NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report July 1997

Job Satisfaction Among America’s

Teachers: Effects of Workplace

Conditions, Background

Characteristics, and Teacher

Compensation

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 97–XXX
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report July 1997

Job Satisfaction Among America’s

Teachers: Effects of Workplace

Conditions, Background

Characteristics, and Teacher

Compensation

Marianne Perie

David P. Baker

American Institutes for Research

Summer Whitener, Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 97–XXX
U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Ramon C. Cortines

Assistant Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Pascal D. Forgione, Jr.

Commissioner

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

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

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

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

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

education activities in foreign countries.

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

complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high quality data

to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data

users, and the general public.

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

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

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

hear from you. Please direct your comments to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208-5574

July 1997

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is

http://www.ed.gov/NCES/

Contact:

Summer Whitener

(202) 219-1368
i

Table of Contents

Highlights.................................................................................................................ix

Acknowledgments.....................................................................................................xi

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

Policy Context...........................................................................................................2

Data...........................................................................................................................5

Results ....................................................................................................................11

Distribution of teachers across levels of satisfaction...........................................11

Description of the most and least satisfied teachers............................................32

Multivariate analysis of satisfaction with teaching as a career.............................43

Discussion ...............................................................................................................51

Appendix A (Standard Error Tables)

Appendix B (Supplemental Regression Table)

Appendix C (Technical Notes)

Survey content.................................................................................................C-3

Target population and estimates for SASS .......................................................C-4

Sample design and implementation ...................................................................C-6

Data collection procedures.............................................................................C-13

Response rates...............................................................................................C-13

Imputation procedures...................................................................................C-22

Weighting ......................................................................................................C-22

Standard errors..............................................................................................C-23

Cautions concerning change estimates ...........................................................C-23

Definitions.....................................................................................................C-24

Technical Note on Specific Items...................................................................C-27

Technical Note on the Creation of Variables.................................................C-29

Technical Note on Item Response .................................................................C-31

Teacher Satisfaction Composite Scores..........................................................C-33

Formulae Used to Calculate Table 16 ............................................................C-37
ii

Appendix D (Schools and Staffing Survey Data Products)

References
iii

List of tables

Table 1Percent distribution of teachers across levels of satisfaction, by

school sector and school level ..................................................................................15

Table 2Percent distribution of public school teachers across levels of satisfaction,

by school level and selected school and classroom

characteristics: 1993–94 ........................................................................................20

Table 3Percent distribution of private school teachers across levels of satisfaction,

by school level and selected school and classroom

characteristics: 1993–94 ........................................................................................21

Table 4Percent distribution of public school teachers across levels of satisfaction,

by school level and selected teacher background characteristics: 1993–94..............24

Table 5Percent distribution of private school teachers across levels of satisfaction,

by school level and selected teacher background characteristics: 1993–94..............27

Table 6Percent of teachers across levels of satisfaction, by school sector,

school level, and teacher compensation factors: 1993–94 .......................................29

Table 7Percent distribution of public school teachers across levels of satisfaction,

by school level and selected attitudes and perceptions of

workplace conditions...............................................................................................31

Table 8Percent distribution of private school teachers across levels of satisfaction,

by school level and selected attitudes and perceptions of

workplace conditions...............................................................................................35

Table 9School sector and school level of the most and least

satisfied teachers .....................................................................................................38

Table 10Mean characteristics of the most and least satisfied teachers,

by school sector and level: 1993–94.......................................................................40

Table 11Percent distribution of the most and least satisfied public school teachers

across selected school and teacher background characteristics,

by school level .........................................................................................................42
iv

Table 12Percent distribution of the most and least satisfied private school teachers

across selected school and teacher background characteristics,

by school level ...........................................................................................................3

Table 13Percent of most and least satisfied teachers who agree with the following

statements, by school sector and level ......................................................................45

Table 14OLS estimates of teacher satisfaction regressed on school and

teacher background characteristics...........................................................................50

Table 15OLS estimates of teacher satisfaction regressed on policy relevant

workplace conditions and teacher compensation ......................................................52

Table 16Comparing associations between satisfaction and background

characteristics versus various types of workplace conditions....................................54

Table B1OLS estimates of teacher satisfaction regressed on school and

teacher background characteristics, workplace conditions and

teacher compensation ........................................................................................... B−3
v

Standard error tables

Table 1aStandard errors for percent distribution of teachers across levels of

satisfaction, by school sector and school level .......................................................A−3

Table 2aStandard errors for percent distribution of public school teachers across

levels of satisfaction, by school level and selected school and

classroom characteristics: 1993–94 .....................................................................A−4

Table 3aStandard errors for percent distribution of private school teachers across

levels of satisfaction, by school level and selected school and

classroom characteristics: 1993–94 .....................................................................A−5

Table 4aStandard errors for percent distribution of public school teachers across

levels of satisfaction, by school level and selected teacher

background characteristics: 1993–94 ..................................................................A−6

Table 5aStandard errors for percent distribution of private school teachers across

levels of satisfaction, by school level and selected teacher

background characteristics: 1993–94 ..................................................................A−7

Table 6aStandard errors for percent of teachers across levels of satisfaction,

by school sector, school level, and teacher compensation factors: 1993–94 ..........A−8

Table 7aStandard errors for percent distribution of public school teachers across

levels of satisfaction, by school level and selected attitudes and perceptions of

 workplace conditions...........................................................................................A−9

Table 8aStandard errors for percent distribution of private school teachers across

levels of satisfaction, by school level and selected attitudes and perceptions of

workplace conditions..........................................................................................A−10

Table 9aStandard errors for school sector and school level of the most

and least satisfied teachers .................................................................................A−11

Table 10aStandard errors for mean characteristics of the most and least satisfied

teachers, by school sector and level: 1993–94 ...................................................A−12
vi

Table 11adistribution of the most and least satisfied public school teachers across

selected school and teacher background characteristics, by

school level.........................................................................................................A−13

Table 12adistribution of the most and least satisfied private school teachers across

selected school and teacher background characteristics, by

school level.........................................................................................................A−14

Table 13aof most and least satisfied teachers who agree with the following

statements, by school sector and level .................................................................A−15

T−tests on percent of teachers with high levels of satisfaction, by school

sector, level, and selected attitudes and perceptions of

workplace conditions..........................................................................................A−16
vii

List of figures

Figure 1Percent distribution of teachers across levels of satisfaction,

by school sector and school level..............................................................................16

Figure 2Percent distribution of public elementary school teachers

across levels of satisfaction, by school size: 1993–94..............................................18

Figure 3Percent distribution of public elementary school teachers

across levels of satisfaction, by sex: 1993–94 .........................................................22

Figure 4Percent distribution of public secondary school teachers

across levels of satisfaction, by age: 1993–94 .........................................................23

Figure 5School sector and school level of the most and least

satisfied teachers......................................................................................................38
viii
ix

Highlights

• Administrative support and leadership, student behavior and school atmosphere,

and teacher autonomy are working conditions associated with teacher satisfaction;

the more favorable the working conditions were, the higher the satisfaction scores

were.

• Private school teachers tend to be more satisfied than public school teachers and

elementary school teachers tend to be more satisfied than secondary school

teachers, but this relationship is not nearly as strong as the finding that teachers

in any school setting who receive a great deal of parental support are more

satisfied than teachers who do not.

• In public schools, younger and less experienced teachers have higher levels of

satisfaction than older and more experienced teachers. In private schools, the

relationship is bipolar—the very youngest and very oldest teachers had the

highest levels of satisfaction as did the least and most experienced teachers.

• Although certain background variables, such as teacher’s age and years of

experience, are related to teacher satisfaction, they are not nearly as significant in

explaining the different levels of satisfaction as are the workplace condition

factors, such as administrative support, parental involvement, and teacher control

over classroom procedures.

• Teachers with greater autonomy show higher levels of satisfaction than teachers

who feel they have less autonomy. Administrative support, student behavior, and

feelings of control were consistently shown to be associated with teacher job

satisfaction.

• Teacher satisfaction showed a weak relationship with salary and benefits.

• Workplace conditions had a positive relationship with a teacher’s job satisfaction

regardless of whether a teacher is in a public or private school, or an elementary

or secondary school, and regardless of the teacher’s background characteristics or

the school demographics.

• The most satisfied secondary school teachers felt they had more parental support

and were less likely to have been threatened by students than the least satisfied

secondary school teachers.
x
xi

Acknowledgements

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

the Surveys and Cooperative Systems Group of NCES. Sharon Bobbitt, Peggy

Quinn, and Summer Whitener all served as Project Officers during various stages of

the report, and Daniel Kasprzyk was the Program Director.

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

helped with this report. Nancy Matheson researched and wrote the majority of the

Policy Context. Chuck Keil did a large portion of the programming which was much

appreciated. Mei Han assisted with the regression analysis and provided many helpful

comments. Michelle Bullwinkle served as the editor of the report. Don McLaughlin

directed the overall contract of which this report was one part and provided helpful

insights and suggestions.

Thanks are also due to several members of NCES, particularly to Marilyn McMillen

of the Surveys and Cooperative Systems Group and Sue Ahmed of the Statistical

Standards and Services Division. Mary Rollefson of the Surveys and Cooperative

Systems Group reviewed early drafts and helped with the design of this study.

Summer D. Whitener in the Surveys and Cooperative Systems Group also deserves

special recognition for her assistance in coordinating and organizing the release and

distribution of this report.

Finally, the efforts of the reviewers of this report are much appreciated. Their

conscientious reviews ensured the accuracy and thoroughness of this report.

Specifically, Debra Gerald of the Data Development and Longitudinal Studies Group

and William J. Fowler, Jr. Of the Surveys and Cooperative Systems Group provided

valuable feedback on the readability of the report. Eileen Sclan of Long Island

University also reviewed this report, and Ed Boe provided detailed comments

regarding the accuracy and the clarity of the report.
1

Introduction

A high−quality teaching staff is the cornerstone of a successful educational system.

Daily interaction between teachers and students is at the center of the educational

process; attracting and retaining high quality teachers is, thus, a primary necessity for

education in the United States. One step in developing a high quality faculty is

understanding the factors associated with teaching quality and retention. One of these

factors is job satisfaction, which has been studied widely by organizational researchers

and has been linked to organizational commitment1 as well as to organizational

performance2 (Ostroff, 1992 and Mathieu, 1991). Oftentimes it is not merely

satisfaction with the job but with the career in general that is important. Satisfaction

with teaching as a career is an important policy issue since it is associated with

teacher effectiveness which ultimately affects student achievement (Ashton and

Webb, 1986; Carnegie Task Force on Teaching, 1986). Because faculty are both the

largest cost and the largest human capital resource of a school system, understanding

factors that contribute to teacher satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) is essential to

improving the information base needed to support a successful educational system.

This report describes the satisfaction with teaching as a career of the nation’s

kindergarten through 12th grade teaching workforce and identifies some work-related

factors associated with satisfaction. Factors examined here include characteristics of

the school, as well as the workplace, the teacher’s background, salary, and other

benefits.

By focusing on workplace conditions, this report expands on the 1993 report

America’s Teachers: Profile of a Profession (Choy et al., 1993) that uncovered

several factors related to dissatisfaction and turnover, such as class size, school safety,

teacher autonomy, and isolation of the classroom. The data used to explore these

factors come from the 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), produced by the

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

In addition to a general description of job satisfaction among the nation’s K−12

teachers, the focus of this report is on identifying workplace conditions and

 

1

 Organizational commitment, in the context of job satisfaction, is the relative strength of a worker’s

identification and involvement in the organization in which he or she works.

2 Ostroff studied five areas of organizational performance related to schools, including academic

achievement, student behavior, student satisfaction, teacher turnover, and administrative performance.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

2

compensation factors that may be manipulated by policy to influence satisfaction with

teaching as a career. Satisfaction with teaching as a long-term career versus more

ephemeral satisfaction with a particular job during a career is a broader and, in some

ways, more important consideration for developing the nation’s teaching corps.

Workplace conditions that affect not just current job satisfaction, but satisfaction

with teaching as a career, need to be identified and examined by policy makers. If

these conditions can be modified through changes in policy, then it might be possible

to increase the satisfaction levels of the teaching force. For example, the analysis

below shows that teacher autonomy is positively associated with career satisfaction;

indicating a policy area that might be manipulated to increase teacher satisfaction. To

the degree that schools and school districts may be able to increase teachers’ control

over their classrooms and school-wide rules and regulations or hiring practices, they

may be able to increase long-term satisfaction among teachers. Several dozen such

workplace and compensation factors are examined as to each one’s relationship with

teacher job satisfaction.

The results are presented in three sections. The first describes the level of satisfaction

with teaching as a career among all kindergarten through 12th grade teachers,

reported by different teacher, school, and community, characteristics, such as

satisfaction levels of teachers from small schools compared to medium and large

schools. Additionally, the first section compares satisfaction levels among teachers

across workplace conditions, such as administrative support and student apathy

towards school. The second section contrasts characteristics of the most and the least

satisfied teachers. These first two sections describe teachers from public elementary

schools, public secondary schools, private elementary schools, and private secondary

schools separately. Using multivariate analyses, the third section presents the

comparison of the degree to which policy−relevant factors are related to satisfaction

with teaching as a career, controlling for those factors that are less likely to be

changed by policy, such as community, school, and teacher background

characteristics.

Policy Context

Job satisfaction is an affective reaction to an individual’s work situation. It can be

defined as an overall feeling about one’s job or career or in terms of specific facets of

the job or career (e.g., compensation, autonomy, coworkers) and it can be related to

specific outcomes, such as productivity (Rice, Gentile, and McFarlin, 1991). With

teachers, satisfaction with their career may have strong implications for student

learning. Specifically, a teacher’s satisfaction with his or her career may influence the

quality and stability of instruction given to students. Some researchers argue that

teachers who do not feel supported in their work may be less motivated to do their

best work in the classroom (Ostroff, 1992; and Ashton and Webb, 1986). In

addition, highly satisfied teachers are less likely to change schools or to leave the

teaching profession altogether than those who are dissatisfied with many areas of

their work life (Choy et al., 1993). These actions disrupt the school environment and
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

3

result in the shift of valuable educational resources away from actual instruction

towards costly staff replacement efforts.

What factors are associated with teacher satisfaction?

As is the case with all white-collar positions, both intrinsic and extrinsic factors affect

a teacher’s satisfaction.

Intrinsic factors. For teachers, intrinsic satisfaction can come from classroom

activities. Daily interactions with students inform teachers’ feelings about whether or

not students have learned something as a result of their teaching. Student

characteristics and perceptions of teacher control over the classroom environment

also are intrinsic factors affecting teacher satisfaction (Lee, Dedrick, and Smith,

1991). Several studies have found that these factors are related to both attrition and

satisfaction in teaching, as well as other professions (Boe and Gilford., 1992; Lee et

al., 1991). Advocates of professional autonomy claim that conferring professional

autonomy “...will enhance the attractiveness of the [teaching] profession as a career

choice and will improve the quality of classroom teaching and practice.” (Boe and

Gilford, 1992, p. 36)

Intrinsic factors may play a role in motivating individuals to enter the teaching

profession, since most teachers enter the profession because they enjoy teaching and

want to work with young people. Very few teachers enter the profession because of

external rewards such as salary, benefits, or prestige (Choy, et al., 1993, p. 126).

However, while intrinsic forces may motivate people to become teachers, extrinsic

conditions can influence their satisfaction in this position and their desire to remain

in teaching throughout their career.

Extrinsic factors. A variety of extrinsic factors have been associated with teacher

satisfaction, including salary, perceived support from administrators, school safety,

and availability of school resources, among others (Bobbitt et al., 1994; Choy et al.,

1993). These and other characteristics of a teacher’s work environment have been

targeted by public commissions, researchers, and educators who claim that “poor

working conditions have demoralized the teaching profession” (Choy, et al., 1993,

p.137). These groups (i.e., public commissions, researchers, and educators) believe

that when teachers perceive a lack of support for their work, they are not motivated

to do their best in the classroom, and that when teachers are not satisfied with their

working conditions, they are more likely to change schools or to leave the profession

altogether (ibid).

What outcomes are associated with teacher satisfaction?

Teacher satisfaction has been linked to teacher attrition, as have some factors

associated with satisfaction (e.g., teacher control, student behavior). According to a

recent NCES report, approximately 5 percent of public school teachers and 12
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

4

percent of private school teachers, on average, left the teaching field after both the

1987-88 and the 1990-91 school years (Bobbitt et al., 1994). While many left the

profession for family reasons or to retire, 20 percent of public school leavers and 28

percent of private school leavers left because they wanted to pursue other career

opportunities, they were dissatisfied with the profession, or because they desired

better salaries or benefits Of the teachers who reported being dissatisfied with

teaching as a career, the majority specified concerns with inadequate support from the

administration and poor student motivation to learn. However, the report cited here

examines the satisfaction of teachers who are currently in the teaching workforce and

compares it to those who just left the teaching profession, as opposed to predicting

which of the teachers currently in the teaching corps will leave.

Other recent research links turnover to school quality and cohesion as well as to

school sector and size (Ingersoll and Alsalam, 1996 and Lee et al., 1991). Salary is

only slightly related and benefits are unrelated to staff turnover. Furthermore, among

teachers with similar levels of salary and similar benefits, other workplace conditions

are found to be related to turnover, including the degree of faculty influence over

school policy, control over classroom decisions, and the degree of student misbehavior

(Ingersoll et al., 1995).

While the slight relationship between salary and turnover may seem counterintuitive,

a similar finding exists between salary and both teacher satisfaction and commitment.

Specifically, researchers have found only a limited impact of such incentives and

rewards as high salaries and merit increases on teacher commitment and satisfaction.

In fact, low salaries can be associated with increased organizational commitment

because workers with such salaries may develop other rationales for remaining at

their job (Firestone, 1990).

It is important to keep in mind that increasing teacher satisfaction will not eliminate

attrition, as some attrition is natural. However, it is important to study teachers who

left the profession because they were dissatisfied with some aspect of the job. This

type of analysis might help identify ways to alter negative types of teacher turnover.

Do specific teacher and school characteristics relate to their satisfaction?

Although organizational factors related to teacher satisfaction are often the focus of

research efforts, several teacher and school characteristics are also related to

satisfaction. For instance, research examining the satisfaction of public and private

school teachers indicates that teaching in a private school is associated with greater

job satisfaction on average. Similarly, elementary school teachers tend to be more

likely to be highly satisfied with their working conditions than secondary school

teachers (Choy et al., 1993).
5

Data

This report analyzes NCES 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), a large

and comprehensive dataset on elementary and secondary schools, teachers, and

principals in both the public and private sectors in the United States. SASS includes a

wide range of information on the characteristics, work, career plans, and attitudes of

administrators and faculty, and the characteristics of schools and districts across the

country. (See technical appendix C for details.)

SASS uses a complex and random sample of schools stratified by state, sector, and

school level that provides estimates representative of the nation and each affiliation

for private schools and of the nation and each state for public schools. SASS includes

separate questionnaires for private and public schools, school districts (public only),

school administrators, and teachers.

This report focuses on both elementary school teachers and secondary school

teachers and on both public and private school teachers. Elementary school teachers

are defined as those that teach in a school that has grade six or lower and no grade

higher than eighth grade; secondary school teachers are defined as those in schools

having grade nine or higher and no grade lower than seventh grade. In addition, the

analysis in this report was restricted to full-time, regular classroom teachers. This

analysis consisted of three parts. First, an index of satisfaction with teaching as a

career was created using several items from the teacher questionnaire. Second, the

index was used for descriptive analyses of teacher satisfaction by teacher, school, and

classroom characteristics. Specifically, the report will focus on workplace conditions,

such as teacher autonomy, school safety, and parental and administrative support.

Third, a multivariate analysis of teacher satisfaction was conducted in order to

demonstrate which workplace conditions and teacher compensation factors are most

strongly associated with teacher satisfaction after controlling for teacher background

characteristics.

The satisfaction index was created using Item Response Theory (IRT)3, as this

process allowed us to see how strongly each of the questions correlated with teacher

satisfaction and how the response alternatives differed from each other.

 

3

 See the technical appendix for a full explanation of the IRT analysis.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

6

The satisfaction index was determined from three questions from the teacher

questionnaire:

• How long do you plan to remain in teaching?

• If you could go back to your college days would you choose teaching as a

career again?

• To what degree to you agree or disagree with the statement “I sometimes

feel it is a waste of my time to try to do my best as a teacher”?

The first question concerning plans to remain in teaching has five possible responses:

1. As long as I am able

2. Until I am eligible for retirement

3. I’ll continue teaching unless something better comes along

4. I definitely plan to leave teaching

5. Undecided at this time

The fifth response, “undecided,” was coded as missing in this analysis as it did not fit

the ordered response assumption4.

The second question about whether teachers would pick teaching as a career if they

could do it all over again had five possible responses:

1. Certainly would

2. Probably would

3. Chances about even

4. Probably would not

5. Certainly would not

The third question about teachers’ feelings about wasting their time trying to do their

best was coded on a four point Likert scale:

1. Strongly agree

2. Somewhat agree

3. Somewhat disagree

4. Strongly disagree

 

4

 Including it as an ordered response did not change the results dramatically, but it was decided that the

response should be coded as missing to avoid any misinterpretation.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

7

A fourth item, “I am satisfied with my teaching salary,” was included in the initial

analyses but was later dropped because it was found to be unrelated to the other three

items and a poor predictor of teacher satisfaction for all teachers.

An IRT analysis was conducted using the remaining three items to create a

satisfaction score for each teacher. hese scores were used to group teachers’

satisfaction as “high” “moderate” and “low.”

The teachers were then divided into three groups. Approximately 34 percent of the

teachers within the group identified as having a low level of satisfaction indicated that

they are not sure that they would choose teaching as a career again. A majority of this

group also agreed that they felt it was a waste of their time to try to do their best as a

teacher. n the other end of the scale, approximately 32 percent of the teachers

indicated that they certainly would become a teacher again if given the opportunity.

These teachers also planned on remaining in teaching at least until retirement. his

group was identified as having a high level of satisfaction. The 35 percent of teachers

who fell between these other two groups were identified as having a moderate level of

satisfaction. The first section of this report examines the percent of teachers with

varying characteristics who fall into each of the three levels of satisfaction.

It is worth noting that over 20 percent of teachers gave the most positive responses

for all of the questions, and almost 9 percent gave extremely negative responses.

These extreme groups are examined in the second section of this report to determine

what, if any, outstanding characteristics define them. he primary difference between

section one and section two, besides the difference in the population, is that in the

first section, teacher satisfaction is the dependent variable with the analysis seeking to

determine whether teachers with different characteristics are more likely to express

different levels of satisfaction. In the second section, however, teacher satisfaction is

the independent variable in the analysis which attempts to describe teachers with very

high and very low levels of satisfaction. In neither case should readers draw causal

inferences from the associations.

In each of the first two sections, data from teachers were analyzed based on four

clusters of variables: school characteristics, teacher background characteristics,

workplace conditions, and teacher compensation. The specific variables within each

cluster are as follows:

• School characteristics—School sector, school level, community type,

school size, class size, percent of students who are minority, and percent of

students eligible for free or reduced price lunches;

• Teacher background characteristics—age, sex, race/ethnicity, years

teaching experience, education, background, grade level taught, and main

teaching field;

• Workplace conditions—administrative support, student behavior, decision

making roles, parental support, amount of paperwork and routine duties,
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

8

availability of resources, communication with principal, cooperation

among the staff, staff recognition, control in classroom, influence over

school policy, student absenteeism, student apathy, and violence; and

• Teacher compensation—salaries, benefits, and other opportunities within

the school for income (such as coaching or mentoring), and outside

employment

Although the meaning of most of these variables is obvious, teacher perceptions may

need further explanation. From a list of 25 statements to which teachers indicated the

degree to which they either agreed or disagreed on a four point Likert scale, nine

items were chosen.5 Three of the items—administrative support, availability of

resources, and cooperation among the staff—were chosen because prior research

indicated that each is associated with teacher satisfaction. The other six were selected

because there was great variation in how teachers responded to them. In other words,

similar percentages of teachers agreed with the statement as disagreed, allowing for a

high degree of discrimination. The last five variables—control in classroom, influence

over school policy, student absenteeism, student apathy, and violence—were selected

because they are mentioned as factors for teachers leaving the profession in the

literature mentioned above. The measures for control in classroom and influence over

school policy were created from a subset of questions regarding these issues.6 For the

last items, teachers were asked to what extent student absenteeism and student apathy

were problems, and how often they have encountered a violent situation.

Cross tabulations were run on all of these characteristics to describe satisfaction

levels of teachers with varying characteristics and to provide a profile of teachers with

very high and very low levels of satisfaction. Chi−square tests and Pearson

correlations were run on the first set of analysis to determine the relationship

between the various characteristics and satisfaction, and t-tests with Bonferroni

adjustments were used to test specific relationships. T−tests with Bonferroni

adjustments were used in the second section to determine if there were any

differences between the most and least satisfied teachers. These tests first show how

teachers with different background characteristics, working in different types of

schools, and with different perceptions of workplace conditions vary in terms of

satisfaction. They also show how highly satisfied teachers differ from teachers with

low levels of satisfaction.

Finally, the effects of workplace conditions were examined while holding constant

teacher background and school characteristics. OLS multiple regressions were used to

estimate independent contributions of different factors to variation in teacher

satisfaction. The OLS estimates were compared across a series of models. First, a

background model of data about the schools and teachers was established. The

background model consists of just those variables which are extremely difficult to

 

5

 The four point Likert scale includes the following response categories: Strongly agree, somewhat agree,

somewhat disagree, and strongly disagree. See technical appendix for a list of all variables analyzed.

