NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report October 1996

Out-of-Field Teaching and 

Educational Equality

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 96-040
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report October 1996

Out-of-Field Teaching and 

Educational Equality

Richard M. Ingersoll

American Institutes for Research &

Department of Sociology, University of Georgia

Kerry Gruber, Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 96-040
U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Sharon P. Robinson

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Pascal D. Forgione, Jr.

Commissioner

Surveys and Cooperative Systems Group

Paul D. Planchon

Associate Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and 

reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to 

collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; 

conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state 

and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in 

foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete, 

and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high quality data to the U.S. 

Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the 

general public.

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

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

have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. 

Please direct your comments to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208-5574

October 1996

Contact:

Kerry Gruber 

(202) 219-1461
Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

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

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

Policy Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Analysis for This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Data and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

School Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Classroom Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

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

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Appendix A (Standard Errors) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Appendix B (Additional Resources on the Schools and Staffing Survey) . . . . . . . . . . . 47
iv Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

List of Tables

Table 1 Percentage of public secondary school students enrolled in classes taught

by teachers without at least a minor in the field, by field and selected

school characteristics: 1990-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 2 Percentage of public secondary school students enrolled in classes taught

by teachers without at least a minor in the field, by field and selected

classroom characteristics: 1990-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 3 Percentage of public secondary school students enrolled in classes taught

by teachers without at least a minor in the field, by field and by state:

1990-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Appendix Tables

Table A.1 Standard errors for table 1: Percentage of public secondary school students

enrolled in classes taught by teachers without at least a minor in the field,

by field and selected school characteristics: 1990-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table A.2 Standard errors for table 2: Percentage of public secondary school students

enrolled in classes taught by teachers without at least a minor in the field,

by field and selected classroom characteristics: 1990-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table A.3 Standard errors for table 3: Percentage of public secondary school students

enrolled in classes taught by teachers without at least a minor in the field,

by field and by state: 1990-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

List of Figures

Figure 1 Percentage of public secondary school students enrolled in classes taught

by teachers without at least a minor in the field, by field: 1990-91 . . . . 17

Figure 2 Percentage of public secondary school students enrolled in classes taught

by teachers without at least a minor in the field, by field and poverty

enrollment of school: 1990-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 3 Percentage of public secondary school students enrolled in classes taught

by teachers without at least a minor in the field, by field and achievement

level of class: 1990-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality v

Figure 4 Percentage of public secondary school students enrolled in classes taught

by teachers without at least a minor in the field, by field and type or track

of class: 1990-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 5 Percentage of public secondary school students enrolled in classes taught

by teachers without at least a minor in the field, by field and grade level of

class: 1990-91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
vi Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality
Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality vii

Acknowledgments

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

Surveys and Cooperative Systems Group of NCES. Kerry Gruber was the Project Officer.

Daniel Kasprzyk was the Program Director. Paul Planchon was the Group’s Associate

Commissioner. Special thanks are due to Tom Smith of the Data Development and

Longitudinal Studies Group of NCES for help with the conception of this report.

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

helped with this report: Mei Han and Chuck Keil, who undertook the statistical work and

created the tables; Sarah Hill, who helped with the literature review; Shannon Daugherty,

who provided editorial and desktop publishing support; and also, Don McLaughlin, who

directed the contract of which this report was one part.

Thanks are also due to a number of individuals who reviewed the manuscript through its

many versions and provided many helpful comments. These include: Don McLaughlin

and Jean Wolman of AIR, Susan Carmon of the National Education Association, and

Jewell Gould of the American Federation of Teachers. From NCES, Dan Kasprzyk, Kerry

Gruber, and Sharon Bobbitt of the Education Surveys Program; Marilyn McMillen of the

Surveys and Cooperative Systems Group; Tim Madigan and Mary Rollefson of the Data

Development and Longitudinal Studies Group; and Sue Ahmed of the Statistical

Standards and Services Group all provided helpful comments and suggestions.

Richard Ingersoll is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at the

University of Georgia.
viii Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality
Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality ix

Executive Summary

This report presents national data on the extent to which students in the nation’s public

secondary schools are taught by teachers without basic qualifications in their assigned

teaching fields. It seeks to address the question of whether inequalities exist in the

distribution of adequately qualified teachers across and within different schools in the

United States. The report is based on data from the 1990-91 Schools and Staffing Survey,

a nationally representative survey conducted by the National Center for Education

Statistics. The premise underlying this analysis is that adequately qualified staffing

requires teachers at the secondary school level to hold, as a minimum prerequisite, at least

a college minor in the fields they teach. Knowledge of subject matter does not, of course,

guarantee qualified teachers, nor quality teaching. The premise is that basic subject

knowledge is a necessary prerequisite for both.

This analysis focuses on the extent to which secondary level students in the core academic

subjects (mathematics, English, social studies, science) are taught by teachers without at

least a minor in the field; that is, what proportion of students receive out-of-field

teaching? The report provides data on three questions:

1. What proportion of the nation’s public secondary students are taught core academic

subjects by out-of-field teachers?

2. Are students in public secondary schools that serve predominantly poverty-level or

minority student populations more likely to be taught by out-of-field teachers than

students in public secondary schools that serve predominantly more affluent or white

students?

3. Are students in low-achievement-level, low-track, lower grade-level, or

predominantly minority classes more likely to be taught by out-of-field teachers than

students in high-achievement-level, high-track, higher grade-level, or predominantly

white classes?
Executive Summary

x Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

What proportion of the nation’s public secondary students are taught core academic subjects by

out-of-field teachers?

Given the above premise, this analysis indicates that in 1990-91, many students in public

schools in grades 7-12 were taught core academic subjects by teachers without adequate

educational qualifications in the fields they were assigned to teach (see table 1 and

figure 1). This out-of-field teaching was not, however, due to a lack of basic education or

training on the part of teachers. Indeed, almost all public secondary school teachers held

bachelor’s degrees, about half had graduate degrees, and over 90 percent were certified

(Choy et al. 1993; Ingersoll 1995a; Blank and Gruebel 1993; National Science

Foundation 1992). The source of out-of-field teaching lay in the lack of fit between

teachers’ fields of training and their teaching assignments. Many teachers were assigned

to teach courses in fields that did not match their formal background preparation.

For example:

P One-fifth of all public school students enrolled in English classes in grades 7-12,

or about 4,310,000 of 20,700,000 students, were taught by teachers who did not

have at least a minor in English, literature, communications, speech, journalism,

English education, or reading education.

P About one-quarter of all public school students enrolled in mathematics classes in

grades 7-12, or about 4,124,000 of 15,510,000 students, were taught by teachers

without at least a minor in mathematics or mathematics education.

P Thirty-nine percent of all public school students enrolled in life science or biology

classes in grades 7-12, or about 2,120,000 of 5,520,000 students, were taught by

teachers without at least a minor in biology or life science.

P Fifty-six percent of all public school students enrolled in physical science classes in

grades 7-12, or about 3,430,000 of 6,110,000 students, were taught by teachers

without at least a minor in physics, chemistry, geology, or earth science.

P Over half of all public school students enrolled in history or world civilization

classes in grades 7-12, or about 4,330,000 of 8,030,000 students, were taught by

teachers who did not have at least a minor in history.

Are students in public secondary schools that serve predominantly poverty-level or minority

student populations more likely to be taught by out-of-field teachers than students in public

secondary schools that serve predominantly more affluent or white students?

Numerous education critics have argued that students from poor, minority, and

disadvantaged communities do not have equal access to qualified teachers in the United

States (e.g., California Commission on the Teaching Profession 1985; Darling-Hammond
Executive Summary

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality xi

1987; Kopp 1992; Kozol 1991; Oakes 1990). Consistent with this view, this analysis

shows that there were distinct inequalities in the extent of out-of-field teaching in the

United States. But, this analysis also suggests that it is unwise to broadly generalize about

the extent of these inequalities. In some cases there were differences, but in other cases

there were not.

The data show that differences in the extent of out-of-field teaching in public secondary

schools in the United States in 1990-91 depended on the type of school and the field

examined (see table 1). Low-income schools had higher levels of out-of-field teaching in

several of the core academic fields than did more affluent schools (see figure 2). In

contrast, schools serving predominantly minority student populations did not have higher

levels of out-of-field teaching than did schools serving predominantly white students.

Again, it should be noted that this out-of field teaching was not due to a lack of basic

education or training on the part of teachers. Regardless of the poverty level of schools,

almost all public secondary school teachers had a college education. The source of out-offield teaching lay in the lack of fit between teachers’ fields of training and their teaching

assignments. In several fields, teachers in low-income schools were more often assigned to

teach courses in fields that did not match their formal background preparation.

Are students in low-achievement-level, low-track, lower grade-level, or predominantly minority

classes more likely to be taught by out-of-field teachers than students in high-achievement-level,

high-track, higher grade-level, or predominantly white classes?

Numerous education critics have also argued that minority and poor students are

disproportionately placed in lower track and lower achievement courses in schools, which,

these critics further claim, are often taught by the least qualified teachers (e.g., California

Commission on the Teaching Profession 1985; Darling-Hammond 1987; Kopp 1992;

Kozol 1991; Oakes 1990). Consistent with this view, this analysis shows that there were

distinct variations across different kinds of classrooms in schools in the extent of out-offield teaching. But again, this analysis suggests it is unwise to broadly generalize about the

extent of inequalities. In some cases there were differences, and in other cases there were

not.

In several core academic fields, students in both low-track and low-achievement-level

classes were more often taught by out-of-field teachers than were students in high-track

and high-achievement-level classes (see figures 3 and 4). This was not true, however, for

high-minority classes. Predominantly minority classes did not have higher levels of outof-field teaching than did classes enrolling predominantly white students (see table 2).

Among the greatest variations in out-of-field teaching were the age/grade level of

students. In many fields, students in 7th and 8th grade classes were more often taught by

out-of-field teachers than were senior high students (see figure 5).
Executive Summary

xii Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

This report is concerned with assessing levels of out-of-field teaching and whether there

are differences in access to qualified teachers across different types of students and

different types of classrooms within schools. This analysis does not, however, investigate

either the causes or the consequences of out-of-field teaching. The reasons for out-of-field

teaching, why some schools have more of it than others, and the consequences of out-offield teaching for students and teachers are all important issues and deserve further

investigation. This report closes by suggesting some of the implications of out-of-field

teaching for education research and policy.
Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 1

Introduction

Do all secondary school students in the United States have equal access to qualified

teachers? Are students in low-income schools more likely to be taught by teachers

without basic qualifications in their assigned teaching fields than those in more affluent

schools? Do schools serving predominantly minority student populations tend to have less

qualified faculties? Moreover, are there differences in access to qualified teachers across

different types of students and different types of classrooms within schools?

Policy Context

Over the past several decades, equality has been one the most fundamental concerns of

education policy and research in the United States. The focus of a vast amount of

research and reform in education has been to uncover and address disparities in the

resources and opportunities in education provided to students from different socioeconomic backgrounds (e.g., Coleman et al. 1966). Among the most important of these

educational resources is the teaching force. The largest single component of the cost of

education in any country is teacher compensation. Moreover, teachers are, of course, a

highly important part of the actual educational process, and student educational outcomes

ultimately depend on the work of teachers. Indeed, it is precisely because the teaching

force is a significant resource that equal access to qualified teachers and quality teaching

has been a source of contention in the national debate over equality of educational

opportunity.

