Prevalence of Teachers

Without Full State Certification and 

Variation Across Schools and States

Prevalence of Teachers 

Without Full State Certification and

Variation Across Schools and States

Prepared by:

Policy and Program Studies Service

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

U.S. Department of Education

December 2016
This report was prepared with support from the American Institutes for Research (AIR) under U.S. 

Department of Education Contract No. ED-PEP-11-O-0089. Joanne Bogart served as the contracting 

officer’s representative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or 

policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education 

of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be 

inferred. For the reader’s convenience, this publication contains information about and from outside 

organizations, including hyperlinks and URLs. Inclusion of such information does not constitute an 

endorsement by the Department.

U.S. Department of Education

John B. King, Jr.

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Amy McIntosh

Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Delegated Duties of Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Jennifer Bell-Ellwanger

Director

December 2016

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While 

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, 

Prevalence of Teachers Without Full State Certification and Variation Across Schools and States,

Washington, D.C., 2016.

This report is available on the Department’s website at: 

http://www.ed.gov/offices/opepd/ppss/reports.html#tq.

Availability of Alternate Formats

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the 

Alternate Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via email at 

om_eeos@ed.gov.

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons

If you have difficulty understanding English you may request language assistance services for 

Department information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available 

free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 

1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or email us at: 

Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. Or write to: U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource 

Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20202.

Content Contact:

Ivy Morgan

Phone: 202-401-7767

Email: ivy.morgan@ed.gov
i

Contents

List of Exhibits............................................................................................................................................... ii

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... v

Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................1

Findings from Previous Research........................................................................................................1

Chapter 2. Study Design and Study Questions .............................................................................................3

Data Sources........................................................................................................................................4

Data Quality ........................................................................................................................................4

Data Analysis Procedures....................................................................................................................5

Study Limitations.................................................................................................................................7

Chapter 3. Findings .......................................................................................................................................9

Charter Schools.................................................................................................................................14

By Poverty Level................................................................................................................................15

By Enrollment of Students of Color...................................................................................................16

By Enrollment of English Learners ....................................................................................................17

By Enrollment of Students with Disabilities......................................................................................18

By Urbanicity .....................................................................................................................................19

By School Enrollment Size.................................................................................................................20

By School Grade Level.......................................................................................................................21

References ..................................................................................................................................................22

Appendix: Supplemental Tables .................................................................................................................24
ii

Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Number and percentage of schools and students in analytic dataset, by school 

characteristics: 2013–14..................................................................................................... 6

Exhibit 2. Percentage of students in relevant subgroups enrolled in schools with high 

percentages of students in that subgroup, by school characteristics: 2013–14 ................ 7

Exhibit 3. Percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, overall and by type of school: 

2013–14 .............................................................................................................................. 9

Exhibit 4. Number of states by percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, overall and 

by type of school: 2013–14............................................................................................... 10

Exhibit 5. Percentage of teachers who were not fully certified in states with 5 percent or more 

teachers who were not fully certified for any type of school, overall and by type of 

school: 2013–14................................................................................................................ 11

Exhibit 6. Percentage distribution of schools, by percentage of teachers who were not fully 

certified, overall and by type of school: 2013–14 ............................................................ 12

Exhibit 7. Percentage distribution of students, by school percentage of teachers who were not 

fully certified, overall and by student subgroup: 2013–14............................................... 13

Exhibit 8. Percentage distribution of schools and students, by school percentage of teachers 

who were not fully certified, overall and for charter schools: 2013–14 .......................... 14

Exhibit 9. Number of states by percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, overall and 

for charter schools: 2013–14............................................................................................ 14

Exhibit 10. Percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, by school percentage of 

students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch: 2013–14............................................. 15

Exhibit 11. Percentage distribution of schools, by percentage of teachers who were not fully 

certified and percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch: 2013–14 15

Exhibit 12. Percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, by school percentage of 

students of color: 2013–14............................................................................................... 16

Exhibit 13. Percentage distribution of schools, by percentage of teachers who were not fully 

certified and percentage of students of color: 2013–14.................................................. 16

Exhibit 14. Percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, by school percentage of English 

learners: 2013–14............................................................................................................. 17

Exhibit 15. Percentage distribution of schools, by percentage of teachers who were not fully 

certified and percentage of English learners: 2013–14.................................................... 17
iii

Exhibit 16. Percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, by school percentage of 

students with disabilities and for special education schools: 2013–14............................ 18

Exhibit 17. Percentage distribution of schools, by percentage of teachers who were not fully 

certified and percentage of students with disabilities and for special education 

schools: 2013–14 .............................................................................................................. 18

Exhibit 18. Percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, by school urbanicity: 2013–14..... 19

Exhibit 19. Percentage distribution of schools, by percentage of teachers who were not fully 

certified and school urbanicity: 2013–14 ......................................................................... 19

Exhibit 20. Percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, by school size: 2013–14 .............. 20

Exhibit 21. Percentage distribution of schools, by percentage of teachers who were not fully

certified and school size: 2013–14 ................................................................................... 20

Exhibit 22. Percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, by school grade level: 2013–14 ... 21

Exhibit 23. Percentage distribution of schools, by percentage of teachers who were not fully 

certified and school grade level: 2013–14........................................................................ 21

Exhibit A.1. Number of schools, teachers, and uncertified teachers included in analyses, by state: 

2013–14 ............................................................................................................................ 25

Exhibit A.2. Percentage of schools with uncertified teachers and percentage of uncertified 

teachers, by state: 2013–14.............................................................................................. 26

Exhibit A.3. Number of schools with uncertified teachers, overall and by type of school, by state: 

2013–14 ............................................................................................................................ 27

Exhibit A.4. Number and percentage of uncertified teachers, by state: 2013–14 .............................. 28

Exhibit A.5. Number and percentage of uncertified teachers in high-poverty schools, by state: 

2013–14 ............................................................................................................................ 29

Exhibit A.6. Number and percentage of uncertified teachers in schools with high percentages of 

students of color, by state: 2013–14 ................................................................................ 30

Exhibit A.7. Number and percentage of uncertified teachers in schools with high percentages of 

English learners, by state: 2013–14.................................................................................. 31

Exhibit A.8. Number and percentage of uncertified teachers in schools with high percentages of 

students with disabilities, by state: 2013–14 ................................................................... 32

Exhibit A.9. Number and percentage of uncertified teachers in schools in rural areas, by state: 

2013–14 ............................................................................................................................ 33

Exhibit A.10. Number and percentage of uncertified teachers in schools in urban areas, by state: 

2013–14 ............................................................................................................................ 34
iv

Exhibit A.11. Number of schools, by percentage of uncertified teachers, overall and by school 

charter status: 2013–14.................................................................................................... 35

Exhibit A.12. Percentage distribution of schools, by percentage of uncertified teachers, overall and 

by school charter status: 2013–14.................................................................................... 36

Exhibit A.13. Percentage of schools with uncertified teachers, overall and by school charter status: 

2013–14 ............................................................................................................................ 37

Exhibit A.14. Percentage of uncertified teachers, overall and by type of school: 2013–14.................. 38

Exhibit A.15. Number of uncertified teachers, by percentage of uncertified teachers in the school 

and by school charter status: 2013–14............................................................................. 39

Exhibit A.16. Number of uncertified teachers, by percentage of uncertified teachers in the school 

and by school characteristics: 2013–14............................................................................ 40

Exhibit A.17. Percentage distribution of uncertified teachers, by percentage of uncertified teachers 

in the school and by school characteristics: 2013–14 ...................................................... 41

Exhibit A.18. Percentage distribution of uncertified teachers, by percentage of uncertified teachers 

in the school and by school characteristics: 2013–14 ...................................................... 42

Exhibit A.19. Percentage distribution of all teachers and uncertified teachers, by school 

characteristics: 2013–14................................................................................................... 43
v

Executive Summary

Across the nation, uncertified teachers represent a very small percentage of the teaching workforce in 

public elementary and secondary schools. However, research has shown that student access to certified 

teachers varies across districts within states, across schools within districts, or across classrooms within 

schools and that teachers who are not fully certified are sometimes disproportionately assigned to teach 

students with greater needs. 

In order to better understand this issue, Congress directed the Department (in the Managers’ Statement 

accompanying the fiscal year 2016 education appropriations bill) to provide information on the extent to 

which certain students are taught by teachers who are not fully certified, including students with 

disabilities, English learners (ELs), students in rural areas, students from low-income families, and 

students of color.

Because national data on the extent to which individual students’ teachers are fully certified (and the 

characteristics of those students) are not currently available in comparable specifications or across all 

states, this report uses school-level data from the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC)i

and the National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) to examine the extent to which 

schools with high proportions of certain types of studentsii and schools located in rural and urban areas

have teachers who are not fully certified; in addition, this report examines the proportion of students in 

certain subgroups who attend schools with varying percentages of teachers who are not fully certified.

More specifically, the report uses CRDC data for the 2013–14 school year on the numbers of teachers 

overall and the numbers of teachers who are not certified,

iii total student enrollment, student 

enrollment by race/ethnicity, and enrollment of ELs and students with disabilities, combined with CCD 

data for the same year on numbers of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and enrollment in 

rural and urban schools. 

Key findings based on these data include the following:

• Although all states employed some teachers who were not fully certified, these teachers

made up a small proportion of all teachers, both overall as well as in schools with high 

percentages of students from the subgroups examined in this report, rural schools, and 

urban schools. However, uncertified teachers were more prevalent among high-poverty 

 

i

The CRDC is a biennial survey conducted for the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The 2013–14 CRDC collected data 

from the universe of all public schools in the United States, which include a total of 50 million public school students.

ii These are schools in which (1) 75 percent or more of students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, (2) 75 percent or 

more of students are students of color, (3) 20 percent or more of students are ELs, or (4) 20 percent or more of students are 

students with disabilities.

iii In the 2013–14 CRDC, a “certified teacher is a teacher who has met all applicable state teacher certification requirements for 

a standard certificate. A certified teacher has a regular/standard certificate/license/endorsement issued by the state. A 

beginning teacher who has met the standard teacher education requirements is considered to have met state requirements 

even if he or she has not completed a state-required probationary period. A teacher working towards certification by way of 

alternative routes, or a teacher with an emergency, temporary, or provisional credential is not considered to have met state 

requirements.” Nothing in this report is intended to imply that teachers working towards certification through alternative 

routes are not serving students as well as teachers who are fully certified. This report uses the terms “not certified,” “not fully 

certified”, and “uncertified” interchangeably. 
vi

schools, schools with high percentages of students of color, urban schools, and schools with 

high proportions of ELs, than among all schools.

o Across 50 states and the District of Columbia, 1.7 percent of teachers were not fully 

certified. 

o The average percentage of teachers who were not fully certified was 3.1 percent for 

schools with high proportions of students of color, 2.9 percent for high-poverty 

schools, 2.9 percent for urban schools, 2.6 percent for schools with high proportions 

of ELs, 1.8 percent for schools with high proportions of students with disabilities, 

and 1.0 percent for rural schools.

• In a majority (35) of the states, less than 2 percent of all teachers were not fully certified. 

However, 14 states had at least one type of school (i.e. schools in urban or rural areas, or 

schools with high percentages of students from certain subgroups) in which at least 

5 percent of teachers were not fully certified. The jurisdictions with the highest percentages 

of teachers who were not fully certified were Colorado (11 percent) and the District of 

Columbia (18 percent).

• For each type of school examined, the majority of schools had no teachers who were 

uncertified. The percentage of schools with no uncertified teachers ranged from 76 percent 

for schools with high proportions of students of color to 89 percent for rural schools. In the 

15 percent of schools that did have uncertified teachers, teachers who were not fully 

certified usually accounted for less than 15 percent of all teachers.

• Over three-fourths of students, overall and for each subgroup examined, were enrolled in 

schools with no uncertified teachers. The distribution of students by school percentage of 

uncertified teachers was similar to the distribution of schools. 

• High-poverty schools had a higher percentage, on average, of teachers who were not fully 

certified than schools with low poverty rates (2.9 percent compared with 1.1 percent).

• Schools with high proportions of students of color had a higher percentage of teachers who 

were not fully certified, compared with schools with low proportions of students of color 

(3.1 percent compared with 0.8 percent).