6

 See technical appendix for an explanation of exactly how the measures were created.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

9

influence by policy. These variables include some school characteristics (i.e., control

of school, school level, community type, school size, percent minority, and percent

free lunch) and some teacher variables (i.e., sex, race/ethnicity, age, years teaching

experience, grade level taught, and main teacher field). While the race, sex, or age

composition of the teaching force might be altered by equal employment opportunity

initiatives or changes in retirement age, these changes, and others in the background

data, are at best likely to result in very gradual changes at the national level. By

controlling for these variables, it can be determined which policy relevant variables

make a difference across all school types and all teachers. Each model therefore

includes the background variables in order to determine which policy relevant

variables influence teacher satisfaction after controlling for variables that cannot be

influenced by policy.

Estimates of this report are based on samples, and hence, are subject to sampling

errors. Standard errors indicating the accuracy of selected estimates are included in

appendix B. All comparisons and differences discussed in the report were tested for

statistical significance at the .05 level and only reported if they met this criterion for

significance.
10
11

Results

Results are presented in three sections, summarizing the findings of the relationship

between workplace conditions and teacher satisfaction.

Section 1: Distribution of teachers across levels of satisfaction

For the first analysis, teachers were divided into three levels of satisfaction based on

their score on a continuum of satisfaction with teaching as a career.7 Approximately

34 percent of the teachers gave responses (3, 4, or 5), indicating that they are not

sure that they would choose teaching as a career again. A majority of this group also

agreed that they felt it was a waste of their time to try to do their best as a teacher.

This group was identified as having a low level of satisfaction. On the other end of

the scale, approximately 32 percent of the teachers indicated that they certainly

would become a teacher again if given the opportunity. These teachers also planned

on remaining in teaching at least until retirement. This group was identified as having

a high level of satisfaction. The 35 percent of teachers who fell between these other

two groups were identified as having a moderate level of satisfaction.

The purpose of this section is to determine the satisfaction levels of teachers with

different background characteristics, teaching in different schools, with different

perceptions of workplace conditions, and receiving different levels of compensation.

The percent of teachers with varying characteristics who fall into each of the three

levels of satisfaction are examined along with differences across subgroups of teachers

and among various school and community types and differences between teachers

who report different work place conditions. Overall, although there are differences in

satisfaction between elementary and secondary teachers and between public and

private school teachers, most school, classroom, and teacher background variables are

only weakly associated with satisfaction with teaching as a career. Instead, workplace

conditions relate more strongly with satisfaction.

 

7

 The definitions of high, moderate, and low satisfaction were developed so that the total population of

teachers is fairly evenly distributed between the three levels.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

12

Table 1 presents the percentage of all teachers who have high, moderate, and low

levels of satisfaction separately by school sector and school level.8 This distribution

provides a reference point for the other distributions when the total teacher

population is described in terms of the different categories.

Table 1— Percent distribution of teachers across levels of satisfaction, by

school sector and school level: 1993–94

Level of satisfaction

Characteristic High Moderate Low

TOTAL 33.8 34.5 31.7

School sector

Public 32.0 34.6 33.4

Private 47.6 34.3 18.0

School level

Elementary 36.2 35.3 28.5

Secondary 27.8 33.7 38.5

Combined 40.1 34.6 25.3

Table reads: 32.0 percent of public school teachers had a high level of satisfaction

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

Survey 1993–94

How do levels of satisfaction differ between public and private schools and

between elementary and secondary schools?

Figure 1 shows the distribution of teachers across the different levels of satisfaction

for teachers of different sectors and school levels. Private schools have a higher

concentration of teachers with high levels of satisfaction, while public school teachers

are distributed fairly evenly across the three levels of satisfaction. The public school

finding is mostly an artifact of the way the teachers were divided equally into the

three categories. Because the public school teachers comprise over 80 percent of the

total teacher population, the categorization of satisfaction levels more directly affects

public school than private school teachers. Elementary school teachers and teachers

teaching in combined schools tend to be categorized as having high or moderate levels

of satisfaction, while secondary school teachers fall more heavily in the moderate and

low satisfaction categories. In summary, both table 1 and figure 1 indicate that private

school teachers are more satisfied than public school teachers, and elementary school

teachers are more satisfied than secondary school teachers.9 Because of the

differences found between public and private school teachers and between elementary

 

8

 All teachers have been placed into one of the three categories, so in Tables 1-8, each row will add up to

100 percent.

9

 An analysis of the mean satisfaction scores of public and private and of elementary and secondary school

teachers also shows significant differences between the groups.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

13

and secondary school teachers, the remaining tables report results separately by sector

and level.

Figure 1 Percent distribution of teachers across levels of satisfaction, by

school sector and school level: 1993−94

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

 Public Private Elementary Secondary Combined

School sector School level 

Percent

Level of satisfaction: High Level of satisfaction: Moderate Level of satisfaction: Low

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

Survey 1993−94, Teacher Questionnaire.

How do satisfaction levels differ for teachers teaching in schools in different

communities, with different school sizes, and with different student populations?

Different variables are associated with teacher satisfaction in each of the four teacher

populations. Table 2 presents the level of satisfaction for public school teachers

across different communities, school types and student populations. Table 3 presents

the same for private school teachers. Many factors show no relationship at all with

teacher satisfaction, while other variables are only important to certain

subpopulations of teachers; however, the relationship between background variables

and teacher satisfaction tends to be weak, even when significant.10

For public elementary school teachers, different distributions of satisfaction are

shown for teachers teaching in schools with different community types, percent of

minority students, and percent of students on free or reduced price lunch plans. As

seen in figure 2, schools in urban fringe areas have a higher proportion of highly

 

10 For example, the percent of minority students enrolled is associated with satisfaction at both levels of

public school; however, the correlation between percent minority enrollment and satisfaction is only -.06

in elementary schools and -.04 in secondary schools.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

14

satisfied teachers than schools in central cities. Central city teachers are evenly

distributed between the different levels of satisfaction, while small town and rural

teachers are primarily divided between the high and moderate categories with less

than 30 percent of the teachers falling into the low satisfaction category, indicating

that there are more satisfied teachers in urban fringe, small town, and rural areas than

in central cities.

Figure 2 Percent distribution of public elementary school teachers

across levels of satisfaction, by community type: 1993−94

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Central city Urban fringe Small town/rural

Community type

Percent distribution

Low satisfaction

Moderate satisfaction

High satisfaction

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

Survey 1993−94, Teacher Questionnaire.

Student characteristics are also moderately associated with teacher satisfaction.

Almost three-fourths of public elementary teachers who teach in low minority

schools fall into either the high or moderate satisfaction categories, while public

elementary teachers in high minority schools tend to be distributed more evenly

across the three levels of satisfaction with about two-thirds falling into either the high

or moderate satisfaction categories. Also, public elementary teachers in schools with

smaller percentages of students on the free or reduced price lunch plan are more

likely to be categorized as highly satisfied than those with higher percentages of

students on the plan. Finally, either similar or higher percentages of kindergarten

teachers are classified as having high levels of satisfaction compared to the other grade

levels. A large proportion of first through fourth grade teachers also have high levels

of satisfaction; relatively more first through fourth grade teachers are in the high

level of satisfaction than fifth through eighth grade teachers (see table 2).

Public secondary school teachers do not differ across the various school and

classroom characteristics as much as their elementary counterparts do. Overall,

secondary school teachers are less satisfied than elementary school teachers, and this

does not change with different school characteristics. The one exception is the
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

15

percentage of students receiving free and reduced price lunches. Teachers in schools

with less than five percent of the student population on the free lunch plan are

slightly more likely to have high levels of satisfaction, while teachers in schools with

20 percent or more students on the free lunch plan are more likely to have low levels

of satisfaction.

In private schools, no school or classroom characteristics are associated with

satisfaction at either the elementary or secondary level. The characteristics associated

with satisfaction for public school elementary teachers are not as strong for private

school teachers, although this lack of relationship could be due to smaller sample sizes

in the private school data (see table 3).
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

16

Table 2— Percent distribution of public school teachers across levels of satisfaction, by

school level and selected school and classroom characteristics: 1993–94

Elementary school teachers Secondary school teachers

School and classroom High Moderate Low High Moderate Low

characteristics satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction

TOTAL 34.9 35.4 29.7 26.7 33.7 39.6

Community type

Central city 32.4 34.7 32.9 25.6 33.0 41.3

Urban fringe 37.4 35.1 27.6 27.9 34.9 37.2

Small town/rural 34.8 36.2 29.0 26.4 33.3 40.3

School size

Less than 150 34.6 41.5 23.9 29.2 33.6 37.3

150–499 37.0 35.2 27.8 26.8 32.9 40.3

500–749 35.2 35.2 29.5 26.5 32.5 41.0

750 or larger 30.6 35.3 34.0 26.6 34.3 39.2

Percent of students who are minorities

Less than 20 percent 37.3 35.7 27.0 27.2 34.3 38.5

20 percent or more 32.5 35.1 32.4 26.1 33.1 40.8

Percent of students receiving free/

reduced price lunch

Less than 5 percent 39.1 34.6 26.3 28.8 34.8 36.5

5–19 percent 36.0 35.9 28.2 26.4 34.8 38.8

20 percent or more 33.8 35.4 30.9 25.9 32.2 41.9

Grade level taught

Kindergarten 42.5 36.8 20.7 — — —

Grades 1–4 37.1 35.4 27.5 — — —

Grades 5–8 30.9 34.5 34.6 26.9 34.1 39.0

Grades 9–12 — — — 26.3 34.0 39.7

Multiple grade levels 34.9 36.1 29.0 28.1 32.5 39.4

Main teaching field

General 37.3 35.2 27.5 42.1 28.5 29.4

English/reading/language arts 34.2 34.2 31.6 25.2 34.0 40.8

Arithmetic/mathematics 27.2 36.1 36.7 25.4 33.8 40.8

Social studies/history 25.7 34.6 39.7 26.9 34.1 39.0

Science 31.0 36.4 32.6 22.4 32.7 44.9

Foreign language 23.4 41.2 35.4 25.9 32.6 41.5

Art or music 29.9 33.3 36.8 29.3 34.9 35.8

Vocational/technical 24.0 38.2 37.8 24.7 33.5 41.7

Special education 32.2 37.8 29.9 31.4 34.4 34.2

Bilingual or ESL education 37.6 40.6 21.7 30.0 27.1 42.6

Other 34.6 33.0 32.4 29.8 33.9 36.2

—Not applicable.

Table reads: 32.4 percent of public elementary school teachers in central cities have a high level of satisfaction.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher Questionnaire.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

17

Table 3— Percent distribution of private school teachers across levels of satisfaction, by

school level and selected school and classroom characteristics: 1993–94

Elementary school teachers Secondary school teachers

School and classroom High Moderate Low High Moderate Low

characteristics satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction

TOTAL 49.7 34.4 15.9 44.4 32.9 22.7

Community type

Central city 50.1 33.7 16.3 46.5 29.0 24.5

Urban fringe 50.3 35.8 13.9 45.0 34.0 20.9

Small town/rural 47.5 33.0 19.5 37.3 41.2 21.5

School size

Less than 150 49.3 36.0 14.7 43.9 29.1 27.0

150–499 49.3 33.7 17.0 43.7 33.3 23.0

500–749 53.2 36.1 10.7 47.9 32.6 19.5

750 or larger 51.1 30.0 19.0 43.3 34.1 22.6

Percent of students who are minorities

Less than 20 percent 50.3 34.2 15.5 43.4 34.4 22.2

20 percent or more 48.2 34.9 16.9 46.3 30.2 23.5

Percent of students receiving free/

reduced price lunch

Less than 5 percent 50.0 34.0 16.0 45.3 33.0 21.7

5–19 percent 49.5 35.7 14.9 31.6 37.8 30.6

20 percent or more 47.7 35.1 17.2 55.4 22.5 22.1

Grade level taught

Kindergarten 53.6 37.6 8.9 — — —

Grades 1–4 52.2 34.7 13.1 — — —

Grades 5–8 47.1 32.6 20.4 0.0 41.0 0.0

Grades 9–12 — — — 44.2 33.7 22.1

Multiple grade levels 46.9 34.5 18.5 41.1 31.4 27.5

Main teaching field

General 50.5 35.6 13.9 — — —

English/reading/language arts 48.2 33.6 18.1 42.9 31.4 25.7

Arithmetic/mathematics 53.5 29.8 16.37 44.4 32.2 23.4

Social studies/history 48.9 27.4 23.7 35.0 47.9 17.1

Science 37.5 37.6 24.9 40.4 36.9 22.8

Foreign language 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.5 35.2 28.3

Art or music 35.8 34.2 30.0 49.0 25.4 25.7

Vocational/technical 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.6 32.8 20.6

Special education 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.9 9.6 24.5

Bilingual or ESL education 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other 49.4 28.7 21.9 50.4 30.4 19.2

—Not applicable.

Table reads: 50.1 percent of private elementary school teachers in central cities have a high level of satisfaction.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher Questionnaire.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

18

How does satisfaction differ for public school teachers with different backgrounds

and for those teaching in different types of classrooms?

As table 4 shows, satisfaction with teaching as a career varies across some teacher

characteristics of public school teachers such as gender, race, age, and experience. For

example, as seen in figure 3, in both elementary and secondary schools, there are

relatively more female than male teachers in the high satisfaction category and

relatively more male than female teachers in the low satisfaction categories.

Figure 3 Percent distribution of public elementary school teachers

across levels of satisfaction, by sex: 1993−94

Male

Moderate 

satisfaction

35%

Low 

satisfaction

37%

High 

satisfaction

28%

Female

High

satisfaction

37%

Moderate

satisfaction

35%

Low

satisfaction

28%

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

Survey: 1993−94, Teacher Questionnaire.

In public elementary schools, teachers report fairly similar levels of satisfaction,

although Hispanic teachers tend to cluster a little more towards the high levels of

satisfaction, while Native American teachers tend to cluster a little more towards the

low satisfaction category. At the secondary level, relatively more Hispanic and Asian

teachers than white teachers are categorized as having high levels of satisfaction.

Age and experience are negatively related to satisfaction. Young teachers are more

likely to be categorized as having high levels of satisfaction than older teachers. For

example, as seen in figure 4, 35 percent of public secondary school teachers who are

under 30 years old have high levels of satisfaction, while less than 25 percent of

teachers 40 years old and older have high levels of satisfaction.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

19

Figure 4 Percent distribution of public secondary school teachers

across levels of satisfaction, by age: 1993−94

Under 30

High

satisfaction

35%

Moderate

satisfaction

33%

Low

satisfaction

32%

Over 49

High

satisfaction

24%

Moderate

satisfaction

34%

Low

satisfaction

42%

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

Survey: 1993−94, Teacher Questionnaire.

Accompanying this finding for age is a similar finding that less experienced teachers

are more satisfied than more experienced teachers. Generally, public secondary

teachers with 3 years of experience or less tend to have higher levels of satisfaction

than those with 4 to 9 years of experience, who in turn, are more likely to have high

levels of satisfaction than those with 10 to 19 years of experience. Teachers with 20

years of experience or more are less likely to be categorized as highly satisfied than

any other group of teachers.11 Although these findings are all statistically significant,

many of the differences are not large. As a result, few teacher characteristics stand

out as being strongly associated with satisfaction.

 

11 With the exception of elementary school teachers with 10-19 years of experience, who report similar

levels of satisfaction as those with more than 20 years experience.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

20

Table 4— Percent distribution of public school teachers across levels of satisfaction, by

school level and selected teacher background characteristics: 1993–94

Elementary school teachers Secondary school teachers

High Moderate Low High Moderate Low

Characteristic satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction

TOTAL 34.9 35.4 29.7 26.7 33.7 39.6

Sex

Male 27.5 35.1 37.4 25.5 33.6 41.0

Female 36.3 35.4 28.3 27.8 33.9 38.3

Race/ethnicity of teacher

White, non–Hispanic 34.5 35.8 29.7 26.1 33.9 40.0

Black, non–Hispanic 37.1 31.0 31.9 30.4 34.3 35.3

Hispanic 37.7 36.9 25.4 32.3 30.7 37.0

Native American 33.9 31.1 35.0 26.8 32.9 40.3

Asian/Pacific Islander 35.6 34.5 29.9 38.0 28.8 33.2

Age

Under 30 44.1 32.6 23.3 35.4 33.0 31.6

30–39 37.0 35.2 27.8 30.2 34.2 35.6

40–49 32.0 35.3 32.7 25.0 33.8 41.2

Over 49 34.4 36.7 28.9 24.4 33.6 42.0

Highest degree earned

High school diploma — — — 29.2 32.0 38.8

Associate degree — — — 18.4 41.8 39.8

Bachelor’s degree 36.3 35.6 28.1 27.7 33.8 38.4

Master’s degree 32.7 35.7 31.6 25.5 33.6 41.0

Educational specialist or

 professional diploma 38.8 29.2 32.0 27.2 34.8 37.9

Doctorate or first

 professional degree 24.1 34.4 41.5 29.9 30.3 39.8

Years of teaching experience

3 years or less 46.7 32.9 20.4 36.1 34.9 29.0

4–9 years 37.3 34.2 28.5 30.6 33.1 36.3

10–19 years 32.8 36.0 31.2 26.1 34.0 39.9

20 years or more 31.3 36.4 32.3 22.8 33.5 43.6

Class size

1-10 34.1 35.9 30.0 28.0 33.5 38.5

11-18 35.2 35.1 29.7 25.7 34.3 40.1

19-27 35.4 34.6 30.0 25.7 34.4 39.9

28 or more 3.8 36.7 29.5 28.2 32.7 39.1

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate

Table reads: 27.5 percent of male public elementary school teachers have high levels of education.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher Questionnaire.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

21

Teachers with small classes were not noticeably more likely than other teachers to be

highly satisfied. Likewise, there were no strong differences in satisfaction levels for

teachers with different education backgrounds. Only sex, race/ethnicity, age, and

teaching experience were associated with satisfaction.

Do these findings about teacher background characteristics hold true for private

school teachers as well?

Although there are relatively few associations between background characteristics

and satisfaction with teaching as a career among public school teachers, even fewer

teacher background characteristics are associated with teacher satisfaction for private

schools teachers than for public school teachers. Moreover, no background

characteristic was found to be associated with private school teacher satisfaction at

the secondary level. The only relationships were found at the elementary level and

only between satisfaction and a teacher’s age, sex, and years teaching experience.

Similar to public elementary schools, private elementary schools had a greater

percentage of female teachers than male teachers classified as having high levels of

satisfaction. Over half of the female private school teachers have high levels of

satisfaction, compared to about 43 percent of male teachers. Unlike the findings for

public schools, the race/ethnicity of the teacher was not strongly associated with

teacher satisfaction.

Once again, there is a relationship between age and teacher satisfaction, but the

relationship is different for private elementary school teachers than it is for public

school teachers. Both the youngest and the oldest private elementary school teachers

were concentrated in the high satisfaction category. The teachers least likely to be

classified as highly satisfied were those who were between 40 and 49 years of age.

Similarly, teachers with 3 years of experience or less and those with 20 years or more

had the greatest percentage of their population in the high satisfaction category, 53

and 54 percent, respectively.

Sex, age, and years experience were the only teacher background characteristics

associated with satisfaction for private school teachers, and only at the elementary

level. Once again, highest degree earned and class size were not significantly

associated with teacher satisfaction, nor was race/ethnicity.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

22

Table 5— Percent distribution of private school teachers across levels of satisfaction, by

school level and selected teacher background characteristics: 1993–94

Elementary school teachers Secondary school teachers

High Moderate Low High Moderate Low

Characteristic satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction

TOTAL 49.7 34.4 15.9 44.4 32.9 22.7

Sex

Male 43.1 32.5 24.4 44.2 35.0 20.7

Female 50.5 34.6 14.8 44.7 30.6 24.8

Race/ethnicity of teacher

White, non–Hispanic 49.4 34.4 16.1 44.9 32.2 22.9

Black, non–Hispanic 51.5 38.6 9.9 0.0 58.7 0.0

Hispanic 54.9 27.3 17.9 41.5 36.1 22.4

Native American 52.3 30.0 17.7 36.9 36.1 27.1

Asian/Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Age

Under 30 53.6 32.5 13.9 43.6 31.1 25.2

30–39 50.8 33.3 15.9 39.4 37.6 23.0

40–49 44.0 38.0 18.1 50.1 28.1 21.8

Over 49 353.9 31.7 14.4 43.1 34.8 22.1

Highest degree earned

High school diploma 47.2 35.9 16.9 — — —

Associate degree 55.9 29.0 15.1 — — —

Bachelor’s degree 48.6 35.5 15.9 43.0 33.1 23.8

Master’s degree 52.7 30.6 16.7 45.4 34.2 20.4

Educational specialist or

 professional diploma 54.4 39.9 5.7 40.1 22.9 37.1

Doctorate or first

 professional degree — — — 58.6 12.5 28.9

Years of teaching experience

3 years or less 52.6 32.7 14.6 44.0 28.9 27.1

4–9 years 50.1 32.5 17.4 42.7 35.1 22.2

10–19 years 44.6 38.3 17.1 42.5 34.5 23.0

20 years or more 53.9 32.8 13.3 48.0 32.0 20.0

Class size

1–10 51.1 35.4 13.5 45.3 28.1 26.5

11–18 49.7 33.1 17.2 48.4 31.8 19.8

19–27 49.7 36.4 13.9 43.2 30.9 25.8

28 or more 49.5 33.6 16.9 39.8 39.8 20.3

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate

Table reads: 43.1 percent of male private elementary school teachers had a high level of satisfaction.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher Questionnaire.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

23

How are compensation factors related to teacher satisfaction?

As seen in table 6, several measures of teacher compensation were examined,

including salary, number of benefits, and supplemental income received both within

and outside of the school. Overall, compensation shows little relation to satisfaction

with teaching as a career. Looking first at public schools, we find that salary shows no

strong association with teacher satisfaction at either the elementary or secondary

level. Moreover, benefits, originally considered to be an important component of

teacher satisfaction, also showed only a weak association with satisfaction. SASS

listed eight different types of benefits that teachers could possibly receive. Comparing

the number who receive no benefits to the number who receive medical benefits only

or 1 to 3 types of benefits shows no differences in level of satisfaction. Only teachers

who receive 4−6 different types of benefits have a larger percentage with high levels

of satisfaction than those receiving 1 to 3 types or at least medical insurance. No

teacher received all eight types of benefits or even seven of the eight types. Next,

teachers who supplemented their teaching salary with work either within or outside

of school were compared to those who did not. While supplementing salaries with

non-school jobs made little difference in terms of level of satisfaction, those who

earned additional income through school were more likely to be categorized as having

high levels of satisfaction. Evidently, the ability to earn extra income through the

school system is important for satisfaction, and the need to earn extra money through

any means is not negatively related to satisfaction.

At the private school level, no compensation factors were found to be associated with

teacher satisfaction. Overall, the salaries tended to be lower and the benefits tended to

be fewer, but none of these factors were related to satisfaction with teaching.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

24

Table 6— Percent of teachers across levels of satisfaction, by school sector, school level,

and teacher compensation factors: 1993–94

Elementary school teachers Secondary school teachers

High Moderate Low High Moderate Low

Characteristic satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction

Public

TOTAL 49.7 34.4 15.9 44.4 32.9 22.7

Salary

Less than $25,000 37.6 35.3 27.2 27.8 32.8 39.4

$25,000–$40,000 34.0 35.1 30.9 26.1 33.0 40.9

Over $40,000 34.8 36.3 29.0 27.1 35.7 37.3

Benefits

None 35.8 33.5 30.7 23.2 32.4 44.4

At least medical insurance 34.7 35.5 29.8 26.7 34.0 39.3

1–3 types 32.8 35.5 31.7 25.0 33.1 41.9

4–6 types 37.5 35.4 27.1 28.9 34.5 36.6

7–8 types 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Supplement salary with non–school job

Yes 33.0 32.8 34.2 26.3 33.5 40.2

No 35.4 36.0 28.6 26.9 33.8 39.3

Earn additional compensation through school

Yes 36.5 33.9 29.7 29.5 34.3 36.2

No 34.0 36.2 29.8 22.5 33.0 44.5

Private

TOTAL 49.7 34.4 15.9 44.4 32.9 22.7

Salary

Less than $25,000 49.7 34.1 16.2 44.0 32.6 23.3

$25,000–$40,000 49.3 35.7 15.0 44.4 33.2 22.5

Over $40,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.3 32.4 20.4

Benefits

None 50.8 33.3 15.9 40.9 32.0 27.2

At least medical insurance 50.2 33.6 16.2 45.3 32.2 22.6

1–3 types 49.5 34.4 16.1 42.3 32.0 25.7

4–6 types 49.9 33.9 16.2 46.5 332 20.3

7–8 types 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.3 46.1 11.6

Supplement salary with non–school job

Yes 50.2 31.6 18.1 43.9 32.8 23.3

No 49.5 35.5 15.1 44.7 32.9 22.4

Earn additional compensation through school

Yes 48.9 35.1 16.0 44.6 33.2 22.1

No 50.0 34.1 15.9 44.2 32.4 23.4

Table reads: 37.6 percent of public elementary school teachers with salary below $25,000 had a high level of satisfaction.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher Questionnaire.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

25

How do public school teachers' attitudes and perceptions of the workplace relate

to their level of satisfaction?