Among those concerned with issues of educational equality, it is widely believed that

students from disadvantaged backgrounds do not have equal access to qualified teachers.

A number of critics have argued that, indeed, the most needy students in the United

States—those from poor, minority, and disadvantaged communities—are taught by the

least qualified teachers (e.g., California Commission on the Teaching Profession 1985;

Darling-Hammond 1987; Kopp 1992; Kozol 1991; Oakes 1990). These critics argue that

low-income and high-minority schools are unable to offer competitive salaries, benefits, or

resources and, hence, simply cannot compete for the available supply of trained teachers.

In this view, unequal access to qualified teachers and, hence, to quality teaching, is one of

the key reasons for unequal results in student educational outcomes.
Introduction

2 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

These critics argue, moreover, that patterns of unequal access to quality teachers also

appear within schools. Not only do students in low-income and predominantly minority

schools have less access to qualified staff, but, the critics add, low-income and minority

students, when in affluent schools, also have less access to the best teachers. The latter is

due to the practice of separating students and teachers by ability—the system of tracking.

In this view, minority and poor students are disproportionately placed in lower track and

lower achievement courses, which, these critics further claim, are taught by the least

qualified teachers.

Despite the importance of this debate on educational equality and the widespread belief

that schools, programs, and classes serving low-income and minority student populations

have less access to quality teaching, there has actually not been much empirical research

done on this issue, especially at the national level. One of the reasons for this dearth of

research is the difficulty involved in obtaining data on the underlying issue of

importance—the degree of actual exposure to quality teachers and quality teaching

provided to students in classrooms. Assessing the caliber of teachers’ classroom

performance and the degree to which students have access to quality teaching in

classrooms is a difficult empirical task because there is little consensus concerning both

how to define and how to best measure quality teachers and teaching (e.g., Haney,

Madus, and Kreitzer 1987; Ingersoll 1996a). As a result, researchers typically turn to what

is more easily assessed and more readily available—measures of teacher qualifications.

Although the qualifications of teachers—such as their education, training, and

preparation—are only indirect measures of the quality of teaching that students receive,

they provide useful information on this important educational resource.

Education and training are essential ingredients of quality teachers and quality teaching.

There is almost universal agreement that one of the most important characteristics of a

quality teacher is preparation in the subject or field in which the teacher is teaching.

Research has shown moderate but consistent support for the reasonable proposition that

subject knowledge (knowing what to teach) and teaching skills (knowing how to teach)

are important predictors of both teaching quality and student learning (for reviews of this

research, see: Shavelson, McDonnell, and Oakes 1989; Darling-Hammond and Hudson

1990; Murnane and Raizen 1988). Knowledge of subject matter and of pedagogical

methods do not, of course, guarantee quality teachers nor quality teaching, but they are

necessary prerequisites.

The argument for the necessity of preparation and education in subject knowledge is

especially clear for the secondary school level. First, at the secondary level, teachers are

divided by fields into departments; faculties are thus more specialized than in elementary

schools, and therefore the differences between fields are more distinct and, perhaps,

greater. Moreover, the level of mastery needed to teach different subjects is higher at the

secondary school level, and therefore a clear case has been made by policy analysts and

researchers that such teachers ought to have adequate substantive background in the
Introduction

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 3

subjects they teach (e.g., Shavelson, McDonnell, and Oakes 1989; Murnane and Raizen

1988; Darling-Hammond and Hudson 1990).

In contrast to national data on the quality of classroom teaching, national data on the

basic qualifications of teachers, such as the percentages of teachers that have degrees and

are certified, have been more readily available, although these data have usually been

limited to specific fields (e.g., math/science) or particular levels (e.g., grade 8; senior

high). Moreover, analyses of the data available have shown that the qualifications of

teaching staffs do vary across different types of schools. In general, research has shown

that levels of teaching staff qualifications are often lower in low-income and highminority schools and in lower level classes within schools (e.g., Pascal 1987; Horn,

Hafner, and Owings 1992; Oakes 1990). But, although there appear to be some

inequities, the data also show that very few public school teachers are without at least

basic teaching qualifications, regardless of the type of school. Indeed, almost all public

school teachers hold bachelor’s degrees, about half have graduate degrees, and over 90

percent are certified (Choy et al. 1993; Ingersoll 1995a; Blank and Gruebel 1993;

National Science Foundation 1992). As a result, it appears that, regardless of the type of

school, the vast majority of public school students are taught by teachers with at least

basic education and qualifications.

Although more readily available than data on teaching quality, there have also been

problems with the data available on teacher qualifications and student access to qualified

teachers in the United States. Assessing disparities in access to qualified teachers requires

not simply examining whether teachers are trained, but whether they are trained in the

actual subjects they are assigned to teach. In contrast to data on teacher qualifications

and education, much less information has been available on the extent to which trained

teachers are teaching subjects for which they have little training—the phenomenon of

out-of-field teaching.

In order to address fully the issue of access to qualified teachers, it is necessary to

distinguish between teacher training and teaching assignment. These represent two

distinct elements in the assessment of teacher qualifications. Teacher training refers to

the quantity and quality of teacher education and preparation. Assessments of training

levels typically examine whether teachers have a basic college education and expertise in

a specialty field. On the other hand, the element of assignment or placement of teachers

focuses on whether the fields of training and preparation of the teacher match the

teaching fields of the teacher. Assessments of teachers’ assignments need to examine

whether teachers are assigned to teach in fields for which they have adequate background.

In this view, teachers trained in social studies, for example, are unlikely to have a solid

understanding of physics. Hence, the source of underqualified teaching may lay either in

inadequate training or in a lack of match between teachers’ fields of training and their

teaching assignments. It is important to distinguish between these two elements in

assessments of teacher qualifications because they have very different implications for

policy. If underqualified teaching is due to inadequacies in the quantity or quality of
Introduction

4 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

teacher education and preparation, it is probable that the source of the problem may lie

with teacher education programs and standards. On the other hand, if underqualified

teaching is due to high levels of mismatch between teachers’ fields of training and their

teaching assignments, then it is probable that the source of the problem may lie with the

supply of teachers or the management of schools.

The problem for research on teacher qualifications has been a lack of necessary data,

especially at the national level, to assess the degree of match and mismatch between

teacher training and assignment—a problem repeatedly voiced over the past decade by

numerous analysts (e.g., Shavelson, McDonnell, and Oakes 1989; Darling-Hammond and

Hudson 1990; Murnane and Raizen 1988; Haggstrom, Darling-Hammond, and Grissmer

1988). Moreover, there has been little information on the numbers of students actually

taught by out-of-field teachers—information crucial to understanding disparities in

student access to qualified teaching.

Analysis for This Report

In order to address these and other data needs concerned with the staffing, occupational,

and organizational aspects of schools, in the late 1980s the National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES) designed and conducted the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), a

major new survey of teachers and schools. NCES has since sponsored several projects

designed to define and assess out-of-field teaching in the United States (McMillen and

Bobbitt 1993; Bobbitt and McMillen 1995; Ingersoll 1995a). These previous analyses

have shown that, in fact, out-of-field teaching is extensive in U.S. schools. Moreover,

these analyses have documented that this underqualified teaching was not due to a lack of

basic education or training on the part of teachers. The source of out-of-field teaching lay

in the lack of fit between teachers’ fields of training and their teaching assignments. Most

teachers have training, such as a college major, in their main field of assignment. But,

many teachers, especially at the secondary level, are also assigned to teach additional

courses in fields for which they have little or no formal background preparation.

This report expands on this earlier work by analyzing national data from the 1990-91

SASS to examine the issue of disparities in student access to qualified teachers. This

analysis differs from most previous research on educational equality and teacher

qualifications in three ways. First, it focuses on out-of-field teaching. Researchers typically

examine the quantity of teachers with degrees or with certification, or the quantity of

those with degrees or certification in their main teaching assignments. In contrast, this

analysis focuses on the proportion of teachers teaching subjects who do not have adequate

qualifications in those subjects, regardless of whether it is their main or secondary

teaching assignment.

Second, this analysis utilizes a conservative standard in defining adequate qualifications.

There is a great deal of disagreement as to what constitutes a sufficient quantity and

quality of preparation for a teacher to be considered adequately trained. Rather than
Introduction

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 5

enter the debate as to what constitutes a qualified teacher, quality teaching, or quality

teacher training, this analysis adopts a minimal definition of adequate training. The

premise underlying this analysis is that adequately qualified staffing requires teachers,

especially at the secondary school level and especially in the core academic fields, to hold,

as a minimum prerequisite, at least a college minor in the fields taught. The analysis

focuses on whether teachers who teach the core academic subjects (mathematics, English,

social studies, science) at the secondary level have a basic or minimal education in those

subjects. Basic, minimal, or adequate education here refers to teachers having at least a

minor in each of the fields they are assigned to teach. In this view, even a moderate

number of teachers lacking such minimal training prerequisites is a strong indication of

inadequacies in the staffing of schools.

Third, this analysis focuses on students. Rather than examining how qualified teachers

are, this analysis focuses on the proportion of students being taught by teachers without

basic qualifications. Addressing the issue of disparities in student access requires assessing

how many students are actually exposed to out-of-field teaching.

The analysis examines whether access to qualified teachers is equally distributed across

different student populations. It begins by focusing on differences between high-poverty

and low-poverty schools, and also between high-minority and low-minority schools.

Many researchers assume that the high-poverty and minority populations are one and the

same. It is important, however, to examine the data on out-of-field teaching by these two

characteristics separately, because previous research has suggested that differences in the

levels of teacher qualifications are not always the same across them (Pascal 1987).

The analysis also examines within-school differences in teacher qualifications across

classes of different student achievement levels, of different student ability groupings, and

of different student races and ethnicities. Again, it is also important to examine out-offield teaching separately by these three sets of characteristics because it cannot be assumed

that their relationships to teacher qualifications are the same.

Finally, this analysis examines within-school differences in teacher qualifications across

different secondary school grade levels—specifically, grades 7 through 12. Although

many may agree that basic education is an essential prerequisite of qualified teachers,

there is probably less agreement on whether out-of-field teaching has as serious

consequences at the junior high level as it has for the senior high grades. Hence, it is

important to distinguish among grades at the secondary level and to determine whether

there are, in fact, differences in out-of-field teaching levels across these different grade

levels.
Introduction

6 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

Thus, the analysis in this report addresses the following questions:

1. What proportion of the nation’s public secondary students are taught core academic

subjects by out-of-field teachers?

2. Are students in public secondary schools that serve predominantly poverty-level or

minority student populations more likely to be taught by out-of-field teachers than

students in public secondary schools that serve predominantly more affluent or white

students?

3. Are students in low-achievement-level, low-track, lower grade-level, or

predominantly minority classes more likely to be taught by out-of-field teachers than

students in high-achievement-level, high-track, higher grade-level, or predominantly

white classes?
 For a detailed discussion of the original rationale, conceptualization, and design of SASS, 1

see the Rand Corporation report by Haggstrom, Darling-Hammond, and Grissmer (1988).

 For information concerning the survey design and sample estimation of SASS, see 2

Kaufman and Huang (1993). For information about the quality of the data in SASS, see Jabine

(1994). For manuals on use of SASS, see Gruber, Rohr, and Fondelier (1993). For an extensive

report summarizing the items used in this report and providing an overview of the entire survey, see

Choy et al. (1993). 