• Schools with high proportions of ELs had a higher percentage of teachers who were not fully 

certified (2.6 percent) than schools with lower percentages of ELs (1.3 percent for schools 

with low EL proportions and 1.8 percent for schools with medium EL proportions).

• Schools with high proportions of students with disabilities had a smaller percentage of 

teachers who were not fully certified than schools with low proportions of students with 

disabilities (1.8 percent compared with 2.5 percent).

• Schools in rural areas had a lower percentage of teachers who were not fully certified

(1.0 percent) than schools in urban areas (2.9 percent) and comparable or higher 

percentages compared with schools in town and suburban areas (0.9 percent and 1.4 

percent, respectively).
1

Chapter 1. Introduction

When experiencing teacher shortages, states often rely on teachers who are not fully certified and who 

hold emergency, provisional, or temporary teaching certificates. Across the nation, teachers who are not 

fully certified represent a very small percentage of the teaching workforce in public elementary and 

secondary schools. However, research has shown that student access to certified teachers varies across 

districts within states, across schools within districts, or across classrooms within schools, and that

teachers who are not fully certified are sometimes disproportionately assigned to teach students with 

greater needs.

In order to better understand students’ equitable access to certified teachers, Congress directed the U.S. 

Department of Education to provide data on the extent to which students in certain subgroups are 

taught by teachers who have not yet obtained full state certification. Specifically, Congress requested 

that this data be provided for five student subgroups: (1) students with disabilities, (2) English learners,

(3) students in rural areas, (4) students from low-income families, and (5) minority students (referred to 

in this report as students of color).

1 Because these student-level data are not yet readily available 

across all states, this report analyzes school-level data from the 2013–14 Civil Rights Data Collection; see 

Chapter 2 for more information about the data and analyses used in this report. 

Findings from Previous Research

Numerous studies have shown that schools with higher proportions of at-risk students tend to have 

more teachers who do not have full state certification. For example, schools with higher percentages of 

students from low-income families are more likely to have teachers who are not fully credentialed than 

schools with more affluent students (Goldhaber et al. 2015; Clotfelter et al. 2007; Betts et al. 2003; 

Iatarola and Stiefel 2003; Lankford et al. 2002). In addition, studies indicate that students of color, 

especially black and Hispanic students, are more likely to have teachers who are not fully certified, and 

schools with higher proportions of students of color are more likely to have higher numbers of 

uncertified teachers (Goldhaber et al. 2015; Carroll et al. 2000). Furthermore, there is some evidence 

that the population of ELs is also highly correlated with the percentage of teachers lacking a credential 

(Rumberger and Gándara 2000).

 

1 Managers’ statement accompanying the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related 

Agencies Appropriation Act, 2016 (H.R. 3020):

“Teachers-in-Training. The National Center for Education Statistics shall submit a report by December 31, 2016 to the 

Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Committee on Education and the Workforce of 

the House of Representatives, and Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions of the Senate, using and reporting data 

from the most recent school year by State and each local educational agency, regarding the extent at the school-level to which 

students in the following categories are taught by teachers who have not yet obtained full State certification: students with

disabilities, English Learners, students in rural areas, students from low-income families, and minority students. “Full State 

certification” means that a teacher has met all teacher preparation requirements applicable to his or her years of experience; 

that the teacher is not authorized to teach on an emergency, temporary, provisional or waiver basis; that certification may be 

obtained through traditional or alternative routes; and, that except when used with respect to any teacher teaching in a public 

charter school, the teacher meets the requirements set forth in the State's public charter school law.” The managers’ statement 

can be accessed here: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/RU/RU00/20151216/104298/HMTG-114-RU00-20151216-SD009.pdf.
2

Researchers have identified multiple potential causes for the unequal distribution of certified teachers. 

These include district recruitment processes and policies, within-district teacher and student migration, 

teacher assignment within districts and schools, and teacher attrition (Goldhaber et al. 2015; Roda and 

Wells 2013; Kalogrides and Loeb 2012; Boyd et al. 2005; Scafidi et al. 2005; Clotfelter et al. 2004; 

Hanushek et al. 2004; Lankford et al. 2002; Carroll et al. 2000). 

Research on the effects of teacher certification on student achievement has found mixed results, with 

either small positive effects or no statistically significant effects. Some studies have shown that students 

who are taught by fully certified teachers show achievement gains when compared with those who are 

taught by teachers who are not fully certified (Palardy and Rumberger 2008; Clotfelter et al. 2007; 

Goldhaber and Brewer 2000). Yet, according to another study, easily observed and quantifiable teacher 

attributes, such as credentials and test scores, only weakly correlate with student achievement 

(Aaronson et al. 2007).2

 

2 Although the data examined in this report treat teachers who are pursuing certification through alternative routes as not fully 

certified, rigorous studies on the effectiveness of these teachers compared with that of fully-certified teachers has found either 

very small differences or no statistically significant differences (National Research Council 2010; Constantine et al. 2009; Kane 

et al. 2008; Boyd et al. 2006). Nothing in this report is intended to imply that teachers teaching under state requirements for 

alternative routes to certification are not serving students as well as teachers who are fully certified.
3

Chapter 2. Study Design and Study Questions

In order to respond to the congressional request, this report relies primarily on data from the 2013–14 

Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC). Two factors limited the Department’s ability to use student-level 

data as requested by Congress. In order to provide data on the characteristics of students’ teachers 

(e.g., the number of students with disabilities or ELs who are taught by teachers with certain 

credentials), states and/or schools would need to have data systems that link teachers’ certification 

status with their individual students. However, these data are not currently available in all states (or, 

where they are available, they do not always use comparable specifications). After a review of 

information collected from states through the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems grant program, the 

Department concluded that few states and districts had data systems that link teacher certification data 

to specific courses and students. Some data collections such as the National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP) have collected such data for a representative sample of students; however, these data 

sources cover a small percentage of the nation’s students and schools and cannot be reported by school 

district as specified in the congressional request.

Because national data on the extent to which students’ teachers are certified (and the characteristics of 

those students) are not currently available, this report uses school-level data from the CRDC3 and the 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD) to examine the extent to 

which schools with high proportions of certain types of students and schools located in rural areas have 

teachers who are not fully certified.4 More specifically, the report uses CRDC data for the 2013–14 

school year on the numbers of teachers overall and the number who are not certified, total student 

enrollment (overall and by race/ethnicity), and enrollments of ELs and students with disabilities, 

combined with CCD data for the same year on numbers of students eligible for free or reduced-price 

lunch and school urbanicity. 

Using these data, this report examines the following study questions:

• What percentage of teachers is not fully certified — overall, in urban and rural schools, and 

in schools with high proportions of students of color, students from low-income families, 

English learners, and students with disabilities?

• How does the percentage of teachers who are not fully certified vary across schools and 

states? Are they more prevalent in high-poverty schools; rural schools; urban schools; or 

schools with high proportions of students, English learners, or students with disabilities? 

• What proportion of schools has teachers who are not fully certified? How many have

relatively high percentages of such teachers? What proportion of students attends such 

schools?

 

3 The CRDC is a biennial survey conducted for the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). The 2013–14 CRDC collected data 

from the universe of all public schools in the United States, which include a total of 50 million public school students.

4 This report uses the terms “not fully certified,” “not certified,” and “uncertified” interchangeably.
4

Data Sources

The CRDC is a biennial survey conducted for the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights 

(OCR); in 2013–14, data were collected from the universe of all public schools in the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. Among other key indicators related to the educational opportunities of students, 

the 2013–14 CRDC collected information on the numbers of teachers who are fully certified and who are 

not certified, as well as total student enrollment, student enrollment by race/ethnicity, enrollment of 

ELs, and enrollment of students with disabilities. 

In the 2013–14 CRDC, the term “certified teacher” is defined as follows: 

“A certified teacher is a teacher who has met all applicable state teacher certification 

requirements for a standard certificate. A certified teacher has a regular/standard 

certificate/license/endorsement issued by the state. A beginning teacher who has met the 

standard teacher education requirements is considered to have met state requirements even if 

he or she has not completed a state-required probationary period. A teacher working towards 

certification by way of alternative routes, or a teacher with an emergency, temporary, or 

provisional credential is not considered to have met state requirements.”

In order to examine the extent to which students in rural, urban, and schools with high proportions of 

low-income students were taught by teachers who were not fully certified, we used demographic data 

from the 2013–14 CCD compiled annually by the NCES, which were merged with the CRDC data on 

teacher and student enrollment. 

Data Quality 

In order to be included in the analyses conducted for this report, schools needed complete and plausible 

data on the number of students and full-time equivalent total and uncertified teachers.5 A small 

proportion of schools were missing data on these variables. A total of 1,381 schools were missing or had

zero counts for the total number of students or full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers. These schools were 

excluded from further analyses.

A small percentage of the remaining schools had implausible values for uncertified teachers; that is, the 

total number of certified and uncertified teachers for a school did not add up to the total number of 

teachers reported. There were 169 schools in which the totals differed by more than 0.1 FTE teacher,

and the difference was greater than 1 percent of the reported total FTE teachers. Seven of these schools 

were special education schools, 14 were alternative education schools, and 21 were charter schools. 

Because this was a relatively small number compared to the total number of schools in the CRDC 

dataset, these schools are also excluded from the analyses. These exclusions disproportionately impact 

the data reported for Connecticut and Utah — 14 of the 41 schools in Bridgeport Public Schools 

(Connecticut), 18 of the 27 schools in Cache District (Utah), and 18 of the 24 schools Provo District 

(Utah) were excluded from the analyses because of this implausibility.

 

5 All analyses also excluded juvenile justice facilities; of the 95,507 schools in the 2013–14 CRDC, 633 were juvenile justice 

facilities.
5

One school was missing data for enrollment of ELs. Finally, some schools did not have a unique match in 

the CCD data or were missing the relevant data in the CCD and therefore do not have data on the 

number of students who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (n=2,823) or school urbanicity

(n=1,625). In order to maintain the maximum number of schools in each analysis, these schools were 

excluded only from those analyses which required the missing data; for example, the one school that 

was missing EL enrollment data was excluded only from the analyses based on the percentage of ELs 

enrolled in the school.

Non-response

The CRDC dataset included 99 percent of all school districts across the 50 states and the District of 

Columbia and more than 99 percent of all schools. A total of 134 school districts did not report data to 

the 2013–14 CRDC; the largest among those districts were St. Louis, Missouri; Newark, New Jersey; and 

Fall River, Massachusetts. Based on data from the CCD, the school districts that did not report to the 

CRDC tended to be located in urban areas (36 percent compared with 16 percent) and to be composed

entirely of charter schools (33 percent compared with 16 percent). On average these districts enrolled 

fewer students (1,000 students compared with 2,900 students) and had higher percentages of students 

of color (67 percent compared with 50 percent) than all districts. 

Suppressed Data

In order to protect student privacy, the publicly-available CRDC dataset include counts to which

suppression rules have been applied such that enrollment data for students with disabilities are 

suppressed if the value is less than or equal to two. Of the schools that remained in the dataset after the 

exclusions noted earlier, about 5 percent had suppressed values for IDEA enrollment for female 

students, and 3 percent had suppressed values for IDEA enrollment for male students. All of these 

suppressed values were treated as zeroes in the analyses; this may overstate the proportion of schools 

that have no students with disabilities.

Data Analysis Procedures

The analyses in this report compare the percentage of teachers who are not fully certified in rural and 

urban schools and in schools with high percentages of students of color6 (75 percent or more), students 

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (75 percent or more) (referred to in this report as “high-poverty 

schools”), ELs (20 percent or more), and students with disabilities (20 percent or more), as well as rural 

and urban schools (Exhibit 1).

7 The schools with high proportions of students in certain subgroups 

generally enroll high proportions of all students in that subgroup (Exhibit 2). This report also includes

more detailed analyses of the percentages of uncertified teachers based on the school composition of 

student subgroups of interest (students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, students of color, ELs, 

 

6 Students of color are students who are American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, black, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 

Hispanic, or of two or more races.

7 Using the CCD variable ULOCAL, rural schools are those coded as 41 (rural, fringe), 42 (rural, distant), or 43 (rural, remote); 

urban schools are those coded as 11 (city, large), 12 (city, mid-size), or 13 (city, small).
6

and students with disabilities), as shown in Exhibit 1. In addition, we examine the distribution of schools 

by the percentage of uncertified teachers. 