Teachers attitudes and perceptions of the workplace were measured in several areas,

including administrative support and leadership, student behavior and work

atmosphere, and teacher control over the working environment, and then related to

the three levels of satisfaction. In the public sector, every attitude with the exception

of incidences of violence was related to satisfaction for both elementary and secondary

school teachers (see table 7). However, the incidence of violence, both in terms of

threatening injury and physical attack, was extremely low among all teachers, which

would perhaps explain why it would not be significantly related to teacher

satisfaction. Several factors stood out as being more strongly associated with teacher

satisfaction. These include parental support, student behavior, principal interaction,

staff recognition, teacher participation in school decision-making, influence over

school policy, and control in the classroom.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

26

Table 7— Percent distribution of public school teachers across levels of satisfaction, by

school level and selected attitudes and perceptions of workplace conditions:

1993–94

Elementary school teachers Secondary school teachers

High Moderate Low High Moderate Low

Characteristic satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction

TOTAL 34.9 35.4 29.7 26.7 33.7 39.6

Administration is supportive

and encouraging

Agree 37.6 36.2 26.2 29.4 35.4 35.3

Disagree 23.7 31.9 44.4 18.1 28.5 53.5

The level of student misbehavior in

this school interferes with teaching

Agree 26.5 34.0 39.6 19.6 30.8 49.6

Disagree 41.5 36.5 22.1 32.8 36.3 31.0

Teacher participate in making

important school decisions

Agree 40.2 36.2 23.6 32.4 36.1 31.5

Disagree 26.2 34.0 39.8 21.1 31.4 47.5

Parents support teachers’ work

Agree 41.5 36.4 22.1 33.4 36.2 30.4

Disagree 25.8 34.0 40.2 21.7 31.9 46.4

Routine duties and paperwork

interfere with teaching

Agree 31.4 35.8 32.8 22.9 33.3 43.8

Disagree 44.2 34.3 21.5 36.5 34.8 28.7

Necessary materials are available

Agree 37.4 35.7 27.0 28.9 34.9 36.2

Disagree 28.1 34.6 37.3 20.7 30.6 48.7

Principal frequently discusses

instructional practices with teachers

Agree 41.1 35.3 23.6 34.0 34.6 31.4

Disagree 28.8 35.5 35.7 22.7 33.2 44.1

There is a great deal of cooperative

effort among the staff

Agree 36.9 36.1 27.0 28.6 35.2 36.2

Disagree 26.2 32.4 41.4 21.7 30.1 48.2

Staff members are recognized for

a job well done

Agree 39.3 36.3 24.4 31.6 36.2 32.2

Disagree 24.1 33.0 42.9 18.9 29.8 51.2
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

27

Table 7— Percent distribution of public school teachers across levels of satisfaction, by

school level and selected attitudes and perceptions of workplace conditions:

1993–94 (cont)

Elementary school teachers Secondary school teachers

High Moderate Low High Moderate Low

Characteristic satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction

Student absenteeism is a problem

Agree 30.8 34.0 35.2 24.3 33.3 42.3

Disagree 37.4 36.2 26.4 32.2 34.6 33.1

Student apathy is a problem

Agree 25.6 34.8 39.6 23.2 33.1 43.7

Disagree 42.3 35.9 21.8 38.3 36.0 25.7

Has a student from this school ever

threatened to injure you?

Yes 25.5 33.1 41.3 20.3 29.8 49.9

No 37.6 36.0 26.3 29.7 35.6 34.7

Has a student from this school ever

physically attacked you?

Yes 32.4 33.7 33.8 21.6 29.0 49.4

No 35.2 35.6 29.2 27.1 34.1 38.7

Teachers have a great deal of influence

over school policy* 48.8 37.0 14.2 48.5 33.8 17.7

Teachers have complete control in

the classroom* 42.5 35.2 22.3 32.4 34.8 32.8

*Teachers were asked a series of questions about how much influence they had over school policies and how much control they

had in the classroom. They answered each question on a five point scale where “0” meant no influence or no control and “5”

meant a great deal of influence or complete control. The numbers reported here are the percentage of teachers whose average

response to the questions was above “4.”

Table reads: 37.6 percent of teachers who agree that the administration is supportive have high levels of satisfaction.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher Questionnaire.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

28

Several of the strong associations were in the category of student behavior and school

atmosphere. The item “Parents support teachers’ work” was related to teacher

satisfaction , although the relationship was somewhat different for elementary school

teachers than for secondary school teachers. Elementary school teachers who agreed

that parents supported teachers’ work were highly clustered in the high level of

satisfaction while the converse was true for teachers who disagreed. At the secondary

level, teachers who agreed that parents were supportive were fairly evenly distributed

between the three levels of satisfaction. Teachers who disagreed were much more

likely to fall into the category of low satisfaction; 46 percent of teachers who

disagreed that parents supported teachers’ work were categorized as having low levels

of satisfaction. Perceptions of student apathy were negatively associated with teacher

satisfaction for both elementary and secondary public school teachers. Teachers who

agreed that student apathy was a problem had a disproportionate percentage in the

low satisfaction category, while teachers who disagreed that it was a problem were

more likely to have high levels of satisfaction. The same trend is true of student

misbehavior. Teachers who agreed that student misbehavior interfered with teaching

were clustered more towards the low end of satisfaction, while teachers who disagreed

were clustered more towards the high end of satisfaction.

In the general category of administrative support and leadership, one item was

strongly associated with teacher satisfaction: “Staff members are recognized for a job

well done.” Secondary school teachers were especially sensitive to this item. While

those who agreed with this item were fairly well distributed across the three levels of

satisfaction, teachers who disagreed with it were highly clustered in the category of

low satisfaction; over 50 percent of public secondary school teachers who disagreed

with this item were categorized as having low levels of satisfaction.

The category pertaining to teacher control over working environment proved to be

strongly related to teacher satisfaction. At the elementary level, teachers who agreed

with the statement “Teachers participate in making important school decisions” had a

large proportion of teachers with high levels of satisfaction. Teachers who disagreed

with that statement were much more likely to have low levels of satisfaction at both

the elementary and secondary levels. Furthermore, teachers who felt they had a great

deal of influence over school policy were much more likely to be clustered in the high

level of satisfaction. Having complete control in the classroom was also associated

with high levels of satisfaction at the elementary level. Overall, professional

autonomy is positively related to teacher satisfaction.

Do the same attitudes and perceptions of the workplace relate to satisfaction for

private school teachers as for public school teachers?

Many of the factors that were important to the satisfaction of public school teachers

were also important in the private sector, including administrative support, parental

support, availability of materials, and staff recognition (see table 8). Other important

factors include “Routine duties and paperwork interfere with teaching,” “Principal
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

29

frequently discusses instructional practices with teachers,” and “There is a great deal

of cooperative effort among the staff.”

The relationship of interference of routine duties with satisfaction was strong for

private elementary school teachers. Twenty−one percent of teachers who agreed with

this statement had low levels of satisfaction, compared to only 12 percent of teachers

who disagreed with this statement. At the secondary level, 30 percent of private

school teachers who agreed with this statement had low levels of satisfaction; 16

percent of those who disagreed were categorized as having low levels of satisfaction.

Agreeing that principals frequently discuss instructional practices with teachers is

also positively correlated with high teacher satisfaction. While almost 50 percent of

all private elementary school teachers are classified as having high levels of

satisfaction, 56 percent of those that agree with the above statement and only 40

percent of those who disagree are classified as having high levels of satisfaction.

Finally, perceptions of staff cooperation have a strong relationship with satisfaction at

the secondary level. While private secondary school teachers who agree that there is a

great deal of cooperative effort among the staff are distributed across the three levels

of satisfaction in a similar pattern as the total private secondary population, those

who disagree are strongly clustered in the area of low satisfaction. For example, 44

percent of all private secondary school teachers were categorized as having high levels

of satisfaction, but only 32 percent of teachers who disagreed that there is a great deal

of staff cooperation were categorized as having high levels of satisfaction. Conversely,

23 percent of all private secondary school teachers were categorized as having low

levels of satisfaction, compared to 41 percent of those who disagreed that there is a

great deal of staff cooperation.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

30

Table 8— Percent distribution of private school teachers across levels of satisfaction, by

school level and selected attitudes and perceptions of workplace condition

1993-94

Elementary school teachers Secondary school teachers

High Moderate Low High Moderate Low

Characteristic satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction

TOTAL 49.7 34.4 15.9 44.4 32.9 22.7

Administration is supportive

and encouraging

Agree 51.4 33.8 14.8 46.7 34.0 19.4

Disagree 37.2 38.6 24.2 34.3 27.9 37.8

The level of student misbehavior in

this school interferes with teaching

Agree 40.0 34.3 25.7 30.0 30.3 39.7

Disagree 52.5 34.4 13.1 48.1 33.5 18.4

Teachers participate in making

important school decisions

Agree 53.2 32.7 21.1 35.6 32.9 31.5

Disagree 39.6 39.2 21.1 35.6 32.9 31.5

Parents support teachers’ work

Agree 52.0 34.3 13.7 47.8 33.7 18.5

Disagree 33.0 35.0 32.0 32.8 30.0 37.2

Routine duties and paperwork

interfere with teaching

Agree 43.4 35.6 21.0 38.0 32.3 29.7

Disagree 54.8 33.3 11.9 50.4 33.4 16.2

Necessary materials are available

Agree 50.5 35.4 14.1 44.7 33.5 21.8

Disagree 45.7 28.8 25.5 42.6 29.1 28.3

Principals frequently discuss instructional

practices with teachers

Agree 56.4 32.1 11.5 53.9 29.5 16.6

Disagree 40.8 37.4 21.8 37.9 35.2 26.9

There is a great deal of cooperative

effort among the staff

Agree 50.7 34.5 14.7 46.3 33.8 19.8

Disagree 40.6 33.2 26.2 32.1 26.8 41.1

Staff members are recognized for

a job well done

Agree 53.1 33.9 12.9 47.9 33.9 18.1

Disagree 35.3 36.2 28.4 34.7 29.9 35.3
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

31

Table 8— Percent distribution of private school teachers across levels of satisfaction, by

school level and selected attitudes and perceptions of workplace condition:

1993-94 (cont)

Elementary school teachers Secondary school teachers

High Moderate Low High Moderate Low

Characteristic satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction

Student absenteeism is a problem

Agree 48.0 32.4 19.6 33.6 33.7 32.8

Disagree 49.9 34.6 15.5 48.1 32.6 19.3

Student apathy is a problem

Agree 35.0 35.8 29.2 33.7 32.3 34.0

Disagree 52.2 34.1 13.7 51.4 33.2 15.4

Has a student from this school

ever threatened to injure you?

Yes 41.1 28.9 30.1 36.5 28.4 35.2

No 50.1 34.6 15.3 45.4 33.4 21.2

Has a student from this school

ever physically attacked you?

Yes 43.2 38.4 18.3 62.0 19.3 18.7

No 49.9 34.2 15.9 44.0 33.2 22.8

Teachers have a great deal of

influence over school policy* 61.4 25.5 13.1 51.0 26.3 22.7

Teachers have complete control

in the classroom* 53.5 33.5 13.1 46.3 33.9 19.8

*Teachers were asked a series of questions about how much influence they had over school policies and how much control they

had in the classroom. They answered each question on a five point scale where “0” meant no influence or no control and “5”

meant a great deal of influence or complete control. The numbers reported here are the percentage of teachers whose average

response to the questions was above “4.”

Table reads: 51.4 percent of teachers who agree that the administration is supportive have high levels of satisfaction.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher Questionnaire.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

32

Overall, for both public and private schools, teacher attitudes about the workplace are

strongly associated with their level of satisfaction.12 Several teacher, school and

community characteristics have also shown significant, albeit weak, relationships with

teacher satisfaction. The next section describes the most and least satisfied teachers in

terms of the same characteristics examined in this section.

Section 2: Description of the most and least satisfied teachers

The purpose of this section is to describe the most and least satisfied teachers. The

first section examined the satisfaction levels of all teachers by subgroup. This section

studies the most satisfied teachers and the least satisfied teachers in order to

determine the characteristics of these two groups and how they differ from each

other. Teachers who gave the most positive response available on all three questions

were categorized as the most satisfied teachers. In other words, this group is

comprised of teachers who said if they could do it all over again, they would definitely

become teachers again, they intend to continue teaching as long as they are able, and

they strongly disagree that teaching is a waste of their time. Approximately 21

percent of teachers fell into this group. Teachers were considered to be least satisfied

if they answered that they certainly would not become a teacher again, probably

would not, or chances about even. In addition, none of the teachers in this group

intended to remain in teaching as long as they were able, and no teacher strongly

disagreed that they felt it was a waste of their time to do their best13. Approximately 9

percent of teachers fell into this group. Thus, this section differs from the first

section in two ways: (1) In section 1, satisfaction was dependent variable, and in this

section, satisfaction is the independent variable, with the teacher and school

characteristics, compensation, and workplace conditions being the dependent

variables; and (2) Different cut points were used to determine who were the most and

least satisfied teachers in this section than in the first section where teachers were

basically divided into thirds.

Overall, the most satisfied teachers tend to teach in private schools and in elementary

schools, but very few other school, community, classroom or teacher background

characteristics stand out as being strongly related to satisfaction with teaching as a

career. Once again, workplace conditions distinguished most clearly between the most

and least satisfied teachers; the most satisfied teachers worked in a more supportive,

safe, autonomous environment than the least satisfied teachers.

 

12 Some of this relationship may be an artifact of both the dependent and independent variables coming

from opinion questions. If a teacher is feeling negative/positive, he/she may answer all opinion questions

negatively/positively.

13 The rule for determining the least satisfied teachers was less clear cut. Because the IRT analysis gave

the most weight to the question about choosing teaching as a career again this question was given the most

weight with less emphasis given to the other two questions in determining a cut point.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

33

Where are the most and least satisfied teachers teaching?

An initial examination of the kinds of schools at which the most and least satisfied

teachers work shows that private schools and elementary schools are more likely to

have the most satisfied teachers than public and secondary schools. As seen in table 9

and figure 5, approximately 15 percent of full-time teachers were from private

schools, but nearly 20 percent of the most satisfied teachers and less than 6 percent

of the least satisfied teachers taught at private schools.

Table 9— School sector and school level of the most and least satisfied

teachers: 1993–94

Level of satisfaction

Characteristic Total Most satisfied Least satisfied

TOTAL 100.0 21.1 9.1

School sector

Public 85.5 80.1 94.5

Private 14.5 19.9 5.5

School level

Elementary 62.8 67.4 55.2

Secondary 31.1 24.2 40.1

Combined 6.1 8.4 4.6

Table reads: 80.1 percent of the most satisfied teachers teach in public schools

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

Survey 1993–94

Likewise, table 9 and figure 5 show that while approximately 63 percent of all

teachers taught elementary schools, they were disproportionately represented in the

satisfied and dissatisfied groups: sixty−seven percent the most satisfied teachers

taught at elementary schools, while 55 percent of the least satisfied teachers taught at

elementary schools.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

34

Figure 5 School sector and school level of the most and least satisfied

teachers

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Most

satisfied

Least

satisfied

Public Private

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Most

satisfied

Least

satisfied

Elementary Secondary Combined

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

Survey 1993−94

What other school characteristics differ for the most and least satisfied teachers?

Do the teachers themselves have different backgrounds or characteristics?

Differences in school and teacher characteristics were examined with diverse findings.

Overall, no effects were found for salary and very few for class size. Public school

teachers were fairly different from private school teachers, and elementary school

teachers were very different from secondary school teachers in terms of what factors

differentiated the most from the least satisfied teachers.

The greatest number of differences between the most and least satisfied teachers were

found for public elementary school teachers (table 10). The most satisfied teachers

tended to have more benefits, and teach in smaller schools with fewer minorities and

fewer students in poverty. Moreover, the teachers tended to be younger and have less

teaching experience than the least satisfied teachers. The salaries and class sizes were

similar for the most and least satisfied public elementary school teachers. In contrast,

the most and least satisfied private elementary school teachers only differed

substantially in one category, years of teaching experience. Also, the effect was the

opposite of that of the public elementary teachers, as the most satisfied private

elementary teachers on average had more years of teaching experience than the least

satisfied teachers.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

35

At the secondary level, the most satisfied public school teachers were similar to the

most satisfied public elementary teachers. They tended to be younger and have fewer

years of teaching experience than the least satisfied teachers. They also taught at

schools with fewer minorities and fewer students in poverty than the least satisfied

teachers. At the secondary level, the number of benefits was similar for the most and

least satisfied teachers and school size was not associated with satisfaction. Once

again, salary and class size were also unimportant in differentiating between the two

groups. In private secondary schools, all characteristics were similar between the most

and least satisfied teachers.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

36

Table 10—Mean characteristics of the most and least satisfied teaches, by school sector

and level: 1993–94

Elementary teachers Secondary teachers

Most Least Most Least

Characteristic Total Satisfied Satisfied Total satisfied satisfied

Public

Salary $33,008 $33,768 $33,024 $32,856 $34,616 $34,024

Number of benefits 3.1 3.3 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.2

Years of teaching experience 14.4 13.6 15.7 15.6 14.2 16.9

Age 43.8 43.1 44.4 44.1 43.3 45.3

Class size 26.5 26.4 26.1 24.5 26.7 25.4

School size 533 565 628 829 1,078 1,092

Percent of students in school

who are minorities 35.0 30.5 39.1 24.3 27.4 32.8

Percent of students in school who

receive free/reduced price lunches 42.7 37.6 44.1 26.3 22.5 26.7

Private

Salary $18,668 $19,624 $19,276 $24,756 $25,964 $26,220

Number of benefits 2.7 2.7 2.6 3.6 3.7 3.6

Years of teaching experience 11.0 12.4 10.8 12.3 13.8 12.8

Age 42.2 42.9 41.6 42.1 42.6 42.9

Class size 22.2 22.1 22.3 20.9 21.4 17.6

School size 225 271 259 442 565 521

Percent of students in school

who are minorities 24.1 22.8 24.2 22.0 19.5 19.1

Percent of students in school who

receive free/reduced price lunches 18.4 18.3 23.9 22.6 21.3 —

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

Table reads: The average salary of the most satisfied public elementary school teachers is $33,768.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher and School Questionnaires.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

37

Looking further into the school and teacher background items, only three other

characteristics emerge as distinctive for the most and least satisfied teachers: sex of

the teacher, grade level taught, and community type (tables 11 and 12). In three of

the four types of schools, there was a disproportionate number of females in the most

satisfied group. For example, although 84 percent of all public elementary school

teachers were female, almost 89 percent of the most satisfied public elementary school

teachers were female, compared to 80 percent of the least satisfied public elementary

school teachers. The only school type that showed no differences in the percentage of

females between the most and least satisfied teachers was private secondary schools.

In addition, the grade taught offered some distinguishing information; at the

elementary level, the most satisfied teachers were more likely to teach grades 1−4

than grades 5−8, and the least satisfied teachers were more likely to teach grades 5−8

than 1−4. Finally, in public schools, the most satisfied teachers were more likely to be

from urban fringes than from central cities, and the least satisfied teachers were more

likely to be from central cities than from the urban fringe. Private schools are more

likely to be located in central cities than in any other type of community, and there

were no differences between the most and least satisfied teachers. There were no

consistent differences found for the race/ethnicity of the teacher, the teacher's

education background, or the teacher's main teaching field. Once again, the one

exception to these findings was in private secondary schools. The least satisfied

teachers in these schools were more likely to teach foreign language (22 percent) than

science (6 percent). The most satisfied teachers were equally likely to teach foreign

language, math, and science; they showed no differences in main teaching field.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

38

Table 11—Percent distribution of the most and least satisfied public school teachers across

selected school and teacher background characteristics, by school level: 1993–94

Elementary teachers Secondary teachers

Most Least Most Least

Characteristic Total Satisfied Satisfied Total satisfied satisfied

TOTAL 100.0 21.8 8.7 100.0 14.4 11.4

Sex

Male 16.1 11.4 19.9 47.7 44.1 50.0

Female 83.9 88.6 80.1 52.3 55.9 50.0

Race/ethnicity/ of teacher

White, non-Hispanic 85.1 85.0 82.4 88.5 86.3 88.3

Black, non-Hispanic 8.2 8.3 11.4 6.2 7.5 6.1

Hispanic 4.8 5.0 4.9 3.6 4.1 3.9

Native American 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9

Asian/Pacific Islander 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.7 1.2 0.9

Highest degree earned

High school diploma 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.2 1.3 0.8

Associate degree 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.3

Bachelor’s degree 55.1 58.1 53.4 46.8 49.9 46.5

Master’s degree 40.1 36.5 41.0 45.5 42.2 45.3

Educational specialist or professional diploma 4.2 4.8 4.7 5.0 5.0 6.0

Doctorate or first professional degree 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.3 1.0

Grade level taught

Kindergarten 6.6 7.2 4.8 0.0 — —

Grades 1–4 38.6 43.3 35.9 0.1 — —

Grades 5–8 33.8 28.5 41.6 12.1 13.3 12.2

Grades 9–12 0.2 — — 72.5 70.8 72.7

Multiple grade levels 20.8 20.8 17.3 15.3 15.7 15.1

Main teaching field

General 57.6 61.8 53.4 0.3 0.3 0.1

English/teaching/language arts 7.4 7.8 6.8 15.5 15.0 15.6

Arithmetic/mathematics 4.1 2.7 5.1 12.9 11.8 14.0

Social studies/history 2.8 1.69 3.1 11.8 11.5 11.2

Science 3.3 2.8 3.6 1.7 10.5 14.5

Foreign language 0.7 0.4 1.2 5.2 5.3 5.6

Art or music 3.9 3.2 5.9 6.1 6.8 5.3

Vocational/technical 1.0 0.6 1.0 11.7 10.0 11.0

Special education 9.9 9.7 10.6 9.4 11.6 8.6

Bilingual or ESL education 1.7 1.8 1.1 0.7 0.9 0.8

Other 7.5 7.6 8.1 14.8 16.3 13.3

Community type

Central city 29.5 26.3 36.7 25.5 23.0 29.7

Urban fringe 31.1 35.2 24.9 31.8 33.2 28.8

Small town/rural 39.4 38.5 38.4 42.7 43.8 41.5

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

Table reads: 11.4 percent of the most satisfied public elementary school teachers are male.

NOTE: All categories may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding errors.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher and School Questionnaires.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

39

Table 12—Percent distribution of the most and least satisfied private school teachers

across selected school and teacher background characteristics, by school level:

1993–94

Elementary teachers Secondary teachers

Most Least Most Least

Characteristic Total Satisfied Satisfied Total satisfied satisfied

TOTAL 100.0 37.6 3.6 100.0 32.3 6.2

Sex

Male 11.3 8.5 16.9 51.5 48.2 46.8

Female 88.7 91.5 83.1 48.5 51.8 53.2

Race/ethnicity/ of teacher

White, non-Hispanic 91.4 89.8 94.8 92.0 92.2 91.4

Black, non-Hispanic 4.0 4.9 0.2 1.9 1.6 0.4

Hispanic 3.1 3.6 3.2 4.7 4.9 5.0

Native American 1.2 1.3 1.9 1.2 1.2 2.4

Asian/Pacific Islander 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.8

Highest degree earned

High school diploma 4.1 4.5 2.3 1.2 0.7 3.5

Associate degree 1.6 1.9 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0

Bachelor’s degree 69.2 65.6 70.7 48.9 48.5 51.7

Master’s degree 22.1 24.4 22.3 44.7 44.9 38.1

Educational specialist or professional diploma 2.6 3.2 1.8 2.5 2.5 0.9

Doctorate or first professional degree 0.4 0.4 2.9 2.3 2.6 5.9

Grade level taught

Kindergarten 8.8 10.2 6.2 0.0 — —

Grades 1–4 41.4 43.8 27.6 0.2 — —

Grades 5–8 29.1 26.6 42.9 1.4 1.3 0.4

Grades 9–12 0.1 — — 83.2 85.8 74.4

Multiple grade levels 20.6 19.3 23.4 15.2 12.7 24.3

Main teaching field

General 71.2 73.7 62.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

English/teaching/language arts 7.0 6.3 9.4 14.9 15.8 16.3

Arithmetic/mathematics 5.3 5.0 3.7 14.6 13.0 14.9

Social studies/history 3.4 2.8 5.4 10.9 8.6 1.6

Science 3.3 2.6 4.9 13.4 12.3 5.8

Foreign language 0.8 0.6 1.0 1.1 8.5 21.8

Art or music 2.2 1.3 3.6 6.7 6.4 7.0

Vocational/technical 0.1 0.1 0.0 3.2 3.2 5.5

Special education 0.6 0.5 0.8 4.9 7.5 10.8

Bilingual or ESL education 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.0

Other 6.3 6.8 9.0 19.8 23.9 16.4

Community type

Central city 42.3 43.0 48.5 46.9 48.6 56.6

Urban fringe 39.7 39.9 32.2 36.5 38.4 27.4

Small town/rural 18.0 17.1 19.2 16.6 13.1 15.9

—Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

Table reads: 8.5 percent of the most satisfied private elementary school teachers are male.

NOTE: All categories may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding errors.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher and School Questionnaires.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

40

How do opinions and attitudes about working conditions differ between the most

and least satisfied teachers?