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 7

Data and Methods

Data

The data source for this study is the nationally representative 1990-91 Schools and

Staffing Survey (SASS). The U.S. Census Bureau collected these data for NCES in early

1991 from a random sample stratified by state, sector, and school level. The 1990-91

SASS included four sets of linked questionnaires: for each school sampled, for the

principal or headmaster of each school, for the central district board of each public school,

and for faculty within each school. Within each school, from 3 to 20 teachers (average of

4) were randomly sampled, depending on school level, size, and sector.

SASS is particularly useful for addressing questions concerned with teacher qualifications.

It is the largest and most comprehensive dataset available on teachers and school staffing

characteristics in the United States. Indeed, as indicated earlier, this survey was

conducted because of the paucity of nationally representative data on such issues. SASS,

for example, includes a wide range of information on the training, education,

qualifications, and teaching assignments of teachers that can be disaggregated by field and

also disaggregated by the characteristics of schools, students, and classrooms. More detail 1

on the technical aspects of the 1990-91 SASS are included in the Technical Notes at the

end of this report.2

The sample utilized in the analysis consists of 25,427 public school teachers, including

those employed both full-time and part-time. This analysis focuses solely on those

teaching at the secondary school level (grades 7 through 12), regardless of whether the
Data and Methods

8 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

school was actually a middle school, junior high school, a senior high school, a secondary

school, or a combined school. Furthermore, it solely focuses on those who taught

departmentalized courses in any of the core academic fields (English, mathematics,

science, social studies). For example, 7th or 8th grade teachers teaching multiple subjects

in self-contained classes were excluded from the analysis. Likewise, the non-7-12th grade

portions of the schedules of teachers in combined schools or middle schools were

excluded.

For each class period in the school day of each of the sampled teachers, data were

collected on the subject taught, grade level, class type or track, student achievement level,

student race-ethnicity, and the number of students enrolled. In addition, teachers

reported their certification status and their major and minor fields of study for each of

their degrees earned, at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. These data were used

to develop the measures of out-of-field teaching for this analysis.

Measures

Empirical examination of the extent to which teachers are assigned to teach in fields for

which they do or do not have adequate or appropriate training is difficult because

“adequate” or “appropriate” background training and preparation can be defined in a

number of different ways. The most commonly used measures focus on whether teachers

are certified in their teaching assignments. But, even as an indicator of basic training,

whether or not a teacher has certification has limits. Teacher certification requirements

and the quality of teacher training programs vary widely across states; some, for instance,

include a major in a substantive field, and some do not (Tryneski 1992; Feistritzer 1990).

The definition of teaching assignment is also not straightforward. The most commonly

used measures focus on teachers’ main teaching assignments. But, it is possible for

teachers, especially at the secondary school level, to teach in more than one field.

Physical education teachers, for example, may not simply teach physical education; they

may have additional assignments. As a result, it is unclear how much of teachers’ class

schedules are excluded in measures limited to teachers’ main assignments.

Moreover, teaching fields can be defined and subdivided in different ways, both narrowly

and broadly. For instance, a broad definition of the field of social studies might consider

within-department assignments, such as history teachers teaching classes in economics, to

be in-field. A narrow definition, on the other hand, might require teachers of economics

to have a degree in economics to be considered in-field. The definition of field used in an

analysis can affect the amount of out-of-field teaching found.

Finally, it is difficult to determine how many students are actually affected when

examining measures of the numbers of teachers teaching out of field. Some teachers may

teach many large sections out of field, while others may teach a few small classes out of

field.
Data and Methods

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 9

This analysis builds on earlier work that has developed and compared a range of different

measures of out-of-field teaching (McMillen and Bobbitt 1993; Bobbitt and McMillen

1995; Ingersoll 1995a). The measure used in this analysis examines the percentage of

public secondary school students enrolled in classes taught by teachers without at

least a minor in the field. This measure of out-of-field teaching differs from those most

commonly used in research on access to qualified teachers; hence, its features and

rationale merit some explanation.

This measure of out-of-field teaching focuses on students. Rather than focusing on the

proportions of teachers teaching out-of-field, this analysis focuses on the proportion of

students being taught by out-of-field teachers. This measure allows the analysis to address

the issue of disparities of student access because it illuminates how many students are

actually exposed to out-of-field teaching.

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

in broadly defined fields. The analysis defines adequate training not as a college major,

but as a college minor, which may require passing only a small number of undergraduate

courses in a field. Rather than enter the debate as to what constitutes a qualified teacher,

quality teaching, or quality teacher training, this analysis presents data on students taught

by teachers who lacked even basic prerequisites in the fields they were assigned to teach.

Hence, this measure is conservative and may, in fact, understate the level and degree of

underqualified or out-of-field teaching. The underlying premise is that even a moderate

number of teachers lacking such minimal training prerequisites is a strong indication of

inadequacies in the staffing of schools.

Adequate training is defined in terms of substantive background. This measure of out-offield teaching indicates how many students were taught by teachers who did not hold at

least a college minor in the subject field, regardless of whether they had training in

teaching methods or whether they were certified or not. Hence, it refers to teachers’

substantive education, not their pedagogical training. However, both education majors

and minors and liberal arts majors and minors are defined here as substantive background.

Hence, a teacher with either a minor in mathematics education or with a minor in

mathematics who was teaching mathematics is defined as in-field. It should be noted that

many teachers held multiple degrees, and many held multiple majors and minors; hence,

many are defined as in-field in more than one field. It should also be noted that this

measure does not account for informal training or life experiences that may have imparted

substantive knowledge to teachers. Moreover, this measure does not count as qualified

those who have college credits in a field but do not have a minor or major in the field. In

such cases, a teacher would be defined as out-of-field who may, in fact, be qualified in that

field.

This measure of out-of-field teaching focuses on the students enrolled in and teachers

assigned to the core academic fields. These fields are defined first broadly and then

narrowly in this analysis. First, the core academic subjects and college major/minors are
Data and Methods

 See the Technical Notes for a chart showing the categorization of disciplines and subjects 3

into fields of training and fields of teaching assignment.

10 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

broadly categorized into four fields parallel to conventional core academic departments in

secondary schools: English, mathematics, science, and social studies. To be defined as infield, English teachers must hold at least a minor in either English, English education,

language arts, literature, reading, communication, or journalism. Mathematics teachers

must hold at least a minor in either mathematics, engineering, or mathematics education.

Science teachers must hold a minor in any of the sciences. Social studies teachers

(i.e., history, economics, civics, world civilization) must hold at least a minor in one of

the social sciences, in history, or in social studies education.3

Second, because both social studies and science are broad multidisciplinary fields, the

analysis also subdivides them into some of their components for separate examination.

Within the field of social studies, history is separately assessed. In this case, to be defined

as in-field, teachers of either history or world civilization classes must hold at least a minor

in history, rather than simply a minor in any social science.

Likewise, within the field of science, the physical sciences and the life sciences are also

subdivided and separately assessed. In the first case, teachers of any physical science

course (e.g., physics, chemistry, geology, or other physical science) are required to hold at

least a minor in one of the physical sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, or geology) to be

defined as in-field, rather than simply a minor in any science. Hence, within the subfield

of physical science, a teacher of physics with a minor in chemistry is defined as in-field.

But, a teacher of physics with a minor in biology, and without at least a minor in one of

the physical sciences, is defined as out-of-field.

Within the subfield of life science, to be defined as in-field, teachers of any life science or

biology courses must hold at least a minor in biology or life science to be defined as infield. Hence, within the subfield of life science, a teacher of biology with a minor in

physics, and without at least a minor in either biology or life science, is defined as out-offield.

Finally, it must be noted that not all instances of out-of-field teaching are of equal

magnitude. For instance, a teacher with a degree in English is probably less prepared to

teach mathematics than a teacher with a degree in chemistry. However, both are defined

as out-of-field. Moreover, some fields of physical science require substantial credits in

mathematics, making such teachers more than minimally qualified to teach mathematics

courses. On the other hand, the reverse may not be true; a degree in mathematics would

not necessarily qualify a teacher to teach physical science courses. Hence, defining fields

along departmental lines, as in the measure used here, ignores some cases where what is

defined as out-of-field teaching may not actually be misqualified teaching.
Data and Methods

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 11

Methods

The objective of this analysis is to examine differences in the levels of out-of-field

teaching among different types of schools, based on the poverty level and race-ethnicity of

the students enrolled. In addition, the analysis examines out-of-field differences across

different kinds of classrooms within schools. The measures of school and classroom

characteristics are described below.

School Characteristics

Data were collected from school administrators on the poverty level and race-ethnicity of

the students enrolled in each sample school. These data provided two measures of school

characteristics for the analysis:

Minority enrollment of school: percentage of nonwhite students in each school (Asian,

Pacific Islander, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Hispanic, Black)

Low-minority: less than 15 percent

Medium-minority: 15 percent to 50 percent

High-minority: 50 percent or more

Poverty enrollment of school: percentage of students in each school receiving the federal

free or reduced-price lunch program, which is synonymous with students from low-income

families

Low-poverty: less than 15 percent

Medium-poverty: 15 percent to 50 percent

High-poverty: 50 percent or more

Classroom Characteristics

The sampled teachers provided information on the grade level, class type or track, student

achievement level, and student race-ethnicity for each class in their school day. From this

data, several measures of classroom characteristics were developed and used in the

analysis:

Achievement level of class: teachers’ reports of “achievement level of students in

classroom compared to other students in the school”

Low-achievement: primarily lower achieving students

Average-achievement: primarily average achieving students

High-achievement: primarily higher achieving students
Data and Methods

12 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

Type or track of class: teachers’ reports of “type of class”

Low-track: general, remedial, vocational, special education

Medium-track: academic/college preparatory

High-track: honors, advanced placement, gifted

Minority enrollment of class: teachers’ reports of “number of students in the class who

were Black, Hispanic, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Pacific Islander, or Asian”

Low-minority: less than 15 percent

Medium-minority: 15 percent to 50 percent

High-minority: 50 percent or more

Grade level of class: teachers’ reports of “the grade level of most of the students in the

class”

Grades 7 through 12

It is important to note several limitations of two of the above classroom measures:

achievement levels of classrooms and the type or track of classrooms. These measures are

based on teachers’ self-reports, and different teachers within the same school may use

different sets of criteria to define different student achievement levels or class types.

Schools themselves may also differ in the manner in which they group students by

achievement level and ability (see Carey and Farris 1994). In addition, schools may differ

in the extent to which they employ student ability and achievement grouping. For

instance, particular schools may use all, some, or none of the class types and achievement

levels identified above. Hence, it cannot be assumed that these classroom categories are

consistent across the sample. Moreover, in order to simplify the comparisons in the case

of different class types or tracks, the analysis grouped eight types utilized in the SASS

questionnaire into three tracks—low, medium, and high—as shown above. Simplification

may, however, mask differences. For instance, combining special education, general,

remedial, and vocational classes into one category—low-track—may obscure differences

among them. For all of these reasons, the measure of classroom achievement levels and

the measure of class tracks should be interpreted with some caution in the analysis.