Exhibit 1. Number and percentage of schools and students in analytic dataset, by school characteristics: 

2013–14

School characteristic

Number

of schools

Percentage

distribution 

of schools

Number

of students

Percentage

distribution 

of students

All schools 93,323 100% 49,669,368 100%

By percentage of students eligible for 

free or reduced-price lunch 

High (75% or more) perce ntage of st udents eligible for free or reduced-price l unch 23,632 25 12,185,604 25

Medium-high (50% to <75%) per centage of st udents eligible for free or reduce d-price lunch 26,106 28 13,402,050 27

Medium-low (35% to <50%) per centage of students eligible for free or reduced-pri ce lunch 15,711 17 8,406,611 17

Low (less than <35%) perce ntage of stude nts eligible for free or re duced-price lunch 25,051 27 15,152,047 31

Missing per centage of students eligible for free or reduced-pri ce lunch 2,823 3 523,056 1

By percentage of students of color

High (75% or more) perce ntage of st udent s of color 24,427 26 14,366,150 29

Medium (25% to <75%) percentage of stude nts of col or 34,416 37 20,150,423 41

Low (less than 25%) per centage of students of color 34,480 37 15,152,795 31

By percentage of English learners

High (20% or more) perce ntage of E nglish learner s 14,005 15 8,030,653 16

Medium (5% to <20%) perce ntage of E nglish learner s 21,793 23 13,271,393 27

Low (more than 0 to <5%) perce ntage of E nglish learners 36,494 39 22,949,148 46

No ELs 21,030 23 5,417,992 11

Missing per centage of English lear ners 1 # 182 #

By percentage of students with 

disabilities

High (20% or more) perce ntage of st udents with disabilities 15,646 17 5,770,075 12

Medium (10% to <20%) perce ntage of stude nts with disa bilities 53,804 58 32,241,786 65

Low (less than 10%) per centage of students with di sabilities 23,873 26 11,657,507 23

By percentage of uncertified teachers

No uncertified teachers 78,902 85 39,958,511 80

More than 0 to <5% uncertifie d teachers 6,687 7 5,757,331 12

5% to <10% uncertifie d teachers 3,296 4 2,032,436 4

10% to <15% uncerti fied teachers 1,540 2 784,638 2

15% or more uncertifie d teachers 2,898 3 1,136,452 2

Exhibit reads: The analytic dataset used for this report included 93,323 schools and nearly 50 million students.

# Rounds to zero

Note: Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14 and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.
7

Exhibit 2. Percentage of students in relevant subgroups enrolled in schools with high percentages of students 

in that subgroup, by school characteristics: 2013–14

Schools with high percentage of students in certain 

subgroups

Percentage of students in 

subgroup enrolled in schools

Students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (75%+) 42

Students of color (75%+) 53

English learners (20%+) 63

Students with disabilities (20%+) 22

Exhibit reads: Forty-two percent of all students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch attended 

schools with 75 percent or more students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14 and 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe 

Survey,” 2013–14.

This report also includes an analysis of charter schools because these schools sometimes operate with 

exemptions from some state or local laws or regulations, including requirements regarding teacher 

certification. For example, according to the Education Commission for the States, 28 states and the 

District of Columbia (of 44 states and jurisdictions with charter school laws at the time) allow some 

flexibility regarding teacher certification in their charter schools.8 In order to explore whether high 

percentages of uncertified teachers in charter schools may be driving high percentages of uncertified 

teachers across states, this report also examines the extent to which charter schools have teachers who 

are not certified. 

Study Limitations

Although the congressional requestors had envisioned a study of the extent to which certain subgroups 

of students are being taught by teachers without full state certification, this report cannot directly 

address that question because it is based on school-level, rather than student-level, data. The national 

datasets used in this study do not currently include student-level data on teacher certification; 

therefore, this report provides information on the prevalence of teachers who are not fully certified and 

are teaching in schools with high proportions of students in certain subgroups, rather than the extent to 

which students in certain subgroups are taught by such teachers. 

In addition, the available national data on uncertified teachers do not include more specific data on 

types of teaching credentials that might allow or permit teachers to provide specialized instruction to 

special populations of students (e.g., ELs or students with disabilities). In addition, teachers who are 

currently enrolled in programs that provide alternative routes to certification are not considered to be 

certified according to the CRDC definition of a certified teacher, despite the fact that rigorous evidence 

does not indicate that these teachers are less effective than fully certified teachers. 

Finally, research on the relationship between teacher certification and student achievement has shown 

mixed results, with small positive or statistically insignificant effects. Findings that suggest differences in 

students’ access to certified teachers may not mean that student achievement is affected by these 

 

8 Education Commission of the States. January 2016. 50-State Comparison: Charter Schools — Do Teachers in a Charter School 

Have to be Certified? Accessed on November 14, 2016, http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbquestNB2?rep=CS1525. 
8

differences. Readers should not draw conclusions from this report about the quality of teaching or 

student achievement in the various types of schools examined in this study. 
9

Chapter 3. Findings

This chapter summarizes findings on the extent to which teachers are not fully certified and how this 

varies across urban and rural schools, and across schools with high proportions of students of color, 

students from low-income families, ELs, and students with disabilities. The chapter also examines the

proportion of schools that have uncertified teachers and the proportion of students that attend such 

schools. As noted previously, these analyses do not consider student achievement and readers should 

not draw conclusions about school quality based on the percentages of teachers who are not fully 

certified.

Teachers who were not fully-certified made up a small proportion of all teachers, 

overall as well as for schools with high percentages of students from certain 

subgroups and schools in rural and urban areas. 

Uncertified teachers were more prevalent among high-poverty schools, schools with 

high percentages of students of color, urban schools, and schools with high 

proportions of ELs, than among all schools.

Across the 50 states and the District of Columbia, 1.7 percent of all teachers were not fully certified. The 

average percentage of teachers who were not fully certified was 3.1 percent for schools with high 

proportions of students of color, 2.9 percent for high-poverty schools, 2.9 percent for urban schools, 

2.6 percent for schools with high proportions of ELs, 1.8 percent for schools with high proportions of 

students with disabilities, and 1.0 percent for rural schools (Exhibit 3).

Exhibit 3. Percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, overall and by type of school: 2013–14

Exhibit reads: Across all schools, 1.7 percent of teachers were not fully certified.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) 2013–14, and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.

1.7

2.9

3.1

2.6

1.8

2.9

1.0

0 1 2 3 4

All schools

High-poverty schools

Schools with 75%+ students of color

Schools with 20%+ English learners

Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities

Urban schools

Rural schools
10

Although all states and the District of Columbia employed some teachers who were not 

fully certified, in a majority of states, such teachers represented less than 2 percent of 

all teachers. 

In 35 out of the 51 jurisdictions, less than 2 percent of all teachers were not fully certified. Similarly, in a 

majority of states, less than 2 percent of teachers were not fully certified in rural schools (41 states), 

schools with high proportions of students with disabilities (36 states), schools with high proportions of 

ELs (30 states), and high poverty schools (29 states). The same was not true for states’ urban schools (24

states) or schools with high proportions of students of color (22 states) (Exhibit 4).

Exhibit 4. Number of states by percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, overall and by type of 

school: 2013–14

Exhibit reads: Twenty-three of the 51 states and jurisdictions had a percentage of uncertified teachers that was 

greater than zero but less than 1 percent.

Notes: New Hampshire and Vermont did not have schools with high percentages of students of color. West Virginia did not have schools with 

high percentages of English learners (ELs). The District of Columbia did not have rural schools.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) 2013–14, and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.

In 14 states and jurisdictions, teachers who were not fully certified represented 5

percent or more of all teachers in at least one category of school examined in this 

report.

Teachers who were not fully certified represented 5 percent or more of all teachers in three states

(Arizona, Colorado, and Montana) and the District of Columbia. The same was true in four states

(Colorado, Louisiana, Maryland, and South Carolina) and the District of Columbia for high-poverty 

schools, one state for rural schools (Hawaii), nine jurisdictions for urban schools, eight jurisdictions for 

schools with high proportions of students of color, six jurisdictions for schools with high proportions of 

ELs, and seven jurisdictions for schools with high proportions of students with disabilities. In two states 

(Arizona and Montana), uncertified teachers made up between 5 and 10 percent of all teachers.

Uncertified teachers made up more than 10 percent of all teachers in Colorado (11 percent) and the 

2

5

2

1

2

23

15

8

19

23

16

29

12

12

9

9

12

6

12

12

17

19

14

8

18

8

4

5

8

6

7

9

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

All schools

High-poverty schools

Schools with 75%+ students of color

Schools with 20%+ English learners

Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities

Urban schools

Rural schools

Number of states

Zero >0 to <1% 1% to <2% 2% to <5% 5% or more
11

District of Columbia (18 percent) — these were the jurisdictions with the highest percentages of 

teachers who were not fully certified (Exhibit 5).

Exhibit 5. Percentage of teachers who were not fully certified in states with 5 percent or more teachers who 

were not fully certified for any type of school, overall and by type of school: 2013–14

State All 

schools

Highpoverty 

schools

Schools with

75%+ students 

of color

Schools with

20%+ English 

learners

Schools with 

20%+ students 

with disabilities

Urban 

schools

Rural 

schools

Arizona 5 - - - 5 5 -

Colorado 11 28 28 24 15 23 -

Connecticut - - 5 - - - -

District of Columbia 18 18 20 14 17 18 -

Florida - - - - 7 - -

Hawaii - - - - 11 - 6

Louisiana - 5 9 7 9 8 -

Maryland - 6 5 - 5 8 -

Massachusetts - - 6 - - 5 -

Mississippi - - - 5 - - -

Montana 8 - - - - 30 -

Oklahoma - - 10 8 - 6 -

South Carolina - 5 7 - - 8 -

Virginia - - - 8 - - -

Exhibit reads: Three states and the District of Columbia reported that at least 5 percent of teachers, across all 

schools, were uncertified.

- Not applicable (state reported that less than 5 percent of teachers in this category were not fully certified).

Note: The District of Columbia did not have rural schools.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) 2013–14, and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.

The majority of schools, for each category of school examined, had no teachers who

were not fully certified. In the approximately 15 percent of schools that did have 

uncertified teachers, those teachers usually accounted for less than 15 percent of all 

teachers.

Approximately 85 percent of all schools had no uncertified teachers according to the district-reported 

data. Another 7 percent of schools had some but less than 5 percent of teachers who were not fully 

certified; 4 percent of schools had between 5 and 10 percent, 2 percent of schools had between 10 and 

15 percent, and 3 percent of schools had more than 15 percent of teachers who were not fully certified 

(Exhibit 6).

There were similar distributions of uncertified teachers across high-poverty schools, schools with high 

percentages of students of color, and urban schools. The percentages of schools with no uncertified 

teachers were 78 percent, 76, percent, and 79 percent, respectively. Furthermore, there were similar 

percentages of schools with 10 percent or more uncertified teachers in each of the three school 

categories (8 percent of high-poverty or urban schools and 9 percent of schools with high proportions of 

students of color). These schools were also the least likely to have no uncertified teachers.
12

Eighty-two percent of schools with high proportions of ELs and 85 percent of schools with high 

proportions of students with disabilities had no uncertified teachers. In 6 percent of both types of 

schools, 10 percent or more of teachers were not fully certified. 

Rural schools were least likely to have uncertified teachers — 89 percent of schools had no such 

teachers and 3 percent of schools had 10 percent or more teachers who were not fully certified.

High-poverty schools, schools with high percentages of students of color, and urban 

schools were more likely to have uncertified teachers than schools with high 

percentages of English learners or students with disabilities or rural schools.

Fifteen percent of all schools had uncertified teachers. Only among rural schools (11 percent) and 

schools with high percentages of students with disabilities (15 percent) were there comparable or

smaller proportions of schools with any uncertified teachers. Some categories of schools had higher 

percentages of uncertified teachers, on average: schools with high proportions of students of color 

(24 percent), urban schools (21 percent), and high-poverty schools (22 percent).

High-poverty schools, schools with high percentages of students of color, and urban 

schools were more likely to have 5 percent or more uncertified teachers than the other 

types of schools examined. 

