 1994 and 2001—Continued

Neither Neither

Prepared, certified Certified certified

but not nor or nor

Selected characteristics Total Certified certified prepared Total prepared prepared

2001

 Total 12.2 8.5 1.2 2.6 87.8 2.9 84.9

First institution type

1

 Public 2-year 13.1 9.3 1.4 2.4 86.9 3.2 83.8

 Public 4-year 12.4 8.7 1.2 2.5 87.7 2.8 84.8

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 12.0 8.0 1.0 3.0 88.0 2.7 85.2

Degree-granting institution type

 Public 

 Non-doctorate-granting 17.3 12.9 1.7 2.8 82.7 3.8 78.9

 Doctorate-granting 10.6 7.3 1.0 2.2 89.5 2.3 87.2

 Private not-for-profit

 Non-doctorate-granting 14.2 10.2 1.2 2.8 85.8 3.9 82.0

 Doctorate-granting 9.1 4.8 1.0 3.3 90.9 2.7 88.3

 Private for-profit 2-years or more2 1.1 0.3 # 0.8 98.9 1.9 97.1

College entrance examination score4

 Lowest level 18.4 13.8 1.4 3.1 81.6 4.2 77.5

 Middle level 13.1 9.6 1.3 2.2 86.9 2.9 84.0

 Highest level 8.6 4.7 1.1 2.8 91.4 1.2 90.2

 Did not take test or score not available 9.6 6.3 0.9 2.4 90.4 3.2 87.3

Cumulative undergraduate GPA

 Less than 2.25 8.9 4.9 0.2 3.8 91.1 4.4 86.7

 2.25–2.74 8.8 4.7 1.3 2.7 91.2 2.6 88.6

 2.75–3.24 12.4 8.8 1.3 2.4 87.6 3.0 84.6

 3.25–3.74 13.6 10.0 0.9 2.6 86.5 2.7 83.7

 3.75 or higher 14.1 10.5 1.3 2.3 85.9 3.3 82.6

Undergraduate field of study

 Business and management 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.6 98.8 0.8 98.0

 Education 66.5 56.4 5.9 4.2 33.5 13.0 20.5

 Humanities 16.8 9.8 2.0 5.1 83.2 2.9 80.3

 Mathematics, computer science,

 natural sciences 5.5 3.3 0.6 1.7 94.5 1.8 92.7

 Social sciences 9.1 4.7 0.6 3.8 90.9 2.6 88.3

 Other 4.4 2.5 0.4 1.5 95.6 1.9 93.7

# Rounds to zero.

1 The 2.2 percent of graduates who began in other types of institutions (public less-than-2-year, private not-for-profit less-than4-year, and private for-profit institutions) are included in the total row, but excluded from this variable. 2 Includes for-profit 4-year degree-granting institutions. 3 Derived from College Board-, institution-, or student-reported SAT or ACT scores, where available. 4 Derived from institution- or agency-reported SAT or ACT scores, where available. See glossary (appendix A) for definition of 

CEE score levels.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. See glossary for a list of which specific fields of study are included in 

each listed category.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).

Taught Had not taught
 Comparisons With 1992–93 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 

45 

13 percent in 1994) and to have taught with certification (14 percent in 2001 versus 9 percent in 

1994). Furthermore, 1999–2000 graduates with scores in the lowest level were less likely than 

their 1992–93 counterparts to have neither prepared nor taught (77 percent versus 82 percent) 

within a year of completing their degrees. 

Similar changes were observed over time among some subgroups of graduates defined by 

their cumulative GPAs. Graduates whose cumulative undergraduate GPAs fell between 2.75 and 

3.74 were more likely to have taught and to have taught with certification in 2001 than in 1994. 

In addition, graduates whose GPAs were 2.75 or higher were less likely to have prepared but not 

taught in 2001 than in 1994. 

Graduates who had majored in education, the humanities, and the social sciences were 

more likely to have taught and to have taught with certification in 2001 than in 1994. Finally, 

one-fourth of 1992–93 graduates with education majors had prepared to teach but not taught as of 

1994, compared with 13 percent of 1999–2000 education majors as of 2001. 

In summary, graduates were slightly more likely to have taught in 2001 than in 1994. This 

slight increase appears to have been driven by an increase in the proportion of graduates who had 

prepared to teach and then actually taught in the year following bachelor’s degree receipt. This 

cohort difference was observed both overall and within some subgroups of graduates. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
47 

Conclusion 

Teaching continued to be a common occupation among 1999–2000 graduates, 12 percent of 

whom had taught in a K–12 school within 1 year of completing their bachelor’s degree. 

Moreover, teaching was associated with various demographic and academic characteristics in 

predictable ways. 

As has been the case for generations, teaching continued to attract women graduates more 

often than their male counterparts in the 21st century. Among graduates, women were more 

likely than men to have taught (regardless of their level of preparation) and to have prepared to 

teach. Women who had not taught were more likely than their male counterparts to have 

expressed some interest in teaching by having worked as a substitute teacher or teacher’s aide or 

considered teaching by 2001. Among graduates who had expressed such interest in teaching but 

had not applied for a teaching position, women were less likely than men to report that they had 

not applied because they were not interested in teaching or wanted higher salaries. They were 

more likely than men to have not applied because they were not yet certified, however. 

In addition to gender, choosing and preparing to teach were associated with graduates’ 

racial/ethnic background. Asian/Pacific Islander graduates were less likely than Black, Hispanic, 

and White graduates to have taught and to have substitute taught or worked as a teacher’s aide. 

Among graduates who had not taught, Asian/Pacific Islanders were less likely than other 

racial/ethnic groups to have considered teaching. 

College graduates begin and complete undergraduate education in a wide variety of types of 

postsecondary institutions, ranging from institutions that do not grant 4-year degrees to those 

whose primary mission is to provide instruction and confer bachelor’s and master’s degrees to 

those with a strong emphasis on basic research as well as undergraduate and graduate education. 

Recent policy discussions have focused on ways in which community colleges, although they 

typically do not grant the bachelor’s degrees required by all states for an initial teaching 

credential, contribute to the preparation of elementary and secondary teachers. Some have 

suggested that community colleges could be fertile grounds for teacher recruitment. The 

B&B:2000/01 data indicate that, as of 2001, the type of institution in which graduates began their 

undergraduate education was not associated with whether they taught in the year following 

college graduation. Regardless of the type of institution in which they began their postsecondary 
Conclusion 

48 

education, 12 to 13 percent of all graduates had taught within a year of completing the bachelor’s 

degree. 

The type of postsecondary institution from which graduates had received the 1999–2000 

bachelor’s degree, however, was associated with teaching (or movement toward it) among 

graduates. In general, graduates of public and of non-doctorate-granting institutions were more 

inclined toward teaching, that is, more likely to have taught, prepared to teach, and so on, than 

graduates of private and doctorate-granting institutions, respectively. 

As in the past, academic achievement was associated with teaching, although the two 

measures of academic achievement used in this study were related to teaching in opposite ways. 

Graduates’ cumulative undergraduate GPAs were positively associated with teaching and with 

teaching with certification. However, the difference was not great: whereas 14 percent of 

graduates with GPAs of 3.75 or above had taught within a year of completing their bachelor’s 

degrees, 9 percent of graduates with GPAs below 2.75 did so. 

Among graduates with CEE scores available for analysis, the B&B:2000/01 data indicate 

that CEE scores were negatively associated with teaching. Graduates with higher scores were less 

likely than those with lower scores to have taught and to have taught with certification. Among 

graduates who had not taught but had at least considered teaching, those with scores in the 

highest level were less likely than others to have applied for a teaching position by 2001. Among 

those with some interest who did not apply for teaching positions, those with higher scores were 

more likely than those with lower scores to not apply because they were not interested in teaching 

or wanted a higher salary. 

How well these variables indicate graduates’ academic skills and abilities are unclear for a 

number of reasons, however. Although nearly all sampled graduates had GPAs available for 

analysis, nearly one-third of graduates had either not taken a CEE or did not have a score 

available for analysis. In particular, nonteaching graduates were less likely than teaching 

graduates to have scores available for analysis.23 CEE scores represent achievement prior to 

attending 4-year institutions, and thus do not measure any value added by attendance at those 

institutions. GPAs are not standardized among or within institutions. To the extent that states and 

professional organizations develop other measures of teachers’ academic skills and achievement 

in response to NCLB and other legislation or policy initiatives, it will be possible to measure 

more directly the relationship between the curricula they are required to teach and those they 

have mastered themselves. 

 

23Additional analyses, related to these results and discussed in the technical appendix, indicate that findings concerning CEE 

scores may be confounded by the large proportions of graduates with missing scores. 
 Conclusion 

49 

Legislation has already mandated that teachers of core academic subjects meet state 

standards for academic preparation in those subjects. Given this policy context, these data 

indicate that although graduates who had majored in education were consistently more likely than 

others to teach, prepare to teach, consider teaching, and so on, graduates in other fields also 

engaged in these activities. Seventeen percent of humanities majors had taught by 2001, as well 

as 9 percent of social science majors. In fact, one-fifth of all graduates who had taught by 2001 

had majored in the humanities as undergraduates, one-tenth in the social sciences, and 7 percent 

in mathematics, computer science, or a natural science. Among graduates who had not taught, at 

least one-half of humanities and social sciences majors had considered teaching, worked as a 

substitute teacher, or worked as a teacher’s aide. 