Teachers’ responses to the attitude questions supported the most satisfied teachers

giving the most positive responses and vice versa. or example, almost 90 percent of

the most satisfied teachers in public elementary schools agreed that their

administration was supportive and caring, while only 63 percent of the least satisfied

teachers agreed. Conversely, 65 percent of the least satisfied teachers in public

elementary schools agreed that the level of student misbehavior interfered with

teaching, compared to 30 percent of the most satisfied teachers. At the secondary

school level, there were large differences in many attitudes, including the percentage

of teachers agreeing that parents supported teachers’ work and that a student had

ever threatened to injure him/her. In public schools, 56 percent of the most satisfied

teachers agreed that parents were supportive, while only 25 percent of the least

satisfied teachers agreed; the numbers were 86 and 51 for private schools. Likewise,

49 percent of the least satisfied teachers said a student had threatened to injure them,

compared to 23 percent of the most satisfied teachers in public schools. In private

schools, the numbers were lower, but 27 percent of the least satisfied teachers

reported being threatened by a student compared to 8 percent of the most satisfied

teachers.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

41

Table 13—Percent of most and least satisfied teachers who agree with the following

statements, by school sector and level: 1993–94

Elementary teachers Secondary teachers

Most Least Most Least

Characteristic Total Satisfied Satisfied Total satisfied satisfied

Public

Administration is supportive and encouraging 80.5 88.6 63.1 76.3 85.9 60.1

The level of student misbehavior in this school

interferes with teaching 43.8 30.3 65.2 46.1 29.7 65.8

Teachers participate in making important

school decisions 62.1 73.6 37.9 49.6 62.9 33.5

Parents support teachers’ work 57.9 72.5 35.5 42.6 56.2 24.7

Routine duties and paperwork interfere

with teaching 72.6 63.6 82.2 72.1 58.9 81.5

Necessary materials are available 73.4 80.6 61.2 72.8 78.8 61.0

Principals frequently discuss instructional

practices with teachers 49.3 60.2 36.4 35.4 47.9 24.1

There is a great deal of cooperative effort

among the staff 80.9 86.6 68.1 71.6 77.3 59.7

Staff members are recognized for a job well done 71.3 81.6 50.0 61.3 75.4 41.8

Student absenteeism is a problem 38.0 32.0 49.2 70.2 62.3 79.7

Student apathy is a problem 44.4 29.5 66.0 76.9 64.3 88.6

A student from this school has ever threatened

to injure you 22.7 15.4 40.3 32.2 22.9 49.1

A student from this school has ever physically

attacked you 12.0 10.4 15.1 8.0 5.5 12.3

Teachers have a great deal of influence

over school policy* 1.5 2.3 0.9 1.0 2.0 0.4

Teachers have complete control in the classroom* 44.6 56.4 29.1 55.3 69.2 38.6
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

42

Table 13—Percent of most and least satisfied teachers who agree with the following

statements, by school sector and level: 1993–94 (cont)

Elementary teachers Secondary teachers

Most Least Most Least

Characteristic Total Satisfied Satisfied Total satisfied satisfied

Private

Administration is supportive and encouraging 88.2 93.0 75.3 82.0 87.2 62.0

The level of student misbehavior in this school

interferes with teaching 22.5 16.1 47.4 20.1 12.5 51.1

Teachers participate in making important

school decisions 74.2 79.4 53.9 63.4 73.2 48.6

Parents support teachers’ work 87.7 93.4 68.5 77.5 85.5 51.1

Routine duties and paperwork interfere

with teaching 44.5 34.4 53.8 48.1 38.5 73.2

Necessary materials are available 84.1 86.1 65.2 85.8 84.8 84.1

Principals frequently discuss instructional

practices with teachers 57.1 67.5 30.2 40.7 54.1 26.8

There is a great deal of cooperative effort

among the staff 89.6 92.8 83.7 86.6 91.2 72.9

Staff members are recognized for a job well done 80.7 89.0 57.3 73.6 80.2 41.1

Student absenteeism is a problem 9.7 9.0 8.9 25.0 15.7 46.4

Student apathy is a problem 14.4 9.5 32.2 39.3 25.9 62.3

A student from this school has ever threatened

to injure you 4.4 2.3 14.3 10.7 8.2 27.2

A student from this school has ever physically

attacked you 3.1 2.3 4.1 2.5 3.5 4.4

Teachers have a great deal of influence

over school policy* 2.9 3.7 0.7 3.4 4.0 6.6

Teachers have complete control in the classroom* 56.6 62.6 42.6 74.5 77.7 68.5

*Teachers were asked a series of questions about how much influence they had over school policies and how much control they

had in the classroom. They answered each question on a five point scale where “0” meant no influence or no control and “5”

meant a great deal of influence or complete control. The numbers reported here are the percentage of teachers whose average

response to the questions was above “4.”

Table reads: 88.6 percent of the most satisfied public elementary school teachers agree that the administration is supportive and

encouraging.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher Questionnaire.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

43

Overall, in terms of background characteristics of teachers and schools, and in terms

of attitudes, there are distinct differences between the most and least satisfied

teachers in the workforce.

Section 3: Multivariate analysis of satisfaction with teaching as a career

As shown in the first section of results, teachers’ perceptions of various working

conditions at their school are associated with their satisfaction. The second section

described the most satisfied teachers as working in a supportive, low−violence

environment. The analyses presented in this last section describe the strength of the

association between teacher satisfaction and those workplace conditions open to

policy changes, such as administrative support, school climate, instructional

resources, and compensation.. Specifically, these analyses assess the relative

contribution of workplace conditions after accounting for other relevant teacher and

school characteristics. The previous sections demonstrated that many factors are

associated with teacher satisfaction; now the question becomes “To what extent can

workplace conditions explain the differences in teacher satisfaction when teacher and

school characteristics are the same?”

To answer this question, several analyses were carried out using multiple regression,

providing information about the relative association between teacher satisfaction and

workplace conditions while controlling for teacher and school characteristics.14 For

example, the results from this technique indicate the degree to which one could

accurately predict a teacher’s satisfaction level knowing various nominal

characteristics of the school, its quality as a workplace, and the teacher’s background.

The more accurate the statistical prediction, the stronger the association between

teacher satisfaction and these factors. Further, the degree to which any single factor

contributes to predicting teacher satisfaction indicates the association between

satisfaction and that factor while holding the other factors constant. So, for example,

if this multivariate analysis shows that higher levels of satisfaction are associated with

higher levels of staff support after controlling for the size of school enrollment, it

means that teacher satisfaction and staff support are related regardless of the size of

school enrollment.

The analyses was done in two steps. The first step regresses teacher satisfaction on a

set of teacher background and school characteristic variables. These include 15:

• school sector (public or private);

• size of enrollment of school;

• size of minority enrollment of school;

 

14 OLS estimates of regression parameters are reported here for each model.

15 The free lunch and teacher age variables included in the descriptive analyses as background variables

were eliminated from the multivariate analysis because they correlated highly with percent minority and

age, respectively, and did not provide any further information.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

44

• teacher’s gender;

• teacher’s race;

• teacher’s education;

• number of years teacher has taught; and

• teacher’s main teaching field.

This model, which is referred to hereafter as the “background model,” includes those

variables that, unlike some of the workplace and compensation variables examined

below, are not easily influenced by policy but which may be associated with teacher

satisfaction. This model serves as a control for all other analyses of elements of

workplace conditions and teacher compensation , which are more open to change

through policy. The regression results can provide information about the association

between teacher satisfaction and these background variables in the form of a

prediction equation, indicating the degree to which one could accurately predict a

teacher’s level of satisfaction knowing other characteristics about that teacher and the

school in which they work.

In the second step, four sets of variables measuring workplace conditions—

administrative support, student behavior, social environment, and teacher control

over work—and one set of variables measuring compensation are added to the

background model. An assessment is then made as to how the addition of workplace

conditions improved the prediction of teacher satisfaction beyond what was gained

from knowing the other characteristics of the teacher and the school. The more the

workplace conditions information adds to prediction, the larger is the relative

association between workplace conditions and teacher satisfaction. It is important to

note that these analyses are not attempting to explain all the variation among teachers

in their degree of satisfaction. Instead, they are examining a specific set of variables to

see if certain factors amenable to change account for a significant proportion of the

variance in teacher satisfaction.

How related are general characteristics of schools and teachers to teacher

satisfaction?

The first model, the background model shown in table 14, demonstrates that as a

group the background variables are only weakly associated with teacher satisfaction.

The first column presents the unstandardized regression coefficient indicating the size

of the association between teacher satisfaction and the independent variable listed on

the left. The second column shows the standard error associated with each

coefficient. The “R2” at the bottom of the table describes the percent of the variation

in teacher satisfaction explained by all the variables in the model.

The ten factors included in the background model account for just under five percent

(r2 = .048) of the variation among teachers in degree of satisfaction. n other words,

knowing all of this information about a teacher would not greatly increase accurate

prediction of how satisfied that teacher is with teaching. In this model there are only
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

45

a few specific factors which have even a minimal association with teacher

satisfaction. Controlling for other background variables, teaching in private schools,

elementary schools, suburban schools, and schools with lower percentages of minority

students are associated with higher teacher satisfaction. Also female teachers, black

and Hispanic teachers, teachers with less experience, and teachers of general subjects

have higher levels of satisfaction. All the associations between individual factors and

teacher satisfaction in this model must be considered in light of the overall weak

association between these background variables and teacher satisfaction. General

characteristics of a school and a teacher are not strongly associated with satisfaction.

Note, for example, that the enrollment size of a school is not related to satisfaction,

nor is a teacher’s education level.

Table 14 OLS estimates of teacher satisfaction regressed on school and

teacher background characteristics

School and teacher background characteristics (b)2(se)

Public1-0.36*** 0.020

Secondary2-0.10*** 0.018

Urban3-0.003 0.018

Suburban30.10*** 0.017

School size4-0.001 0.001

Percent of students who are minority5-0.002*** 0.000

Male teacher6-0.12*** 0.016

Black teacher70.11*** 0.034

Hispanic teacher70.15*** 0.033

Native American teacher70.03 0.039

Asian teacher70.10 0.084

Years teaching experience -0.10*** 0.008

Highest degree earned 0.01 0.012

Main teaching field - General80.10*** 0.022

Main teaching field - English8-0.01 0.021

Main teaching field - Mathematics8-0.08*** 0.028

Main teaching field - Social studies8-0.03 0.031

Main teaching field - Science8-0.10*** 0.028

Main teaching field - Foreign language8-0.12*** 0.039

Intercept 0.649

R

2

0.048

n 40709

NOTE: The (b)2 values shown are unstandardized regression coefficients.

1Control group is private schools. 2Control group is elementary schools. 3Control group is rural schools.

4

Per 100 students. 5This is a continuous variable ranging from 0 to 100 percent. 6Control group is female

teachers.

7Control group is white teachers. 8Control group is other teaching field. This "other" group now includes

many of the subjects listed separately in tables 2, 3, 11, and 12. Only the largest core fields were included

separately in the regression analysis.

***Significant at a<.001.

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

Survey 1993–94, Teacher and School questionnaires.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

46

How related are working conditions and compensation to teacher satisfaction?

To answer this question, five separate models were estimated and presented in table

15. In each case the model adds a set of variables measuring different parts of the

teaching environment to all of the background variables described above. To simplify

the results, and since the background variables serve as controls, individual

coefficients for the background variables are not listed here, but can be seen in table

B1 of the appendix. The first model introduces administrative support variables

composed of teacher perceptions of conditions that can be moderated by the principal

of a school or, potentially, the school district, including administrative support, staff

cooperation, availability of resources, and the interference of routine duties16. The

second model includes a cluster of student behavior and school atmosphere factors,

such as student behavior, student apathy, violence, and parental support17. Although

these factors may be difficult to influence through policy, they are behavioral

characteristics that are subject to change, unlike student characteristics such as

percent minority and percent free lunch used in the background model. The third

model includes factors relating to a teacher autonomy, such as communication with

the principal, control over classroom decisions, and influence over school policy18 all

of which can be influenced by policies on school governance. The fourth model

includes teacher compensation factors, such as salary, benefits, and outside

employment, factors which can be changed at the national, state, and local levels

through budgetary amendments. Lastly, a full model with all variables is presented.

 

16 The item about staff recognition included in the descriptive analyses was eliminated from the

multivariate analysis because it correlated highly with administrative support and staff cooperation and did

not provide any further information.

17 The item about student absenteeism included in the descriptive analyses was eliminated from the

multivariate analysis because it correlated highly with student apathy and did not provide any further

information.

18 The item about participation in decision making included in the descriptive analyses was eliminated from

the multivariate analysis because it correlated highly with influence over school policy and did not provide

any further information.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

47

Table 15 OLS estimates of teacher satisfaction regressed on policy relevant workplace

conditions and teacher compensation1

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Characteristic (b)2(se) (b)2(se) (b)2(se) (b)2(se) (b)2(se)

Administrative support and leadership

Administrator is supportive and encouraging 0.15*** 0.009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07***

0.084

There is cooperative effort among

staff members 0.10*** 0.009 0.03*** 0.009

Necessary materials are available 0.09*** 0.008 0.02*** 0.008

Routine duties and paperwork do not

interfere with teaching 0.17*** 0.007 0.11*** 0.006

Student behavior and school atmosphere

Student misbehavior does not interfere

with teaching 0.14*** 0.007 0.10*** 0.007

Student apathy is not a problem 0.14*** 0.008 0.09*** 0.008

Violence is not a problem 0.12*** 0.016 0.08*** 0.015

Parents support teachers’ work 0.18*** 0.007 0.12*** 0.007

Teacher control over working environment

Principal frequently discusses instructional practices 0.12*** 0.008 0.06*** 0.008

Teachers have great control in their classroom 0.20*** 0.010 0.13*** 0.009

Teachers have great influence over school policy 0.14*** 0.008 0.06*** 0.008

Teacher compensation

Salary3 0.01*** 0.001 0.01*** 0.001

Benefits 0.07*** 0.012 0.06*** 0.011

Other opportunities within school for income 0.11*** 0.015 0.08*** 0.013

Work outside of school for extra income -0.08*** 0.015 -0.06*** 0.013

Intercept -1.06 -1.04 -0.95 0.59 -2.19

R2 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.07 0.22

n 40705 40705 40706 40642 40631

NOTE: The measure has been recoded so that positive responses correlate with higher satisfaction.

For example, one original item was worded "Student apathy is a problem;" the responses were recoded so they matched the 

statement "Student apathy is not a problem."

1All models control for teacher, school, and community background characteristics. See table B.1 for a complete list of all 

variables included.

2Unstandardized regression coefficient.

3

Per 1000 dollars.

*Significant at a<.05.

**Significant at a<.01.

***Significant at a<.001.

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

Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94, Teacher and School questionnaires.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

48

Each column in table 15 represents the estimates of one the five models described

above. The first number in each column is the estimated unstandardized regression

coefficient indicating the size of the association between teacher satisfaction and the

independent variable listed to the far left. For example, the first coefficient in Model 1

is .15 for administrator support, meaning that if teachers perceived more support for

their jobs from administrators, their satisfaction was higher. The second number in

each column is the standard error of the estimate; if the estimate is at least twice the

size of its standard error, the estimate is statistically (i.e., high probability) different

from zero in the population.

Note that all the estimates of workplace conditions, whether they are about

administrative support, student behavior, or teacher control over the workplace,

are statistically significant and related to teacher satisfaction, even after controlling

for all the background variables discussed above. Teachers are more satisfied with

teaching as a career when they receive support from administrators, cooperation from

their colleagues, the resources needed to teach, and when they are not burdened with

non-teaching duties. Teacher satisfaction is higher in schools where student

misbehavior, apathy, and violence are not a problem and where parents support

teachers’ efforts. Similarly, in schools where principals and teachers discuss

approaches to instruction and where teachers have the perception of control over

their own classrooms and influence on school policies, teacher satisfaction is higher.

The same is true for compensation; higher salaries, more benefits and more

opportunities to earn extra income in the school are associated with greater

satisfaction. The only exception is that when teachers earn additional salary outside

the school, their satisfaction tends to be lower.

In general, workplace conditions and compensation have a positive relationship with

teacher satisfaction regardless of whether or not a teacher teaches in a public or

private school, or an elementary or secondary school; regardless of its location and

the type of community it serves; regardless of the size or the racial makeup of the

enrollment; and regardless of the teacher’s gender, race, education and prior years of

experience as a teacher.

To evaluate the degree to which policy related factors such as workplace conditions

and compensation are associated with teacher satisfaction, a comparison between each

of the models in table 15 to the background model in table 14 can be made. Table 16

presents this comparison to show which models have more predictive power of

teacher satisfaction. For example, if all the information about teachers that is included

in the background model was known, it would only predict about five percent of the

variation among teachers in their satisfaction. By adding workplace conditions to this

model. prediction of career satisfaction is improved over four times to 22 percent.

Table 16 shows the degree to which prediction is improved for each cluster of

workplace variables.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

49

Table 16 Comparing associations between satisfaction and background characteristics versus

various types of workplace conditions

Adding workplace conditions and compensation

School and Administrative Student behavior Teacher control

teacher background support and and school over working Teacher All

characteristics leadership atmosphere environment compensation variables

Percent variation

explained 5 14 17 14 7 22

F-test comparing

improvement in N/A 623,967 640,107 830,907 34,302 35,220

prediction by adding (3, 34,730) (3, 33,868) (2, 34,774) (3, 37,607) (14, 31,543)

workplace variables p<.001 p<.001 p<.001 p<.001 p<.001

NOTE: The F-test is shown in three parts: The top number is the calculated F statistic, the middle number is the degrees of freedom, and

the bottom number is the relative significance. See Technical Appendix C for the formula used to calculate the second row.

The first row of table 16 shows the percent of teacher satisfaction predicted by each

model. The first column shows the variation between teachers on the amount of

satisfaction explained (on a scale of 0 to 100) using just the teacher and school

background characteristics, and the second column shows the amount of variation

explained when administrative support and leadership variables are added. The third

column shows the amount of variation explained when student behavior and school

atmosphere variables are added to the background model, and so on. For example, the

information in the background model predicts 5 percent of total satisfaction variation

among teachers, while the information in the background model and in the student

behavior and school atmosphere variables explain 17 percent of the variation among

teachers.

The second row presents the statistical test of the percent improvement in explaining

teacher satisfaction over just the background model when information about

workplace conditions and compensation is added to the analysis. For example, the

second column, administrative support and leadership predicts 14 percent of total

satisfaction with teaching as a career, almost three times the amount predicted by the

background characteristics alone. This increase in prediction power is statistically

significant at p<.001, as seen in the second row of that column. All types of

workplace conditions significantly improve the prediction of satisfaction with

teaching as a career.

These results show that workplace conditions triple (from 5 percent to 14 and 17

percent) prediction of teacher satisfaction compared to school characteristics and

teacher background. This indicates that workplace factors are substantially more

associated with how satisfied a teacher is with teaching as career than are background

factors. It is interesting to note that although information about teacher compensation

also improves prediction, it is only a modest improvement (from 5 to 7 percent).
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

50

Lastly when all information about a teacher’s workplace and compensation are added,

prediction of teacher satisfaction improves over four times (22 percent) what it is

when knowing only school characteristics and teacher background.
51

Discussion

In each of the three analyses in this report, we find that workplace conditions which

are open to policy are related to satisfaction. This is true in the general description of

satisfaction among all teachers, in a comparison of the most and least satisfied

teachers, and in a multivariate assessment of relative associations between factors and

satisfaction. Although the associations are in the moderate range, working conditions

are associated with teacher satisfaction after other important factors, such as gender,

years of experience, and school composition are taken into account. More

administrative support and leadership, good student behavior, a positive school

atmosphere, and teacher autonomy are all associated with higher teacher satisfaction.

Also, the analyses show that certain teacher background variables and school

characteristics are only weakly related to teacher satisfaction, and they are not nearly

as useful in predicting a teacher’s satisfaction with teaching as a career. For example,

although female teachers tend to be more satisfied than male school teachers and

teachers with less experience tend to be more satisfied than teachers with more

experience, these relationships are not as substantial as the one between

administrative support and teacher satisfaction. The same is true when nominal

characteristics of schools such as public or private sector are compared with

workplace conditions in the school.

Although workplace conditions are strongly associated with teacher satisfaction,

compensation is only modestly related. The descriptive analyses showed no relation

between salary or benefits and teacher satisfaction. After controlling for other factors,

however, the multivariate analysis indicated that salary and benefits did contribute to

teacher satisfaction in a positive manner: the higher the salary and the greater the

benefits, the higher the satisfaction score. But, although statistically significant,

compensation factors did not contribute a large amount to the prediction of teacher

satisfaction. This is not to say that salary and benefits are not important to teachers,

only that satisfaction with teaching as a career is weakly related to differences in

compensation.
Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers

52

These findings provide information to policy makers interested in increasing the

satisfaction levels of teachers. Very few of teacher background or nominal school

characteristics that are an inseparable part of any school or community were

associated with teacher satisfaction. Instead, this report demonstrates that teacher

satisfaction may be shaped in part by workplace conditions that are within the reach

of policy at the school and district levels. Focusing on workplace conditions,

therefore, is a feasible way to improve teacher satisfaction. Regardless of the type of

school, community or teacher, a safe working environment, supportive

administration, and involved parents are connected with high levels of teacher

satisfaction. Equally important are the teachers’ feelings of autonomy. The results of

this study imply that involving teachers in school−wide policy decisions and giving

them some degree of control in their classrooms are associated with high levels of

career satisfaction. It is not possible to say, however, whether these factors result in

high levels of teacher satisfaction, or whether highly satisfied teachers seek out or

create environments that provide them with greater autonomy.

If, as the literature suggests, teacher satisfaction relates to both teaching quality and

turnover rates, focusing on policies related to satisfaction may go a long way towards

improving the quality of instruction in our nation’s schools. These results indicate

that there are a number of aspects of workplace conditions that are within the realm

of education policy and are associated with teacher satisfaction.
Appendix A

Standard Error Tables

Appendix A

A-3

Table 1a Standard errors for percent distribution of teachers across levels of satisfaction,

by school sector and school level: 1993–94

Level of satisfaction

Characteristic High Moderate Low

TOTAL 0.30 0.31 0.38

School sector

Public 0.33 0.35 0.42

Private 0.68 0.57 0.60

School level

Elementary 0.86 0.32 0.55

Secondary 0.83 0.28 0.51

Combined 0.88 0.35 0.43

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94.
Appendix A

A-4

Table 2a Standard errors for percent distribution of public school teachers across levels

of satisfaction, by school level and selected school and classroom

characteristics: 1993-94

Elementary school teachers Secondary school teachers

School and classroom High Moderate Low High Moderate Low

characteristics satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction

TOTAL 0.48 0.54 0.59 0.34 0.29 0.34

Community type

Central city 0.98 1.16 0.88 0.59 0.67 0.72

Urban fringe 0.99 1.06 1.00 0.55 0.60 0.60

Small town/rural 0.78 0.71 0.72 0.44 0.44 0.44

School size

Less than 150 2.99 2.68 2.19 1.26 1.69 1.49

150-499 0.91 0.77 0.68 0.81 0.63 0.83

500-749 0.92 0.96 1.01 0.85 0.88 1.11

750 or larger 1.03 1.23 1.27 0.41 0.39 0.50

Percent of students who

 are minorities

Less than 20 percent 0.71 0.78 0.87 0.45 0.42 0.46

20 percent or more 0.63 0.72 0.80 0.44 0.49 0.48

Percent of students receiving free/

 reduced price lunch

Less than 5 percent 1.69 1.72 1.93 0.62 0.75 0.74

5 to 19 percent 1.08 1.06 1.32 0.49 0.55 0.59

20 percent or more 0.54 0.61 0.59 0.49 0.46 0.58

Grade level taught

Kindergarten 2.13 1.90 1.76 — — —

Grades 1−4 0.86 0.82 0.83 — — —

Grades 5−8 0.76 1.02 1.06 0.80 1.03 1.18

Grades 9−12 — — — 0.37 0.35 0.39

Multiple grade levels 1.09 1.06 1.02 0.65 0.72 0.95

Main teaching field

General 0.69 0.71 0.63 7.16 4.90 5.68

English/reading/language arts 1.95 2.02 1.92 0.83 0.85 1.00

Arithmetic/mathematics 2.66 2.84 2.47 0.81 0.92 0.85

Social studies/history 2.83 2.91 3.58 1.04 0.94 1.04

Science 3.30 2.88 2.89 0.82 0.79 0.94

Foreign language 6.43 9.20 8.22 1.36 1.46 1.49

Art or music 2.59 2.67 2.41 1.38 1.50 1.46

Vocational/technical 5.40 6.80 6.96 1.07 1.07 0.94

Special education 1.77 1.81 1.63 1.14 1.18 1.05

Bilingual or ESL education 3.37 3.92 2.16 3.14 2.85 3.21

Other 1.96 1.92 2.08 0.86 0.84 1.11

—Not applicable.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher Questionnaire.
Appendix A

A-5

Table 3a Standard errors for percent distribution of private school teachers across levels

of satisfaction, by school level and selected school and classroom

characteristics: 1993-94

Elementary school teachers Secondary school teachers

School and classroom High Moderate Low High Moderate Low

characteristics satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction

TOTAL 0.93 0.78 0.66 1.45 1.01 1.19

Community type

Central city 1.51 1.30 0.98 1.98 1.34 1.68

Urban fringe 1.68 1.40 0.94 1.97 1.59 1.89

Small town/rural 2.10 1.69 1.49 3.29 3.09 2.42

School size

Less than 150 1.99 1.95 1.42 3.59 3.20 3.70

150−499 1.27 0.88 0.93 2.66 1.92 1.81

500−749 2.90 2.48 1.83 2.60 2.20 2.01

750 or larger 8.17 6.85 3.34 2.51 1.67 2.01

Percent of students who

 are minorities

Less than 20 percent 1.13 0.90 0.81 1.77 1.11 1.62

20 percent or more 1.56 1.43 1.16 2.35 1.85 1.48

Percent of students receiving free/

 reduced price lunch

Less than 5 percent 1.11 1.04 0.76 1.37 1.14 1.22

5 to 19 percent 2.33 1.66 1.74 4.38 3.23 3.25

20 percent or more 2.95 3.00 1.97 9.10 5.70 4.95

Grade level taught

Kindergarten 2.71 2.63 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grades 1−4 1.37 1.12 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grades 5−8 1.66 1.59 1.31 0.00 8.17 0.00

Grades 9−12 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.55 1.04 1.22

Multiple grade levels 1.83 1.98 1.52 3.87 2.72 4.21

Main teaching field

General 0.96 0.84 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00

English/reading/lang. arts 2.97 3.16 2.44 2.76 2.22 3.47

Arithmetic/mathematics 3.77 3.34 2.82 3.00 3.00 2.26

Social studies/history 3.88 3.18 3.88 3.23 3.76 2.16

Science 4.34 3.96 3.82 2.87 2.57 2.98

Foreign language 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.70 3.04 3.20

Art or music 5.52 6.11 5.60 5.17 4.03 3.61

Vocational/technical 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.51 7.38 5.52

Special education 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.93 3.93 8.38

Bilingual or ESL ed. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Other 3.83 3.49 3.51 2.83 1.99 2.57

— Not applicable.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher questionnaire.
Appendix A