Specifically, 9 percent of all schools had 5 percent or more uncertified teachers. Schools with high 

proportions of students of color (15 percent), high-poverty schools (13 percent), and urban schools 

(12 percent) were more likely to have higher proportions of uncertified teachers than schools with high 

proportions of ELs or students with disabilities, or rural schools.

Exhibit 6. Percentage distribution of schools, by percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, overall 

and by type of school: 2013–14

Exhibit reads: Across the 50 states and the District of Columbia, 85 percent of all schools had no uncertified 

teachers.

Note: Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14 and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.

85

78

76

82

85

79

89

7

8

9

8

6

9

5

4

5

6

4

4

4

3

2

3

3

2

2

2

1

3

5

6

4

4

6

2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All schools

High-poverty schools

Schools with 75%+ students of color

Schools with 20%+ English learners

Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities

Urban schools

Rural schools

Zero >0 to <5% 5% to <10% 10% to <15% 15% or more
13

The majority of students, overall and for each subgroup examined, were enrolled in 

schools with no uncertified teachers.

Approximately 80 percent of all students attended schools in which no teachers were uncertified. The 

percentage of the various subgroups of students who attended schools with no uncertified teachers was 

79 percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL), 76 percent of students of color, 79 

percent of ELs, 80 percent of students with disabilities, 77 percent of students in urban schools, and 85 

percent of students in rural schools (Exhibit 7). In general, the distribution of students by school 

percentage of uncertified teachers was similar to the distribution of schools shown in Exhibit 6.

Exhibit 7. Percentage distribution of students, by school percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, 

overall and by student subgroup: 2013–14

Exhibit reads: Across the 50 states and the District of Columbia, 80 percent of all students attended schools with 

no uncertified teachers.

Note: Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14 and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.

80

79

76

79

80

77

85

12

12

13

11

11

13

9

4

5

5

4

4

4

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

3

3

3

2

4

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All students

Students eligible for FRPL

Students of color

English learners

Students with disabilities

Students in urban schools

Students in rural schools

Zero >0 to <5% 5% to <10% 10% to <15% 15% or more
14

Charter Schools

By most measures examined in this report, charter schools had higher percentages of 

uncertified teachers than all schools. 

For example, 9.4 percent of teachers in charter schools were not fully certified compared with 

1.7 percent in all schools. In addition, 40 percent of charter schools had uncertified teachers, compared 

with 15 percent of all schools. Similarly, 45 percent of students in charter schools attended schools with 

uncertified teachers, compared with 20 percent of all students (Exhibit 8).

Exhibit 8. Percentage distribution of schools and students, by school percentage of teachers who were not 

fully certified, overall and for charter schools: 2013–14

Exhibit reads: In 60 percent of charter schools, there were no uncertified teachers.

Notes: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota, and West Virginia had no charter schools. Detail may not sum to 100 percent 

due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14.

According to the CRDC data, in eight states (of the 45 states that have charter schools), no teachers in 

charter schools were uncertified. However, in 22 states, 5 percent or more of teachers in charter schools 

were uncertified. In comparison, as noted previously, all states had some uncertified teachers, whereas 

only four states had 5 percent or more uncertified teachers (Exhibit 9).

Exhibit 9. Number of states by percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, overall and for charter 

schools: 2013–14

Exhibit reads: In eight states and jurisdictions, there were no uncertified teachers in charter schools.

Note: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Dakota, and West Virginia had no charter schools.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14.

60

85

55

80

6

7

12

12

7

4

8

4

7

2

7

2

20

3

17

2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Charter schools

All schools

Students in charter schools

All students

Zero >0 to <1% 1% to <2% 2% to <5% 5% or more

8 2

23

4

12

9

12

22

4

0 10 20 30 40 50

Charter schools

All schools

Number of States

Zero >0 to <1% 1% to <2% 2% to <5% 5% or more
15

By Poverty Level

High-poverty schools had higher percentages, on average, of teachers who were not 

fully certified than schools with lower poverty rates.

The average percentage of teachers who were not fully certified was 2.9 percent in high-poverty 

schools, compared with 1.1 percent in low-poverty schools (Exhibit 10).

Exhibit 10. Percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, by school percentage 

of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch: 2013–14

School percentage of students eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch Percentage uncertified

High (75% or more) 2.9

Medium-high (50% to less than 75%) 1.5

Medium-low (35% to less than 50%) 1.2

Low (0 to less than 35%) 1.1

Exhibit reads: In high-poverty schools (those with 75 percent or more students eligible 

for free or reduced-price lunch), 2.9 percent of teachers were uncertified.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 

2013–14 and National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public 

Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.

A higher proportion of high-poverty schools had uncertified teachers than schools with 

lower poverty rates.

About three-quarters of high-poverty schools had no uncertified teachers; schools with lower poverty 

levels were even more likely to have no uncertified teachers. Among schools with all poverty levels 

examined, the percentage of schools with more than zero but less than 5 percent of uncertified teachers 

ranged from 7 to 8 percent. A higher proportion of high-poverty schools had 15 percent or more 

uncertified teachers (5 percent in high-poverty schools, compared with 2 percent in other schools) 

(Exhibit 11).

Exhibit 11. Percentage distribution of schools, by percentage of teachers who were not fully certified and 

percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch: 2013–14

School percentage of students eligible for 

free or reduced-price lunch Zero >0 to <5%

5% to 

<10%

10% to 

<15%

15% or 

more

High (75% or more) 78 8 5 3 5

Medium-high (50% to less than 75%) 85 8 3 2 2

Medium-low (35% to less than 50%) 88 7 3 1 2

Low (0 to less than 35%) 88 7 2 1 2

Exhibit reads: Across all schools with 75 percent or more students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 78

percent had no uncertified teachers.

Note: Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14 and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.
16

By Enrollment of Students of Color

Schools with high proportions of students of color had higher percentages of teachers 

who were not fully certified, compared with schools with lower proportions of students 

of color.

The average percentage of teachers who were not fully certified was 3.1 percent in the schools with the 

highest proportions of students of color, compared with 0.8 percent in schools with lower proportions

(Exhibit 12).

Exhibit 12. Percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, by school 

percentage of students of color: 2013–14

School percentage of students of color Percentage uncertified

High (75% or more) 3.1

Medium (25% to less than 75%) 1.5

Low (0 to less than 25%) 0.8

Exhibit reads: Across all schools with 75 percent or more students of color, 3.1 percent 

of teachers were uncertified.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 

2013–14.

More schools with high percentages of students of color had uncertified teachers than 

schools with lower percentages of such students.

About three-quarters of schools with the highest percentages of students of color had no uncertified 

teachers; schools with lower percentages of students of color were even more likely to have no 

uncertified teachers. In addition, schools with the highest percentages of students of color were more 

likely to have very high percentages (15 percent or more) of uncertified teachers than schools with 

lower percentages of students of color (Exhibit 13).

Exhibit 13. Percentage distribution of schools, by percentage of teachers who were not fully certified and 

percentage of students of color: 2013–14

School percentage of students of color Zero >0 to <5%

5% to 

<10%

10% to 

<15%

15% or 

more

High (75% or more) 76 9 6 3 6

Medium (25% to less than 75%) 84 8 4 2 2

Low (0 to less than 25%) 91 5 2 1 1

Exhibit reads: Across all schools with 75 percent or more students of color, 76 percent had no uncertified teachers.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14.
17

By Enrollment of English Learners

Schools with high proportions of ELs had higher percentages of teachers who were not 

fully certified than schools with lower percentages of ELs.

The average percentage of teachers who were not fully certified was 2.6 percent in schools with

20 percent or more ELs, which was higher than the average for schools with lower numbers of ELs (1.8

percent for schools with medium EL proportions, 1.3 percent for schools with low EL proportions, and 

2.0 percent for schools with no ELs) (Exhibit 14). 

Exhibit 14. Percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, by school 

percentage of English learners: 2013–14

School percentage of English learners Percentage uncertified

High (20% or more) 2.6

Medium (5% to less than 20%) 1.8

Low (more than 0 to less than 5%) 1.3

No ELs 2.0

Exhibit reads: Across all schools with 20 percent or more ELs, 2.6 percent of teachers 

were uncertified.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 

2013–14.

The distribution of schools by percentage of uncertified teachers was similar for 

schools with low, medium, and high percentages of ELs.

On average, 82 percent of schools with medium and high percentages of ELs had no uncertified teachers 

and 85 percent of schools with low percentages of ELs had no uncertified teachers. For each category of 

school (schools with low, medium, and high percentage of ELs), the distribution of schools with various

percentages of uncertified teachers was similar. However, a higher proportion of schools with no ELs

had no uncertified teachers, compared with schools that did have ELs (Exhibit 15). 

Exhibit 15. Percentage distribution of schools, by percentage of teachers who were not fully certified and 

percentage of English learners: 2013–14

School percentage of English learners Zero >0 to <5%

5% to 

<10%

10% to 

<15%

15% or 

more

High (20% or more) 82 8 4 2 4

Medium (5% to less than 20%) 82 9 4 2 3

Low (more than 0 to less than 5%) 85 9 3 1 2

No ELs 89 3 3 2 4

Exhibit reads: Across all schools with 20 percent or more ELs, 82 percent had no uncertified teachers.

Note: Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14.
18

By Enrollment of Students with Disabilities

Schools with high proportions of students with disabilities had a smaller percentage of 

teachers who were not fully certified than schools with low proportions of students 

with disabilities.

The average percentage of teachers who were not fully certified was 1.8 percent in schools with 

20 percent or more students with disabilities, which was lower than the average for schools with less 

than 10 percent students with disabilities (2.5 percent). However, in special education schools, 

4.5 percent of teachers were uncertified (Exhibit 16). 

Exhibit 16. Percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, by school percentage 

of students with disabilities and for special education schools: 2013–14

School percentage of students with disabilities Percentage uncertified

High (20% or more) 1.8

Medium (10% to less than 20%) 1.4

Low (less than 10%) 2.5

Schools classified as special education schools 4.5

Exhibit reads: Across all schools with 20 percent or more students with disabilities, 

1.8 percent of teachers were uncertified.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 

2013–14.

Schools with varying percentage of students with disabilities were equally likely to 

have no uncertified teachers, but special education schools were slightly more likely to 

have uncertified teachers.

The percentage of schools with no uncertified teachers was 85 percent for schools with high, medium, 

and low proportions of students with disabilities, compared with 83 percent in schools classified as 

special education schools. On average, the percentage of schools with 15 percent or more uncertified 

teachers was 4 percent for schools with high percentages of students with disabilities, 2 percent for 

schools with medium percentages of students with disabilities, 5 percent for schools with low 

percentages of students with disabilities, and 7 percent for special education schools (Exhibit 17).

Exhibit 17. Percentage distribution of schools, by percentage of teachers who were not fully certified and 

percentage of students with disabilities and for special education schools: 2013–14

School percentage of students with 

disabilities Zero >0 to <5%

5% to 

<10%

10% to 

<15%

15% or 

more

High (20% or more) 85 6 4 2 4

Medium (10% to less than 20%) 85 8 4 2 2

Low (less than 10%) 85 6 3 2 5

Schools classified as special education schools 83 3 4 2 7

Exhibit reads: Across all schools with 20 percent or more students with disabilities, 85 percent had no uncertified 

teachers.

Note: Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14.
19

By Urbanicity

Rural schools had a lower percentage of teachers who were not certified than urban 

schools and comparable or higher percentages compared with schools in town and 

suburban areas.

On average, 1.0 percent of teachers in rural schools were not fully certified, compared with 2.9 percent

in urban schools, 0.9 percent in schools in towns, and 1.4 percent in suburban schools (Exhibit 18).

Exhibit 18. Percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, by school 

urbanicity: 2013–14

School urbanicity Percentage uncertified

Urban 2.9

Suburban 1.4

Town 0.9

Rural 1.0

Exhibit reads: Across all urban schools, 2.9 percent of teachers were uncertified.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 

2013–14 and National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public 

Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.

Schools in urban areas had higher percentages of teachers who were not certified than 

suburban, town, and rural schools.

The percentage of schools with no uncertified teachers was 79 percent in urban schools, compared with

89 percent in rural schools. Schools in urban areas were more likely to have 15 percent or more 

uncertified teachers than other schools (6 percent compared with 2 percent for schools in suburban, 

town, and rural areas) (Exhibit 19).