All figures and estimates presented in this report are based on samples and, hence, are

subject to sampling error. Standard errors indicating the accuracy of the estimates are

included in Appendix A. Caution should be used in interpreting estimates in the tables

that have relatively large standard errors. The standard method of assessing this is by

calculating a statistic known as the coefficient of variation, which is the ratio of the

standard error to the estimate. Estimates with coefficients of variation greater than

30 percent are noted with an asterisk and should be interpreted with some caution. All

comparisons and differences in levels of out-of-field teaching discussed in the report itself

are statistically significant at a 95 percent level of confidence, unless otherwise noted. At
Data and Methods

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 13

times, what may appear to be a difference in levels of out-of-field teaching between, for

example, two types of schools, may actually not be of statistical significance. This does

not mean there is no real difference in the actual population of schools in the United

States. It means that the apparent difference between the sample estimates is simply not

great enough to conclude that it could not be due to random variation in the sample.

More details on the determination of statistical significance in this analysis are included

in the Technical Notes.
14 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality
Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 15

Results

What proportion of the nation’s public secondary school students are taught core academic

subjects by out-of-field teachers?

Overall in 1990-91, substantial proportions of students in public secondary schools in the

United States were taught academic subjects by teachers without basic qualifications in

those subjects. The proportions of public secondary school students taught in each of the

core academic fields by teachers without at least a minor in the field are presented in table

1 and figure 1.

For example, about one-fifth of all public school students enrolled in English classes in

grades 7-12, or about 4,310,000 of 20,700,000 students, were taught by teachers who did

not have at least a minor in English, literature, communications, speech, journalism,

English education, or reading education. In addition, over one-quarter of all public

school students enrolled in mathematics classes in grades 7-12, or about 4,124,000 of

15,510,000 students, were taught by teachers without at least a minor in mathematics or

in mathematics education. In science, 17 percent of all public school students enrolled in

science classes in grades 7-12 were taught by teachers without at least a minor in any of

the sciences or in science education. Overall, a relatively low proportion of students were

taught social studies out of field; 13 percent of students enrolled in social studies were

taught by teachers without at least a minor in any of the social sciences, in public affairs,

in social studies education, or in history.

Within the sciences, levels of out-of-field teaching increased dramatically when science as

a whole was subdivided between the physical and life sciences. This suggests that there was a

great deal of within-science, but cross-discipline, out-of-field teaching. That is, if the

definition of in-field required a teacher of physics, chemistry, geology, or physical science

to have at least a minor in physics, chemistry, or geology, rather than simply a minor in

any science, then the overall amount of out-of-field teaching greatly increased. Fifty-six

percent of all 7-12 students enrolled in physical science classes, or about 3,430,000 of

6,110,000, were taught by teachers without at least a minor in any of the physical

sciences. Likewise, if the definition of in-field required a teacher of biology or life science
Results

16 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

to have at least a minor in biology or life science, rather than in simply in any science,

then the overall amount of out-of-field teaching greatly increased.

Levels of out-of-field teaching also increased dramatically when history was defined as a

separate field, again suggesting that there was a great deal of within-social studies, but

cross-discipline, out-of-field teaching. Over half of all 7-12 students enrolled in history or

world civilization classes, or about 4,330,000 of 8,030,000 students, were taught by

teachers without at least a minor in history itself.

Table 1. Percentage of public secondary school students enrolled in classes taught by teachers

without at least a minor in the field, by field and selected school characteristics: 1990-91

English Math Science Studies

Life Physical

Science Science History

Social

Total 20.8 26.6 16.5 38.5 56.2 13.4 53.9

Minority Enrollment of

School:

Low-minority 20.0 24.3 13.9 36.8 58.0 11.6 56.3

Medium-minority 19.1 23.1 16.6 40.2 52.7 15.6 49.9

High-minority 24.4 33.6 17.8 33.8 56.7 14.4 54.2

Poverty Enrollment of

School:

Low-poverty 15.6 20.6 11.9 34.1 50.4 11.6 54.3

Medium-poverty 21.7 30.1 16.0 39.2 59.4 14.5 53.0

High-poverty 33.2 32.6 29.3 45.3 70.6 15.3. 55.0

NOTE: The estimates for Life Science, Physical Science, and History represent the proportion of students taught by

teachers without at least a minor in those particular subfields.

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

Survey (Teacher Questionnaire).
21

27

17

39

56

13

54

English

Mathematics

Science

Life science

Physical science

Social Studies

History

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent

Results

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 17

Figure 1. Percentage of public secondary school students in classes taught by teachers

without at least a minor in the field, by field: 1990-91

NOTE: The estimates for Life Science, Physical Science, and History represent the proportion of students taught by

teachers without at least a minor in those particular subfields.

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

Survey (Teacher Questionnaire).

Are students in public secondary schools that serve predominantly poverty-level or minority

student populations more likely to be taught by out-of-field teachers than students in public

secondary schools that serve predominantly more affluent or white students?

In 1990-91, there were also differences in the amount of out-of-field teaching across

different types of schools, but this depended on the type of schools compared and the

fields examined (see table 1). Notably, although in some fields there appear to have been

slight differences in levels of out-of-field teaching between high- and low-minority

schools, in no fields were these differences statistically significant. In contrast, school

poverty levels were related to the amount of out-of-field teaching, and the differences

were in the direction predicted by the literature on educational inequality. That is, in no

fields did high-poverty schools have less out-of-field teaching than low-poverty schools,

while in several fields, students in high-poverty schools received distinctly more out-offield teaching than in low-poverty schools (see figure 2). For example, one-third of
16

21

12

34

50

12

54

33

33

29

45

71

15

55

English

Mathematics

Science

Life science

Physical science

Social Studies

History

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent

Poverty Enrollment of School

Low-poverty High-poverty

Results

18 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

Figure 2. Percentage of public secondary school students in classes taught by teachers

without at least a minor in the field, by field and poverty enrollment of school:

1990-91

English students in high-poverty schools, as opposed to 16 percent in low-poverty schools,

were taught by teachers who did not have at least a minor in English, English education,

language arts, literature, reading, communication, or journalism. Moreover, there were

distinct differences in the amount of out-of-field teaching in physical science between

high- and low-poverty schools.

NOTE: The estimates for Life Science, Physical Science, and History represent the proportion of students

taught by teachers without at least a minor in those particular subfields.

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

Staffing Survey (Teacher Questionnaire).

Although there also appear to have been differences in the proportions of students being

taught out-of-field life science or math across high- and low-poverty levels, these were not

statistically significant. There was, in addition, little difference in out-of-field teaching in

both social studies and history between schools of different poverty levels. Regardless of

the students’ poverty level, all schools had relatively low levels of out-of-field teaching in

social studies and relatively high levels of out-of-field teaching in history.
Results

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 19

Are students in low-achievement-level, low-track, lower grade-level, or predominantly minority

classes more likely to be taught by out-of-field teachers than students in high-achievement-level,

high-track, higher grade-level, or predominantly white classes?

In 1990-91, the amount of out-of-field teaching was not equally distributed across

different types of classes and groups in schools. These data are displayed in table 2 and

figures 3-5. Both student achievement levels and type or track of class were related to

access to qualified teachers. In each case, the pattern was similar; low-track and lowachievement classes often had more out-of-field teaching than did high-track and highachievement classes. For example, in English and physical science, students in lowachievement classes were more often taught by out-of-field teachers than in highachievement classes (see figure 3).

Likewise, in several fields, students in high-track classes experienced less out-of-field

teaching than did those in the low-track classes (see figure 4). For instance, about onetenth of students in high-track English classes were taught by out-of-field teachers. But,

about one-quarter of those in low-track English classes received out-of-field teaching.

However, little difference was found in levels of out-of-field teaching between the two

higher tracks—the honors/gifted/AP track and the college preparatory track.

In contrast to achievement levels and tracks, there was little difference in out-of-field

teaching between predominantly white and predominantly minority classes (see table 2).

In none of the fields was there a statistically significant difference in out-of-field teaching

between high-minority classes and low-minority classes.

However, some distinct differences were found between the junior high school grade

levels and the senior high school grade levels (see figure 5). Students in grade 7 were

more likely to have received out-of-field teaching than were 12th grade students in all

fields, with the exception of history and math. For example, about one-third of science

students in 7th grade were taught by teachers without at least a minor in any of the

sciences or science education, while this was true for only about one-tenth of the math

students in 12th grade. In some fields, students in grade 8 were also more likely to have

received out-of-field teaching than were 12th grade students. However, distinct

differences were not found among the senior high grade levels. Ninth grade students, for

example, were not necessarily more likely to have been taught by an out-of-field teacher

than were 12th grade students.

For purposes of comparison, table 3 provides additional background data on differences in

the amount of out-of-field teaching across the 50 states.
Results

20 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

Table 2. Percentage of public secondary school students enrolled in classes taught by teachers

without at least a minor in the field, by field and selected classroom characteristics:

1990-91

English Math Science Studies

Life Physical

Science Science History

Social

Total 20.8 26.6 16.5 38.5 56.2 13.4 53.9

Achievement Level of

Class:

Low-achievement 28.2 33.7 26.6 48.7 66.7 18.4 60.1

Average-achievement 19.0 25.6 15.2 33.7 58.0 12.5 52.1

 High-achievement 16.3 21.6 9.2 32.0 45.5 11.8 52.6

Type or Track of Class:

Low-track 24.7 33.5 20.4 42.3 66.8 14.3 55.1

Medium-track 11.8 15.7 9.2* 31.4 42.8 8.9 44.9

High-track 11.2 20.4* 7.2* 20.7 43.0 11.2 51.1

Minority Enrollment of

Class:

Low-minority 19.2 22.7 14.6 36.6 56.3 12.3 55.6

Medium-minority 19.9 24.2 17.7 42.8 54.1 15.0 52.7

High-minority 25.2 36.1 19.6 37.6 58.7 14.3 51.4

Grade Level of Class:

7th grade 32.2 48.8 31.8 60.4 73.8 23.9 56.3

8th grade 32.9 37.1 23.8 32.9* 75.7 19.7 60.5

9th grade 15.7 18.1 10.7 27.9 61.7 8.7 48.7

10th grade 11.1 16.8 8.9* 29.3 45.7 8.8 51.1

11th grade 11.2 15.9 6.4 23.5* 36.8 6.8 47.0

12th grade 13.9 24.2 13.1* 25.3* 41.0 11.3 62.4

* Coefficient of variation greater than 30 percent.

NOTE: The estimates for Life Science, Physical Science, and History represent the proportion of students taught by

teachers without at least a minor in those particular subfields.

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

Survey (Teacher Questionnaire).
28

34

27

49

67

18

60

16

22

9

32

46

12

53

English

Math

Science

Life science

Physical science

Social Studies

History

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent

Achievement Level of Class

Low-achievement High-achievement

Results

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 21

Figure 3. Percentage of public secondary school students enrolled in classes taught by

teachers without at least a minor in the field, by field and achievement level of

class: 1990-91

NOTE: The estimates for Life Science, Physical Science, and History represent the proportion of students

taught by teachers without at least a minor in those particular subfields.

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

Staffing Survey (Teacher Questionnaire).
25

34

20

42

67

14

55

11

20

7

15

43

11

51

English

Math

Science

Life science

Physical science

Social Studies

History

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent

Type or Track of Class

Low-track High-track

Results

22 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

Figure 4. Percentage of secondary school students enrolled in classes taught by teachers

without at least a minor in the field, by field and type or track of class: 1990-91

NOTE: The estimates for Life Science, Physical Science, and History represent the proportion of students

taught by teachers without at least a minor in those particular subfields.