The proportion of graduates who pursued teaching in the year following graduation varied 

little between 1994 and 2001. In both 1994 and 2001, approximately 15 percent of those who had 

graduated in the previous academic year (i.e., 1992–93 or 1999–2000, respectively) had taught or 

prepared to teach in an elementary or secondary school. By 2001, slightly more graduates (12 

percent versus 10 percent in 1994) had taught in the year after receiving the bachelor’s degree, 

and slightly more (9 percent versus 7 percent in 1994) had taught with certification. Whereas 3 

percent of graduates had prepared or were certified to teach, but had not taught, by 2001, some 5 

percent had done so by 1994. These differences over time tended to persist within subgroups of 

graduates, that is, regardless of their demographic or academic characteristics 1999–2000 

graduates tended to be slightly more likely than 1992–93 graduates to have taught within a year 

of completing the bachelor’s degree. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
51 

References 

Altenbaugh, R.J., and Underwood, K. (1990). The Evolution of Normal Schools. In J.I. Goodlad, 

R. Soder, and K.A. Sirotnik (Eds.), Places Where Teachers Are Taught (pp. 136–186). San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 

Associated Press. (2003, February 19). State Needs 20,000 Teachers. St. Petersburg Times.

Retrieved October 6, 2003, from 

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/02/19/news_pf/State/State_needs_20_000_te.shtml. 

Banchero, S., and Sherlock, B. (2003, January 16). Teacher Demand Dips With Economy. 

Chicago Tribune, p. 1. 

Blair, J. (2003, April 30). Community Colleges Offering 4-Year Teaching Programs. Education 

Week, 22(33): 1, 22–23. 

Book, C., Freeman, D., and Brousseau, B. (1985). Comparing Academic Backgrounds and 

Career Aspirations of Education and Non-Education Majors. Journal of Teacher Education, 

36(3): 27–30. 

Booth, H. (2002, April 16). Teacher Recruiting Reaches Frenzied Pace: Dallas-Area Districts 

Offer Signing Bonuses, Other Incentives. Dallas Morning News. 

Bradburn, E.M., Berger, R., Li, X., Peter, K., and Rooney, K. (2003). A Descriptive Summary of 

1999–2000 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 1 Year Later, With an Analysis of Time to Degree

(NCES 2003–165). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

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

Charleston, S., Riccobono, J., Mosquin, P., and Link, M. (2003). Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study: 2000–01 (B&B: 2000/01) Methodology Report (NCES 2003–156). U.S. 

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

Government Printing Office. 

Coeyman, M. (2001, July 17). America’s Widening Teacher Gap. Christian Science Monitor.
References 

52 

Coleman, S. (2001, August 12). As Summer Ends, Schools Face Teacher Shortage. Boston 

Globe, p. B8. 

Cremin, L.A. (1961). The Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education, 

1876–1957. New York: Vintage Books. 

Decker, P.T., Mayer, D.P., and Glazerman, S. (2004). The Effects of Teach for America on 

Students: Findings From a National Evaluation. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc. 

Dunn, O.J. (1961). Multiple Comparisons Among Means. Journal of the American Statistical 

Association, 56: 52–64. 

Education Commission of the States, Task Force on Education for Economic Growth. (1983). 

Action for Excellence: A Comprehensive Plan to Improve Our Nation’s Schools. Denver, CO: 

Author. 

Ehrenberg, R.G., and Brewer, D.J. (1995). Did Teachers’ Verbal Ability and Race Matter in the 

1960’s? “Coleman” Revisited. Economics of Education Review, 14(1): 1–21. 

Feistritzer, C.E. (1988, January 28). The Truth Behind the “Teacher Shortage.” The Wall Street 

Journal.

Frankel, M., and Stowe, P. (1990). New Teachers in the Job Market, 1987 Update (NCES 90–

336). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Grant, W.V., and Eiden, L.J. (1980). Digest of Education Statistics 1980 (NCES 80–401). U.S. 

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

Government Printing Office. 

Gray, L., Cahalan, M., Hein, S., Litman, C., Severynse, J., Warren, S., Wisan, G., and Stowe, P. 

(1993). New Teachers in the Job Market, 1991 Update (NCES 93–392). U.S. Department of 

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

Printing Office. 

Green, P.J., Meyers, S.L., Giese, P., Law, J., Speizer, H.M., and Tardino, V.S. (1996). 

Baccaulaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study: 1993/94 First Follow-up Methodology 

Report (NCES 96–149). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

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

53 

Green, P., Myers, S., Veldman, C., and Pedlow, S. (1999). Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study: 1993/97 Second Follow-up Methodology Report (NCES 1999–159). 

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

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., and Rivkin, S.G. (2004). The Revolving Door: Why Teachers Leave. 

Education Next, 4(1): 76–82. 

Henke, R.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. 

Henke, R.R., Geis, S., Giambattista, J., and Knepper, P. (1996). Out of the Lecture Hall and Into 

the Classroom: 1992–93 College Graduates and Elementary/Secondary School Teaching

(NCES 96–899). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

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

Henke, R.R., and Zahn, L. (2001). Attrition of New Teachers Among Recent College Graduates: 

Comparing Occupational Stability Among 1992–93 Graduates Who Taught and Those Who 

Worked in Other Occupations (NCES 2001–189). U.S. Department of Education, National 

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

Herbst, J. (1989). And Sadly Teach: Teacher Education and Professionalization in American 

Culture. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. 

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s Teachers. East Lansing, MI: Author. 

Ingersoll, R.M. (2001). Teacher Turnover and Teacher Shortages: An Organizational Analysis. 

American Educational Research Journal, 38: 499–534.

Ingersoll, R., and Gruber, K. (1996). Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality (NCES 

96–040). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

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

Kuchera, S. (2002, November 27). Shortage of Special Ed Teachers Is Acute: New Laws, 

Burnout Feed Rising Problem; Regional Universities Developing New Programs. Saint Paul 

Pioneer Press, p. B2. 
References 

54 

Lankford, H., Loeb, S., and Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher Sorting and the Plight of Urban Schools: 

A Descriptive Analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24: 37–62. 

Lindelof, B. (2003, March 27). Help Wanted: Special Education Teachers, Who Serve the 

Neediest Kids, Are in Short Supply. Sacramento Bee. 

Loft, J.D., Riccobono, J.A., Whitmore, R.W., Fitzgerald, R.A., and Berkner, L.K. (1995). 

Methodology Report for the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 1992–93 (NCES 95–

211). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Melendez, M., and Go, K. (2002, May 6). Challenges of Special Ed Extend to Finding Teachers. 

Arizona Republic. 

Murnane, R.J., and Phillips, B.R. (1981). What Do Effective Teachers of Inner-City Children 

Have in Common? Social Science Research, 10(1): 83–100. 

Murnane, R.J., Singer, J.D., Willett, J.B., Kemple, J.J., and Olsen, R.J. (1991). Who Will Teach? 

Policies That Matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Murphy, D.E. (2003, April 1). Mass Layoffs Threatened for Teachers in California. New York 

Times. 

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperatives for 

Educational Reform. Washington, DC: Author. 

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

Teaching for America’s Future. New York: Author. 

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF). (1997). Doing What Matters 

Most: Investing in Quality Teaching. New York: Author. 

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF). (2003, January). No Dream 

Denied: A Pledge to America’s Children, Summary Report. Washington, DC: Author. 

National Governor’s Association. (2000). Teacher Supply and Demand: Is There a Shortage?

Retrieved October 6, 2003, from http://www.nga.org/cda/files/000125TEACHERS.pdf. 
 References 

55 

National Science Foundation. (1998, December). Investing in Tomorrow’s Teachers: The 

Integral Role of the Two-Year College in the Science and Mathematics Preparation of 

Prospective Teachers. Report from a National Science Foundation Workshop. Washington, 

DC: Author. 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2001). Retrieved January 31, 2003, 

from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02. 

Rado, D., and Keilman, J. (2003, March 5). Teachers Brace for Record Layoffs. Chicago 

Tribune, p. 1. 

Raymond, M., Fletcher, S.H., and Luque, J. (2001). Teach for America: An Evaluation of 

Teacher Differences and Student Outcomes in Houston, Texas. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford 

University Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO). 

Recruiting New Teachers. (2002). Tapping Potential: Community College Students and 

America’s Teacher Recruitment Challenge. Boston: Author. 

Riccobono, J.A., Cominole, M.B., Siegel, P.H., Gabel, T.J., Link, M.W., and Berkner, L.K. 

(2002). National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000) Methodology 

Report (NCES 2002–152). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

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

Rockoff, J. (2004). The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence from 

Panel Data. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 94(2): 247–252. 

Ross, J. (2001, August 4). California Will Try to Lure Michigan Teachers. Detroit Free Press.

Rossi, R., and Grossman, K. (2002, January 17). Teacher Shortage at “Crisis” Level. Chicago 

Sun-Times.

Sack, K. (2001, May 19). Facing a Teacher Shortage, American Schools Look Overseas. New 

York Times.

Schlecty, P.C., and Vance, V.S. (1983). Recruitment, Selection, and Retention: The Shape of the 

Teaching Force. Elementary School Journal, 83(4): 469–487. 

Schulhofer-Wohl, S. (2001, July 15). Houston Spends More, Shops Hard for Teachers. 

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.
References 

56 

Schulhofer-Wohl, S., and Hetzner, A. (2001, July 15). Teacher Hiring Gap Widens at MPS. 

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

Seastrom, M.M., Gruber, K.J., Henke, R., McGrath, D.J., and Cohen, B.A. (2002). Qualifications 

of the Public School Teacher Workforce: Prevalence of Out-of-Field Teaching 1987–88 to 

1999–2000 (NCES 2002–603). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

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

SERVE. (2000). Community Colleges and K–12 Teacher Preparation. SERVE Policy Brief.

Seymour, L. (2001, June 24). Schools Scrambling to Find New Teachers. Washington Post, p. 

LZ03. 

Snyder, T.D., and Hoffman, C.M. (2003). Digest of Education Statistics 2002 (NCES 2003–060). 