Exhibit 19. Percentage distribution of schools, by percentage of teachers who were not fully certified and 

school urbanicity: 2013–14

School urbanicity Zero >0 to <5%

5% to 

<10%

10% to 

<15%

15% or 

more

Urban 79 9 4 2 6

Suburban 84 9 4 2 2

Town 89 5 3 1 2

Rural 89 5 3 1 2

Exhibit reads: Across all urban schools, 79 percent had no uncertified teachers.

Note: Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14 and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.
20

By School Enrollment Size

The percentage of teachers who were not fully certified tended to increase as school 

size decreased.

The average percentage of teachers who were not fully certified was highest (3.1 percent) in the 

smallest schools, defined as those with fewer than 200 students; the percentage of uncertified teachers 

varied between 1.6 percent and 1.9 percent in larger schools (Exhibit 20).

Exhibit 20. Percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, by school size: 

2013–14

School enrollment size Percentage uncertified

Very large (more than 600 students) 1.6

Medium-large (401 to 600 students) 1.6

Medium-small (201 to 400 students) 1.9

Small (200 or fewer students) 3.1

Exhibit reads: Across all very large schools (those with more than 600 students), 

1.6 percent of teachers were not fully certified.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 

2013–14.

Very large schools were more likely to have uncertified teachers than schools of 

smaller sizes, but were equally or less likely to have very high percentages of 

uncertified teachers.

About three-quarters (78 percent) of very large schools had no uncertified teachers; in contrast about 

90 percent of smaller schools had no uncertified teachers. Very large schools were more likely to have a 

small percentage of uncertified teachers. Fourteen percent of very large schools and between 1 and 

6 percent of smaller schools had some, but less than 5 percent of uncertified teachers. This pattern 

changes when looking at schools with very high percentages of uncertified teachers. Small schools were 

more likely than large schools to have 15 percent or more uncertified teachers (6 percent in small 

schools, compared with 2 to 4 percent in larger schools) (Exhibit 21).

Exhibit 21. Percentage distribution of schools, by percentage of teachers who were not fully certified and 

school size: 2013–14

School enrollment size Zero >0 to <5%

5% to 

<10%

10% to 

<15%

15% or 

more

Very large (more than 600 students) 78 14 5 2 2

Medium-Large (401 to 600 students) 87 6 3 1 2

Medium-small (201 to 400 students) 87 4 4 2 4

Small (200 or fewer students) 89 1 2 2 6

Exhibit reads: Across very large schools (those with more than 600 students), 78 percent had no uncertified 

teachers.

Note: Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14.
21

By School Grade Level

Middle schools had lower percentages of uncertified teachers than did elementary or 

high schools. 

Across all schools, middle schools had smaller proportions of uncertified teachers than elementary and 

high schools, and schools with other grade combinations had the highest proportions of uncertified 

teachers (Exhibit 22).

Exhibit 22. Percentage of teachers who were not fully certified, by school grade 

level: 2013–14

School grade level Percentage uncertified

Elementary schools 1.6

Middle schools 1.3

High schools 1.7

Other/Combined schools 5.0

Exhibit reads: Across all elementary schools, 1.6 percent of teachers were uncertified.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 

2013–14.

As the grade level of schools increased, the percentage of schools with uncertified 

teachers increased.

The average percentage of schools with no uncertified teachers was 87 percent in elementary schools, 

85 percent in middle schools, and 81 percent in high schools. The percentage of schools with some, but 

less than 5 percent uncertified teachers ranged from 6 percent in elementary schools to 8 percent in 

middle schools to 10 percent in high schools. There was less variation across schools with higher 

percentages of uncertified teachers; between 8 and 10 percent of each type of school (elementary, 

middle, or high) had more than 5 percent uncertified teachers (Exhibit 23). 

Exhibit 23. Percentage distribution of schools, by percentage of teachers who were not fully certified and 

school grade level: 2013–14

School grade level Zero >0 to <5%

5% to 

<10%

10% to 

<15%

15% or 

more

Elementary schools 87 6 3 2 3

Middle schools 85 8 3 2 2

High schools 81 10 4 2 4

Other/combined schools 78 6 5 3 9

Exhibit reads: Across all elementary schools, 87 percent had no uncertified teachers.

Note: Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14.
22

References

Aaronson, Daniel, Lisa Barrow, and William Sander. 2007. “Teachers and Student Achievement in the 

Chicago Public High Schools.” Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1), 95-135.

Betts, Julian, Andrew Zau, and Lorien Rice. 2003. Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence 

From San Diego. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.

Boyd, Donald, Hamilton Lankford, Susanna Loeb, and James Wyckoff. 2005. “Explaining the Short 

Careers of High-Achieving Teachers in Schools With Low-Performing Students.” American 

Economic Review.

Boyd, Donald, Pamela Grossman, Hamilton Lankford, Susanna Loeb, and James Wyckoff. 2006. “How 

Changes in Entry Requirements Alter the Teacher Workforce and Affect Student Achievement.” 

Education Finance and Policy, 1(2): 176-216.

Carroll, Stephen, Robert Reichardt, and Cassandra Guarino. 2000. The Distribution of Teachers Among 

California's School Districts and Schools. Pittsburgh: RAND Corporation.

Clotfelter, Charles, Helen Ladd, and Jacob Vigdor. 2007. “Teacher Credentials and Student Achievement 

in High School: A Cross-Subject Analysis With Student Fixed Effects.” Journal of Human 

Resources, 45(3): 655-681.

Clotfelter, Charles, Helen Ladd, and Jacob Vigdor. 2004. Teacher Quality and Minority Achievement 

Gaps. Working Paper Series SAN04-04. Durham, NC: Terry Sanford School of Public Policy at 

Duke University.

Constantine, Jill, Daniel Player, Tim Silva, Kristen Hallgren, Mary Grider, and John Deke. 2009. An 

Evaluation of Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification: Final Report 

(NCEE 2009-4043). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education 

Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation. Retrieved from 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094043/pdf/20094043.pdf.

Goldhaber, Dan, and Dominic Brewer. 2000. “Does Teacher Certification Matter? High School 

Certification Status and Student Achievement.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,

22:129-145.

Goldhaber, Dan, Lesley Lavery, and Roddy Theobald. 2015. “Uneven Playing Field? Assessing the Teacher 

Quality Gap Between Advantaged and Disadvantaged Students.” Educational Researcher, 44(5): 

293-307.

Hanushek, Eric, John Kain, and Steven Rivkin. 2004. “The Revolving Door: Factors Affecting Teacher 

Turnover.” In Developments in School Finance: 2003. William J. Fowler, ed. Washington, D.C.: 

National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences.

Iatarola, Patrice, and Leanna Stiefel. 2003. “Intradistrict Equity of Public Education Resources and 

Performance.” Economics of Education Review, 22: 69–78.
23

Kalogrides, Demetra, and Susanna Loeb. 2012. “Different Teachers, Different Peers: The Magnitude and 

Effects of Student Sorting Within Schools.” Educational Researcher, 42(6): 304-316.

Kane, Thomas J., Jonah E. Rockoff, and Douglas O. Staiger. 2008. “What Does Certification Tell Us About 

Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence from New York City.” Economics of Education Review 27:615-

631. 

Lankford, Hamilton, Susanna Loeb, and James Wyckoff. 2002. “Teacher Sorting and the Plight of Urban 

Schools: A Descriptive Analysis.” Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (1): 37-62.

National Research Council. 2010. Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy. Committee on 

the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States, Center for Education. 

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12882/preparing-teachers-building-evidence-for-sound-policy. 

Palardy, Gregory, and Russell Rumberger. 2008. “Teacher Effectiveness in First Grade: The Importance of 

Background Qualifications, Attitudes, and Instructional Practices for Student Learning.”

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2): 111.

Roda, Allison, and Amy Stuart Wells. 2013. “School Choice Policies and Racial Segregation: Where White 

Parents' Good Intentions, Anxiety, and Privilege Collide.” American Journal of Education, 119(2): 

261-293.

Rumberger, Russell, and Patricia Gándara. 2000. “The Schooling of English Learners.” In Crucial Issues in 

California Education 2000: Are the Reform Pieces Fitting Together? Stanford, CA: Policy Analysis

for California Education.

Scafidi, Benjamin, David Sjoquist, and Todd Stinebrickner. 2005. Race, Poverty, and Teacher Mobility. 

Centre for Human Capital and Productivity. CHCP Working Papers, 2005-3. London, ON: 

Department of Economics, University of Western Ontario.
24

Appendix: Supplemental Tables
25

Exhibit A.1. Number of schools, teachers, and uncertified teachers included in analyses, by state: 2013–14

State Number of 

schools

Number of schools 

with uncertified 

teachers

Number of 

teachers

Number of teachers 

in schools with 

uncertified teachers

Number of 

uncertified 

teachers

50 States and D.C. 93,323 14,421 3,130,193 612,697 53,865

Alabama 1,385 140 47,132 4,951 409

Alaska 483 34 7,676 350 68

Arizona 1,874 542 56,735 15,519 2,874

Arkansas 1,083 153 34,957 4,666 508

California 9,763 1,171 273,729 44,198 4,083

Colorado 1,823 437 50,951 15,023 5,771

Connecticut 1,113 101 44,010 4,281 516

Delaware 219 33 9,364 1,400 104

District of Columbia 194 147 5,665 4,486 1,038

Florida 3,640 2,344 160,829 115,464 6,745

Georgia 2,381 852 109,012 43,848 2,270

Hawaii 284 157 11,687 7,358 418

Idaho 690 59 14,658 1,855 96

Illinois 4,064 156 136,916 8,498 822

Indiana 1,854 147 60,614 6,287 331

Iowa 1,418 2 35,118 15 2

Kansas 1,380 252 35,547 8,032 458

Kentucky 1,394 92 43,791 3,730 287

Louisiana 1,330 517 46,860 19,752 2,037

Maine 570 128 14,288 3,609 298

Maryland 1,411 528 62,092 27,296 1,960

Massachusetts 1,840 463 71,363 23,009 1,707

Michigan 3,590 155 82,562 4,440 407

Minnesota 1,990 203 56,975 7,357 387

Mississippi 951 179 32,912 6,584 540

Missouri 2,224 246 65,881 7,103 553

Montana 783 41 11,208 1,074 866

Nebraska 1,019 33 23,264 1,050 42

Nevada 637 34 24,464 877 65

New Hampshire 482 76 15,123 3,164 172

New Jersey 2,453 424 115,151 23,196 1,628

New Mexico 851 183 22,555 7,465 470

New York 4,862 294 211,907 11,219 1,125

North Carolina 2,494 46 96,910 1,686 311

North Dakota 449 17 8,778 457 125

Ohio 3,590 203 107,415 6,833 740

Oklahoma 1,798 120 44,839 3,632 679

Oregon 1,283 61 26,708 1,631 106

Pennsylvania 3,027 235 120,080 10,926 643

Rhode Island 286 41 11,430 1,999 107

South Carolina 1,222 253 48,767 10,224 1,479

South Dakota 675 27 9,766 550 26

Tennessee 1,786 130 66,259 5,483 318

Texas 8,098 1,166 329,299 51,989 5,000

Utah 941 277 25,807 9,350 608

Vermont 304 45 8,107 1,652 73

Virginia 1,947 761 91,141 44,568 3,215

Washington 2,134 54 54,800 1,353 103

West Virginia 711 244 18,698 7,987 641

Wisconsin 2,187 407 58,674 14,878 626

Wyoming 356 11 7,720 347 13

Note: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14.
26

Exhibit A.2. Percentage of schools with uncertified teachers and percentage of uncertified teachers, by state: 2013–14