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

Staffing Survey (Teacher Questionnaire).
32

49

32

60

74

24

56

14

24

13

25

41

11

62

English

Math

Science

Life science

Physical science

Social Studies

History

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent

Grade Level of Class

7th grade 12th grade

Results

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 23

Figure 5. Percentage of public secondary school students enrolled in classes taught by

teachers without at least a minor in the field, by field and grade level of class:

1990-91

NOTE: The estimates for Life Science, Physical Science, and History represent the proportion of students

taught by teachers without at least a minor in those particular subfields.

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

Staffing Survey (Teacher Questionnaire).
Results

24 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

Table 3. Percentage of public secondary school students enrolled in classes taught by teachers

without at least a minor in the field, by field and by state: 1990-91

State English Math Science Life Science Physical Science Social Studies History

TOTAL PUBLIC 21 27 17 39 56 13 54

Alabama 22 13 23 50 68 14 48

Alaska 21 40* 11* -- 78 14* --

Arizona 32 30 13* 28* 49 19 71

Arkansas 12* 12* 15* 47* 72 14* 57

California 22 42 17* 33 57 18 46

Colorado 16 26 15* 30* 42 12 64

Connecticut 17* 19* 13* -- -- 11* --

Delaware -- -- -- -- -- -- --

District of Columbia -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Florida 23 38 22* 49* 56* 12* 58

Georgia 24* 24* 28 56 61 19* 68

Hawaii 22* 26* -- -- -- -- --

Idaho 24* 29* 8* 35* 60 10* 55

Illinois 23 30* 10* 22* 61 14* 37*

Indiana 8* 20 8* 50 57 10* 60

Iowa 13* 13* 24* 38 79 4* 45

Kansas 21 12* 29* 42 74 12* 72

Kentucky 40 21* 24 39* 30* 14* 42

Louisiana 32 36 34* 63* 61 10* 88

Maine 31 23* 19* -- 51 15* 53*

Maryland 27 29* 10* -- -- 18* 72

Massachusetts 20* 33 4* 12* 30* 6* 48

Michigan 20 23 17* 35* 54 6* 49*

Minnesota 5* 10* 5* 26* 55* 5* 83

Mississippi 27 31* 19* 32* 71 21* 70

Missouri 18* 14* 13* -- 53 15* 63

Montana 19* 10* 11* 39 48 25* 69

Nebraska 13* 13* 7* 42* 63 8* 62

Nevada 18* 32 18* -- -- 18* --

New Hampshire 8* -- -- -- -- -- --

New Jersey 22 27 14* -- -- 12* 61

New Mexico 35 29 29* 74 69 5* 45

New York 18 31* 9* 29* 44* 4* 32*

North Carolina 30 28* 5* -- -- 16* 57

North Dakota 10* 12* 9* 31 53 10* 65

Ohio 22 23 18* -- 47 18 60

Oklahoma 16* 24 15* 47 69 26* 81

Oregon 34 34 9* 50 62 17 52

Pennsylvania 12* 6* 10* -- 40* 15* 73

Rhode Island -- -- -- -- -- -- --

South Carolina 26 31 16* 50 62 12* 60

South Dakota 20 11* 22* 44 64 26 70

Tennessee 36 31* 27* 42* 65 19* 67

Texas 11* 25 15* 42* 61 16* 39

Utah 10* 28 7* 44 58 12* --

Vermont 16* 28* 15* -- -- 3* --

Virginia 21* 30 17* -- 41* 17* 68*

Washington 26 36 15* 27* 81 12* 41

West Virginia 29 4* 12* 57 69 12* 82

Wisconsin 22* 8* 23* 23* 66 9* 32*

Wyoming 11* 14* 16* -- -- 22 67

* coefficient of variation greater than 30 percent

-- too few cases for reliable estimate

NOTE: The estimates for Life Science, Physical Science, and History represent the proportion of students taught by

teachers without at least a minor in those particular subfields.

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

Survey (Teacher Questionnaire).
Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 25

Conclusion

This report addresses the issue of out-of-field teaching and educational equality. Rather

than entering the debate as to how much teacher preparation, education, and training

constitutes enough to be considered adequate, this analysis has intentionally adopted a

conservative approach. The premise underlying the analysis is that adequately qualified

staffing requires teachers, especially at the secondary school level and in the core

academic fields, to hold, as a minimum prerequisite, at least a college minor in the fields

they teach. Knowledge of subject matter does not, of course, guarantee qualified teachers,

nor quality teaching. The premise is that basic subject knowledge is a necessary

prerequisite for both. Of course, there may be teachers who are qualified despite not

having a minor or major in their teaching assignment fields. But, the premise of this

analysis is that even a moderate number of teachers lacking such minimal training

prerequisites is a strong indication of inadequacies in the staffing of schools. Indeed, if a

higher criterion had been adopted, such as requiring teachers to hold a college major

instead of a college minor in the field, levels of out-of-field teaching would have increased

dramatically (see, for example, McMillen and Bobbitt 1993; Bobbitt and McMillen 1995).

Using this minimal definition of adequate training, the analysis indicates that there were

substantial levels of out-of-field teaching in 1990-91. That is, many students in public

schools in grades 7-12, regardless of the type of school, were taught core academic subjects

by teachers without at least a college minor in the field taught. For example, about onequarter of all public school students enrolled in mathematics classes in grades 7-12, or

about 4,124,000 of 15,510,000 students, were taught by teachers without at least a minor

in mathematics or mathematics education.

These results have important implications and raise questions for several issues central to

both education research and policy. First, what are the reasons, causes, or sources of outof-field teaching? This report does not address this question, but other analyses using

SASS data to examine out-of-field teaching offer some answers (see Ingersoll 1995a,

1995b). It is clear, for example, that out-of-field teaching is not due to a lack of education

on the part of teachers; that is, out-of-field teaching is not a problem of poorly trained

teachers. Out-of-field teaching is due to a lack of match between teachers’ fields of

training and their fields of assignment. The data also suggest that out-of-field teaching is

not due to inadequacies in the overall quantity of supply—the reserve pool of teachers in
Conclusion

26 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

the nation. That is, out-of-field teaching is not a result of too few teachers. But, despite a

large and diverse reserve pool and the widespread extent of basic training held by

teachers, many school principals, nevertheless, report experiencing difficulties in finding

qualified candidates to fill their teaching job openings. In these instances, the data

indicate that school administrators commonly turn to the use of substitute teachers, inschool reassignments, and hiring of the underqualified as coping strategies. Out-of-field

teaching assignments are the inevitable result of these kinds of coping strategies.

But, it remains unclear if out-of-field assignments are an emergency condition resulting

from spot shortages of particular types of teachers at particular times in particular places,

whether they are a short-term condition due to fiscal constraints in particular settings, or

to what extent they are a chronic condition because this is a normal and ongoing practice

in particular schools.

In addition, it is not at all clear whether the root of the problem is the failure of existing

trained teacher candidates to seek positions, or whether the root of the problem is the

inability of schools to attract, effectively utilize, and retain existing trained teacher

candidates, or whether it is both. All these questions warrant further investigation.

Related to the question of the causes of out-of-field teaching, is a second question: why do

some schools have more of it than others? In particular, why do low-income schools have

higher levels of out-of-field teaching? One view, widely held among critics of educational

inequality, is that low-income schools are not able to attract, or to retain, adequately

trained teachers because they are unable to match the salaries, benefits, and resources

offered by more affluent schools. As a result, these critics hold, such schools have

difficulties hiring adequately trained teacher candidates and suffer from high levels of

teacher turnover (e.g., Kozol 1991; Oakes 1990).

There has, however, been little empirical verification of this view, and, moreover, data

from SASS suggest that this explanation may not be entirely correct. This report does not

address the issue of why low-income schools have more out-of-field teaching than others,

but related projects have begun to investigate this topic (see Ingersoll 1995b and 1995c).

SASS data show, for example, that starting-level and advanced-level salaries in highminority schools were not lower than in other schools in 1990-91. Indeed, overall, they

were slightly higher than in schools serving predominantly white student populations

(Choy et al. 1993, p.72). In addition, teacher turnover rates were also not appreciably

higher in low-income schools in 1990-91 (Ingersoll 1995a). Low-income schools do

appear to have more difficulty in filling teaching openings. But, these differences appear

to account for some, but not all, of the high levels of misqualified teachers in such

schools. SASS data show, for example, that several factors besides the overall poverty or

affluence of the student population are related to the degree of out-of-field teaching in

schools. For instance, school size and sector are both strongly related to out-of-field

levels; small schools and private schools both have distinctly higher proportions of out-offield teaching (Ingersoll 1995a, 1996b). These issues also warrant further research.
Conclusion

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 27

A third important issue concerns the issue of inequalities in access to qualified teachers,

according to the race-ethnicity of students. As noted above, it is commonly believed

among education analysts that both poor and minority students do not have equal access

to qualified teachers (e.g., Kozol 1991; Oakes 1990). In contrast, this analysis finds few

distinct differences in levels of out-of-field teaching, according to the proportion of

minority students in classrooms or in schools. This does not mean, of course, that there

are no inequalities in access to quality teaching and quality teachers, according to the

race-ethnicity of students. There may be other kinds of differences in access that are not

revealed by the data and measures used in this analysis. Moreover, this analysis does not

separately examine different minority groups, and, hence, there may be differences in

access between different minority groups not revealed here. What this analysis simply

shows is that minority students, as a whole, were not more likely to have been taught by

out-of-field teachers. Moreover, it also corroborates the importance of distinguishing

between race-ethnicity and income/poverty characteristics of student populations.

A fourth issue is the source of within-school differences in the distribution of qualified

teaching staff. As discussed above, numerous critics hold that lower track and lower

achievement courses serving disadvantaged students are taught by the least qualified

teachers (e.g., California Commission on the Teaching Profession 1985; DarlingHammond 1987; Kopp 1992; Kozol 1991; Oakes 1990). These critics argue that students

in low-achieving and low-track classes are the most at-risk, and they have the greatest

need for and would benefit most from high quality teachers. In this view, assigning outof-field teachers to teach such students is part of a pattern of unequal access to education

resources that perpetuates unequal student educational outcomes.

On the other hand, other educators have argued that because good teachers are a scarce

resource, it makes sense to place the most qualified teachers in the most advanced courses.

In this view, high-track courses, such as classes for honors or gifted students, or classes at

the senior high grade levels, require a greater level of mastery and training on the part of

teachers than those at the lower track or junior high levels. Hence, in this view,

assignment of the most qualified teachers to teach at the highest levels is not a matter of

inequality, but of efficiency (e.g., Glazer 1987).

This analysis simply shows that lower grade levels, low-track and low-achievement-level

classes, for example, do indeed have more out-of-field teaching. It does not address the

issue of why these differences exist and whether or not they are necessary. Nor does this

report address whether there are differences in out-of-field teaching within these

groupings. There may be important differences in the extent to which different kinds of

low-achieving or low-track students receive misqualified teachers, and with different

implications. For instance, some have argued that misassignment and out-of-field

teaching are especially consequential for a field such as special education, in which highly

specialized training is essential. As a result, researchers have begun to investigate

problems of teacher retention and misassignment in the field of special education using

national data (see McMillen and Bobbitt 1993; Bobbitt and McMillen 1995; Boe 1993).
Conclusion

28 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

A fifth issue concerns the consequences of out-of-field teaching for teachers and students.