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

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Snyder, T.D., Tan, A.G., and Hoffman, C.M. (2004). Digest of Education Statistics 2003 (NCES 

2005–025). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

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

Townsend, B.K., and Ignash, J.M. (2003). Community College Roles in Teacher Education: 

Current Approaches and Future Possibilities. New Directions for Community Colleges, 121: 

5–16. 

Tyack, D.B. (1974). The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education. Cambridge, 

MA: Harvard University Press. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2001). The Initial Report of 

the Secretary on the Quality of Teacher Preparation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2002). Meeting the Highly 

Qualified Teachers Challenge: The Secretary’s Annual Report on Teacher Quality.

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

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2004). Meeting the Highly 

Qualified Teachers Challenge: The Secretary’s Third Annual Report on Teacher Quality.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
 References 

57 

Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived Problems of Beginning Teachers. Review of Educational 

Research, 54(2): 143–178. 

Walsh, J., and Nixon, R. (2004, May 24). Teacher Contracts Contribute to Layoffs. Minneapolis 

Star Tribune.

Wayne, A.J., and Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher Characteristics and Student Achievement Gains: A 

Review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1): 89–122. 

Weaver, W.T. (1983). America’s Teacher Quality Problem: Alternatives for Reform. New York: 

Praeger Publishers. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
59 

Appendix A—Glossary 

This glossary describes the variables used to derive the estimates presented in this report. The estimates were 

generated using the Data Analysis System (DAS), an NCES software application that generates estimates and their 

standard errors in tabular form, for each of two surveys: B&B:93/97 and B&B:2000/2001. (See appendix B for a 

description of the DAS.) The data collected in First Follow-up for B&B:93, including a weight variable that weights 

estimates to the population as of 1994, are included in the 1997 DAS, the most recent DAS available for this cohort. 

In the index below, the variables are organized by general topic, which correspond closely to sections of the report. 

Within topics, the index lists variables in the order in which they appear in the report. When the variable names 

differ between the two surveys, both variable names are listed. The glossary entries are in alphabetical order by the 

B&B:2000/01 variable name, which is displayed along the right-hand column. 

Glossary Index 

K–12 TEACHING STATUS

Teaching status ................................................ STATUS 

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Gender ............................................................ GENDER 

Race/ethnicity ................................. B2RACETH (1997) 

 .............................................................. RACE1 (2001) 

UNDERGRADUATE ACADEMIC EXPERIENCES

First institution type ............................FSCTYPE (1997) 

 ............................................................I1SECT9 (2001) 

BA institution sector ........................SECTOR_B (1997) 

 .......................................................BSECTOR9 (2001) 

College entrance examination 

 score.............................................. SATACTQ2 (1997) 

 ...................................................... TESATDER (2001) 

Cumulative undergraduate GPA .........GPACUM (1997) 

 .................................................................GPA2 (2001) 

Undergraduate field of study..............MAJORS3 (1997) 

 ...................................................... BMAJORS3 (2001) 

TEACHING–RELATED EXPERIENCES

Worked as teacher’s aide or substitute.......ADSBPERM 

Applied for teaching position......................CGTCHAPP 

Reasons for not applying for teaching position: 

 Not interested in teaching ...........................NTAPPINT 

 Poor teaching conditions........................... NTAPPCON

 Wanted higher salary ................................. NTAPPSAL 

 Already teaching ........................................NTAPPTEA

 Already in another job ................................NTAPPJOB 

 Got better job offer .................................... NTAPPOFF 

 Unable to pass tests.....................................NTAPPTES 

 Had not taken required tests.......................NTAPPREQ 

 Not yet certified .........................................NTAPPCER 

 Other ......................................................... NTAPPOTH 

TEACHING EXPERIENCES OF THOSE WHO HAD 

TAUGHT

First teaching job, school sector................... FRTYPE97 

First teaching job, school level .......................FRLEV97 

First taught art/drama/music .........................TFIRSART 

First taught business .....................................TFIRSBUS 

First taught economics/political 

systems........................................................TFIRSECO 

First taught elementary/early childhood 

education .................................................... TFIRSELE 

First taught English/reading/writing............. TFIRSENG 

First taught ESL/bilingual ............................ TFIRSESL 

First taught foreign languages.......................TFIRSFOR 

First taught health/physical education ......... TFIRSPHY 

First taught mathematics ..............................TFIRSMAT 

First taught science ....................................... TFIRSSCI 

First taught secondary education................... TFIRSSEC 

First taught special education.........................TFIRSSPE 

First taught social 

studies/history/civics ...................................TFIRSSOC 

First taught vocational/occupational 

education.................................................... TFIRSVOC 

First taught other type of education ............. TFIRSOTH 

Satisfied with student motivation.................CGMTVTN

Satisfied with learning environment..........CGENVMNT 

Satisfied with student behavior ..................CGBEHAVE

Satisfied with class size................................ CGCLSIZE 

Satisfied with parent support.......................CGPARSUP

Satisfied with society’s perception............. CGESTEEM 

Satisfied with administration support........ CGADMSUP 

Current school type.....................................CGCRPUPR 

Current school level ....................................... CRLEV97 

Current school percent minority................... CRPMIN97 

School helped with discipline ......................CGDISPLN 

School helped with instruction.....................CGINSTRC 

School helped with curriculum .................. CGCURRCL 

School helped new teachers adjust..............CGADJUST 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

60 

Worked as teacher’s aide or substitute ADSBPERM

Indicates whether respondent worked as a substitute teacher or teacher’s aide in his/her first or current/most recent 

teaching position, and distinguishes between those who did so in order to gain a permanent teaching position and 

those who did so for other reasons. 

Did not teach 

Not substitute/aide job 

Aide/sub job, other reason 

Aide/sub job to get permanent job 

Undergraduate field of study MAJORS3 (1997); BMAJORS3 (2001)

Major field of study for bachelor’s degree, collapsed to 12 categories as shown below. B&B:93/97 DAS variable 

MAJORS3 was derived from MAJORS, a variable collected as part of the NPSAS:93 computer-assisted telephone 

interview (CATI). B&B:2000/01 DAS variable BMAJORS3 was derived from MAJORS3, a NPSAS:2000 variable. 

Missing values of MAJORS3 were imputed using sequential weighted hot deck imputation. Individuals with missing 

or out-of-range values (e.g., undeclared major) for MAJORS3 were assigned values based on random draws from 

individuals in the same imputation class, where imputation classes were based on GENDER, BSECTOR9, and age 

categories. 

Business/management Accounting, finance, secretarial, data processing, business/ 

management systems, public administration, marketing/ 

distribution, business support, and international relations 

Education Early childhood, elementary, secondary, special, or physical 

education; other education; leisure studies; and library/ 

archival sciences 

Humanities English, liberal arts, philosophy, theology, art, music, speech/ 

drama, art history/fine arts, area studies, African-American 

studies, ethnic studies, foreign languages, liberal studies, and 

women’s studies 

Mathematics, computer science, Life sciences, natural resources, forestry, biological science 

and natural sciences (including zoology), botany, biophysics, geography, 

interdisciplinary studies, including biopsychology, 

environmental studies; physical sciences including chemistry, 

physics; mathematics, statistics, computer/information science, 

computer programming; electrical, chemical, mechanical, civil, 

or other engineering; engineering technology; and electronics 

Social sciences Psychology, economics, political science, American 

civilization, clinical pastoral care, social work, 

anthropology/archaeology, history, and sociology 
 Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

61 

Undergraduate field of study—Continued 

Other Nursing, nurse assisting, community/mental health, medicine, 

physical education/recreation, audiology, clinical health, 

dentistry, veterinary medicine, health/hospital, public health, 

dietetics, other/general health, mechanic technology including 

transportation, protective services, construction, air/other 

transportation, precision production, other technical/ 

professional, agriculture, agricultural science, architecture, 

professional city planning, journalism, communications, 

communications technology, cosmetology, textiles, military 

science, dental/medical technology, home economics, 

vocational home economics including child care, law, 

paralegal, basic/personal skills 

BA institution sector SECTOR_B (1997); BSECTOR9 (2001)

Indicates the sector (level and control) of the institution from which the student received the 1992–93 bachelor’s 

degree (B&B:93/97) or 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree (B&B:2000/01), including whether the institution granted 

doctorates or not. 

Public 

 Non-doctorate-granting 

 Doctorate-granting 

Private not-for-profit 

 Non-doctorate-granting 

 Doctorate-granting 

Private for-profit 2-years or more 

Current/most recent teaching job, school helped new teachers adjust to school environment CGADJUST

With respect to the school in which they currently or most recently taught, respondents who had taught were asked 

“Do you agree or disagree that your school is/was effective in helping new teachers adjust to the school 

environment?” 

Agree 

Disagree 

Current/most recent teaching job, very satisfied with administration support CGADMSUP

With respect to the school in which they currently or most recently taught, respondents who had taught were asked 

“In your most recent teaching job, are/were you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, or not satisfied with support from 

the school administration?” 

Very satisfied 

Somewhat satisfied 

Not satisfied 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

62 

Current/most recent teaching job, very satisfied with student behavior CGBEHAVE

With respect to the school in which they currently or most recently taught, respondents who had taught were asked 

“In your most recent teaching job, are/were you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, or not satisfied with student 

discipline and behavior?” 

Very satisfied 

Somewhat satisfied 

Not satisfied 

Current/most recent teaching job, very satisfied with class size CGCLSIZE 

With respect to the school in which they currently or most recently taught, respondents who had taught were asked 

“In your most recent teaching job, are/were you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, or not satisfied with class size?” 