A-6

Table 4a Standard errors for percent distribution of public school teachers across levels

of satisfaction, by school level and selected teacher background

characteristics: 1993–94

Elementary Secondary

High Moderate Low High Moderate Low

Characteristic satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction

TOTAL 0.48 0.54 0.59 0.34 0.29 0.34

Sex

Male 1.26 1.24 1.34 0.52 0.35 0.53

Female 0.59 0.59 0.67 0.43 0.37 0.41

Race/ethnicity of teacher

White, non-Hispanic 0.53 0.58 0.65 0.37 0.30 0.36

Black, non-Hispanic 1.85 1.85 2.15 1.51 1.30 1.34

Hispanic 2.66 2.65 2.01 1.75 2.02 2.09

Native American 2.50 2.55 2.30 2.83 3.01 3.27

Asian/Pacific Islander 7.22 5.62 4.61 3.89 2.79 3.48

Age

Under 30 1.86 1.53 1.47 1.25 1.29 1.49

30−39 1.24 1.12 1.07 0.86 0.80 0.75

40−49 0.74 0.77 0.88 0.55 0.47 0.59

Over 49 0.88 1.08 1.00 0.64 0.61 0.59

Highest degree earned

High school diploma 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.86 3.40 3.74

Associate degree 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.45 6.79 8.19

Bachelor's degree 0.68 0.76 0.70 0.53 0.41 0.56

Master's degree 0.80 0.88 0.87 0.55 0.50 0.48

Educational specialist

or professional diploma 3.01 1.96 2.65 1.52 1.51 1.52

Doctorate or first

professional degree 9.61 9.28 10.90 3.03 4.17 3.95

Years of teaching experience

3 years or less 1.78 1.57 1.51 1.00 0.93 0.92

4−9 years 1.04 1.09 1.20 0.88 0.69 0.93

10−19 years 0.80 0.95 0.87 0.56 0.53 0.60

20 years or more 0.74 1.14 1.10 0.52 0.44 0.47

Class size

1−10 1.95 2.19 2.06 1.04 1.03 1.00

11−18 1.03 1.13 1.13 0.53 0.57 0.55

19−27 0.75 0.70 0.83 0.64 0.58 0.69

28 or more 1.03 1.12 1.08 0.61 0.60 0.71

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, and Staffing Survey 1993–94, Teacher

questionnaire.
Appendix A

A-7

Table 5a Standard errors for percent distribution of private school teachers across levels

of satisfaction, by school level and selected teacher background

characteristics: 1993–94

Elementary Secondary

High Moderate Low High Moderate Low

Characteristic satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction

TOTAL 0.93 0.78 0.66 1.45 1.01 1.19

Sex

Male 2.94 2.19 2.76 1.72 1.35 1.38

Female 1.01 0.51 0.60 2.23 1.47 1.95

Race/ethnicity of teacher

White, non-Hispanic 0.94 0.82 0.69 1.61 1.09 1.29

Black, non-Hispanic 4.08 4.43 2.46 0.00 9.06 0.00

Hispanic 4.59 3.76 3.74 5.35 4.74 4.18

Native American 5.45 3.63 4.37 7.34 9.05 6.89

Asian/Pacific Islander 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Age

Under 30 2.02 1.92 1.32 3.83 2.37 2.53

30−39 1.43 1.55 1.53 2.29 2.23 2.01

40−49 1.58 1.37 1.11 2.22 1.71 1.94

Over 49 1.66 1.45 1.07 2.23 1.88 2.18

Highest degree earned

High school diploma 5.84 5.20 5.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

Associate degree 7.46 7.07 6.14 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bachelor's degree 1.11 0.90 0.76 2.14 1.58 1.73

Master's degree 1.88 1.70 1.44 1.73 1.40 1.15

Educational specialist

or professional diploma 5.22 5.79 2.65 7.95 5.67 7.69

Doctorate or first

professional degree 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.84 3.91 9.68

Years of teaching experience

3 years or less 1.84 1.67 1.32 2.82 1.90 2.56

4−9 years 1.71 1.43 1.32 2.57 1.98 2.13

10−19 years 1.37 1.31 1.06 2.68 2.24 2.10

20 years or more 2.29 1.84 1.36 2.66 1.43 2.02

Class size

1−10 3.89 3.88 2.56 4.57 3.16 3.80

11−18 1.45 1.33 1.28 1.77 1.58 1.45

19−27 1.66 1.55 1.11 2.72 1.69 2.38

28 or more 1.60 1.41 1.19 2.01 1.68 1.67

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher questionnaire.
Appendix A

A-8

Table 6a Standard errors for the percent of teachers across levels of satisfaction, by

school sector, school level, and teacher compensation factors: 1993–94

Elementary Secondary

High Moderate Low High Moderate Low

Characteristic satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction

Public

TOTAL 0.48 0.54 0.59 0.34 0.29 0.34

Salary

Less than $25,000 1.15 0.78 1.02 0.71 0.66 0.73

$25,000−$40,000 0.75 0.74 0.72 0.41 0.42 0.49

Over $40,000 0.96 1.41 1.42 0.63 0.61 0.66

Benefits

None 2.86 2.33 2.37 1.41 1.59 1.75

At least medical insurance 0.52 0.58 0.64 0.36 0.33 0.39

1 to 3 types 0.72 0.69 0.72 0.37 0.41 0.51

4 to 6 types 0.67 0.97 0.97 0.53 0.56 0.56

7 to 8 types 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Supplement salary with non-school job

Yes 1.19 1.13 1.11 0.63 0.58 0.61

No 0.57 0.65 0.69 0.38 0.41 0.40

Earn additional compensation through school

Yes 0.89 0.79 0.98 0.46 0.39 0.52

No 0.57 0.63 0.65 0.52 0.43 0.53

Private

Total 0.93 0.78 0.66 1.45 1.01 1.19

Salary

Less than $25,000 1.11 0.95 0.75 1.96 1.53 1.51

$25,000−$40,000 1.95 1.56 1.76 1.94 1.51 1.90

Over $40,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.22 4.08 4.93

Benefits

None 2.67 2.29 1.43 6.62 5.67 6.65

At least medical insurance 1.03 0.87 0.84 1.70 1.13 1.34

1 to 3 types 1.20 1.02 0.81 1.67 1.37 1.79

4 to 6 types 1.75 1.45 1.38 2.12 1.53 1.45

7 to 8 types 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.63 8.47 5.94

Supplement salary with non-school job

Yes 1.40 1.47 1.43 2.59 1.92 2.40

No 1.16 0.91 0.72 1.38 1.12 1.19

Earn additional compensation through school

Yes 2.11 1.93 1.54 1.57 1.12 1.42

No 0.92 0.85 0.69 2.26 1.65 1.81

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher questionnaire.
Appendix A

A-9

Table 7a Standard errors for the percent distribution of public school teachers across

levels of satisfaction, by school level and selected attitudes and perceptions of

workplace conditions

Elementary Secondary

High Moderate Low High Moderate Low

Attitude and, perceptions of workplace conditions satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction

Administration is supportive and encouraging

Agree 0.58 0.59 0.54 0.39 0.31 0.41

Disagree 1.12 1.47 1.55 0.63 0.63 0.71

The level of student misbehavior in this school

interferes with teaching

Agree 0.80 0.82 0.89 0.49 0.43 0.63

Disagree 0.67 0.74 0.65 0.47 0.44 0.42

Teachers participate in making important school decisions

Agree 0.68 0.64 0.61 0.40 0.40 0.48

Disagree 0.75 0.90 0.96 0.47 0.41 0.41

Parents support teachers' work

Agree 0.80 0.86 0.59 0.51 0.51 0.54

Disagree 0.65 0.86 0.97 0.41 0.38 0.42

Routine duties and paperwork interfere with teaching

Agree 0.56 0.63 0.78 0.39 0.29 0.41

Disagree 1.03 1.11 0.64 0.64 0.58 0.64

Necessary materials are available

Agree 0.61 0.70 0.68 0.41 0.38 0.41

Disagree 0.85 1.11 1.03 0.56 0.63 0.75

Principal frequently discusses instructional practices

with teachers

Agree 0.73 0.77 0.68 0.61 0.56 0.54

Disagree 0.76 0.77 0.89 0.39 0.43 0.42

There is a great deal of cooperative effort among the staff

Agree 0.56 0.59 0.59 0.37 0.35 0.40

Disagree 1.25 1.44 1.59 0.61 0.66 0.65

Staff members are recognized for a job well done

Agree 0.60 0.55 0.55 0.44 0.38 0.47

Disagree 1.00 1.17 1.35 0.48 0.46 0.54

Student absenteeism is a problem

Agree 0.73 0.98 0.93 0.41 0.33 0.46

Disagree 0.55 0.62 0.65 0.62 0.57 0.57

Student apathy is a problem

Agree 0.61 0.86 0.89 0.34 0.33 0.43

Disagree 0.72 0.71 0.59 0.82 0.78 0.66

Has a student from this school ever threatened to injure you?

Yes 0.98 1.21 1.27 0.49 0.60 0.65

No 0.56 0.58 0.63 0.46 0.34 0.39

Has a student from this school ever physically attacked you?

Yes 1.63 1.33 1.68 1.01 1.20 1.55

No 0.50 0.58 0.56 0.37 0.30 0.35

Teachers have a great deal of influence

over school policy 4.41 4.17 3.51 2.85 2.36 2.15

Teachers have complete control in the classroom 0.77 0.94 0.77 0.49 0.43 0.53

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher questionnaire.
Appendix A

A-10

Table 8aStandard errors for percent distribution of private school teachers across levels

of satisfaction, by school level and selected attitudes and perceptions of

workplace conditions

Elementary Secondary

High Moderate Low High Moderate Low

Attitude and, perceptions of workplace conditions satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction

Administration is supportive and encouraging

Agree 0.94 0.83 0.61 1.45 0.95 1.23

Disagree 2.25 2.13 2.55 3.53 3.38 3.49

The level of student misbehavior in this school interferes

with teaching

Agree 1.90 1.82 1.85 3.00 2.23 2.88

Disagree 1.00 0.88 0.61 1.29 1.16 0.96

Teachers participate in making important school decisions

Agree 1.00 0.85 0.76 1.84 1.31 1.11

Disagree 1.90 1.77 1.37 2.04 1.59 2.13

Parents support teachers' work

Agree 0.89 0.81 0.61 1.32 0.98 1.11

Disagree 2.29 2.33 2.46 3.00 2.29 2.50

Routine duties and paperwork interfere with teaching

Agree 1.39 1.30 1.12 2.08 1.66 1.92

Disagree 1.30 1.19 0.85 1.88 1.42 1.42

Necessary materials are available

Agree 0.98 0.88 0.75 1.43 1.06 1.24

Disagree 1.58 1.41 1.47 4.23 2.77 3.04

Principal frequently discusses instructional practices

with teachers

Agree 1.11 1.08 0.72 2.02 1.83 1.57

Disagree 1.24 1.24 1.18 1.59 1.11 1.43

There is a great deal of cooperative effort among the staff

Agree 1.01 0.84 0.68 1.52 1.05 1.23

Disagree 2.96 2.40 2.53 3.23 2.43 3.39

Staff members are recognized for a job well done

Agree 0.97 0.86 0.62 1.66 1.33 1.04

Disagree 2.01 1.77 1.96 2.52 2.09 2.75

Student absenteeism is a problem

Agree 2.57 2.16 2.36 2.62 2.27 2.23

Disagree 0.94 0.76 0.68 1.51 1.28 1.19

Student apathy is a problem

Agree 1.68 2.34 2.21 2.36 1.76 1.96

Disagree 0.98 0.85 0.68 2.00 1.47 1.53

Has a student from this school ever threatened to injure you?

Yes 3.73 3.27 3.33 5.20 3.90 4.60

No 0.91 0.77 0.66 1.41 1.08 1.14

Has a student from this school ever physically attacked you?

Yes 5.27 5.02 3.35 6.16 4.23 4.39

No 0.94 0.83 0.66 1.47 1.00 1.22

Teachers have a great deal of influence

over school policy 6.85 4.09 4.28 8.75 5.16 8.12

Teachers have complete control in the classroom 1.29 1.09 0.90 1.68 1.25 1.17

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher questionnaire.
Appendix A

A-11

Table 9a Standard errors for school sector and school level of the most and least

satisfied teachers: 1993−94

Level of satisfaction

Characteristic Total Most satisfied Least satisfied

TOTAL 0 0.32 0.18

School sector

Public 0.17 0.52 0.35

Private 0.17 0.52 0.35

School level

Elementary 0.35 0.66 1.12

Secondary 0.19 0.48 1.02

Combined 0.04 0.38 0.30

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94.
Appendix A

A-12

Table 10a Standard errors for mean characteristics of teachers with extremely high and

low levels of satisfaction, by school control and level: 1993-94

Elementary teachers Secondary teachers

Most Least Most Least

Characteristic Total satisfied satisfied Total satisfied satisfed

Public

Salary $697.45 $266.74 $329.14 $249.76 $234.61 $268.00

Number of benefits 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.03

Years of teaching experience 0.55 0.21 0.35 0.61 0.19 0.24

Age 0.19 0.26 0.37 0.25 0.19 0.21

Class size 0.56 0.45 0.59 0.94 0.54 0.45

School size 52.47 8.78 11.29 26.4 15.71 21.18

Percent of students in school

who are minorities 2.79 0.93 1.52 0.94 0.68 0.82

Percent of students in school who

receive free/reduced price lunches 3.42 1.04 1.45 0.68 0.45 0.76

Private

Salary $957.40 $243.81 $571.93 $623.96 $371.36 $984.07

Number of benefits 0.05 0.05 0.14 0.09 0.08 0.15

Years of teaching experience 1.04 0.28 0.59 1.61 0.41 1.11

Age 0.72 0.33 0.74 1.12 0.47 1.38

Class size 0.68 0.28 0.93 1.00 0.57 1.41

School size 5.74 6.12 12.19 19.80 21.69 47.39

Percent of students in school

who are minorities 1.34 1.21 4.58 2.00 1.06 2.49

Percent of students in school who

receive free/reduced price lunches 1.04 1.62 3.59 6.81 6.40 —

— Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher and School questionnaires.
Appendix A

A-13

Table 11a Standard errors for percent distribution of the most and least satisfied public

school teachers across selected school and teacher background

characteristics, by school level

Elementary teachers Secondary teachers

Most Least Most Least

Teacher characteristic Total satisfied satisfied Total satisfied satisfied

TOTAL 0.00 0.50 0.31 0.00 0.25 0.21

Sex

Male 0.32 1.10 0.83 0.26 0.38 0.30

Female 0.56 0.57 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.25

Race/ethnicity of teacher

White, non-Hispanic 0.56 0.52 0.35 0.37 0.29 0.21

Black, non-Hispanic 0.59 1.58 1.34 0.36 1.00 0.78

Hispanic 0.38 2.17 1.29 0.22 1.39 1.33

Native American 0.40 2.38 1.08 0.24 2.05 1.67

Asian/Pacific Islander 0.08 6.24 1.38 0.07 3.82 2.72

Highest degree earned

High school diploma 0.53 — — 0.40 2.44 1.68

Associate degree 0.04 — — 0.10 2.90 2.48

Bachelor's degree 0.01 0.62 0.42 0.01 0.39 0.34

Master's degree 0.51 0.79 0.47 0.40 0.39 0.32

Educational specialist or

 professional diploma 0.57 2.70 1.71 0.38 1.14 1.01

Doctorate or first

professional degree 0.24 9.64 6.43 0.15 3.14 2.08

Grade level taught

Kindergarten 0.62 1.78 1.07 0.39 — —

Grades 1−4 0.32 0.89 0.40 0.02 4.32 2.79

Grades 5−8 0.66 0.66 0.69 0.03 0.71 0.67

Grades 9−12 0.88 13.00 9.45 0.46 0.27 0.26

Multiple grade levels 0.04 0.96 0.58 0.58 0.49 0.46

Main teaching field

General 0.48 0.70 0.33 0.40 5.39 1.13

English/reading/language arts 0.80 1.70 1.05 0.05 0.59 0.56

Arithmetic/mathematics 0.34 2.23 1.84 0.20 0.59 0.55

Social studies/history 0.24 2.35 2.19 0.18 0.72 0.63

Science 0.19 2.57 1.69 0.18 0.67 0.86

Foreign language 0.18 5.52 6.50 0.17 1.01 1.04

Art or music 0.11 2.19 1.56 0.16 1.12 0.97

Vocational/technical 0.20 4.85 2.31 0.17 0.65 0.68

Special education 0.12 1.55 0.99 0.25 0.92 0.69

Bilingual or ESL education 0.29 3.43 1.29 0.22 2.87 2.28

Other 0.15 1.95 1.26 0.06 0.61 0.63

Community type

Central city 0.72 1.04 0.78 0.55 0.40 0.48

Urban fringe 0.96 0.88 0.56 0.62 0.43 0.35

Small town/rural 0.73 0.76 0.42 0.48 0.35 0.30

— Not applicable.

NOTE: All categories may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding errors.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher questionnaire.
Appendix A

A-14

Table 12a Standard errors for percent distribution of the most and least satisfied private

school teachers across selected school and teacher background

characteristics, by school level

Elementary teachers Secondary teachers

Most Least Most Least

Teacher characteristic Total satisfied satisfied Total satisfied satisfied

TOTAL 0.00 1.02 0.25 0.00 1.36 0.88

Sex

Male 0.38 2.90 1.12 0.82 1.71 1.17

Female 0.64 1.10 0.28 1.10 1.98 1.25

Race/ethnicity of teacher

White, non-Hispanic 0.64 1.04 0.28 1.10 1.51 0.98

Black, non-Hispanic 0.77 4.24 0.15 0.74 — —

Hispanic 0.53 4.14 1.66 0.33 5.51 3.07

Native American 0.45 6.45 3.75 0.59 6.37 5.03

Asian/Pacific Islander 0.17 — — 0.20 — —

Highest degree earned

High school diploma 0.71 5.72 0.96 1.16 — —

Associate degree 0.52 7.55 0.00 0.34 — —

Bachelor's degree 0.22 1.21 0.31 0.24 1.78 1.13

Master's degree 0.75 1.74 0.61 1.27 1.61 0.64

Educational specialist or

 professional diploma 0.95 5.42 1.87 1.18 7.32 1.16

Doctorate or first

 professional degree 0.29 — — 0.41 7.46 9.54

Grade level taught

Kindergarten 0.71 2.30 0.87 0.91 — —

Grades 1−4 0.48 1.32 0.31 0.00 — —

Grades 5−8 0.78 1.68 0.66 0.11 — —

Grades 9−12 0.67 — — 0.29 1.47 0.64

Multiple grade levels 0.06 1.79 0.74 1.17 2.87 3.53

Main teaching field

General 0.86 0.98 0.27 1.14 — —

English/reading/language arts 0.77 3.31 1.50 0.00 2.64 1.89

Arithmetic/mathematics 0.37 3.36 0.89 0.78 2.52 1.21

Social studies/history 0.34 3.97 2.39 0.88 2.71 0.71

Science 0.32 3.78 1.96 0.59 2.33 0.83

Foreign language 0.27 — — 0.63 2.78 2.78

Art or music 0.14 5.09 1.96 0.67 5.13 1.93

Vocational/technical 0.24 — — 0.54 5.81 4.85

Special education 0.04 — — 0.40 9.74 7.61

Bilingual or ESL education 0.10 — — 0.95 — —

Other 0.02 3.73 1.78 0.18 2.87 1.73

Community type

Central city 1.29 2.05 4.82 1.81 2.56 7.69

Urban fringe 1.27 1.98 4.49 1.79 2.29 6.21

Small town/rural 0.77 1.20 3.49 1.66 1.54 4.29

— Not available.

NOTE: All categories may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding errors

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher questionnaire.
Appendix A

A-15

Table 13a Standard errors for percent of most and least satisfied teachers who agree

with the following statements, by school sector and level

Elementary teachers Secondary teachers

Most Least Most Least

Attitude and perceptions of workplace conditions Total Satisfied Satisfied Total satisfied satisfied

Public

Administration is supportive and encouraging 0.54 0.79 2.19 0.35 0.70 1.11

The level of student misbehavior in this school interferes

 with teaching 0.63 1.26 2.11 0.38 0.99 1.15

Teachers participate in making important school decisions 0.57 0.95 2.05 0.52 1.03 1.08

Parents support teachers' work 0.60 1.24 1.93 0.47 0.80 0.99

Routine duties and paperwork interfere with teaching 0.59 1.32 1.64 0.28 0.94 0.81

Necessary materials are available 0.56 0.88 1.62 0.38 0.85 0.93

Principal frequently discusses instructional practices

 with teachers 0.66 1.23 2.31 0.39 1.05 0.92

There is a great deal of cooperative effort among staff 0.47 0.88 1.95 0.35 0.73 1.17

Staff members are recognized for a job well done 0.59 0.99 2.31 0.51 1.00 1.12

Student absenteeism is a problem 0.71 1.09 1.94 0.50 0.92 0.94

Student apathy is a problem 0.78 1.24 1.88 0.37 0.79 0.61

A student from this school has ever threatened to injure you 0.60 1.11 1.84 0.35 0.73 0.90

A student from this school has ever physically attacked you 0.41 0.74 1.39 0.22 0.42 0.71

Teachers have a great deal of influence over school policy 0.24 0.36 0.39 0.12 0.28 0.15

Teachers have complete control in the classroom 0.95 1.17 1.89 0.85 0.97 1.18

Private

Administration is supportive and caring 0.63 0.67 3.05 1.09 1.63 7.35

The level of student misbehavior in this school interferes

 with teaching 0.71 1.24 4.48 1.29 1.80 4.73

Teachers participate in making important school decisions 0.85 1.26 4.81 1.42 2.08 7.58

Parents support teachers' work 0.62 0.61 4.68 1.23 1.58 6.37

Routine duties and paperwork interfere with teaching 0.89 1.45 3.85 1.22 1.96 6.05

Necessary materials are available 0.76 0.91 4.60 0.98 2.17 3.11

Principal frequently discusses instructional practices

 with teachers 0.83 1.25 4.27 1.25 2.31 4.41

There is a great deal of cooperative effort among staff 0.54 0.78 2.82 0.67 1.41 4.39

Staff members are recognized for a job well done 0.67 0.91 4.33 1.21 1.92 5.00

Student absenteeism is a problem 0.44 0.82 2.14 1.25 1.30 5.71

Student apathy is a problem 0.53 0.72 4.42 1.17 2.30 4.91

A student from this school has ever threatened to injure you 0.41 0.39 3.12 0.97 1.84 5.12

A student from this school has ever physically attacked you 0.31 0.52 1.58 0.46 0.90 1.42

Teachers have a great deal of influence over school policy 0.70 0.72 0.77 0.65 0.73 5.40

Teachers have complete control in the classroom 1.12 1.34 5.25 1.05 1.74 4.18

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher questionnaire.
Appendix A

A-16

T-tests on percent of teachers with high levels of satisfaction, by school sector, level and

selected attitudes and perceptions of workplace conditions

Public elementary Public secondary Private elementary Private secondary

Attitude and, perceptions of workplace conditions % se t % se t % se t % se t

Administration is supportive and encouraging

 Agree 37.6 0.58 29.4 0.39 51.4 0.94 46.7 1.45

 Disagree 23.7 1.12 11.0 18.1 0.63 15.3 37.2 2.25 5.8 34.3 3.53 3.2

The level of student misbehavior in this school

 interferes with teaching

 Agree 26.5 0.80 19.6 0.49 40.0 1.90 30.0 3.00

 Disagree 41.5 0.67 -14.4 32.8 0.47-19.4 52.5 1.00 -5.8 48.1 1.29 5.5

Teachers participate in making important

 school decisions

 Agree 40.2 0.68 32.4 0.40 53.2 1.00 49.6 1.84

 Disagree 26.2 0.75 13.8 21.1 0.47 18.3 39.6 1.90 6.3 35.6 2.04 5.1

Parents support teachers' work

 Agree 41.5 0.80 33.4 0.51 52.0 0.89 47.8 1.32

 Disagree 25.8 0.65 15.2 21.7 0.41 17.9 33.0 2.29 7.7 32.8 3.00 4.6

Routine duties and paperwork interfere with teaching

 Agree 31.4 0.56 22.9 0.39 43.4 1.39 38.0 2.08

 Disagree 44.2 1.03 -10.9 36.5 0.64-18.1 54.8 1.30 -6.0 50.4 1.88 -4.4

Necessary materials are available

 Agree 37.4 0.61 28.9 0.41 50.5 0.98 44.7 1.43

 Disagree 28.1 0.85 8.9 20.7 0.56 11.8 45.7 1.58 2.6 42. 4.23 0.5

Principal frequently discusses instructional

 practices with teachers

 Agree 41.1 0.73 34.0 0.61 56.4 1.11 53.9 2.02

 Disagree 28.8 0.76 11.7 22.7 0.39 15.6 40.8 1.24 9.4 37.9 1.59 6.2

There is a great deal of cooperative effort

 among the staff 

 Agree 36.9 0.56 28.6 0.37 50.7 1.01 46.3 1.52

 Disagree 26.2 1.25 7.8 21.7 0.61 9.7 40.6 2.96 3.2 32.1 3.23 4.0

Staff members are recognized for a job well done

 Agree 39.3 0.60 31.6 0.44 53.1 0.97 47.9 1.66

 Disagree 24.1 1.00 13.0 18.9 0.48 19.5 35.3 2.01 8.0 34.7 2.52 4.4

Student absenteeism is a problem

 Agree 30.8 0.73 24.3 0.41 48.0 2.57 33.6 2.62

 Disagree 37.4 0.55 -7.2 32.2 0.62-10.6 49.9 0.94 -0.7 48.1 1.51 -4.8

Student apathy is a problem

 Agree 25.6 0.61 23.2 0.34 35.0 1.68 33.7 2.36

 Disagree 42.3 0.72 -17.7 38.3 0.82-17.0 52.2 0.98 -8.8 51.4 2.00 -5.7

Has a student from this school ever threatened

 to injure you?

 Yes 25.5 0.98 20.3 0.49 41.1 3.73 36.5 5.20

 No 37.6 0.56 -10.7 29.7 0.46-14.0 50.1 0.91 -2.3 45.4 1.41 -1.7

Has a student from this school ever physically

 attacked you?