What is the impact on teachers of having to teach courses for which they have little

formal background preparation? Does out-of-field teaching have any effect on classroom

discipline? What limitations are imposed by a lack of background in the subject on the

teachers’ ability to teach for critical thinking and to engage the students’ interest in the

subject? Are out-of-field assignments partly responsible for the long-criticized tendency of

school teachers towards over-reliance on textbooks? Is it possible to assess the benefits for

students of being taught by an in-field teacher using student scores on mass-produced

standardized examinations? All of these questions are of vital importance to education

policy and warrant further investigation.
 For a detailed description of the sample design of the 1990-91 SASS, see Kaufman and 4

Huang (1993).

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 29

Technical Notes

The Schools and Staffing Survey

The primary data source for this report is the 1990-91 Schools and Staffing Survey

(SASS), a nationally representative survey of teachers, principals, and schools conducted

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

The U.S. Census Bureau collected the SASS data for NCES in 1991 using a mail survey

with telephone followup. The objective of SASS was to obtain information on the

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

Sample Selection4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conducted during the 1990-91 school year included 12,856 schools and administrators,

65,217 teachers, and 5,515 local education agencies.

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

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

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

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

estimates for schools with greater than 25 percent Indian enrollment. The teacher survey

was designed to support comparisons between new and experienced teachers.

Comparisons between bilingual and nonbilingual teachers are possible at the national

level.
Technical Notes

30 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

Selection of Schools

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

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

annually by NCES from all state education agencies and is believed to be the most

complete list of public schools available. The frame includes regular public schools,

Department of Defense operated military base schools, and nonregular schools such as

special education, vocational, and alternative schools.

The private school sample of 3,270 schools was selected primarily from the 1989-90

Private School Survey (PSS) list frame, which was based on the 1989 Quality of

Education Data (QED) private school list, updated with 20 private school association lists

provided to the Census Bureau in the spring of 1989.

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

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

PSU population. Within each PSU, a telephone search was conducted to find all inscope private schools. Sources included yellow pages, religious institutions (except for

Roman Catholic religious institutions, because each Catholic diocese is contacted

annually when the QED list is updated), local education agencies, chambers of commerce,

and local government offices. PSU schools not on the QED file nor the lists from private

school associations were listed in the area school frame. From the frame, additional

schools were eligible to be selected for the SASS private school sample.

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

affiliation levels. The affiliation groups for private schools were determined by the

school’s orientation or affiliation group listed on the 1988-89 Private Schools Survey (the

frame).

Selection of LEAs

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

LEA sample for the TDS questionnaire. Each Bureau of Indian Affairs and Department of

Defense school was defined to be an LEA. Some LEAs did not have schools, but hired

teachers who taught in schools in other LEAs. To ensure representation of these teachers,

a sample of 135 LEAs without eligible schools was selected. Only 14 of the 135 were

actually in scope (that is, were an operating public school agency that reported hiring

teachers). All LEAs in Delaware, Nevada, and West Virginia were included to reduce

high sampling errors in these states. The total LEA sample was 5,515.

Selection of Teachers

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

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

school was 3.49, 6.98, and 5.23 teachers for public elementary, secondary, and combined
Technical Notes

 Copies of the questionnaires may be obtained by writing to NCES at the address given at 5

the end of this report.

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 31

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

and combined schools, respectively.

Data Collection

The data were collected for NCES by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Questionnaires were

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

teachers in January and February 1991. Six weeks later, a second questionnaire was sent 5

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

between March and June.

Weighting

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

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

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

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

adjust the sample totals (based on responding, nonresponding, and out-of-scope cases) to

the frame totals in order to reduce sampling variability.

Response Rates and Imputation

The final weighted questionnaire response rates were as follows:

Public Private

Teacher Demand and Shortage 93.5 ----

Administrator 96.7 90.0

School 95.3 83.9

Teacher* 90.3 84.3

---- not applicable

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

provide teacher lists for the sampling of teachers, and the response rates for private school teachers do not

include the 11 percent of the private schools that did not provide teacher lists. The effective response rate for

public schools was 85.8 percent and for private schools, 75.9 percent.

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

the questionnaire or a related component of the SASS (a school record to impute district
Technical Notes

 For a detailed description of the imputation procedures in the 1990-91 SASS, see 6

Kaufman and Huang (1993), pp. 60-87.

32 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

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

(3) extracting data from a respondent with similar characteristics.6

Standard Errors and Statistical Significance

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

variability. In order to make proper inferences about the larger population of students

which the samples represent, standard errors were calculated. If all possible population

samples of the same size were surveyed under the same conditions, an interval of 1.96

standard error units below, to 1.96 standard error units above, a particular statistic would

include the population value in approximately 95 percent of the cases. Note, however,

that the standard errors do not take into account the effect of biases due to item

nonresponse, measurement error, data processing error, or other possible systematic error.

The standard errors in this report were calculated using a balanced repeated replications

procedure. Because this procedure incorporates the design features of complex sample

surveys, the standard errors are generally higher than those calculated under the

assumptions of simple random sampling. Standard errors for the tables are presented in

Appendix A.

All comparisons of out-of-field teaching levels discussed in the text itself were tested for

statistical significance using the student’s t statistic at an alpha level of .05, or a 95

percent level of confidence. It should be noted that at times what may appear to be a

difference in levels of out-of-field teaching between, for example, two types of schools,

may actually not be of statistical significance. This does not mean there is no real

difference in the levels of out-of-field teaching between these kinds of schools in the

actual population of schools in the United States. It means that the apparent difference

between the sample estimates is simply not great enough to conclude it could not be due

to random variation in the sample.

This analysis used one-tailed t-tests of statistical significance because the objective of the

report is to address the view that poor, minority, low-track, or low-achievement students

are taught by lesser qualified teachers. Moreover, in keeping with the literature on

teacher qualifications and equity, the comparisons here are made strictly between the

high-end schools or classes and the low-end schools or classes. That is, the comparisons

were between those schools in which a majority of the students were low-income or

minority and those in which only a small minority of the students were low-income or

minority; between high- and low-minority class enrollment; between high- and low-track

classes; between high and low class achievement levels; or between 7th and 12th grade

levels.
Technical Notes

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 33

In this report, the comparisons between the different subject fields were simultaneous and

multiple. When multiple statistical comparisons are made on the same data, it becomes

increasingly likely that a difference in the sample does not actually indicate a real

difference in the larger population. As the number of comparisons increases, so does the

risk of making such an error in inference. To guard against this kind of error, this analysis

used the Bonferroni procedure to adjust the alpha level for the t tests. After this

adjustment, the critical values for the t statistics were as follows:

for comparisons among the four core academic fields, the critical value was 2.24

for comparisons within the sciences, the critical value was 2.13

for comparisons within social studies, the critical value was 1.96.

That is, to be deemed statistically significant, the t-test statistic for a given comparison

had to have been greater than these values.

Information on Selected Variables

Poverty enrollment of school: The proportion of a school’s student population that

received the federal free or reduced-price lunch program, sponsored by the federal

Department of Agriculture. The proportion of free-lunch recipients is a standard measure

of poverty level in school populations because almost all public schools participate in the

program. But, it must be interpreted with some caution. The number of children reported

to be recipients may be an underestimate of poverty, because not all children who are

eligible may identify themselves as such (especially at the secondary level).

Students receiving out-of-field teaching: This is a measure of the percentage of students

enrolled in classes in each field who were taught by teachers who did not have at least a

college minor in that field. This measure must be interpreted with some caution because

the class enrollment figures for students were not necessarily a representative sample of

students; the teachers assigned to the classes were the representative sample in SASS

(students could, for instance, be counted more than once in separate class periods taught

by different teachers).
Technical Notes

34 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

Definitions of Fields

Field (Major/Minor) Teaching Assignments

Teacher Training

social studies psychology social studies

public affairs & services history

social studies/social science education world civilization

economics political science/government

history geography

political science economics

sociology civics

other social sciences sociology/social organization

other area, ethnic studies other social science

psychology

history history history

world civilization

science science education general science

biology biology/life science

chemistry chemistry

earth science/geology physics

physics geology/earth

other natural sciences science/space science

other physical science

other natural science

life science biology biology/life science

physical science earth science/geology chemistry

physics physics

chemistry geology/earth

science/space science

other physical science

English English/language arts composition/journalism/creative

communic & journalism literature

English education writing

literature reading

reading education other English/language arts course
Technical Notes

Field (Major/Minor) Teaching Assignments

Teacher Training

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 35

mathematics

engineering general mathematics

mathematics business math

mathematics education algebra, elementary

algebra, intermediate

algebra, advanced

geometry, plane/solid

trigonometry

analytical geometry

probability/statistics

calculus

other mathematics
36 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality
Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 37

References

Blank, R. and Gruebel, D. (1993). State Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education

1993. State and National Trends from the 1991-92 School Year. Washington, D.C.:

Council of Chief State School Officers.

Bobbitt, S. and McMillen, M. (1995). Qualifications of the Public School Teacher

Workforce: 1988-1991. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 95-665).

Boe, E. (1996). The influx of general education teachers into special education: Impact on

teacher demand and shortage. Manuscript in preparation. Philadelphia, PA:

University of Pennsylvania, School of Education, Center for Policy Research in

Education.

California Commission on the Teaching Profession. (1985). Who Will Teach Our

Children? Sacramento, CA: Author.

Carey, C. and Farris, E. (1994). Curricular Differentiation in Public High Schools.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES 95-360).

Choy, S., Henke, R., Alt, M., Medrich, E., and Bobbitt, S. (1993). Schools and Staffing in

the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1990-91. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 93-

146).

Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., and York,

R. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1987). “Teacher Quality and Equality.” In Access to Knowledge,

Keating, P. and Goodlad, J.I. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
References

38 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

Darling-Hammond, L. and Hudson, L. (1990). “Pre-college Science and Mathematics

Teachers: Supply, Demand and Quality.” Review of Research in Education 16: 223-

264. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

Feistritzer, E. (1990). Alternative Teacher Certification: A State-by-State Analysis 1990.

Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Information.

Glazer, N. (1987). “Equity and Excellence in our Nation’s Schools.” Harvard Educational

Review 57: 196-199.

Gruber, K., Rohr, C., and Fondelier, S. (1993). 1990-91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Data

File User’s Manual Volumes I-III. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 93-441-I-III).

Haggstrom, G.W., Darling-Hammond, L., and Grissmer, D. (1988). Assessing Teacher

Supply and Demand. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Haney, W., Madus, G., and Kreitzer, A. (1987). “Charms Talismanic: Testing Teachers

for the Improvement of American Education.” Review of Research in Education 13:

169-238. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

Horn, L., Hafner, A., and Owings, J. (1992). A Profile of American Eighth-Grade

Mathematics and Science Instruction. National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center of Education

Statistics (NCES 92-486).

Ingersoll, R. (1995a). Teacher Supply, Teacher Quality and Teacher Turnover: 1990-91.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics (NCES 95-744).

Ingersoll, R. (1995b). “Teacher Supply and Demand in the U.S.” Proceedings of the

Section on Social Statistics, American Statistical Association: 1995. Alexandria, VA:

American Statistical Association.

Ingersoll, R. (1995c, August). Educational Inequality and the Problem of Out-of-Field

Teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological

Association, Washington, D.C.

Ingersoll, R. (1996a). National Assessments of Teacher Quality. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Ingersoll, R. (1996b). The Status of Teaching as a Profession. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 95-

104).
References

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 39

Jabine, T. (1994). A Quality Profile for SASS: Aspects of the Quality of Data in the Schools

and Staffing Surveys. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics (NCES 94-340).