Very satisfied 

Somewhat satisfied 

Not satisfied 

Current/most recent teaching job, school sector CGCRPUPR

With respect to the school in which they currently or most recently taught, respondents who had taught were asked 

“Is this school...?” Six response categories were aggregated as follows: 

Public Public school operated by local school district 

Public school operated by state/federal agency 

Other-charter school/hospital school 

Private Private Catholic school 

Private-other religious affiliation 

Private-no religious affiliation 

Current/most recent teaching job, school helped new teachers with curriculum CGCURRCL 

With respect to the school in which the currently or most recently taught, respondents who had taught were asked 

“Do you agree or disagree that your school is/was effective in helping new teachers with the curriculum?” 

Agree 

Disagree 

Current/most recent teaching job, school helped new teachers with discipline CGDISPLN

With respect to the school in which the currently or most recently taught, respondents who had taught were asked 

“Do you agree or disagree that your school is/was effective in helping new teachers with student discipline?” 

Agree 

Disagree 
 Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

63 

Current/most recent teaching job, very satisfied with learning environment CGENVMNT

With respect to the school in which the currently or most recently taught, respondents who had taught were asked “In 

your most recent teaching job, are/were you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, or not satisfied with the school 

learning environment?” 

Very satisfied 

Somewhat satisfied 

Not satisfied 

Current/most recent teaching job, very satisfied with society’s perception CGESTEEM 

With respect to the school in which the currently or most recently taught, respondents who had taught were asked “In 

your most recent teaching job, are/were you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, or not satisfied with how society feels 

about the teaching profession?” 

Very satisfied 

Somewhat satisfied 

Not satisfied 

Current/most recent teaching job, school helped new teachers with instruction CGINSTRC

With respect to the school in which the currently or most recently taught, respondents who had taught were asked 

“Do you agree or disagree that your school is/was effective in helping new teachers with instructional methods?” 

Agree 

Disagree 

Current/most recent teaching job, very satisfied with student motivation CGMTVTN

With respect to the school in which the currently or most recently taught, respondents who had taught were asked “In 

your most recent teaching job, are/were you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, or not satisfied with student 

motivation to learn?” 

Very satisfied 

Somewhat satisfied 

Not satisfied 

Current/most recent teaching job, very satisfied with parent support CGPARSUP

With respect to the school in which the currently or most recently taught, respondents who had taught were asked “In 

your most recent teaching job, are/were you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, or not satisfied with support from 

parents?” 

Very satisfied 

Somewhat satisfied 

Not satisfied 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

64 

Applied for teaching position CGTCHAPP

Respondents who had not taught, but had at least considered teaching, were asked “Have you applied for a teaching 

position since completing your degree?” 

Yes 

No 

Current/most recent teaching job, school level CRLEV97

Level of school where teacher is currently teaching or most recently taught after receiving the 1999–2000 bachelor’s 

degree. Respondents who had more than one teaching job between completing the 1999–2000 degree and the 2001 

interview were asked the name and location of the school at which they currently or most recently taught. These data 

were used to match teachers with data about their schools, data that were collected in the 1997–98 Common Core of 

Data (CCD) or Private School Survey (PSS). Using the variables indicating the enrollment in each grade level and 

the NCES three-category school level algorithm, teachers’ current or most recent schools were defined as 

elementary, secondary, or combined. 

Elementary A school that had grade 6 or lower or “ungraded” students and 

had no grade higher than the 8th 

Secondary A school that had grade 7 or higher and had no grade lower 

than the 7th (including “ungraded” students) 

Combined A school that had grades ranging from below grade 7 to above 

grade 8 

Current/most recent teaching job, school percent minority CRPMIN97

Percent of student enrollment made up of minority students at school where teacher is currently teaching or most 

recently taught. Respondents who had more than one teaching job between completing the 1999–2000 degree and 

the 2001 interview were asked the name and location of the school at which they first taught (as well as those of the 

school at which they currently or most recently taught). These data were used to match teachers with data about their 

schools, data that were collected in the 1997–98 Common Core of Data (CCD) or Private School Survey (PSS). 

Less than 25 percent 

25–49 percent 

50–74 percent 

75 percent or more
 Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

65 

First teaching job, school level FRLEV97

Level of first school where teacher began teaching after receiving the 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree. Respondents 

who had more than one teaching job between completing the 1999–2000 degree and the 2001 interview were asked 

the name and location of the school at which they first taught. These data were used to match teachers with data 

about their schools, data that were collected in the 1997–98 Common Core of Data (CCD) or Private School Survey 

(PSS). Using the variables indicating the enrollment in each grade level and the NCES three-category school level 

algorithm, schools were defined as elementary, secondary, or combined. 

Elementary A school that had grade 6 or lower or “ungraded” students and 

had no grade higher than the 8th 

Secondary A school that had grade 7 or higher and had no grade lower 

than the 7th (including “ungraded” students) 

Combined A school that had grades ranging from below grade 7 to above 

grade 8 

First teaching job, school sector FRTYPE97

Sector of first school where teacher began teaching after receiving the 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree. Respondents 

who had more than one teaching job between completing the 1999–2000 degree and the 2001 interview were asked 

the name and location of the school at which they first taught. These data were used to match teachers with data 

about their schools, data that were collected in the 1997–98 Common Core of Data (CCD) or Private School Survey 

(PSS). 

Public (includes regular, special education, vocational, and other/alternative schools) 

Private 

Gender GENDER 

Male 

Female 

Cumulative undergraduate GPA GPACUM (1997); GPA2 (2001) 

Student’s cumulative undergraduate Grade Point Average (GPA). The GPA was standardized to a 4.00-point scale. 

B&B:93/97 data are student-reported. Primary source of B&B:2000/01 data was GPA reported by the sampled 

NPSAS:2000 institution. If this was not available, student-reported GPA was used. 

Student’s GPA was below 2.25. 

Student’s GPA was between 2.25 and 2.74. 

Student’s GPA was between 2.75 and 3.24. 

Student’s GPA was between 3.25 and 3.74. 

Student’s GPA was 3.75 or above. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

66 

First institution type FSCTYPE (1997); I1SECT9 (2001) 

Sector of the first postsecondary institution attended. Derived by matching first institution attended as reported by 

students with Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data concerning those institutions. 

Public 4-year Includes all public 4-year institutions: public 4-year, nondoctorate-granting and public doctorate-granting. 

Private not-for-profit 4-year Includes all private not-for-profit 4-year institutions: private 

not-for-profit 4-year non-doctorate-granting, and private notfor-profit doctorate-granting. 

Other Includes all less-than 4-year institutions—public less-than-2-

year, public 2-year, private not-for-profit less-than-4-year, 

private for-profit less-than-2-year—and private for-profit 2-

years or more. 

Reason for not applying for teaching position, not yet certified NTAPPCER 

Respondents who were not teaching but who had indicated they had considered teaching were asked whether they 

had applied for a teaching position since receiving the 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree. Those who had not applied 

were asked why they had not applied. This variable identifies respondents who indicated that they had not applied 

because they were not yet certified. 

Reason for not applying for teaching position, poor teaching conditions NTAPPCON

Respondents who were not teaching but who had indicated they had considered teaching were asked whether they 

had applied for a teaching position since receiving the 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree. Those who had not applied 

were asked why they had not applied. This variable identifies respondents who indicated that they had not applied 

because of poor teaching conditions. 

Reason for not applying for teaching position, not interested in teaching NTAPPINT

Respondents who were not teaching but who had indicated they had considered teaching were asked whether they 

had applied for a teaching position since receiving the 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree. Those who had not applied 

were asked why they had not applied. This variable identifies respondents who indicated that they had not applied 

because they were not interested in teaching. 

Reason for not applying for teaching position, already in another job NTAPPJOB 

Respondents who were not teaching but who had indicated they had considered teaching were asked whether they 

had applied for a teaching position since receiving the 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree. Those who had not applied 

were asked why they had not applied. This variable identifies respondents who indicated that they had not applied 

because they already had another (nonteaching) job. 
 Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

67 

Reason for not applying for teaching position, got better job offer NTAPPOFF

Respondents who were not teaching but who had indicated they had considered teaching were asked whether they 

had applied for a teaching position since receiving the 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree. Those who had not applied 

were asked why they had not applied. This variable identifies respondents who indicated that they had not applied 

because they had gotten a better job offer. 

Reason for not applying for teaching position, other NTAPPOTH

Respondents who were not teaching but who had indicated they had considered teaching were asked whether they 

had applied for a teaching position since receiving the 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree. Those who had not applied 

were asked why they had not applied. This variable identifies respondents who indicated that they had not applied 

because of some other (unspecified) reason. 

Reason for not applying for teaching position, had not taken required tests NTAPPREQ

Respondents who were not teaching but who had indicated they had considered teaching were asked whether they 

had applied for a teaching position since receiving the 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree. Those who had not applied 

were asked why they had not applied. This variable identifies respondents who indicated that they had not applied 

because they had not taken the required tests. 

Reason for not applying for teaching position, wanted higher salary NTAPPSAL 

Respondents who were not teaching but who had indicated they had considered teaching were asked whether they 

had applied for a teaching position since receiving the 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree. Those who had not applied 

were asked why they had not applied. This variable identifies respondents who indicated that they had not applied 

because they wanted a higher salary. 

Reason for not applying for teaching position, already teaching NTAPPTEA

Respondents who were not teaching but who had indicated they had considered teaching were asked whether they 

had applied for a teaching position since receiving the 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree. Those who had not applied 

were asked why they had not applied. This variable identifies respondents who indicated that they had not applied 

because they already had a teaching job. 