 Yes 32.4 1.63 21.6 1.01 43.2 5.27 62.0 6.16

 No 35.2 0.50 -1.6 27.1 0.37 -5.1 49.9 0.94 -1.3 44.0 1.47 2.8

Teachers have a great deal of influence

 over school policy* 48.8 4.41 48.5 2.85 61.4 6.85 51.0 8.75

Teachers have complete control in the classroom* 42.5 0.77 1.4 32.4 0.49 5.6 53.5 1.29 1.1 46.3 1.68 0.5

*Teachers were asked a series of questions about how much influence they had over school policies and how much control they

had in the classroom. They answered each question on a five point scale where “0” meant no or no control and “5” meant a great

deal of influence or complete control. The numbers reported here are the percentage of teachers whose average response to the

questions was above “4.”

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher Questionnaire.
Appendix B

Supplemental Regression Table


Appendix B

B-3

Table B1 OLS estimates of teacher satisfaction regressed on policy relevant workplace

conditions and teacher compensation

Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Characteristic (b)2(se) (b)2(se) (b)2(se) (b)2(se) (b)2(se) (b)2(se)

School and teacher background characteristics

 Public -0.36 *** 0.020 -0.16 *** 0.017 -0.05 *** 0.018 -0.27 *** 0.019 -0.49 *** 0.023 -0.10 *** 0.021

 Secondary -0.10 *** 0.018 -0.05 *** 0.019 -0.01 ** 0.017 -0.10 *** 0.018 -0.11 *** 0.017 -0.03 *** 0.017

 Urban -0.003 0.018 0.01 0.018 0.01 0.017 0.03 ** 0.019 -0.04 * 0.019 -0.002 0.019

 Suburban 0.10 *** 0.017 0.08 *** 0.015 0.07 *** 0.015 0.11 *** 0.016 0.02 0.017 0.02 0.016

 School size1-0.001 0.001 0.001 *** 0.001 0.002 *** 0.001 0.005 *** 0.001 -0.003 0.001 0.004 *** 0.001

 Percent of students who are minority -0.002 *** 0.000 -0.002 *** 0.000 0.001 *** 0.000 -0.001 *** 0.000 -0.002 *** 0.000 0.001 *** 0.000

 Sex of teacher -0.12 *** 0.016 -0.15 *** 0.016 -0.09 *** 0.015 -0.12 *** 0.015 -0.15 *** 0.017 -0.14 *** 0.015

 Black teacher 0.11 *** 0.034 0.07 * 0.031 -0.03 0.034 0.07 ** 0.032 0.13 *** 0.035 -0.01 0.031

 Hispanic teacher 0.15 *** 0.033 0.12 *** 0.032 0.004 0.036 0.10 *** 0.033 0.15 *** 0.033 0.01 0.035

 Native American teacher 0.03 0.039 0.01 0.036 -0.08 *** 0.038 -0.07 ** 0.037 0.03 0.038 -0.11 *** 0.035

 Asian teacher 0.10 0.084 0.09 ** 0.075 0.06 0.073 0.07 ** 0.069 0.11 ** 0.083 0.07 0.063

 Years teaching experience -0.10 *** 0.008 -0.10 *** 0.007 -0.12 *** 0.007 -0.09 *** 0.007 -0.15 *** 0.008 -0.14 *** 0.008

 Highest degree earned 0.01 0.012 0.03 *** 0.010 0.02 * 0.010 0.02 * 0.011 -0.02 * 0.011 0.002 0.010

 Main teaching field - General 0.10 *** 0.022 0.12 *** 0.020 0.02 0.018 0.16 *** 0.020 0.11 *** 0.022 0.11 *** 0.020

 Main teaching field - English -0.01 0.021 0.01 0.021 0.04 * 0.021 0.04 0.020 -0.01 0.020 0.08 *** 0.020

 Main teaching field - Mathematics -0.08 *** 0.028 -0.07 *** 0.026 -0.03 0.023 0.01 0.026 -0.07 *** 0.028 0.03 0.023

 Main teaching field - Social studies -0.03 0.031 0.02 * 0.030 0.02 ** 0.030 0.02 ** 0.030 -0.03 0.031 0.07 *** 0.031

 Main teaching field - Science -0.10 *** 0.028 -0.04 *** 0.027 -0.03 *** 0.023 -0.05 *** 0.027 -0.09 *** 0.028 0.02 ** 0.026

 Main teaching field - Foreign language -0.12 *** 0.039 -0.10 ** 0.039 -0.09 ** 0.038 -0.08 ** 0.037 -0.14 *** 0.039 -0.08 ** 0.038

Administrative support and leadership

 Adminstrator is supportive and encouraging 0.15 *** 0.009 0.07 *** 0.084

 There is cooperative effort among staff members 0.10 *** 0.009 0.03 *** 0.009

 Necessary materials are avaiable 0.09 *** 0.008 0.02 *** 0.008

 Routine duties & paperwork do not interfere with teaching 0.17 *** 0.007 0.11 *** 0.006

Student behavior and environmental conditions

 Student misbehavior does not interfere with teaching 0.14 *** 0.007 0.10 *** 0.007

 Student apathy is not a problem 0.14 *** 0.008 0.09 *** 0.008

 Violence is not a problem 0.12 *** 0.016 0.08 *** 0.015

 Parents support teachers work 0.18 *** 0.007 0.12 *** 0.007

Teacher control over working environment

 Principal frequently discusses instructional practices 0.12 *** 0.008 0.06 *** 0.008

 Teachers have great control in their classroom 0.20 *** 0.010 0.13 *** 0.009

 Teachers have great influence over school policy 0.14 *** 0.008 0.06 *** 0.008

Teacher compensation

 Salary20.01 *** 0.001 0.01 *** 0.001

 Benefits 0.07 *** 0.012 0.06 *** 0.011

 Other opportunities within school for income 0.11 *** 0.015 0.08 *** 0.013

 Work outside of school for extra income -0.08 *** 0.015 -0.06 *** 0.013

Intercept 0.649 -1.06 -1.04 -0.95 0.59 -2.19

R

2

0.048 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.07 0.22

n 40709 40705 40705 40706 40642 40631

NOTE: All coefficients shown are unstandardized regression coefficients. Zeros are not true zeros but are less than .000. Any

negative statements have been reversed so that the more positive response is in the same direction as higher satisfaction. For

example, one original item was worded “Student apathy is a problem;” the responses were recoded so they matched the statement

“Student apathy is not a problem.”

1

Per 100 students.

2

Per 1000 dollars.

*Significant at a<.05. **Significant at a<.01. ***Significant at a<.001.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey 1993–94,

Teacher and School questionnaires.
Appendix C

Technical Notes
C-2
Appendix C

C-3

Technical Notes

I. Survey Content

The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) consists of four main component surveys

administered to districts, schools, principals, and teachers. These surveys are the

Teacher Demand and Shortage Survey, the School Principal Survey, the School

Survey, and the Teacher Survey. 

• The Teacher Demand and Shortage questionnaire has two sections,

enrollment and teaching positions, and district policies. The first

section, on enrollment and teaching positions, obtains information on

the number of students, the number of teachers and librarians,

position vacancies, new hires and certification status. The second

section, on district policies, obtains information on teacher salary

schedules and benefits, incentives, hiring and retirement policies, and

high school graduation requirements. Race/ethnicity data on the

student population and the teacher work force are also collected. The

corresponding sections for private schools are incorporated into the

Private School questionnaire. The data derived from this survey

permit an assessment of teacher demand and shortage, the estimation

of the number of teachers who hold certification in their field of

assignment, and the affect of various policies on teacher supply and

demand balances.

• The School Principal questionnaire obtains information about the age,

sex, race/ethnicity, training, experience, salary, benefits, opinions and

attitudes of school principals/headmasters. Questions required both

objective responses (e.g., number of years of teaching experience) and

judgmental responses (e.g., ranking the seriousness of school

problems). The data derived from this survey provide insight into

qualifications of school principals, which school problems principals

view as serious, and how principals perceive their influence on school

policies.

• School questionnaires were sent to public schools and private schools. 

The private school version of the questionnaire included items for

identifying the religious or other affiliation of the school. This survey
Appendix C

C-4

obtained information about schools such as student characteristics,

staffing patterns, student-teacher ratios, types of programs and services

offered, length of school day and school year, graduation and college

application rates, and teacher turnover rates. These data provide

information about the teaching experience of the staff, the sources of

newly hired teachers, and the destinations of teachers who left the

school the previous year.

• Teacher questionnaires were sent to teachers in public and private

schools. The two versions of the questionnaire were virtually

identical. The survey collected data from teachers regarding their

education and training, teaching assignment, teaching experience,

certification, teaching workload, perceptions and attitudes about

teaching, job mobility, and workplace conditions. This information

permits analyses of how these factors affect movement into and out of

the teaching profession.

In addition to these four main components, the 1993−94 SASS featured: 1) similar

principal, school, and teacher components specific to federally-funded Bureau of

Indian Affairs or tribally−run Indian schools, 2) new components focusing on

Library Media Specialists/Librarians and Library/Media Centers, and 3) a new student

records component. 

Copies of the questionnaires used in the SASS can be obtained by writing to:

Schools and Staffing Survey Questionnaires

National Center for Education Statistics

555 New Jersey Ave., NW, Rm. 422

Washington, DC 20208-5651

II. Target Population and Estimates for SASS

Target Populations. The target populations for 1993-94 SASS were:

• Local Education Agencies (LEAs) that employ elementary and/or

secondary level teachers (for example: public school districts, state

agencies that operate schools for special student populations, such as

inmates of juvenile correctional facilities, and cooperative agencies that

provide special services to more than one school district).

• Public and private schools with students in any of grades 1−12.

• Principals of those schools.
Appendix C

C-5

• Teachers in public and private schools who teach students in grades

K−12.

Estimates. The SASS was designed to support estimates at both the state and

national level for the public sector, and at the national and association level for the

private sector. The association groups for private schools were determined by the

school's association or affiliation group listed on the 1991−92 Private Schools Survey

(the frame) and updated with 1992−93 association lists. The association groups were

determined in the following order:

1) Militarymembership in the Association of American Military Colleges

and Schools;

2) Catholicaffiliation as Catholic or membership in the National Catholic

Education Association or the Jesuit Secondary Education Association;

3) Friendsaffiliation as Friends or membership in the Friends Council on

Education;

4) Episcopalaffiliation as Episcopal or membership in the National

Association of Episcopal Schools;

5) Hebrew Daymembership in the National Society for Hebrew Day

Schools;

6) Solomon Schechtermembership in the Solomon Schechter Day Schools;

7) Other Jewishother Jewish affiliation;

8) Missouri Synodmembership in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod;

9) Wisconsin Synodmembership in the Evangelical Lutheran Church−

Wisconsin Synod or affiliation as Evangelical Lutheran−Wisconsin Synod;

10) Evangelical Lutheran membership in the Association of Evangelical

Lutheran Churches or affiliation as Evangelical Lutheran Church in

America;

11) Other Lutheranother Lutheran affiliation;

12) Seventh−Day Adventistaffiliation as Seventh-Day Adventist or

membership in the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists;

13)Christian Schools Internationalmembership in Christian Schools

International;
Appendix C

C-6

14) Association of Christian Schools Internationalmembership in the

Association of Christian Schools International;

15) National Association of Private Schools for Exceptional

Childrenmembership in the National Association of Private Schools for

Exceptional Children;

16) Montessorimembership in the American Montessori Society or other

Montessori associations;

17) National Association of Independent Schoolsmember of the National

Association of Independent Schools;

18) National Independent Private School Associationmember of the

National Independent Private School Association;

19) All elsemember of any other association specified in the PSS or affiliated

with a group not listed above or not a member of any association.

Comparisons between public and private schools are only possible at the national and

regional level, because private schools are selected for sampling by association group

and not by geographic location, such as state.

The teacher survey was designed to support comparisons between new and

experienced teachers. Comparisons between bilingual and nonbilingual teachers are

possible at the national level. 

III. Sample Design and Implementation1

A. Sampling Frames

1. Public Schools

The public school sampling frame was based on the 1991−92 school year

CCD, which is a file of information collected annually by the NCES from all

state education agencies and which is believed to be the most complete public

school listing available. The frame includes regular public schools,

Department of Defense operated military base schools, and special purpose

schools such as special education, vocational, and alternative schools. After

the deletion of duplicate schools, schools outside of the United States, and

 

 

1

For a detailed description of the sample design see Abramson, R., Cole, C., Jackson, B., and Kaufman,

S. 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation, U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 96-089.
Appendix C

C-7

schools that only teach prekindergarten, kindergarten or postsecondary

students, there were a total of 82,746 schools on the public school frame.

2. Private Schools

The sampling frame for private schools was the 1991-92 Private School

Survey, updated with 1992-93 association lists.2 This data collection uses

two components to develop estimates of the number of private schools in the

United States. A list frame was the primary private school frame and an area

frame was used to identify schools not included on the list frame and thereby

compensate for the undercoverage of the list frame.

B. Sample Selection Procedures

Schools are the primary sampling unit in SASS. Public schools were selected to be

representative at the national and state levels; private schools were selected to be

representative at the national and association levels. More detail is available in

Abramson, et al. (NCES 96-089).3

Once schools were selected, LEAs associated with these schools were in sample as

well. Hence, the LEA sample consisted of the set of LEAs that were associated with

the SASS public school sample. This provided the linkage between the LEA and the

school.

Each selected school was asked to provide a list of their teachers and selected

characteristics. Nine percent of the private schools and four percent of the public

schools did not provide teacher lists. A factor in the teacher weighting system was

used to adjust for these nonparticipant schools.

C. Sample Sizes

Tables III.1 and III.2 show the sample sizes and number of interview cases for each

questionnaire, by state and private school typology, respectively. Table III.3 shows

the sample size actually used in this report once the sample was limited to regular,

full-time teachers.

The number in sample is the number of in-scope, or eligible cases. This number

excludes the out-of-scope cases, which are drawn for the sample but are not eligible

 

2Broughman, S., Gerald, E., Bynum, L., and Stoner, K. Private School Universe, 1991-92, United

States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 94-350.

 

3Abramson, R., Cole, C., Jackson, B., and Kaufman, S. 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample

Design and Estimation, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES

96-089.
Appendix C

C-8

for interview. For example, a school which has closed or a teacher who has left the

country would be considered out-of-scope.

The number of interviews is the number of in-scope (eligible) cases minus the

noninterview cases. The noninterview cases include refusals or sample

questionnaires with too little valid data to be considered complete interviews for the

survey. The number of interviews is the actual unweighted number of cases upon

which estimates in this report are based. A nonresponse adjustment is included in the

weights to reduce the bias due to nonresponse.
Appendix C

C-9

Table III.1 Number of in−scope sample cases and number of interviews, public school

districts, principals, and schools: 1993−94

District Public principals Public school Public teacher

# in sample # in interviews # in sample # in interviews # in sample # in interviews # in sample # in interviews

50 States and DC 5,378 5,008 9,415 9,098 9,532 8,767 53,008 47,109

Alabama 104 97 234 232 234 224 1,308 1,172

Alaska 46 44 496 188 197 170 1,022 864

Arizona 94 92 203 194 206 190 1,229 1,101

Arkansas 123 120 164 162 164 156 955 863

California 264 223 401 380 406 352 2,578 2,124

Colorado 74 64 173 158 176 164 977 868

Connecticut 99 90 160 152 161 148 832 726

Delaware 19 17 71 70 71 63 309 268

District of Columbia 1 1 64 54 65 55 278 197

Florida 56 55 238 236 243 228 1,291 1,161

Georgia 97 95 179 177 179 168 924 845

Hawaii 1 1 92 88 93 85 713 616

Idaho 79 75 167 165 169 158 969 900

Illinois 185 163 253 246 254 238 1,284 1,125

Indiana 133 120 176 172 178 166 1,028 936

Iowa 127 115 165 163 163 158 975 906

Kansas 110 104 162 150 162 149 1,26 933

Kentucky 104 103 158 149 161 149 803 721

Louisiana 65 57 223 219 224 207 1,079 969

Maine 103 98 153 144 156 145 897 81

Maryland 23 19 162 154 167 135 730 646

Massachusetts 155 151 222 217 222 208 1,508 1,325

Michigan 187 178 208 201 214 202 1,034 933

Minnesota 121 103 167 163 172 160 977 910

Mississippi 116 113 204 200 207 195 1,098 988

Missouri 126 122 176 173 177 168 990 896

Montana 154 145 176 169 190 178 1,354 1,249

Nebraska 112 106 146 142 163 139 830 770

New Hampshire 76 72 120 120 121 117 582 521

New Jersey 151 113 191 185 192 167 1,012 858

New Mexico 60 59 171 164 173 160 863 771

New York 200 183 312 281 315 270 1,831 1,460

North Carolina 83 78 204 199 204 181 1,010 908

North Dakota 117 114 171 168 123 166 1,179 1,101
Appendix C

C-10

Table III.1 Number of in−scope sample cases and number of interviews, public school

districts, principals, and schools: 1993−94 (cont)

District Public principals Public school Public teacher

# in sample # in interviews # in sample # in interviews # in sample # in interviews # in sample # in interviews

Ohio 155 155 188 182 189 176 999 895

Oklahoma 231 214 323 307 326 306 1,987 1,740

Oregon 107 103 173 170 173 159 1,016 909

Pennsylvania 157 142 182 175 189 169 939 830

Rhode Island 34 34 99 93 99 88 421 356

South Carolina 69 64 162 157 162 141 781 701

South Dakota 113 108 170 168 172 165 1,079 970

Tennessee 86 82 187 183 187 179 989 888

Texas 290 277 403 388 406 380 2,498 2,245

Utah 31 30 175 173 176 174 1,004 928

Vermont 89 88 103 97 105 97 489 423

Virginia 88 80 179 174 180 158 845 758

Washington 117 112 210 207 212 200 1,213 1,065

West Virginia 55 53 166 166 168 154 926 850

Wisconsin 126 114 174 173 176 164 1,014 930

Wyoming 48 44 136 134 136 131 826 748

Note: The number of in−scope cases in sample is the actual sample size achieved, less out-of-scope cases. Out-of-scope cases are

drawn for the sample but not eligible for interview. Districts may have merged, schools closed, or there may not have been a

permanent principal assigned a the time of the interview, for example. There are still other reasons for a case to be considered

out-of-scope. In addition, five percent of in-scope public schools did not send in their teacher lists and thus could not be sampled.
Appendix C

C-11

Table III.2 Number of in−scope cases in sample and number of interviews, private

schools, principals, and teachers: SASS 1993−94

Private school Private Principal Private teacher

Private school type # in sample # in interviews # in sample # in interviews # in sample # in interviews

All private schools 3,074 2,585 3,143 2,722 10,386 8,372

Catholic 921 818 1,023 831 3,680 3,061

Parochial 465 408 462 427 1,776 1,474

Diocesan 290 263 290 244 1,192 988

Private order 166 147 271 160 712 599

Other religious 1,419 1,151 1,394 1,236 4,404 3,483

Conservative Christian 325 248 322 274 929 667

Affiliated 708 574 702 631 2,239 1,790

Unaffiliated 386 329 370 331 1,236 1,026

Non-sectarian 734 616 726 655 2,302 1,828

Regular program 366 297 364 321 1,279 1,036

Special emphasis 182 150 176 160 582 436

Special education 186 169 186 174 441 356

Note: The number of in−scope cases in sample excludes out-of-scope, or ineligible, cases. Reasons for a school, principal or

teacher to be out-of-scope include school closure, principal or teacher leaving the school. In addition, nine percent of in−scope

public schools did not send in their teacher lists and thus could not be sampled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1993−94

(School Questionnaire, Principal Questionnaire, and Teacher Questionnaire.
Appendix C

C-12

Table III.3 Number of regular, full−time teachers in sample: SASS 1993−94

Public Private

Characteristic Elementary Secondary Elementary Secondary

TOTAL 14,467 21,653 3,193 1,415

Sex

Male 2,532 10,411 44 771

Female 11,935 11,242 2,749 644

Race/ethnicity of teacher

White, non−Hispanic 11,727 19,182 2,901 1,278

Black, non−Hispanic 859 1,136 108 29

Hispanic 840 635 93 70

Native American 589 384 73 32

Asian/Pacific Islander 452 316 18 6

Age

Under 30 1,379 1,779 607 258

30−39 3,244 4,763 736 366

40−49 6,062 8,745 1,074 418

Over 49 3,782 6,366 776 373

Highest degree earned

High school diploma 28 228 106 15

Associate degree 2 78 46 5

Bachelor’s degree 8,492 10,929 2,255 700

Master’s degree 5,252 9,212 680 635

Educational specialist or professional diploma 635 1,011 93 30

Doctorate or first professional degree 58 195 3 30

Years of teaching experience

3 years or less 1,830 2,526 766 335

4−9 years 3,276 4,155 853 321

10−19 years 4,751 6,944 942 385

20 years or more 4,610 8,028 632 374

Community type

Central city 3,790 4,688 1,278 605

Urban fringe 3,607 5,775 1,260 530

Small town/rural 7,070 11,190 655 280

School size

Less than 150 787 7,702 1,081 191

150−499 6,521 4,497 1,822 614

500−749 4,355 3,578 227 262

750 or larger 2,804 11,876 63 348

Percent of students who are minorities

Less than 20 percent 7,416 12,898 2,237 893

20 percent or more 7,051 8,755 956 522

Percent of students receiving free/reduced price lunch

Less than 5 percent 1,528 4,261 2,466 1,203

5 to 19 percent 2,866 7,853 441 138

20 percent or more 10,073 9,539 306 74

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1993−94,

Teacher Questionnaire.
Appendix C

C-13

IV. Data Collection Procedures

Data collection operations for the 1993−94 SASS took place during the 1993−94

school year. Table IV.1 depicts both the specific data collection activity and the time

frame in which it occurred.

Table IV.1Data collection time schedule

Activity Date of activity

Introductory letters mailed to school districts September 1993

Introductory letters and teacher listing sheets

mailed to schools October 1993

Census field representatives called school districts

to obtain the name of a contact person to whom the

Teacher Demand and Shortage questionnaire should

be addressed October 1993

Lists of teachers provided by schools October−1993

First mailing of questionnaires to school

districts and school principals December 1993

First mailing of questionnaires to

schools and to teachers January−February 1994

Second mailing of questionnaires to districts

and school principals January 1994

Second mailing of questionnaires to

schools and teachers February - March 1994

Telephone follow-up of mail

nonrespondents March - June 1994

V. Response Rates

A. Survey Response Rates

The weighted response rates for each component of SASS are detailed in Tables V.1

and V.2. Table V.1 provides public response rates by state for districts, schools,

administrators, and teachers. Table V.2 lists private response rates by private school

typology for administrators, schools, and teachers. The response rate tables are

useful as an indication of possible nonresponse bias.

 

The weighted response rates were derived by dividing the sum of the basic weights for

the interview cases by the sum of the basic weights for the eligible cases. The basic
Appendix C

C-14

weight for each sample case was assigned at the time of sampling and is the inverse of

the probability of selection.

Teacher response rates refer to the percentage of teachers responding in schools that

provided teacher lists for sampling. Nine percent of private schools and four percent

of public schools did not send in teacher lists. The effective response rate is

calculated by multiplying together the teacher list rate and the response rate:

Public teachers: .96 x .882 = .8467 x 100 = 84.7 percent effective response rate

Private teachers: .91 x .801 = .7289 x 100 = 72.9 percent effective response rate
Appendix C

C-15

Table V.1 Final weighted district, public school administrator, school and teacher

response rates by state: 1993−94

State Districts Administrators Schools Teachers

50 states and DC 93.9% 96.6$ 92.3% 88.2%

Alabama 93.4 99.6 95.0 89.6

Alaska 94.3 95.9 87.7 85.8

Arizona 98.7 95.2 91.9 89.9

California 90.7 94.2 88.2 81.9

Colorado 89.3 89.4 92.2 88.0

Connecticut 93.9 95.9 93.1 88.2

Delaware 89.5 98.5 88.2 85.9

District of Columbia 100.0 85.8 85.5 70.9

Florida 98.4 98.2 94.5 91.1

Georgia 97.8 99.5 93.9 91.7

Hawaii 100.0 95.7 92.1 85.7

Idaho 94.0 99.2 91.7 92.7

Indiana 91.0 97.9 93.7 91.3

Iowa 92.1 99.1 96.1 92.0

Kansas 93.5 93.5 92.8 90.7

Kentucky 99.4 94.7 92.1 90.4

Louisiana 88.7 97.6 90.1 90.6

Maine 964 93.3 91.9 90.2

Maryland 82.5 95.2 84.8 87.8

Massachusetts 97.4 99.4 94.2 87.3

Michigan 96.6 98.0 96.5 89.2

Minnesota 89.6 98.9 94.8 93.0

Mississippi 98.0 98.2 93.8 90.5

Missouri 97.9 97.9 95.3 91.7

Montana 93.9 95.6 92.4 91.6

Nebraska 96.9 96.2 89.0 92.2

Nevada 100.0 93.7 88.3 94.0

New Hampshire 86.7 100.0 97.6 89.8

New Jersey 76.9 96.3 87.1 85.7

New Mexico 94.2 94.8 94.5 87.2

New York 94.0 92.8 89.3 79.9

North Carolina 96.3 97.5 89.8 90.3

North Dakota 95.9 98.7 95.7 93.3

Ohio 100.0 96.1 92.8 88.7

Oklahoma 94.2 94.8 94.5 87.2

Oregon 98.0 97.0 93.0 90.0

Pennsylvania 90.3 96.3 88.5 88.2

Rhode Island 100.0 93.9 89.8 84.5
Appendix C

C-16

Table V.1 Final weighted district, public school administrator, school and teacher

response rates by state: 1993−94 (cont)

State Districts Administrators Schools Teachers

South Carolina 93.5 96.8 87.3 90.6

South Dakota 95.9 98.9 95.9 89.4

Tennessee 96.9 97.4 94.5 89.1

Texas 96.5 96.9 94.2 89.6

Utah 95.9 99.5 98.4 91.5

Vermont 99.1 94.1 93.3 86.2

Virginia 88.4 96.0 89.3 89.9

Washington 97.7 98.7 89.3 89.9

West Virginia 96.4 100.0 92.8 92.0

Wisconsin 91.0 99.4 93.9 92.5

Wyoming 85.2 98.1 94.7 91.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1993−94

(Teacher Demand and Shortage Questionnaire, Principal Questionnaire, School Questionnaire, and Teacher Questionnaire).