Kaufman, S. and Huang, H. (1993). 1990-91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design

and Estimation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics (NCES 93-449).

Kopp, W. (1992). “Reforming Schools of Education Will Not Be Enough.” Yale Law and

Policy Review 10: 58-68.

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

McMillen, M. and Bobbitt, S. (1993, April). Teacher Certification, Training and Work

Assignments in Public Schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

Murnane, R. and Raizen, S., eds. (1988). Improving Indicators of the Quality of Science and

Mathematics Education in Grades K-12. Washington, D.C.: National Academy

Press.

National Science Foundation. (1992). Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education.

Washington, D.C.: Author.

Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying Inequalities: The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Tracking on

Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and Science. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND

Corporation.

Pascal, A. (1987). The Qualifications of Teachers in American High Schools. Santa Monica,

CA: The RAND Corporation.

Shavelson, R., McDonnell, L., and Oakes, J. (1989). Indicators for Monitoring Mathematics

and Science Education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Tryneski, J. (1992). Requirements for Certification of Teachers, Counselors, Librarians,

Administrators for Elementary and Secondary Schools. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.
40 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality
Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 41

Appendix A

Standard Errors
42 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality
Appendix A

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 43

Table A.1 Standard errors for table 1: Percentage of public secondary school students enrolled in

classes taught by teachers without at least a minor in the field, by field and selected school

characteristics: 1990-91

English Math Science Studies

Life Physical

Science Science History

Social

Total 1.2 6.0 1.5 3.7 2.0 2.0 4.5

Minority Enrollment of School:

Low-minority 2.3 7.0 2.3 3.9 4.8 1.2 2.7

Medium-minority 2.0 3.2 4.8 10.5 4.8 3.8 12.6

High-minority 2.7 6.3 4.3 5.7 4.5 2.3 5.5

Poverty Enrollment of School:

Low-poverty 2.5 4.7 1.6 7.2 3.2 1.5 3.2

Medium-poverty 1.4 8.0 1.5 4.5 3.8 2.6 5.7

High-poverty 3.4 6.3 8.7 9.0 7.2 2.9 10.3

NOTE: The estimates for Life Science, Physical Science, and History represent the proportion of students taught by

teachers without at least a minor in those particular subfields.

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

Survey (Teacher Questionnaire).
Appendix A

44 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

Table A.2 Standard errors for table 2: Percentage of public secondary school students enrolled in

classes taught by teachers without at least a minor in the field, by field and selected

classroom characteristics: 1990-91

English Math Science Studies

Life Physical

Science Science History

Social

Achievement Level of Class:

Low-achievement 3.3 7.4 4.3 7.3 5.8 4.6 4.3

Average-achievement 1.6 7.1 1.5 6.4 3.6 1.7 5.8

High-achievement 1.9 5.0 1.6 6.2 2.6 1.7 5.5

Type or Track of Class:

Low-track 1.8 8.0 3.8 3.3 6.4 2.5 5.2

Medium-track 1.7 2.8 3.2 6.6 6.6 2.2 6.5

High-track 1.5 6.9 4.3 4.6 5.4 2.8 5.6

Minority Enrollment of

Class:

Low-minority 1.9 6.1 2.3 3.8 3.3 2.0 3.1

Medium-minority 1.7 3.0 4.3 8.6 4.3 2.4 8.5

High-minority 2.7 7.1 4.0 5.2 3.9 2.5 6.6

Grade Level of Class:

7th grade 3.4 11.5 7.0 5.5 13.2 4.3 9.3

8th grade 2.2 4.4 2.8 19.7 10.5 4.5 3.6

9th grade 2.5 3.9 2.2 7.4 3.9 4.3 12.7

10th grade 1.4 2.5 3.1 6.3 10.4 1.7 8.1

11th grade 1.7 3.8 1.1 10.2 6.8 1.1 3.9

12th grade 2.6 4.6 4.1 9.6 4.9 2.0 4.4

NOTE: The estimates for Life Science, Physical Science, and History represent the proportion of students taught by

teachers without at least a minor in those particular subfields.

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

Survey (Teacher Questionnaire).
Appendix A

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 45

Table A.3 Standard errors for table 3: Percentage of public secondary school students enrolled in

classes taught by teachers without at least a minor in the field, by field and by state:

1990-91

State English Math Science Life Science Physical Science Social Studies History

Alabama 7.6 5.9 9.6 10.2 10.5 4.6 9.3

Alaska 6.3 13.8 12.6 -- 10.4 5.7 --

Arizona 6.4 7.3 6.7 11.1 12.5 6.1 10.6

Arkansas 4.6 7.7 15.1 25.1 19.5 5.3 11.8

California 6.0 6.2 6.1 9.3 9.8 4.9 6.6

Colorado 4.1 5.2 5.9 10.4 9.6 3.6 13.2

Connecticut 8.4 10.3 10.6 -- -- 5.7 --

Delaware -- -- -- -- -- -- --

District of Columbia -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Florida 7.1 10.0 16.9 21.4 22.2 5.1 8.7

Georgia 8.8 10.0 8.7 13.7 11.4 8.4 9.5

Hawaii 7.4 9.3 -- -- -- -- --

Idaho 9.8 12.2 4.3 12.1 17.5 9.5 16.6

Illinois 4.8 17.6 4.4 8.1 12.3 5.8 13.4

Indiana 4.0 5.6 4.3 12.1 13.7 4.6 11.9

Iowa 6.4 4.7 10.5 9.6 7.7 3.1 9.3

Kansas 4.4 7.2 10.5 11.9 21.0 4.6 15.0

Kentucky 13.0 7.6 8.8 15.0 9.9 5.1 9.1

Louisiana 5.9 7.9 13.9 19.7 17.8 3.7 10.9

Maine 8.6 7.0 8.1 -- 13.5 7.8 16.0

Maryland 7.5 10.4 4.7 -- -- 8.1 12.8

Massachusetts 7.2 6.3 3.2 6.0 9.2 4.4 7.8

Michigan 5.3 6.4 6.9 11.5 9.4 4.4 15.9

Minnesota 7.4 7.3 4.7 26.0 24.8 4.0 14.2

Mississippi 6.1 14.0 7.4 10.6 10.9 11.1 16.4

Missouri 6.3 13.2 7.7 -- 15.7 5.9 13.2

Montana 7.4 3.3 4.0 11.6 9.6 17.6 16.3

Nebraska 4.3 4.6 4.6 14.1 13.2 3.3 10.3

Nevada 8.4 7.6 11.4 -- -- 7.9 --

New Hampshire 3.8 -- -- -- -- -- --

New Jersey 6.3 7.0 7.4 -- -- 4.3 10.9

New Mexico 6.3 6.9 11.9 12.1 14.1 3.2 8.7

New York 4.7 10.5 18.8 22.2 13.3 4.5 12.7

North Carolina 7.2 8.5 4.0 -- -- 6.6 11.5

North Dakota 3.1 5.4 3.8 8.9 11.6 4.8 14.2

Ohio 5.7 5.7 8.2 -- 6.7 5.3 7.3

Oklahoma 5.9 5.9 6.3 12.5 8.6 10.4 6.0

Oregon 7.0 7.8 2.9 10.9 10.8 3.7 11.4

Pennsylvania 5.5 4.8 4.6 -- 12.6 7.9 10.7

Rhode Island -- -- -- -- -- -- --

South Carolina 7.5 8.1 6.3 14.9 12.7 6.4 15.1

South Dakota 5.6 3.4 10.1 12.1 14.6 6.7 9.9

Tennessee 9.5 11.2 11.3 16.5 17.5 7.8 12.8

Texas 3.4 5.0 4.5 14.0 9.3 5.1 8.2

Utah 5.8 8.2 4.9 12.7 13.9 3.9 --

Vermont 15.1 8.9 9.2 -- -- 2.8 --

Virginia 11.1 8.2 8.2 -- 12.7 8.5 30.9

Washington 5.4 8.9 9.5 9.6 10.8 6.2 6.9

West Virginia 5.2 1.5 4.7 13.5 11.1 6.6 9.3

Wisconsin 7.2 4.5 11.9 10.1 10.7 2.9 10.6

Wyoming 4.5 5.6 6.8 -- -- 6.2 9.0

-- too few cases for reliable estimate

NOTE: The estimates for Life Science, Physical Science, and History represent the proportion of students taught by

teachers without at least a minor in those particular subfields.

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

Survey (Teacher Questionnaire).
46 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality
Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 47

Appendix B

Additional Resources on the

Schools and Staffing Survey
48 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality
Appendix B

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 49

Additional Resources on the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)

SASS Data Products

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

U.S. Department of Education

National Center for Education Statistics

SASS Data Products

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Room 422

Washington, DC 20208-5651

Reports

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

P Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile: 1993–94 (NCES 96-124)

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

P SASS by State, 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey: Selected State Results (NCES 96-312)

P Comparing Key Organizational Qualities of American Public and Private Secondary Schools

(NCES 96-322)

P Schools and Staffing in the United States: Selected Data for Public and Private Schools,

1993-94 (E.D. Tab, NCES 95-191)

P Private Schools in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1990–91 (NCES 95-330)

P Teacher Supply in the U.S.: Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and Private Schools,

1988–1991 (NCES 95-348)

P Characteristics of American Indian and Alaska Native Education, Results from the 1990–91

SASS (NCES 95-735)

P Teacher Supply, Teacher Qualifications and Teacher Turnover, Aspects of Teacher Supply

and Demand in the U.S., 1990–91 (NCES 95-744)
Appendix B

50 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

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

P Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers: Results from the Teacher Followup Survey,

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

P SASS by State (NCES 94-343)

P Private School Universe Survey, 1991-92 (NCES 94-350)

P Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce: 1988 and 1991 (NCES 94-665)

P America*s Teachers: Profile of a Profession (NCES 93-025)

P Private School Universe Survey, 1989-90 (NCES 93-122)

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

P Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1990-91 (NCES 93-146)

P Schools and Staffing in the United States: Selected Data for Public and Private Schools,

1990-91 (E.D. Tab, NCES 93-453)

P Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1987-88 (NCES 92-120)

P Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers: Results from the Teacher Followup Survey,

1988-89 (E.D. Tab, NCES 91-128)

Forthcoming Reports

P Characteristics of American Indian and Alaska Native Education, Results from the 1993–94

SASS

P America's Teachers: Profile of a Profession, 1993–94

P The State of Teaching as a Profession, 1990–91

P The Effects of Professionalization on Teachers: A Multi-Level Analysis, 1990–91

P Time Spent Teaching Core Academic Subjects in Elementary Schools: Comparisons Across

Community School, Teacher, and Student Characteristics

P Job Satisfaction Among America's Teachers: Effects of Workplace, Conditions, Background

Characteristics, and Teacher Compensation, 1993–94

P A Profile of Administration Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficiency Students:

Screening Methods, Teacher Training, and Program Support, 1993–94

P Private Schools in the U.S.: A Statistical Profile, 1993–94
Appendix B

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 51

P Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and Private Schools, 1988–94

P Characteristics of Students' Programs: Results from Their Student Records, 1993–94

P Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers: Results from the Teacher Followup Survey,

1994-95

P Characteristics of Public School Districts, 1993-94

P School Principals in the United States, 1993-94

Issue Briefs

P Are High School Teachers Teaching Core Subjects Without College Majors or Minors in