Reason for not applying for teaching position, unable to pass tests NTAPPTES

Respondents who were not teaching but who had indicated they had considered teaching were asked whether they 

had applied for a teaching position since receiving the 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree. Those who had not applied 

were asked why they had not applied. This variable identifies respondents who indicated that they had not applied 

because they were unable to pass the required tests. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

68 

Race/ethnicity B2RACETH (1997); RACE1 (2001) 

Data regarding race and ethnicity were collected differently in the two surveys. In NPSAS:93, the base-year data 

collection for B&B:93, as well as the B&B:93 follow-up data collections, respondents were asked whether they were 

White, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, or other race and also whether they were of 

Hispanic origin. Their responses to these two questions were combined to create the race/ethnicity variable, giving 

priority to Hispanic/Latino origin regardless of race. 

In NPSAS:2000 and its follow-up B&B:2000/01, respondents were asked first “What is your race?” and allowed to 

provide up to three of the following responses: White; Black or African American; Asian; American Indian or 

Alaska Native; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; and Other, specify. Respondents who provided more than 

one response to this question were asked the following question as well: “For historical purposes, could you please 

identify which single race best describes you?” All respondents were asked whether they were of Hispanic origin. 

The composite variable RACE1 was created by giving first priority to respondents who indicated that they were of 

Hispanic origin, second priority to their responses to the historical race question, and third priority to the first race 

question (for those respondents who chose only one response to the first race question and did not indicate Hispanic 

origin). NCES defines the racial/ethnic categories as follows: 

White A person having origins in any of the original peoples of 

Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East 

Black A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of 

Africa 

Hispanic A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South 

American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of 

race 

Asian/Pacific Islander A person having origins in any of the peoples of the Far East, 

Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent (including China, 

Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, India, and Vietnam), or 

in any of the peoples of the Pacific Islands (including Hawaii 

and Samoa) 

American Indian/Alaska Native A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North 

America and who maintains cultural identification through 

tribal affiliation or community recognition 

Other A person having origins in a race not listed above 
 Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

69 

Teaching status STATUS 

Indicates respondent’s teaching status. 

Taught 

Taught, certified Respondent taught in any of grades K–12 (not including 

substitute teaching or teacher’s aide position) since graduation 

and was certified by at least one state at the probationary or 

regular level. 

Taught, prepared, but not certified Respondent taught in any of grades K–12 (not including 

substitute teaching or teacher’s aide position) since graduation 

and had prepared to teach without certification. In 

B&B:2000/01, graduates who had prepared to teach were 

defined as those who had completed either a teacher education 

program or a student teaching assignment as of 2001. In 

B&B:93/94, those whose undergraduate transcript included 

student teaching credit were defined as having prepared to 

teach. 

Taught, neither certified nor prepared Respondent taught in any of grades K–12 (not including 

substitute teaching or teacher’s aide position) since graduation 

but had not prepared to teach (as defined above) and was not 

certified. 

Had not taught 

Had not taught, certified or prepared Respondent had not taught in any of grades K–12 (except for 

those who held a substitute teaching or teacher’s aide position) 

but had prepared to teach or were certified. Note: In 

B&B:2000/01 only those who said they had taught (including 

those who had only taught as a substitute teacher or teacher’s 

aide) were asked their level of certification. 

Had not taught, neither certified nor prepared Respondent had not taught in any of grades K–12 (except for 

those who held a substitute teaching or teacher's aide position), 

was not prepared to teach, and was not certified to teach. 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

70 

College entrance examination score SATACTQ2 (1997); TESATDER (2001) 

SATACTQ2 indicates the level of each graduate’s score among 1992–93 sample graduates. The CEE scores used to 

derive SATACTQ2 were taken from one of three sources in the following order of source precedence: 1) 

Educational Testing Service (ETS), which administers the SAT, reported verbal and mathematics scores; 2) ACT, 

Inc., which administers the ACT, reported composite scores; 3) NPSAS institution-reported (CADE) SAT verbal and 

mathematics scores; 4) NPSAS institution-reported (CADE) ACT composite scores; 5) student self-reported SAT 

verbal and mathematics scores; and 6) student self-reported ACT composite scores. The weighted distribution of 

sampled 1992–93 graduates’ scores was cut at the first and third quartiles, resulting in three levels of scores that 

include the bottom fourth, the middle half, and the top fourth. 

TESATDER consists of graduates’ SAT combined score, derived as either the sum of SAT verbal and math scores 

or ACT composite score converted to an estimated SAT combined score, cut into levels based on the distribution of 

1999–2000 sample graduates in the same manner as the 1992–93 graduates’ scores were divided. The CEE scores 

used to derive TESATDER were taken from the first available source in the following order of source precedence: 1) 

ETS-reported SAT verbal and mathematics scores; 2) ACT-reported ACT composite scores; 3) institution-reported 

(CADE) SAT verbal and mathematics scores; and 4) institution-reported (CADE) ACT composite scores. 

Bottom level 

Middle levels 

Top level 

Did not take test or score not reported 

First taught art/drama/music TFIRSART 

Indicates whether respondent taught art, drama, or music at first teaching job since receiving 1999–2000 bachelor’s 

degree. 

Did not teach subject at first job 

Taught subject at first job, not certified in subject 

Taught subject at first job, certified in subject 

First taught business TFIRSBUS 

Indicates whether respondent taught business at first teaching job since receiving 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree. 

Did not teach subject at first job 

Taught subject at first job, not certified in subject 

Taught subject at first job, certified in subject 

First taught economics/political systems TFIRSECO 

Indicates whether respondent taught economics or political systems at first teaching job since receiving 1999–2000 

bachelor’s degree. 

Did not teach subject at first job 

Taught subject at first job, not certified in subject 

Taught subject at first job, certified in subject 
 Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

71 

First taught elementary/early childhood education TFIRSELE

Indicates whether respondent taught elementary or early childhood education at first teaching job since receiving 

1999–2000 bachelor’s degree. 

Did not teach subject at first job 

Taught subject at first job, not certified in subject 

Taught subject at first job, certified in subject 

First taught English/reading/writing TFIRSENG

Indicates whether respondent taught English, reading, creative writing, or journalism at first teaching job since 

receiving 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree. 

Did not teach subject at first job 

Taught subject at first job, not certified in subject 

Taught subject at first job, certified in subject 

First taught ESL/bilingual TFIRSESL 

Indicates whether respondent taught English as a second language or bilingual education at first teaching job since 

receiving 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree. 

Did not teach subject at first job 

Taught subject at first job, not certified in subject 

Taught subject at first job, certified in subject 

First taught foreign languages TFIRSFOR 

Indicates whether respondent taught foreign languages at first teaching job since receiving 1999–2000 bachelor’s 

degree. 

Did not teach subject at first job 

Taught subject at first job, not certified in subject 

Taught subject at first job, certified in subject 

First taught mathematics TFIRSMAT 

Indicates whether respondent taught mathematics at first teaching job since receiving 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree. 

Did not teach subject at first job 

Taught subject at first job, not certified in subject 

Taught subject at first job, certified in subject 
Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

72 

First taught other type of education TFIRSOTH 

Indicated whether respondent taught any other (unspecified) subject at first teaching job since receiving 1999–2000 

bachelor’s degree. 

Did not teach subject at first job 

Taught subject at first job, not certified in subject 

Taught subject at first job, certified in subject 

First taught health/physical education TFIRSPHY 

Indicates whether respondent taught health or physical education at first teaching job since receiving 1999–2000 

bachelor’s degree. 

Did not teach subject at first job 

Taught subject at first job, not certified in subject 

Taught subject at first job, certified in subject 

First taught science TFIRSSCI 

Indicates whether respondent taught science at first teaching job since receiving 1999–2000 bachelor’s degree. 

Did not teach subject at first job 

Taught subject at first job, not certified in subject 

Taught subject at first job, certified in subject 

First taught secondary education TFIRSSEC 

Indicates whether respondent taught secondary education at first teaching job since receiving 1999–2000 bachelor’s 

degree. 

Did not teach subject at first job 

Taught subject at first job, not certified in subject 

Taught subject at first job, certified in subject 

First taught social studies/history/civics TFIRSSOC 

Indicates whether respondent taught social studies, history, or civics at first teaching job since receiving 1999–2000 

bachelor’s degree. 

Did not teach subject at first job 

Taught subject at first job, not certified in subject 

Taught subject at first job, certified in subject 
 Appendix A—Glossary 

DAS Variable Name 

73 

First taught special education TFIRSSPE 

Indicates whether respondent taught special education at first teaching job since receiving 1999–2000 bachelor’s 

degree. 

Did not teach subject at first job 

Taught subject at first job, not certified in subject 

Taught subject at first job, certified in subject 

First taught vocational/occupational education TFIRSVOC 

Indicates whether respondent taught vocational or occupational education at first teaching job since receiving 1999–

2000 bachelor’s degree. 

Did not teach subject at first job 

Taught subject at first job, not certified in subject 

Taught subject at first job, certified in subject
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
75 

Appendix B⎯Technical Notes and Methodology 

The Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study 

The data analyzed in this report came from the 1994 and 2001 First Follow-ups of each 

cohort of the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/94 and B&B:2000/01). 

The data derived from these surveys provide critical information about college graduates’ 

postsecondary education outcomes and entrance into the teaching profession. These studies track 

the experiences of two cohorts of college graduates—those who received baccalaureate degrees 

during 1992–93 and 1999–2000—and were first interviewed as a part of the 1993 and 2000 

National Postsecondary Student Aid Studies (NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:2000, respectively). 

NPSAS, the base year survey, is based on a nationally representative sample of all students in 

postsecondary education institutions, including undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional 

students. Each represents more than 16 million undergraduates who were enrolled at some time 

between July 1 and June 30 of its respective survey year. 

For B&B:2000/01, those members of the NPSAS:2000 sample who completed a bachelor’s 

degree between July 1, 1999 and June 30, 2000 were identified and contacted for a follow-up 

interview. The estimates in this report are based on the results of interviews with approximately 

10,000 bachelor’s degree recipients, who represent about 1.3 million bachelor’s degree 

completers from 1999–2000. B&B:2000/01 includes a subsample of NPSAS:2000 

nonrespondents. The weighted overall study response rate is 74 percent, the product of the 

NPSAS:2000 institution-level response rate, 90 percent, and the B&B:2000/01 student-level 

response rate of 82 percent.1 The 2001 estimates were generated using the Data Analysis System 

(DAS) for B&B:2000/01. 