State Percentage of schools with uncertified 

teachers Percentage of uncertified teachers

50 States and D.C. 15 1.7

Alabama 10 0.9

Alaska 7 0.9

Arizona 29 5.1

Arkansas 14 1.5

California 12 1.5

Colorado 24 11.3

Connecticut 9 1.2

Delaware 15 1.1

District of Columbia 76 18.3

Florida 64 4.2

Georgia 36 2.1

Hawaii 55 3.6

Idaho 9 0.7

Illinois 4 0.6

Indiana 8 0.5

Iowa 0 0.0

Kansas 18 1.3

Kentucky 7 0.7

Louisiana 39 4.3

Maine 22 2.1

Maryland 37 3.2

Massachusetts 25 2.4

Michigan 4 0.5

Minnesota 10 0.7

Mississippi 19 1.6

Missouri 11 0.8

Montana 5 7.7

Nebraska 3 0.2

Nevada 5 0.3

New Hampshire 16 1.1

New Jersey 17 1.4

New Mexico 22 2.1

New York 6 0.5

North Carolina 2 0.3

North Dakota 4 1.4

Ohio 6 0.7

Oklahoma 7 1.5

Oregon 5 0.4

Pennsylvania 8 0.5

Rhode Island 14 0.9

South Carolina 21 3.0

South Dakota 4 0.3

Tennessee 7 0.5

Texas 14 1.5

Utah 29 2.4

Vermont 15 0.9

Virginia 39 3.5

Washington 3 0.2

West Virginia 34 3.4

Wisconsin 19 1.1

Wyoming 3 0.2

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14.
27

Exhibit A.3. Number of schools with uncertified teachers, overall and by type of school, by state: 2013–14

State

All 

schools

High-poverty 

schools

Schools with

75%+ students 

of color

Schools with

20%+ English 

learners

Schools with 

20%+ students 

with disabilities

Rural 

schools

Urban 

schools

50 States and D.C. 14,421 5,100 5,948 2,584 2,402 2,803 5,230

Alabama 140 65 63 3 15 54 41

Alaska 34 24 33 33 2 33 0

Arizona 542 178 214 68 58 64 267

Arkansas 153 41 26 11 16 57 20

California 1,171 579 838 583 69 74 608

Colorado 437 149 154 169 19 68 227

Connecticut 101 25 63 11 15 6 47

Delaware 33 3 8 3 11 6 14

District of Columbia 147 145 129 25 35 - 146

Florida 2,344 826 890 372 447 268 669

Georgia 852 393 320 48 41 255 133

Hawaii 157 25 131 32 12 23 35

Idaho 59 7 0 5 2 11 32

Illinois 156 97 101 27 35 12 99

Indiana 147 36 24 17 40 42 52

Iowa 2 1 1 1 0 1 0

Kansas 252 56 37 59 42 104 73

Kentucky 92 11 0 2 12 31 19

Louisiana 517 271 252 6 118 151 169

Maine 128 4 0 4 68 92 4

Maryland 528 156 282 72 88 40 232

Massachusetts 463 142 153 90 248 43 139

Michigan 155 49 58 21 30 25 54

Minnesota 203 30 19 19 62 59 50

Mississippi 179 113 107 4 12 79 50

Missouri 246 62 58 21 40 110 81

Montana 41 7 6 3 6 23 14

Nebraska 33 2 1 1 7 15 13

Nevada 34 3 2 2 2 14 7

New Hampshire 76 1 - 1 41 27 15

New Jersey 424 134 177 40 92 33 35

New Mexico 183 96 107 74 32 30 95

New York 294 149 211 16 91 36 186

North Carolina 46 7 19 0 7 8 20

North Dakota 17 0 1 1 8 9 2

Ohio 203 93 75 8 58 24 112

Oklahoma 120 83 71 45 21 19 79

Oregon 61 12 5 7 6 9 28

Pennsylvania 235 96 122 11 83 24 141

Rhode Island 41 28 32 21 10 4 35

South Carolina 253 87 79 12 21 86 80

South Dakota 27 5 4 2 3 22 2

Tennessee 130 63 55 5 23 38 55

Texas 1,166 566 756 373 104 185 643

Utah 277 18 13 24 24 53 28

Vermont 45 1 - 1 22 25 5

Virginia 761 64 171 167 79 150 161

Washington 54 5 3 12 3 5 21

West Virginia 244 2 0 0 51 138 17

Wisconsin 407 90 77 52 69 114 174

Wyoming 11 0 0 0 2 4 1

- Not applicable; the District of Columbia did not have rural schools.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14 and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.
28

Exhibit A.4. Number and percentage of uncertified teachers, by state: 2013–14

State

Number of uncertified 

teachers Total number of teachers

Percentage of uncertified 

teachers

50 States and D.C. 53,865 3,130,193 1.7

Alabama 409 47,132 0.9

Alaska 68 7,676 0.9

Arizona 2,874 56,735 5.1

Arkansas 508 34,957 1.5

California 4,083 273,729 1.5

Colorado 5,771 50,951 11.3

Connecticut 516 44,010 1.2

Delaware 104 9,364 1.1

District of Columbia 1,038 5,665 18.3

Florida 6,745 160,829 4.2

Georgia 2,270 109,012 2.1

Hawaii 418 11,687 3.6

Idaho 96 14,658 0.7

Illinois 822 136,916 0.6

Indiana 331 60,614 0.5

Iowa 2 35,118 #

Kansas 458 35,547 1.3

Kentucky 287 43,791 0.7

Louisiana 2,037 46,860 4.3

Maine 298 14,288 2.1

Maryland 1,960 62,092 3.2

Massachusetts 1,707 71,363 2.4

Michigan 407 82,562 0.5

Minnesota 387 56,975 0.7

Mississippi 539 32,912 1.6

Missouri 553 65,881 0.8

Montana 866 11,208 7.7

Nebraska 42 23,263 0.2

Nevada 65 24,464 0.3

New Hampshire 172 15,123 1.1

New Jersey 1,628 115,151 1.4

New Mexico 470 22,555 2.1

New York 1,125 211,907 0.5

North Carolina 311 96,910 0.3

North Dakota 125 8,778 1.4

Ohio 740 107,415 0.7

Oklahoma 679 44,839 1.5

Oregon 106 26,708 0.4

Pennsylvania 643 120,080 0.5

Rhode Island 107 11,430 0.9

South Carolina 1,479 48,767 3.0

South Dakota 26 9,766 0.3

Tennessee 318 66,259 0.5

Texas 5,000 329,299 1.5

Utah 608 25,807 2.4

Vermont 73 8,107 0.9

Virginia 3,214 91,141 3.5

Washington 103 54,800 0.2

West Virginia 641 18,698 3.4

Wisconsin 626 58,674 1.1

Wyoming 13 7,720 0.2

# Rounds to zero

Note: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14.
29

Exhibit A.5. Number and percentage of uncertified teachers in high-poverty schools, by state: 2013–14

State

Number of uncertified 

teachers Total number of teachers

Percentage of uncertified 

teachers

50 States and D.C. 21,685 758,280 2.9

Alabama 179 11,219 1.6

Alaska 49 1,418 3.5

Arizona 779 16,891 4.6

Arkansas 136 8,732 1.6

California 2,687 105,854 2.5

Colorado 2,800 10,067 27.8

Connecticut 117 5,218 2.2

Delaware 8 708 1.1

District of Columbia 1,033 5,606 18.4

Florida 2,285 47,034 4.9

Georgia 1,091 41,289 2.6

Hawaii 70 1,665 4.2

Idaho 14 918 1.5

Illinois 585 36,285 1.6

Indiana 87 10,460 0.8

Iowa 1 2,682 #

Kansas 164 6,686 2.4

Kentucky 42 8,219 0.5

Louisiana 1,015 19,119 5.3

Maine 4 524 0.8

Maryland 636 10,467 6.1

Massachusetts 565 12,664 4.5

Michigan 119 15,379 0.8

Minnesota 49 6,556 0.8

Mississippi 298 15,128 2.0

Missouri 138 7,812 1.8

Montana 12 910 1.3

Nebraska 2 3,421 0.1

Nevada 3 6,324 #

New Hampshire 1 200 0.5

New Jersey 623 19,470 3.2

New Mexico 260 9,893 2.6

New York 667 53,190 1.3

North Carolina 36 21,245 0.2

North Dakota 0 346 0.0

Ohio 390 20,179 1.9

Oklahoma 574 13,619 4.2

Oregon 20 5,096 0.4

Pennsylvania 302 17,837 1.7

Rhode Island 73 2,171 3.4

South Carolina 644 12,456 5.2

South Dakota 6 1,018 0.6

Tennessee 161 17,596 0.9

Texas 2,538 119,642 2.1

Utah 41 1,582 2.6

Vermont 1 157 0.6

Virginia 206 7,533 2.7

Washington 5 8,686 0.1

West Virginia 4 249 1.6

Wisconsin 169 6,637 2.5

Wyoming 0 227 0.0

# Rounds to zero

Note: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14 and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.
30

Exhibit A.6. Number and percentage of uncertified teachers in schools with high percentages of students of color, by state: 

2013–14

State

Number of uncertified 

teachers Total number of teachers

Percentage of uncertified 

teachers

50 States and D.C. 26,933 870,306 3.1

Alabama 165 9,741 1.7

Alaska 67 2,132 3.1

Arizona 879 19,785 4.4

Arkansas 145 4,562 3.2

California 3,385 159,980 2.1

Colorado 3,044 10,940 27.8

Connecticut 403 8,009 5.0

Delaware 17 1,217 1.4

District of Columbia 953 4,840 19.7

Florida 2,578 52,496 4.9

Georgia 1,088 36,003 3.0

Hawaii 352 9,940 3.5

Idaho 0 85 0.0

Illinois 594 40,085 1.5

Indiana 87 6,427 1.3

Iowa 1 894 0.1

Kansas 93 3,901 2.4

Kentucky 0 1,310 0.0

Louisiana 1,314 14,260 9.2

Maine 0 43 0.0

Maryland 1,239 23,927 5.2

Massachusetts 660 11,680 5.6

Michigan 137 11,999 1.1

Minnesota 35 6,417 0.6

Mississippi 282 10,297 2.7

Missouri 149 5,440 2.7

Montana 9 854 1.1

Nebraska 1 2,555 #

Nevada 2 10,084 #

New Hampshire - - -

New Jersey 753 32,827 2.3

New Mexico 289 12,240 2.4

New York 985 80,129 1.2

North Carolina 123 20,221 0.6

North Dakota 1 525 0.2

Ohio 308 12,146 2.5

Oklahoma 535 5,537 9.7

Oregon 6 1,310 0.5

Pennsylvania 448 17,095 2.6

Rhode Island 83 2,183 3.8

South Carolina 654 9,181 7.1

South Dakota 6 573 1.0

Tennessee 150 11,149 1.3

Texas 3,850 164,220 2.3

Utah 41 1,012 4.1

Vermont - - -

Virginia 854 17,682 4.8

Washington 5 6,617 0.1

West Virginia 0 16 0.0

Wisconsin 165 5,585 3.0

Wyoming 0 157 0.0

- Not applicable; New Hampshire and Vermont did not have schools with high percentages of students of color.

# Rounds to zero

Note: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14.
31

Exhibit A.7. Number and percentage of uncertified teachers in schools with high percentages of English learners, by state: 

2013–14

State

Number of uncertified 

teachers Total number of teachers

Percentage of uncertified 

teachers

50 States and D.C. 12,273 470,533 2.6

Alabama 5 1,382 0.4

Alaska 67 1,535 4.4

Arizona 296 6,497 4.6

Arkansas 56 3,790 1.5

California 2,328 121,696 1.9

Colorado 3,358 13,772 24.4

Connecticut 60 2,459 2.4

Delaware 8 649 1.2

District of Columbia 172 1,201 14.3

Florida 940 24,817 3.8

Georgia 111 10,648 1.0

Hawaii 84 2,518 3.3

Idaho 7 1,033 0.7

Illinois 139 23,249 0.6

Indiana 27 5,461 0.5

Iowa 1 2,744 #

Kansas 109 6,301 1.7

Kentucky 2 1,207 0.2

Louisiana 38 534 7.1

Maine 4 967 0.4

Maryland 289 6,376 4.5

Massachusetts 233 10,011 2.3

Michigan 43 5,304 0.8

Minnesota 42 7,275 0.6

Mississippi 9 175 5.1

Missouri 50 1,957 2.6

Montana 4 424 0.9

Nebraska 1 2,024 #

Nevada 3 7,061 #

New Hampshire 1 270 0.4

New Jersey 185 5,880 3.1

New Mexico 178 7,372 2.4

New York 55 24,812 0.2

North Carolina 0 7,056 0.0

North Dakota 2 144 1.4

Ohio 38 2,589 1.5

Oklahoma 372 4,702 7.9

Oregon 10 3,910 0.3

Pennsylvania 28 2,630 1.1

Rhode Island 57 1,477 3.9

South Carolina 72 2,922 2.5

South Dakota 2 612 0.3

Tennessee 7 3,146 0.2

Texas 1,433 100,240 1.4

Utah 61 2,146 2.9

Vermont 1 155 0.6

Virginia 1,129 13,599 8.3

Washington 21 9,330 0.2

West Virginia - - -

Wisconsin 135 4,285 3.2

Wyoming 0 186 0.0

- Not applicable; West Virginia did not have schools with high percentages of English learners.