Table V.2 Final weighted response rates by private school type for private school

administrators, schools and teachers: 1993−94

Private school type Principals Schools Teachers

All private schools 87.6% 83.2% 80.2%

Catholic 92.4 88.8 83.2

Parochial 92.4 88.0 93.2

Diocesan 93.3 90.9 82.7

Private order 89.4 87.9 84.2

Other religious 82.7 77.5 75.0

Conservative Christian 82.7 77.5 75.0

Affiliated 81.9 76.5 75.4

Unaffiliated 83.69 79.5 80.5

Non-sectarian 89.7 86.1 81.6

Regular 90.6 86.4 82.7

Special emphasis 89.0 81.4 78.0

Special education 88.5 93.2 81.1

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1993−94

(Principal Questionnaire, School Questionnaire, and Teacher Questionnaire).
Appendix C

C-17

B. Item Response Rates

The unweighted item response rates (i.e., the number of sample units responding to

an item divided by the number of sample units that participated in the survey) for the

SASS and the Library Survey ranged from 50 percent to 100 percent. Tables V.3

and V-4 provide a brief summary of the item response rates. The item response rates

in these tables are unweighted, and do not reflect additional response loss due to

respondents' refusal to participate in the survey.

Table V.3 Summary of unweighted item response rates by questionnaire

Percent of items with Percent of item with

Range of item a response rate of a response rate of

Survey response rates 90 percent or more less than 75 percent

LEA survey 67−100% 91% 1%

Principal Survey

Public 65−100% 92% 4%

Private 55−100% 90% 6%

Indian 72−100% 91% 1%

School Survey

Public 83−100% 83% 0%

Private 61−100% 77% 3%

Indian 70−100% 84% 1%

Teacher survey

Public 71−100% 91% 0%

Private 69−100% 89% 1%

Indian 70−100% 84% 3%

Student survey

Public 90−100% 97% 0$

Private 84−00% 97% 0%

Indian 79−100% 88% 0%
Appendix C

C-18

Table V.4 Items with response rates of less than 75 percent4

Survey Items

LEA survey 26c(2)

Principal survey

Public 14b(1,1), 14b(2,1), 14b(5,1), 14b(7,1), 14b(8,1)

Private 14b(1,1, 14b(2,1), 14b(4,1), 14b(5,1), 14b(8,1), 21a, 21c, 28b

School survey

Public None

Private 31c(2), 31c(5), 31c(6), 31c(7), 31c(8), 31c(9)

Teacher survey

Public 41c

Private 39, 51c, 55

Tables V.5 through V.8 provide summaries of the unweighted item response rates for

the items used in this report. All item response rates for the items used in this report

are above 75 percent.

 

4

 The questionnaire wording for these items can be found in The Schools and Staffing Surveys: 1993- 94,

Data Files User’s Manual, NCES 93−94
Appendix C

C-19

Table V.5 Unweighted item response rates, District File

Source code Response rate (%)

Item description Public Private Public Private

Number of FTE teachers

 All D1010 S1010 94.9 93.3

 Certified D1015 S1015 94.9 91.7

 Continuing D1010 minus

D1050

S1010 minus

S1050

 -- --

 Continuing and certified D1015 minus

D1055

S1015 minus

S1055

 -- --

 Newly hired D1050 S1050 99.2 96.6

 Newly hired and certified D1055 S1055 98.6 93.3

Total FTE positions

 Vacant D1030 S1030 99.0 95.8

 Withdrawn D1035 S1035 98.6 95.9

Teacher salary schedules by earned

degree and experience

 Bachelor's and no experience D2100 S2100 98.2 87.5

 Master's and no experience D2105 S2105 97.2 81.2

 Master's and 30 credits D2110 S2110 91.8 71.1

 Master's and 20 years D2115 S2115 95.8 76.2

*Only for districts or private schools with no scheduled salaries.

-- Item response rates are not applicable for computed variables.
Appendix C

C-20

Table V.6 Unweighted item response rates, School File

Response rate (%)

Item description Public and private item name Public Private

English as a second language

 Program

 Students

S1410

S1415

98.9

94.0

98.5

94.6

Bilingual education

 Program

 Students

S1420

S1425

98.6

93.0

98.4

93.5

Remedial reading

 Program

 Students

S1360

S1365

98.3

88.8

97.5

88.1

Remedial mathematics

 Program

 Students

S1370

S1375

97.7

88.6

97.1

87.7

Handicapped

 Program

 Students

S1380

S1385

98.4

91.0

97.7

89.2

Gifted and talented

 Program

 Students

S1390

S1395

98.1

90.4

96.9

85.5

Diagnostic and prescriptive services

 Services S1430 98.2 98.1

Extended day/after−school

 Services

 Students

S1400

S1405

98.8

88.0

98.6

90.8

Chapter 1

 Services

 Students (pre−K)

 Students (K and above)

S1600

S1605

S1610

97.3

99.6

83.2

98.1

99.8

89.2

Free or reduced-price lunch

 Services

 Students (pre−K)

 Students (K and above)

(public only)*

S1645

S1655

S1660

98.1

90.5

84.1

98.2

89.3

78.3

Schools with 12th grade students S0245 99.2 98.4

Number of graduates last year S1835 95.5 96.5

Number of graduates applied college S1840 87.3 93.1
Appendix C

C-21

Table V.7 Unweighted item response rates, Principal File

Source code Response rate (%)

Item description Public Private Public Private

Associate's degree A160 A160 98.9 98.0

Bachelor's degree A060 A060 99.9 99.9

Master's degree A125 A125 99.9 99.4

Education specialist degree A175 A175 99.0 98.0

Ph.D./first professional degree A190 A190 99.0 98.0

Current annual salary A495 A495 96.1 91.6

Months employed A500 A500 99.3 98.4

Years employed:

 As a principal in this school A325 A325 100.0 100.0

 As a principal in other schools A330 A330 99.2 98.4

Table V.8 Unweighted item response rates, Teacher File

Source code Response rate (%)

Item description Public Private Public Private

Associate's degree T0270 T0270 96.4 93.8

Bachelor's degree T0170 T0170 99.7 99.6

Master's degree T0235 T0235 98.9 98.6

Education specialist degree T0285 T0285 96.4 93.8

Ph.D./first professional degree T0300 T0300 96.4 93.8

Full-time experience (private schools) T0095 T0095 94.5 92.7

Full-time experience (public schools) T0105 T0105 94.9 95.2

Academic base year salary T1420 T1420 91.6 90.3

School year supplement T1425 T1425 97.8 96.4

 Salary from school year supplement T1430 T1430 96.0 94.5

Summer supplement T1390 T1390 97.7 96.1

 Salary from summer supplement T1395 T1395 95.2 94.2
Appendix C

C-22

VI. Imputation Procedures

For questionnaire items that should have been answered but were not, values were

imputed by (1) using data from other items on the questionnaire, (2) extracting data

from a related component of the Schools and Staffing Survey (for example, using data

from a school record to impute missing values on that school’s LEA questionnaire),

(3) extracting data from the sample file (information about the sample case from other

sources; for example, the Private School Survey or the Common Core of Data,

collected in the 1991−92 school year), and (4) extracting data from a respondent

with similar characteristics.

For some incomplete items, the entry from another part of the questionnaire or

information from the sample file was directly imputed to complete the item; for others

the entry was used as part of an adjustment factor with other data on the incomplete

record. For example, if a respondent did not report whether a school offered remedial

reading in item 22a of the public school questionnaire, the response (1 = Yes or 2 =

No) for a similar school was imputed to item 22a of the incomplete record. However,

if a respondent had answered “Yes” to item 22a but had not reported the number of

students in the program, the ratio of number of students in remedial reading to the

total enrollment for a similar school was used with the enrollment at the school for

which item 22a was incomplete to impute an entry to item 22a (i.e., SCHOOL A

item 22a = SCHOOL A ENROLLMENT multiplied by the ratio of SCHOOL B item

22a to SCHOOL B ENROLLMENT).

Values were imputed to items with missing data for records that had been classified as

interviews (ISR=1). Noninterview adjustment factors were used during the data

weighting process to compensate for data that were missing because the sample case

was a noninterview (ISR=2). For more information about imputation procedures see

Abramson, et al. (NCES 96-089).5

VII. Weighting6

Weighting of the sample units from the public sector was carried out to produce

national and state estimates for public schools, teachers, principals, and LEAs. The

private sector was weighted to produce national and association group estimates.

 

 

5Abramson, R., Cole, C., Jackson, B., and Kaufman, S. 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample

Design and Estimation, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES

96-089.

6

For a detailed description of the weighting processes see Abramson, R., Cole, C., Jackson, B., and

Kaufman, S. 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation, U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 96-089.
Appendix C

C-23

VIII. Standard Errors

Estimates found in the tables of this report are based on samples and are subject to

sampling variability. Standard errors were estimated using a balanced repeated

replications procedure that incorporates the design features of the stratified, clustered

sample. The standard errors provide indications of the accuracy of each estimate. If

all possible samples of the same size were surveyed under the same conditions, an

interval of 1.96 standard errors below to 1.96 standard errors above a particular

statistic would include the universe value in approximately 95 percent of the cases. 

Note, however, that the standard errors do not take into account the effects of biases

due to item nonresponse, measurement error, data processing error, or other

systematic error. Estimates with large standard errors (coefficient of variation greater

than 30 percent) should be interpreted with caution.

IX. Cautions Concerning Change Estimates

Care must be taken in estimating change over time in a SASS data element, because

some of the measured change (e.g. a 8 percent increase in the number of students

receiving Chapter 1 services) may not be attributable to a change in the education

system. Some of the change may be due to changes in the sampling frame, to a

questionnaire item wording, or other changes detailed in Abramson, et al. (NCES

96−089).7

 

 

7Abramson, R., Cole, C., Jackson, B., and Kaufman, S. 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample

Design and Estimation, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES

96-089.
Appendix C

C-24

X. Definitions

The following survey terms are defined as they apply to SASS.

Local Education Agency (LEA). An LEA, or public school district, is defined as a

government agency that employs elementary or secondary level teachers and is

administratively responsible for providing public elementary and/or secondary

instruction and educational support services. 

Districts that do not operate schools but employ teachers, are included. For example,

some states have special education cooperatives that employ special education teachers

who teach in schools in more than one school district.

Public School. A public school is defined as an institution that provides educational

services for at least one of grades 1−12 (or comparable ungraded levels), has one or

more teachers to give instruction, is located in one or more buildings, receives public

funds as primary support, and is operated by an education agency. Schools in juvenile

detention centers and schools located on military bases and operated by the

Department of Defense are included.

Private School. A private school is defined as a school not in the public system that

provides instruction for any of grades 1−12 (or comparable ungraded levels). The

instruction must be given in a building that is not used primarily as a private home.

Teacher. A teacher is defined as a full-time or part-time teacher who teaches any

regularly scheduled classes in any of grades K−12. This includes administrators,

librarians, and other professional or support staff who teach regularly scheduled

classes on a part-time basis.8 Itinerant teachers are included, as well as long−term

substitutes who are filling the role of a regular teacher on a long-term basis. An

itinerant teacher is defined as a teacher who teaches at more than one school (for

example, a music teacher who teaches three days per week at one school and two days

per week at another). Short-term substitute teachers and student teachers are not

included.

Special Education School. Special education schools focus primarily on direct

instructional activities required to educate students with mental handicaps, such as

mental retardation; physical handicaps, such as hearing- and speech-impairment, and

learning disabilities, such as dyslexia.

Typology. Categories (three major with three sub-categories each) into which

private schools are divided: 1) Catholicparochial, diocesan, private; 2) Other

 

 

8This represents a change in the definition of teacher from previous administrations of SASS. In 1987-

88 and 1990-91 a teacher was defined as any full-time or part-time teacher whose primary assignment was

teaching in any of grades K-12. The prior definition excluded administrators and other staff who taught

regularly scheduled classes, but whose primary assignment was not teaching.
Appendix C

C-25

religious affiliated with a Conservative Christian school association, affiliated with

a national denomination, unaffiliated; 3) Non-sectarianregular, special program

emphasis, special education.9

Among Catholic schools, the governance categories (Parochial, Diocesan, Private) are

strongly tied to differences in curriculum, student population characteristics, program

emphasis, and sources of revenue (Yeager, Benson, Guerra, and Manno, 1985).

In the case of other religious schools, recent work (Carper and Hunt, 1984)

documents major differences in decision making, educational goals, revenue, and

enrollment trends between denomination schools (i.e., Lutheran, Jewish, Seventh-day

Adventist) and those non-denominational schools affiliated with a Conservative

Christian school association (e.g., Accelerated Christian Education, American

Association of Christian Schools, Association of Christian Schools International,

Oral Roberts Educational Fellowship). This category is reportedly the fastest growing

private school sector. Schools in this type are commonly known as evangelical or

fundamental, and are not tied to a denomination per se, but rather are governed by a

single church, a foundation, or a local society. A third Other Religious category,

Unaffiliated, is suggested to capture those religious schools which affiliate with

neither a national denomination nor with a conservative Christian school association.

The three non-sectarian school categories are determined not by governance but by

program emphasis. This classification disentangles private schools offering a

conventional academic program (Regular) from those which either serve special needs

children (Special Education) or provide a program with a Special Emphasis (e.g., arts,

vocational, alternative).

Common Core of Data. The Common Core of Data is a group of surveys that

acquire and maintain public elementary and secondary education data from the 50

states, the District of Columbia, and the outlying areas through the state-level (or

equivalent) education agencies. Information about staff and students in public

schools is collected annually at the school, LEA (local education agency or school

district), and state levels. Information about revenues and expenditures is also

collected at the state level.

Newly hired teachers. Newly hired teachers are teachers who were newly hired by

the school district for the 1993−94 school year. It includes teachers returning from

unpaid leave of absence of one school year or more, but does not include substitute

teachers.

 

 

9 McMillen, M., and Benson, P. Diversity in Private Schools, U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics, NCES 92-082.
Appendix C

C-26
Appendix C

C-27

Technical Note on Specific Items

Teachers responded to the following items regarding their perceptions and attitudes

toward teaching. The items were answered on a 4 point scale which, for the most

part, was coded so that 1 meant they strongly disagreed and 4 meant they strongly

agreed. Some items, however, were worded in a negative way, so strongly agreeing

was a negative response. In other words, strongly agreeing that student misbehavior

interferes with teaching is a negative response, while strongly agreeing that the

administration is supportive and encouraging is not. All items were coded so that 1

was the most negative response and 4 was the most positive response. The nine items

in bold were analyzed in this report.

1. Teachers in this school are evaluated fairly.

2. The principal lets staff members know what is expected of them.

3. The school administration’s behavior toward the staff is supportive and

encouraging.

4. I am satisfied with my teaching salary.

5. The level of student misbehavior (e.g., noise, horseplay or fighting in the

halls, cafeteria or student lounge) in this school interferes with my

teaching.

6. Teachers participate in making most of the important educational

decisions in this school.

7. I receive a great deal of support from parents for the work I do.

8. Necessary materials (e.g., textbooks, supplies, copy machine) are available

as needed by the staff.

9. The principal does a poor job of getting resources for this school.

10. Routine duties and paperwork interfere with my job of teaching.

11. My principal enforces school rules for student conduct and backs me up

when I need it.

12. The principal talks with me frequently about my instructional practices.

13. Rules for student behavior are consistently enforced by teachers in this

school, even for students who are not in their classes.
Appendix C

C-28

14. Most of my colleagues share my beliefs and values about what the central

mission of the school should be.

15. The principal knows what kind of school he/she wants and has

communicated it to the staff.

16. There is a great deal of cooperative effort among the staff members.

17. In this school, staff members are recognized for a job well done.

18. I have to follow rules in this school that conflict with my best professional

judgment.

19. I am satisfied with my class sizes.

20. I make a conscientious effort to coordinate the content of my courses with

that of other teachers.

21. Goals and priorities for the school are clear.

22. The amount of student tardiness and class cutting in this school interferes

with my teaching.

23. I sometimes feel it is a waste of my time to try to do my best as a teacher.

24. I plan with the library media specialist/librarian for the integration of

library/media services into my teaching.

25. Library/media materials are adequate to support my instructional

objectives.

For two items, teachers responded to the questions “To what extent is each of the

following matters a problem in this school?” They responded by marking either,

“serious,” “moderate,” minor,” or “not a problem.” Teacher who responded with

either “serious” or “moderate” were coded as indicating the matter was a problem. 

The two items were

1. Student absenteeism

2. Student apathy
Appendix C

C-29

Technical Note on the Creation of Variables

Two variables on teacher autonomy were derived from existing questions. Factor

analysis (with varimax rotation method) was used to develop the two indices: the

autonomy of individual teachers in their classrooms and the collective influence of the

teaching staff over school-wide policies. Item loadings of .4 were considered

necessary for inclusion in a factor. No items loaded on more than one factor. Each

factor had high internal consistency (a > .7). 

The variable on decision-making control in the classroom was derived from the mean

of teachers’ reports control in their classrooms over 6 areas of planning and teaching:

 course texts, course content, teaching techniques, evaluating students, disciplining

students, and determining homework. Each item was answered on a scale of 1 = no

control to 6 = complete control. The variable was converted into a dichotomous

variable using 4 as the cutoff point. In other words, teachers whose mean scores

were 4 or higher were categorized as agreeing that they had control over their

classroom, while those who scored less than 4 disagreed.

The variable on influence over school policy was derived from the mean of teachers’

reports of influence over school policy in 4 areas: discipline, faculty in-service

programs, grouping students in classes by ability, and establishing curriculum. Each

item was answered on a scale of 1 = no influence to 6 = a great deal of influence. The

variable was converted into a dichotomous variable using 4 as the cutoff point. In

other words, teachers whose mean scores were 4 or higher were categorized as

agreeing that they had control over their classroom, while those who scored less than

4 disagreed.
Appendix C

C-30
Appendix C

C-31

Technical Note on Item Response Theory

This analysis required the creation of a scale of teacher satisfaction with teaching as a

career. The scale was built on three questions from the teacher questionnaire, listed

below, and derived using Item Response Theory (IRT). IRT allows us to determine

the correlation between individual items and a latent trait that cannot be measured

directly, in this case satisfaction. In IRT, the latent trait is denoted by θ. IRT allows

us to appropriately weight each item based on its correlation with θ and to create a

continuous scale that represents teachers’ satisfaction with teaching as a career. As a

result, composite IRT-based satisfaction scores with their appropriate standard errors

are calculated for each teacher. 

IRT was chosen to create the scale primarily because it allowed us to weight the

individual items appropriately. In other words, when one of the items was more

closely linked to teacher satisfaction, IRT gave that item more weight when creating

the satisfaction scale. Combining the items linearly, either by adding their responses

or taking an average, would not have allowed us to give one item a greater weight over

another. In addition, IRT calculates an exact error term for each score on the

satisfaction scale. The estimated error from a linear combination is more time

consuming to calculate and less reliable.

The teacher satisfaction scale was created using Parscale and the Graded Response

Model. Also, the scoring for this analysis incorporated the Bayesian assumption of a

normal distribution of satisfaction - it was performed using Estimated A Priori (EAP)

estimation, rather than Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE). This is important in

estimating satisfaction at the very top and bottom of the range. In MLE, scores at the

extremes are arbitrarily set, since they cannot be estimated. In EAP, a distribution is

imposed on the results, so that scores at the estimates can be estimated. In this case,

the mean was set at 0 and the standard deviation at 1.

Item characteristic curves for the response options were created for each item. It is

important to remember that the q in each of the curves is the same. In essence, q is

the composite dimension B the “factor’ that best explains the pattern of responses of

the teachers to these three items. q is interpreted by looking at which items best

differentiate between high and low levels of q. It is our belief that q represents

satisfaction with teaching as a career. 
Appendix C

C-32

For item T1305 ("I sometimes feel it is a waste of time to try to do my best as a

teacher"), we should bear in mind that the response options will be in the opposite

order than the other items B that is, strongly disagreeing will be expected to indicate

higher "satisfaction." This item has the problem that overall very few teachers (7%)

responded that they strongly agreed with the statement. Consequently, we have little

data for the very low levels of q. This item is the least strong of the three in

distinguishing among teachers at different levels of q, because overall more than half

(54%) of the teachers endorsed the same option B strongly disagree, and the other

three response alternatives are not particularly related to q.

The parameter estimates for item T1305 from this analysis are:

a = 0.660, b = -1.449, c = (1.895, 0.768, 0.206)

Item T1320 ("If you could go back to your college days and start over again, would

you become a teacher or not?") is the strongest item in this analysis. Note that one

response option B "Certainly would not become a teacher" B was not endorsed by

anyone in this sample, and so does not appear on the plot. On this item, 39% of

teachers overall selected "Certainly would become a teacher," but in this analysis,

selection of this response almost certainly means that the teacher is above average on

θ. If our goal were to dichotomize the teachers into "satisfied"/"dissatisfied," this

would be a good item to use. The other response alternatives are also fairly related to

θ. In our IRT reasoning, we would say not only that this item is best at predicting θ,

but that θ is most related to this item B we would look most closely at this item to

determine how to interpret θ.

The parameter estimates for item T1320 from this analysis are:

a = 1.259, b = -0.868, c = (2.668, 1.474, 0.654,-0.424)

Finally, Item T1370 (“How long do you plan to remain in teaching?”) is probably the

most interesting. Here, endorsement of “As long as I am able” corresponds well with

a high level of θ. “Until I am eligible for retirement” receives between 10 percent

and 30 percent endorsement across the span from 3 standard deviations below the

mean of θ to 3 standard deviations above. Especially in the middlewhere most of

the teachers are (one of the assumptions of this analysis is that the teachers are

roughly normally distributed on θ) B the probability is very uniform. Likely

something else beside θ predicts endorsement of that alternative. “Undecided”

responses were treated as missing in this analysis.

The parameter estimates for item T1370 from this analysis are:

a = 0.854, b = -1.223, c = (2.181, 1.191, -0.240)

Next, the scale was created and each teacher received an individual composite score.

In addition to the composite score, the standard error for that score was merged onto

each teacher's record in the original dataset. 
Appendix C

C-33

We then examined the “information curve,” which is inversely related to the square

of the standard error of a measurement at that level of θ; it suggested where across θ

we would be able to most accurately measure an individual teacher’s "satisfaction." 

In other words, higher information means more precise measurement. In this case,

we found that these items would be best at distinguishing those above average on q

from those below average. In other words, these items do not distinguish slight

changes in satisfaction, only large differences in satisfaction levels between teachers. 

Finally, we plotted the frequency distribution of the satisfaction composite score. An

examination of the response patterns and corresponding scores in the table indicated

that, while, as we would expect, the very lowest possible score is assigned to those

who answer negatively to all four items and the very highest score to those who

answer positively, in between these extremes it is possible to obtain very similar

scores through very different combinations of item responses.

In all, there are 100 possible patterns of responses (including coding “undecided” on

item T1370 as missing). All 100 of these possible patterns occur in this dataset. As

would be expected, some are very common B for example, 7540 teachers endorsed the

most positive pattern (4,1,1) B while others were endorsed by only a single teacher.

The following table lists the response patterns and corresponding scores and standard

errors. An examination of the ordering of these patterns in relation to the composite

scores assigned by the above analysis indicates that, as predicted, item T1320 had the

greatest impact on the scoring.