For B&B:93/94, those members of the NPSAS:93 sample who completed a bachelor’s 

degree between July 1, 1992 and June 30, 1993 were identified and contacted for a follow-up 

interview. The estimates in this report are based on the results of interviews with approximately 

10,100 bachelor’s degree recipients, representing 1.2 million bachelor’s degree completers from 

1992–93. The unweighted response rate for the B&B:93/94 interviews was 92 percent.2 The 

1992–93 graduates were surveyed again in the 1997 Second Follow-up to the 1993 Baccalaureate 

 

1 For more information on B&B:2000/01, consult Charleston et al. (2003). 

2 For more information on B&B:93/94, consult Green et al. (1996). 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

76 

and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/97). The 1994 data were combined with 1997 data into 

the B&B:93/97 DAS, which was used to generate the 1994 estimates presented in this report. 

The NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:2000 samples, while representative and statistically accurate, 

were not simple random samples. Instead, the survey samples were selected using a more 

complex three-step procedure with stratified samples and differential probabilities of selection at 

each level. Postsecondary institutions were initially selected within geographic strata. Once 

institutions were organized by zip code and state, they were further stratified by control (i.e., 

public, private not-for-profit, or private for-profit) and degree offering (less-than-2-year, 2- to 3-

year, 4-year non-doctorate-granting, and 4-year doctorate-granting).3 All analyses in this report 

are weighted to compensate for unequal probability of selection into the B&B samples. The 

weights used, the B&B panel weight for each cohort, were based on the respondents who 

participated in both the NPSAS and B&B interviews for each cohort and, therefore, also adjust 

for nonresponse. The B&B:93/97 DAS includes multiple weights so that analyses can be run as 

of 1994 or 1997. For the B&B:93/94 analyses included in this report, the panel weight for the 

1994 follow-up (BNBWT1) was specified as the weight. The B&B:2000/01 DAS contains only 

one weight, which corresponds to BNBWT1, and applies it automatically to all estimates 

requested from it. 

Data quality evaluations included both online data editing procedures and post-data 

collection editing. The online data editing ensured that the data collected fell within legitimate 

ranges. Also, where feasible, responses were crosschecked against those of related items. After 

data collection, the data were cleaned and edited using several steps including verification of 

one-way frequencies for each item, cross-tabulations of related items, standard variable recoding 

and formatting (such as dates), determination of outlier values, and logical imputations. After the 

CATI data were cleaned and edited, composite variables for specific data analyses were created 

and subjected to similar cleaning and checking procedures. 

For more information about the NPSAS surveys, consult their respective methodology 

reports: Methodology Report for the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 1992–93 (Loft et 

al. 1995) and National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, 1999–2000 (NPSAS:2000) 

Methodology Report (Riccobono et al. 2002). For more information on the B&B surveys, consult 

their respective methodology reports: Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study: 1993/94 

First Follow-up Methodology Report (Green et al. 1996), Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study: 1993/97 Second Follow-up Methodology Report (Green et al. 1999), 

 

3 The NPSAS universe excludes institutions offering only correspondence courses, institutions enrolling only their own 

employees, and U.S. service academies. For this B&B cohort, institutions were further stratified in NPSAS based on the number 

of degrees in education they had awarded in the past. 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

77 

Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study: 2000–01 (B&B: 2000/01) Methodology Report

(Charleston et al. 2003). 

Measuring K–12 Teaching Status With B&B Data 

The 2001 Follow-up of 1999–2000 college graduates differs from the 1994 data collection 

in several ways that affect the classification of respondents by teaching experience. First, the 

1994 data collection included a measure of when graduates had first taught at the K–12 level. 

Using this information, some analyses of 1992–93 graduates’ teaching excluded graduates who 

had taught before completing the 1992–93 degree or who had been certified to teach at least 1 

year before completing that degree (for example, Henke, Chen, and Geis 2000; Henke et al. 

1996). Approximately 3 percent of 1992–93 graduates fell into this category. The B&B:2000/01 

data do not include information on when graduates had first taught or were first certified. 

Therefore, the analyses presented in this report include graduates who had taught before 

receiving the bachelor’s degree, because they could not be excluded. 

Second, the 1994 Follow-up included the collection of graduates’ transcripts from the 

degree-granting postsecondary institution. Information regarding whether 1992–93 graduates had 

completed a student teaching assignment was obtained from these transcripts. B&B:2000/01 did 

not include the collection of transcripts and instead relied on graduates’ reports of whether they 

had completed a student teaching assignment. The net effect of this difference is unknown. 

Third, nonteachers among 1992–93 graduates were asked in 1994 whether they had ever 

been certified to teach. In 2001, however, 1999–2000 graduates who had not taught were not 

asked whether they had ever been certified to teach. In 2001, nonteachers were asked whether 

they had done anything to prepare to teach, and if so, whether they had, for example, completed a 

teacher education program or completed a student teaching assignment. 

Fourth, the two surveys asked graduates who had neither taught nor done anything to 

prepare for a teaching position slightly different questions regarding whether they considered 

teaching. In 1994, 1992–93 graduates who had neither taught nor prepared to teach were asked 

whether they were “considering teaching.” In contrast, in 2001, 1999–2000 graduates were asked 

whether they had “considered teaching.” 

Taking these four differences into account, the teaching status variable was created to 

enable the generation of comparable estimates regarding graduates K–12 teaching status 1 year 

after receiving their bachelor’s degrees. In most tables of the report, particularly tables 13 and 14, 

graduates who had neither prepared to teach nor taught were combined into one category, 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

78 

regardless of whether they had considered/were considering teaching, in order to facilitate 

comparisons over time. The proportion of 1999–2000 graduates who had considered teaching as 

of 2001 is presented in table 6 but should not be compared with the proportion of 1992–93 

graduates who were considering teaching at the time of the 1994 interview. 

For both cohorts follow-up data collection began after the end of the academic year 

immediately following bachelor’s degree receipt: on June 15, 1994 for the 1992–93 cohort and 

on July 9, 2001 for the 1999–2000 cohort. Therefore, graduates who completed a 1-year graduate 

teacher preparation program in the year immediately following degree receipt would be included 

in the prepared or teaching categories of the status variable. Graduates who were pursuing 

master’s degrees or teacher certification in a year of graduate study beyond the bachelor’s degree 

would be categorized as 

• having taught if they had taught in the ensuing year, not including student teaching; 

• having prepared if they had completed a student teaching assignment as of 2001 (for 

1999–2000 bachelor’s degree recipients) or had a transcript record of having 

completed a student teaching assignment (for 1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients), or 

• having done neither if they met none of these criteria. 

Accuracy of Estimates 

The statistics in this report are estimates derived from a sample. Two broad categories of 

error occur in such estimates: sampling and nonsampling errors. Sampling errors occur because 

observations are made only on samples, not on entire populations. Surveys of population 

universes are not subject to sampling errors. Estimates based on a sample will differ somewhat 

from those that would have been obtained by a complete census of the relevant population using 

the same survey instruments, instructions, and procedures. The standard error of a statistic is a 

measure of the variation due to sampling; it indicates the precision of the statistic obtained in a 

particular sample. In addition, the standard errors for two sample statistics can be used to 

estimate the precision of the difference between the two statistics and to help determine whether 

the difference based on the sample is likely to represent a population difference. Table B-1 

contains estimated standard errors that correspond to the estimates presented in table 14 of this 

report. Additional standard errors for estimates provided in this report can be obtained from the 

B&B:93/97 and B&B:2000/01 Data Analysis Systems (DASs) or from the NCES website. 

Nonsampling errors occur not only in sample surveys but also in complete censuses of 

entire populations. Nonsampling errors can be attributed to a number of sources: inability to 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

79 

Table B-1.—Standard errors for table 14: Percentage distribution of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s

Table B-1.—degree recipients by K–12 teaching status, by selected undergraduate academic characteristics:

Table B-1.—1994 and 2001

Neither Neither

Prepared, certified Certified certified

but not nor or nor

Selected characteristics Total Certified certified prepared Total prepared prepared

1994

 Total 0.35 0.32 0.12 0.18 0.35 0.32 0.51

First institution type

1

 Public 2-year 0.92 0.79 0.28 0.45 0.92 0.86 1.16

 Public 4-year 0.51 0.43 0.19 0.26 0.51 0.45 0.70

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 0.63 0.47 0.19 0.37 0.63 0.60 0.91

Degree-granting institution type

 Public 

 Non-doctorate-granting 0.89 0.78 0.34 0.38 0.89 0.83 1.16

 Doctorate-granting 0.50 0.48 0.17 0.24 0.50 0.37 0.66

 Private not-for-profit

 Non-doctorate-granting 0.85 0.68 0.25 0.41 0.85 0.77 1.31

 Doctorate-granting 0.75 0.48 0.30 0.53 0.75 0.76 1.14

 Private for-profit 2-years or more2 0.66 0.47 # 0.58 0.66 # 0.66

College entrance examination score3

 Lowest level 0.80 0.60 0.28 0.43 0.80 0.64 1.02

 Middle level 0.52 0.48 0.18 0.24 0.52 0.39 0.74

 Highest level 0.72 0.48 0.20 0.52 0.72 0.50 0.91

 Did not take test 0.85 0.66 0.30 0.43 0.85 0.80 1.15

Cumulative undergraduate GPA

 Less than 2.25 2.04 0.83 0.48 1.15 2.04 0.62 2.06

 2.25–2.74 0.82 0.54 0.29 0.58 0.82 0.46 0.96

 2.75–3.24 0.51 0.44 0.17 0.22 0.51 0.39 0.67

 3.25–3.74 0.62 0.53 0.24 0.32 0.62 0.56 0.85

 3.75 or higher 1.21 0.97 0.35 0.72 1.21 1.04 1.58

Undergraduate field of study

 Business and management 0.39 0.20 0.03 0.35 0.39 0.25 0.49

 Education 1.65 1.60 0.79 0.53 1.65 1.62 1.67

 Humanities 1.14 0.87 0.31 0.76 1.14 0.75 1.39

 Mathematics, computer science,

 natural sciences 0.67 0.49 0.27 0.36 0.67 0.42 0.82

 Social sciences 0.69 0.27 0.08 0.56 0.69 0.51 0.83

 Other 0.51 0.21 0.05 0.47 0.51 0.57 0.74

See notes at end of table.