Those Subjects? (Issue Brief, NCES 96-839)

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

P What Academic Programs are Offered Most Frequently in Schools Serving American Indian

and Alaska Native Students? (Issue Brief, NCES 96-841)

P How Safe are the Public Schools: What Do Teachers Say? (Issue Brief, NCES 96-842)

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

P What Criteria are Used in Considering Teacher Applicants? (Issue Brief, NCES 96-844)

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

P How Much Time Do Public and Private School Teachers Spend in Their Work? (Issue Brief,

NCES 95-709)

P Migration and Attrition of Public and Private School Teachers: 1991–92 (Issue Brief, NCES

95-770)

P Which Types of Schools Have the Highest Teacher Turnover? (Issue Brief, NCES 95-778)

P Libraries/Media Centers in Schools: Are There Sufficient Resources? (Issue Brief, NCES 95-

779)

P Who Influences Decisionmaking About School Curriculum: What Do Principals Say? (Issue

Brief, NCES 95-780)

P Public and Private School Principals: Are There Too Few Women? (Issue Brief, NCES

94-192)

P Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and Private Schools, 1988-91 (Issue Brief, NCES

94-481)
Appendix B

52 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

P What are the Most Serious Problems in Schools? (Issue Brief, NCES 93-149)

P Teacher Salaries—Are They Competitive? (Issue Brief, NCES 93-450)

P Teaching and Administrative Work Experience of Public School Principals (Issue Brief,

NCES 93-452)

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

Video

P Americas Teachers: Profile of a Profession

Methods

P 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation (Technical Report,

NCES 96-089)

P An Exploratory Analysis of Nonrespondents in the 1990-91 Schools and Staffing Survey

(NCES 96-338)

P Design Effects and Generalized Variance Functions for the 1990–91 Schools and Staffing

Surveys (SASS) Volume I--User's Manual (NCES 95-342I)

P Design Effects and Generalized Variance Functions for the 1990–91 Schools and Staffing

Surveys (SASS) Volume II--Technical Report (NCES 95-340II)

P Quality Profile for SASS: Aspects of the Quality of Data in the Schools and Staffing Surveys

(Technical Report, NCES 94-340)

P 1990-91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation (Technical Report,

NCES 93-449)

P Modeling Teacher Supply and Demand, with Commentary (Research and Development

Report, NCES 93-461)

P 1987-88 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation (Technical Report,

NCES 91-127)

CD-ROMs

P Schools and Staffing Survey: 1993–94 Electronic Codebook and Public Use Data

P Schools and Staffing Survey: 1990–91 Electronic Codebook and Public Use Data

P Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 Microdata and Documentation
Appendix B

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 53

Questionnaires

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

P SASS and TFS Questionnaires 1990–1991

P SASS and TFS Questionnaires 1987–1988

User*s Manuals

P 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Data File User*s Manual Volume I: Survey

Documentation (NCES 93-144-I)

P 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Data File User*s Manual Volume II: Restricted-Use

codebook (NCES 93-144-II)

P 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Data File User*s Manual Volume III: Public-Use

codebook (NCES 93-144-III)

P 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Data File User*s Manual Volume IV: Bureau of Indian

Affairs (BIA) Restricted-Use Codebooks: Administrator, Schools, and Teachers (NCES

93-144-IV)

P 1991–92 Teacher Followup Survey Data File User*s Manual—Public-Use Version (NCES

94-331)

P 1991–92 Teacher Followup Survey Data File User*s Manual—Restricted-Use Version (NCES

94-478)

P 1988–89 Teacher Followup Survey Data File User*s Manual—Public-Use Version (NCES

92-058)

Forthcoming User*s Manuals

P 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User's Manual Volume I: Survey

Documentation

P 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User's Manual Volume II: Restricted-Use

Codebook

P 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User's Manual Volume III: Public-Use

Codebook

P 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User*s Manual Volume IV: Bureau of Indian

Affairs (BIA) Restricted-Use Codebooks: Administrator, Schools, and Teachers

P 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User's Manual Volume V: Restricted-Use

Codebook Students' Records
Appendix B

54 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

Conference Papers

P Using Classroom Instructional Process Items in National Center for Education Statistics

Study To Measure Student Opportunity to Learn: A Progress Report

P Heaven or Hell? The Teaching Environment of Beginning Teachers

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

P Characteristics of Public and Private School Teachers

P Characteristics of Mathematics and Science Teachers

P Teacher Training, Certification and Assignment

P Teacher Turnover: Patterns of Entry To and Exit from Teaching

P Moonlighting Among Public and Private School Teachers

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

P Highlights of Minority Data from the Schools and Staffing Survey

P Teacher Incentive Research with SASS

P Teacher Salaries: Comparing States After Adjusting for Teacher Experience and Education

P What are the Characteristics of Principals Identified as Effective by Teachers

P Schools at Risk: Results of the 1987-88 Schools and Staffing Survey

P Destinations of Movers and Leavers: Where Do They Go?

P Teacher Salaries: Comparing States After Adjusting for Teacher Experience and Education

P Classroom Environment and Support of Beginning Teachers: A Test of the "Crucible versus

Cradle" Theory of Teacher Induction

P Why do Teachers Leave Teaching? Reasons for Teacher Attrition from the Teacher

Followup Survey
Appendix B

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 55

NCES Working Papers Related to SASS

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

American Statistical Association

Section on Survey Research Methods, August 1992

a. "The Schools and Staffing Survey: Research Issues"

b. "The Schools and Staffing Survey: How Reinterview Measures Data Quality"

c. "Mail Versus Telephone Response in the 1991 Schools and Staffing Surveys"

d. "Questionnaire Research in the Schools and Staffing Survey: A Cognitive Approach"

e. "Balance Half-Sample Replication with Aggregation Units"

f. "Characteristics of Nonrespondents in the Schools and Staffing Surveys' School

Sample"

g. "Improving Reliability and Comparability on NCES Data on Teachers and Other

Education Staff"

Establishment Surveys Conference, June 1993

a. "Sampling Frames at the United States National Center for Education Statistics"

b. "Monitoring Data Quality in Education Surveys"

Section on Survey Research Methods, August 1993

a. "Generalization Variance Functions for the Schools and Staffing Surveys"

b. "A Bootstrap Variance Estimator for the Schools and Staffing Survey

c. "Adjusting for Nonresponse Bias of Correlated Items Using Logistic Regression"

d. "Comparisons of School Locale Setting: Self-Reported Versus Assigned"

e. "Characteristics of Nonrespondents to the 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey

Social Statistics Section, August 1993

a. "Implicit Markets for Teacher Quality and School Attributes"

b. "Who Decides? Principals' and Teachers' Views on Decision-Making"

c. "Determinants of Pupil-Teacher Ratios at School Sites: Evidence from the Schools

and Staffing Survey"

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

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

WP 94-04 The Accuracy of Teachers' Self-report on Their Postsecondary Education:

Teacher Transcript Study, Schools and Staffing Survey
Appendix B

56 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

WP 94-06 Six Papers on Teachers from the 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey and Other

Related Surveys

a. "The Results of the 1993 Teacher List Validation Study (TLVS)"

b. "Designing the Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS): Issues and Content)"

c. "Understanding the Supply of Elementary and Secondary Teachers: The Role of the

School and Staffing Survey and the Teacher Followup Survey"

d. "Teacher Retention/Attrition: Issues for Research"

e. "Reflections on a SASS Longitudinal Study"

f. "Whither Didst Thou Go? Retention, Reassignment, Migration, and Attrition of

Special and General Education Teachers in National Perspective"

WP 95-01 Schools and Staffing Survey: 1994. Papers Presented at the 1994 Meeting of the

American Statistical Association (95-01)

Estimation Issues in School Surveys

a. "Intersurvey Consistency in School Surveys"

b. "Estimation Issues Related to the Student Component of the SASS"

c. "Properties of the Schools and Staffing Survey's Bootstrap Variance Estimator"

d. "Optimal Periodicity of a Survey: Sampling Error, Data Deterioration, and Cost"

Response and Coverage Issues in School Surveys

a. "Some Data Issues in School-Based Surveys"

b. "The 1991–92 Teacher Follow-up Survey Reinterview and Extensive Reconciliation"

c. "Improving Coverage in a National Survey of Teachers"

d. "Improving the Coverage of Private Elementary-Secondary Schools"

Education Research Using the Schools and Staffing Surveys and the National

Education Longitudinal Study

a. "Adding Value to the Value-Added Educational Production Function Specification"

b. "Teacher Quality in Public and Private Schools"

c. "Teacher Shortages and Teacher Quality"

d. "Work Experience, Local Labor Markets, and Dropping out of High School"

WP 95-02 QED Estimates of the 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Deriving and

Comparing QED School Estimates with CCD Estimates

WP 95-03 Schools and Staffing Survey: 1990–91 SASS Cross-Questionnaire Analysis

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

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

WP 95-10 The Results of the 1991–92 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) Reinterview and

Extensive Reconciliation
Appendix B

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality 57

WP 95-11 Measuring Instruction, Curriculum Content, and Instructional Resources: The

Status of Recent Work

WP 95-15 Classroom Instructional Processes: A Review of Existing Measurement

Approaches and Their Applicability for the Teacher Followup Survey

WP 95-16 Intersurvey Consistency in NCES Private School Surveys

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

WP 95-18 An Agenda for Research on Teachers and Schools: Revisiting NCES" Schools

and Staffing Survey

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

Truly Longitudinal Study

WP 96-02 Selected papers presented at the meeting of the 1995 American Statistical

Association (96-02)

Overcoming the Bureaucratic Paradigm: Memorial Session in Honor of Roger Herriot

a. "1995 Roger Herriot Award Presentation"

b. "Space/Time Variations in Survey Estimates"

c. "Out of the Box: Again and Again, Roger Herriot at the Census Bureau"

Design and Estimation Issues for School Based Surveys

a. "Improving the Coverage of Private Elementary-Secondary Schools"

b. "Improving GLS Estimation in NCES Surveys"

c. "Optimal Periodicity of a Survey: Alternatives under Cost and Policy Constraint"

d. "Properties of the Schools and Staffing Survey's Bootstrap Variance Estimator"

Data Quality and Nonresponse in Education Surveys

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

b. "Documentation of Nonresponse and Consistency of Data Categorization Across

NCES Surveys"

c. "Multivariate Modeling of Unit Nonresponse for 1990-91 Schools and Staffing

Surveys"

d. "Evaluation of Imputation Methods for State Education Finance Data"

e. "Variance Estimates Comparison by Statistical Software"

f. "Teacher Supply and Demand in the U.S."

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

Survey

WP 96-06 The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) for 1998-99; Design Recommendations

to Inform Broad Education Policy
Appendix B

58 Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality

WP 96-07 Should SASS Measure Instructional Processes and Teacher Effectiveness?

WP 96-09 Making Data Relevant for Policy Discussions: Redesigning the School

Administrator Questionnaire for the 1998-99 SASS

WP 96-10 1998-99 Schools and Staffing Survey: Issues Related to Survey Depth

WP 96-11 Towards an Organizational Data Base on America's Schools: A Proposal for the

Future of SASS, with Comments on School Reform, Governments, and Finance

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

Teachers: Data from the 1989 Teacher Followup Survey

WP 96-15 Nested Structures: District Level Data in the SASS

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