Teacher Satisfaction Study Composite Scores

Cumulative Cumulative

SATSCORE T1305 T1320 T1370 Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

-2.9858 1 5 4 227 0.5 227 0.5

-2.5941 2 5 4 197 0.4 424 0.9

-2.5045 1 5 3 109 0.2 533 1.1

-2.4947 1 5 5 102 0.2 635 1.3

-2.2962 3 5 4 56 0.1 691 1.4

-2.2154 1 4 4 136 0.3 827 1.7

-2.1892 2 5 3 130 0.3 957 1.9

-2.0805 4 5 4 94 0.2 1051 2.1

-2.0632 2 5 5 136 0.3 1187 2.4

-2.0588 1 5 2 237 0.5 1424 2.9

-1.9439 2 4 4 290 0.6 1714 3.5

-1.9165 3 5 3 68 0.1 1782 3.6

-1.9007 1 4 3 168 0.3 1950 4.0

-1.7457 2 5 2 322 0.7 2272 4.6

-1.7136 1 4 5 188 0.4 2460 5.0

-1.6972 1 3 4 45 0.1 2505 5.1

-1.6957 3 4 4 104 0.2 2609 5.3

-1.6890 3 5 5 71 0.1 2680 5.5

-1.6862 4 5 3 92 0.2 2772 5.6
Appendix C

C-34

-1.6804 2 4 3 435 0.9 3207 6.5

Teacher Satisfaction Study Composite Scores (cont)

Cumulative Cumulative

SATSCORE T1305 T1320 T1370 Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

-1.6586 1 5 1 37 0.1 3244 6.6

-1.5080 1 4 2 256 0.5 3500 7.1

-1.4703 4 4 4 154 0.3 3654 7.4

-1.4593 3 4 3 266 0.5 3920 8.0

-1.4547 2 3 4 124 0.3 4044 8.2

-1.4513 3 5 2 135 0.3 4179 8.5

-1.4449 2 4 5 488 1.0 4667 9.5

-1.4333 1 3 3 104 0.2 4771 9.7

-1.3157 2 5 1 73 0.1 4844 9.9

-1.3089 4 5 5 148 0.3 4992 10.2

-1.3043 2 4 2 789 1.6 5781 11.8

-1.2661 1 2 4 30 0.1 5811 11.8

-1.2464 2 3 3 476 1.0 6287 12.8

-1.2339 4 4 3 351 0.7 6638 13.5

-1.2192 3 3 4 61 0.1 6699 13.6

-1.1674 3 4 5 317 0.6 7016 14.3

-1.1477 4 5 2 249 0.5 7265 14.8

-1.1393 1 3 5 152 0.3 7417 15.1

-1.1164 1 4 1 98 0.2 7515 15.3

-1.0825 3 4 2 491 1.0 8006 16.3

-1.0509 1 3 2 150 0.3 8156 16.6

-1.0454 3 3 3 389 0.8 8545 17.4

-1.0239 2 2 4 68 0.1 8613 17.5

-1.0182 1 2 3 76 0.2 8689 17.7

-0.9721 3 5 1 43 0.1 8732 17.8

-0.9667 4 3 4 99 0.2 8831 18.0

-0.9363 2 3 5 639 1.3 9470 19.3

-0.9049 2 4 1 242 0.5 9712 19.8

-0.8963 2 3 2 784 1.6 10496 21.4

-0.8374 2 2 3 392 0.8 10888 22.2

-0.8207 4 4 5 530 1.1 11418 23.3

-0.8108 4 4 2 726 1.5 12144 24.7

-0.8049 4 3 3 534 1.1 12678 25.8

-0.7787 1 1 4 18 0.0 12696 25.9

-0.7777 3 2 4 58 0.1 12754 26.0

-0.7136 3 3 2 642 1.3 13396 27.3

-0.7086 3 3 5 553 1.1 13949 28.4

-0.6575 3 4 1 182 0.4 14131 28.8

-0.6465 1 3 1 81 0.2 14212 28.9

-0.6329 3 2 3 373 0.8 14585 29.7

-0.6094 1 2 2 158 0.3 14743 30.0

-0.5930 1 2 5 130 0.3 14873 30.3

-0.5319 1 1 3 38 0.1 14911 30.4

-0.5202 4 5 1 117 0.2 15028 30.6

-0.5189 2 1 4 32 0.1 15060 30.7

-0.5007 2 3 1 337 0.7 15397 31.4

-0.4765 2 2 2 916 1.9 16313 33.2

-0.4646 4 2 4 114 0.2 16427 33.5

-0.4517 4 3 2 994 2.0 17421 35.5

-0.4229 2 2 5 675 1.4 18096 36.9

-0.3694 4 3 5 897 1.8 18993 38.7
Appendix C

C-35

Teacher Satisfaction Study Composite Scores (cont)

Cumulative Cumulative

SATSCORE T1305 T1320 T1370 Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

-0.3427 4 2 3 732 1.5 19725 40.2

-0.3403 2 1 3 135 0.3 19860 40.4

-0.3126 3 3 1 325 0.7 20185 41.1

-0.3093 3 2 2 963 2.0 21148 43.1

-0.2669 4 4 1 394 0.8 21542 43.9

-0.2378 3 1 4 29 0.1 21571 43.9

-0.2190 3 2 5 620 1.3 22191 45.2

-0.1488 1 2 1 126 0.3 22317 45.5

-0.1082 3 1 3 153 0.3 22470 45.8

-0.0535 1 1 2 173 0.4 22643 46.1

-0.0396 2 2 1 631 1.3 23274 47.4

-0.0244 4 2 2 2130 4.3 25404 51.7

0.0397 4 3 1 742 1.5 26146 53.3

0.0727 2 1 2 635 1.3 26781 54.5

0.1129 3 2 1 758 1.5 27539 56.1

0.1494 4 2 5 1557 3.2 29096 59.3

0.1845 1 1 5 124 0.3 29220 59.5

0.2455 3 1 2 740 1.5 29960 61.0

0.2486 4 1 4 88 0.2 30048 61.2

0.3363 2 1 5 427 0.9 30475 62.1

0.3439 4 1 3 483 1.0 30958 63.1

0.4599 4 2 1 2299 4.7 33257 67.7

0.5397 3 1 5 464 0.9 33721 68.7

0.6198 1 1 1 260 0.5 33981 69.2

0.6654 4 1 2 3305 6.7 37286 75.9

0.7098 2 1 1 901 1.8 38187 77.8

0.8516 3 1 1 1201 2.4 39388 80.2

1.1435 4 1 5 2171 4.4 41559 84.6

1.4001 4 1 1 7540 15.4 49099 100.0
Appendix C

C-36
C-37

Technical Note on the Formulae Used to

Calculate Table 16
Appendix D

Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) Data Products

Appendix D

D-3

Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)

Data Products

The following SASS data products may be obtained free of charge while supplies last

from:

U.S. Department of Education

National Center for Education Statistics

SASS Data Products

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Room 422

Washington, DC 20208-5651

Reports

The Effects of Professionalization on Teachers: A Multi-Level Analysis, 1990–

91 (NCES 97–069)

The State of Teaching as a Profession, 1990–91 (NCES 97–104)

Time Spent Teaching Core Academic Subjects in Elementary Schools:

Comparisons Across Community School, Teacher, and Student Characteristics

(NCES 97–293)

Student Records Questionnaire: School Year 1993–94, With Special Emphasis

on American Indians and Alaska Native Students (E.D. Tab, NCES 97–449)

Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers: Results from the Teacher

Followup Survey, 1994–95 (E.D. Tab, NCES 97–450)

Characteristics of American Indian and Alaska Native Education, Results from

the 1993–94 DSDD (NCES 97–451)

Public and Private School Principals In The United States: A Statistical Profile,

1987–88 to 1993–94 (NCES 97–455)
Appendix D

D-4

A Profile of Administration Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficiency

Students: Screening Methods, Teacher Training, and Program Support, 1993–94

(NCES 97–472)

The Schools and Staffing Survey Recommendation for the Future (NCES 97–

596)

Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality (NCES 96–040)

Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile: 1993–94

(NCES 96–124)

Private School Universe Survey, 1993–94 (NCES 96–143)

SASS by State, 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey: Selected State Results

(NCES 96–312)

Comparing Key Organizational Qualities of American Public and Private

Secondary Schools (NCES 96–322)

Schools and Staffing in the United States: Selected Data for Public and Private

Schools, 1993-94 (E.D. Tab, NCES 95–191)

Private Schools in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1990–91 (NCES 95–

330)

Teacher Supply in the U.S.: Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and

Private Schools, 1988–1991 (NCES 95–348)

Characteristics of American Indian and Alaska Native Education, Results from

the 1990–91 SASS (NCES 95–735)

Teacher Supply, Teacher Qualifications and Teacher Turnover, Aspects of

Teacher Supply and Demand in the U.S., 1990–91 (NCES 95–744)

The Patterns of Teacher Compensation (NCES 95–829)

Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers: Results from the Teacher

Followup Survey, 1991–92 (E.D. Tab, NCES 94–337)

SASS by State (NCES 94–343)

Private School Universe Survey, 1991–92 (NCES 94-350)

Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce: 1988 and 1991 (NCES

94–665)
Appendix D

D-5

Reports (cont)

America s Teachers: Profile of a Profession (NCES 93–025)

Private School Universe Survey, 1989-90 (NCES 93–122)

Selected Tables on Teacher Supply and Demand (E.D. Tab, NCES 93–141)

Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1990–91 (NCES

93–146)

Schools and Staffing in the United States: Selected Data for Public and Private

Schools, 1990–91 (E.D. Tab, NCES 93–453)

Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1987–88 (NCES

92–120)

Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers: Results from the Teacher

Followup Survey, 1988–89 (E.D. Tab, NCES 91–128)

Forthcoming Reports

America's Teachers: Profile of a Profession, 1993–94

Job Satisfaction Among America's Teachers: Effects of Workplace, Conditions,

Background Characteristics, and Teacher Compensation, 1993–94

Private Schools in the U.S.: A Statistical Profile, 1993–94

Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and Private Schools, 1988–94

Issue Briefs

Schools Serving Family Needs: Extended-Day Programs in Public and Private

Schools (Issue Brief, NCES 97–590)

Programs for Aspiring Principals: Who Participates? (Issue Brief, NCES 97–

591)

Credentials and Tests in Teacher Hiring: What Do Districts Require? (Issue

Brief, NCES 97–592)
Appendix D

D-6

Are Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students Being Taught by Teachers with

LEP Training? (Issue Brief, NCES 97–907)

Issue Briefs (cont)

How Widespread is Site-Based Decisionmaking in Public Schools? (Issue Brief,

NCES 97–908)

Public School Choice Programs, 1993–94: Availability and Student Participation

(Issue Brief, NCES 97–909)

Teachers' Sense of Community: How Do Public and Private Schools Compare?

(Issue Brief, NCES 97–910)

Are High School Teachers Teaching Core Subjects Without College Majors or

Minors in Those Subjects? (Issue Brief, NCES 96–839)

Where Do Minority Principals Work? (Issue Brief, NCES 96–840)

What Academic Programs are Offered Most Frequently in Schools Serving

American Indian and Alaska Native Students? (Issue Brief, NCES 96–841)

How Safe are the Public Schools: What Do Teachers Say? (Issue Brief, NCES

96–842)

Extended Day Programs in Elementary and Combined Schools (Issue Brief,

NCES 96–843)

What Criteria are Used in Considering Teacher Applicants? (Issue Brief, NCES

96–844)

Private School Graduation Requirements (Issue Brief, NCES 95–145)

How Much Time Do Public and Private School Teachers Spend in Their Work?

(Issue Brief, NCES 95–709)

Migration and Attrition of Public and Private School Teachers: 1991–92 (Issue

Brief, NCES 95–770)

Which Types of Schools Have the Highest Teacher Turnover? (Issue Brief,

NCES 95–778)

Libraries/Media Centers in Schools: Are There Sufficient Resources? (Issue

Brief, NCES 95–779)
Appendix D

D-7

Who Influences Decisionmaking About School Curriculum: What Do Principals

Say? (Issue Brief, NCES 95–780)
Appendix D

D-8

Issue Briefs (cont)

Public and Private School Principals: Are There Too Few Women? (Issue Brief,

NCES 94–192)

Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in Public and Private Schools, 1988–91 (Issue

Brief, NCES 94–481)

What are the Most Serious Problems in Schools? (Issue Brief, NCES 93–149)

Teacher Salaries—Are They Competitive? (Issue Brief, NCES 93–450)

Teaching and Administrative Work Experience of Public School Principals (Issue

Brief, NCES 93–452)

Teacher Attrition and Migration (Issue Brief, NCES 92–148)

Video

Americas Teachers: Profile of a Profession

Methods

1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation (Technical

Report, NCES 96–089)

An Exploratory Analysis of Nonrespondents in the 1990–91 Schools and Staffing

Survey (NCES 96–338)

Design Effects and Generalized Variance Functions for the 1990–91 Schools and

Staffing Surveys (SASS) Volume I--User's Manual (NCES 95–342I)

Design Effects and Generalized Variance Functions for the 1990–91 Schools and

Staffing Surveys (SASS) Volume II--Technical Report (NCES 95–340II)

Quality Profile for SASS: Aspects of the Quality of Data in the Schools and

Staffing Surveys (Technical Report, NCES 94–340)

1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation (Technical

Report, NCES 93–449)

Modeling Teacher Supply and Demand, with Commentary (Research and

Development Report, NCES 93–461)
Appendix D

D-9

Methods

1987–88 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation (Technical

Report, NCES 91–127)

CD-ROMs

Schools and Staffing Survey: 1993–94 Electronic Codebook and Public Use

Data

Schools and Staffing Survey: 1990–91 Electronic Codebook and Public Use

Data

Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 Microdata and Documentation

Questionnaires

SASS and PSS Questionnaires 1993–1994 (NCES 94–674)

SASS and TFS Questionnaires 1990–1991

SASS and TFS Questionnaires 1987–1988

User s Manuals

1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User's Manual Volume I:

Survey Documentation (NCES 96–142)

1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User's Manual Volume II:

Restricted-Use Codebook (NCES 96–142–II)

1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Data File User s Manual Volume I:

Survey Documentation (NCES 93–144–I)

1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Data File User s Manual Volume II:

Restricted-Use codebook (NCES 93–144–II)

1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Data File User s Manual Volume III:

Public-Use codebook (NCES 93–144–III)

1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Data File User s Manual Volume IV:

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Restricted-Use Codebooks: Administrator,

Schools, and Teachers (NCES 93–144–IV)
Appendix D

D-10

User s Manuals

1991–92 Teacher Followup Survey Data File User s Manual—Public-Use

Version (NCES 94–331)

1991–92 Teacher Followup Survey Data File User s Manual—Restricted-Use

Version (NCES 94–478)

1988–89 Teacher Followup Survey Data File User s Manual—Public-Use

Version (NCES 92–058)

Forthcoming User's Manuals

1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User's Manual Volume III:

Public-Use Codebook

1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User s Manual Volume IV:

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Restricted-Use Codebooks: Administrator,

Schools, and Teachers

1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, Data File User's Manual Volume V:

Restricted-Use Codebook Students' Records

Conference Papers

Using Classroom Instructional Process Items in National Center for Education

Statistics Study To Measure Student Opportunity to Learn: A Progress Report

Heaven or Hell? The Teaching Environment of Beginning Teachers

Using Opportunity to Learn Items in Elementary and Secondary National

Surveys

Characteristics of Public and Private School Teachers

Characteristics of Mathematics and Science Teachers

Teacher Training, Certification and Assignment

Teacher Turnover: Patterns of Entry To and Exit from Teaching

Moonlighting Among Public and Private School Teachers
Appendix D

D-11

Characteristics of Bilingual Education and English as a Second Language

Teachers

Conference Papers (cont)

Highlights of Minority Data from the Schools and Staffing Survey

Teacher Incentive Research with SASS

Teacher Salaries: Comparing States After Adjusting for Teacher Experience and

Education

What are the Characteristics of Principals Identified as Effective by Teachers

Schools at Risk: Results of the 1987–88 Schools and Staffing Survey

Destinations of Movers and Leavers: Where Do They Go?

Teacher Salaries: Comparing States After Adjusting for Teacher Experience and

Education

Classroom Environment and Support of Beginning Teachers: A Test of the

"Crucible versus Cradle" Theory of Teacher Induction

Why do Teachers Leave Teaching? Reasons for Teacher Attrition from the

Teacher Followup Survey

NCES Working Papers Related to SASS

WP 94-01 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). Papers Presented at the

Meetings of the American Statistical Association

Section on Survey Research Methods, August 1992

a. "The Schools and Staffing Survey: Research Issues"

b. "The Schools and Staffing Survey: How Reinterview Measures Data

Quality"

c. "Mail Versus Telephone Response in the 1991 Schools and Staffing

Surveys"

d. "Questionnaire Research in the Schools and Staffing Survey: A Cognitive

Approach"

e. "Balance Half-Sample Replication with Aggregation Units"

f. "Characteristics of Nonrespondents in the Schools and Staffing Surveys'

School Sample"

g. "Improving Reliability and Comparability on NCES Data on Teachers and

Other Education Staff"
Appendix D

D-12

NCES Working Papers Related to SASS (cont)

Establishment Surveys Conference, June 1993

a. "Sampling Frames at the United States National Center for Education

Statistics"

b. "Monitoring Data Quality in Education Surveys"

Section on Survey Research Methods, August 1993

a. "Generalization Variance Functions for the Schools and Staffing Surveys"

b. "A Bootstrap Variance Estimator for the Schools and Staffing Survey"

c. "Adjusting for Nonresponse Bias of Correlated Items Using Logistic

Regression"

d. "Comparisons of School Locale Setting: Self-Reported Versus Assigned"

e. "Characteristics of Nonrespondents to the 1990–91 Schools and Staffing

Survey"

Social Statistics Section, August 1993

a. "Implicit Markets for Teacher Quality and School Attributes"

b. "Who Decides? Principals' and Teachers' Views on Decision-Making"

c. "Determinants of Pupil-Teacher Ratios at School Sites: Evidence from the

Schools and Staffing Survey"

WP 94-02 Generalized Variance Estimates for Schools and Staffing Survey

(SASS)

WP 94-03 1991 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) Reinterview Response

Variance Report

WP 94-04 The Accuracy of Teachers' Self-report on Their Postsecondary

Education: Teacher Transcript Study, Schools and Staffing

Survey
Appendix D

D-13

NCES Working Papers Related to SASS (cont)

WP 94-06 Six Papers on Teachers from the 1990–91 Schools and Staffing

Survey and Other Related Surveys

a. "The Results of the 1993 Teacher List Validation Study (TLVS)"

b. "Designing the Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS): Issues and Content)"

c. "Understanding the Supply of Elementary and Secondary Teachers: The

Role of the School and Staffing Survey and the Teacher Followup Survey"

d. "Teacher Retention/Attrition: Issues for Research"

e. "Reflections on a SASS Longitudinal Study"

f. "Whither Didst Thou Go? Retention, Reassignment, Migration, and

Attrition of Special and General Education Teachers in National

Perspective"

WP 95-01 Schools and Staffing Survey: 1994. Papers Presented at the 1994

Meeting of the American Statistical Association (95-01)

Estimation Issues in School Surveys

a. "Intersurvey Consistency in School Surveys"

b. "Estimation Issues Related to the Student Component of the SASS"

c. "Properties of the Schools and Staffing Survey's Bootstrap Variance

Estimator"

d. "Optimal Periodicity of a Survey: Sampling Error, Data Deterioration, and

Cost"

Response and Coverage Issues in School Surveys

a. "Some Data Issues in School-Based Surveys"

b. "The 1991–92 Teacher Follow-up Survey Reinterview and Extensive

Reconciliation"

c. "Improving Coverage in a National Survey of Teachers"

d. "Improving the Coverage of Private Elementary-Secondary Schools"

Education Research Using the Schools and Staffing Surveys and the

National Education Longitudinal Study

a. "Adding Value to the Value-Added Educational Production Function

Specification"

b. "Teacher Quality in Public and Private Schools"

c. "Teacher Shortages and Teacher Quality"

d. "Work Experience, Local Labor Markets, and Dropping out of High

School"
Appendix D

D-14

WP 95-02 QED Estimates of the 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey:

Deriving and Comparing QED School Estimates with CCD

Estimates

NCES Working Papers Related to SASS (cont)

WP 95-03 Schools and Staffing Survey: 1990–91 SASS CrossQuestionnaire Analysis

WP 95-08 CCD Adjustment to the 1990–91 SASS: A Comparison of

Estimates

WP 95-09 The Results of the 1993 Teacher List Validation Study (TLVS)

WP 95-10 The Results of the 1991–92 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS)

Reinterview and Extensive Reconciliation

WP 95-11 Measuring Instruction, Curriculum Content, and Instructional

Resources: The Status of Recent Work

WP 95-15 Classroom Instructional Processes: A Review of Existing

Measurement Approaches and Their Applicability for the Teacher

Followup Survey

WP 95-16 Intersurvey Consistency in NCES Private School Surveys

WP 95-17 Estimates of Expenditures for Private K–12 Schools

WP 95-18 An Agenda for Research on Teachers and Schools: Revisiting

NCES" Schools and Staffing Survey

WP 96-01 Methodological Issues in the Study of Teachers' Careers: Critical

Features of a Truly Longitudinal Study

WP 96-02 Selected papers presented at the meeting of the 1995 American

Statistical Association (96-02)

Overcoming the Bureaucratic Paradigm: Memorial Session in Honor of

Roger Herriot

a. "1995 Roger Herriot Award Presentation"

b. "Space/Time Variations in Survey Estimates"

c. "Out of the Box: Again and Again, Roger Herriot at the Census Bureau"
Appendix D

D-15

NCES Working Papers Related to SASS (cont)

Design and Estimation Issues for School Based Surveys

a. "Improving the Coverage of Private Elementary-Secondary Schools"

b. "Improving GLS Estimation in NCES Surveys"

c. "Optimal Periodicity of a Survey: Alternatives under Cost and Policy

Constraint"

d. "Properties of the Schools and Staffing Survey's Bootstrap Variance

Estimator"

Data Quality and Nonresponse in Education Surveys

a. "Assessing Quality of CCD Data Using a School-Based Sample Survey"

b. "Documentation of Nonresponse and Consistency of Data Categorization

Across NCES Surveys"

c. "Multivariate Modeling of Unit Nonresponse for 1990–91 Schools and

Staffing Surveys"

d. "Evaluation of Imputation Methods for State Education Finance Data"

e. "Variance Estimates Comparison by Statistical Software"

f. "Teacher Supply and Demand in the U.S."

NCES Working Papers Related to SASS (continued)

WP 96-05 Cognitive Research on the Teacher Listing Form for the Schools

and Staffing Survey

WP 96-06 The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) for 1998–99; Design

Recommendations to Inform Broad Education Policy

WP 96-07 Should SASS Measure Instructional Processes and Teacher

Effectiveness?

WP 96-09 Making Data Relevant for Policy Discussions: Redesigning the

School Administrator Questionnaire for the 1998–99 SASS

WP 96-10 1998–99 Schools and Staffing Survey: Issues Related to Survey

Depth

WP 96-11 Towards an Organizational Data Base on America's Schools: A

Proposal for the Future of SASS, with Comments on School

Reform, Governments, and Finance

WP 96-12 Predictors of Retention, Transfer, and Attrition of Special and

General Education Teachers: Data from the 1989 Teacher

Followup Survey
Appendix D

D-16

NCES Working Papers Related to SASS (cont)

WP 96-15 Nested Structures: District Level Data in the SASS

WP 96-16 Strategies for Collecting Finance Data from Private Schools

WP 96-23 Linking Student Data to SASS: Why, When, How

WP 96-24 National Assessments of Teacher Quality

WP 96-25 Measures of Inservice Professional Development: Suggested Items

for the 1998–99 SASS

WP 96-26 Improving the coverage of Private Elementary-Secondary Schools

WP 96-27 Intersurvey Consistency in NCES Private School Surveys for

1993–94

WP 96-28 Student Learning, Teaching Quality, and Professional

Development: Theoretical Linkages, Current Measurement, and

Recommendations for Future Data Collection

WP 97-01 Selected Papers on Education Surveys: Papers Presented at the

1996 Meeting of the American Statistical Association

Developing Questionnaires for Education Surveys

a. "Teacher Quality and Educational Inequality"

b. "Using Qualitative Methods to Validate Quantitative Survey Instruments"

c. "Revising the NCES Private School Survey: A Method to Design a

Systematic Classification of Private Schools in the United States"

Data Quality in Education Surveys

a. "An Analysis of Response Rates of SASS 1993–94"

b. "An Overview of NCES Surveys Reinterview Programs"

c. "Estimating Response Bias in an Adult Education Survey"
Appendix D

D-17

NCES Working Papers Related to SASS

Design and Estimation in School-Based Surveys

a. "Optimal Periodicity of a Survey: Extensions of Probable-Error Models"

b. "Estimating the Variance in the Presence of Imputation Using a Residual"

c. "Where Will It All End? Some Alternative SASS Estimation Research

Opportunities"

d. "Estimating State Totals from the Private School Universe Survey"

Policy Analysis with Education and Defense Manpower Survey Data

a. "Effect of High School Programs on Out-Migration of Rural Graduates"

WP 97-07 The Determinants of Per-Pupil Expenditures in Private

Elementary and Secondary Schools: An Exploratory Analysis.
References

References

References-3

References

Ashton, P. T., and Webb, R. B. 1986. Making A Difference: Teachers’ Sense of

Efficacy and Student Achievement. New York: Longmann.

Bobbitt, S. A., Leich, M. C., Whitener, S. D., and Lynch, H.F. 1994.

Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers: Results from the Teacher

Followup Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of

Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics,

NCES 94-337.

Boe, E.E. and Gilford, D.M. 1992. National Research Council. Teacher Supply,

Demand, and Quality. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. 1986. A Nation Prepared:

Teachers for the 21st Century. New York: Carnegie Forum on Education and the

Economy.

Choy, S. P., Bobbitt, S. A., Henke, R. R., Medrich, E. A., Horn, L J., and

Lieberman, J. 1993. America’s Teachers: Profile of a Profession. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and

Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 93-025.

Firestone, W. A. 1990. The Commitments of Teachers: Implications for Policy,

Administration, and Research. In S. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Advances in Research

and Theories of School Management and Educational Policy (Vol. 1, 151-183).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ingersoll, R. M., Han, M., and Bobbitt, S. 1995. Teacher Supply, Teacher

Qualifications, and Teacher Turnover: 1990-91. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement,

National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 95-744.

Ingersoll, R. M. and Alsalam, N. A. 1996. The Effects of Professionalization on

Teachers: A Multilevel Analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for

Education Statistics, NCES 96-XX.
References

References-4

Lee, V. E., Dedrick, R. F., and Smith, J. B. 1991. The Effect of the Social

Organization of Schools on Teachers’ Efficacy and Satisfaction. Sociology of

Education, 64:190-208.

Mathieu, J. E. 1991. A Cross-Level Nonrecursive Model of the Antecedents of

Organizational Commitment and Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76:

607-618.

McMillen, M. and Benson, P. 1992. Diversity of Private Schools. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Education, Office of educational Research and Improvement,

National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 92-082.

Muraki, E. and Bock, R.D. 1993. Parscale: IRT based test scoring and item analysis

for graded open-ended exercises and performance tasks (Version 2) [Computer

Software]. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.

Ostroff, C. 1992. The Relationship Between Satisfaction, Attitudes, and

Performance: An Organizational Level Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,

77: 963-974.

Rice, R. W., Gentile, D. A., and McFarlin, D. B. 1991. Facet Importance and Job

Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 31-39.

Riehl, C. and Sipple, J. W. 1995. Making the Most of Time and Talent: The

Impact of Secondary School Teachers’ Work Assignments on their Perceptions of

Efficacy and Professional Commitment. Final Technical Report, AERA Grants

Program.

Rowan, B. 1994. Comparing Teacher’s Work with Work in Other Occupations:

Notes on the Professional Status of Teaching. Educational Researcher, 23: 4-

17.

Thiessen, D. 1995. Multilog: Multiple, categorical item analysis and test scoring

using item response theory (Version 6.3) [Computer software]. Chicago, IL:

Scientific Software.