# Rounds to zero

Note: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14.
32

Exhibit A.8. Number and percentage of uncertified teachers in schools with high percentages of students with disabilities, 

by state: 2013–14

State

Number of uncertified 

teachers Total number of teachers

Percentage of uncertified 

teachers

50 States and D.C. 7,867 445,160 1.8

Alabama 29 6,447 0.4

Alaska 2 924 0.2

Arizona 252 5,007 5.0

Arkansas 31 2,919 1.0

California 188 9,479 2.0

Colorado 155 1,057 14.6

Connecticut 56 7,670 0.7

Delaware 22 2,264 1.0

District of Columbia 223 1,297 17.2

Florida 1,722 23,993 7.2

Georgia 88 4,113 2.1

Hawaii 48 425 11.2

Idaho 2 635 0.3

Illinois 145 19,197 0.8

Indiana 77 13,346 0.6

Iowa 0 2,362 0.0

Kansas 90 4,525 2.0

Kentucky 31 8,416 0.4

Louisiana 647 6,979 9.3

Maine 138 7,166 1.9

Maryland 321 5,982 5.4

Massachusetts 747 36,032 2.1

Michigan 60 7,523 0.8

Minnesota 104 7,690 1.4

Mississippi 74 2,227 3.3

Missouri 100 6,673 1.5

Montana 8 878 0.9

Nebraska 10 3,723 0.3

Nevada 2 812 0.2

New Hampshire 109 8,568 1.3

New Jersey 298 30,744 1.0

New Mexico 76 2,734 2.8

New York 321 54,573 0.6

North Carolina 29 5,943 0.5

North Dakota 20 1,809 1.1

Ohio 246 22,412 1.1

Oklahoma 100 10,696 0.9

Oregon 9 2,052 0.4

Pennsylvania 217 36,439 0.6

Rhode Island 25 3,001 0.8

South Carolina 100 4,376 2.3

South Dakota 4 1,310 0.3

Tennessee 50 9,524 0.5

Texas 255 21,800 1.2

Utah 49 1,725 2.8

Vermont 36 3,446 1.1

Virginia 297 7,501 4.0

Washington 4 5,379 0.1

West Virginia 143 4,000 3.6

Wisconsin 109 6,433 1.7

Wyoming 2 933 0.2

Note: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14.
33

Exhibit A.9. Number and percentage of uncertified teachers in schools in rural areas, by state: 2013–14

State

Number of uncertified 

teachers Total number of teachers

Percentage of uncertified 

teachers

50 States and D.C. 6,294 630,010 1.0

Alabama 98 18,698 0.5

Alaska 67 2,716 2.5

Arizona 163 5,805 2.8

Arkansas 128 12,452 1.0

California 114 16,182 0.7

Colorado 266 7,513 3.5

Connecticut 30 5,738 0.5

Delaware 20 1,637 1.2

District of Columbia - - -

Florida 631 17,487 3.6

Georgia 568 29,026 2.0

Hawaii 62 1,074 5.7

Idaho 15 4,031 0.4

Illinois 26 15,315 0.2

Indiana 94 17,534 0.5

Iowa 1 12,539 #

Kansas 104 10,836 1.0

Kentucky 71 15,472 0.5

Louisiana 430 12,958 3.3

Maine 221 8,159 2.7

Maryland 108 8,544 1.3

Massachusetts 96 6,956 1.4

Michigan 38 17,389 0.2

Minnesota 107 13,014 0.8

Mississippi 252 15,479 1.6

Missouri 178 20,939 0.9

Montana 51 4,924 1.0

Nebraska 21 7,405 0.3

Nevada 15 1,741 0.9

New Hampshire 32 5,666 0.6

New Jersey 144 9,858 1.5

New Mexico 79 5,440 1.4

New York 48 27,878 0.2

North Carolina 35 35,826 0.1

North Dakota 56 4,156 1.3

Ohio 45 25,505 0.2

Oklahoma 53 15,085 0.3

Oregon 23 3,967 0.6

Pennsylvania 27 24,121 0.1

Rhode Island 5 1,220 0.4

South Carolina 282 16,271 1.7

South Dakota 21 4,547 0.5

Tennessee 80 19,994 0.4

Texas 393 56,496 0.7

Utah 87 2,939 3.0

Vermont 44 4,549 1.0

Virginia 415 23,020 1.8

Washington 3 6,772 #

West Virginia 349 8,154 4.3

Wisconsin 95 14,638 0.6

Wyoming 6 2,349 0.2

- Not applicable; the District of Columbia did not have rural schools.

# Rounds to zero

Note: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14 and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.
34

Exhibit A.10. Number and percentage of uncertified teachers in schools in urban areas, by state: 2013–14

State

Number of uncertified 

teachers Total number of teachers

Percentage of uncertified 

teachers

50 States and D.C. 26,360 904,084 2.9

Alabama 203 11,541 1.8

Alaska 0 2,620 0.0

Arizona 1,430 27,284 5.2

Arkansas 64 8,862 0.7

California 2,607 117,748 2.2

Colorado 4,820 20,590 23.4

Connecticut 315 11,309 2.8

Delaware 45 1,352 3.3

District of Columbia 1,036 5,628 18.4

Florida 1,845 42,067 4.4

Georgia 437 18,146 2.4

Hawaii 64 2,741 2.3

Idaho 59 3,188 1.8

Illinois 622 39,477 1.6

Indiana 137 18,683 0.7

Iowa 0 9,212 0.0

Kansas 254 9,121 2.8

Kentucky 34 10,172 0.3

Louisiana 1,047 12,925 8.1

Maine 4 1,651 0.2

Maryland 999 12,929 7.7

Massachusetts 644 12,467 5.2

Michigan 127 19,905 0.6

Minnesota 100 12,781 0.8

Mississippi 129 3,482 3.7

Missouri 221 10,217 2.2

Montana 768 2,604 29.5

Nebraska 15 7,939 0.2

Nevada 26 11,724 0.2

New Hampshire 53 1,846 2.8

New Jersey 119 8,686 1.4

New Mexico 254 7,615 3.3

New York 904 87,977 1.0

North Carolina 94 27,780 0.3

North Dakota 20 2,151 0.9

Ohio 416 20,639 2.0

Oklahoma 549 9,102 6.0

Oregon 45 9,094 0.5

Pennsylvania 462 22,232 2.1

Rhode Island 101 2,869 3.5

South Carolina 726 9,451 7.7

South Dakota 2 2,465 0.1

Tennessee 151 21,089 0.7

Texas 3,358 135,697 2.5

Utah 69 4,027 1.7

Vermont 6 582 1.0

Virginia 516 21,828 2.4

Washington 27 19,202 0.1

West Virginia 61 2,583 2.4

Wisconsin 379 17,153 2.2

Wyoming 1 1,655 0.1

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14 and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.
35

Exhibit A.11. Number of schools, by percentage of uncertified teachers, overall and by school charter status: 2013–14

Type of 

school

Type of school Total Zero

>0 to 

<5%

5% to 

<10%

10% to 

<15%

15% to 

<25%

25% or 

more

All

All schools 93,323 78,902 6,687 3,296 1,540 1,197 1,701 All High-poverty schools 23,632 18,532 1,924 1,250 648 532 746 All Schools with 75%+ students of color 24,427 18,479 2,222 1,394 762 661 909 All Schools with 20%+ English learners 14,005 11,421 1,076 603 312 249 344 All Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities 15,646 13,244 965 590 265 261 321 All Rural schools 25,559 22,756 1,314 745 313 207 224 All Urban schools 24,438 19,208 2,119 1,065 580 525 941

Traditional

Traditional schools 87,406 75,356 6,304 2,894 1,144 811 897 Traditional High-poverty schools 21,419 17,329 1,795 1,081 478 358 378 Traditional Schools with 75%+ students of color 21,466 16,939 2,028 1,151 511 418 419 Traditional Schools with 20%+ English learners 13,074 10,850 1,013 538 259 183 231 Traditional Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities 14,863 12,785 932 539 205 196 206 Traditional Rural schools 24,964 22,327 1,280 721 287 175 174 Traditional Urban schools 21,378 17,569 1,940 834 343 282 410

Charter 

Charter schools 5,917 3,546 383 402 396 386 804 Charter High-poverty schools 2,213 1,203 129 169 170 174 368 Charter Schools with 75%+ students of color 2,961 1,540 194 243 251 243 490 Charter Schools with 20%+ English learners 931 571 63 65 53 66 113 Charter Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities 783 459 33 51 60 65 115 Charter Rural schools 595 429 34 24 26 32 50

Charter Urban schools 3,060 1,639 179 231 237 243 531

Note: Traditional schools are schools that are not charter schools.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14 and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.
36

Exhibit A.12. Percentage distribution of schools, by percentage of uncertified teachers, overall and by school charter status: 

2013–14

Type of 

school

Type of school Zero

>0 to 

<5%

5% to 

<10%

10% to 

<15%

15% to 

<25%

25% or 

more

All 

All schools 85 7 4 2 1 2 All High-poverty schools 78 8 5 3 2 3 All Schools with 75%+ students of color 76 9 6 3 3 4 All Schools with 20%+ English learners 82 8 4 2 2 2 All Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities 85 6 4 2 2 2 All Rural schools 89 5 3 1 1 1 All Urban schools 79 9 4 2 2 4

Traditional 

Traditional schools 86 7 3 1 1 1 Traditional High-poverty schools 81 8 5 2 2 2 Traditional Schools with 75%+ students of color 79 9 5 2 2 2 Traditional Schools with 20%+ English learners 83 8 4 2 1 2 Traditional Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities 86 6 4 1 1 1 Traditional Rural schools 89 5 3 1 1 1 Traditional Urban schools 82 9 4 2 1 2

Charter 

Charter schools 60 6 7 7 7 14 Charter High-poverty schools 54 6 8 8 8 17 Charter Schools with 75%+ students of color 52 7 8 8 8 17 Charter Schools with 20%+ English learners 61 7 7 6 7 12 Charter Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities 59 4 7 8 8 15 Charter Rural schools 72 6 4 4 5 8

Charter Urban schools 54 6 8 8 8 17

Notes: Traditional schools are schools that are not charter schools. Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14 and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.
37

Exhibit A.13. Percentage of schools with uncertified teachers, overall and by school charter status: 2013–14

Type of 

school

Type of school

Total number 

of schools

Number of schools 

with uncertified 

teachers

Percentage of schools 

with uncertified 

teachers

All

All schools 93,323 14,421 15 All High-poverty schools 23,632 5,100 22 All Schools with 75%+ students of color 24,427 5,948 24 All Schools with 20%+ English learners 14,005 2,584 18 All Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities 15,646 2,402 15 All Rural schools 25,559 2,803 11 All Urban schools 24,438 5,230 21

Traditional

Traditional schools 87,406 12,050 14 Traditional High-poverty schools 21,419 4,090 19 Traditional Schools with 75%+ students of color 21,466 4,527 21 Traditional Schools with 20%+ English learners 13,074 2,224 17 Traditional Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities 14,863 2,078 14 Traditional Rural schools 24,964 2,637 11 Traditional Urban schools 21,378 3,809 18

Charter

Charter schools 5,917 2,371 40 Charter High-poverty schools 2,213 1,010 46 Charter Schools with 75%+ students of color 2,961 1,421 48 Charter Schools with 20%+ English learners 931 360 39 Charter Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities 783 324 41 Charter Rural schools 595 166 28 Charter Urban schools 3,060 1,421 46

Note: Traditional schools are schools that are not charter schools.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14 and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.
38

Exhibit A.14. Percentage of uncertified teachers, overall and by type of school: 2013–14