Taught Had not taught
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

80 

Table B-1.—Standard errors for table 14: Percentage distribution of 1992–93 and 1999–2000 bachelor’s

Table B-1.—degree recipients by K–12 teaching status, by selected undergraduate academic characteristics:

Table B-1.—1994 and 2001—Continued

Neither Neither

Prepared, certified Certified certified

but not nor or nor

Selected characteristics Total Certified certified prepared Total prepared prepared

2001

 Total 0.43 0.36 0.14 0.21 0.43 0.21 0.47

First institution type

 Public 2-year 1.00 0.89 0.32 0.42 1.00 0.44 1.07

 Public 4-year 0.63 0.53 0.21 0.33 0.63 0.29 0.69

 Private not-for-profit 4-year 0.71 0.56 0.23 0.39 0.71 0.34 0.77

Degree-granting institution type

 Public 

 Non-doctorate-granting 1.21 1.07 0.39 0.48 1.21 0.50 1.32

 Doctorate-granting 0.59 0.50 0.22 0.30 0.59 0.28 0.67

 Private not-for-profit

 Non-doctorate-granting 1.03 0.88 0.28 0.52 1.03 0.59 1.13

 Doctorate-granting 0.86 0.57 0.25 0.51 0.86 0.48 1.00

 Private for-profit 2-years or more2 0.76 0.24 # 0.73 0.76 0.65 1.04

College entrance examination score4

 Lowest level 1.22 1.04 0.32 0.56 1.22 0.58 1.29

 Middle level 0.69 0.61 0.25 0.26 0.69 0.29 0.73

 Highest level 0.84 0.54 0.34 0.50 0.84 0.27 0.86

 Did not take test or score not available 0.65 0.55 0.21 0.37 0.65 0.39 0.75

Cumulative undergraduate GPA

 Less than 2.25 2.15 1.68 0.23 1.50 2.15 1.62 2.92

 2.25–2.74 0.88 0.71 0.44 0.51 0.88 0.52 1.01

 2.75–3.24 0.81 0.71 0.22 0.34 0.81 0.36 0.88

 3.25–3.74 0.69 0.61 0.18 0.36 0.69 0.29 0.76

 3.75 or higher 1.15 0.92 0.38 0.52 1.15 0.49 1.20

Undergraduate field of study

 Business and management 0.36 0.23 0.07 0.27 0.36 0.32 0.48

 Education 1.96 1.97 1.02 0.84 1.96 1.28 1.83

 Humanities 1.30 1.06 0.49 0.69 1.30 0.50 1.35

 Mathematics, computer science,

 natural sciences 0.62 0.52 0.21 0.34 0.62 0.38 0.72

 Social sciences 0.80 0.63 0.26 0.60 0.80 0.44 0.92

 Other 0.65 0.48 0.18 0.35 0.65 0.40 0.76

# Rounds to zero.

1 The 2.2 percent of graduates who began in other types of institutions (public less-than-2-year, private not-for-profit less-than4-year, and private for-profit institutions) are included in the total row, but excluded from this variable. 2 Includes for-profit 4-year degree-granting institutions. 3 Derived from College Board-, institution-, or student-reported SAT or ACT scores, where available. 4 Derived from institution- or agency-reported SAT or ACT scores, where available. See glossary (appendix A) for definition of 

CEE score levels.

NOTE: See glossary for a list of which specific fields of study are included in each listed category.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).

Taught Had not taught
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

81 

obtain complete information about all students in all institutions in the sample (some students or 

institutions refused to participate, or students participated but answered only certain items); 

ambiguous definitions; differences in interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to give 

correct information; mistakes in recording or coding data; and other errors of collecting, 

processing, sampling, and imputing missing data. 

Nonsampling errors due to interview and item nonresponse can be reduced somewhat by 

the adjustment of sample weights and imputation procedures. Adjustment of weights for various 

levels of survey/interview nonresponse was discussed above and is further described in the 

studies’ methodology reports, also cited above. In addition, weighted item response rates were 

calculated for all variables used in this report. The weighted item response rates were calculated 

by dividing the weighted number of valid responses by the weighted population for which the 

item was applicable. 

With the exception of the variables listed in table B-2, all variables used in this report had a 

weighted item response rate of at least 90 percent. Of the variables listed in table B-2, all but 

six—CRLEV97, CRPMIN97, FRLEV97, FRTYPE97, SATACTQ2, and TSATDER—had low 

weighted response rates largely because they applied to a small proportion of the sample. That is, 

because applicability could not be determined for respondents with incomplete interviews, those 

respondents are considered to have indeterminate responses. Incomplete interviews thus make up 

a relatively high proportion of the indeterminate responses for those items. However, it is highly 

likely that the majority of cases with incomplete interviews would have been excluded from each 

of these items if these cases’ information for these items had been gathered. When incomplete 

interviews are excluded from the calculation of the item response rates, the response rates for 

these variables are 92 percent or higher. Therefore, for these variables, it is unlikely that reported 

differences are biased because of missing data. 

Four of the remaining variables—the level of the school at which the respondent taught 

during the current or most recent teaching job (CRLEV97), the percentage of minority students 

enrolled in that school (CRPMIN97), the level of the school at which the respondent taught 

during the first teaching job since receiving the bachelor’s degree (FRLEV97), and the sector of 

that school (FRTYPE97)—were derived by matching graduates’ reports of the schools in which 

they had taught with NCES universe survey data on public (1997–98 Common Core of Data, 

CCD) and private (1997–98 Private School Survey, PSS) schools. Respondents had invalid data 

on these variables for reasons other than not completing the interview, not knowing the 

name/location of the school(s) in which they taught, or refusing to respond. In some cases the 

school code that was believed to match a respondent’s school was not correct, in other cases the 

code appeared to be valid but could not be matched to the CCD or PSS. In other cases, the 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

82 

Table B-2.—Variables with response rates less than 85 percent

Including Excluding

“not reached” “not reached”

Variable name Variable label cases cases

CGADJUST Whether current/most recent school helped new teachers adjust

 to school environment 66.7 94.3

CGADMSUP Whether very satisfied with administration support in current/

 most recent school 73.8 95.6

CGBEHAVE Whether very satisfied with student behavior in current/most

 recent school 73.9 95.6

CGCLSIZE Whether very satisfied with class size in current/most recent

 school 74.0 95.8

CGCRPUPR Type of school (current or most recent school) 66.4 94.3

CGCURRCL Whether current/most recent school helped new teachers with

 curriculum 66.2 93.6

CGDISPLN Whether current/most recent school helped new teachers with

 discipline 66.0 93.2

CGENVMNT Whether very satisfied with learning environment at current/

 most recent school 74.0 95.8

CGESTEEM Whether very satisfied with society's esteem for teaching

profession 73.5 95.2

CGINSTRC Whether current/most recent school helped new teachers with

 instruction 66.3 93.7

CGMTVTN Whether very satisfied with student motivation in current/most

 recent school 73.6 95.3

CGPARSUP Whether very satisfied with parent support in current/most

 recent school 71.0 91.9

CGTCHAPP Percentage who applied for teaching job 84.5 97.2

CRLEV97 Level of current/most recent school 54.7 78.0

CRPMIN97 Percentage minority enrollment of current/most recent school 54.5 77.7

FRLEV97 Level of school at which first taught 56.5 80.4

FRTYPE97 Sector of school at which first taught 56.5 80.4

NTAPP series Reasons for not applying for teaching position 83.1 96.7

SATACTQ2 College entrance examination score 78.8 †

TFIRS series Whether taught various subjects in first teaching job 74.3 94.5

TESATDER College entrance examination score 69.1 †

† Not applicable. These variables apply to all sample cases.

NOTE: Weighted item response rates were calculated by dividing the total weighted number of valid responses by the total

population for whom the question was applicable. Bias analyses were conducted for variables with a weighted item response

rate below 85 percent.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000/01 Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study (B&B:2000/01).

Item response rate
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

83 

respondent’s school could be matched to a school on the CCD/PSS file, but the CCD/PSS file 

did not include data on the particular school variable (e.g., percentage minority enrollment in the 

school). 

Bias analyses were conducted to determine whether the cases that did not have data on 

these variables differed from those who did. After removing legitimate skips (those in the 

analysis sample for whom the question did not apply) and sample members who did not complete 

the interview (but who were unlikely to have been eligible for these items because most sample 

members had not taught), cases with missing and nonmissing responses were compared with 

each other with respect to several variables: gender (GENDER), race/ethnicity (RACE1), 

undergraduate major (BMAJORS3), cumulative undergraduate grade point average (GPA2), and 

degree-granting institution type (BSECTOR9). Each of these comparison variables had a 

response rate of 97.8 percent or higher. 

These comparisons indicated that graduates who taught and who had data on these school 

characteristics were more likely than those without school data to be women; to be White, nonHispanic; to have been graduated from public 4-year non-doctorate-granting institutions; to have 

majored in education; and to have had a cumulative undergraduate GPA of 3.75 or higher. As 

demonstrated in the report, graduates with these characteristics were more likely than other 

graduates to have taught and prepared to teach. Graduates who taught and for whom school 

characteristics data were available were less likely than those without such data to be 

Asian/Pacific Islander (or, for FRLEV97 and FRTYPE97, other unspecified race/ethnicity); to 

have been graduated from a private for-profit institution or a private not-for-profit doctorategranting institution (except for FRLEV97 and FRTYPE97); to have majored in business and 

management, mathematics/computer science/natural sciences, social sciences, or another 

unspecified major; or to have a GPA of 2.25 to 2.74. Thus, it is possible that bias was introduced 

into the analyses of teachers according to these characteristics of the schools in which they 

taught. 

Bias analyses were also conducted on the remaining two variables—SATACTQ2 and 

TSATDER, which indicate graduates’ CEE scores for the 1992–93 and 1999–2000 cohorts, 

respectively—because relatively high proportions of graduates had no CEE score available for 

analysis. B&B:93/94 graduates did not have scores available for analysis because they had not 

taken a CEE or because neither they nor their NPSAS institution reported a CEE score. 

B&B:2000/01 graduates did not have scores available for analysis either because they had not 

taken a CEE or because their degree-granting institutions did not have a score on record and no 

score was available from the administering agency because they were older than the files 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

84 

purchased for matching. B&B:2000/01 graduates were not asked to report CEE scores in either 

the NPSAS or B&B interview. 

Among 1992–93 graduates, those with CEE scores were more likely than those without 

scores to be men. Those with scores were also more likely to be White and less likely to be 

Hispanic. In terms of academic characteristics, graduates with CEE scores were more likely to 

have begun in a 4-year institution and less likely to have begun postsecondary education in a lessthan-4-year institution. Graduates who had a CEE score available for analysis were more likely 

than graduates without scores to have received bachelor’s degrees from doctorate-granting 

institutions, and less likely to have received them from private 4-year non-doctorate-granting 

institutions. Compared with graduates who did not have CEE scores available for analysis, 

graduates with CEE scores were more likely to have majored in mathematics or the physical 

sciences, and less likely to have majored in business/management or an “other” field. Finally, 

those who had CEE scores available for analysis were less likely than those who did not have 

them to have cumulative undergraduate GPAs in both the lowest and the highest GPA categories. 

Some similar relationships were found between those with and without CEE scores among 

1999–2000 graduates. Compared with those who did not have CEE scores available for analysis, 

graduates with scores were more likely to be White and less likely to be American Indian, Black, 

or Hispanic. Graduates with scores were also more likely to have begun postsecondary education 

in 4-year institutions and more likely to have received the bachelor’s degree from doctorategranting institutions. Graduates with scores were more likely than those without scores to have 

GPAs between 2.75 and 3.24 and less likely to have GPAs of 3.75 or higher. Finally, graduates 

with scores were more likely to have majored in business/management and less likely to have 

majored in education or the social sciences. Thus, for both cohorts not having test scores 

available for analysis was not a random occurrence, and the estimates regarding graduates’ scores 

may be biased. 

Data Analysis System 

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the B&B:93/97 and 

B&B:2000/01 Data Analysis Systems (DASs).4 The DAS software makes it possible for users to 

specify and generate their own tables from the B&B data. With the DAS, users can replicate or 

expand upon the tables presented in this report. In addition to the table estimates, the DAS 

 

4As noted above, the B&B:93/97 DAS is cumulative (i.e., includes B&B:93/94 data as well as B&B:93/97 data) and supersedes 

the B&B:93/94 DAS, which is no longer available. 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

85 

calculates proper standard errors5 and weighted sample sizes for these estimates. For example, 

table B1 contains estimated standard errors that correspond to the estimates presented in table 14 

and that were generated by the B&B:93/97 and B&B:2000/01 DASs. If the number of valid cases 

is too small to produce a reliable estimate (fewer than 30 cases), the DAS prints the message 

“low n” instead of the estimate. 

For more information about the B&B:93/97, B&B:2000/01, and other Data Analysis 

Systems, consult the NCES DAS website (http://nces.ed.gov/das) or contact 

Aurora D’Amico 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Room 8115 

Washington, DC 20006 

(202) 502-7334 

Aurora.D’Amico@ed.gov

Statistical Procedures 

Differences Between Means 

The descriptive comparisons were tested in this report using Student’s t statistic. 

Differences between estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error,6 or significance 

level. The significance levels were determined by calculating the Student’s t values for the 

differences between each pair of means or proportions and comparing these with published tables 

of significance levels for two-tailed hypothesis testing. 

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the 

following formula: 

2

2

2

1

1 2

se se

E E

t

+

− = (1) 

 

5 The B&B sample is not a simple random sample, and therefore simple random sample techniques for estimating sampling error 

cannot be applied to these data. The DAS takes into account the complexity of the sampling procedures and calculates standard 

errors appropriate for such samples. The method for computing sampling errors used by the DAS involves approximating the 

estimator by the linear terms of a Taylor series expansion. The procedure is typically referred to as the Taylor series method.

6 A Type I error occurs when one concludes that a difference observed in a sample reflects a true difference in the population 

from which the sample was drawn, when no such difference is present. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

86 

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding 

standard errors. This formula is valid only for independent estimates. When estimates are not 

independent, a covariance term must be added to the formula: 

E -E

se + se - 2(r)se se

1 2

1

2

2

2

1 2

 (2) 

where r is the correlation between the two estimates.7 This formula is used when comparing two 

percentages from a distribution that adds to 100. If the comparison is between the mean of a 

subgroup and the mean of the total group, which is the primary comparison in this report, the 

following formula is used: 

2

sub

2

tot

2

sub

sub tot

se se 2p se

E E

+ −

− (3) 

where p is the proportion of the total group contained in the subgroup.8 The estimates, standard 

errors, and correlations can all be obtained from the DAS. 

There are hazards in reporting statistical tests for each comparison. First, comparisons 

based on large t statistics may appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading since the 

magnitude of the t statistic is related not only to the observed differences in means or percentages 

but also to the number of students in the specific categories used for comparison. Hence, a small 

difference compared across a large number of students would produce a large t statistic. 

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests is the possibility that one can report a “false 

positive” or Type I error. In the case of a t statistic, this false positive would result when a 

difference measured with a particular sample showed a statistically significant difference when 

there is no difference in the underlying population. Statistical tests are designed to control this 

type of error, the probability of which is denoted by alpha. The alpha level of .05 selected for 

findings in this report indicates that a difference of a certain magnitude or larger would be 

produced no more than one time out of twenty when there was no actual difference in the 

quantities in the underlying population. When we test hypotheses that show t values at the .05 

level or smaller, we treat this finding as rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no difference 

between the two quantities. However, there are other cases when exercising additional caution is 

warranted. When there are significant results not indicated by any hypothesis being tested or 

when we test a large number of comparisons in a table, Type I errors cannot be ignored. For 

 

7 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Note from the Chief Statistician, no. 2, 1993. 

8 Ibid. 
 Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

87 

example, when making paired comparisons among different levels of income, the probability of a 

Type I error for these comparisons taken as a group is larger than the probability for a single 

comparison. 

When the either of the two situations described in the previous paragraph was encountered 

in this report, comparisons were made when p < .05/k for a particular pairwise comparison, 

where that comparison was one of k tests within a family. This guarantees both that the 

individual comparison would have p < .05 and that for k comparisons within a family of possible 

comparisons, the significance level for all the comparisons will sum to p < .05.9

For example, in a comparison of males and females, only one comparison is possible 

(males versus females). In this family, k=1, and the comparison can be evaluated without 

adjusting the significance level. When students are divided into five racial/ethnic groups and all 

possible comparisons are made, then k=10 and the significance level of each test must be p<

.05/10, or p< .005. The formula for calculating family size (k) is as follows: 

2

( −1) = j j k (4) 

where j is the number of categories for the variable being tested. In the case of race/ethnicity, 

there are six racial/ethnic groups (American Indian/Alaska Native; Asian/Pacific Islander; Black, 

non-Hispanic; Hispanic; White, non-Hispanic; and other), so substituting 6 for j in equation 4, 

15

2

6(6 1) = − k = . 

Linear Trends 

While most descriptive comparisons in this report were tested using Student’s t statistic, 

some comparisons among categories of an ordered variable with three or more levels involved a 

test for a linear trend across all categories, rather than a series of tests between pairs of 

categories. In this report, when differences among percentages were examined relative to a 

variable with ordered categories, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test for a linear 

relationship between the two variables. To do this, ANOVA models included orthogonal linear 

contrasts corresponding to successive levels of the independent variable. The squares of the 

Taylorized standard errors (that is, standard errors that were calculated by the Taylor series 

 

9 The standard that p ≤ .05/k for each comparison is more stringent than the criterion that the significance level of the 

comparisons should sum to p ≤ .05. For tables showing the t statistic required to ensure that p ≤ .05/k for a particular family size 

and degrees of freedom, see Dunn (1961). 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

88 

method), the variance between the means, and the unweighted sample sizes were used to 

partition total sum of squares into within- and between-group sums of squares. These were used 

to create mean squares for the within- and between-group variance components and their 

corresponding F statistics, which were then compared with published values of F for a 

significance level of .05.10 Significant values of both the overall F and the F associated with the 

linear contrast term were required as evidence of a linear relationship between the two variables. 

Means and Taylorized standard errors were calculated by the DAS. Unweighted sample sizes are 

not available from the DAS and were provided by NCES. 

 

10 More information about ANOVA and significance testing using the F statistic can be found in any standard textbook on 

statistical methods in the social and behavioral sciences.