Ty

p

e 

of 

sc

h

o

ol

Type of school

Total number 

of teachers

Number of uncertified 

teachers

Percentage of 

uncertified teachers

Al

l

All schools 3,130,193 53,865 1.7 Al

l

High-poverty schools 758,280 21,685 2.9 Al

l Schools with 75%+ students of color 870,306 26,933 3.1 Al

l

Schools with 20%+ English learners 470,533 12,273 2.6 Al

l

Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities 445,160 7,867 1.8 Al

l

Rural schools 630,010 6,294 1.0 Al

l

Urban schools 904,084 26,360 2.9

Tr

a

di

ti

o

n

al

Traditional schools 2,984,750 40,136 1.3 Tr

a

di

ti

o

n

al High-poverty schools 703,619 15,663 2.2 Tr

a

di

ti

o

n

al Schools with 75%+ students of color 793,441 18,299 2.3 Tr

a

di

ti

o

n

al

Schools with 20%+ English learners 447,626 10,193 2.3 Tr

a

di

ti

o

n

al

Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities 429,294 6,162 1.4 Tr

a

di

ti

o

n

al

Rural schools 619,647 5,646 0.9 Tr

a

di

ti

o

n

al

Urban schools 828,086 17,003 2.1

C

h

ar

te

r

Charter schools 145,443 13,729 9.4 C

h

ar

te

r High-poverty schools 54,661 6,022 11.9 C

h

ar

te

r Schools with 75%+ students of color 76,865 8,634 11.2 C

h

ar

te

r Schools with 20%+ English learners 22,907 2,080 9.1 C

h

ar

te

r Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities 15,865 1,704 10.7 C

h

ar

te

r Rural schools 10,363 648 6.6 C

h

ar

te

r Urban schools 75,998 9,357 13.2

Notes: Traditional schools are schools that are not charter schools. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14 and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.
39

Exhibit A.15. Number of uncertified teachers, by percentage of uncertified teachers in the school and by school charter 

status: 2013–14 

Type of school

Type of school Total <5%

5% to 

<10%

10% to 

<15%

15% to 

<25%

25% or 

more

All

All schools 53,865 8,979 9,224 6,336 7,011 22,315 All High-poverty schools 21,685 2,473 3,326 2,590 3,125 10,171 All Schools with 75%+ students of color 26,933 3,121 3,957 3,211 4,057 12,587 All Schools with 20%+ English learners 12,273 1,372 1,663 1,408 1,633 6,199 All Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities 7,867 1,268 1,515 889 1,186 3,009 All Rural schools 6,294 1,453 1,566 957 790 1,529 All Urban schools 26,360 2,915 2,977 2,377 3,176 14,914

Traditional

Traditional schools 40,136 8,463 8,314 5,049 5,005 13,305 Traditional High-poverty schools 15,663 2,320 2,920 1,998 2,132 6,293 Traditional Schools with 75%+ students of color 18,299 2,873 3,378 2,385 2,679 6,983 Traditional Schools with 20%+ English learners 10,193 1,297 1,534 1,228 1,313 4,821 Traditional Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities 6,163 1,225 1,414 721 891 1,911 Traditional Rural schools 5,646 1,413 1,528 889 664 1,151 Traditional Urban schools 17,003 2,678 2,420 1,571 1,827 8,507

Charter

Charter schools 13,729 516 910 1,287 2,006 9,010 Charter High-poverty schools 6,022 153 406 592 993 3,878 Charter Schools with 75%+ students of color 8,634 248 579 826 1,377 5,604 Charter Schools with 20%+ English learners 2,080 75 129 180 320 1,377 Charter Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities 1,704 43 101 169 295 1,097 Charter Rural schools 648 40 38 67 126 378 Charter Urban schools 9,357 237 557 806 1,349 6,407

Notes: Traditional schools are schools that are not charter schools. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14 and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.
40

Exhibit A.16. Number of uncertified teachers, by percentage of uncertified teachers in the school and by school 

characteristics: 2013–14 

Type of School Total <5%

5% to 

<10%

10% to 

<15%

15% to 

<25%

25% or 

more

By percentage of students eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch 

High (75% or more) percentage of st ude nts eligi ble for free or re duced-pri ce lunch 21,685 2,473 3,326 2,590 3,125 10,171

Medium-high (50% to less than 75%) percentage of students eligi ble for free or re duced-pri ce lunch 13,020 2,677 2,591 1,624 1,743 4,385

Medium-low (35% to less than 50%) percentage of stude nts eligi ble for free or re duced-pri ce lunch 6,260 1,461 1,269 729 609 2,192

Low (less than 35%) per centag e of student s eligible for free or reduce d-price l unch 10,293 2,309 1,898 1,287 1,290 3,510

By percentage of students of color

High (75% or more) percentage of st ude nts of color 26,933 3,121 3,957 3,211 4,057 12,587

Medium (25% to less than 75%) per centag e of st ude nts of color 18,701 4,094 3,854 2,334 2,058 6,361

Low (less than 25%) per centag e of student s of col or 8,231 1,763 1,414 791 896 3,367

By percentage of English learners

High (20% or more) percentage of E nglish l earner s 12,273 1,372 1,663 1,408 1,633 6,199

Medium (5% to less than 20%) per centag e of English learners 14,435 2,619 2,848 1,823 1,924 5,221

Low (more than 0 to less than 5%) percentag e of English lear ners 19,173 4,352 3,666 2,305 2,464 6,388

No ELs 7,983 637 1,047 801 990 4,509

By percentage of students with disabilities

High (20% or more) percentage of st ude nts wit h disa bilities 7,867 1,268 1,515 889 1,186 3,009

Medium (10% to less than 20%) per centag e of st ude nts with disa bilities 29,148 5,922 5,935 4,047 4,033 9,211

Low (less than 10%) per centag e of student s with di sabiliti es 16,851 1,789 1,774 1,400 1,792 10,096

By urbanicity

Urban 26,360 2,915 2,977 2,377 3,176 14,914

Suburban 16,664 3,787 3,729 2,400 2,541 4,206

Town 3,346 790 878 536 371 771

Rural 6,294 1,453 1,566 957 790 1,529

By school size

Very large (more than 600 students) school size 27,375 6,484 5,753 3,473 3,331 8,335

Medium-Large (401 to 600 students) school size 12,220 1,604 1,857 1,434 1,688 5,636

Medium-small (201 to 400 students) school size 9,452 791 1,219 964 1,378 5,101

Small (200 or fewer students) school si ze 4,818 99 395 466 614 3,244

By school grade level

Elementary schools 24,089 3,504 3,890 3,039 3,177 10,479

Middle schools 7,807 1,787 1,559 997 1,003 2,461

High schools 15,240 3,316 3,146 1,678 1,679 5,422

Other/combined schools 6,695 371 625 615 1,147 3,936

Note: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14 and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.
41

Exhibit A.17. Percentage distribution of uncertified teachers, by percentage of uncertified teachers in the school and by 

school characteristics: 2013–14 

Ty

p

e 

of 

sc

h

o

ol

Type of school <5% 5% to <10%

10% to 

<15%

15% to 

<25%

25% or 

more

Al

l

All schools 17 17 12 13 41 Al

l

High-poverty schools 11 15 12 14 47 Al

l

Schools with 75%+ students of color 12 15 12 15 47 Al

l

Schools with 20%+ English learners 11 14 11 13 51 Al

l

Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities 16 19 11 15 38 Al

l

Rural schools 23 25 15 13 24

Al

l Urban schools 11 11 9 12 57

Tr

a

di

ti

o

n

al

Traditional schools 21 21 13 12 33 Tr

a

di

ti

o

n

al High-poverty schools 15 19 13 14 40 Tr

a

di

ti

o

n

al

Schools with 75%+ students of color 16 18 13 15 38 Tr

a

di

ti

o

n

al Schools with 20%+ English learners 13 15 12 13 47 Tr

a

di

ti

o

n

al

Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities 20 23 12 14 31 Tr

a

di

ti

o

n

al

Rural schools 25 27 16 12 20 Tr

a

di

ti

o

n

al

Urban schools 16 14 9 11 50

C

h

ar

te

r

Charter schools 4 7 9 15 66 C

h

ar

te

r High-poverty schools 3 7 10 16 64 C

h

ar

te

r Schools with 75%+ students of color 3 7 10 16 65 C

h

ar

te

r Schools with 20%+ English learners 4 6 9 15 66 C

h

ar

te

r Schools with 20%+ students with disabilities 3 6 10 17 64 C

h

ar

te

r Rural schools 6 6 10 19 58 C

h

ar

te

r

Urban schools 3 6 9 14 68

Notes: Traditional schools are schools that are not charter schools. Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14 and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.
42

Exhibit A.18. Percentage distribution of uncertified teachers, by percentage of uncertified teachers in the school and by 

school characteristics: 2013–14 

Type of School <5% 5% to <10%

10% to 

<15%

15% to 

<25%

25% or 

more

By percentage of students eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch 

High (75% or more) percentage of st ude nts eligi ble for free or re duced-pri ce lunch 11 15 12 14 47

Medium-high (50% to less than 75%) percentage of stude nts eligi ble for free or re duced-pri ce lunch 21 20 12 13 34

Medium-low (35% to less than 50%) percentage of stude nts eligi ble for free or re duced-pri ce lunch 23 20 12 10 35

Low (less than 35%) per centag e of student s eligible for free or reduce d-price l unch 22 18 13 13 34

By percentage of students of color

High (75% or more) percentage of st ude nts of color 12 15 12 15 47

Medium (25% to less than 75%) per centag e of st ude nts of color 22 21 12 11 34

Low (less than 25%) per centag e of student s of col or 21 17 10 11 41

By percentage of English learners

High (20% or more) percentage of E nglish l earner s 11 14 11 13 51

Medium (5% to less than 20%) per centag e of English learners 18 20 13 13 36

Low (more than 0 to less than 5%) percentag e of English lear ners 23 19 12 13 33

No ELs 8 13 10 12 56

By percentage of students with disabilities

High (20% or more) percentage of st ude nts wit h disa bilities 16 19 11 15 38

Medium (10% to less than 20%) per centag e of st ude nts with disa bilities 20 20 14 14 32

Low (less than 10%) per centage of students with di sabilities 11 11 8 11 60

By urbanicity

Urban 11 11 9 12 57

Suburban 23 22 14 15 25

Town 24 26 16 11 23

Rural 23 25 15 13 24

By school size

Very large (more than 600 students) school size 24 21 13 12 30

Medium-Large (401 to 600 students) school size 13 15 12 14 46

Medium-small (201 to 400 students) school size 8 13 10 15 54

Small (200 or fewer students) school si ze 2 8 10 13 67

By school grade level

Elementary schools 15 16 13 13 44

Middle schools 23 20 13 13 32

High schools 22 21 11 11 36

Other/combined schools 6 9 9 17 59

Note: Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14 and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.
43

Exhibit A.19. Percentage distribution of all teachers and uncertified teachers, by school characteristics: 2013–14

Type of School All teachers Uncertified teachers

By percentage of students eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch 

High (75% or more) percentage of st ude nts eligi ble for free or re duced-pri ce lunch 25 42

Medium-high (50% to less than 75%) percentage of stude nts eligi ble for free or re duced-pri ce lunch 28 25

Medium-low (35% to less than 50%) percentage of stude nts eligi ble for free or re duced-pri ce lunch 17 12

Low (less than 35%) per centag e of student s eligible for free or reduce d-price l unch 31 20

By percentage of students of color

High (75% or more) percentage of st ude nts of color 28 50

Medium (25% to less than 75%) per centag e of st ude nts of color 40 35

Low (less than 25%) per centag e of student s of col or 32 15

By percentage of English learners

High (20% or more) percentage of E nglish l earner s 15 23

Medium (5% to less than 20%) per centag e of English learners 26 27

Low (more than 0 to less than 5%) percentag e of English lear ners 47 36

No ELs 13 15

By percentage of students with disabilities

High (20% or more) percentage of st ude nts wit h disa bilities 14 15

Medium (10% to less than 20%) per centag e of st ude nts with disa bilities 64 54

Low (less than 10%) per centage of students with di sabilities 21 31

By urbanicity

Urban 29 50

Suburban 39 32

Town 12 6

Rural 20 12

By school size

Very large (more than 600 students) school size 54 51

Medium-Large (401 to 600 students) school size 25 23

Medium-small (201 to 400 students) school size 16 18

Small (200 or fewer students) school si ze 5 9

By school grade level

Elementary schools 49 45

Middle schools 19 15

High schools 28 28

Other/combined schools 4 12

Note: Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), 2013–14 and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2013–14.
Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation 

for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov