IN THE MIDDLE

Characteristics of Public Schools

With a Focus on Middle Schools

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 2000-312

SASS
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report July 2000

In the Middle

Characteristics of Public Schools

With a Focus on Middle Schools

Martha Naomi Alt

Susan P. Choy

MPR Associates, Inc.

Charles H. Hammer

Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 2000–312
U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

C. Kent McGuire

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Gary W. Phillips

Acting Commissioner

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

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

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

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

of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and

review and report on education activities in foreign countries.

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

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

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

practitioners, data users, and the general public.

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

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

information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or

report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

1990 K Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006

July 2000

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

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

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. In the Middle: Characteristics of

Public Schools With a Focus on Middle Schools, NCES 2000–312, by Martha Naomi Alt and Susan P.

Choy. Project Officer: Charles H. Hammer. Washington, DC: 2000.

For ordering information on this report, write:

U.S. Department of Education

ED Pubs

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

or call toll free 1-877-4ED-PUBS or go to the Internet: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html

Contact:

Kerry Gruber

(202) 502–7349
iii

Executive Summary

Educators, parents, policymakers, and researchers have focused considerable attention on

middle-level education in recent years, prompted

by widely held concerns about middle schools’

academic rigor and the effectiveness of activities

designed to help early adolescents develop in nonacademic realms. As a result, many middle school

educators have renewed efforts to develop curricula and instructional strategies that challenge students academically and expand their intellectual

interests, to ensure that teachers receive appropriate training to meet the needs of this age group,

and to create more nurturing and supportive environments.

This report uses data from the Schools and

Staffing Survey (SASS), conducted in 1987–88,

1990–91, and 1993–94, and the accompanying

Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), conducted a

year after each administration of SASS, to describe various aspects of middle schools, examine

how they have changed over time, and compare

middle schools with elementary and secondary

schools. These data provide information on fundamental dimensions of school organization, programs and services, decision making and

management, staffing matters, instructional practices, and school climate. Only public schools are

described; there were too few private middle

schools to analyze in the SASS data set.

Definitions and Overview of School

Levels

Middle schools include some of the grades

from 5 through 8, by any definition; the most

common configuration is grades 6–8. This report

defines school levels in the following way.1

Elementary Schools with at least one grade

lower than 5 and no grade higher

than 8.

Middle Schools with no grade lower than 5

and no grade higher than 8.

Secondary Schools with no grade lower than 7

and at least one grade higher than 8.

Combined Schools with at least one grade

lower than 7 and at least one grade

higher than 8. Schools with only

ungraded classes (no grades reported in K–12) were included with

combined schools.

In 1993–94, there were 80,740 public schools

in the United States, about 15 percent of them

middle schools. The number of middle schools

increased from 9,086 to 11,712 between 1987–88

and 1993–94, while the number of elementary and

secondary schools remained about the same (figure A). The growth occurred almost solely in

schools with grades 6–8. Of some 41.6 million

students in public schools in 1993–94, 6.8 million

were enrolled in middle schools.

Organization of Schooling

The self-contained class structure, the norm in

elementary schools, allows teachers to track their

students’ progress closely and provides a consistent classroom environment for young students.

 

1Previous publications that use SASS data have generally

lacked a category for middle schools and used different definitions of elementary and secondary schools.
Executive Summary

iv

Figure A—Number of schools of different levels:

Figure A—1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School

Questionnaire): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

Total ElementaryMiddle Secondary Combined/

ungraded

only

Number

1987–88

1990–91

1993–94

Secondary schools, on the other hand, are usually

organized in departments in order to provide

teachers who have in-depth subject-specific training and certification and to allow students some

choice among courses. Middle school reformers

have searched for creative ways to combine the

advantages of both approaches. In practice, middle

schools (like secondary schools) most often have

departmentalized classes; 79 percent of middle

school teachers and 92 percent of secondary

school teachers taught in departments in 1993–94

(figure B). By contrast, 79 percent of elementary

school teachers had self-contained classes. Many

of the ways in which middle schools resemble

secondary schools and differ from elementary

schools flow from the way that classes and teachers are organized.

Decision Making and Management

For some basic issues of school management,

principals’ perceptions of their influence either

Figure B—Percentage of teachers with different types of

Figure B—classes, by school level: 1993–94

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School

Teacher Questionnaire): 1993–94.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Elementary

Middle

Secondary

Percent

Departmentalized

Self-contained classes

Team-taught classes

did not differ or differed only slightly by school

level in 1993–94. High proportions of principals

reported having a lot of influence on evaluating

teachers’ performance (at least 95 percent at each

level), hiring full-time teachers and setting discipline policy (about 80–90 percent), and determining the content of inservice training programs (70–

75 percent). At least 50 percent of principals at

each level reported that they had a lot of influence

on establishing curriculum.

Teachers as well as principals were asked to

rate their influence over a range of school policies

and practices. In 1993–94, at least 25–30 percent

of teachers at each level reported that they had a

lot of influence in three areas: setting discipline

policy, establishing curriculum, and determining

the content of inservice training (figure C). In the

area of setting discipline policy, the percentage of

teachers who thought that they had a lot of influence decreased notably as school level increased

(from 42 percent of teachers at elementary schools
Executive Summary

v

Figure C—Percentage of teachers who reported that they

Figure C—had a lot of influence* over establishing

Figure C—curriculum, determining content of inservice

Figure C—training, and setting discipline policy, by

Figure C—school level: 1993–94

*Ratings of influence are counted as “a lot” if respondents marked

one of the highest two numbers (5 or 6) on a 6-point scale. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1993–94.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Establishing

curriculum

Inservice

training content

Setting

discipline policy

Percent

Elementary Middle Secondary

to 31 percent at middle schools and 25 percent at

secondary schools). For establishing curriculum,

teachers’ estimates of their influence increased

somewhat with school level.

School Staff

Teachers’ Certification Status

One policy concern is that middle school

teachers may be less prepared than secondary

school teachers to teach subject-specific classes,

and certification data from the 1993–94 SASS

provide at least limited support for this concern.

Middle school teachers were slightly less likely

than elementary or secondary school teachers to

have regular/alternative certification2 in their main

field, the field in which they taught the most

classes (72 percent versus 78 percent and 76 percent, respectively). Lack of certification is a particular concern for teachers who teach a core

academic subject. Of departmentalized middle

school teachers whose main assignment was

mathematics, science, English, or social studies,

approximately 7 to 8 percent lacked certification

in that field in 1993–94. In contrast, 2 to 3 percent

of such secondary school teachers lacked certification in their core field.

Teachers’ Education, Experience, and

Professional Development Activities

The likelihood that a teacher had attained a

master’s or other advanced degree increased

somewhat with school level in 1993–94. Also, a

slightly higher percentage of teachers with three or

fewer years of experience were teaching at middle

schools than at elementary or secondary schools

(the increase in new middle schools may partly

explain this finding). On three of five topics included in the survey (in-depth study in their subject, teaching methods in their field, and student

assessment), teachers were less likely to participate in training as school level increased. Overall,

elementary school teachers were most likely to

agree with several positive statements about this

professional development training, middle school

teachers somewhat less, and secondary school

teachers were the least likely to agree.

Handling Teaching Vacancies

Roughly one-third of middle and secondary

schools reported that they had great difficulty

filling a teaching vacancy, or could not fill it, in

 

2Teachers reported the type of certification that they had:

advanced; regular or alternative; provisional, probationary,

temporary, or emergency; or none.
Executive Summary

vi

1993–94—about twice the proportion as that for

elementary schools. Because schools at the two

higher levels are mainly departmentalized, the

pool of applicants for many openings is limited to

those who have specialized preparation in a particular subject, as well as appropriate school-level

credentials if required.

Teacher Retention, Mobility, and Attrition

Generally, 80–90 percent of teachers surveyed

in 1993–94 remained at the same school the following school year, with a slightly lower percentage for those at middle schools. Similarly, middle

school teachers were slightly more likely to move

to a different school within one year than teachers

at the secondary level. However, these patterns

were not found in earlier SASS data. From 1987–

88 to 1993–94, teachers at middle schools became

somewhat more likely to leave teaching within one

year (4 percent in the former year versus 8 percent

in the latter), yet comparable changes did not occur at the elementary or secondary levels.

School Climate

Teachers’ Evaluations of Their Schools’

Climate and Operations

Teachers were asked in SASS to express their

degree of agreement with a broad range of statements about their school’s climate, including aspects related to the principal, students, colleagues,

and school conditions. The percentage of teachers

agreeing with positive statements tended to decrease as school level increased, while the percentage agreeing with negative statements

increased with level. Despite high rates of teacher

agreement overall with the following positive

statements, for example, teachers at the higher

levels were less likely to agree that teachers participate in most of the important educational decisions, that they receive a great deal of parental

support, that the administration’s behavior is supportive and encouraging, that they try to coordinate course content with colleagues, and that the

principal makes expectations for staff clear. Complementing this pattern, for the following three

negative statements, teachers’ likelihood of

agreeing increased with level: that the principal

does a poor job of getting resources (fewer than 20

percent at any school level); that they sometimes

have to follow rules that conflict with their best

professional judgment; and that they sometimes

feel it is a waste of time to do their best as a

teacher (in the range of roughly 20 and 30 percent

for the latter two statements).

Teacher Satisfaction3

At least 77 percent of teachers at each of the

school levels reported that they were satisfied with

their job overall, with higher rates of satisfaction

reported by elementary school teachers. Similar

proportions of elementary, middle, and secondary

school teachers reported satisfaction with their

salary, opportunity for advancement, and support/recognition from administrators. However,

teacher satisfaction with other aspects of their jobs

varied with level. In 1994–95, the percentage of

teachers who were satisfied with two aspects of

their jobs decreased as school level increased: the

caliber of their colleagues and the availability of

resources, materials, and equipment. Middle and

secondary school teachers reported lower rates of

satisfaction with the intellectual challenge of their

job than did teachers at elementary schools. In

contrast, middle and secondary school teachers

 

3Job satisfaction was analyzed only for teachers who remained at the same job one year after the SASS data were

collected. This restriction was necessary because school level

was known only for that group. However, it should be pointed

out that these data are likely to overstate satisfaction rates,

because teachers who leave teaching (and perhaps also those

who change schools) probably tend to be less satisfied than

those who stay at the same job.
Executive Summary

vii

were more satisfied than elementary school teachers with their teaching load.

Teachers’ and Principals’ Ratings of

Problems

Teachers and principals were asked to rate a

number of possible problems at their school as

serious, moderate, minor, or not a problem. In

1993–94, the percentage of teachers and principals

who considered many of these problems serious

increased with school level. This was true for student apathy, students’ arriving unprepared to

learn, the lack of academic challenge, the lack of

parent involvement, robbery/theft, and student

alcohol use. Middle school teachers were the most

likely to report physical conflicts among students

as a problem (11 percent), though it was not a

particularly widespread problem. Student disrespect for teachers was cited by twice the percentage of teachers at middle and secondary schools as

at elementary schools. Principals were less likely

than teachers to view each problem as serious,

except for poverty.4 This was true for middle

schools but also for all schools as a group. This

discrepancy may result partly from teachers’ having more direct contact and interaction with students each day and with a larger number of

students, compared with principals.

Conclusion

Across the issues examined here with SASS

and TFS data, middle schools rarely differed dramatically from elementary or secondary schools. It

is possible that with data on other topics, particularly certain qualitative measures, middle schools

would stand out more from other schools. Middle

schools focus on serving the needs of young ado-

 

4These discrepancies between teachers’ and principals’ opinions were noted in an earlier report, Henke, Choy, Geis, and

Broughman 1996, 103.

lescents but otherwise share many of the same

conditions, constraints, goals, and strengths of

other schools. As they open new middle schools

and reform existing ones, educators strive to adapt

what works well at other levels to a school environment shaped for young adolescents. The overarching similarities across school levels that result

should come as no surprise. Where middle and

secondary schools share characteristics and differ

from elementary schools, the development of middle schools along the secondary school model may

provide some explanation. For other patterns, related variables such as school size may be relevant.

Five patterns characterize the data on middle

schools vis-à-vis other schools. In the first, which

occurred with some frequency, middle and secondary schools shared characteristics but differed

from elementary schools. For example, a substantial majority of teachers in both middle and secondary schools teach in departmentalized settings.

Middle and secondary school teachers generally

have more specialized training in one or more

subjects compared with elementary teachers. Middle and secondary schools were about twice as

likely as elementary schools to report great difficulty filling teaching vacancies, perhaps partly

because the requirements for teaching many of the

subjects are more specific.

In the second pattern, middle schools are more

similar to elementary than to secondary schools.

Because elementary and middle schools tend to

organize their classes differently, this pattern of

similarity is relatively rare. Among these occurrences, middle and elementary school teachers

were more likely to team teach their classes than

teachers at the secondary level. Principals provide

another example: at the lower two school levels,

they viewed student absenteeism and alcohol use
Executive Summary

viii

as much less widespread problems than at secondary schools.

The third pattern, appearing with quite a few

aspects of schooling, was a fairly steady increase

or decrease in the prevalence of characteristics by

school level. For example, for inservice programs

on teaching methods, in-depth study of their subject, and student assessment methods, teachers

were less likely to participate in training as school

level increased. The proportion of teachers who

thought they had a lot of influence on setting discipline policy decreased notably as school level

increased, while their perceived influence on establishing curriculum increased with school level.

The percentage of teachers who agreed with many

negative statements about their school’s climate

and management (and who disagreed with several

positive statements) or who viewed numerous

school problems as serious increased with level.

When middle schools stood out as the exception from both elementary and secondary schools,

such differences tended to be small. As an illustration, departmentalized middle school teachers

of mathematics, science, English, and social studies were more likely than their secondary school

counterparts to lack certification in that field.

Middle school teachers were also slightly less

likely than those at other levels to remain teaching

at the same school the following year. Teachers

were more likely to report that two problems—

physical conflicts among students and student

disrespect for teachers—were serious at middle

schools than at the other two levels.

Finally, in some areas, particularly those related to provision of services and school management, there were no differences between the various school levels. For example, more than 90 percent of schools at each level provided programs to

prevent drug and alcohol use among students, and

nearly all schools had a library media specialist on

staff. Similarly, principals at each school level

were equally likely to think that they had a lot of

influence over evaluating teachers’ performance

and determining the content of inservice training

programs. Teachers reported similar rates of satisfaction with their opportunity for advancement,

their salary, and the school administration’s support and recognition.

Future Research

The questionnaires for the upcoming 1999–

2000 SASS (and 2000–01 Teacher Follow-up

Survey) include most of the items used in the

earlier questionnaires. Once these data become

available, many of the aspects of schooling

discussed here can be examined over a 12-year

period. The upcoming surveys also include new

items that address additional policy issues that

have come to the fore more recently. New or

expanded topics in the 1999–2000 survey that may

provide information relevant to middle-level

education include the uses of schoolwide

performance reports; tracking progress on school

improvement plans; new teacher preparation and

support in the school and professional development; ability-based tracking and grouping within

classes; parent involvement; charter schools; and

use of computers and other technology in the

school. These new SASS data, which are planned

for release in 2001, will provide opportunities for

a range of additional comparative analyses among

elementary, middle, and secondary schools.
ix

Foreword

This report explores characteristics of and conditions in public middle schools in the United

States, comparing these schools to elementary and secondary schools and examining changes in

middle schools over a six-year period. Educators and researchers have directed fresh attention to

middle-level education in recent years. On one end of the educational spectrum, educators have

expended a great deal of effort to reform and improve high schools in the past decade or two;

similarly, initiatives to strengthen early childhood education and expand access to preschool have

taken hold. Complementing this work, middle schools have received new attention, particularly

as some research has identified early adolescence as the time when student drift, alienation, and

underachievement in school often begin. The recognition of middle schools as a key bridge in the

continuum of schooling has also focused research and practice efforts on the middle grades.

This report uses nationally representative data to examine differences and similarities

across school levels, focusing on middle schools. Included are, on the one hand, objective measures such as program provision, classroom organization, professional development participation

of staff, and the handling of teaching vacancies. Subjective data are also presented, including

principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of their influence over various areas, their views on school

climate and problems, and teachers’ job satisfaction. The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)

has collected data on a wide range of topics about schools, teachers, principals, and their experiences at work across the United States in 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94. The Teacher Followup Survey (TFS), conducted a year after each administration of SASS with a subset of the teachers from SASS, examines such issues as teacher retention, mobility, and attrition rates, and

teachers’ satisfaction with aspects of their jobs. While the report primarily analyzes data from the

most recent available year, some attention is also given to trends over the six years encompassed

by the data. The questionnaires for the upcoming 1999–2000 SASS (and 2000–01 Teacher Follow-up Survey) include most of the items used in the earlier questionnaires, as well as new and

expanded items. Once these data become available, many of the aspects of schooling discussed in

this report can be examined over a 12-year period.
x

Acknowledgments

The authors extend thanks to many people whose efforts have improved or contributed to

this report. First, the report benefited greatly from the guidance and careful reviews of project

officer Charles Hammer, who checked all elements along the way and asked probing questions in

order to ensure that the report was accurate, well reasoned, and clear. Without his careful steering, this report might have gone off course in many ways. Others at NCES who provided excellent help include Marilyn McMillen, the adjudicator; members of the adjudication panel, Shelley

Burns, Lee Hoffman, and Daniel Kasprzyk, who provided thoughtful insights and suggestions

that greatly improved the report; and Kerry Gruber, who answered questions and helped manage

the production process at the end. Leslie Scott of the Educational Statistics Services Institute

conducted a thorough and helpful technical review. Lynn Cornett of the Southern Regional Education Board and Jack Berckemeyer of the National Middle School Association also provided

helpful comments and new viewpoints. Useful comments and questions were also put forward by

reviewers in other offices of the Department of Education: Richard DiCola of the Division of

Vocational-Technical Education, and Carol Cichowski of the Office of the Deputy Secretary/Budget Service.

At MPR Associates, Robin Henke lent her considerable expertise on the data sets, statistical tests, and many of the topics addressed in this report. Ellen Liebman conducted the statistical

programming for the tables, with help from Shirley He. Rosio Bugarin assisted with checking

statistical tests and commenting on an early draft, Jin Kwon helped check the accuracy of the table data, and Stacie Chun helped manage the data production. Andrea Livingston edited the text,

and Karyn Madden prepared the bibliography and provided additional editorial support. Barbara

Kridl coordinated production of the report, and Francesca Tussing formatted the tables, figures,

and final text, building on earlier work by Mary Mack.

This report also benefited from work completed for earlier reports, specifically from data

exploration and variable creation for these NCES publications: Schools and Staffing in the

United States: 1993–94 (NCES 96–124) and its counterparts for the two earlier SASS data sets

(NCES 93–146 and NCES 92–120); America’s Teachers: Profile of a Profession (NCES 97–

460); and Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers: Results from the Teacher Followup

Survey: 1994–95 (NCES 97–450) and its counterparts for the two earlier TFS data sets (NCES

94–337 and NCES 91–128).
xi

Table of Contents

Page

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

Foreword................................................................................................................................... ix

Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................... x

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ xiii

List of Figures........................................................................................................................... xix

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

Policy Issues Related to Middle Schools ............................................................................. 2

2. Organization of Schooling ................................................................................................. 7

Definitions of School Levels................................................................................................ 7

Numbers and Distributions of Schools and Students........................................................... 8

Location of Middle Schools ................................................................................................. 10

Size and Other School Characteristics ................................................................................. 10

Classroom Organization and Class Size............................................................................... 11

3. Programs and Services....................................................................................................... 15

Instruction-Related Services................................................................................................. 15

Health-Related Services ....................................................................................................... 16

4. Decision Making and Management.................................................................................. 19

Site-Based Decision Making................................................................................................ 19

Principals’ Perceptions of Their Influence........................................................................... 21

Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Influence............................................................................. 21

5. Staffing ................................................................................................................................ 25

Qualifications of Teachers and Principals............................................................................ 25

Handling Teaching Vacancies.............................................................................................. 32

Teachers’ Workload and Support From Other Professional Staff ....................................... 33

Teacher Retention, Mobility, and Attrition.......................................................................... 34

Instructional Practices .......................................................................................................... 35
Table of Contents

xii

Page

6. School Climate .................................................................................................................... 39

Teachers’ Evaluations of Their Schools’ Climate................................................................ 39

Teacher Satisfaction ............................................................................................................. 41

Teachers’ Ratings of Problems at Their Schools ................................................................. 43

Principals’ Ratings of Problems at Their Schools................................................................ 43

7. Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 45

Future Research.................................................................................................................... 47

References................................................................................................................................. 49

Appendix A—Detailed Tables................................................................................................. 55

Appendix B—Standard Error Tables.................................................................................... 117

Appendix C—Technical Notes................................................................................................ 179

Appendix D—Selected SASS Publications and Data Products............................................ 193
xiii

List of Tables

Table Page

1 Number of public schools in each school level and number of middle and secondary

schools with particular grade configurations, by selected school characteristics:

1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88 ................................................................................... 57

2 Percentage distributions of public schools according to school level and grade

configuration, by selected school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88..... 62

3 Number of public school students in each school level and in middle and secondary

schools with particular grade configurations, by selected school characteristics:

1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88 ................................................................................... 64

4 Percentage distributions of public schools according to selected school

characteristics, by school level and grade configuration of middle and secondary

schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88..................................................................... 69

5 Percentage distributions of public school students according to selected school

characteristics, by school level and grade configuration of middle and secondary

schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88..................................................................... 74

6 Percentage distribution of public school teachers according to type of class

organization, and average class size for teachers in departments and self-contained

classrooms, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and

1987–88.......................................................................................................................... 79

7 Percentage of public schools offering various instruction-related services, by school

level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88 .................................. 81

8 Percentage of public schools offering various health-related services, by school level

and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88........................................... 83

9 Percentage of public schools that had decision-making bodies other than school

boards, student councils, or PTAs, and percentage of these bodies that included

certain groups, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94................................ 85

10 Percentage of public schools’ site-based decision-making bodies that had various

functions or areas of responsibility, by school level and grade configuration:

1993–94.......................................................................................................................... 86
List of Tables

xiv

Table Page

11 Percentage of public school principals who reported that they had a lot of influence

on decisions in various school management areas, by school level and grade

configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88 ........................................................... 87

12 Percentage of public school teachers who reported that teachers had a lot of influence

on decisions in various school management areas, by school level and grade

configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88 ........................................................... 89

13 Percentage distribution of public school teachers according to type of certification

they had in their main and other assignment field, by school level and grade

configuration: 1993–94 .................................................................................................. 91

14 Percentage distribution of public middle and secondary school core subject teachers

in departments according to type of certification in their main assignment field, by

field and school level: 1993–94 ..................................................................................... 92

15 Percentage distributions of public school teachers according to highest degree earned

and years of teaching experience, and average years of experience, by school level

and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88........................................... 93

16 Percentage of teachers who participated in an inservice or professional development

program that focused on various topics since the end of the last school year, by

school level and grade configuration: 1993–94 ............................................................. 95

17 Of public school teachers who had participated in recent inservice training on

various topics, the percentages who agreed with a range of statements about the

training’s effects, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94............................ 96

18 Percentage distributions of public school principals according to highest degree

earned and years of experience as a principal, and average years of experience, by

school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88....................... 97

19 Percentage of principals who had received various types of training for school

administration, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and

1987–88.......................................................................................................................... 99

20 Percentage of public schools with teaching vacancies that found them very difficult

or impossible to fill, and percentage that used various strategies for filling them, by

school level and grade configuration: 1993–94 ............................................................. 101

21 Ratio of students per full-time-equivalent teacher in public schools, and percentage

of public schools with librarians and counselors, by school level and grade

configuration: 1993–94 .................................................................................................. 102
List of Tables

xv

Table Page

22 Percentage distribution of public school teachers according to their teaching status

the following school year, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–

91, and 1987–88 ............................................................................................................. 103

23 Percentage of public school principals who rated various goals as one of their top

three, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94............................................... 105

24 Percentage of public school teachers who had their students engage in various

activities in class at least once a week, by school level and grade configuration:

1994–95.......................................................................................................................... 106

25 Percentage of public school teachers who emphasized specific skills at least once a

week, by school level and grade configuration: 1994–95 .............................................. 107

26 Percentage of public school teachers who assigned their students various homework

activities at least once a week, by school level and grade configuration: 1994–95 ....... 108

27 Percentage of public school teachers who agreed with various statements about their

schools, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94 and 1987–88..................... 109

28 Percentage of public school teachers who were satisfied with particular aspects of

their teaching job, by school level and grade configuration: 1994–95, 1991–92, and

1988–89.......................................................................................................................... 111

29 Percentage of public school teachers who rated various problems in their schools as

serious, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88..... 113

30 Percentage of public school principals who rated various problems in their schools as

serious, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88..... 115

Standard Error Tables

A1 Standard errors for table 1: Number of public schools in each school level and

number of middle and secondary schools with particular grade configurations, by

selected school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88................................. 119

A2 Standard errors for table 2: Percentage distributions of public schools according to

school level and grade configuration, by selected school characteristics: 1993–94,

1990–91, and 1987–88 ................................................................................................... 124

A3 Standard errors for table 3: Number of public school students in each school level

and in middle and secondary schools with particular grade configurations, by

selected school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88................................. 126
List of Tables

xvi

Table Page

A4 Standard errors for table 4: Percentage distributions of public schools according to

selected school characteristics, by school level and grade configuration of middle and

secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88.................................................... 131

A5 Standard errors for table 5: Percentage distributions of public school students

according to selected school characteristics, by school level and grade configuration

of middle and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88............................. 136

A6 Standard errors for table 6: Percentage distribution of public school teachers

according to type of class organization, and average class size for teachers in

departments and self-contained classrooms, by school level and grade configuration:

1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88 ................................................................................... 141

A7 Standard errors for table 7: Percentage of public schools offering various instructionrelated services, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and

1987–88.......................................................................................................................... 143

A8 Standard errors for table 8: Percentage of public schools offering various healthrelated services, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and

1987–88.......................................................................................................................... 145

A9 Standard errors for table 9: Percentage of public schools that had decision-making

bodies other than school boards, student councils, or PTAs, and percentage of these

bodies that included certain groups, by school level and grade configuration:

1993–94.......................................................................................................................... 147

A10 Standard errors for table 10: Percentage of public schools’ site-based decisionmaking bodies that had various functions or areas of responsibility, by school level

and grade configuration: 1993–94.................................................................................. 148

A11 Standard errors for table 11: Percentage of public school principals who reported that

they had a lot of influence on decisions in various school management areas, by

school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88....................... 149

A12 Standard errors for table 12: Percentage of public school teachers who reported that

teachers had a lot of influence on decisions in various school management areas, by

school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88....................... 151

A13 Standard errors for table 13: Percentage distribution of public school teachers

according to type of certification they had in their main and other assignment field,

by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94......................................................... 153
List of Tables

xvii

Table Page

A14 Standard errors for table 14: Percentage distribution of public middle and secondary

school core subject teachers in departments according to type of certification in their

main assignment field, by field and school level: 1993–94 ........................................... 154

A15 Standard errors for table 15: Percentage distributions of public school teachers

according to highest degree earned and years of teaching experience, and average

years of experience, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and

1987–88.......................................................................................................................... 155

A16 Standard errors for table 16: Percentage of teachers who participated in an inservice

or professional development program that focused on various topics since the end of

the last school year, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94........................ 157

A17 Standard errors for table 17: Of public school teachers who had participated in recent

inservice training on various topics, the percentages who agreed with a range of

statements about the training’s effects, by school level and grade configuration:

1993–94.......................................................................................................................... 158

A18 Standard errors for table 18: Percentage distributions of public school principals

according to highest degree earned and years of experience as a principal, and

average years of experience, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94,

1990–91, and 1987–88 ................................................................................................... 159

A19 Standard errors for table 19: Percentage of principals who had received various types

of training for school administration, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–

94, 1990–91, and 1987–88 ............................................................................................. 161

A20 Standard errors for table 20: Percentage of public schools with teaching vacancies

that found them very difficult or impossible to fill, and percentage that used various

strategies for filling them, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94 .............. 163

A21 Standard errors for table 21: Ratio of students per full-time-equivalent teacher in

public schools, and percentage of public schools with librarians and counselors, by

school level and grade configuration: 1993–94 ............................................................. 164

A22 Standard errors for table 22: Percentage distribution of public school teachers

according to their teaching status the following school year, by school level and

grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88.................................................. 165

A23 Standard errors for table 23: Percentage of public school principals who rated

various goals as one of their top three, by school level and grade configuration:

1993–94.......................................................................................................................... 167
List of Tables

xviii

Table Page

A24 Standard errors for table 24: Percentage of public school teachers who had their

students engage in various activities in class at least once a week, by school level and

grade configuration: 1994–95 ........................................................................................ 168

A25 Standard errors for table 25: Percentage of public school teachers who emphasized

specific skills at least once a week, by school level and grade configuration:

1994–95.......................................................................................................................... 169

A26 Standard errors for table 26: Percentage of public school teachers who assigned their

students various homework activities at least once a week, by school level and grade

configuration: 1994–95 .................................................................................................. 170

A27 Standard errors for table 27: Percentage of public school teachers who agreed with

various statements about their schools, by school level and grade configuration:

1993–94 and 1987–88 .................................................................................................... 171

A28 Standard errors for table 28: Percentage of public school teachers who were satisfied

with particular aspects of their teaching job, by school level and grade configuration:

1994–95, 1991–92, and 1988–89 ................................................................................... 173

A29 Standard errors for table 29: Percentage of public school teachers who rated various

problems in their schools as serious, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–

94, 1990–91, and 1987–88 ............................................................................................. 175

A30 Standard errors for table 30: Percentage of public school principals who rated

various problems in their schools as serious, by school level and grade configuration:

1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88 ................................................................................... 177
xix

List of Figures

Figure Page

Executive Summary Figures

A Number of schools of different levels: 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94 ..................... iv

B Percentage of teachers with different types of classes, by school level: 1993–94 ......... iv

C Percentage of teachers who reported that they had a lot of influence over establishing

curriculum, determining content of inservice training, and setting discipline policy,

by school level: 1993–94................................................................................................ v

Text Figures

1 Number of schools of different levels: 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94 ..................... 8

2 Number of middle schools, by grade configuration: 1987–88, 1990–91, and

1993–94.......................................................................................................................... 9

3 Percentage of students in schools of different levels: 1993–94 ..................................... 9

4 Percentage of teachers with different types of classes, by school level: 1993–94 ......... 12

5 Percentage of elementary and middle schools that offered remedial English and

remedial mathematics instruction, by school level: 1987–88, 1990–91, and

1993–94.......................................................................................................................... 16

6 Percentage of schools that offered various health-related services, by school level:

1993–94.......................................................................................................................... 17

7 Percentage of schools that had site-based decision-making bodies, and percentage of

those bodies that included various groups, by school level: 1993–94 ........................... 20

8 Percentage of principals who reported that they had a lot of influence over hiring

teachers, establishing curriculum, and setting discipline policy, by school level:

1993–94.......................................................................................................................... 22

9 Percentage of middle school principals who reported that they had a lot of influence

over hiring teachers and setting discipline policy: 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94 ... 22
List of Figures

xx

Figure Page

10 Percentage of teachers who reported that they had a lot of influence over establishing

curriculum, determining content of inservice training, and setting discipline policy,

by school level: 1993–94................................................................................................ 23

11 Percentage distribution of teachers according to type of certification in main

assignment field, by school level: 1993–94 ................................................................... 26

12 Percentage distribution of teachers according to highest degree earned: 1993–94........ 28

13 Percentage of teachers who had participated in an inservice program on selected

topics since the end of the last school year, by school level: 1993–94 .......................... 29

14 Of teachers who had participated in recent inservice training on various topics, the

percentage who agreed with various statements about its effects, by school level:

1993–94.......................................................................................................................... 30

15 Percentage of public schools that had great difficulty filling teaching vacancies, and,

of those that had difficulty, percentage that used selected strategies for filling them,

by school level: 1993–94................................................................................................ 32

16 Percentage of 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94 teachers who were teaching at the

same school one year later, by school level.................................................................... 35

17 Percentage of 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94 teachers who had left the teaching

profession by the next school year, by school level ....................................................... 36

18 Percentage of teachers who agreed with various positive statements about their

schools, by school level: 1993–94.................................................................................. 40

19 Percentage of teachers who agreed with various negative statements about their

schools, by school level: 1993–94.................................................................................. 40

20 Percentage of teachers who were satisfied with particular aspects of their teaching

jobs, by school level: 1994–95....................................................................................... 42
1

1. Introduction

Educators, parents, policymakers, and researchers have focused considerable attention on

middle-level education in recent years, prompted by two widely held concerns: first, that middle

schools have lacked academic rigor and, second, that they have contributed insufficiently to the

psychosocial development of early adolescents. As a result, many middle school educators have

renewed efforts to develop curricula and instructional strategies that challenge students academically and expand their intellectual interests; to ensure that teachers receive appropriate training to

meet the needs of this age group; and to create more nurturing and supportive environments.

This report uses data from the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), conducted in 1987–88,

1990–91, and 1993–94, and the accompanying Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS), conducted a

year after each administration of SASS, to describe various aspects of middle schools, to examine how they have changed over time, and to compare middle schools with elementary and secondary schools. These data provide information on fundamental dimensions of school organization; programs and services; decision making and management; staffing matters; instructional

practices; and school climate. The tables, which follow the discussion, present detailed information on elementary, middle, secondary, and combined schools and on selected grade configurations at the middle and secondary levels. In addition to providing descriptive information on

middle schools, this report explores the prevalence of some widely recommended practices and

conditions in elementary, middle, and secondary schools. To place the analysis in context, the

report begins with a brief overview of the history of the middle school movement and current

policy concerns relevant to middle schools.

Only public schools are included; because middle schools are rare in the private sector,

there were too few cases of private middle schools in the SASS data set to analyze. Comparisons

are not made between combined schools and schools of other levels because combined schools

do not belong to a single level; by definition they include grades from more than one level. Finally, although the detailed tables include breakdowns of three grade configuration categories for

middle schools and two for secondary schools, these subcategories have generally not been examined for differences because of small sample sizes.
1. Introduction

2

Policy Issues Related to Middle Schools

The notion that early adolescents have social, psychological, and academic needs that are

distinct from those of older and younger students has long been recognized. Junior high schools,

typically containing grades 7 through 9, were first established around the turn of the 20th century

because the upper grades of primary schools were seen as failing to meet the needs of early adolescents (Clark and Clark 1993).1 Reformers at the time advocated presenting more challenging

academic content (to reduce student dropout rates) and introducing exploration of various vocational fields (to prepare students who did not plan to attend high school for useful work). In addition, reform-minded educators searched for ways for schools to address the developmental

needs of young people as well as stimulate their intellectual growth (Clark and Clark 1993).

The rapid growth of junior high schools later generated several waves of criticism, some in

response to intended reforms that were not fully implemented and some in response to the consequences of realized reforms. Some attacks made in the 1940s remain familiar today: fragmented

curriculum taught in departmentalized classes (as in high schools); heavy emphasis on teacher

lectures and students’ passive observation; predominant reliance on textbooks; tracking students

by ability; and inadequate teacher training (particularly in the area of adolescents’ psychosocial,

emotional, and cognitive development).2

The current middle school reform movement began in the 1960s, with many of the same

aims that underlay the earlier creation of junior high schools. One difference is that a slightly

younger age group has been targeted for middle schools—as young as 10 years old (or 5th grade)

in some schools, reflecting the earlier onset of puberty compared with a century ago. Despite incremental changes in organization, curriculum, and instruction since then, critics in recent years

charge that too many schools educating early adolescents, especially those in central cities, still

tend to resemble the junior highs they were supposed to reform (Cuban 1992, 46).

Perhaps the most pivotal concern raised in recent years is that middle-level schools lack

academic rigor. Among many who accuse middle schools of failing to develop in students the

high-level thinking skills that they need for high school and college work are Tucker and Codding (1998), who recently called middle schools “the wasteland of our primary and secondary

landscape.” Specific criticisms of those who decry the lack of academic progress among middlelevel students (Ames 1998; Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development 1989; McEwin,

Dickinson, and Jenkins 1996; Argetsinger 1999) include the following:

 

1Clark and Clark cite earlier analysts of the middle-grades problem, including Hansen and Hern 1971, Briggs 1920, and Koos

1927.

2Douglass 1945, cited by Cuban 1992.
1. Introduction

3

• A lack of curricular focus on core academic courses and analytical skills leads students

to shift their focus away from school and even become alienated from it, and ill prepares them for either high school or meaningful employment;

• Teachers lack appropriate training to teach young adolescents, to teach challenging

material and high-level skills, or both; and

• The dramatic increase in ability grouping (often called tracking) as children enter middle school restricts at-risk students’ access to challenging curricula and contributes to

their subsequent low achievement.

Some critics contend that overemphasizing young adolescents’ social, psychological,

physical, and emotional needs has actually contributed to schools that do not challenge students

sufficiently in their academic work. Junior high schools had responded to charges in earlier decades that they were insensitive to these psychosocial needs, but some think they went too far in

finally addressing them. One middle-level education expert noted recently that in striving to be

supportive and build confidence, many middle schools have failed to emphasize high-level academic skills and hold students and teachers accountable for meeting high standards.3 Ames

(1998) wrote that “while many middle-grades schools have created safer and more nurturing environments, . . . [a]cademic expectations are generally low, and opportunities for students to learn

important concepts and apply them to real-world problems are rare.”

Although elementary and high schools are often faulted for similar deficits in academic

rigor and depth, test data highlight the middle grades as the point when average student achievement begins to lag. The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), conducted

in 1997, provides useful comparative data from the United States and up to 40 other countries4

on student achievement levels in mathematics and science in the 4th, 8th, and 12th grades. These

data show that U.S. 4th-graders scored above the international average of 26 nations in mathematics and that they performed below students in only 7 other countries (U.S. Department of

Education 1997). However, by 8th grade, U.S. students’ mathematics performance fell below the

international average (of 41 nations) and below that of 20 nations. The TIMSS study also found

that curriculum taught in U.S. 8th-grade mathematics classes was less advanced than that taught

in Germany or Japan. German and Japanese students spent considerably less time on arithmetic

topics and more time working on algebra and geometry than U.S. students did.

Performance on tests of science knowledge echoed the pattern in mathematics, although

U.S. students’ relative achievement levels in science were generally better than those in mathematics. In the United States, 4th-graders scored above the international average of 26 nations in

 

3Nancy Doda, quoted in Argetsinger 1999.

4The exact number of countries from which test data were available differed depending on the grade level and subject. The nations were for the most part either developed or newly industrializing; very few belonged to the “developing” world.
1. Introduction

4

science and performed less well than students in only 1 other country, Korea. But while U.S. 8thgraders also tested above the international average of 41 nations in science, their performance fell

below that of 9 nations. Furthermore, the slowing of progress apparent on 8th-grade tests is not a

temporary lull that is erased in the later grades. According to a summary of the TIMSS findings,

U.S. 12th-graders scored below the international average in both the mathematics and science

general knowledge tests, which measure a range of skills and knowledge learned over the course

of K–12 schooling. In addition, achievement of U.S. 12th-graders on these general knowledge

tests was among the lowest of the 21 participating nations.5

Another group of educators, who often oppose the “academics first” group, argue that middle schools still have work to do to meet students’ multifaceted needs for growth in the social,

psychological/emotional, physical, and cognitive realms. There is a long tradition of such recommendations; one example is the recent recommendation that schools shift from a “culture of

service” to a “culture of caring.”6 Such critics tend to believe that middle schools, whatever their

progress in the academic arena, are still not effectively meeting young students’ needs for support, acceptance, and developing strong self-esteem. In recent years, these concerns have reached

greater prominence as the media, educators, and parents examine incidents of extreme violence

in the middle grades.

An influential report issued in 1989, Turning Points: Preparing Youth for the 21st Century,

included comprehensive recommendations that stressed the need for middle schools to take action in both the academic and psychosocial arenas (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development 1989). Other educators concur that school activities need to emphasize mastery of skills and

content as well as address students’ feelings and develop their self-confidence (Lipsitz, Jackson,

and Austin 1997; Madhere and Mac Iver 1996). Some of the policies and practices recommended

for middle schools in Turning Points can be addressed with SASS data to at least some extent.

• Create small communities for learning (e.g., schools-within-schools, student/teacher

teams, and small group advisories) to foster close relationships between teachers and

students, and among students. The goals include creating a climate for intellectual

growth that encourages curiosity as well as reducing alienation and intimidation.

Teachers need sufficient time with students to unravel each one’s particular needs, to

inspire them to use their gifts, and to break down any obstacles to learning.

• Ensure that all students gain a core of knowledge and skills. Practices that support this

goal include staff cooperatively selecting the most central skills and content, integrat-

 

5U.S. Department of Education 1997.

6See, for example, Ryan and Friedlaender 1996. These authors cite earlier observers such as Dewey 1915; Gruhn and Douglass

1947; Tye 1985; and Gutmann 1987.
1. Introduction

5

ing curriculum, developing students’ critical reasoning and higher order thinking skills,

and educating students for active citizenship.

• Empower school staff to make decisions to guide the most effective teaching for their

students, including developing site-based governance committees, increasing teachers’

autonomy, creating leadership positions such as mentor teachers, and changing the role

of school principals.

• Improve middle-grade teacher preparation by encouraging more targeted education

(prospective teachers should concentrate in one or more core subjects as undergraduates and complete substantial coursework in early adolescent development and guidance); teacher internships or apprenticeships under mentor teachers’ supervision; and

specialized certification/licensing for teaching the middle grades in addition to elementary- or secondary-level certification.

• Foster the health, fitness, and safety of young adolescents. To help achieve this goal,

provide health services, including substance abuse counseling, mental health treatment,

and reproductive health counseling and services; diverse athletic programs; and conflict resolution/violence avoidance programs.

In addition to these goals, the authors of Turning Points set forth two others: the first is

promoting high achievement by all students, which they thought would be helped by avoiding

“tracking” students by ability, implementing cooperative learning and cross-age tutoring, and

providing tutoring and a range of extra support activities for students who need them. The second

is developing ties with the community. Activities recommended in this area include communicating with parents regularly, building trust, and encouraging them to serve on school governance

bodies; placing students in volunteer service to the community; and leveraging community resources like businesses, religious and community-based organizations, and youth agencies—any

of which may provide mentors, tutors, equipment, financing for special projects, or student

placements.

Many of the administrative changes (such as block schedules or other scheduling flexibility) proposed in Turning Points have been adopted by some schools; in fact, schools may be farther ahead in changing administrative features than in reforming instruction and curriculum

(Mergendoller 1993; Felner, Jackson, Kasak, Mulhall, Brand, and Flowers 1997). While changes

in school organization or administration may help students make connections with teachers and

other students as they adapt from smaller elementary schools to middle schools, such changes are

often too superficial to influence student learning notably. To improve student outcomes on a

sustained basis, it is usually necessary to make difficult and fundamental changes in many parts

of the educational enterprise. Examples of such reforms are stronger teacher preparation and inservice training; providing adequate planning time and flexible schedules; implementing studentdriven activities such as multifaceted projects and cooperative learning methods; using alterna-
1. Introduction

6

tive student assessment methods; providing tutors and mentors; and establishing higher learning

standards and more demanding curriculum.7

 

7Cuban is one proponent of this view; see his 1992 article cited above. Cited by Felner et al. 1997.
7

2. Organization of Schooling

How schools are organized can affect student achievement, and considerable effort has

been directed to investigate which classroom and school organizational structures best serve students in the middle grades. After defining school levels and presenting the numbers of schools

and students at each level, this section describes school location and size, how instruction is organized (in departments or self-contained classes), and class size.

Definitions of School Levels

There is no single generally agreed-upon definition of “middle school.” The National Middle School Association (NMSA) purposely avoids defining middle schools by grade configuration; instead it concentrates on the goals, activities, and organizational attributes of the schools

that serve 10- to 14-year-olds. From the NMSA’s perspective, middle schools are defined as

those that are specifically structured to meet young adolescents’ particular developmental needs

(McEwin, Dickinson, and Jenkins 1996).

The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) data do not allow schools to be categorized by

whether they have adopted a philosophy or goals like the NMSA’s but do support definitions

based on grade range. Middle schools include some of the grades from 5 through 8, those in

which early adolescents are concentrated. In this report, school levels were defined as follows:8

Elementary Schools with at least one grade lower than 5 and no grade higher than 8.

Middle Schools with no grade lower than 5 and no grade higher than 8.

Secondary Schools with no grade lower than 7 and at least one grade higher than 8.

Combined Schools with at least one grade lower than 7 and at least one grade higher

than 8. Schools with only ungraded classes (no grades reported in K–12)

were included with combined schools.

 

8Previous publications that use SASS data have generally used different definitions of school level. For example, Schools and

Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile: 1993–94 and its two predecessors used two school levels, elementary and

secondary (plus the residual category for combined). While the definitions of combined schools are identical, the definitions of

elementary and secondary schools differ because of the inclusion of middle schools. This report places many schools previously

categorized as elementary and a smaller number previously categorized as secondary in the middle schools category.
2. Organization of Schooling

8

Numbers and Distributions of Schools and Students

In 1993–94, there were 80,740 public schools in the United States, of which 11,712 were

middle schools (table 1). (All tables appear following the end of the text.) In that year, 60 percent of

all public schools were elementary schools, 21 percent were secondary, and about 15 percent were

middle schools (the remaining 4 percent were combined schools) (table 2). The trend toward establishing middle schools, especially those with grades 6–8, is growing. The number of middle schools

increased from 9,086 to 11,712 between 1987–88 and 1993–94, while the number of elementary

and secondary schools remained about the same (figure 1).9 The growth occurred almost solely

among schools with the grade 6–8 configuration; the number of middle schools with other grade

ranges was similar in both years (figure 2). The number of secondary schools with grades 7–9 (the

traditional junior high configuration) declined from 2,011 in 1987–88 to 1,263 in 1993–94 (table 1).

The common configuration of grades 6–8 accounted for 59 percent of all middle schools in

1993–94 (table 2). Another 23 percent of middle schools contained grades 7–8, and the remaining 18 percent had other configurations.10 Of the 6.8 million students enrolled in middle schools

Figure 1—Number of schools of different levels: 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94

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

Questionnaire): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

Total Elementary Middle Secondary Combined/

ungraded only

Number

1987–88

1990–91

1993–94

 

9All comparisons in this report are statistically significant at the 0.05 level. For a full discussion of the statistical methods used in

this report, see appendix C.

10Some districts may create schools with the less common grade configurations for pedagogical reasons, and others may do so

because of constraints imposed by their physical facilities. In addition, districts sometimes create schools with certain configurations on a temporary basis, as they build new schools or shift from one overall organization of grades to another.
2. Organization of Schooling

9

Figure 2—Number of middle schools, by grade configuration: 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94 

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

Questionnaire): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

All middle schools Grades 6–8 Grades 7–8 Other

Grade configuration

Number

1987–88 1990–91 1993–94

in 1993–94, 4.4 million were enrolled in schools with grades 6–8 (table 3). Another 1.4 million

students were enrolled in 7th- through 8th-grade schools, and the remaining 1 million were enrolled in middle schools with other grade configurations. About half of the nation’s public school

children attended elementary schools in 1993–94, 30 percent attended secondary schools, and 16

percent attended middle schools (figure 3).

Figure 3—Percentage of students in schools of different levels: 1993–94

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

Questionnaire): 1993–94.

Middle

16%

Secondary

30%

Combined

2%

Elementary

51%

Elementary

Middle

Secondary

Combined
2. Organization of Schooling

10

Location of Middle Schools

The ability of districts to establish middle schools is constrained by the size of the student

population in particular age ranges and, often, the school buildings available (or the availability

of funds for new construction in areas with population growth). Middle schools are less likely to

be found in very small districts, which tend to have less flexibility to configure their schools as

desired, than in larger ones. In 1993–94, 10 percent of schools in districts with fewer than 1,000

students were middle schools, in contrast to 16 percent of schools in medium-sized districts and

14 percent in districts with 10,000 or more students (table 2). Middle schools with the grade 6–8

configuration were more common in large districts (those with 10,000 or more students) than in

medium-size or small districts. In contrast, middle schools with grades 7–8 were more common

in the smallest districts (those with fewer than 1,000 students) than in medium-size or large districts.

Middle schools accounted for a similar proportion of all schools in each community type,

while schools of the other two levels were distributed unevenly. Different regions of the country

also had similar proportions of middle schools in 1993–94—roughly 15 percent of all public

schools were middle-level schools in each of the four regions (Northeast, Midwest, South, and

West).

Size and Other School Characteristics

About two-thirds (69 percent) of all middle schools had 150–749 students in 1993–94 (table 4); they generally tended to fall between elementary and secondary schools in size. Middle

schools were more likely than elementary schools, but less likely than secondary schools, to have

750 or more students in 1993–94. A recent study suggests that large schools serving young adolescents are likely to have lower levels of engagement in the learning process than smaller

schools (although no specific size was recommended as optimal).11

Certain school characteristics appeared more often and affected more students at the middle

school level than at other levels. For example, 56 percent of middle school students attended

schools with 20 percent or greater minority enrollment in 1993–94, while about one-half of both

elementary and secondary school students attended such schools (table 5). This small difference

may reflect middle schools’ tendency to be located in fairly large (and likely more diverse) dis-

 

11Lee and Smith 1993, 164–187. Note, however, that because this study used 8th-grade enrollment size as a proxy for school

size, it provided no information on which particular school size may be detrimental or beneficial.
2. Organization of Schooling

11

tricts. Most middle schools, 88 percent, were located in districts with at least 1,000 students (table 4).

Many educators consider it beneficial for minority students to have minority principals and

teachers to enhance communication and serve as role models (Stewart, Meier, LaFollette, and

England 1989; King 1993; Graham 1987; Adair 1984). Similarly, children may benefit from

seeing women hold positions of authority (Diamond 1978; Kahle 1984)—for example, serving as

school principals. Some variation by level existed in the 1990s in the percentage of students attending schools with either minority principals or at least 20 percent minority teachers. In 1993–

94, middle and elementary school students were somewhat more likely than those at secondary

schools to attend a school headed by a minority principal (about 20 percent for middle and elementary versus 15 percent for secondary school students). The percentages of students who attended schools in which at least 20 percent of the teachers belonged to a racial/ethnic minority

were similar at the middle and elementary levels (about 27 percent) and lower at the secondary

level (20 percent). Students were decreasingly likely to have a female principal as their school

level increased, however: in 1993–94, 46 percent of all students in elementary schools had female principals, compared with 28 percent of those in middle schools and 15 percent of those in

secondary schools.

Classroom Organization and Class Size

The way that schools organize instruction has many implications for student learning and

other outcomes. Among the response options provided by SASS, three types of class organization are discussed here and included in table 6: self-contained, departmentalized, and team-taught

classes. Elementary schools are usually organized around self-contained classes, where children

work with the same teacher for all or nearly all subjects. The self-contained structure allows a

teacher to know the students well and to track their progress closely. In contrast, secondary

schools are usually organized in departments in order to provide teachers who are thoroughly

trained in specific subjects and to give students some choice of courses. Middle school reformers

have searched for creative ways to combine the advantages of both approaches.

Middle school students grappling with rapid physical, emotional, and intellectual changes

require a nurturing environment that encourages maturation, prompting some reformers to recommend self-contained classrooms or student/teacher teams in middle schools. In practice, middle schools most often use the departmentalized model, in which teachers specialize by subject

area and students move from one class to another, working briefly with several teachers each day.

Close to 80 percent of middle school teachers taught in a department in 1993–94, making middle

schools similar to secondary schools in this respect (figure 4 and table 6). At the secondary level,
2. Organization of Schooling

12

Figure 4—Percentage of teachers with different types of classes, by school level: 1993–94

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

Teacher Questionnaire): 1993–94.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Elementary

Middle

Secondary

Percent

Departmentalized Self-contained classes Team-taught classes

by far the dominant mode of class organization was departmentalized (92 percent of teachers

taught in a department), and self-contained classes were rare (6 percent of teachers had a selfcontained class).

These data are consistent with the assessment by Lee and Smith (1993) that middle-grade

schooling has generally followed the bureaucratic model characteristic of comprehensive high

schools, which relies on a rigid and hierarchical departmental structure: department heads make

many key decisions related to instruction, staff roles and tasks are highly specialized and rule

bound, and student achievement determines class assignment.12 These researchers find bureaucratically organized schools less likely to produce high student achievement than schools organized on the “personal-communal” model, in which teachers make most of the important decisions

about teaching their students in small learning communities, elements of teacher teaming (such

as common planning time and nontraditional schedules) exist, ability-based tracking is eliminated, and all students are required to complete the same core academic courses.

 

12The SASS data cannot shed light on other aspects of the bureaucratic model, only the use of departmentalization. Nor do the

SASS data provide any information on other strategies that schools may have adopted to create more intensive student-teacher

contact despite departmentalization of instruction.
2. Organization of Schooling

13

Team teaching, in which two teachers plan and teach a class together, can be one element

of the personal-communal model.13 By increasing teachers’ contact with each group of students

and strengthening bonds, it may promote better learning. Team teachers usually come from different disciplines and integrate material from their particular curricula; often, double periods are

scheduled to cover the integrated content. Team teaching is a strategy thought to be effective in

increasing teachers’ enthusiasm and students’ learning, for example, by allowing teachers to

complement each other’s strengths and by eliminating artificial boundaries between subjects

(Madhere and Mac Iver 1996; Drake 1993; Rahn, Alt, et al. 1995; Bottoms and Sharpe 1996).

However, team teaching is relatively rare in schools because of the administrative and personnel

obstacles frequently encountered in implementation. About 12 percent of middle school teachers

taught in teams in 1993–94; in this regard, middle schools were similar to elementary schools, in

which 11 percent of teachers team taught.

Teachers in middle schools with a 6th- through 8th-grade or other grade configuration were

more likely than those in schools with grades 7–8 to team teach. The relative favoring of team

teaching in 6th- through 8th-grade schools, the most common configuration for middle schools,

may reflect the recommendation of middle school reformers for teacher teams and other approaches to increase communication and connections with students. In both elementary and middle schools, teachers were more likely to teach in teams in 1993–94 than they were in 1987–88.

Although the predominant mode of classroom organization differs greatly by school level,

class size, which is generally governed by state and/or school district policies, tends to differ little. The average size of elementary school self-contained classes was 24.1 students in 1993–94

(table 6), which was similar to the average for middle schools’ departmentalized classes (24.7

students) but slightly larger than the average for departmentalized classes in secondary schools

(22.7 students).

 

13Team teaching, one of the SASS categories of class organization, means that pairs of teachers assume joint responsibility for a

larger class and integrate the material—for example, a combined mathematics and science class. However, there are other forms

of teaming—for example, a structure called student/teacher teams, in which several teachers usually cover the core academic

subjects in separate departmentalized classes, working as a team with a group of about 80 to 120 students.
15

3. Programs and Services

The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) collected information on two general categories

of school programs and services: those that support instruction and those that protect or improve

student health. Because the programs and services that schools offer reflect the needs of the

populations they serve and differences in the way instruction is organized, many of them vary by

level.

Instruction-Related Services

Certain kinds of instruction-related programs and services were offered by a higher proportion of middle schools than secondary schools in 1993–94 (table 7). Programs in this category

included those for gifted and talented students (79 versus 65 percent) and English as a Second

Language (ESL) instruction (49 percent versus 37 percent). These differences may reflect varying

needs and different approaches to addressing those needs at different school levels. For example,

middle schools may serve high achievers through programs for gifted and talented students,

while secondary schools may use student tracking or offer honors/advanced placement courses

instead. The more frequent provision of ESL instruction by middle schools than by secondary

schools may reflect both the age distribution of children who lack English skills when they start

school or arrive in the United States and a decreasing need for English instruction as students

complete more schooling and gain language proficiency.

Other services, aimed primarily at meeting the needs of younger students, were offered by a

smaller percentage of schools as level increased. Such services included remedial reading (offered by 87 percent of elementary schools, 74 percent of middle schools, and 69 percent of secondary schools) and Chapter One compensatory education programs (offered by 74 percent of

elementary schools, 51 percent of middle schools, and 34 percent of secondary schools).

Some notable shifts occurred in the frequency with which middle schools offered certain

services from 1987–88 to 1993–94. During this period, the percentage of middle schools offering

remedial reading or English declined from 85 to 74 percent (figure 5). Similarly, a slightly

smaller percentage of middle schools provided remedial mathematics instruction in 1993–94 (62

percent) than did six years earlier (67 percent). These changes were accompanied by increases in

the percentages of elementary schools providing remedial instruction in these subjects. These
3. Programs and Services

16

Figure 5—Percentage of elementary and middle schools that offered remedial English and remedial

Figure 5—mathematics instruction, by school level: 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94

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

Questionnaire): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Elementary Middle Elementary Middle

Percent

1987–88 1990–91 1993–94

Remedial English Remedial mathematics

shifts suggest that school systems may be purposely addressing learning difficulties at younger

ages, or they may be adopting approaches other than specifically identified remedial courses for

serving middle school students who need academic assistance.

In addition, mirroring a change at public schools as a whole, ESL was offered by more

middle schools in 1993–94 than in 1987–88 (49 percent versus 41 percent), while bilingual programs were offered by a somewhat lower percentage of middle schools in 1993–94 than six years

earlier (18 percent versus 22 percent). The trend over time toward favoring ESL over bilingual

programs was consistent across school levels. In contrast, the changes in remedial instruction involved a shift in providing these services from one school level to another.

Health-Related Services

Schools are often called upon by their communities to offer various health-related services.

Good health is necessary for most students to do their best work, and integrating health services

was recommended by the educators and political leaders who wrote Turning Points (Carnegie

Council on Adolescent Development 1989). Because some services are equally likely to be

needed by students at any age, they tend to be offered by about the same percentage of schools at
3. Programs and Services

17

all levels. General medical care was provided by roughly 60 percent of all schools, and diagnostic

services by roughly 82 percent in 1993–94 (table 8). At least 90 percent of the schools at each

level had programs to prevent drug and alcohol use among students.

In contrast, the demand for substance abuse counseling tends to increase with student age.

Indeed, recent research has pinpointed middle school as the stage when many students first succumb to peer pressure and begin using cigarettes, alcohol, or illegal drugs (Wren 1999). Reflecting this situation, the proportion of schools providing substance abuse counseling increased with

school level. At least 50 percent of middle and secondary schools provided this service in 1993–

94, compared with 26 percent of elementary schools (figure 6 and table 8).

Figure 6—Percentage of schools that offered various health-related services, by school level: 1993–94

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

Questionnaire): 1993–94.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Diagnostic and

prescriptive

Drug and alcohol

prevention

Medical Substance abuse

counseling

Percent

Elementary Middle Secondary
19

4. Decision Making and Management

Greater involvement by school staff, parents, and students in governing the school was a

core recommendation of the authors of Turning Points (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development 1989). They argued, “Deeply ingrained in our society is the belief that individuals can be

trusted to make decisions for themselves and for the common good. . . . Democratization may be

entering the American workplace, but it has not yet penetrated American public education.”

Sharing decision-making power, these authors believed, increases teachers’ and principals’ motivation and the quality of their work. Methods of encouraging teachers’ input and control over

decisions about their schools (as well as those of parents, students, and other community members) include using site-based decision-making bodies. The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)

data cover whether schools have site-based governing bodies, which individuals and groups participate in them, and which responsibilities these bodies assume. The amount of influence that

principals and teachers believe they have over various aspects of their schools provides an additional perspective on governance and shared decision making. Both topics are discussed in this

section of the report.

Site-Based Decision Making

Site-based decision making has been proposed as one way to increase active participation

in school governance by teachers, parents, community members, and even students. Many believe that the more these individuals can express their ideas and opinions and become actively

involved in implementing them, the more motivated and committed they will be to improving

school effectiveness (Leithwood 1992; Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development 1989).

One way to institutionalize such involvement is to create a site-based governing body and assign

it some responsibilities that are normally the purview of one of the traditional governing bodies

or leaders (school boards, district administrators, the principal or all school administrators

jointly, the faculty, or the parent-teacher organization). This section examines which groups are

most often included in these site-based management bodies and the areas of responsibility they

are likely to assume.

Figure 7 and table 9 show that about 50–60 percent of all schools had a site-based management body in 1993–94. Of schools with such a body, nearly all (about 95 percent or more)

included teachers and the principal or assistant principal(s). Parents were also heavily repre-
4. Decision Making and Management

20

Figure 7—Percentage of schools that had site-based decision-making bodies, and percentage of those bodies

Figure 7—that included various groups,* by school level: 1993–94

*The groups included as response options were teachers, principal, assistant/vice-principal, students, parents, superintendent/

district representative, and other community representatives.

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

Questionnaire): 1993–94.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Schools with

decision-making

bodies

Teachers Principal Parents Students

Percent

Elementary Middle Secondary

Decision-making bodies with the following groups:

sented, though the percentage of schools with parents participating declined somewhat as level

increased. This finding is consistent with teachers’ reports that parent involvement drops off as

school level increases (see discussion of teachers’ ratings of problems in the School Climate section). An opposite trend occurred with students, who, as they mature, become more able to contribute effectively to such a group. Only 15 percent of site-based decision-making bodies at the

elementary level included students, while 35 percent of those at middle schools and 57 percent of

those at secondary schools did so.

The SASS school administrator questionnaire asked principals to report on whether their

site-based management body addressed six broad school functions. As table 10 shows, certain

issues were far more frequently addressed than others. Those most commonly addressed were

considering input on curriculum or discipline issues (83 percent of all schools), school resource

issues (75 percent of all schools), and aiding the principal with budgetary issues (66 percent of all

schools). Approximately one-third of all schools’ decision-making bodies conferred on school

personnel issues or served as a district/school liaison on operational issues. The proportion of

schools whose decision-making bodies worked on most of these functions did not differ greatly
4. Decision Making and Management

21

by school level in 1993–94. However, about 80 percent of decision-making bodies at middle

schools worked on school resource issues, more than those at elementary or secondary schools.

Also, decision-making bodies at middle and elementary schools were more likely than those at

secondary schools to work with the principal on budget or spending issues (roughly 68 percent

versus 58 percent, respectively).

Principals’ Perceptions of Their Influence

The levels of autonomy and influence that principals have may vary with factors such as

controls set by the school district, the school’s size, the principal’s leadership style and skills, and

the particular school-management issue under consideration. Principals’ perceptions of their influence over six issues either did not differ by school level, or differed only slightly, in 1993–94

(figure 8 and table 11). Similar percentages of principals at each level reported that they had a lot

of influence over evaluating teachers’ performance (95 percent) and determining the content of

inservice training programs (71–75 percent). At least 80–85 percent of principals at each level

reported that they had a lot of influence over hiring full-time teachers and setting discipline policy in 1993–94 (figure 8). One-half or more of principals at each level reported that they had a lot

of influence over establishing curriculum, with a somewhat lower percentage at elementary

schools than at the other two levels.

At least 80 percent of middle school principals reported that they had a lot of influence over

hiring full-time teachers and setting discipline policy in 1987–88. Despite this high level of reported influence, from that base year to 1993–94 these percentages increased (figure 9 and table

11). Comparable increases also occurred for all school principals. Over the same time period, in

middle schools and in schools overall, principals’ influence over curriculum fluctuated but did

not change in a consistent direction. At least 50 percent of principals at each level reported having substantial influence over curriculum in 1993–94. (Data were not collected in earlier years

for principals’ influence over school budget decisions, determining the content of inservice

training, or teacher evaluation.)

Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Influence

Teachers were also asked to rate their influence over a range of school policies and practices. In 1993–94, as shown in figure 10 and table 12, at least 25–30 percent of teachers at each

level thought that they had a lot of influence over three areas: establishing curriculum, determining the content of inservice training, and setting discipline policy. Ten percent or fewer thought

they had a great deal of influence over school budget decisions, hiring full-time teachers, or
4. Decision Making and Management

22

Figure 8—Percentage of principals who reported that they had a lot of influence* over hiring teachers,

Figure 8—establishing curriculum, and setting discipline policy, by school level: 1993–94

*Ratings of influence are counted as “a lot” if respondents marked one of the highest two numbers (5 or 6) on a 6-point scale. 

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

and Public School Principal Questionnaires): 1993–94.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Hiring teachers Establishing curriculum Setting discipline policy

Percent

Elementary Middle Secondary

Figure 9—Percentage of middle school principals who reported that they had a lot of influence* over hiring

Figure 9—teachers and setting discipline policy: 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94

*Ratings of influence are counted as “a lot” if respondents marked one of the highest two numbers (5 or 6) on a 6-point scale. 

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

and Public School Principal Questionnaires): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Hiring teachers Setting discipline policy

Percent

1987–88 1990–91 1993–94
4. Decision Making and Management

23

teacher evaluation. In the area of setting discipline policy, the percentage of teachers who thought

that they had a lot of influence decreased notably as school level increased. About 42 percent of

elementary school teachers reported that they had a lot of influence over setting discipline policy,

while 31 percent at middle schools and 25 percent at secondary schools did so (figure 10). (As

discussed in the School Climate section below, teachers were more likely to report that various

student misbehaviors were problems at higher school levels.) An opposite pattern held for establishing curriculum, where teachers’ estimates of their influence increased with school level. Involving teachers more extensively in devising curriculum at the higher school levels may partly

reflect the extent to which coursework above the elementary school level is driven by subjectspecific curriculum standards.

Figure 10—Percentage of teachers who reported that they had a lot of influence* over establishing

Figure 10—curriculum, determining content of inservice training, and setting discipline policy, by school

Figure 10—level: 1993–94

*Ratings of influence are counted as “a lot” if respondents marked one of the highest two numbers (5 or 6) on a 6-point scale. 

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1993–94.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Establishing curriculum Inservice training content Setting discipline policy

Percent

Elementary Middle Secondary
25

5. Staffing

Across all service-based sectors and industries, staff is the primary factor determining productivity and outcomes, and education is no exception. Because of the importance of staff preparation, skills, and morale, researchers and policymakers have continually scrutinized teacher

preparation and effectiveness in their search for ways to improve students’ learning. Measures of

staffing such as preparation for the job, workload, the presence of professional support staff, and

teacher retention and turnover form core components of the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)

and the Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS). This section examines the following aspects of staffing

by school level: job qualifications of teachers and principals; how schools handle teaching vacancies; teachers’ workloads; support from librarians and school counselors; and one-year rates

of teacher retention, mobility, and attrition.

Qualifications of Teachers and Principals

While many aspects of teacher quality are difficult to measure, SASS data provide several

objective indicators of teacher qualifications, including type of certification, education and experience, and participation in professional development activities. For principals, data are available

on education and experience as school administrators as well as on special training for their jobs.

Teacher Certification14

Certification to teach in a particular field is one of several measures of preparation for

teaching in the public schools. While certification does not guarantee that a teacher has all the

qualities necessary to be effective on the job, it does ensure that teachers have met minimum

education requirements and, usually, completed a period of student teaching and passed a formal

test on teaching methods and content for their field. Some recent research on teacher certification

indicates that mathematics teachers with either standard, probationary, or emergency certification

in mathematics had students with higher average scores on standardized 12th-grade mathematics

tests, compared with teachers who had no certification in that field (Goldhaber and Brewer

1999). Similar evidence, though somewhat weaker, pertained to the certification status of science

 

14Teachers reported the type of certification they had in their main field and in their other field (if any): advanced; regular or

alternative; provisional, probationary, temporary, or emergency; or none. Except for the main field “general elementary,” data

were not collected on the school level to which certification applied.
5. Staffing

26

teachers (some of the science teacher measures had no statistically significant association with

differences in students’ science test scores).

One policy concern is that middle school teachers may be less prepared than secondary

school teachers to teach subject-specific classes, and data from SASS provide some support for

this concern. In 1993–94, as table 13 shows, about three-quarters of all teachers had regular certification15 in their main assignment field, and another 15 percent had advanced certification.

(Main field was defined as the field in which a teacher taught the most classes.) However, middle

school teachers were slightly less likely than elementary or secondary teachers to have regular

certification in their main field (figure 11). (Furthermore, the proportion of middle school teachFigure 11—Percentage distribution of teachers according to type of certification in main assignment field,

Figure 11—by school level: 1993–94

*Only about 1 percent of public school teachers had alternative certification in their main assignment field in 1993–94. U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical 

Profile, 1993–94 (NCES 96–124), R.R. Henke, S.P. Choy, S. Geis, and S.P. Broughman (Washington DC: 1996), 58.

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1993–94.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Elementary

Middle

Secondary

School level

Percent

Advanced Regular/alternative* Other None

 

15The second column in table 13 includes teachers who had either regular or alternative certification in their main field, but the

vast majority of these teachers had regular certification. Only about 1 percent of all teachers in 1993–94 had alternative certification, which generally allows different means for meeting the requirements set for regular certification. The term “regular certification” is used here to improve readability.
5. Staffing

27

ers who had no certification in their main field was about twice that in elementary or secondary

schools, though it was still a small proportion (6 percent versus 3 percent for the other two levels).

Teachers may be assigned to teach a field other than their main one; in such cases the former is referred to here as their “other” assignment field. At all school levels, regular and advanced certification in teachers’ other assignment field were far less common than in the

teachers’ main field. Still, at least 50 percent of teachers at each level had regular or advanced

certification in their other field. While the percentage with regular certification in their other assignment field increased with school level, more than 40 percent of middle and elementary

school teachers lacked certification of any type in their other field.

Lack of certification is a particular concern for teachers who teach a core academic subject.

Table 14, which is restricted to middle or secondary school departmentalized teachers whose

main assignment was a core subject, presents data on their certification status. Approximately 7–

8 percent of middle school teachers whose main assignment was in mathematics, science, English, or social studies lacked any certification in that field in 1993–94. By contrast, 2–3 percent of

secondary school teachers who taught one of these core fields as their main assignment lacked

certification in that field.

Education and Experience of Teachers

Educational attainment provides another indicator of teachers’ preparation. Slightly more

than one-half of all public school teachers in 1993–94 had attained a bachelor’s as their highest

degree (table 15), and about 42 percent had earned a master’s degree. The likelihood that a

teacher had attained a master’s or other advanced degree (doctoral, professional, or educational

specialist degree) increased slightly with school level (figure 12). A similar pattern was evident

in 1987–88 and 1990–91 as well.

Another central component of teacher quality, complementing educational attainment, is

teaching experience. A high proportion of experienced colleagues in the school can provide a

strong resource for giving advice and guidance to new teachers as well as help students. While

new teachers often bring high levels of enthusiasm, energy, and a fresh perspective to the job,

gaining teaching experience generally increases skills and effectiveness. In 1993–94, there was a

slightly higher percentage of new teachers (those with three or fewer years of teaching experience) at middle schools (14 percent) than at elementary or secondary schools (12 percent and 11

percent, respectively) (table 15). A partial explanation may be that one-year teacher retention

rates were slightly lower at middle schools in 1993–94 (see table 22). Another contributing factor
5. Staffing

28

Figure 12—Percentage distribution of teachers according to highest degree earned: 1993–94

*Only 0.7 percent of public school teachers had attained less than a bachelor’s degree in 1993–94. U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993–94

(NCES 96–124), R.R. Henke, S.P. Choy, S. Geis, and S.P. Broughman (Washington DC: 1996), 54.

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1993–94.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Secondary

Middle

Elementary

School level

Percent

Bachelor’s degree or less* Master’s degree Higher than master’s degree

may be the recent growth in the number of middle schools. Looking at trends over time, the percentage of teachers who were new increased at middle schools as well as at other schools during

the six years between 1987–88 and 1993–94.

At the other end of the spectrum, 40 percent of teachers in secondary schools had at least 20

years of experience in 1993–94, compared with about 33 percent of those in middle and elementary schools. This difference in the proportion of highly experienced teachers may be attributable

to a number of factors, including the growing number of middle schools, teacher assignment

practices in school districts, number of positions and staff available at different levels, and perhaps teacher transfer choices.

Professional Development Activities of Teachers

Ongoing training for teachers has long been a recommended strategy for improving teaching techniques, broadening teachers’ understanding of intellectual/psychosocial development and

other characteristics of their students, and deepening knowledge of their subject matter (for
5. Staffing

29

teachers with subject specializations). One of the National Education Goals is to ensure that all

teachers have access to high-quality professional development training, underscoring the importance placed on inservice training activities.

The SASS data indicate that most teachers have some exposure to training each year. In

1993–94, teachers’ training participation rates during the previous summer or current school year

ranged from 30 percent for in-depth study of their subject’s content to 64 percent for teaching

methods in their field (table 16). About one-half of teachers received training on each of the other

three topics included in the survey: using educational technology for instruction (49 percent),

student assessment methods (51 percent), and cooperative learning in the classroom (also 51 percent).

For two of the topics, using educational technology and cooperative learning, there were

only minimal differences by school level (figure 13). However, for the three other inservice programs examined, teachers were less likely to participate in training as school level increased. The

differences were notable with respect to training for teaching methods in their field, in which 71

percent of elementary, 59 percent of middle, and 54 percent of secondary school teachers parFigure 13—Percentage of teachers who had participated in an inservice program on selected topics since the

Figure 13—end of the last school year, by school level: 1993–94

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1993–94.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cooperative

learning

Uses of educational

technology

Methods of teaching

in their field

Student assessment In-depth study in

their subject

Topic of inservice program

Percent

Elementary Middle Secondary
5. Staffing

30

ticipated. Moreover, even though teachers above the elementary school level are highly likely to

work in departments and have a specialized subject, they were less likely than elementary teachers to participate in in-depth study of that subject.

Teachers were also asked to report the effects of participating in these inservice training

programs. The majority of teachers who participated reported that their training provided them

with new information, led them to seek additional information/training, and caused them to

change their teaching practices (figure 14 and table 17). About 42 percent of teachers reported

that the training changed their views on teaching, and relatively few (11 percent) reported that it

was generally a waste of time.

Although the differences by school level were generally not large, a consistent pattern appears: the proportion of teachers agreeing with the four positive statements16 about the training

Figure 14—Of teachers who had participated in recent inservice training on various topics,* the percentage

Figure 14—who agreed with various statements about its effects, by school level: 1993–94

*The five topics were the uses of educational technology, teaching methods in their subject, in-depth study of their subject, 

student assessment, and cooperative learning in the classroom. Teachers who reported that they agreed or strongly agreed with

the statements are included in this table. Other response options were “no opinion,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.”

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1993–94.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Made me seek more

training

Changed my teaching

practices

Changed my views on

teaching

Generally a waste of

time

Percent

Elementary Middle Secondary

 

16The four statements that could be interpreted as reflecting favorably on the training program were “It provided information that

was new to me”; “It caused me to seek more information or training”; “It caused me to change my teaching practices”; and “It

changed my views on teaching.”
5. Staffing

31

decreased as school level increased. Also, the proportion of teachers who reported that the training was generally a waste of time increased with school level, from 8 percent of teachers at elementary schools to 11 percent at middle schools to 14 percent at secondary schools. Thus, for

each of the five topics, elementary school teachers reported gaining the greatest benefit from professional development training, middle school teachers somewhat less, and secondary school

teachers reported the least benefit.

Education, Experience, and Training of Principals

Several avenues of preparation are open to a teacher who aspires to be a school principal.

Earning a master’s or other advanced degree is usually a requirement to obtain a position as a

principal, and graduate training may provide aspiring principals with skills in personnel hiring

and management, budget planning and analysis, grant proposal writing, or staff leadership and

evaluation. Those who aim to be principals may also participate in district- or state-provided

courses or workshops in relevant management topics or, once they have completed some training, work in an internship program for school administrators.

In 1993–94, nearly all principals of public schools had attained at least a master’s degree.

About two-thirds held a master’s degree and about one-third had earned a doctorate17 (table 18).

Secondary school principals were slightly more likely than middle or elementary school principals to have a doctorate. There was also a substantial shift from 1987–88 to 1993–94: master’s

degrees became more common among principals at all school levels, and doctoral degrees less

common.

Having some experience on the job is one factor likely to contribute to principals’ effectiveness. Middle schools were slightly more likely to have a new principal (those with three or

fewer years of experience as a principal) than were either elementary or secondary schools. On

the other hand, there was no variation across schools of different levels in the proportion with

moderately experienced (those with four to nine years) or highly experienced principals (those

with ten or more years’ experience).

With the exception of administrative internships, principals’ rates of participation in focused training for their job (programs for aspiring principals, inservice training in evaluation and

supervision, and management techniques training) did not differ by school level in 1993–94 (table 19). The small minority of principals with none of these four types of preparation for their job

(about 8 percent among all schools) also did not differ by school level. Completion of specific

 

17The master’s degree category in table 18 includes education specialist degrees, and the doctoral category includes firstprofessional degrees.
5. Staffing

32

principalship training is generally required by state or district policies (or both), and such policies

usually apply to schools at all levels.

Some changes occurred in the training patterns of middle school principals over the six

years encompassed by the SASS data. The percentage of middle school principals, as well as

those at other levels, who had participated in an administrative internship rose from 33 percent in

1987–88 to 45 percent in 1993–94. Participation by elementary and secondary school principals

in professional development for aspiring principals increased from 1990–91 to 1993–94, though

there was no such change for middle school principals. (Data from 1987–88 are not available for

this item.)

Handling Teaching Vacancies

Some schools have more vacancies to fill than others, and requirements for particular positions may either narrow or widen the potential pool of teacher candidates. In 1993–94, about

twice as many middle or secondary schools reported great difficulty filling a teaching vacancy (or

could not fill it) as did elementary schools (31 and 34 percent versus 16 percent, respectively)

(figure 15 and table 20). Because schools at the two higher levels are mainly departmentalized,

Figure 15—Percentage of public schools that had great difficulty filling teaching vacancies, and, of those that

Figure 15—had difficulty, percentage that used selected strategies for filling them, by school level: 1993–94

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

Questionnaire): 1993–94.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Schools with

great difficulty

filling

vacancies

Hired qualified

teacher

Increased

teaching loads

Used substitute

teacher

Hired less than

qualified

teacher

Percent

Elementary Middle Secondary
5. Staffing

33

the pool of applicants for many openings is limited to those who have specialized preparation in

a particular subject as well as middle- or secondary-level credentials, whereas elementary school

teacher applicants usually need simply a bachelor’s degree and certification in general elementary-level teaching.

By far the most common method for filling vacancies was hiring a fully qualified teacher,

used by about 95 percent of public schools at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels.

However, when no fully qualified teacher could be found, other methods were sometimes implemented, including hiring a less than fully qualified teacher, assigning another teacher or administrator, and expanding class sizes.

Increasing the teaching load (adding a class to a teacher’s schedule) was employed by

nearly 90 percent of schools at the secondary level, about 50 percent of middle schools, and only

rarely by elementary schools (figure 15). These differences in increasing teaching loads reflect

class organization: departmentalized classes are the norm in middle schools and even more predominant in secondary schools. Principals may have the option of assigning departmentalized

teachers an additional class. Most elementary school teachers, on the other hand, have one class

that stays with them all day, so it is not possible to assign them another class. (About 79 percent

of teachers in elementary schools had self-contained classes in 1993–94, while 79 percent of

those in middle schools and 92 percent of those in secondary schools had departmentalized

classes; see table 6.)

By comparison, methods for filling teaching vacancies that were used relatively infrequently regardless of school level include hiring a long-term substitute teacher, hiring a less than

fully qualified teacher, and assigning a teacher of another subject/grade level or an administrator.

Teachers’ Workload and Support From Other Professional Staff

The ratio of students per full-time-equivalent (FTE) teacher is related to average class size,

which is determined partly by district or state policies and partly by differences in student population size, the staff available for particular age ranges, and whether classes are departmentalized.18 The ratio of students per FTE teacher decreased slightly with school level. At the

elementary level, the ratio was 17.9 students to each FTE teacher in 1993–94; at middle schools,

the ratio was 16.5; and at secondary schools, it was 15.7 (table 21). This ratio is related to average class size (shown in table 6), which does not differ widely. Average class size ranged from

24.1 students for elementary schools (teachers with self-contained classes only); 24.7 students for

 

18Offering specialty courses and courses in different “tracks” tends to decrease the students per FTE teacher ratio, because it may

mean that some classes are not filled to the maximum number of students.
5. Staffing

34

middle schools; and 22.7 students for secondary schools (for the latter two levels, teachers with

departmentalized classes only) in 1993–94.

Teachers draw support from other professional staff in the school, some of whom supplement and support their curriculum (such as librarians) and some of whom help students who have

particular needs (such as school counselors). Nearly all schools had a librarian or media specialist

on staff, although these staff did not necessarily work at one school full time (table 21). School

counselors, on the other hand, were equally likely to be on staff at middle and secondary schools

(about 94 percent of these schools had them), and less likely to be found in elementary schools

(72 percent). The needs of most students for guidance and counseling services increase as they

grow older, partly because they tend to take on some responsibility for choosing courses in the

higher grades and need advice on planning for college and completing college applications in

secondary school.

Teacher Retention, Mobility, and Attrition

Some turnover among teachers is inevitable, but it is generally considered desirable for

educational purposes to retain a high percentage of the teachers in a school from year to year.

Differences by level on measures like teacher retention and attrition may reflect variation in

overall teacher satisfaction and in other job opportunities.

The Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) is designed to track teachers’ retention, mobility, and

attrition rates, to monitor teacher satisfaction, and to identify the reasons teachers have for

changing schools or leaving teaching. The TFS was administered during the school year following each SASS administration to a subset of the teachers who filled out a SASS Teacher Questionnaire. Thus, the TFS data were collected in 1988–89, 1991–92, and 1994–95. Because the

TFS sample is much smaller than the SASS sample, apparent differences among subgroups need

to be larger to be statistically significant.19

Table 22 presents data on the percentages of teachers who remained at the same school

(“stayers”), those who moved to a different school (“movers”), and those who left the teaching

profession entirely (“leavers”) within one year.20 Generally, 80–90 percent of teachers surveyed

in 1993–94 remained at the same school the following school year, with a slightly lower percent-

 

19In some TFS-based tables, apparent differences show up in a consistent pattern, but except as noted are not statistically significant. It is possible that with a larger sample, many more of these differences would be significant. For more information on the

TFS sample and characteristics of respondents, see Whitener, Gruber, Lynch, Tingos, Perona, and Fondelier 1997.

20Other TFS-based tables in this report address other topics; however, they are restricted to teachers who remained at the same

school one year later because data on the teacher’s school level are available for only this group. It should be noted that for those

tables, the distribution of teachers is likely to be somewhat biased toward teachers who were satisfied with their jobs.
5. Staffing

35

age doing so at middle schools (figure 16 and table 22). Similarly, middle school teachers were

slightly more likely to move to a different school within one year than teachers at the secondary

level. However, this pattern was not found in earlier SASS and TFS data.

Figure 16—Percentage of 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94 teachers who were teaching at the same school one

Figure 16—year later, by school level

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey: 1988–89, 

1991–92, and 1994–95.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Elementary Middle Secondary

Percent

1987–88 1990–91 1993–94 

Trends over the six years show that 4 percent of 1987–88 middle school teachers left the

teaching profession by the next year, and this proportion doubled to about 8 percent for 1993–94

teachers (figure 17). Changes at the other two school levels in the percentage of leavers were not

so consistent. Similarly, the proportion of middle school teachers who remained at the same

school the following year dropped from 89 percent to 83 percent during the same time period.

Parallel decreases did not occur over these six years in the percentage of elementary or secondary

school teachers staying at the same school or leaving the profession, so it seems unlikely that

broader changes in the education field or in the overall labor market fully explain the changes

among middle school teachers.

Instructional Practices

Schools may have made more progress on implementing administrative changes than on

changing instructional practices and curriculum (Mergendoller 1993). While changes in scheduling and school organization may help students make connections with school staff and other
5. Staffing

36

Figure 17—Percentage of 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94 teachers who had left the teaching profession by

Figure 17—the next school year, by school level

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey: 1988–89, 

1991–92, and 1994–95.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Elementary Middle Secondary

Percent

1987–88 1990–91 1993–94 

students as they adjust from the more personal elementary school environment, such adjustments

alone are not sufficient to bring about the fundamental changes in learning called for by middle

school reformers. Indeed, a 1993 study by the National Middle School Association found that

teaching methods were fundamentally unchanged: in 90 percent of the grades 6–8 schools surveyed, classroom instruction still relied heavily on teacher presentation, drill, and practice

(McEwin, Dickinson, and Jenkins 1996, 61–63). This section begins with a discussion of principals’ top goals for their schools, since these goals are designed to influence teachers’ priorities as

they develop and implement teaching strategies. Following this analysis of highest goals is an

examination of teachers’ use of various instructional practices.

Principals ranked their top three out of eight goals listed on the 1993–94 survey, covering

students’ academic, interpersonal, and psychosocial development. The goals selected by the

highest proportion of principals focused on academics, not surprisingly: 72 percent of principals

chose building basic literacy skills (in language arts and mathematics), and 63 percent placed encouraging academic excellence among their three most important goals (table 23). Other goals

that received at least 50 percent of principals’ votes for highest priorities were promoting good

work habits and self-discipline (58 percent) and promoting personal growth (building self-esteem

and similar tasks) (50 percent). Relatively few principals selected promoting specific moral val-
5. Staffing

37

ues and multicultural awareness or understanding as one of their three most important educational goals.

Principals’ likelihood of placing literacy skills in the top three goals declined with school

level, while their ratings of “academic excellence” increased with school level; however, at all

levels, these two goals were rated highly. This variation in emphasis probably reflects the expectations placed on schools: for example, a commonly shared opinion is that elementary schools’

main purpose is to teach basic skills and that once students have mastered those skills, schools

need to shift emphasis to academic excellence in the higher grades. Principals were also less

likely as school level increased to select promoting students’ personal growth as a top goal. Principals at different school levels did not differ in their rates of selecting good work habits and selfdiscipline, human relations skills, and specific moral values as top goals.

Instructional methods are one of the keys to student learning: the activities that teachers undertake when they teach and the tasks that students engage in every day in the classroom are fundamental influences on learning. Yet Johns Hopkins University researcher Douglas Mac Iver21

pointed out recently that students are regularly directed to fill out worksheets and watch teachers

lecture and write on the board. Mac Iver charged that the typical middle grades curriculum is “too

often repetitive, unfocused, and unchallenging” (Argetsinger 1999). Many researchers and educators have recommended greater use of activities that engage students thoroughly and actively in

their work. In this view, students need to make their own connections between pieces of information and skills, in effect constructing their own learning. Such active engagement in mental

work is necessary if students are to gain the analytical reasoning, creative thinking, and evaluative skills required of many workers today. (Furthermore, as job growth rates for “knowledge

workers” tend to be higher than for other occupations, a higher proportion of jobs in the future

will likely demand a broad range of thinking and organizational skills.)

Tables 24 and 25 present information on various activities students engage in while in the

classroom and while doing homework. (Although certain differences by level exist, they are difficult to interpret so they are not discussed here.22) At least 80 percent of teachers said that they

 

21Mac Iver chaired the Maryland task force that, among other actions, demanded better teacher training and greater emphasis on

academic skills for the state’s middle schools in 1999.

22Many of the practices appeared to be used more frequently in elementary schools than in others. However, elementary school

teachers usually spend much more time in a week with their group of students than teachers at the higher school levels, who are

mostly in departments. Teachers in departments selected one of their classes to use as the basis for answering questions about

instructional practices; they are likely to spend up to about five hours a week with that class. Teachers with self-contained

classes, who mostly work in elementary schools, spend at least 20 hours a week with their classroom of students. Therefore, even

though the percentage of elementary school teachers who engaged their students in a particular activity in a typical week may be

higher than the percentage of middle or secondary school teachers who did the same, that does not mean elementary school students are doing the activity more frequently. (Middle and secondary school students usually have numerous teachers, each of

whom may be asking their students to engage in the same activity.)
5. Staffing

38

asked students to engage in the following practices weekly (table 24): respond orally to openended questions, lead or participate in whole-group discussions, and use printed material other

than textbooks. Between 60 and 70 percent of teachers directed students to use these techniques:

• Evaluating other students’ work or conferring with other students;

• Working on problems with several correct answers or methods of solution;

• Explaining links between classroom lessons and the real world; and

• Evaluating and improving their own work.

The only classroom method cited by fewer than half the teachers surveyed was having students work on group projects or presentations. Teachers also reported frequently emphasizing the

three high-order skills displayed in table 25. At least three out of four teachers said they emphasized these skills on a weekly basis with their students: analyzing or interpreting information;

organizing, summarizing, or displaying information; and generalizing from patterns or examples.

Homework can also provide opportunities for strengthening high-level skills, and it can

take advantage of students’ growing intellectual capabilities as they mature by incorporating

greater complexity. Of the seven types of homework tasks presented in table 26, only two were

used weekly by more than 40 percent of teachers: writing short pieces and applying concepts to

unfamiliar situations. Between 20 and 30 percent of teachers reported that they assigned writing a

journal entry or working on a project, gathering data, or conducting an experiment at least once a

week. Assignments given relatively infrequently for homework included preparing written reports, working on projects with no obvious method of solution, and preparing oral reports.
39

6. School Climate

School climate can have a substantial effect on teachers’ and other staff members’ morale

and effectiveness as well as on student learning. Teachers’ interactions with each other and with

the administrator(s); school practices; teachers’ job satisfaction; and problems that teachers and

principals perceive in their schools and among their students all affect school climate. In each

Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) administration, teachers and principals were asked their

opinions about various facets of their school’s management and functioning, and to rate the seriousness of certain problems in their schools. Teachers were also asked about their satisfaction

with various aspects of their jobs in the Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS). This section provides

an analysis of these school climate considerations.

Teachers’ Evaluations of Their Schools’ Climate

The SASS asked teachers to express their degree of agreement with a broad range of statements about school climate, including aspects related to their principals, students, colleagues, and

the school’s atmosphere. Several statements received widespread agreement; for example, about

80 percent or more of teachers at all levels agreed that the administration is supportive and encouraging, that the principal enforces school rules and backs them up, that they try to coordinate

course content with colleagues, that teachers are evaluated fairly, and that the principal makes

expectations for staff clear (table 27). A substantial minority of teachers agreed with several

negative statements. For example, about one in four teachers (27 percent) reported that it is

sometimes a waste of time to try to do their best, 24 percent said that some school rules conflict

with their best professional judgment, and 16 percent stated that the principal does a poor job of

getting resources.

When differences appeared across school levels in 1993–94, a consistent pattern emerged.

The percentage of teachers agreeing with positive statements tended to decrease with school

level, while the percentage agreeing with negative statements increased with school level, suggesting an overall decline in satisfaction with school climate from the elementary to middle to

secondary levels (figures 18 and 19 and table 27). Specifically, the rates of agreement with the

following positive statements decreased as school level increased: that teachers participate in

most important educational decisions, that they receive a great deal of parental support, that the

administration’s behavior is supportive and encouraging, that they try to coordinate course con-
6. School Climate

40

Figure 18—Percentage of teachers who agreed with various positive statements about their schools,

Figure 19—by school level: 1993–94

NOTE: Teachers were included in this figure if they said they “strongly agreed” or “somewhat agreed” with the statements. The

other two response options were “somewhat disagreed” and “strongly disagreed.”

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1993–94. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Principal makes expectations for staff clear

I coordinate course content with other teachers

Administration’s behavior is supportive, encouraging

Teachers participate in important educational decisions

Teachers receive a great deal of parent support

Percent

Elementary

Middle

Secondary

Figure 19—Percentage of teachers who agreed with various negative statements about their schools,

Figure 19—by school level: 1993–94

NOTE: Teachers were included in this figure if they said they “strongly agreed” or “somewhat agreed” with the statements. The

other two response options were “somewhat disagreed” and “strongly disagreed.”

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1993–94. 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Principal does a poor

job of getting

resources

Some rules in school

conflict with my best

professional judgment

Doing my best is

sometimes a waste of

time

Percent

Elementary

Middle

Secondary
6. School Climate

41

tent with colleagues, and that the principal makes expectations for staff clear. For most statements, the differences were not large, but the pattern is clear. Complementing this pattern, for

three negative statements included in figure 19 and table 27—that teachers sometimes feel it is a

waste of time to do their best, that teachers sometimes have to follow rules in their school that

conflict with their best professional judgment, and that the principal does a poor job of getting

resources—teachers’ likelihood of agreeing increased with school level. These findings are consistent with the data analyzed below on teacher satisfaction: teachers tended to be less satisfied

with various aspects of their schools and jobs at higher school levels.

At middle schools, moderate decreases occurred from 1987–88 to 1993–94 in the percentage of teachers who agreed with the following statements: that they receive a great deal of parent

support, that their principal backs them up in enforcing rules, and that school rules sometimes

conflict with their best judgment. A greater percentage of middle school teachers agreed that

teachers are fairly evaluated in 1993–94 than had done so in 1987–88, and similarly, fewer of

these teachers reported in 1993–94 that it is sometimes a waste of time to do their best as a

teacher.

Teacher Satisfaction

Teachers were asked, in the TFS administered one year after each SASS, to rate their degree of satisfaction with various aspects of their jobs. As with many of the other tables that use

TFS data, the teacher satisfaction data presented in table 28 were analyzed and reported only for

teachers who remained at the same job one year after the SASS data were collected. This restriction allows identification of the teachers’ school level. However, it also means that those who left

teaching within one year, those who are likely to have lower job satisfaction levels, and those

who taught at another school the next year (who may also be less satisfied) are not included, introducing potential bias to the results. These results should therefore be viewed with caution.

About 86 percent of teachers in the 1993–94 SASS sample were teaching at the same

school in 1994–95. High percentages of these teachers were very or somewhat satisfied with the

intellectual challenge of their job in 1994–95 (87 percent), with the caliber of their colleagues (85

percent), and with their job overall (81 percent). At least one-half of the teachers reported satisfaction with each aspect of their work shown in table 28.

At all school levels, roughly two-thirds of teachers were satisfied with their opportunity for

advancement. Teachers also did not differ by level in their likelihood of being satisfied with their

salary and with the school administration’s support and recognition. Differences appeared among

school levels in teachers’ satisfaction with other aspects of their jobs, however (figure 20 and ta-
6. School Climate

42

ble 28). For example, the percentage of teachers who were satisfied with the caliber of their colleagues and with the availability of resources, materials, and equipment decreased as school level

increased. In 1994–95, middle and secondary school teachers were less likely to be satisfied with

their job’s intellectual challenge than were elementary school teachers. Middle school teachers

also reported lower satisfaction with their job’s professional prestige than did elementary school

teachers (51 percent versus 59 percent) in 1994–95. In contrast, elementary school teachers were

less satisfied with their teaching load than teachers at other levels. For overall job satisfaction,

the percentage of teachers who were satisfied was higher at elementary schools than at the other

two levels, but there was no difference between middle and secondary school teachers. At least

77 percent of teachers at each of the school levels reported that they were satisfied with their job

overall.

Figure 20—Percentage of teachers who were satisfied with particular aspects of their teaching jobs,

Figure 20—by school level: 1994–95

NOTE: Only teachers who taught at the same school as the previous year are included in this table (these “stayers” for 1994–95

constituted 86 percent of all 1993–94 public school teachers). Because teachers who stay at the same school tend to have higher

job satisfaction levels than those who leave teaching (and perhaps also higher levels than those who change schools), these data

may overstate satisfaction among teachers.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey: 1994–95.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Overall job satisfaction

Salary

Teaching load

Influence over policy, resources

Professional prestige

Intellectual challenge

Recognition and support from administrators

Percent

Elementary

Middle

Secondary
6. School Climate

43

Teachers’ Ratings of Problems at Their Schools

The SASS asked teachers to rate a number of possible problems at their school as serious,

moderate, minor, or not a problem. For many problems in 1993–94, the percentage of teachers

reporting that they were serious increased with school level. This was true for student apathy,

lack of academic challenge, lack of parent involvement, robbery or theft, and student alcohol use

(table 29). For example, while 12 percent of teachers called student apathy a serious problem in

elementary schools, 31 percent of teachers in middle schools and 38 percent of teachers in secondary schools did so. At least 30 percent of teachers at the middle and secondary school levels

thought that students’ arriving unprepared to learn and lack of parent involvement were serious

problems.

Two problems stood out as more likely to be serious at middle schools than at the other two

school levels: physical conflicts among students and student disrespect for teachers. Although

physical conflict was not seen as a widespread problem, about 11 percent of middle school teachers in 1993–94 rated physical conflicts as serious, which could indicate an appreciable amount of

disruption in some schools. This figure compares with 7 percent of teachers at the elementary

level and 8 percent at the secondary level. Student disrespect for teachers was seen as a serious

issue more frequently. Notably, while about one in four middle and secondary school teachers

cited student disrespect as a problem, half that proportion of elementary school teachers did the

same (12 percent).

The perception of student absenteeism as a problem dropped slightly in secondary and

middle schools over the six years covered by the SASS data. A smaller proportion of teachers at

both middle and secondary schools rated student alcohol use as a serious problem in 1990–91

than had done so in 1987–88, but there was no change at middle schools over the following three

years, and the problem increased at secondary schools by 1993–94. A larger percentage of teachers rated physical conflicts among students as a serious problem in 1993–94 than had done so in

1987–88; this increase occurred at both the middle and secondary levels.

Principals’ Ratings of Problems at Their Schools

Principals were also asked to rate problems using the same scale as teachers. School principals generally have less direct contact with students than teachers, which may influence their

views of school problems. Like teachers, principals were more likely to rate many issues as serious problems at higher school levels (table 30). Student absenteeism and alcohol use were

viewed by principals as much more serious at the secondary level than the lower two levels. As
6. School Climate

44

school level increased, principals were more likely to report that lack of parent involvement and

student apathy were problems. (This pattern also appeared with lack of academic challenge, although even at the secondary level, only 4 percent of principals noted it as a serious problem.) In

1993–94, student apathy was rated as a serious problem by 4 percent of elementary school principals, but by about 14 percent of both middle and secondary school principals. Nine percent of

principals in elementary schools cited lack of parent involvement as a serious problem, compared

with 15 percent of principals at middle schools and 20 percent at secondary schools. Principals’

identification of student apathy and uninvolved parents underscores similar reports from teachers, painting a picture of reduced engagement in school over time among both students and parents.

Certain other problems did not fit this pattern; for example, poverty was viewed as a serious problem less commonly as school level increased. Several factors may explain this. First,

parents of older children tend to be older themselves and thus, on average, may have higher incomes than parents of younger children. Second, mothers of older children are more likely to

work for pay than mothers of younger children, increasing family income. Third, older students

may work and contribute to family income. Finally, since parent involvement tends to be greater

when children are younger, principals may be more aware of poverty problems among younger

students. Reflecting a different pattern, the problem of students’ arriving unprepared to learn was

cited at a consistent rate by principals at all three school levels (roughly 12 percent). However,

slightly more principals at middle schools than at other school levels noted physical conflicts

among students as a problem, echoing teachers’ ratings. Across all schools, absenteeism was

noted by a slightly decreasing proportion of all principals from 1987–88 to 1993–94. In middle

schools, those percentages fluctuated, with no clear pattern.

Principals at middle schools were generally less likely than teachers to view problems at

their school as serious.23 With the exception of poverty, this was true in 1993–94 for each issue

included in tables 29 and 30. For most of the issues, moreover, teachers were at least twice as

likely as principals to rate them as serious problems. This discrepancy may partly be explained by

teachers’ having more direct contact and interaction with a greater number of students each day

than principals do. In addition, principals in many schools handle the most severe disciplinary or

other student problems; the rarity of such cases may lead them to think that more moderate cases

do not exist, when in fact they do. Rather, moderately difficult problems are likely handled by

teachers or other school staff.

 

23These contrasting perceptions were noted in an earlier report: Henke, Choy, Geis, and Broughman 1996, 103.
45

7. Conclusion

Across the issues examined here with Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and Teacher

Follow-up Survey (TFS) data, middle schools rarely differed dramatically from elementary or

secondary schools. It is possible that with data on other topics, particularly certain qualitative

measures, middle schools would stand out more from other schools. Middle schools focus on

serving the needs of young adolescents but otherwise share many of the same conditions, constraints, goals, and strengths of other schools. As they open new middle schools and reform existing ones, educators strive to adapt what works well at other levels to a school environment

shaped for young adolescents. The overarching similarities across school levels that result should

come as no surprise. Where middle and secondary schools share characteristics and differ from

elementary schools, the development of middle schools along the secondary school model may

provide some explanation. For other patterns, related variables such as school size may be relevant.

• Middle and secondary schools shared numerous characteristics; perhaps the most

prominent of these is their method of organizing classes.

As in secondary schools, a substantial majority of teachers in middle schools teach in departmentalized settings. Middle and secondary school teachers generally have more specialized

training in one or more subjects and tend to have slightly higher educational attainment than

those at elementary schools. Middle and secondary schools were about twice as likely as elementary schools to report great difficulty filling teaching vacancies, perhaps partly because the

requirements for teaching many of the subjects are more specific. Middle- and secondary-level

teachers were less likely to be satisfied than elementary school teachers with their job overall and

with its intellectual challenge. On the other hand, teachers at the upper two levels were more satisfied with their teaching load. Teachers viewed student apathy and lack of parent involvement as

more prevalent at the upper two school levels.

• Middle schools sometimes shared characteristics with elementary schools, and both

stood apart from secondary schools.

Among these rare occurrences, middle and elementary school teachers were more likely to

team teach their classes than teachers at the secondary level. Teachers in middle and elementary

schools were less likely to have 20 or more years of experience than those in secondary schools.
7. Conclusion

46

Principals at the lower two school levels viewed student absenteeism and alcohol use as much

less widespread problems than principals at secondary schools.

• For many aspects of schooling, there was an increase or decrease in the prevalence of

characteristics by school level, with middle schools falling fairly squarely between the

other two levels.

For example, for inservice programs on teaching methods, in-depth study of their subject,

and student assessment methods, teachers were less likely to participate in training as school

level increased. Moreover, the proportion of teachers agreeing with the four positive statements

about the training decreased as school level increased. The proportion of teachers who thought

they had a lot of influence on setting discipline policy decreased notably as school level increased, while their perceived influence over establishing curriculum increased with school level.

The percentage of teachers who agreed with many negative statements about their school’s climate and management (and who disagreed with several positive statements) or viewed particular

problems as serious also increased with school level. Principals, too, were generally more likely

to find problems serious as school level increased.

• Middle schools only rarely stood apart from both elementary and secondary schools,

and on those matters, the differences tended to be small.

For example, middle school teachers were slightly less likely than teachers at other school

levels to have regular or alternative certification in their main assignment field. Departmentalized

middle school teachers of mathematics, science, English, and social studies were more likely

than their secondary school counterparts to lack certification in that field. Middle schools were

also slightly more likely than schools at other levels to have a new principal, and higher proportions of middle school teachers were new to teaching, perhaps stemming from the growing number of middle schools. Middle school teachers were slightly less likely than those at other levels

to remain at the same school the following year. Teachers were more likely to report that two

problems—physical conflicts among students and student disrespect for teachers—were serious

at middle schools than at the other two levels.

• In some areas, particularly those related to provision of services and school management, there were no differences between the various school levels.

For example, general medical care and diagnostic services were provided by about the same

percentage of schools across levels, and more than 90 percent of schools at each level had programs to prevent drug and alcohol use among students. Nearly all schools had a library media

specialist on staff. Similarly, principals at each school level were equally likely to think that they

had a lot of influence over evaluating teachers’ performance and determining the content of inservice training programs. Teachers reported similar rates of satisfaction with their opportunity
7. Conclusion

47

for advancement, their salary, and with the school administration’s support and recognition at

different school levels.

Future Research

The questionnaires for the 1999–2000 SASS (and upcoming 2000–2001 Teacher Follow-up

Survey) include most of the items used in the earlier questionnaires. Once these data become

available, many of the aspects of schooling discussed here can be examined over a 12-year period. The upcoming surveys also include new items that address additional policy issues that

have come to the fore more recently. New or expanded topics in the 1999–2000 survey that may

provide information relevant to middle-level education include the uses of schoolwide performance reports; tracking progress on school improvement plans; parent involvement; teacher recruitment, hiring, and dismissal practices; new teacher preparation and support in the school and

professional development; ability-based tracking and grouping within classes; charter schools;

changes in school schedules; and use of computers and other technology in the school. These

new SASS data, which are planned for release in 2001, will provide opportunities for a range of

additional comparative analyses among elementary, middle, and secondary schools.
49

References

Abramson, R., Cole, C., Jackson, B., Parmer, R., and Kaufman, S. 1996. 1993–94 Schools and

Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation (NCES 96–089). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Adair, A.V. 1984. Desegregation: The Illusion of Black Progress. Lanham, MD: University

Press of America.

Ames, N. 1998. “Middle-Grades Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment.” Paper prepared for

the OERI Conference on Early Adolescence, Washington, DC.

Argetsinger, A. 1999, April 28. “Maryland Panel Rethinks Middle Schools.” Washington Post:

B1.

Bobbitt, S.A. 1991. Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers: Results from the Teacher

Follow-up Survey, 1988–89 (NCES 91–128). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Bobbitt, S.A. 1994. Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers: Results from the Teacher

Follow-up Survey, 1991–92 (NCES 94–337). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Bottoms, G., and Sharpe, D. 1996. Teaching and Understanding Through Integration of Academic and Technical Education. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board.

Bradley, A. 1998, April 15. “Muddle in the Middle.” Education Week, 17(31): 38–42.

Briggs, T.H. 1920. The Junior High School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Bryk, A.S., and Driscoll, M.E. 1988. An Empirical Investigation of the School as Community.

Chicago: University of Chicago.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. 1989. Turning Points: Preparing American

Youth for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Author.

Choy, S.P., Henke, R.R., Alt, M.N., Medrich, E.A., and Bobbitt, S.A. 1993. Schools and Staffing

in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1990–91 (NCES 93–146). Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
References

50

Choy, S.P., Medrich, E.A., Henke, R.R., and Bobbitt, S.A. 1992. Schools and Staffing in the

United States: A Statistical Profile, 1987–88 (NCES 92–120). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Clark, S., and Clark, D. 1993. “Middle Level School Reform: The Rhetoric and the Reality.”

Elementary School Journal, 93(5): 447–460.

Cuban, L. 1992. “What Happens to Reforms That Last? The Case of the Junior High School.”

American Educational Research Journal, 29(2): 227–251.

Dewey, J. 1915. The School and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Diamond, H. 1978–79, Winter. “Patterns of Leadership.” Educational Horizons, 57(2): 59–62.

Douglass, A. February 1945. “The Persistent Problem of the Junior High School.” California

Journal of Secondary Education, 20.

Drake, S.M. 1993. Planning Integrated Curriculum: The Call to Adventure. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Efron, B. 1982. The Jackknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans (SIAM No. 38).

Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.

Epstein, J.L., and Mac Iver, D.J. 1992. Opportunities to Learn: Effects on Eighth Graders of

Curriculum Offerings and Instructional Approaches. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.

Faupel, E., Bobbitt, S., and Friedrichs, K. 1992. 1988–89 Teacher Follow-up Survey Data File

User’s Manual (NCES 92–058). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Felner, R.D., Jackson, A.W., Kasak, D., Mulhall, P., Brand, S., and Flowers, N. March 1997.

“The Impact of School Reform for the Middle Years.” Phi Delta Kappan, 78(3): 528–

550.

Goldhaber, D., and Brewer, D. 1999. “Teacher Licensing and Student Achievement.” In M.

Kanstoroom and C.E. Finn, Jr. (Eds.), Better Teachers, Better Schools. Washington, DC:

The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Graham, P.A. 1987. “Black Teachers: A Drastically Scarce Resource.” Phi Delta Kappan, 68(8):

598–605.
References

51

Gruber, K., Rohr, C., and Fondelier, S. 1996. 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey: Data File

User’s Manual, Volume I: Survey Documentation (NCES 96–142-I). Washington, DC:

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

Gruhn, W.T., and Douglass, H.R. 1947. The Modern Junior High School. New York: The

Roland Press Co.

Gutmann, A. 1987. Democratic Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hansen, J.H., and Hearn, A.C. 1971. The Middle School Program. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Henke, R.R., Choy, S.P., Geis, S., and Broughman, S.P. 1996. Schools and Staffing in the United

States: A Statistical Profile, 1993–94 (NCES 96–124). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Jabine, T. 1994. A Quality Profile for SASS: Aspects of the Quality of Data in the Schools and

Staffing Surveys (NCES 94–340). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Johnson, F.H. 1989. Assigning Type of Locale Codes to the 1987–88 CCD Public School Universe (Technical Report, Data Series: SP-CCD–87188-7.4, CS 89–194). Washington,

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

Johnson, F.H. 1994. Comparisons of School Locale Setting: Self-Reported Versus Assigned

(Working Paper No. 94–101). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics.

Kahle, J.B. 1984. “Girls in School, Women in Science: A Synopsis.” Paper presented at the Annual Women’s Studies Conference, Greeley, CO.

Kalton, G. 1983. Compensating for Missing Survey Data. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research

Center, University of Michigan.

Kalton, G., and Kasprzyk, D. 1982. “Imputing for Missing Survey Responses.” Proceedings of

the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association, Alexandria,

VA.

Kalton, G., and Kasprzyk, D. June 1986. “The Treatment of Missing Survey Data,” Survey

Methodology, 12(1): 1–16.

Kalton, G., Winglee, M., Krawchuck, S., and Levine, D. 2000. An Updated Quality Profile for

SASS (NCES 2000–308). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics.
References

52

Kaufman, S. 1992. “Balanced Half-Sample Replication with Aggregation Units.” American Statistical Association 1992 Survey Research Proceedings. Alexandria, VA.

Kaufman, S. 1993. “A Bootstrap Variance Estimator for the Schools and Staffing Survey.”

American Statistical Association 1993 Survey Research Proceedings. Alexandria, VA.

Kaufman, S., and Huang, H. 1993. 1991 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation (NCES 93–449). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

King, S.H. 1993. “On the Limited Presence of African-American Teachers.” Review of Educational Research, 63(2): 115–149.

Koos, L.V. 1927. The Junior High School. Boston: Ginn and Co.

Lee, V.E., and Smith, J.B. July 1993. “Effects of School Restructuring on the Achievement and

Engagement of Middle-Grade Students.” Sociology of Education, 66(3): 164–187.

Leithwood, K.A. 1992. “The Move Toward Transformational Leadership.” Educational Leadership, 49(5): 8–12.

Lewis-Beck, M. 1980. Applied Regression: An Introduction (Sage University Papers series, No.

22). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Lipsitz, J. 1984. Successful Schools for Young Adolescents. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Lipsitz, J., Jackson, A.W., and Austin, L.M. March 1997. “What Works in Middle-Grades

School Reform.” Phi Delta Kappan, 78(3): 517–519.

Little, R.J.A., and Rubin, D.B. 1987. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York: John

Wiley and Sons.

Madhere, S., and Mac Iver, D.J. 1996. The Talent Development Middle School: Essential Components. Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC: Center for Research on the Education of

Students Placed at Risk.

Madow, W.G., Olkin, I., and D.B. Rubin, Eds. 1983. Incomplete Data in Sample Surveys. Vol. 2.

New York: Academic Press.

McEwin, K., Dickinson, T., and Jenkins, D. 1996. America’s Middle Schools: Practices and

Progress, A 25 Year Perspective. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Mergendoller, J.R. 1993. “Introduction: The Role of Research on the Reform of Middle Grades

Education.” Elementary School Journal, 93(5): 443–446.
References

53

Oakes, J., Vasudeva, A., and Jones, M. Fall 1996. “Becoming Educative: Reforming Curriculum

and Teaching in the Middle Grades.” Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly,

20(1): 11–40.

Rahn, M.L., Alt, M., Emanuel, D., Ramer, C., Hoachlander, E.G., Holmes, P., Jackson, M.,

Klein, S., and Rossi, K. 1995. Getting to Work: A Guide for Better Schools. Berkeley,

CA: MPR Associates and National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Ryan, S., and Friedlaender, D. Fall 1996. “Strengthening Relationships to Create Caring School

Communities.” Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 20(1): 41–68.

Sitter, R.R. 1990. Comparing Three Bootstrap Methods for Survey Data. Technical Report Series

of the Laboratory for Research in Statistics and Probability. Ottawa: Carleton University.

Snedecor, G.W., and Cochran, W.G. 1967. Statistical Methods. Ames, IA: Iowa State University

Press.

Stewart, J., Jr., Meier, K.J., LaFollette, R.M., and England, R.E. 1989. “In Quest of Role Models:

Change in Black Teacher Representation in Urban School Districts, 1968–1986.” Journal

of Negro Education, 58(2): 140–152.

Tucker, M.S., and Codding, J.B. 1998. Standards for Our Schools: How to Set Them, Measure

Them, Reach Them. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tye, K.A. 1985. The Junior High: A School in Search of a Mission. New York: University Press

of America.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1997. Highlights from

TIMSS: Overview and Key Findings Across Grade Levels (NCES 1999–081). Washington, DC.

Whitener, S.D., Gruber, K.J., Lynch, H., Tingos, K., Perona, M., and Fondelier, S. 1997. Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers: Results from the Teacher Follow-up Survey:

1994–95 (NCES 97–450). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Whitener, S.D., Gruber, K.J., Rohr, C., and Fondelier, S. 1998. 1994–95 Teacher Follow-up Survey Data File User’s Manual (NCES 98–232). Washington, DC: National Center for

Education Statistics.

Whitener, S.D., Kaufman, S., Rohr, C., Bynum, L.T., and King, K. 1994. 1991–92 Teacher Follow-up Survey Data File User’s Manual (NCES 94–331). Washington, DC: National

Center for Education Statistics.

Wren, C. April 8, 1999. “Drug Survey of Children Finds Middle School a Pivotal Time.” New

York Times, A24.
55

Appendix A—Detailed Tables
Table 1—Number of public schools in each school level and number of middle and secondary schools with particular grade con

Table 1—school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle  Total 80,740 48,819 11,712 17,129 3,079 6,888 2,702 2,123 School size Fewer than 150 9,449 4,696 1,024 2,574 1,154 326 578 121  150–499 37,071 26,694 3,952 5,152 1,273 2,167 754 1,031  500–749 19,744 13,104 3,569 2,731 341 2,057 793 719  750 or more 14,476 4,325 3,167 6,672 311 2,338 577 252 District size Fewer than 1,000 13,533 7,170 1,320 4,054 990 596 512 212  1,000–9,999 34,925 20,488 5,768 7,659 1,010 3,184 1,166 1,418  10,000 or more 25,221 16,695 3,653 4,019 854 2,581 728 344 Community type Central city 19,184 13,077 2,468 2,975 664 1,668 540 261  Urban fringe/large town 21,912 13,927 3,445 4,043 497 2,115 811 520  Rural/small town 39,644 21,815 5,800 10,111 1,918 3,105 1,352 1,343 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 24,765 12,805 3,633 7,822 505 2,081 736 817  20 percent or more 50,305 33,216 7,369 7,580 2,140 4,447 1,724 1,198 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 44,825 27,023 6,109 10,349 1,343 3,421 1,460 1,228  20 percent or more 35,915 21,795 5,604 6,780 1,735 3,467 1,241 896 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 63,832 37,657 9,326 14,531 2,317 5,284 2,206 1,836  20 percent or more 16,908 11,162 2,387 2,598 761 1,603 496 287 

of middle schools 

School level Grade configurations 

1993–94
Table 1—Number of public schools in each school level and number of middle and secondary schools with particular grade con

Table 1—school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Principal Male 51,781 26,440 8,659 14,474 2,208 4,993 2,059 1,607  Female 26,430 20,893 2,714 2,117 707 1,700 572 442 Principal Minority 12,150 8,051 1,922 1,865 313 1,231 417 274  White, non-Hispanic 66,061 39,282 9,451 14,726 2,602 5,463 2,215 1,774 Region Northeast 13,659 8,586 1,946 2,682 446 1,207 327 412  South 23,644 14,304 3,352 5,458 531 1,746 874 731  Midwest 26,453 15,333 4,182 5,580 1,358 2,816 603 763  West 16,984 10,596 2,234 3,410 744 1,118 898 218  Total 79,885 48,752 9,938 17,067 4,129 5,742 2,532 1,663 School size Fewer than 150 9,844 5,327 703 2,388 1,426 298 371 34  150–499 37,966 26,998 3,840 5,344 1,784 1,962 994 884  500–749 18,426 12,269 3,040 2,648 469 1,841 681 517  750 or more 13,649 4,158 2,355 6,687 450 1,641 486 228 District size Fewer than 1,000 13,510 7,376 920 3,808 1,406 501 302 117  1,000–9,999 36,443 22,140 5,190 7,790 1,323 2,542 1,344 1,304  10,000 or more 24,518 15,965 3,126 4,383 1,043 2,189 732 205 

Grade configurations 

1990–91

School level

of middle schools 

1993–94—Contined
Table 1—Number of public schools in each school level and number of middle and secondary schools with particular grade con

Table 1—school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Community type Central city 18,684 12,488 2,320 3,126 750 1,512 605 203  Urban fringe/large town 20,849 13,458 2,793 3,950 648 1,693 774 327  Rural/small town 40,352 22,807 4,824 9,990 2,731 2,537 1,152 1,135 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 27,624 14,606 3,646 8,558 814 2,244 899 503  20 percent or more 49,047 32,582 6,163 7,416 2,884 3,477 1,525 1,161 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 45,897 27,934 5,092 10,659 2,211 2,825 1,416 851  20 percent or more 33,988 20,818 4,845 6,407 1,918 2,917 1,115 813 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 64,004 38,339 7,919 14,396 3,350 4,609 2,022 1,288  20 percent or more 15,880 10,413 2,018 2,671 779 1,132 510 376 Principal Male 54,838 28,848 8,049 14,980 2,960 4,547 2,127 1,375  Female 23,096 18,600 1,750 1,750 996 1,124 368 258 Principal Minority 10,746 7,028 1,572 1,722 424 927 365 280  White, non-Hispanic 67,188 40,420 8,228 15,008 3,533 4,745 2,130 1,353 Region Northeast 13,805 8,963 1,574 2,668 600 874 405 295  South 23,690 14,355 2,989 5,399 947 1,579 961 448  Midwest 25,993 15,230 3,486 5,618 1,659 2,203 538 745  West 16,397 10,204 1,889 3,381 924 1,086 627 176 

1990–91—Continued

of middle schools 

School level Grade configurations
Table 1—Number of public schools in each school level and number of middle and secondary schools with particular grade con

Table 1—school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

 Total 78,546 48,016 9,086 16,842 4,601 4,645 2,531 1,912 School size Fewer than 150 8,629 5,037 426 1,606 1,560 189 135 103  150–499 38,635 27,553 3,998 5,094 1,989 1,687 1,157 1,155  500–749 18,093 11,709 2,715 3,097 572 1,497 830 388  750 or more 13,189 3,717 1,947 7,045 480 1,272 409 266 District size Fewer than 1,000 12,181 6,559 586 3,113 1,923 306 107 173  1,000–9,999 34,810 21,144 4,849 7,629 1,189 2,190 1,362 1,297  10,000 or more 22,620 14,828 2,588 4,260 943 1,578 719 290 Community type Central city 19,482 13,069 2,083 3,411 919 1,359 539 186  Urban fringe/large town 21,133 13,362 2,755 4,389 627 1,426 909 420  Rural/small town 37,947 21,586 4,248 9,043 3,070 1,860 1,084 1,305 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 30,668 16,320 3,878 9,484 985 1,925 1,282 671  20 percent or more 44,850 30,280 5,039 6,311 3,219 2,603 1,213 1,223 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 46,733 28,152 5,195 10,545 2,843 2,521 1,481 1,193  20 percent or more 31,827 19,865 3,892 6,297 1,773 2,123 1,050 719 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 61,020 36,503 7,125 13,692 3,700 3,610 2,056 1,459  20 percent or more 17,541 11,513 1,962 3,150 916 1,034 476 452 

of middle schools 

School level Grade configurations

1987–88
Table 1—Number of public schools in each school level and number of middle and secondary schools with particular grade con

Table 1—school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Principal Male 58,141 31,918 7,611 15,096 3,516 3,853 2,169 1,589  Female 18,822 15,102 1,353 1,440 927 751 348 254 Principal Minority 10,174 6,624 1,320 1,762 469 705 372 242  White, non-Hispanic 66,788 40,396 7,645 14,773 3,974 3,899 2,145 1,601 Region Northeast 13,917 8,959 1,457 2,843 658 742 344 371  South 22,768 13,703 2,677 4,870 1,518 1,202 798 677  Midwest 25,964 15,306 3,217 5,927 1,514 1,898 603 716  West 15,913 10,049 1,736 3,203 925 802 785 148 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School and Public School Pr1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

of middle schools 

School level Grade configurations

1987–88—Continued
Table 2—Percentage distributions of public schools according to school level and grade configuration, by selected school chara

Table 2—1990–91, and 1987–88

Combined/

All school ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

 Total 100.0 60.5 14.5 21.2 3.8 58.8 23.1 18.1 Community type Central city 100.0 68.2 12.9 15.5 3.5 67.6 21.9 10.6  Urban fringe/large town 100.0 63.6 15.7 18.4 2.3 61.4 23.5 15.1  Rural/small town 100.0 55.0 14.6 25.5 4.8 53.5 23.3 23.2 District size Fewer than 1,000 100.0 53.0 9.8 30.0 7.3 45.1 38.8 16.1  1,000–9,999 100.0 58.7 16.5 21.9 2.9 55.2 20.2 24.6  10,000 or more 100.0 66.2 14.5 15.9 3.4 70.6 19.9 9.4 Region Northeast 100.0 62.9 14.2 19.6 3.3 62.0 16.8 21.2  Midwest 100.0 60.5 14.2 23.1 2.2 52.1 26.1 21.8  South 100.0 58.0 15.8 21.1 5.1 67.4 14.4 18.2  West 100.0 62.4 13.2 20.1 4.4 50.0 40.2 9.8  Total 100.0 61.0 12.4 21.4 5.2 57.8 25.5 16.8 Community type Central city 100.0 66.8 12.4 16.7 4.0 65.2 26.1 8.7  Urban fringe/large town 100.0 64.6 13.4 19.0 3.1 60.6 27.7 11.7  Rural/small town 100.0 56.5 12.0 24.8 6.8 52.6 23.9 23.5 District size Fewer than 1,000 100.0 54.6 6.8 28.2 10.4 54.4 32.8 12.8  1,000–9,999 100.0 61.3 14.1 20.6 4.0 51.6 25.5 22.9  10,000 or more 100.0 64.1 12.7 19.0 4.2 70.3 23.2 6.5 Region Northeast 100.0 64.9 11.4 19.3 4.4 55.5 25.7 18.8  Midwest 100.0 60.6 12.6 22.8 4.0 52.8 32.2 15.0  South 100.0 58.6 13.4 21.6 6.4 63.2 15.4 21.4  West 100.0 62.2 11.5 20.6 5.6 57.5 33.2 9.3 

School level Grade configurations 

of middle schools 

1993–94

1990–91
Table 2—Percentage distributions of public schools according to school level and grade configuration, by selected school chara

Table 2—1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

All school ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

 Total 100.0 61.1 11.6 21.4 5.9 51.1 27.9 21.0 Community type Central city 100.0 67.1 10.7 17.5 4.7 65.2 25.9 8.9  Urban fringe/large town 100.0 63.2 13.0 20.8 3.0 51.8 33.0 15.2  Rural/small town 100.0 56.9 11.2 23.8 8.1 43.8 25.5 30.7 District size Fewer than 1,000 100.0 53.8 4.8 25.6 15.8 52.2 18.2 29.6  1,000–9,999 100.0 60.7 13.9 21.9 3.4 45.2 28.1 26.7  10,000 or more 100.0 65.6 11.4 18.8 4.2 61.0 27.8 11.2 Region Northeast 100.0 64.4 10.5 20.4 4.7 50.9 23.6 25.4  Midwest 100.0 60.2 11.8 21.4 6.7 44.9 29.8 25.3  South 100.0 59.0 12.4 22.8 5.8 59.0 18.8 22.2  West 100.0 63.2 10.9 20.1 5.8 46.2 45.2 8.5 

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School Questionnaires): 1987–88, 19

School level Grade configurations 

1987–88

of middle schools 
Table 3—Number of public school students in each school level and in middle and secondary schools with particular grade con

Table 3—school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

 Total 41,621,659 21,322,408 6,805,766 12,515,136 978,351 4,436,035 1,351,900 1,017,831 School size Fewer than 150 792,542 419,703 81,410 218,951 72,479 33,106 44,030 4,274  150–499 12,449,493 9,096,346 1,356,840 1,623,665 372,642 763,608 262,540 330,692  500–749 11,965,029 7,852,383 2,208,088 1,694,104 210,455 1,279,966 487,204 440,918  750 or more 16,414,595 3,953,976 3,159,428 8,978,416 322,775 2,359,355 558,126 241,947 District size Fewer than 1,000 2,898,322 1,577,693 180,703 879,548 260,377 89,435 40,875 50,393  1,000–9,999 17,605,056 8,567,870 3,049,439 6,589,017 398,729 1,740,202 595,742 713,495  10,000 or more 17,228,132 9,091,724 2,958,364 4,902,441 275,603 2,207,709 551,697 198,958 Community type Central city 12,163,036 6,726,565 1,869,540 3,397,867 169,064 1,337,720 394,070 137,751  Urban fringe/large town 13,559,662 6,784,975 2,378,824 4,209,408 186,455 1,610,002 501,582 267,240  Rural/small town 15,898,962 7,810,868 2,557,401 4,907,861 622,832 1,488,313 456,248 612,839 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 15,172,733 6,910,042 2,250,908 6,806,271 205,513 1,430,504 409,993 410,410  20 percent or more 24,146,352 14,460,994 4,172,119 4,818,392 694,846 2,745,405 850,859 575,855 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 20,312,294 10,429,351 3,005,970 6,386,277 490,696 1,888,053 554,303 563,614  20 percent or more 21,309,366 10,893,057 3,799,796 6,128,859 487,655 2,547,982 797,597 454,217 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 31,465,576 15,648,037 6,054,314 10,030,494 732,731 3,200,540 1,029,908 823,865  20 percent or more 10,156,083 6,674,370 1,751,452 2,484,641 245,620 1,235,495 321,992 193,965 

1993–94

School level Grade configurations 

of middle schools 
Table 3—Number of public school students in each school level and in middle and secondary schools with particular grade con

Table 3—school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Principal Male 27,133,364 11,319,801 4,762,857 10,268,462 782,243 3,045,023 964,630 753,204  Female 13,412,743 9,482,717 1,884,445 1,869,250 176,331 1,290,068 354,257 240,120 Principal Minority 7,290,057 3,917,163 1,407,732 1,867,513 97,648 976,551 276,702 154,480  White, non-Hispanic 33,256,050 16,885,356 6,239,570 10,270,199 860,926 3,358,541 1,042,185 838,843 Region Northeast 7,344,332 3,740,197 1,154,758 2,285,078 164,299 747,209 187,952 219,597  South 9,973,026 6,028,037 1,484,110 3,297,977 162,902 831,773 342,734 309,604  Midwest 15,001,201 7,453,718 2,742,264 4,289,850 515,370 2,011,176 347,169 383,919  West 9,303,100 6,100,456 1,424,634 2,642,230 135,780 845,877 474,045 104,711  Total 40,103,700 20,759,139 5,547,319 12,356,763 1,440,478 3,520,013 1,221,070 806,236 School size Fewer than 150 829,806 470,164 60,702 198,707 100,232 28,361 29,406 2,935  150–499 12,657,496 9,108,941 1,320,717 1,674,000 553,838 686,628 344,642 289,447  500–749 11,135,922 7,361,427 1,860,938 1,628,057 285,500 1,137,002 411,517 312,419  750 or more 15,480,476 3,818,607 2,304,962 8,855,999 500,908 1,668,022 435,505 201,435 District size Fewer than 1,000 2,966,268 1,671,011 134,567 761,903 398,788 75,204 30,547 28,816  1,000–9,999 17,751,762 8,963,987 2,581,910 5,635,870 569,995 1,366,362 592,752 622,796  10,000 or more 16,621,022 8,746,663 2,435,739 5,057,720 380,900 1,792,245 505,774 137,720 

School level Grade configurations 

of middle schools 

1993–94—Continued

1990–91
Table 3—Number of public school students in each school level and in middle and secondary schools with particular grade con

Table 3—school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Community type Central city 11,892,503 6,463,577 1,644,084 3,543,959 240,884 1,136,244 392,140 115,700  Urban fringe/large town 12,515,609 6,477,596 1,834,831 3,987,701 215,480 1,197,259 419,310 218,263  Rural/small town 15,695,586 7,817,966 2,068,404 4,825,103 984,114 1,186,510 409,620 472,274 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 16,064,266 6,391,154 2,172,663 7,147,670 352,778 1,447,661 472,207 252,795  20 percent or more 23,129,846 14,122,121 3,356,888 4,631,966 1,018,870 2,065,365 738,082 553,441 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 20,070,442 10,394,017 2,461,336 6,354,507 860,582 1,515,832 539,243 406,261  20 percent or more 20,033,256 10,365,122 3,085,984 6,002,256 579,895 2,004,181 681,827 399,976 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 30,263,584 15,210,905 4,264,049 9,631,284 1,157,346 2,716,042 950,393 597,614  20 percent or more 9,840,115 5,548,234 1,283,271 2,725,479 283,132 803,971 270,677 208,623 Principal Male 28,314,834 12,160,673 4,348,220 10,641,151 1,164,790 2,651,488 1,023,960 672,771  Female 11,060,527 8,284,555 1,126,132 1,419,702 230,138 823,099 185,725 117,308 Principal Minority 6,313,833 3,561,511 1,022,173 1,568,828 161,321 650,984 223,724 147,465  White, non-Hispanic 33,061,528 16,883,716 4,452,178 10,492,025 1,233,607 2,823,603 985,961 642,614 Region Northeast 7,088,770 3,742,099 842,346 2,206,797 297,528 506,060 184,041 152,246  South 9,628,828 4,975,348 1,310,553 3,070,325 272,602 727,534 370,597 212,422  Midwest 14,374,189 7,228,347 2,278,112 4,220,511 647,218 1,589,806 304,895 383,411  West 9,011,913 4,813,345 1,116,308 2,859,130 223,130 696,612 361,538 58,157 

of middle schools 

1990–91—Continued

School level Grade configurations 
Table 3—Number of public school students in each school level and in middle and secondary schools with particular grade con

Table 3—school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

 Total 40,058,748 20,237,351 4,960,899 13,199,393 1,661,106 2,800,336 1,288,817 871,745 School size Fewer than 150 757,274 447,746 42,292 144,878 122,359 18,120 12,776 11,395  150–499 12,890,762 9,285,328 1,383,768 1,632,789 588,877 600,721 397,785 385,262  500–749 10,924,722 7,016,263 1,643,569 1,919,313 345,577 906,726 503,994 232,850  750 or more 15,485,990 3,488,014 1,891,270 9,502,413 604,293 1,274,769 374,262 242,238 District size Fewer than 1,000 2,838,104 1,445,588 93,373 798,354 500,789 44,972 10,251 38,150  1,000–9,999 17,121,258 8,519,456 2,290,890 5,700,053 610,860 1,089,638 622,963 578,289  10,000 or more 15,422,368 7,943,260 1,958,182 5,128,711 392,215 1,291,281 483,300 183,601 Community type Central city 12,306,412 6,666,055 1,456,850 3,808,587 374,920 981,903 352,727 122,220  Urban fringe/large town 12,736,665 6,172,542 1,733,386 4,628,950 201,787 984,158 509,745 239,483  Rural/small town 15,015,671 7,398,753 1,770,663 4,761,856 1,084,399 834,276 426,345 510,042 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 18,240,468 7,142,556 2,149,697 8,445,111 503,105 1,179,199 646,171 324,327  20 percent or more 20,754,888 12,821,412 2,753,700 4,093,115 1,086,661 1,580,895 629,859 542,947 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 21,467,592 10,490,496 2,550,207 7,373,861 1,053,029 1,348,675 677,966 523,566  20 percent or more 18,591,156 9,746,854 2,410,693 5,825,532 608,077 1,451,662 610,851 348,180 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 29,501,700 14,338,775 3,698,392 10,214,712 1,249,822 2,062,166 1,000,899 635,327  20 percent or more 10,557,048 5,898,576 1,262,508 2,984,681 411,284 738,171 287,919 236,418 

of middle schools 

School level 

1987–88

Grade configurations
Table 3—Number of public school students in each school level and in middle and secondary schools with particular grade con

Table 3—school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Principal Male 30,429,228 13,362,324 4,042,692 11,649,880 1,374,330 2,261,947 1,077,922 702,823  Female 8,982,541 6,580,990 837,909 1,332,305 231,338 518,626 202,811 116,472 Principal Minority 6,099,936 3,349,543 880,945 1,675,118 194,331 522,921 227,406 130,618  White, non-Hispanic 33,311,832 16,593,772 3,999,656 11,307,068 1,411,337 2,257,652 1,053,327 688,677 Region Northeast 7,396,771 3,670,686 806,843 2,555,325 363,917 420,600 181,245 204,997  Midwest 9,835,335 4,903,936 1,187,127 3,233,093 511,179 578,978 361,897 246,252  South 14,434,541 7,136,523 1,970,991 4,707,682 619,346 1,280,694 350,851 339,446  West 8,392,101 4,526,205 995,939 2,703,293 166,664 520,065 394,825 81,049 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School and Public School Pr1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

of middle schools 

School level Grade configurations 

1987–88—Continued
Table 4—Percentage distributions of public schools according to selected school characteristics, by school level and grade confi

Table 4—and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 School size Fewer than 150 11.7 9.6 8.8 15.0 37.5 4.7 21.4 5.7  150–499 45.9 54.7 33.7 30.1 41.3 31.5 27.9 48.6  500–749 24.4 26.8 30.5 15.9 11.1 29.9 29.4 33.8  750 or more 17.9 8.9 27.0 39.0 10.1 34.0 21.4 11.9 District size Fewer than 1,000 18.4 16.2 12.3 25.8 34.7 9.4 21.3 10.8  1,000–9,999 47.4 46.2 53.7 48.7 35.4 50.1 48.5 71.8  10,000 or more 34.2 37.6 34.0 25.6 29.9 40.6 30.3 17.4 Community type Central city 23.8 26.8 21.1 17.4 21.6 24.2 20.0 12.3  Urban fringe/large town 27.1 28.5 29.4 23.6 16.1 30.7 30.0 24.5  Rural/small town 49.1 44.7 49.5 59.0 62.3 45.1 50.0 63.3 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 33.0 27.8 33.0 50.8 19.1 31.9 29.9 40.6  20 percent or more 67.0 72.2 67.0 49.2 80.9 68.1 70.1 59.4 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 55.5 55.4 52.2 60.4 43.6 49.7 54.0 57.8  20 percent or more 44.5 44.6 47.8 39.6 56.4 50.3 46.0 42.2 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 79.1 77.1 79.6 84.8 75.3 76.7 81.6 86.5  20 percent or more 20.9 22.9 20.4 15.2 24.7 23.3 18.4 13.5 

1993–94

School level Grade configurations 

of middle schools
Table 4—Percentage distributions of public schools according to selected school characteristics, by school level and grade confi

Table 4—and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Principal Male 66.2 55.9 76.1 87.2 75.8 74.6 78.3 78.4  Female 33.8 44.1 23.9 12.8 24.2 25.4 21.7 21.6 Principal Minority 15.5 17.0 16.9 11.2 10.8 18.4 15.8 13.4  White, non-Hispanic 84.5 83.0 83.1 88.8 89.2 81.6 84.2 86.6 Region Northeast 16.9 17.6 16.6 15.6 14.5 17.5 12.1 19.4  Midwest 29.3 29.3 28.6 31.9 17.2 25.4 32.4 34.4  South 32.8 31.4 35.7 32.6 44.1 40.9 22.3 35.9  West 21.0 21.7 19.1 19.9 24.2 16.2 33.2 10.3  Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 School size Fewer than 150 12.3 10.9 7.1 14.0 34.5 5.2 14.6 2.1  150–499 47.5 55.4 38.6 31.3 43.2 34.2 39.3 53.1  500–749 23.1 25.2 30.6 15.5 11.4 32.1 26.9 31.1  750 or more 17.1 8.5 23.7 39.2 10.9 28.6 19.2 13.7 District size Fewer than 1,000 18.1 16.2 10.0 23.8 37.3 9.6 12.7 7.2  1,000–9,999 48.9 48.7 56.2 48.7 35.1 48.6 56.5 80.2  10,000 or more 32.9 35.1 33.8 27.4 27.7 41.8 30.8 12.6 

1990–91

1993–94—Continued

Grade configurations 

of middle schools 

School level
Table 4—Percentage distributions of public schools according to selected school characteristics, by school level and grade confi

Table 4—and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Community type Central city 23.4 25.6 23.4 18.3 18.2 26.3 23.9 12.2  Urban fringe/large town 26.1 27.6 28.1 23.2 15.7 29.5 30.6 19.6  Rural/small town 50.5 46.8 48.6 58.5 66.1 44.2 45.5 68.2 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 36.0 31.0 37.2 53.6 22.0 39.2 37.1 30.2  20 percent or more 64.0 69.0 62.8 46.4 78.0 60.8 62.9 69.8 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 57.4 57.3 51.2 62.5 53.6 49.2 55.9 51.2  20 percent or more 42.6 42.7 48.8 37.5 46.4 50.8 44.1 48.8 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 80.1 78.6 79.7 84.4 81.1 80.3 79.9 77.4  20 percent or more 19.9 21.4 20.3 15.6 18.9 19.7 20.1 22.6 Principal Male 70.4 60.8 82.1 89.5 74.8 80.2 85.2 84.2  Female 29.6 39.2 17.9 10.5 25.2 19.8 14.8 15.8 Principal Minority 13.8 14.8 16.0 10.3 10.7 16.3 14.6 17.1  White, non-Hispanic 86.2 85.2 84.0 89.7 89.3 83.7 85.4 82.9 Region Northeast 17.3 18.4 15.8 15.6 14.5 15.2 16.0 17.7  Midwest 29.7 29.4 30.1 31.6 22.9 27.5 38.0 26.9  South 32.5 31.2 35.1 32.9 40.2 38.4 21.2 44.8  West 20.5 20.9 19.0 19.8 22.4 18.9 24.8 10.6 

1990–91—Continued

School level Grade configurations 

of middle schools 
Table 4—Percentage distributions of public schools according to selected school characteristics, by school level and grade confi

Table 4—and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 School size Fewer than 150 11.0 10.5 4.7 9.5 33.8 4.1 5.3 5.4  150–499 49.2 57.4 44.0 30.2 43.1 36.3 45.7 60.4  500–749 23.0 24.4 29.9 18.4 12.4 32.2 32.8 20.3  750 or more 16.8 7.7 21.4 41.8 10.4 27.4 16.2 13.9 District size Fewer than 1,000 17.5 15.4 7.3 20.8 47.4 7.5 4.9 9.8  1,000–9,999 50.0 49.7 60.4 50.8 29.3 53.8 62.2 73.6  10,000 or more 32.5 34.9 32.3 28.4 23.3 38.7 32.9 16.5 Community type Central city 24.8 27.2 22.9 20.2 19.9 29.3 21.3 9.7  Urban fringe/large town 26.9 27.8 30.3 26.1 13.6 30.7 35.9 22.0  Rural/small town 48.3 45.0 46.8 53.7 66.5 40.0 42.8 68.3 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 40.6 35.0 43.5 60.0 23.4 42.5 51.4 35.4  20 percent or more 59.4 65.0 56.5 40.0 76.6 57.5 48.6 64.6 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 59.5 58.6 57.2 62.6 61.6 54.3 58.5 62.4  20 percent or more 40.5 41.4 42.8 37.4 38.4 45.7 41.5 37.6 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 77.7 76.0 78.4 81.3 80.2 77.7 81.2 76.3  20 percent or more 22.3 24.0 21.6 18.7 19.8 22.3 18.8 23.7 

Grade configurations 

of middle schools 

1987–88

School level
Table 4—Percentage distributions of public schools according to selected school characteristics, by school level and grade confi

Table 4—and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Principal Male 75.5 67.9 84.9 91.3 79.1 83.7 86.2 86.2  Female 24.5 32.1 15.1 8.7 20.9 16.3 13.8 13.8 Principal Minority 13.2 14.1 14.7 10.7 10.6 15.3 14.8 13.2  White, non-Hispanic 86.8 85.9 85.3 89.3 89.4 84.7 85.2 86.8 Region Northeast 17.7 18.7 16.0 16.9 14.2 16.0 13.6 19.4  Midwest 29.0 28.5 29.5 28.9 32.9 25.9 31.5 35.4  South 33.0 31.9 35.4 35.2 32.8 40.9 23.8 37.4  West 20.2 20.9 19.1 19.0 20.0 17.3 31.0 7.7 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School and Public School Pr1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

School level Grade configurations 

of middle schools 

1987–88—Continued
Table 5—Percentage distributions of public school students according to selected school characteristics, by school level and gra

Table 5—middle and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 School size Fewer than 150 1.9 2.0 1.2 1.8 7.4 0.8 3.3 0.4  150–499 29.9 42.7 19.9 13.0 38.1 17.2 19.4 32.5  500–749 28.8 36.8 32.4 13.5 21.5 28.8 36.0 43.3  750 or more 39.4 18.5 46.4 71.7 33.0 53.2 41.3 23.8 District size Fewer than 1,000 7.7 8.2 2.9 7.7 27.9 2.2 3.4 5.2  1,000–9,999 46.7 44.5 49.3 49.2 42.7 43.1 50.1 74.1  10,000 or more 45.7 47.3 47.8 43.1 29.5 54.7 46.4 20.7 Community type Central city 29.2 31.6 27.5 27.2 17.3 30.2 29.2 13.5  Urban fringe/large town 32.6 31.8 35.0 33.6 19.1 36.3 37.1 26.3  Rural/small town 38.2 36.6 37.6 39.2 63.7 33.6 33.8 60.2 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 38.6 29.0 35.0 58.6 22.8 34.3 32.5 41.6  20 percent or more 61.4 71.0 65.0 41.4 77.2 65.7 67.5 58.4 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 48.8 48.9 44.2 51.0 50.2 42.6 41.0 55.4  20 percent or more 51.2 51.1 55.8 49.0 49.8 57.4 59.0 44.6 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 75.6 73.4 74.3 80.2 74.9 72.2 76.2 80.9  20 percent or more 24.4 26.6 25.7 19.8 25.1 27.8 23.8 19.1 

Grade configurations 

1993–94

School level

of middle schools 
Table 5—Percentage distributions of public school students according to selected school characteristics, by school level and gra

Table 5—middle and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Principal Male 66.9 54.4 71.6 84.6 81.6 70.2 73.1 75.8  Female 33.1 45.6 28.4 15.4 18.4 29.8 26.9 24.2 Principal Minority 18.0 18.8 21.2 15.4 10.2 22.5 21.0 15.6  White, non-Hispanic 82.0 81.2 78.8 84.6 89.8 77.5 79.0 84.4 Region Northeast 17.6 17.5 17.0 18.3 16.8 16.8 13.9 21.6  Midwest 24.0 23.6 21.8 26.4 16.6 18.8 25.4 30.4  South 36.0 35.0 40.3 34.3 52.7 45.3 25.7 37.7  West 22.4 23.9 20.9 21.1 13.9 19.1 35.1 10.3  Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 School size Fewer than 150 2.1 2.3 1.1 1.6 7.0 0.8 2.4 0.4  150–499 31.6 43.9 23.8 13.6 38.4 19.5 28.2 35.9  500–749 27.8 35.5 33.6 13.2 19.8 32.3 33.7 38.8  750 or more 38.6 18.4 41.6 71.7 34.8 47.4 35.7 25.0 District size Fewer than 1,000 7.9 8.6 2.6 6.6 29.6 2.3 2.7 3.6  1,000–9,999 47.5 46.2 50.1 49.2 42.2 42.2 52.5 78.9 

 10,000 or more 44.5 45.1 47.3 44.1 28.2 55.4 44.8 17.4 

of middle schools 

1993–94—Continued

1990–91

School level Grade configurations 
Table 5—Percentage distributions of public school students according to selected school characteristics, by school level and gra

Table 5—middle and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Community type Central city 29.6 31.1 29.6 28.7 16.7 32.3 32.1 14.4  Urban fringe/large town 31.2 31.2 33.1 32.3 15.0 34.0 34.3 27.1  Rural/small town 39.1 37.7 37.3 39.0 68.3 33.7 33.6 58.6 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 41.0 31.2 39.3 60.7 25.7 41.2 39.0 31.4  20 percent or more 59.0 68.8 60.7 39.3 74.3 58.8 61.0 68.6 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 50.0 50.1 44.4 51.4 59.7 43.1 44.2 50.4  20 percent or more 50.0 49.9 55.6 48.6 40.3 56.9 55.8 49.6 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 75.5 73.3 76.9 77.9 80.3 77.2 77.8 74.1  20 percent or more 24.5 26.7 23.1 22.1 19.7 22.8 22.2 25.9 Principal Male 71.9 59.5 79.4 88.2 83.5 76.3 84.6 85.2  Female 28.1 40.5 20.6 11.8 16.5 23.7 15.4 14.8 Principal Minority 16.0 17.4 18.7 13.0 11.6 18.7 18.5 18.7  White, non-Hispanic 84.0 82.6 81.3 87.0 88.4 81.3 81.5 81.3 Region Northeast 17.7 18.0 15.2 17.9 20.6 14.4 15.1 18.9  Midwest 24.0 24.0 23.6 24.8 18.9 20.7 30.4 26.4  South 35.8 34.8 41.1 34.2 44.9 45.2 25.0 47.6  West 22.5 23.2 20.1 23.1 15.5 19.8 29.6 7.2 

School level Grade configurations 

1990–91—Continued

of middle schools 
Table 5—Percentage distributions of public school students according to selected school characteristics, by school level and gra

Table 5—middle and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 School size Fewer than 150 1.9 2.2 0.8 1.1 7.4 0.6 1.0 1.3  150–499 32.2 45.9 27.9 12.4 35.4 21.4 30.9 44.2  500–749 27.3 34.7 33.1 14.5 20.8 32.4 39.1 26.7  750 or more 38.7 17.2 38.1 72.0 36.4 45.5 29.0 27.8 District size Fewer than 1,000 8.0 8.1 2.2 6.9 33.3 1.8 0.9 4.8  1,000–9,999 48.4 47.6 52.8 49.0 40.6 44.9 55.8 72.3 

 10,000 or more 43.6 44.4 45.1 44.1 26.1 53.2 43.3 23.0 Community type Central city 30.7 32.9 29.4 28.8 22.6 35.1 27.4 14.0  Urban fringe/large town 31.8 30.5 34.9 35.1 12.2 35.1 39.6 27.5  Rural/small town 37.5 36.6 35.7 36.1 65.3 29.8 33.1 58.5 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 46.8 35.8 43.8 67.4 31.6 42.7 50.6 37.4  20 percent or more 53.2 64.2 56.2 32.6 68.4 57.3 49.4 62.6 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 53.6 51.8 51.4 55.9 63.4 48.2 52.6 60.1  20 percent or more 46.4 48.2 48.6 44.1 36.6 51.8 47.4 39.9 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 73.6 70.8 74.6 77.4 75.2 73.6 77.7 72.9  20 percent or more 26.4 29.2 25.4 22.6 24.8 26.4 22.3 27.1 

of middle schools 

1987–88

School level Grade configurations 
Table 5—Percentage distributions of public school students according to selected school characteristics, by school level and gra

Table 5—middle and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Principal Male 77.2 67.0 82.8 89.7 85.6 81.4 84.2 85.8  Female 22.8 33.0 17.2 10.3 14.4 18.6 15.8 14.2 Principal Minority 15.5 16.8 18.0 12.9 12.1 18.8 17.8 15.9  White, non-Hispanic 84.5 83.2 82.0 87.1 87.9 81.2 82.2 84.1 Region Northeast 18.5 18.1 16.3 19.4 21.9 15.0 14.1 23.5  South 24.6 24.2 23.9 24.5 30.8 20.7 28.1 28.2  Midwest 36.0 35.3 39.7 35.7 37.3 45.7 27.2 38.9  West 21.0 22.4 20.1 20.5 10.0 18.6 30.6 9.3 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School and Public School Pr1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

of middle schools 

Grade configurations 

1987–88—Continued

School level
Table 6—Percentage distribution of public school teachers according to type of class organization, and

Table 4—average class size for teachers in departments and self-contained classrooms, by school level and

Table 4—grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Percentage of teachers in

Self-contained Team-taught Self-contained

School characteristics Departments classrooms classes Departments classrooms

 Total 51.3 40.5 8.2 23.2 24.1 

School level

 Elementary 9.9 79.0 11.1 (2

) 24.1 

 Middle 78.9 8.6 12.4 24.7 (2

)

 Secondary 91.6 6.1 2.2 22.7 (2

)

 Combined/ungraded only 56.7 36.3 7.0 19.8 24.7 

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 78.6 7.7 13.8 25.0 (2

)

 Grades 7–8 86.2 6.7 7.1 24.4 (2

)

 Other middle 69.2 16.4 14.4 23.6 (2

)

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 89.3 5.5 5.2 24.7 (2

)

 Other secondary 91.8 6.2 2.0 22.5 (2

)

 Total 51.9 41.4 6.6 22.4 24.1 

School level

 Elementary 12.6 78.9 8.6 (2

) 24.1 

 Middle 79.7 9.2 11.1 24.2 (2

)

 Secondary 90.9 7.0 2.0 22.0 (2

)

 Combined/ungraded only 56.4 36.9 6.7 19.0 22.6 

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 78.4 9.0 12.5 24.6 (2

)

 Grades 7–8 87.0 7.9 5.1 23.9 (2

)

 Other middle 73.1 12.6 14.3 23.2 (2

)

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 91.8 5.5 2.6 24.6 (2

)

 Other secondary 90.8 7.2 2.0 21.7 (2

)

Average class size1

 in

1993–94

1990–91

_______

79
Table 6—Percentage distribution of public school teachers according to type of class organization, and

Table 4—average class size for teachers in departments and self-contained classrooms, by school level and

Table 4—grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Percentage of teachers in

Self-contained Team-taught Self-contained

School characteristics Departments classrooms classes Departments classrooms

 Total 53.5 41.4 5.1 23.8 24.5 

School level

 Elementary 18.7 74.2 7.1 (2

) 24.6 

 Middle 81.2 11.4 7.4 24.8 (2

)

 Secondary 87.6 10.6 1.8 23.7 (2

)

 Combined/ungraded only 58.8 37.2 3.9 20.5 23.5 

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 81.2 10.7 8.1 25.3 (2

)

 Grades 7–8 86.8 9.0 4.1 24.4 (2

)

 Other middle 72.3 17.3 10.4 23.6 (2

)

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 88.2 10.0 1.8 24.3 (2

)

 Other secondary 87.5 10.6 1.9 23.7 (

2

)

1

See the technical notes (appendix C) for details on how class size was calculated.

2

Data excluded for teachers at these school levels (see below).

NOTE: Teachers of elementary enrichment and “pull-out” classes (13 percent of all teachers) are excluded from this table, so the

percentage distributions in the first three columns are based on a total of the three class types included. Teachers with special

education as their main assignment field were also excluded from self-contained classroom columns. Percentages may not sum

to 100 due to rounding.

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88

Average class size1

 in

_______

80
Table 7—Percentage of public schools offering various instruction-related services, by school level and

Table 7—grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Gifted

Remedial Remedial and Disa- Bilingual ESL Library/

reading/ mathe- talented bilities Magnet instruc- instruc- Chapter 1 media

School characteristics English matics program services program tion tion services center

 Total 80.9 61.0 70.7 89.2 6.5 17.8 42.7 61.6 95.6 

School level

 Elementary 87.3 59.4 72.2 89.4 6.2 19.0 44.2 74.2 96.5 

 Middle 73.5 61.6 79.3 90.0 6.8 17.7 48.5 50.5 98.3 

 Secondary 69.4 64.4 64.8 88.4 7.5 14.6 37.3 34.2 94.7 

 Combined/ungraded only 71.3 63.3 47.2 86.7 4.7 17.1 27.3 54.7 77.1 

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 74.3 62.6 78.8 90.4 6.2 18.1 51.8 46.4 98.8 

 Grades 7–8 71.0 56.5 77.0 84.5 9.3 15.9 46.9 46.8 99.4 

 Other middle 74.4 64.8 83.7 95.8 5.5 18.9 39.9 68.6 95.3 

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 74.0 64.5 82.6 93.8 3.9 16.0 46.3 41.2 100.0 

 Other secondary 69.1 64.4 63.4 87.9 7.8 14.5 36.6 33.6 94.3 

 Total 80.7 60.3 74.9 85.7 (*) 18.8 40.8 66.5 95.8 

School level

 Elementary 84.7 58.3 76.9 83.9 (*) 20.4 42.0 77.2 96.5 

 Middle 78.1 61.7 83.5 89.6 (*) 19.8 46.7 52.5 98.9 

 Secondary 72.0 64.8 68.4 87.8 (*) 14.2 36.8 43.5 94.5 

 Combined/ungraded only 75.8 62.4 56.6 89.0 (*) 17.3 27.9 67.8 86.1 

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 79.0 63.1 83.2 90.1 (*) 19.7 49.4 50.4 99.6 

 Grades 7–8 74.3 60.1 83.2 90.8 (*) 19.8 44.7 43.7 97.0 

 Other middle 80.7 59.0 85.3 86.1 (*) 20.0 40.6 73.3 99.0 

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 80.4 64.0 84.8 90.9 (*) 20.5 48.6 44.2 97.8 

 Other secondary 71.1 64.9 66.8 87.5 (*) 13.5 35.7 43.4 94.2 

1990–91

1993–94

_______

81
Table 7—Percentage of public schools offering various instruction-related services, by school level and

Table 5—grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Gifted

Remedial Remedial and Disa- Bilingual ESL Library/

reading/ mathe- talented bilities Magnet instruc- instruc- Chapter 1 media

School characteristics English matics program services program tion tion services center

 Total 80.4 60.1 72.5 90.5 (*) 20.0 34.4 59.7 (*)

School level

 Elementary 82.1 55.7 75.6 88.8 (*) 21.0 34.8 71.1 (*)

 Middle 84.9 66.9 82.2 96.7 (*) 22.3 41.4 49.8 (*)

 Secondary 74.7 68.0 65.4 91.9 (*) 16.9 33.7 31.3 (*)

 Combined/ungraded only 75.2 62.8 47.6 91.5 (*) 16.6 19.6 64.5 (*)

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 87.3 69.1 82.5 96.7 (*) 23.6 45.2 49.0 (*)

 Grades 7–8 81.8 70.7 81.0 96.4 (*) 24.0 44.5 38.1 (*)

 Other middle 83.0 56.7 82.9 97.2 (*) 17.0 27.8 66.9 (*)

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 83.6 72.5 84.1 95.8 (*) 19.7 43.4 37.4 (*)

 Other secondary 73.5 67.4 62.9 91.3 (*) 16.6 32.3 30.4 (*)

*Data not collected for these variables in that year.

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

Questionnaire): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88

_______

82
Table 8—Percentage of public schools offering various health-related services, by school level and grade

Table 6—configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Diagnostic

and Drug and Substance Free/

prescriptive Medical alcohol abuse reduced-price

School characteristics services services prevention counseling lunch

 Total 82.6 58.7 93.6 36.2 94.3 

School level

 Elementary 83.3 57.6 95.0 25.6 95.5 

 Middle 82.8 62.8 93.3 49.2 95.6 

 Secondary 80.4 59.2 92.1 56.4 91.6 

 Combined/ungraded only 82.3 58.8 80.6 42.9 84.8 

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 83.7 62.4 93.7 50.1 95.6 

 Grades 7–8 80.7 61.9 91.9 51.6 94.4 

 Other middle 82.5 65.0 93.9 43.1 97.3 

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 79.8 61.2 95.4 57.0 97.7 

 Other secondary 80.4 59.0 91.9 56.3 91.2 

 Total 80.4 (*) (*) (*) 95.5 

School level

 Elementary 81.7 (*) (*) (*) 96.3 

 Middle 79.1 (*) (*) (*) 98.1 

 Secondary 76.7 (*) (*) (*) 93.2 

 Combined/ungraded only 82.8 (*) (*) (*) 88.6 

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 77.7 (*) (*) (*) 99.0 

 Grades 7–8 80.8 (*) (*) (*) 95.5 

 Other middle 81.7 (*) (*) (*) 98.7 

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 85.8 (*) (*) (*) 97.7 

 Other secondary 75.8 (*) (*) (*) 92.8 

1990–91

1993–94

_______

83
Table 8—Percentage of public schools offering various health-related services, by school level and grade

Table 6—configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Diagnostic

and Drug and Substance Free/

prescriptive Medical alcohol abuse reduced-price

School characteristics services services prevention counseling lunch

 Total 72.6 (*) (*) (*) 99.3 

School level

 Elementary 72.4 (*) (*) (*) 99.6 

 Middle 73.9 (*) (*) (*) 99.7 

 Secondary 71.8 (*) (*) (*) 98.4 

 Combined/ungraded only 75.5 (*) (*) (*) 98.6 

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 74.3 (*) (*) (*) 99.7 

 Grades 7–8 75.5 (*) (*) (*) 99.6 

 Other middle 70.8 (*) (*) (*) 100.0 

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 74.4 (*) (*) (*) 99.6 

 Other secondary 71.4 (*) (*) (*) 98.3 

*Data not collected for these variables in that year.

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88

_______

84
Table 9—Percentage of public schools that had decision-making bodies other than school boards, student

Table 9—councils, or PTAs, and percentage of these bodies that included certain groups,* by school level

Table 9—and grade configuration: 1993–94

Percentage of decision-making bodies with:

Percentage Superintendent

of schools or district or

with such Principal or community

a body Teachers vice-principal Parents Students representatives

 Total 55.5 95.2 96.0 79.1 27.6 48.0

School level

 Elementary 55.3 95.5 96.6 82.0 15.0 46.0

 Middle 59.5 96.3 97.4 77.7 35.5 45.9

 Secondary 53.7 94.6 94.2 72.5 56.7 52.8

 Combined/ungraded only 54.2 88.0 90.0 73.6 37.5 64.1

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 61.8 97.9 97.5 79.4 35.7 45.8

 Grades 7–8 57.9 93.5 96.3 76.3 43.7 42.4

 Other middle 54.4 94.3 98.6 73.5 23.3 50.9

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 62.8 97.1 97.8 77.0 50.5 41.0

 Other secondary 53.0 94.4 93.9 72.0 57.3 53.9

*The groups included as response options were teachers, principal, assistant/vice-principal, students, parents, superintendent/

district representative, and other community representatives.

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

Questionnaires): 1993–94.

_______

85
Table 10—Percentage of public schools’ site-based decision-making bodies that had various functions or

Table 10—areas of responsibility, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94

Aids Considers

principal Confers on input on Plans School and

School with budget school curriculum transpor- district

resource or spending personnel or discipline tation liaisons on

issues issues issues issues routes operations

 Total 75.3 66.1 33.6 82.9 4.5 34.0

School level

 Elementary 75.5 69.3 31.9 83.7 4.2 32.1

 Middle 80.5 67.9 36.2 84.2 4.8 36.9

 Secondary 71.6 57.8 34.2 80.9 3.9 36.9

 Combined/ungraded only 70.5 54.4 47.3 76.1 10.7 36.7

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 82.5 69.0 36.8 86.8 4.9 37.8

 Grades 7–8 74.9 62.4 35.2 81.6 6.2 41.3

 Other middle 80.8 71.0 35.4 78.3 — 27.7

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 73.1 59.7 33.0 82.8 2.5 29.6

 Other secondary 71.5 57.6 34.4 80.7 4.0 37.6

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

Questionnaires): 1993–94.

Areas of responsibility

_______

86
Table 11—Percentage of public school principals who reported that they had a lot of influence1

 on decisions 

Table 11—in various school management areas, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91,

Table 11—and 1987–88

Determining

School Hiring the content Setting

budget full-time Establishing of inservice Teacher discipline

School characteristics decisions teachers curriculum training evaluation policy

 Total 63.5 84.6 53.9 72.4 94.5 86.9

School level

 Elementary 64.1 82.7 50.8 72.2 94.5 85.3

 Middle 65.3 88.0 58.4 74.8 94.9 87.4

 Secondary 60.0 87.9 59.1 71.2 95.1 90.1

 Combined/ungraded only 65.6 82.1 57.6 73.3 93.4 86.3

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 66.8 87.8 56.7 71.7 94.5 85.6

 Grades 7–8 60.7 86.5 53.0 77.2 96.0 89.0

 Other middle 66.1 90.8 70.6 81.4 94.9 91.1

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 65.2 86.0 52.9 70.9 95.5 88.0

 Other secondary 59.6 88.1 59.6 71.2 95.1 90.3

 Total (2

) 81.4 49.1 (2) (2) 84.5

School level

 Elementary (2

) 79.9 46.9 (2) (2) 83.6

 Middle (2

) 83.7 46.4 (2) (2) 84.8

 Secondary (2

) 85.4 55.8 (2) (2) 88.3

 Combined/ungraded only (2

) 77.8 56.2 (2) (2) 82.7

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 (2

) 84.1 45.8 (2) (2) 83.7

 Grades 7–8 (2

) 82.0 43.2 (2) (2) 88.1

 Other middle (2

) 85.0 53.4 (2) (2) 83.7

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 (2

) 82.8 40.4 (2) (2) 83.7

 Other secondary (2

) 85.6 57.3 (2) (2) 88.7

1993–94

1990–91

_______

87
Table 11—Percentage of public school principals who reported that they had a lot of influence1

 on decisions 

Table 11—in various school management areas, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91,

Table 11—and 1987–88—Continued

Determining

School Hiring the content Setting

budget full-time Establishing of inservice Teacher discipline

School characteristics decisions teachers curriculum training evaluation policy

 Total (2) 75.1 54.4 (2) (2) 80.6

School level

 Elementary (2

) 72.8 50.6 (2) (2) 79.0

 Middle (2) 79.2 53.7 (2) (2) 83.1

 Secondary (2

) 79.7 62.3 (2) (2) 83.5

 Combined/ungraded only (2

) 75.2 65.2 (2) (2) 80.8

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 (2

) 76.9 52.8 (2) (2) 81.4

 Grades 7–8 (2

) 81.5 56.0 (2) (2) 86.0

 Other middle (2

) 82.0 52.7 (2) (2) 83.2

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 (2

) 75.3 46.7 (2) (2) 81.4

 Other secondary (

2

) 80.3 64.4 (

2

) (2) 83.8

1

Ratings of influence are counted as “a lot” if respondents marked one of the highest two numbers (5 or 6) on a 6-point scale. 2

Data not collected for these variables in that year.

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

and Public School Principal Questionnaires): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88

_______

88
Table 12—Percentage of public school teachers who reported that teachers had a lot of influence1

 on

Table 12—decisions in various school management areas, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94,

Table 12—1990–91, and 1987–88

Determining

School Hiring the content Setting

budget full-time Establishing of inservice Teacher discipline

School characteristics decisions teachers curriculum training evaluation policy

 Total 10.1 8.1 34.3 30.6 2.7 34.9

School level

 Elementary 12.1 9.3 32.1 32.7 2.6 42.2

 Middle 9.8 9.0 36.3 28.3 2.4 31.4

 Secondary 7.2 6.0 37.6 28.5 3.0 25.0

 Combined/ungraded only 9.7 8.7 36.5 31.4 3.2 35.6

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 11.1 9.5 36.7 28.2 2.6 30.6

 Grades 7–8 8.1 7.3 36.3 29.1 2.5 32.0

 Other middle 6.5 8.6 34.6 27.7 1.5 33.6

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 8.7 5.7 32.2 29.7 2.4 28.8

 Other secondary 7.1 6.0 38.0 28.4 3.1 24.7

 Total (2

) (2) 35.2 32.9 (2) 37.0

School level

 Elementary (2

) (2) 32.5 35.2 (2) 46.1

 Middle (2

) (2) 34.8 28.4 (2) 31.4

 Secondary (2

) (2) 39.4 31.2 (2) 25.9

 Combined/ungraded only (2

) (2) 38.5 33.1 (2) 38.7

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 (2

) (2) 35.4 28.4 (2) 31.9

 Grades 7–8 (2

) (2) 33.3 28.0 (2) 31.6

 Other middle (2

) (2) 34.4 29.3 (2) 28.8

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 (2

) (2) 32.3 28.7 (2) 31.0

 Other secondary (2

) (2) 40.1 31.4 (2) 25.4

1990–91

1993–94

_______

89
Table 12—Percentage of public school teachers who reported that teachers had a lot of influence1

 on

Table 12—decisions in various school management areas, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94,

Table 12—1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Determining

School Hiring the content Setting

budget full-time Establishing of inservice Teacher discipline

School characteristics decisions teachers curriculum training evaluation policy

 Total (2) (2) 35.0 31.1 (2) 34.9

School level

 Elementary (2

) (2) 32.9 33.7 (2) 45.3

 Middle (2) (2) 35.0 28.7 (2) 30.8

 Secondary (2

) (2) 37.2 28.3 (2) 21.9

 Combined/ungraded only (2

) (2) 40.3 32.2 (2) 35.5

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 (2

) (2) 33.9 29.5 (2) 30.2

 Grades 7–8 (2

) (2) 36.6 28.0 (2) 31.0

 Other middle (2

) (2) 36.2 27.3 (2) 32.5

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 (2

) (2) 32.9 28.6 (2) 26.2

 Other secondary (

2

) (2) 37.7 28.2 (

2

) 21.3

1

Ratings of influence are counted as “a lot” if respondents marked one of the highest two numbers (5 or 6) on a 6-point scale. 2

Data not collected for these variables in that year.

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88

_______

90
Table 13—Percentage distribution of public school teachers according to type of certification they had in 

Table 13—their main and other assignment field, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94

Provisional, Provisional,

probationary, probationary,

Regular temporary, No Regular temporary, No

or alter- or certifi- or alter- or certifiSchool characteristics Advanced native* emergency cation Advanced native* emergency cation

 Total 14.8 76.1 5.5 3.6 7.8 48.8 3.8 39.6

School level

 Elementary 13.9 78.0 5.0 3.1 7.1 45.0 3.9 44.1

 Middle 14.5 72.4 6.8 6.2 6.3 47.7 3.6 42.4

 Secondary 16.2 75.7 5.4 2.7 9.3 52.7 4.1 34.0

 Combined/ungraded only 14.9 73.5 7.4 4.2 7.3 45.2 3.6 43.8

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 14.6 70.7 7.4 7.2 6.5 45.1 4.0 44.4

 Grades 7–8 13.7 75.9 5.9 4.6 4.6 51.5 3.5 40.4

 Other middle 15.4 75.1 5.5 3.9 6.9 55.4 1.7 36.0

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 13.4 78.3 5.0 3.3 12.2 50.6 3.2 33.9

 Other secondary 16.4 75.5 5.4 2.6 9.0 52.9 4.1 34.0

*Only about 1 percent of public school teachers had alternative certification in their main assignment field in 1993–94. U.S. Department

of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993–94

(NCES 96–124), Robin Henke, Susan Choy, and Sonya Geis (Washington, DC: 1996), 58.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

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

Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1993–94.

Certification in main assignment field Certification in other assignment field

_______

91
Table 14—Percentage distribution of public middle and secondary school core subject teachers in 

Table 11—departments according to type of certification in their main assignment field, by field and

Table 11—school level: 1993–94

Provisional,

probationary,

Regular or temporary, No

Field and school level Advanced alternative* or emergency certification

 Total 15.7 75.2 5.5 3.6

Mathematics 14.0 75.6 6.6 3.9

 Middle schools 12.9 72.3 7.9 6.9

 Secondary schools 14.4 77.1 6.0 2.5

Science 15.6 75.0 5.1 4.3

 Middle schools 16.7 72.1 3.5 7.7

 Secondary schools 15.1 76.3 5.8 2.8

English 17.5 73.9 5.0 3.6

 Middle schools 16.4 68.7 7.7 7.2

 Secondary schools 18.2 76.9 3.4 1.5

Social science 15.7 76.3 4.8 3.2

 Middle schools 10.8 76.3 6.5 6.5

 Secondary schools 17.8 76.3 4.1 1.8

Foreign language 13.9 75.1 7.2 3.8

 Middle schools 9.4 71.4 11.8 7.4

 Secondary schools 14.9 76.0 6.2 2.9

*Only about 1 percent of public school teachers had alternative certification in their main assignment field in 1993–94. U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical 

Profile, 1993–94 (NCES 96–124), Robin Henke, Susan Choy, and Sonya Geis (Washington, DC: 1996), 58.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Only teachers of departmentalized classes in middle and secondary

schools are included in this table.

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1993–94.

_______

92
Table 15—Percentage distributions of public school teachers according to highest degree earned and years

Table 15—of teaching experience, and average years of experience, by school level and grade configuration:

Table 15—1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Higher

than a

Bachelor’s master’s 3 or fewer 4–9 10–19 20 or more Average

School characteristics or less* Master’s degree years years years years years

 Total 52.7 42.0 5.3 12.2 20.6 31.8 35.4 15.2

School level

 Elementary 55.5 40.0 4.6 12.0 21.7 32.6 33.7 14.9

 Middle 52.5 42.1 5.5 13.6 21.4 31.8 33.2 14.6

 Secondary 47.8 46.0 6.2 11.2 18.3 30.8 39.8 16.1

 Combined/ungraded only 55.8 37.8 6.4 15.1 22.4 32.6 29.9 13.9

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 52.9 41.6 5.5 14.9 21.3 32.4 31.5 14.2

 Grades 7–8 53.0 41.2 5.8 11.3 22.5 31.7 34.5 15.0

 Other middle 49.6 45.5 4.9 11.0 20.4 29.4 39.2 15.9

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 55.6 40.1 4.3 12.2 22.4 32.3 33.1 14.8

 Other secondary 47.2 46.4 6.4 11.1 18.0 30.7 40.3 16.2

 Total 54.6 40.0 5.4 10.7 19.9 37.1 32.4 15.1

School level

 Elementary 58.6 36.8 4.6 11.6 20.6 38.0 29.8 14.6

 Middle 52.2 42.7 5.0 10.9 20.3 36.0 32.8 15.1

 Secondary 49.5 43.8 6.6 8.8 18.0 36.5 36.6 16.0

 Combined/ungraded only 55.5 38.6 5.9 13.3 22.7 37.1 26.9 13.8

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 53.3 42.1 4.6 11.4 21.4 34.6 32.6 14.9

 Grades 7–8 50.6 43.1 6.4 11.0 18.0 38.0 33.0 15.6

 Other middle 50.3 44.8 5.0 8.8 19.3 38.6 33.3 15.4

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 51.5 42.6 5.8 11.1 20.8 39.5 28.6 14.5

 Other secondary 49.4 44.0 6.7 8.6 17.8 36.2 37.4 16.2

Highest degree Years of experience

1993–94

1990–91

_______

93
Table 15—Percentage distributions of public school teachers according to highest degree earned and years

Table 15—of teaching experience, and average years of experience, by school level and grade configuration:

Table 15—1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Higher

than a

Bachelor’s master’s 3 or fewer 4–9 10–19 20 or more Average

School characteristics or less* Master’s degree years years years years years

 Total 52.8 40.1 7.1 9.9 20.8 42.3 27.0 14.6

School level

 Elementary 57.1 36.9 6.0 10.4 21.7 42.5 25.4 14.2

 Middle 50.2 42.2 7.6 8.4 20.1 43.9 27.6 14.9

 Secondary 47.4 44.5 8.0 9.0 19.4 41.9 29.6 15.1

 Combined/ungraded only 58.3 35.3 6.4 12.6 24.8 40.1 22.6 13.4

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 48.7 43.2 8.1 7.4 20.8 44.0 27.8 14.9

 Grades 7–8 49.8 42.1 8.1 8.7 19.2 42.4 29.6 15.2

 Other middle 55.5 39.4 5.0 10.5 19.6 45.6 24.3 14.4

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 51.4 42.2 6.4 10.1 20.5 42.6 26.8 14.3

 Other secondary 46.9 44.8 8.2 8.9 19.2 41.9 30.0 15.2

*Only 0.7 percent of public school teachers had attained less than a bachelor’s degree in 1993–94. U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Educational Statistics, Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1993–94 (NCES 96–124),

Robin Henke, Susan Choy, and Sonya Geis (Washington, DC: 1996), 54.

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

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

Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88

Highest degree Years of experience

_______

94
Table 16—Percentage of teachers who participated in an inservice or professional development program 

Table 16—that focused on various topics since the end of the last school year, by school level and grade 

Table 16—configuration: 1993–94

Uses of Cooperative 

educational Methods of In-depth learning

technology for teaching in study in Student in the

School characteristics instruction their fields their subject assessment classroom

 Total 49.4 64.0 30.1 51.4 50.9

School level

 Elementary 48.4 71.5 32.4 55.7 51.8

 Middle 50.4 59.2 29.0 50.2 52.2

 Secondary 50.8 54.5 27.2 45.2 48.4

 Combined/ungraded only 46.6 60.1 26.5 44.8 47.3

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 50.6 58.6 28.8 49.9 52.3

 Grades 7–8 49.1 58.2 29.4 48.8 51.6

 Other middle 51.3 63.5 29.4 53.2 52.2

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 48.8 55.2 23.8 47.3 51.6

 Other secondary 51.0 54.4 27.5 45.1 48.2

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1993–94.

_______

95
Table 17—Of public school teachers who had participated in recent inservice training on various topics,1

Table 17—the percentages who agreed2 with a range of statements about the training’s effects, by school

Table 17—level and grade configuration: 1993–94

Caused me Caused Changed

Provided to seek more change in my Generally

information information my teaching views on a waste

School characteristics new to me or training practices teaching of time

 Total 84.9 62.6 64.7 41.8 10.5 

School level

 Elementary 86.1 65.4 68.3 44.0 8.3 

 Middle 83.5 61.5 64.2 42.0 11.4 

 Secondary 83.6 58.8 59.1 38.5 13.7 

 Combined/ungraded only 83.9 61.0 61.4 40.4 11.0 

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 83.9 61.3 64.7 42.3 11.0 

 Grades 7–8 81.4 62.8 63.7 40.9 12.1 

 Other middle 84.5 60.6 62.9 41.8 12.2 

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 81.0 56.4 59.3 38.7 13.0 

 Other secondary 83.8 59.0 59.0 38.4 13.8 

1

The five topics were the uses of educational technology, teaching methods in their subject, in-depth study of their subject,

student assessment, and cooperative learning in the classroom.

2

Teachers who reported that they agreed or strongly agreed with the statements are included in this table. Other response options 

were “no opinion,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.”

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1993–94.

_______

96
Table 18—Percentage distributions of public school principals according to highest degree earned and

Table 13—years of experience as a principal, and average years of experience, by school level and grade

Table 13—configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Master’s or Doctorate 10 or At

Bachelor’s education or 3 or more current 

School characteristics or less* specialist professional fewer 4–9 years years Total school

 Total 1.4 63.4 35.2 22.8 37.5 39.7 9.6 6.0

School level

 Elementary 1.7 64.1 34.2 21.7 37.4 40.9 10.1 6.0

 Middle 0.9 65.9 33.1 27.0 35.0 38.0 9.0 5.8

 Secondary 1.0 61.8 37.2 22.8 38.8 38.4 9.1 6.0

 Combined/ungraded only 2.6 60.2 37.2 29.1 37.4 33.6 8.5 5.3

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 0.7 66.3 33.0 29.0 33.2 37.8 9.0 5.9

 Grades 7–8 2.3 72.0 25.7 22.8 41.7 35.5 8.7 5.6

 Other middle — 56.9 43.1 25.9 32.3 41.8 9.4 5.7

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 — 55.2 44.8 32.1 36.7 31.2 8.1 5.4

 Other secondary 1.1 62.4 36.6 22.1 39.0 39.0 9.2 6.1

 Total 1.8 60.5 37.6 21.1 34.6 44.3 10.3 6.7

School level

 Elementary 1.8 60.8 37.4 20.2 34.7 45.1 10.7 6.7

 Middle 1.6 61.8 36.6 22.5 33.2 44.3 9.9 6.8

 Secondary 1.7 60.4 37.9 20.0 35.9 44.1 10.0 6.9

 Combined/ungraded only 3.4 56.2 40.4 31.0 32.3 36.6 9.1 6.0

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 0.9 61.3 37.8 23.0 33.4 43.6 9.7 6.9

 Grades 7–8 0.8 66.5 32.7 18.6 37.2 44.2 10.1 6.4

 Other middle — 56.5 38.4 26.5 26.4 47.0 10.4 7.0

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 — 57.2 42.7 14.7 41.7 43.5 10.3 7.0

 Other secondary 1.8 60.7 37.4 20.5 35.4 44.2 10.0 6.9

1990–91

1993–94

Years of experience Average 

Highest degree earned years as principal as principal

_______

97
Table 18—Percentage distributions of public school principals according to highest degree earned and

Table 13—years of experience as a principal, and average years of experience, by school level and grade

Table 13—configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Master’s or Doctorate 10 or At

Bachelor’s education or 3 or more current 

School characteristics or less* specialist professional fewer 4–9 years years Total school

 Total 2.4 53.4 44.1 18.8 32.4 48.8 11.0 7.2

School level

 Elementary 2.9 54.6 42.4 18.4 31.0 50.5 11.5 7.3

 Middle 0.4 54.9 44.7 21.8 30.5 47.7 10.4 7.4

 Secondary 1.4 49.4 49.2 16.7 35.5 47.8 10.3 7.3

 Combined/ungraded only 5.4 51.6 43.0 22.5 36.7 40.8 9.4 6.8

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 — 52.8 47.2 20.6 29.0 50.3 10.7 7.6

 Grades 7–8 — 59.9 39.1 20.5 32.4 47.1 10.8 7.4

 Other middle — 53.4 46.2 26.5 31.5 41.9 9.3 7.1

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 — 48.4 51.2 18.7 32.4 48.9 10.7 7.0

 Other secondary 1.5 49.5 49.0 16.5 35.9 47.6 10.3 7.4

—Too few sample observations for a reliable estimate.

*Fewer than 1 percent of public school principals had attained less than a bachelor’s degree in 1993–94. 

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

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

Public School Principal Questionnaires): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88

Years of experience Average 

Highest degree earned as principal years as principal

_______

98
Table 19—Percentage of principals who had received various types of training for school administration, 

Table 14—by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Training or

development Inservice None of 

program for training in Training in Adminis- these

aspiring evaluation and management trative types of

School characteristics principals supervision techniques internship training

 Total 38.9 86.5 74.7 41.2 7.5

School level

 Elementary 39.5 86.8 74.7 40.5 7.5

 Middle 38.4 86.1 72.8 45.3 6.7

 Secondary 36.6 86.6 74.9 40.3 7.7

 Combined/ungraded only 39.9 85.7 74.7 47.0 8.3

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 39.5 86.8 73.2 47.2 6.6

 Grades 7–8 37.1 86.3 75.5 44.7 6.7

 Other middle 36.6 83.8 68.0 39.8 6.8

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 42.0 82.2 74.7 49.4 6.5

 Other secondary 36.2 87.0 75.0 39.6 7.8

 Total 35.9 87.4 74.4 37.5 7.1

School level

 Elementary 36.9 86.8 73.2 37.3 7.7

 Middle 35.8 88.3 76.7 36.7 5.0

 Secondary 33.2 88.6 75.6 38.3 6.9

 Combined/ungraded only 31.3 88.3 76.9 38.9 5.3

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 36.5 88.8 79.1 38.7 4.9

 Grades 7–8 34.0 86.4 71.0 39.2 6.0

 Other middle 36.2 89.3 77.0 26.0 4.1

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 44.9 93.2 80.6 43.8 3.7

 Other secondary 32.1 88.1 75.1 37.8 7.2

Other training

1990–91

1993–94

_______

99
Table 19—Percentage of principals who had received various types of training for school administration, 

Table 14—by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Training or

development Inservice None of 

program for training in Training in Adminis- these

aspiring evaluation and management trative types of

School characteristics principals supervision techniques internship training

 Total (*) 89.3 73.6 36.9 6.5

School level

 Elementary (*) 89.0 72.3 36.6 6.5

 Middle (*) 89.7 75.5 33.3 6.7

 Secondary (*) 89.8 75.7 37.4 6.4

 Combined/ungraded only (*) 88.3 68.2 39.6 7.7

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 (*) 92.0 80.2 33.6 5.0

 Grades 7–8 (*) 86.4 70.4 34.2 9.1

 Other middle (*) 88.5 70.6 31.4 7.9

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 (*) 91.5 74.8 39.7 6.3

 Other secondary (*) 89.6 75.9 37.2 6.4

*Data not collected for this variable in that year.

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

and Public School Principal Questionnaires): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88

Other training

_______

100
Table 20—Percentage of public schools with teaching vacancies that found them very difficult or impossible 

Table 20—to fill, and percentage that used various strategies for filling them, by school level and grade 

Table 20—configuration: 1993–94

Percent

with Assigned

great Hired other 

difficulty Hired less than Used teacher Expanded Increased 

filling qualified qualified substitute or admin- class teaching

School characteristics vacancies teacher teacher teacher istrator sizes loads Other

 Total 23.3 94.8 7.4 15.1 5.2 5.8 31.9 3.4 

School level

 Elementary 15.7 94.6 5.8 13.5 2.8 4.7 2.2 2.4 

 Middle 31.2 94.7 7.7 18.3 8.1 5.3 52.7 3.3 

 Secondary 34.4 96.0 9.9 15.9 7.9 8.2 88.9 4.6 

 Combined/ungraded only 36.1 90.8 14.3 21.5 11.8 9.6 37.2 11.1 

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 31.1 93.3 7.3 20.6 8.9 5.0 50.9 2.5 

 Grades 7–8 36.0 96.8 10.2 16.7 8.0 7.4 79.0 4.2 

 Other middle 24.8 96.9 5.8 12.0 5.3 3.7 23.4 4.8 

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 35.8 93.9 10.7 21.1 11.0 8.5 81.6 2.1 

 Other secondary 34.3 96.1 9.8 15.4 7.6 8.2 89.5 4.8 

NOTE: The base for each column is schools that had at least one teaching vacancy. Column 1 contains the percentages of

schools reporting a vacancy that was very difficult or impossible to fill. (Other options were “somewhat difficult” and “easy” to

fill.) The other columns contain the percentages of schools that used one of the specified methods to fill any vacancy

(percentages may sum to more than 100 because schools could use more than one method).

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

Questionnaires): 1993–94.

Methods used to fill vacancies

_______

101
Table 21—Ratio of students per full-time-equivalent teacher in public schools, and percentage of public 

Table 21—schools with librarians and counselors, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94

Students per Librarians or

School characteristics FTE teacher media specialists Counselors

 Total 17.0 99.8 79.7 

School level

 Elementary 17.9 100.0 71.7 

 Middle 16.5 99.9 94.4 

 Secondary 15.7 99.5 94.5 

 Combined/ungraded only 12.6 99.8 67.8 

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 16.6 100.0 96.9 

 Grades 7–8 16.2 99.5 92.1 

 Other middle 16.3 100.0 89.3 

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 17.1 100.0 99.1 

 Other secondary 15.6 99.4 94.1 

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1993–94.

Percentage of schools with:

_______

102
Table 22—Percentage distribution of public school teachers according to their teaching status the following

Table 22—school year, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Stayed at Moved to

School characteristics same school different school Left teaching

 Total 86.3 7.2 6.6 

School level

 Elementary 86.2 7.4 6.4 

 Middle 82.8 8.9 8.3 

 Secondary 87.6 5.7 6.7 

 Combined/ungraded only 87.8 7.0 5.2 

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 80.5 10.8 8.6 

 Grades 7–8 86.9 6.4 6.7 

 Other middle 85.6 4.9 9.4 

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 84.5 8.7 6.8 

 Other secondary 87.8 5.5 6.7 

 Total 87.6 7.3 5.1 

School level

 Elementary 86.4 8.3 5.3 

 Middle 86.1 8.0 5.9 

 Secondary 90.1 5.2 4.7 

 Combined/ungraded only 85.9 8.7 5.4 

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 85.6 8.2 6.3 

 Grades 7–8 84.7 8.7 6.6 

 Other middle 91.1 6.1 2.8 

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 90.2 5.7 4.2 

 Other secondary 90.1 5.2 4.8 

1990–91

1993–94

_______

103
Table 22—Percentage distribution of public school teachers according to their teaching status the following

Table 22—school year, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Stayed at Moved to

School characteristics same school different school Left teaching

 Total 86.5 7.9 5.6 

School level

 Elementary 85.6 9.1 5.3 

 Middle 88.7 7.0 4.3 

 Secondary 87.9 6.5 5.6 

 Combined/ungraded only 87.5 5.6 6.9 

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 90.2 5.8 4.0 

 Grades 7–8 90.4 5.9 3.7 

 Other middle 78.6 14.5 6.9 

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 86.0 8.6 5.4 

 Other secondary 88.1 6.3 5.6 

NOTE: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-Up Survey: 1988–89, 

1991–92, and 1994–95.

1987–88

_______

104
Table 23—Percentage of public school principals who rated various goals as one of their top three, by school

Table 23—level and grade configuration: 1993–94

Good work Occupa- MultiBasic Academic habits/ Human tional/ cultural Specific

literacy excel- self- Personal relations vocational aware- moral

skills lence discipline growth skills skills ness values

 Total 72.1 62.9 57.7 50.3 24.3 15.2 11.2 6.3

School level

 Elementary 76.7 60.9 58.7 53.8 24.5 7.6 11.9 6.0

 Middle 68.4 65.2 58.4 50.8 25.5 15.1 9.2 7.5

 Secondary 63.0 67.3 56.3 42.5 22.9 31.8 9.9 6.5

 Combined/ungraded onl 69.9 51.1 55.1 45.0 20.4 40.6 9.0 9.0

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 68.1 67.6 59.1 47.6 26.1 14.5 9.6 7.4

 Grades 7–8 67.5 61.1 56.9 53.8 26.2 19.2 7.4 7.8

 Other middle 70.4 62.6 57.7 57.1 22.5 12.0 10.5 7.2

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 67.6 60.6 57.4 46.0 28.8 19.3 11.1 9.1

 Other secondary 62.6 67.8 56.2 42.2 22.4 32.9 9.8 6.2

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

and Public School Principal Questionnaires): 1993–94.

_______

105
Table 24—Percentage of public school teachers who had their students engage in various activities in class at least once a week

Table 24—grade configuration: 1994–95

Work on

Confer with problems

Lead or Respond Work on other with several Exp

participate in orally to Used printed group students or answers betw

whole-group open-ended material other projects or evaluate or methods lear

School characteristics discussions questions than textbooks presentations their work of solution rea Total 82.2 85.4 78.8 37.1 69.8 66.2 School level Elementary 89.1 91.0 85.2 37.1 71.4 72.3  Middle 79.4 80.2 75.0 37.2 66.4 60.6  Secondary 74.3 81.2 69.9 35.5 68.4 60.5  Combined/ungraded only 74.1 82.9 80.0 30.1 62.8 55.6 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 77.8 77.7 77.4 42.1 72.3 66.2 

 Grades 7–8 85.8 84.5 68.3 23.8 64.4 55.2 

 Other middle 76.2 83.3 75.9 38.6 47.7 47.7 Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 72.8 78.4 86.8 18.1 60.4 50.6 

 Other secondary 74.4 81.4 69.0 36.4 68.8 61.1 

*Much of the variation in frequency of using particular instructional practices between elementary and higher grade levels likely stems from the greatelementary teachers spend each week with their students. For a fuller explanation, see the Instructional Practices section.NOTE: Only teachers who taught at the same school in 1994–95 as the previous year are included in this table (these “stayers” constituted 86 percent school teachers). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey: 1994–95.
Table 25—Percentage of public school teachers who emphasized specific skills at least once a week, by school

Table 25—level* and grade configuration: 1994–95

Organizing,

Analyzing and summarizing,

Generalizing from interpreting or displaying

School characteristics patterns or examples information information

 Total 76.8 81.7 78.1

School level

 Elementary 80.8 84.5 80.6

 Middle 70.9 79.7 77.5

 Secondary 75.0 81.5 76.6

 Combined/ungraded only 83.3 72.7 75.2

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 69.0 80.1 76.5

 Grades 7–8 71.9 77.8 75.9

 Other middle 76.6 80.6 83.7

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 59.2 63.9 66.3

 Other secondary 75.8 82.4 77.1

*Much of the variation in frequency of using particular instructional practices between elementary and higher grade levels

likely stems from the greater amount of time that most elementary teachers spend each week with their students. For a fuller

explanation, see the Instructional Practices section.

NOTE: Only teachers who taught at the same school in 1994–95 as the previous year are included in this table (these “stayers”

constituted 86 percent of all 1993–94 public school teachers). 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey: 1994–95.

_______

107
Table 26—Percentage of public school teachers who assigned their students various homework activities at 

Table 26—least once a week, by school level and grade configuration: 1994–95

Work on Work on

problems Apply project,

with no concepts gather

Prepare obvious to data, or Write Write

written Prepare method of unfamiliar conduct journal short 

School characteristics report oral report solution situation experiment entry assignment

 Total 14.1 8.3 12.9 42.2 22.7 28.3 43.8 

School level

 Elementary 12.6 9.7 13.5 36.2 22.1 34.1 47.6 

 Middle 13.9 7.0 17.3 46.7 20.7 29.5 45.7 

 Secondary 17.5 6.2 11.9 49.1 22.6 21.6 39.6 

 Combined/ungraded only 6.3 — 7.7 52.6 22.5 16.9 37.5 

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 12.3 7.1 20.8 48.8 21.6 28.1 42.7 

 Grades 7–8 20.5 10.5 16.9 46.0 17.6 30.2 57.0 

 Other middle 10.4 — — 40.4 21.7 33.3 40.8 

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 8.4 — 8.7 34.7 25.4 16.7 36.7 

 Other secondary 18.0 6.2 12.1 49.8 22.4 21.8 39.7 

—Too few sample observations for a reliable estimate.

NOTE: Only teachers who taught at the same school in 1994–95 as the previous year are included in this table (these “stayers”

constituted 86 percent of all 1993–94 public school teachers). 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey: 1994–95.

_______

108
Table 27—Percentage of public school teachers who agreed1 with various statements about their schools, by school level and gr

Table 27—1993–94 and 1987–882

Principal I try to Principal Paperwor

Teachers I receive Adminis- enforces coordinate makes Principal routine 

participate a great tration’s school course Teachers expec- does poor duties 

in important deal of behavior is rules, content are tations job of interfere 

educational parent supportive, backs with other evaluated for staff getting with my 

School characteristics decisions support ncouraging me up teachers fairly clear resources teaching  Total 58.3 52.5 79.2 80.8 85.0 87.9 85.6 16.2 70.8 School level Elementary 64.3 61.3 80.9 83.1 89.1 88.9 87.3 14.8 71.3  Middle 56.9 47.0 79.6 78.0 83.3 87.6 85.5 16.4 69.1  Secondary 49.7 43.0 76.7 78.7 79.7 86.5 83.4 18.2 71.8  Combined/ungraded only 58.4 47.4 77.0 81.4 82.9 85.3 82.1 19.6 65.7 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 57.2 46.0 80.8 78.3 83.8 87.3 86.1 16.3 70.7 

 Grades 7–8 56.2 45.0 78.7 78.5 80.4 88.3 85.6 16.9 67.1 

 Other middle 56.8 54.8 75.0 75.6 85.3 87.9 82.4 15.8 64.6 Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 53.0 48.3 79.8 80.1 79.9 88.2 87.6 15.7 70.6 

 Other secondary 49.4 42.6 76.4 78.6 79.7 86.4 83.1 18.4 71.8 

1993–94
Table 27—Percentage of public school teachers who agreed1 with various statements about their schools, by school level and gr

Table 27—1993–94 and 1987–882—Continued

Principal I try to Principal Paperwor

Teachers I receive Adminis- enforces coordinate makes Principal routine 

participate a great tration’s school course Teachers expec- does poor duties 

in important deal of behavior is rules, content are tations job of interfere 

educational parent supportive, backs with other evaluated for staff getting with my 

School characteristics decisions support ncouraging me up teachers fairly clear resources teaching  Total 56.1 58.4 78.6 83.1 86.1 84.2 85.9 17.3 73.8 School level Elementary 62.9 64.8 80.9 85.3 89.6 86.2 87.7 15.8 73.9  Middle 55.5 53.8 77.3 81.2 82.4 82.2 85.1 17.2 72.2  Secondary 47.2 51.0 76.6 81.3 82.4 82.6 84.5 19.1 74.6  Combined/ungraded only 55.8 59.6 77.0 81.1 85.6 82.5 82.3 19.4 69.9 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 55.7 54.1 77.8 80.6 82.0 81.6 84.8 18.7 73.5 

 Grades 7–8 54.4 51.8 75.6 79.9 82.2 82.2 84.6 16.7 69.4 

 Other middle 56.4 56.0 78.1 84.7 84.2 83.6 86.8 13.2 72.2 Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 50.6 53.2 79.1 82.7 80.3 85.7 86.3 18.4 74.5 

 Other secondary 46.8 50.7 76.3 81.1 82.7 82.2 84.2 19.2 74.6 

1Teachers were included in this table if they said they “strongly agreed” or “somewhat agreed” with the statements. The other two response options w

and “strongly disagreed.”

2Only one of the column variables was included in the 1990–91 questionnaire, so data from that year are not shown.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School and Public School Te

1987–88 and 1993–94.

1987–88
Table 28—Percentage of public school teachers who were satisfied with particular aspects of their teaching job, by school level 

Table 28—configuration: 1994–95, 1991–92, and 1988–89

Availability Recognition Influence

of resources/ and support over 

Overall job Teaching materials/ from Intellectual policy, Caliber of Professional 

School characteristics satisfaction load equipment administrators challenge practices colleagues prestige  Total 80.6 59.8 58.6 61.6 86.6 52.6 85.0 55.2 School level Elementary 84.0 56.8 62.3 63.5 89.5 55.7 87.6 59.4  Middle 76.9 63.6 57.1 62.0 81.9 49.5 83.1 50.8  Secondary 78.2 63.7 55.4 59.6 84.1 51.0 81.0 53.2  Combined/ungraded only 79.9 55.8 50.8 63.8 74.2 59.5 90.3 52.4 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 77.5 66.0 55.2 60.3 81.1 47.8 81.4 51.7  Grades 7–8 75.3 63.7 61.4 62.0 81.6 50.8 82.9 44.8  Other middle 76.9 54.8 58.2 68.6 84.9 53.9 89.7 56.1 Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 79.4 43.2 50.2 45.4 91.3 37.7 92.4 57.0  Other secondary 78.1 64.8 55.7 60.4 83.7 51.7 80.4 53.0  Total 80.1 57.3 59.9 58.5 85.6 50.3 86.2 53.3 School level Elementary 82.6 54.0 60.0 63.0 89.3 54.4 88.5 57.1  Middle 77.4 60.6 56.6 57.5 84.1 44.4 86.7 52.1  Secondary 77.6 61.9 63.6 51.8 80.7 46.2 82.5 48.5  Combined/ungraded only 75.3 59.1 61.1 57.0 82.3 56.6 87.2 54.4 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 76.2 62.8 58.3 54.8 82.0 43.3 85.8 50.6  Grades 7–8 74.1 55.9 46.9 56.2 88.5 44.7 90.4 50.4  Other middle 87.6 58.9 64.6 70.3 85.7 48.4 84.9 61.1 Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 83.9 63.4 58.9 49.4 74.9 41.1 84.0 37.0  Other secondary 76.9 61.7 64.0 52.0 81.2 46.7 82.3 49.6 

1991–92

1994–95
Table 28—Percentage of public school teachers who were satisfied with particular aspects of their teaching job, by school level 

Table 28—configuration: 1994–95, 1991–92, and 1988–89—Continued

Availability Recognition Influence

of resources/ and support over 

Overall job Teaching materials/ from Intellectual policy, Caliber of Professional 

School characteristics satisfaction load equipment administrators challenge practices colleagues prestige  Total (*) 61.8 61.6 57.2 80.4 47.5 83.6 (*) School level Elementary (*) 57.4 63.0 59.2 84.0 49.4 86.3 (*)  Middle (*) 62.5 65.1 57.1 75.6 42.0 83.5 (*)  Secondary (*) 65.4 59.1 51.5 78.5 45.6 79.8 (*)  Combined/ungraded only (*) 77.8 53.2 70.5 73.7 47.2 79.2 (*) Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 (*) 61.2 62.0 61.0 72.9 43.0 81.4 (*)  Grades 7–8 (*) 61.2 71.9 48.9 77.7 39.2 83.6 (*)  Other middle (*) 71.9 63.1 58.7 84.0 43.9 93.2 (*) Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 (*) 65.6 64.1 50.7 69.4 44.8 98.9 (*)  Other secondary (*) 65.4 58.6 51.6 79.4 45.7 78.1 (*) 

*Data not collected for these variables in that year.NOTE: Only teachers who taught at the same school as the previous year are included in this table (these “stayers” for 1994–95 constituted 86 percent of all 1

teachers). Because teachers who stay at the same school tend to have higher job satisfaction levels than those who leave teaching (and perhaps also higher than these data are likely to be biased.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey: 1988–89, 1991–92, and 1994–95.

1988–89
Table 29—Percentage of public school teachers who rated various problems in their schools as serious, by school level and grad

Table 29—1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Students Lack of Physical

arrive Lack of Student parent conflicts

Student unprepared academic disrespect involve- among 

School characteristics apathy to learn challenge Absenteeism for teachers Poverty ment students  Total 23.6 28.8 6.5 14.4 18.5 19.5 27.6 8.2 School level Elementary 11.6 21.8 3.1 6.5 12.3 21.8 21.2 6.9  Middle 31.2 34.6 8.4 10.4 26.3 17.3 30.0 11.0  Secondary 38.2 35.8 10.5 28.5 23.5 15.6 34.9 8.5  Combined/ungraded only 28.9 30.9 9.8 15.0 20.3 26.8 35.5 8.1 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 31.1 35.0 8.5 10.2 27.9 16.8 31.4 11.1 

 Grades 7–8 35.0 37.7 9.4 13.4 25.5 18.4 30.8 10.5 

 Other middle 26.4 28.2 6.7 6.8 20.6 18.0 22.5 11.6 Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 31.6 34.9 9.0 14.2 28.5 15.7 30.6 12.0 

 Other secondary 38.8 35.8 10.6 29.7 23.0 15.6 35.3 8.2  Total (*) (*) (*) 14.1 (*) (*) (*) 6.5 School level Elementary (*) (*) (*) 6.0 (*) (*) (*) 6.1  Middle (*) (*) (*) 11.7 (*) (*) (*) 9.7  Secondary (*) (*) (*) 27.7 (*) (*) (*) 5.4  Combined/ungraded only (*) (*) (*) 13.1 (*) (*) (*) 7.6 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 (*) (*) (*) 12.2 (*) (*) (*) 10.1 

 Grades 7–8 (*) (*) (*) 14.4 (*) (*) (*) 9.9 

 Other middle (*) (*) (*) 5.3 (*) (*) (*) 7.4 Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 (*) (*) (*) 17.7 (*) (*) (*) 7.8 

 Other secondary (*) (*) (*) 28.7 (*) (*) (*) 5.2 

1990–91

1993–94
Table 29—Percentage of public school teachers who rated various problems in their schools as serious, by school level and grad

Table 29—1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Students Lack of Physical

arrive Lack of Student parent conflicts

Student unprepared academic disrespect involve- among 

School characteristics apathy to learn challenge Absenteeism for teachers Poverty ment students  Total (*) (*) (*) 16.4 (*) (*) (*) 5.8 School level Elementary (*) (*) (*) 6.3 (*) (*) (*) 5.4  Middle (*) (*) (*) 14.3 (*) (*) (*) 8.4  Secondary (*) (*) (*) 31.0 (*) (*) (*) 5.2  Combined/ungraded only (*) (*) (*) 16.4 (*) (*) (*) 4.5 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 (*) (*) (*) 15.1 (*) (*) (*) 8.9 

 Grades 7–8 (*) (*) (*) 16.2 (*) (*) (*) 8.2 

 Other middle (*) (*) (*) 9.1 (*) (*) (*) 7.4 Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 (*) (*) (*) 18.0 (*) (*) (*) 6.8 

 Other secondary (*) (*) (*) 32.6 (*) (*) (*) 5.0 

*Data not collected for these variables in that year.NOTE: The survey asked teachers to rate problems as serious, moderate, minor, or not a problem in their school.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School and Public School Te1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88
Table 30—Percentage of public school principals who rated various problems in their schools as serious, by school level and gr

Table 30—1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Students Lack of Physical

arrive Lack of Student parent conflicts 

Student unprepared academic disrespect involve- among 

School characteristics apathy to learn challenge Absenteeism for teachers Poverty ment students  Total 8.0 11.8 2.0 4.8 3.3 16.3 12.9 3.4 School level Elementary 4.1 11.7 0.9 2.1 2.2 17.4 9.3 3.0  Middle 12.7 11.2 3.0 3.9 5.1 14.8 15.1 5.0  Secondary 15.3 12.5 4.0 12.6 4.5 13.4 20.1 3.1  Combined/ungraded only 13.1 13.2 4.1 8.3 6.5 19.2 20.9 5.4 

Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 14.7 12.7 3.3 4.2 6.2 16.4 16.9 6.5 

 Grades 7–8 10.8 12.2 3.7 4.6 3.8 12.8 16.4 3.1 

 Other middle 8.7 5.4 1.2 2.0 3.0 12.4 7.8 3.0 

Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 11.2 9.5 5.8 3.2 5.5 9.5 14.6 5.7 

 Other secondary 15.6 12.8 3.8 13.4 4.4 13.7 20.6 2.9  Total 7.4 (*) 2.7 6.6 3.0 14.8 14.4 2.4 School level Elementary 3.8 (*) 1.8 3.3 2.5 15.9 11.4 2.0  Middle 10.5 (*) 4.3 6.2 5.0 11.7 16.5 3.9  Secondary 14.2 (*) 3.7 15.2 2.7 11.7 19.9 1.4  Combined/ungraded only 12.3 (*) 4.7 8.8 3.8 16.1 18.8 3.1 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 11.2 (*) 3.9 6.8 4.9 11.2 16.3 3.3 

 Grades 7–8 11.4 (*) 6.8 8.3 6.8 10.8 20.1 3.3 

 Other middle 6.5 (*) 1.6 — 2.6 15.1 11.9 6.6 

Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 13.2 (*) 4.1 7.1 3.2 10.3 18.9 1.2 

 Other secondary 14.3 (*) 3.6 16.0 2.6 11.8 20.0 1.4 

1990–91

1993–94
Table 30—Percentage of public school principals who rated various problems in their schools as serious, by school level and gr

Table 30—1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Students Lack of Physical

arrive Lack of Student parent conflicts 

Student unprepared academic disrespect involve- among 

School characteristics apathy to learn challenge Absenteeism for teachers Poverty ment students  Total (*) (*) (*) 7.0 (*) (*) (*) 2.4 School level Elementary (*) (*) (*) 3.6 (*) (*) (*) 2.4  Middle (*) (*) (*) 4.6 (*) (*) (*) 3.7  Secondary (*) (*) (*) 16.6 (*) (*) (*) 1.2  Combined/ungraded only (*) (*) (*) 10.3 (*) (*) (*) 2.8 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 (*) (*) (*) 4.2 (*) (*) (*) 4.1 

 Grades 7–8 (*) (*) (*) 6.9 (*) (*) (*) 2.8 

 Other middle (*) (*) (*) 2.6 (*) (*) (*) 4.2 Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 (*) (*) (*) 8.7 (*) (*) (*) 2.3 

 Other secondary (*) (*) (*) 17.6 (*) (*) (*) 1.1 

—Too few sample observations for a reliable estimate.*Data not collected for these variables in that year.NOTE: The survey asked principals to rate problems as serious, moderate, minor, or not a problem in their school.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School and Public School Pr1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88
117

Appendix B—Standard Error Tables
Table A1—Standard errors for table 1: Number of public schools in each school level and number of middle and secondary sch

Table A1—grade configurations, by selected school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle  Total 182.7 384.7 395.4 186.3 158.9 335.2 143.6 193.1 School size Fewer than 150 332.5 267.9 138.4 122.7 46.6 66.8 85.9 86.2  150–499 513.1 429.7 239.7 169.3 150.7 183.4 83.2 141.2  500–749 445.3 419.8 235.8 112.0 29.0 188.1 64.7 117.4  750 or more 467.8 345.2 214.4 123.0 33.5 180.5 50.3 60.3 District size Fewer than 1,000 367.7 306.8 116.7 126.1 55.6 85.7 71.0 79.8  1,000–9,999 582.8 506.0 286.7 146.1 100.6 239.8 105.6 145.7  10,000 or more 442.4 369.3 206.8 96.5 109.6 191.3 53.5 99.5 Community type Central city 263.2 293.0 185.4 97.6 41.2 142.0 45.8 88.8  Urban fringe/large town 377.4 407.2 200.1 123.7 47.5 182.5 77.8 96.1  Rural/small town 310.0 319.2 264.8 165.6 155.6 219.9 103.1 141.8 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 561.3 510.7 229.4 187.9 54.9 187.2 64.7 116.4  20 percent or more 557.8 567.3 270.1 186.3 151.2 231.4 108.5 131.9 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 481.4 433.2 351.2 155.6 63.4 269.9 103.9 154.5  20 percent or more 477.8 433.5 288.6 175.8 154.9 256.7 91.7 122.9 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 391.0 434.8 364.9 190.9 130.2 302.6 125.6 204.3  20 percent or more 359.9 316.0 182.8 121.8 108.2 167.7 51.4 44.0 

School level

of middle schools 

Grade configurations 

1993–94
Table A1—Standard errors for table 1: Number of public schools in each school level and number of middle and secondary sch

Table A1—grade configurations, by selected school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Principal Male 625.6 533.6 392.1 180.0 161.7 305.2 123.7 178.6  Female 548.4 546.8 205.2 110.4 42.7 164.7 70.7 74.0 Principal Minority 392.7 356.4 160.1 105.7 28.1 146.5 45.5 61.4  White, non-Hispanic 556.9 552.4 395.8 195.7 157.0 317.7 131.8 180.3 Region Northeast 73.3 178.1 177.1 45.4 18.8 172.3 37.2 111.9  South 106.6 212.4 196.1 91.7 57.0 161.5 77.1 121.8  Midwest 99.1 220.9 234.1 121.6 107.9 174.8 79.9 121.1  West 80.2 216.9 182.9 75.6 117.2 166.6 77.6 70.9  Total 197.3 373.3 344.8 200.9 163.5 258.5 130.6 163.9 School size Fewer than 150 364.0 294.4 134.9 174.0 86.6 86.4 98.7 21.9  150–499 575.3 500.0 194.2 208.6 145.1 158.4 96.4 126.0  500–749 466.2 428.8 207.3 125.0 53.8 167.2 70.1 96.7  750 or more 304.4 243.2 192.2 205.3 54.2 163.9 59.4 55.9 District size Fewer than 1,000 351.0 315.3 155.1 118.3 63.8 108.0 70.4 44.3  1,000–9,999 520.2 506.7 284.4 189.0 113.3 196.7 124.0 145.7 

 10,000 or more 499.8 408.7 214.4 122.8 76.7 214.0 67.8 46.0 

School level

1993–94—Contined

Grade configurations 

1990–91

of middle schools 
Table A1—Standard errors for table 1: Number of public schools in each school level and number of middle and secondary sch

Table A1—grade configurations, by selected school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Community type Central city 266.8 294.7 190.2 113.0 55.7 151.7 80.0 58.7  Urban fringe/large town 330.2 304.1 189.4 113.0 64.7 161.4 91.7 79.0  Rural/small town 255.8 322.1 272.2 141.9 155.6 180.8 109.1 137.9 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 527.7 460.0 208.9 182.3 93.9 175.6 89.0 100.6  20 percent or more 514.9 561.8 264.7 218.3 135.3 227.2 104.7 149.3 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 433.2 488.2 255.2 173.1 124.3 172.4 120.7 125.0  20 percent or more 408.8 422.3 251.0 170.2 85.0 222.0 88.3 100.4 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 438.7 468.6 316.7 204.3 155.0 219.2 109.8 158.4  20 percent or more 372.4 313.1 189.0 120.1 76.6 149.2 78.8 67.7 Principal Male 536.7 435.1 314.1 228.4 150.7 222.2 124.1 150.9  Female 572.1 520.9 144.6 128.2 95.0 134.0 85.8 60.2 Principal Minority 389.4 344.0 162.0 99.6 55.3 136.0 63.9 61.1  White, non-Hispanic 423.4 510.7 324.0 198.2 156.6 240.3 123.0 159.4 Region Northeast 52.7 161.2 158.0 104.2 64.9 115.9 75.9 68.3  South 130.4 242.6 216.1 103.0 98.0 176.2 98.0 92.0  Midwest 99.9 207.7 217.2 100.6 94.8 183.0 56.3 96.8  West 68.8 112.2 136.1 84.7 90.0 118.4 65.9 78.7 

School level

1990–91—Continued

Grade configurations 

of middle schools 
Table A1—Standard errors for table 1: Number of public schools in each school level and number of middle and secondary sch

Table A1—grade configurations, by selected school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

 Total 321.3 446.3 307.9 185.7 161.9 257.2 147.5 109.3 School size Fewer than 150 353.4 306.9 85.5 147.6 114.1 59.0 40.9 45.4  150–499 535.9 477.5 241.3 159.8 96.7 175.5 118.2 107.1  500–749 462.8 329.2 179.0 153.9 61.7 141.2 81.3 62.2  750 or more 260.8 172.8 102.1 150.7 48.8 82.0 51.6 50.0 District size Fewer than 1,000 351.9 312.3 111.0 134.2 106.0 74.3 33.9 52.7  1,000–9,999 505.8 451.4 246.7 188.9 72.0 192.3 119.2 92.7 

 10,000 or more 270.6 285.3 138.6 129.9 60.7 120.6 79.0 49.3 Community type Central city 233.3 243.6 109.2 116.1 64.9 82.3 64.0 41.5  Urban fringe/large town 401.3 405.9 204.0 135.9 51.8 141.7 112.7 65.2  Rural/small town 503.5 413.6 220.0 169.7 120.2 162.1 96.0 115.1 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 431.8 406.8 237.7 152.1 79.3 190.0 104.8 83.1  20 percent or more 337.3 347.5 221.1 203.0 132.2 162.6 98.5 114.7 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 367.9 408.5 256.4 164.8 145.8 213.6 95.9 98.7  20 percent or more 306.3 313.5 172.4 132.8 88.9 129.9 95.6 86.1 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 407.4 485.3 303.2 145.9 134.6 252.0 129.1 93.8  20 percent or more 336.6 294.9 111.4 113.0 77.3 91.1 55.4 64.0 

School level

1987–88

Grade configurations 

of middle schools 
Table A1—Standard errors for table 1: Number of public schools in each school level and number of middle and secondary sch

Table A1—grade configurations, by selected school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Principal Male 472.6 534.0 275.4 183.3 130.3 238.7 130.0 95.6  Female 358.0 354.0 114.3 98.0 62.9 100.1 60.0 49.8 Principal Minority 227.3 193.7 114.8 101.8 70.6 75.1 64.3 45.3  White, non-Hispanic 431.0 490.9 320.3 155.0 123.1 263.8 132.8 103.7 Region Northeast 135.0 172.0 110.6 57.3 46.0 82.7 47.4 53.6  South 189.8 220.0 146.0 112.0 94.3 114.0 62.6 103.7  Midwest 155.6 235.7 163.6 119.7 76.8 138.1 64.3 89.8  West 141.9 170.9 153.0 95.1 63.2 118.0 83.9 46.0 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School and Public School Pr1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88—Continued

School level Grade configurations

of middle schools 
Table A2—Standard errors for table 2: Percentage distributions of public schools according to school level and grade configur

Table A2—school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Combined/

All school ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

 Total 0 0.48 0.48 0.23 0.20 1.65 1.11 1.56 Community type Central city 0 1.10 0.95 0.51 0.21 2.87 2.03 3.22  Urban fringe/large town 0 1.12 0.90 0.62 0.23 3.31 2.28 2.61  Rural/small town 0 0.67 0.63 0.41 0.40 2.37 1.62 2.27 District size Fewer than 1,000 0 1.21 0.84 0.91 0.45 5.15 4.62 5.56  1,000–9,999 0 0.81 0.74 0.49 0.29 2.66 1.55 2.35  10,000 or more 0 0.94 0.74 0.41 0.42 2.92 1.49 2.65 Region Northeast 0 1.28 1.28 0.36 0.14 5.93 2.20 5.48  Midwest 0 0.84 0.82 0.40 0.24 3.42 1.85 3.30  South 0 0.87 0.87 0.43 0.41 2.61 1.73 2.48  West 0 1.27 1.07 0.43 0.69 4.13 3.89 3.10  Total 0 0.43 0.43 0.21 0.20 1.72 1.20 1.39 Community type Central city 0 1.01 1.02 0.58 0.30 2.94 3.09 2.47  Urban fringe/large town 0 0.93 0.81 0.61 0.30 3.78 3.30 2.61  Rural/small town 0 0.63 0.68 0.36 0.38 2.61 1.97 2.34 District size Fewer than 1,000 0 1.40 1.11 0.91 0.60 6.90 5.74 4.61  1,000–9,999 0 0.79 0.60 0.55 0.30 2.45 1.94 2.15  10,000 or more 0 0.90 0.76 0.59 0.30 2.84 2.62 1.45 Region Northeast 0 1.11 1.21 0.74 0.47 4.68 4.27 4.03  Midwest 0 0.93 0.91 0.41 0.42 3.80 3.14 2.81  South 0 0.80 0.82 0.39 0.37 2.74 1.67 2.40  West 0 0.71 0.81 0.52 0.55 4.51 3.39 4.04 

Grade configurations 

1993–94

1990–91

School level

of middle schools 
Table A2—Standard errors for table 2: Percentage distributions of public schools according to school level and grade configur

Table A2—school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

All school ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

 Total 0 0.45 0.40 0.23 0.21 1.60 1.56 1.20 Community type Central city 0 0.76 0.58 0.58 0.33 2.81 2.53 1.92  Urban fringe/large town 0 1.08 0.96 0.68 0.26 3.37 3.23 2.08  Rural/small town 0 0.67 0.55 0.43 0.31 2.48 2.39 2.17 District size Fewer than 1,000 0 1.48 0.87 1.20 0.89 7.79 5.76 6.53  1,000–9,999 0 0.79 0.67 0.54 0.21 2.56 2.21 1.82  10,000 or more 0 0.81 0.63 0.55 0.27 3.05 2.57 1.97 Region Northeast 0 0.91 0.81 0.40 0.34 3.66 2.96 3.25  Midwest 0 0.67 0.65 0.50 0.42 3.31 2.30 3.46  South 0 0.78 0.63 0.45 0.30 2.74 1.99 2.52  West 0 0.94 0.94 0.62 0.39 4.64 4.37 2.40 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School Questionnaires): 1987–88, 19

of middle schools 

School level

1987–88

Grade configurations 
Table A3—Standard errors for table 3: Number of public school students in each school level and in middle and secondary sch

Table A3—grade configurations, by selected school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

 Total 393,745.6 323,697.4 263,020.9 189,603.7 51,122.5 229,545.1 71,492.5 83,644.4 School size Fewer than 150 33,319.8 26,855.2 10,319.1 11,058.0 3,133.2 6,981.7 7,707.1 1,433.7  150–499 174,793.4 144,103.0 82,714.1 49,997.6 39,524.4 66,135.0 30,513.2 43,683.5  500–749 272,877.0 257,260.8 151,040.9 70,982.8 18,028.9 120,930.9 40,458.8 75,001.6  750 or more 486,847.3 324,861.4 215,258.0 178,985.5 33,341.0 176,103.0 51,520.9 62,524.6 District size Fewer than 1,000 110,650.9 94,735.7 22,249.8 37,980.6 29,822.2 15,572.7 6,551.0 19,859.3  1,000–9,999 347,999.8 277,110.5 173,317.8 136,241.2 25,919.0 144,329.8 54,109.3 81,325.2  10,000 or more 362,365.7 235,205.8 190,987.8 133,680.5 31,659.0 166,136.7 39,581.4 57,799.0 Community type Central city 277,568.5 217,369.0 151,988.9 131,430.5 13,171.0 123,440.8 34,574.3 46,385.4  Urban fringe/large town 325,939.1 272,322.9 150,660.8 155,010.3 32,103.3 138,213.0 51,318.0 47,092.2  Rural/small town 216,669.5 200,062.5 136,369.9 127,437.5 39,786.1 116,496.4 42,035.1 67,996.7 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 350,727.3 277,923.6 150,220.0 171,673.3 33,907.3 126,920.6 34,772.5 62,759.6  20 percent or more 362,298.8 355,190.3 188,019.3 126,354.0 37,029.1 154,774.5 59,038.6 55,348.3 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 303,106.5 242,889.9 199,269.2 125,642.3 26,627.4 165,713.3 40,031.8 72,655.8  20 percent or more 373,284.4 266,932.5 210,334.5 170,845.0 49,887.0 186,933.8 55,529.4 57,876.1 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 346,272.5 291,629.3 220,187.5 158,161.3 40,756.5 199,550.0 53,552.2 84,468.8  20 percent or more 280,603.0 179,958.6 156,683.2 116,499.7 35,731.5 140,679.7 36,476.7 44,181.3 

School level

1993–94

Grade configurations 

of middle schools 
Table A3—Standard errors for table 3: Number of public school students in each school level and in middle and secondary sch

Table A3—grade configurations, by selected school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Principal Male 430,050.5 302,081.6 235,227.0 185,320.7 52,244.9 194,036.9 61,987.5 77,218.6  Female 309,338.4 295,956.5 149,077.0 92,049.5 11,075.0 132,807.0 45,553.2 41,736.2 Principal Minority 263,602.0 192,941.0 137,013.0 105,734.2 10,175.7 124,753.1 38,958.7 39,950.7  White, non-Hispanic 433,907.1 364,147.1 244,364.0 182,975.9 47,519.1 206,869.5 62,466.9 84,227.0 Region Northeast 158,610.0 129,411.8 115,230.4 76,193.7 19,482.9 118,061.4 22,072.7 65,105.0  South 124,722.4 115,986.4 91,531.4 77,803.6 29,055.3 80,935.2 29,399.7 48,027.5  Midwest 206,018.2 144,956.4 158,316.7 134,311.8 25,367.4 126,289.7 46,392.5 53,793.9  West 186,931.0 188,457.8 146,091.0 120,094.8 32,461.0 132,619.4 43,765.0 44,491.4  Total 362,552.6 233,914.7 232,230.8 293,078.0 83,210.1 196,775.3 65,926.5 88,617.1 School size Fewer than 150 32,396.7 28,515.3 11,981.4 15,676.6 7,100.5 7,602.7 8,909.3 2,003.4  150–499 227,211.1 194,009.7 69,363.6 72,811.7 52,043.0 59,716.0 33,015.6 40,864.6  500–749 288,123.3 257,936.0 127,756.7 79,490.1 33,452.9 103,659.9 42,379.7 58,313.0  750 or more 359,836.8 221,741.6 195,488.6 309,214.0 61,085.7 172,691.4 51,074.5 48,074.4 District size Fewer than 1,000 108,699.1 98,979.9 25,686.0 29,780.7 33,599.0 16,375.4 8,970.7 11,635.4  1,000–9,999 342,614.2 280,504.5 152,985.6 162,364.6 53,445.8 111,184.8 58,574.0 83,167.5  10,000 or more 380,297.7 217,429.6 191,608.6 208,988.7 40,995.4 184,233.7 49,854.3 33,327.3 

1990–91

School level

1993–94—Continued

Grade configurations 

of middle schools 
Table A3—Standard errors for table 3: Number of public school students in each school level and in middle and secondary sch

Table A3—grade configurations, by selected school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Community type Central city 243,139.1 168,102.3 154,389.5 151,429.0 30,320.7 127,022.7 52,447.1 32,325.2  Urban fringe/large town 216,690.5 165,045.1 138,597.6 146,646.4 32,870.8 118,507.6 40,764.6 53,962.2  Rural/small town 189,642.5 143,829.8 125,615.4 135,321.5 70,557.8 82,150.1 46,658.7 57,763.3 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 316,655.8 195,810.8 124,706.1 214,111.2 44,940.3 116,269.5 52,310.9 56,159.8 

 20 percent or more 317,679.9 302,886.3 190,402.3 182,137.2 64,641.9 166,504.9 57,227.6 67,641.2 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 287,570.2 224,895.9 132,688.6 164,669.4 54,509.4 111,095.4 46,726.9 66,920.9  20 percent or more 326,750.7 237,644.1 187,067.9 239,469.8 44,196.1 169,997.9 57,932.0 51,188.5 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 353,038.0 228,795.0 189,412.4 262,976.3 73,690.4 146,246.4 60,871.1 79,431.0  20 percent or more 259,203.5 199,876.4 124,051.4 139,818.7 33,962.1 113,690.3 35,718.1 38,154.9 Principal Male 408,255.3 259,174.7 181,111.3 283,175.7 81,312.5 151,339.8 63,998.8 79,809.5  Female 294,626.7 246,512.2 114,647.3 104,319.1 29,565.7 109,048.4 31,368.8 29,135.6 Principal Minority 246,509.4 192,024.6 114,518.5 96,269.1 21,945.6 99,657.0 45,179.0 33,272.9  White, non-Hispanic 365,618.3 276,704.5 197,441.4 261,943.0 75,832.4 173,053.8 58,618.0 78,328.1 Region Northeast 132,348.0 92,053.5 85,097.4 112,052.3 39,149.7 73,168.1 30,840.2 43,552.0  South 134,317.4 110,033.4 96,320.8 91,155.6 30,434.2 82,860.8 36,371.2 48,589.2  Midwest 169,690.7 138,824.3 158,717.9 138,431.6 58,110.3 143,801.3 33,341.0 48,554.0  West 201,123.5 89,185.9 107,726.4 171,458.2 25,439.8 94,482.3 47,931.0 20,710.0 

of middle schools 

1990–91—Continued

School level Grade configurations
Table A3—Standard errors for table 3: Number of public school students in each school level and in middle and secondary sch

Table A3—grade configurations, by selected school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

 Total 165,010.9 201,825.1 155,043.4 143,312.2 62,259.8 138,405.1 76,121.1 41,202.4 School size Fewer than 150 34,661.3 29,619.3 8,899.0 13,896.8 10,071.6 5,781.3 4,102.9 5,092.1  150–499 196,967.8 182,028.4 84,112.8 50,738.9 28,026.5 62,237.6 37,804.2 37,326.1  500–749 278,476.0 201,592.8 108,591.0 97,301.4 37,903.0 86,253.3 48,955.3 36,720.4  750 or more 272,513.3 150,128.2 98,561.0 182,212.4 89,669.4 77,287.7 47,322.8 45,642.3 District size Fewer than 1,000 94,666.8 84,526.2 18,074.9 45,308.7 26,265.1 11,591.5 3,395.9 11,617.9  1,000–9,999 202,146.5 152,331.6 120,602.4 128,017.6 81,965.6 100,706.3 49,730.2 43,200.4  10,000 or more 179,052.7 154,848.0 102,586.8 143,612.6 35,710.4 89,293.4 56,283.6 34,660.9 Community type Central city 171,303.8 127,580.2 75,581.2 132,177.4 35,501.7 60,517.7 43,379.6 26,331.2  Urban fringe/large town 258,694.6 227,617.4 128,114.4 116,271.8 33,396.1 99,677.7 60,181.2 42,271.8  Rural/small town 174,116.6 107,600.1 94,351.8 111,967.2 66,692.8 70,830.6 37,890.3 46,922.5 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 237,571.8 190,384.6 113,722.1 158,302.9 77,638.6 103,864.1 50,257.2 36,800.9 

 20 percent or more 220,701.2 166,059.2 127,562.7 130,917.7 53,704.3 100,779.7 54,073.6 49,937.5 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 193,320.4 172,930.1 113,156.6 118,414.8 90,896.4 107,324.2 36,841.2 39,354.7  20 percent or more 192,106.7 144,578.9 109,640.0 134,023.3 46,010.1 84,075.7 59,955.1 40,004.3 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 222,894.7 216,683.1 163,040.1 103,895.7 88,746.3 142,806.3 61,417.5 44,038.3  20 percent or more 165,620.2 107,802.1 84,440.2 111,960.0 38,229.9 74,908.1 36,292.3 33,970.6 

School level Grade configurations 

of middle schools 

1987–88
Table A3—Standard errors for table 3: Number of public school students in each school level and in middle and secondary sch

Table A3—grade configurations, by selected school characteristics: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Principal Male 219,513.5 207,322.3 142,995.8 143,232.0 89,084.6 126,168.5 66,923.1 34,737.9  Female 215,152.4 181,208.6 68,795.5 121,230.8 30,531.2 61,581.1 41,978.4 24,402.5 Principal Minority 148,235.2 115,216.4 80,531.7 100,209.8 27,949.8 60,096.4 41,633.9 23,064.8  White, non-Hispanic 189,003.2 205,560.5 150,254.2 114,123.9 91,903.5 141,301.6 58,619.4 37,561.0 Region Northeast 70,987.4 76,850.6 56,498.0 55,972.3 38,125.2 43,761.5 22,256.3 31,988.1  Midwest 103,872.8 77,202.4 66,651.9 81,090.2 56,700.8 59,642.5 29,836.8 34,426.8  South 99,884.2 132,364.8 96,534.8 93,642.8 37,717.5 93,544.4 34,458.3 39,633.1  West 82,700.3 70,667.7 90,946.1 81,646.7 21,372.9 70,375.3 52,139.0 25,590.4 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School and Public School Pr1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88—Continued

School level

of middle schools 

Grade configurations 
Table A4—Standard errors for table 4: Percentage distributions of public schools according to selected school characteristics, 

Table A4—configuration of middle and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 School size Fewer than 150 0.41 0.60 1.11 0.75 2.14 0.90 2.71 3.69  150–499 0.64 0.81 1.82 0.81 2.97 2.24 2.55 5.24  500–749 0.60 0.80 1.62 0.62 1.04 2.14 2.35 4.60  750 or more 0.57 0.71 1.63 0.67 1.12 2.20 1.67 3.18 District size Fewer than 1,000 0.49 0.67 1.00 0.71 2.13 1.23 2.48 3.90  1,000–9,999 0.74 1.02 1.64 0.74 2.61 2.51 2.99 4.53  10,000 or more 0.57 0.81 1.70 0.61 2.92 2.58 2.42 4.44 Community type Central city 0.32 0.61 1.41 0.57 1.71 1.80 1.64 3.81  Urban fringe/large town 0.46 0.80 1.38 0.67 1.62 2.00 2.40 3.77  Rural/small town 0.37 0.58 1.50 0.65 2.28 2.31 2.31 4.38 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 0.73 1.00 1.60 0.98 1.99 2.18 2.14 4.22  20 percent or more 0.73 1.00 1.60 0.98 1.99 2.18 2.14 4.22 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 0.58 0.80 2.21 0.82 2.59 2.97 2.47 4.52  20 percent or more 0.58 0.80 2.21 0.82 2.59 2.97 2.47 4.52 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 0.44 0.63 1.44 0.68 2.93 2.20 1.64 2.57  20 percent or more 0.44 0.63 1.44 0.68 2.93 2.20 1.64 2.57 

1993–94

School level Grade configurations 

of middle schools 
Table A4—Standard errors for table 4: Percentage distributions of public schools according to selected school characteristics, 

Table A4—configuration of middle and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Principal Male 0.71 1.07 1.69 0.62 1.81 2.25 2.41 3.57  Female 0.71 1.07 1.69 0.62 1.81 2.25 2.41 3.57 Principal Minority 0.52 0.78 1.36 0.62 1.00 2.12 1.67 2.81  White, non-Hispanic 0.52 0.78 1.36 0.62 1.00 2.12 1.67 2.81 Region Northeast 0.08 0.34 1.31 0.32 0.92 2.34 1.34 4.74  Midwest 0.11 0.38 1.42 0.44 1.85 1.89 2.37 4.97  South 0.09 0.41 1.79 0.46 2.84 2.28 2.29 4.24  West 0.10 0.38 1.37 0.40 3.00 2.00 2.61 3.37  Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 School size Fewer than 150 0.40 0.59 1.21 1.01 2.11 1.49 3.59 1.32  150–499 0.69 0.89 1.98 1.20 2.40 2.55 3.24 5.86  500–749 0.59 0.90 1.69 0.71 1.28 2.43 2.73 4.89  750 or more 0.38 0.49 1.74 1.11 1.29 2.44 2.40 3.07 District size Fewer than 1,000 0.41 0.67 1.60 0.71 1.45 1.94 2.81 2.78  1,000–9,999 0.72 1.00 2.21 0.99 2.11 3.43 3.38 3.35  10,000 or more 0.63 0.87 2.18 0.62 1.92 3.22 3.00 2.69 

School level Grade configurations 

of middle schools 

1990–91

1993–94—Continued
Table A4—Standard errors for table 4: Percentage distributions of public schools according to selected school characteristics, 

Table A4—configuration of middle and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Community type Central city 0.35 0.59 1.84 0.59 1.40 2.32 3.00 3.43  Urban fringe/large town 0.39 0.59 1.53 0.57 1.60 2.16 3.20 4.34  Rural/small town 0.29 0.52 2.18 0.60 1.95 2.94 3.60 5.76 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 0.60 0.98 1.66 1.02 2.11 2.71 3.13 5.46  20 percent or more 0.60 0.98 1.66 1.02 2.11 2.71 3.13 5.46 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 0.51 0.85 1.87 0.82 1.61 2.63 3.34 4.72  20 percent or more 0.51 0.85 1.87 0.82 1.61 2.63 3.34 4.72 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 0.47 0.60 1.81 0.67 1.81 2.20 2.73 4.25  20 percent or more 0.47 0.60 1.81 0.67 1.81 2.20 2.73 4.25 Principal Male 0.70 1.00 1.34 0.76 2.16 2.00 3.24 3.39  Female 0.70 1.00 1.34 0.76 2.16 2.00 3.24 3.39 Principal Minority 0.49 0.73 1.60 0.57 1.30 2.19 2.43 3.83  White, non-Hispanic 0.49 0.73 1.60 0.57 1.30 2.19 2.43 3.83 Region Northeast 0.07 0.29 1.49 0.52 1.39 1.99 2.70 4.23  Midwest 0.11 0.39 1.87 0.53 2.20 2.88 3.28 4.57  South 0.10 0.36 1.81 0.54 1.99 2.63 2.02 4.69  West 0.08 0.24 1.29 0.42 1.98 1.76 2.69 4.39 

of middle schools 

1990–91—Continued

School level Grade configurations 
Table A4—Standard errors for table 4: Percentage distributions of public schools according to selected school characteristics, 

Table A4—configuration of middle and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 School size Fewer than 150 0.42 0.60 0.89 0.83 1.79 1.19 1.55 2.27  150–499 0.61 0.80 1.66 0.93 1.76 2.49 3.33 3.34  500–749 0.63 0.74 1.93 0.87 1.29 2.86 3.27 3.06  750 or more 0.34 0.35 1.13 0.92 1.08 1.60 1.74 3.20 District size Fewer than 1,000 0.48 0.70 1.27 0.83 1.53 1.66 1.46 2.71  1,000–9,999 0.62 0.94 1.58 1.03 1.72 2.68 3.14 3.28  10,000 or more 0.38 0.57 1.66 0.81 1.14 2.78 3.22 2.90 Community type Central city 0.30 0.49 1.28 0.67 1.28 1.92 2.51 2.21  Urban fringe/large town 0.52 0.78 1.78 0.73 0.94 2.13 3.30 3.52  Rural/small town 0.56 0.75 1.80 0.83 1.34 2.34 3.14 3.69 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 0.48 0.67 1.96 1.02 1.70 2.81 2.88 4.26  20 percent or more 0.48 0.67 1.96 1.02 1.70 2.81 2.88 4.26 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 0.37 0.58 1.62 0.68 1.78 2.50 2.44 3.81  20 percent or more 0.37 0.58 1.62 0.68 1.78 2.50 2.44 3.81 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 0.42 0.61 1.30 0.57 1.41 2.09 1.89 2.91  20 percent or more 0.42 0.61 1.30 0.57 1.41 2.09 1.89 2.91 

1987–88

School level Grade configurations 

of middle schools 
Table A4—Standard errors for table 4: Percentage distributions of public schools according to selected school characteristics, 

Table A4—configuration of middle and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Principal Male 0.47 0.79 1.17 0.59 1.24 2.05 2.12 2.34  Female 0.47 0.79 1.17 0.59 1.24 2.05 2.12 2.34 Principal Minority 0.31 0.45 1.37 0.58 1.42 1.86 2.36 2.27  White, non-Hispanic 0.31 0.45 1.37 0.58 1.42 1.86 2.36 2.27 Region Northeast 0.15 0.31 1.07 0.37 0.95 1.43 1.79 2.91  Midwest 0.20 0.38 1.17 0.57 1.51 1.79 2.10 4.65  South 0.17 0.42 1.64 0.52 1.42 2.48 2.04 4.12  West 0.16 0.27 1.46 0.52 1.12 2.33 2.42 2.39 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School and Public School Pr1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88—Continued

of middle schools 

School level Grade configurations 
Table A5—Standard errors for table 5: Percentage distributions of public school students according to selected school characte

Table A5—level and grade configuration of middle and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

 Total 0 0000 000 School size Fewer than 150 0.09 0.14 0.20 0.10 0.48 0.20 0.58 0.14  150–499 0.58 1.00 1.27 0.41 2.89 1.47 2.01 4.22  500–749 0.66 1.00 2.00 0.54 2.00 2.30 2.78 6.06  750 or more 0.87 1.33 2.13 0.65 2.78 2.40 2.63 5.68 District size Fewer than 1,000 0.31 0.51 0.38 0.33 2.47 0.39 0.56 2.19  1,000–9,999 0.78 1.06 2.14 0.87 2.75 2.74 3.00 5.54  10,000 or more 0.79 1.00 2.21 0.92 2.69 2.81 3.02 5.73 Community type Central city 0.61 0.97 1.83 0.98 1.47 2.20 2.33 4.54  Urban fringe/large town 0.68 1.09 1.61 1.09 2.83 2.18 3.02 3.84  Rural/small town 0.44 0.80 1.77 0.81 2.59 2.33 2.50 4.80 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 0.77 1.27 1.80 0.97 3.02 2.33 2.33 4.49  20 percent or more 0.77 1.27 1.80 0.97 3.02 2.33 2.33 4.49 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 0.66 0.93 2.35 0.93 3.08 3.07 2.30 4.93  20 percent or more 0.66 0.93 2.35 0.93 3.08 3.07 2.30 4.93 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 0.59 0.80 1.94 0.80 3.01 2.74 2.00 4.24  20 percent or more 0.59 0.80 1.94 0.80 3.01 2.74 2.00 4.24 

Grade configurations 

1993–94

School level

of middle schools 
Table A5—Standard errors for table 5: Percentage distributions of public school students according to selected school characte

Table A5—level and grade configuration of middle and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Principal Male 0.80 1.25 1.94 0.72 1.49 2.61 3.03 4.01  Female 0.80 1.25 1.94 0.72 1.49 2.61 3.03 4.01 Principal Minority 0.65 0.98 1.90 0.81 0.96 2.62 2.62 3.88  White, non-Hispanic 0.65 0.98 1.90 0.81 0.96 2.62 2.62 3.88 Region Northeast 0.30 0.52 1.44 0.54 1.95 2.38 1.60 5.53  Midwest 0.24 0.44 1.26 0.60 2.54 1.66 2.01 4.68  South 0.43 0.60 2.00 0.87 3.10 2.59 2.68 4.58  West 0.38 0.70 1.80 0.89 2.90 2.54 2.81 4.27  Total 0 0000 000 School size Fewer than 150 0.09 0.15 0.21 0.14 0.69 0.23 0.80 0.20  150–499 0.67 0.93 1.63 0.68 2.83 1.98 2.64 5.49  500–749 0.61 1.20 1.87 0.69 2.29 2.60 2.80 5.19  750 or more 0.63 0.97 2.35 1.00 3.13 3.06 3.31 4.60 District size Fewer than 1,000 0.30 0.51 0.50 0.28 2.17 0.50 0.82 1.57  1,000–9,999 0.82 1.24 2.48 1.09 2.52 3.46 3.60 4.10 

 10,000 or more 0.83 1.00 2.57 1.08 2.56 3.48 3.66 4.11 

1993–94—Continued

School level Grade configurations 

of middle schools 

1990–91
Table A5—Standard errors for table 5: Percentage distributions of public school students according to selected school characte

Table A5—level and grade configuration of middle and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Community type Central city 0.49 0.61 2.28 0.92 1.80 2.68 3.63 3.72  Urban fringe/large town 0.47 0.72 1.90 0.85 2.28 2.43 3.08 5.09  Rural/small town 0.38 0.63 2.22 0.82 2.62 2.59 3.49 6.37 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 0.68 1.02 1.90 1.21 2.67 2.90 3.61 5.37  20 percent or more 0.68 1.02 1.90 1.21 2.67 2.90 3.61 5.37 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 0.62 1.01 1.98 1.16 1.82 2.87 3.38 4.97  20 percent or more 0.62 1.01 1.98 1.16 1.82 2.87 3.38 4.97 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 0.59 0.87 1.81 1.01 2.12 2.53 2.68 4.43  20 percent or more 0.59 0.87 1.81 1.01 2.12 2.53 2.68 4.43 Principal Male 0.73 1.09 1.62 0.86 2.04 2.39 2.53 3.21  Female 0.73 1.09 1.62 0.86 2.04 2.39 2.53 3.21 Principal Minority 0.60 0.92 1.79 0.75 1.33 2.46 3.37 3.80  White, non-Hispanic 0.60 0.92 1.79 0.75 1.33 2.46 3.37 3.80 Region Northeast 0.28 0.41 1.49 0.82 2.43 2.05 2.24 4.81  Midwest 0.28 0.45 1.69 0.56 1.95 2.43 2.80 4.47  South 0.38 0.49 2.00 1.01 2.58 2.83 2.51 5.60  West 0.38 0.37 1.61 1.00 1.74 2.19 3.45 2.62 

1990–91—Continued

School level

of middle schools 

Grade configurations 
Table A5—Standard errors for table 5: Percentage distributions of public school students according to selected school characte

Table A5—level and grade configuration of middle and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

 Total 0 0000 000 School size Fewer than 150 0.09 0.15 0.18 0.10 0.65 0.21 0.31 0.60  150–499 0.53 0.83 1.41 0.43 2.30 1.90 2.66 4.14  500–749 0.69 0.97 1.88 0.75 2.33 2.46 3.39 3.69  750 or more 0.57 0.66 1.65 0.89 3.79 2.01 2.75 5.27 District size Fewer than 1,000 0.26 0.45 0.42 0.39 1.93 0.45 0.29 1.47  1,000–9,999 0.52 0.81 1.88 1.05 3.58 2.90 3.68 4.16 

 10,000 or more 0.45 0.61 1.95 1.01 2.42 2.99 3.76 4.35 Community type Central city 0.43 0.63 1.44 0.88 2.11 2.02 2.93 2.91  Urban fringe/large town 0.59 0.95 2.02 0.87 1.60 2.60 3.41 4.87  Rural/small town 0.44 0.58 1.76 0.77 1.98 2.15 2.95 4.58 Free/reduced-price lunch recipients Less than 20 percent 0.51 0.74 1.84 0.94 3.56 2.75 2.90 4.36  20 percent or more 0.51 0.74 1.84 0.94 3.56 2.75 2.90 4.36 Minority enrollment Less than 20 percent 0.43 0.60 1.60 0.80 2.95 2.43 2.60 3.93  20 percent or more 0.43 0.60 1.60 0.80 2.95 2.43 2.60 3.93 Minority teachers Less than 20 percent 0.41 0.57 1.76 0.70 2.29 2.74 2.28 3.71  20 percent or more 0.41 0.57 1.76 0.70 2.29 2.74 2.28 3.71 

1987–88

School level Grade configurations

of middle schools
Table A5—Standard errors for table 5: Percentage distributions of public school students according to selected school characte

Table A5—level and grade configuration of middle and secondary schools: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Combined/

Total, ungraded Grades Grades Other 

School characteristics all levels Elementary Middle Secondary only 6–8 7–8 middle 

Principal Male 0.52 0.84 1.33 0.90 1.81 2.06 3.03 2.73  Female 0.52 0.84 1.33 0.90 1.81 2.06 3.03 2.73 Principal Minority 0.36 0.57 1.62 0.70 1.74 2.27 2.77 2.64  White, non-Hispanic 0.36 0.57 1.62 0.70 1.74 2.27 2.77 2.64 Region Northeast 0.15 0.31 1.00 0.42 1.72 1.32 1.74 3.57  South 0.22 0.35 1.13 0.58 2.23 1.79 2.13 3.84  Midwest 0.23 0.48 1.90 0.55 2.37 2.91 2.45 4.17  West 0.18 0.31 1.51 0.54 1.24 2.19 2.90 2.88 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School and Public School Pr1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

of middle schools 

1987–88—Continued

School level Grade configurations
Table A6—Standard errors for table 6: Percentage distribution of public school teachers according to type

Table A6—of class organization, and average class size for teachers in departments and self-contained

Table A6—classrooms, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Percentage of teachers in

Self-contained Team-taught Self-contained

School characteristics Departments classrooms classes Departments classrooms

 Total 0.55 0.59 0.27 0.08 0.21

School level

 Elementary 0.38 0.64 0.50 (*) 0.16

 Middle 0.92 0.63 0.81 0.20 (*)

 Secondary 0.22 0.20 0.08 0.07 (*)

 Combined/ungraded only 1.22 1.20 1.00 0.38 1.84

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 1.37 0.69 1.20 0.30 (*)

 Grades 7–8 1.16 0.67 0.99 0.27 (*)

 Other middle 2.60 2.80 1.91 0.62 (*)

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 0.95 0.64 0.69 0.26 (*)

 Other secondary 0.22 0.20 0.07 0.08 (*)

 Total 0.54 0.52 0.26 0.09 0.10

School level

 Elementary 0.44 0.53 0.45 (*) 0.10

 Middle 0.99 0.72 0.80 0.22 (*)

 Secondary 0.40 0.30 0.21 0.10 (*)

 Combined/ungraded only 3.24 2.45 1.31 0.40 0.60

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 1.37 0.98 0.99 0.34 (*)

 Grades 7–8 1.30 1.03 0.78 0.30 (*)

 Other middle 3.19 2.02 2.67 0.49 (*)

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 0.71 0.59 0.40 0.40 (*)

 Other secondary 0.37 0.33 0.20 0.11 (*)

Average class size in

1990–91

1993–94

_______

141
Table A6—Standard errors for table 6: Percentage distribution of public school teachers according to type

Table A6—of class organization, and average class size for teachers in departments and self-contained

Table A6—classrooms, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Percentage of teachers in

Self-contained Team-taught Self-contained

School characteristics Departments classrooms classes Departments classrooms

 Total 0.32 0.30 0.15 0.13 0.10

School level

 Elementary 0.43 0.42 0.30 (*) 0.11

 Middle 0.70 0.61 0.46 0.25 (*)

 Secondary 0.34 0.33 0.14 0.15 (*)

 Combined/ungraded only 1.40 1.29 0.60 0.30 0.69

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 1.03 0.89 0.70 0.40 (*)

 Grades 7–8 0.79 0.70 0.46 0.32 (*)

 Other middle 2.14 1.81 1.31 0.58 (*)

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 0.75 0.73 0.47 0.37 (*)

 Other secondary 0.39 0.37 0.14 0.16 (*)

*Data excluded for teachers at these school levels (see below).

NOTE: Teachers of elementary enrichment and “pull-out” classes (13 percent of all teachers) are excluded from this table, so the

percentage distributions in the first three columns are based on a total of the three class types included. Teachers with special

education as their main assignment field were also excluded from self-contained classroom columns.

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

Average class size in

1987–88

_______

142
Table A7—Standard errors for table 7: Percentage of public schools offering various instruction-related

Table A7—services, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Gifted

Remedial Remedial and Disa- Bilingual ESL Library/

reading/ mathe- talented bilities Magnet instruc- instruc- Chapter 1 media

School characteristics English matics program services program tion tion services center

 Total 0.54 0.73 0.54 0.46 0.29 0.50 0.61 0.49 0.34

School level

 Elementary 0.81 1.07 0.87 0.70 0.44 0.82 0.85 0.74 0.44

 Middle 1.40 1.72 1.73 1.23 0.81 1.30 1.81 1.77 0.76

 Secondary 0.77 0.76 0.88 0.70 0.36 0.67 0.80 0.72 0.58

 Combined/ungraded only 1.83 2.13 2.92 1.35 0.62 3.09 3.13 2.54 2.55

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 1.81 2.11 2.17 1.99 0.84 2.03 2.28 2.29 0.39

 Grades 7–8 2.34 2.55 2.49 2.37 2.16 1.67 2.41 2.31 0.31

 Other middle 4.62 5.84 5.01 1.75 2.24 4.20 5.23 5.63 3.65

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 2.19 2.53 2.11 1.46 0.76 2.37 2.47 2.61 0

 Other secondary 0.78 0.73 0.93 0.73 0.38 0.71 0.89 0.83 0.63

 Total 0.50 0.59 0.56 0.58 (*) 0.58 0.64 0.73 0.28

School level

 Elementary 0.72 0.83 0.78 0.80 (*) 0.85 0.88 0.83 0.42

 Middle 1.78 2.09 1.58 1.65 (*) 1.54 2.11 1.83 0.67

 Secondary 0.87 0.94 1.01 1.13 (*) 0.81 0.89 1.17 0.81

 Combined/ungraded only 1.57 1.91 2.47 1.25 (*) 1.47 1.67 2.08 1.51

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 2.41 2.49 2.63 2.07 (*) 2.13 3.02 2.56 0.22

 Grades 7–8 3.60 3.50 3.14 2.78 (*) 2.24 4.00 2.87 2.60

 Other middle 4.72 6.19 3.73 4.39 (*) 5.43 5.65 5.46 0.40

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 2.21 2.49 2.58 1.79 (*) 3.04 4.72 3.60 1.51

 Other secondary 0.89 1.03 1.02 1.19 (*) 0.88 1.00 1.30 0.81

1990–91

1993–94

_______

143
Table A7—Standard errors for table 7: Percentage of public schools offering various instruction-related

Table A7—services, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Gifted

Remedial Remedial and Disa- Bilingual ESL Library/

reading/ mathe- talented bilities Magnet instruc- instruc- Chapter 1 media

School characteristics English matics program services program tion tion services center

 Total 0.48 0.54 0.51 0.40 (*) 0.48 0.60 0.46 (*)

School level

 Elementary 0.62 0.70 0.72 0.63 (*) 0.62 0.83 0.63 (*)

 Middle 1.11 1.61 1.21 0.66 (*) 1.44 1.56 1.54 (*)

 Secondary 0.80 0.95 0.97 0.76 (*) 0.70 0.76 0.97 (*)

 Combined/ungraded only 1.78 1.91 1.87 1.34 (*) 1.41 1.61 1.29 (*)

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 1.76 2.00 1.76 1.01 (*) 2.16 2.08 2.59 (*)

 Grades 7–8 1.97 3.28 1.97 1.00 (*) 2.64 2.94 2.46 (*)

 Other middle 3.16 4.45 2.87 1.32 (*) 2.97 4.15 3.41 (*)

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 2.36 2.72 2.34 1.80 (*) 2.30 3.42 3.08 (*)

 Other secondary 0.84 1.10 1.09 0.80 (*) 0.73 0.93 0.90 (*)

*Data not collected for these variables in that year.

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

Questionnaire): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88

_______

144
Table A8—Standard errors for table 8: Percentage of public schools offering various health-related services,

Table A8—by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Diagnostic

and Drug and Substance Free/

prescriptive Medical alcohol abuse reduced-price

School characteristics services services prevention counseling lunch

 Total 0.62 0.72 0.37 0.60 0.33

School level

 Elementary 0.94 1.04 0.41 0.79 0.48

 Middle 1.22 1.99 1.09 1.81 1.10

 Secondary 0.64 0.81 0.52 0.83 0.55

 Combined/ungraded only 1.40 2.20 2.92 2.71 1.43

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 1.82 2.38 1.06 2.85 1.09

 Grades 7–8 2.61 2.67 2.07 2.36 1.98

 Other middle 3.99 5.16 3.50 4.76 2.88

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 2.08 2.81 1.58 3.17 0.77

 Other secondary 0.63 0.87 0.61 0.92 0.60

 Total 0.58 (*) (*) (*) 0.31

School level

 Elementary 0.87 (*) (*) (*) 0.38

 Middle 1.40 (*) (*) (*) 0.81

 Secondary 1.00 (*) (*) (*) 0.80

 Combined/ungraded only 1.68 (*) (*) (*) 1.40

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 1.82 (*) (*) (*) 0.47

 Grades 7–8 2.49 (*) (*) (*) 2.57

 Other middle 3.43 (*) (*) (*) 1.39

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 2.18 (*) (*) (*) 1.00

 Other secondary 1.07 (*) (*) (*) 0.84

1990–91

1993–94

_______

145
Table A8—Standard errors for table 8: Percentage of public schools offering various health-related services,

Table A8—by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Diagnostic

and Drug and Substance Free/

prescriptive Medical alcohol abuse reduced-price

School characteristics services services prevention counseling lunch

 Total 0.59 (*) (*) (*) 0.10

School level

 Elementary 0.92 (*) (*) (*) 0.13

 Middle 1.55 (*) (*) (*) 0.16

 Secondary 0.89 (*) (*) (*) 0.31

 Combined/ungraded only 1.63 (*) (*) (*) 0.54

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 2.06 (*) (*) (*) 0.28

 Grades 7–8 2.51 (*) (*) (*) 0.27

 Other middle 4.01 (*) (*) (*) 0

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 3.04 (*) (*) (*) 0.38

 Other secondary 0.96 (*) (*) (*) 0.37

*Data not collected for these variables in that year.

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88

_______

146
Table A9—Standard errors for table 9: Percentage of public schools that had decision-making bodies other

Table A9—than school boards, student councils, or PTAs, and percentage of these bodies that included

Table A9—certain groups, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94

Percentage of decision-making bodies with:

Percentage Superintendent

of schools or district or

with such Principal or community

a body Teachers vice-principal Parents Students representatives

 Total 0.72 0.30 0.29 0.79 0.83 0.91

School level

 Elementary 1.00 0.42 0.43 1.00 1.06 1.28

 Middle 1.57 0.86 0.66 2.46 1.93 2.53

 Secondary 0.94 0.73 0.74 1.25 1.16 1.43

 Combined/ungraded only 2.47 1.59 1.63 2.73 4.09 3.57

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 2.11 0.61 0.87 2.92 2.59 3.54

 Grades 7–8 2.52 2.79 1.04 2.99 3.45 4.45

 Other middle 5.01 2.50 0.90 6.74 5.96 6.39

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 2.49 1.44 0.99 2.75 3.36 3.52

 Other secondary 0.98 0.79 0.82 1.39 1.24 1.49

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

Questionnaires): 1993–94.

_______

147
Table A10—Standard errors for table 10: Percentage of public schools’ site-based decision-making bodies

Table A10—that had various functions or areas of responsibility, by school level and grade configuration:

Table A10—1993–94

Aids Considers

principal Confers on input on Plans School and

School with budget school curriculum transpor- district

resource or spending personnel or discipline tation liaisons on

issues issues issues issues routes operations

 Total 0.84 0.74 0.99 0.70 0.40 1.02

School level

 Elementary 1.23 1.21 1.41 0.95 0.44 1.45

 Middle 1.48 1.97 2.72 1.82 0.95 2.56

 Secondary 1.31 1.03 1.08 1.02 0.43 1.19

 Combined/ungraded only 3.12 4.42 4.42 5.05 4.85 4.10

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 2.11 2.98 3.24 2.23 1.21 3.36

 Grades 7–8 2.63 2.87 3.74 2.38 2.70 4.09

 Other middle 5.36 6.27 7.66 7.91 — 5.37

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 2.99 3.66 2.90 2.38 0.97 4.07

 Other secondary 1.43 1.07 1.18 1.05 0.48 1.35

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

Questionnaires): 1993–94.

Areas of responsibility

_______

148
Table A11—Standard errors for table 11: Percentage of public school principals who reported that they had

Table A11—a lot of influence on decisions in various school management areas, by school level and grade

Table A11—configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Determining

School Hiring the content Setting

budget full-time Establishing of inservice Teacher discipline

School characteristics decisions teachers curriculum training evaluation policy

 Total 0.73 0.61 0.70 0.73 0.32 0.46

School level

 Elementary 1.04 1.00 1.01 1.02 0.49 0.72

 Middle 1.86 1.00 1.61 1.53 0.92 1.31

 Secondary 0.76 0.51 0.90 1.01 0.41 0.60

 Combined/ungraded only 2.23 3.17 2.41 2.06 0.97 1.24

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 2.62 1.37 2.21 2.29 1.38 1.98

 Grades 7–8 2.74 1.52 2.61 2.39 1.05 2.11

 Other middle 4.20 2.60 4.83 3.10 2.42 2.41

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 2.61 2.10 3.22 2.81 1.29 1.73

 Other secondary 0.83 0.50 0.96 1.03 0.41 0.60

 Total (*) 0.60 0.74 (*) (*) 0.53

School level

 Elementary (*) 0.82 1.01 (*) (*) 0.74

 Middle (*) 1.49 2.28 (*) (*) 1.77

 Secondary (*) 0.60 1.09 (*) (*) 0.69

 Combined/ungraded only (*) 1.72 2.69 (*) (*) 2.05

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 (*) 1.91 2.76 (*) (*) 2.38

 Grades 7–8 (*) 2.83 3.63 (*) (*) 2.21

 Other middle (*) 3.74 5.45 (*) (*) 5.36

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 (*) 3.17 2.87 (*) (*) 2.84

 Other secondary (*) 0.58 1.19 (*) (*) 0.66

1993–94

1990–91

_______

149
Table A11—Standard errors for table 11: Percentage of public school principals who reported that they had

Table A11—a lot of influence on decisions in various school management areas, by school level and grade

Table A11—configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Determining

School Hiring the content Setting

budget full-time Establishing of inservice Teacher discipline

School characteristics decisions teachers curriculum training evaluation policy

 Total (*) 0.57 0.47 (*) (*) 0.44

School level

 Elementary (*) 0.79 0.69 (*) (*) 0.69

 Middle (*) 1.22 1.78 (*) (*) 1.18

 Secondary (*) 0.80 1.00 (*) (*) 0.60

 Combined/ungraded only (*) 1.90 1.61 (*) (*) 1.23

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 (*) 1.98 2.91 (*) (*) 1.29

 Grades 7–8 (*) 2.42 2.66 (*) (*) 2.09

 Other middle (*) 3.17 3.84 (*) (*) 3.18

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 (*) 2.33 3.41 (*) (*) 2.90

 Other secondary (*) 0.97 1.02 (*) (*) 0.67

*Data not collected for these variables in that year.

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

and Public School Principal Questionnaires): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88

_______

150
Table A12—Standard errors for table 12: Percentage of public school teachers who reported that teachers

Table A12—had a lot of influence on decisions in various school management areas, by school level and

Table A12—grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Determining

School Hiring the content Setting

budget full-time Establishing of inservice Teacher discipline

School characteristics decisions teachers curriculum training evaluation policy

 Total 0.24 0.23 0.38 0.42 0.12 0.41

School level

 Elementary 0.44 0.49 0.68 0.68 0.22 0.68

 Middle 0.84 0.58 1.01 1.00 0.31 1.00

 Secondary 0.21 0.23 0.36 0.39 0.15 0.33

 Combined/ungraded only 1.29 1.39 2.00 1.60 0.34 1.12

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 1.21 0.80 1.53 1.40 0.46 1.43

 Grades 7–8 0.78 0.87 1.32 1.44 0.39 1.64

 Other middle 1.24 1.40 2.54 2.18 0.40 3.28

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 1.14 0.72 1.87 1.67 0.41 1.52

 Other secondary 0.21 0.25 0.39 0.41 0.20 0.41

 Total (*) (*) 0.37 0.40 (*) 0.35

School level

 Elementary (*) (*) 0.59 0.64 (*) 0.57

 Middle (*) (*) 1.20 1.10 (*) 1.02

 Secondary (*) (*) 0.57 0.56 (*) 0.49

 Combined/ungraded only (*) (*) 1.73 1.04 (*) 1.91

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 (*) (*) 1.76 1.57 (*) 1.43

 Grades 7–8 (*) (*) 1.40 1.72 (*) 1.82

 Other middle (*) (*) 2.70 2.56 (*) 1.99

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 (*) (*) 1.93 1.75 (*) 2.21

 Other secondary (*) (*) 0.62 0.59 (*) 0.49

1990–91

1993–94

_______

151
Table A12—Standard errors for table 12: Percentage of public school teachers who reported that teachers

Table A12—had a lot of influence on decisions in various school management areas, by school level and

Table A12—grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Determining

School Hiring the content Setting

budget full-time Establishing of inservice Teacher discipline

School characteristics decisions teachers curriculum training evaluation policy

 Total (*) (*) 0.35 0.33 (*) 0.39

School level

 Elementary (*) (*) 0.50 0.59 (*) 0.68

 Middle (*) (*) 0.88 1.00 (*) 0.99

 Secondary (*) (*) 0.60 0.49 (*) 0.50

 Combined/ungraded only (*) (*) 1.09 1.17 (*) 0.99

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 (*) (*) 1.52 1.30 (*) 1.53

 Grades 7–8 (*) (*) 1.27 1.78 (*) 1.73

 Other middle (*) (*) 2.74 2.58 (*) 2.29

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 (*) (*) 1.42 1.45 (*) 1.61

 Other secondary (*) (*) 0.66 0.55 (*) 0.55

*Data not collected for these variables in that year.

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88

_______

152
Table A13—Standard errors for table 13: Percentage distribution of public school teachers according to type

Table A13—of certification they had in their main and other assignment field, by school level and grade

Table A13—configuration: 1993–94

Provisional, Provisional,

probationary, probationary,

Regular temporary, No Regular temporary, No

or alter- or certifi- or alter- or certifiSchool characteristics Advanced native emergency cation Advanced native emergency cation

 Total 0.20 0.31 0.18 0.15 0.45 0.78 0.20 0.74

School level

 Elementary 0.40 0.51 0.24 0.23 1.23 2.05 0.63 2.00

 Middle 0.64 1.01 0.62 0.43 0.72 2.11 0.71 1.81

 Secondary 0.27 0.29 0.20 0.15 0.40 0.60 0.27 0.61

 Combined/ungraded only 0.45 0.72 0.60 0.41 1.00 1.92 0.59 2.03

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 0.91 1.51 0.85 0.65 1.03 2.93 1.01 2.56

 Grades 7–8 1.20 1.29 0.41 0.44 1.13 2.24 0.73 2.04

 Other middle 2.08 2.19 1.19 1.02 1.88 4.76 1.13 4.68

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 0.97 1.08 0.56 0.40 2.21 2.38 1.00 2.07

 Other secondary 0.29 0.32 0.21 0.20 0.36 0.68 0.29 0.66

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

Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1993–94.

Certification in main assignment field Certification in other assignment field

_______

153
Table A14—Standard errors for table 14: Percentage distribution of public middle and secondary school

Table A14—core subject teachers in departments according to type of certification in their main assignment

Table A14—field, by field and school level: 1993–94

Provisional,

probationary,

Regular or temporary, No

Field and school level Advanced alternative or emergency certification

 Total 0.29 0.42 0.29 0.21

Mathematics 0.81 1.07 0.63 0.63

 Middle schools 1.84 2.62 1.82 1.71

 Secondary schools 0.74 0.84 0.41 0.38

Science 0.69 0.76 0.44 0.50

 Middle schools 1.67 2.12 0.99 1.37

 Secondary schools 0.78 0.84 0.57 0.30

English 0.79 1.14 0.62 0.62

 Middle schools 1.70 2.70 1.62 1.51

 Secondary schools 0.63 0.69 0.30 0.27

Social science 0.84 1.05 0.51 0.63

 Middle schools 1.53 2.52 1.38 1.95

 Secondary schools 0.81 0.94 0.48 0.36

Foreign language 0.83 1.40 1.12 0.82

 Middle schools 2.93 6.68 5.27 3.61

 Secondary schools 0.99 1.14 0.61 0.45

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1993–94.

_______

154
Table A15—Standard errors for table 15: Percentage distributions of public school teachers according

Table A15—to highest degree earned and years of teaching experience, and average years of experience,

Table A15—by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Higher

than a

Bachelor’s master’s 3 or fewer 4–9 10–19 20 or more Average

School characteristics or less Master’s degree years years years years years

 Total 0.33 0.33 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.40 0.33 0.06

School level

 Elementary 0.58 0.58 0.25 0.39 0.41 0.64 0.60 0.11

 Middle 1.04 0.96 0.51 0.69 0.71 0.87 1.08 0.22

 Secondary 0.37 0.35 0.17 0.23 0.30 0.41 0.41 0.07

 Combined/ungraded only 1.20 1.00 0.57 0.68 0.89 1.36 1.21 0.24

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 1.40 1.24 0.68 1.03 0.92 1.31 1.61 0.31

 Grades 7–8 1.40 1.60 0.71 0.63 1.21 1.13 1.17 0.23

 Other middle 3.62 3.29 1.16 1.21 2.40 1.97 3.33 0.67

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 1.70 1.68 0.51 0.83 1.10 1.28 1.43 0.28

 Other secondary 0.43 0.41 0.17 0.25 0.31 0.36 0.42 0.08

 Total 0.31 0.32 0.20 0.20 0.28 0.34 0.31 0.06

School level

 Elementary 0.57 0.51 0.26 0.36 0.40 0.59 0.61 0.10

 Middle 1.39 1.43 0.41 0.67 0.81 0.99 1.00 0.20

 Secondary 0.54 0.52 0.29 0.27 0.43 0.41 0.60 0.11

 Combined/ungraded only 1.36 1.52 0.60 0.94 0.87 1.44 1.91 0.26

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 1.97 1.96 0.60 0.92 1.11 1.21 1.40 0.31

 Grades 7–8 2.20 2.01 0.79 0.91 1.07 1.23 1.50 0.21

 Other middle 2.63 2.61 0.98 1.54 2.58 2.10 2.20 0.37

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 2.05 1.92 0.88 0.72 1.21 1.51 1.60 0.32

 Other secondary 0.60 0.59 0.29 0.28 0.43 0.43 0.62 0.12

Highest degree Years of experience

1993–94

1990–91

_______

155
Table A15—Standard errors for table 15: Percentage distributions of public school teachers according

Table A15—to highest degree earned and years of teaching experience, and average years of experience,

Table A15—by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Higher

than a

Bachelor’s master’s 3 or fewer 4–9 10–19 20 or more Average

School characteristics or less Master’s degree years years years years years

 Total 0.27 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.05

School level

 Elementary 0.47 0.49 0.20 0.24 0.38 0.46 0.50 0.09

 Middle 0.92 0.75 0.62 0.45 0.83 0.77 0.70 0.14

 Secondary 0.43 0.45 0.23 0.22 0.35 0.31 0.30 0.06

 Combined/ungraded only 1.53 1.29 0.62 0.55 0.68 0.99 0.90 0.17

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 1.07 1.03 0.85 0.74 1.07 1.32 1.01 0.18

 Grades 7–8 2.15 1.68 1.18 0.66 1.09 1.22 1.10 0.24

 Other middle 2.35 2.45 0.96 0.96 1.85 3.07 2.39 0.37

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 1.66 1.52 0.79 0.90 1.05 1.27 1.56 0.27

 Other secondary 0.47 0.48 0.27 0.24 0.35 0.36 0.38 0.08

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

Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88

Highest degree Years of experience

_______

156
Table A16—Standard errors for table 16: Percentage of teachers who participated in an inservice or

Table A16—professional development program that focused on various topics since the end of the last

Table A16—school year, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94

Uses of Cooperative 

educational Methods of In-depth learning

technology for teaching in study in Student in the

School characteristics instruction their fields their subject assessment classroom

 Total 0.40 0.36 0.29 0.40 0.34

School level

 Elementary 0.67 0.59 0.54 0.63 0.59

 Middle 1.20 0.94 0.83 0.86 1.03

 Secondary 0.44 0.44 0.28 0.47 0.51

 Combined/ungraded only 1.28 1.01 1.00 0.90 1.44

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 1.69 1.42 0.97 1.18 1.43

 Grades 7–8 1.52 1.23 1.41 1.29 1.41

 Other middle 3.44 2.87 2.43 3.23 2.70

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 1.68 1.60 1.10 2.10 1.80

 Other secondary 0.44 0.45 0.31 0.46 0.50

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1993–94.

_______

157
Table A17—Standard errors for table 17: Of public school teachers who had participated in recent inservice

Table A17—training on various topics,* the percentages who agreed with a range of statements about the

Table A17—training’s effects, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94

Caused me Caused Changed

Provided to seek more change in my Generally

information information my teaching views on a waste

School characteristics new to me or training practices teaching of time

 Total 0.25 0.40 0.32 0.34 0.24

School level

 Elementary 0.50 0.68 0.57 0.61 0.41

 Middle 0.78 0.92 0.93 1.12 0.57

 Secondary 0.31 0.41 0.41 0.47 0.33

 Combined/ungraded only 0.89 1.11 1.41 1.40 0.77

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 1.12 1.40 1.19 1.61 0.81

 Grades 7–8 1.12 1.04 1.16 1.19 0.83

 Other middle 1.90 2.24 2.80 2.31 2.15

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 1.17 1.58 1.69 1.74 1.00

 Other secondary 0.30 0.41 0.40 0.44 0.33

*The five topics were the uses of educational technology, teaching methods in their subject, in-depth study of their subject, 

student assessment, and cooperative learning in the classroom.

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1993–94.

_______

158
Table A18—Standard errors for table 18: Percentage distributions of public school principals according to

Table A18—highest degree earned and years of experience as a principal, and average years of experience,

Table A18—by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Master’s or Doctorate 10 or At

Bachelor’s education or 3 or more current 

School characteristics or less specialist professional fewer 4–9 years years Total school

 Total 0.21 0.65 0.60 0.57 0.67 0.54 0.10 0.08

School level

 Elementary 0.33 0.99 0.97 0.80 0.99 0.73 0.20 0.11

 Middle 0.36 1.93 1.89 1.40 1.57 1.48 0.24 0.20

 Secondary 0.17 0.78 0.81 0.82 0.92 1.05 0.13 0.09

 Combined/ungraded only 0.44 2.80 2.71 2.22 2.97 2.28 0.29 0.16

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 0.38 2.52 2.53 2.28 2.51 2.18 0.40 0.31

 Grades 7–8 1.34 2.49 2.02 2.60 2.86 2.60 0.34 0.28

 Other middle — 4.56 4.56 4.57 4.63 4.74 0.61 0.40

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 — 3.27 3.27 3.07 3.00 2.92 0.43 0.34

 Other secondary 0.18 0.78 0.81 0.90 0.99 1.13 0.14 0.10

 Total 0.23 0.70 0.68 0.68 0.65 0.81 0.14 0.10

School level

 Elementary 0.28 1.07 1.04 0.91 1.11 1.22 0.19 0.13

 Middle 0.81 1.82 1.78 1.90 1.93 1.79 0.25 0.22

 Secondary 0.33 1.10 1.18 0.91 1.02 1.13 0.20 0.19

 Combined/ungraded only 0.88 2.37 2.40 2.43 2.29 2.54 0.41 0.22

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 0.42 2.50 2.53 2.21 2.64 2.50 0.41 0.32

 Grades 7–8 0.65 2.80 2.75 3.31 3.50 3.17 0.52 0.38

 Other middle — 5.84 5.17 6.61 4.89 6.59 0.98 0.64

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 — 3.05 3.04 2.46 3.03 3.21 0.54 0.37

 Other secondary 0.37 1.21 1.25 1.00 1.10 1.24 0.28 0.21

Years of experience Average 

Highest degree earned years as principal as principal

1990–91

1993–94

_______

159
Table A18—Standard errors for table 18: Percentage distributions of public school principals according to

Table A18—highest degree earned and years of experience as a principal, and average years of experience,

Table A18—by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Master’s or Doctorate 10 or At

Bachelor’s education or 3 or more current 

School characteristics or less specialist professional fewer 4–9 years years Total school

 Total 0.25 0.50 0.52 0.51 0.64 0.64 0.09 0.07

School level

 Elementary 0.39 0.82 0.84 0.75 0.94 0.86 0.12 0.09

 Middle 0.21 1.62 1.60 1.74 1.78 2.00 0.27 0.22

 Secondary 0.21 1.13 1.23 0.61 1.07 1.02 0.15 0.10

 Combined/ungraded only 0.74 2.05 2.07 1.27 1.91 2.01 0.26 0.23

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 — 2.68 2.67 2.09 2.64 2.62 0.31 0.25

 Grades 7–8 — 2.83 2.70 2.21 3.01 2.86 0.43 0.39

 Other middle — 4.00 3.96 4.19 3.44 4.16 0.60 0.49

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 — 2.92 2.95 2.44 2.40 2.35 0.38 0.31

 Other secondary 0.22 1.14 1.21 0.67 1.10 1.05 0.15 0.11

—Too few sample observations for a reliable estimate.

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

Public School Principal Questionnaires): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88

Years of experience Average 

Highest degree earned as principal years as principal

_______

160
Table A19—Standard errors for table 19: Percentage of principals who had received various types of

Table A19—training for school administration, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91,

Table A19—and 1987–88

Training or

development Inservice None of 

program for training in Training in Adminis- these

aspiring evaluation and management trative types of

School characteristics principals supervision techniques internship training

 Total 0.61 0.41 0.57 0.75 0.40

School level

 Elementary 0.84 0.67 0.82 1.02 0.42

 Middle 1.93 1.30 1.45 2.29 0.89

 Secondary 0.93 0.72 0.80 0.85 0.48

 Combined/ungraded only 2.99 1.21 1.85 3.02 1.04

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 2.88 1.69 2.09 3.01 1.32

 Grades 7–8 2.32 2.21 2.12 2.82 1.41

 Other middle 4.74 3.74 4.74 4.93 2.03

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 2.85 2.87 2.94 2.83 1.83

 Other secondary 1.05 0.73 0.84 0.89 0.49

 Total 0.72 0.42 0.58 0.75 0.39

School level

 Elementary 0.99 0.60 0.90 1.07 0.57

 Middle 2.20 1.22 1.50 1.91 0.89

 Secondary 1.04 0.61 0.84 1.07 0.49

 Combined/ungraded only 2.02 1.16 1.71 2.69 0.79

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 3.00 1.58 2.18 2.95 1.33

 Grades 7–8 3.17 3.28 3.24 3.78 1.73

 Other middle 6.21 3.01 4.03 4.01 1.66

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 3.24 1.56 2.61 3.40 1.36

 Other secondary 1.08 0.67 0.92 1.13 0.53

Other training

1990–91

1993–94

_______

161
Table A19—Standard errors for table 19: Percentage of principals who had received various types of

Table A19—training for school administration, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91,

Table A19—and 1987–88—Continued

Training or

development Inservice None of 

program for training in Training in Adminis- these

aspiring evaluation and management trative types of

School characteristics principals supervision techniques internship training

 Total (*) 0.34 0.53 0.57 0.27

School level

 Elementary (*) 0.51 0.81 0.85 0.36

 Middle (*) 1.10 1.57 1.74 0.93

 Secondary (*) 0.62 0.73 1.02 0.63

 Combined/ungraded only (*) 1.57 1.74 1.96 1.32

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 (*) 1.09 2.18 2.13 1.12

 Grades 7–8 (*) 2.23 2.84 2.88 2.04

 Other middle (*) 2.43 2.91 3.83 2.21

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 (*) 1.83 2.58 2.43 1.63

 Other secondary (*) 0.66 0.77 1.11 0.66

*Data not collected for this variable in that year.

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

and Public School Principal Questionnaires): 1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88

Other training

_______

162
Table A20—Standard errors for table 20: Percentage of public schools with teaching vacancies that found

Table A20—them very difficult or impossible to fill, and percentage that used various strategies for filling

Table A20—them, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94

Percent

with Assigned

great Hired other 

difficulty Hired less than Used teacher Expanded Increased 

filling qualified qualified substitute or admin- class teaching

School characteristics vacancies teacher teacher teacher istrator sizes loads Other

 Total 0.62 0.43 0.40 0.58 0.31 0.32 0.54 0.31

School level

 Elementary 0.80 0.62 0.58 0.82 0.41 0.40 0.39 0.42

 Middle 2.00 1.13 1.16 1.60 1.33 0.69 2.02 0.81

 Secondary 0.77 0.40 0.58 0.60 0.44 0.53 0.61 0.41

 Combined/ungraded only 3.51 1.50 1.77 3.52 3.81 3.82 3.07 3.80

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 2.51 1.60 1.60 2.07 1.99 0.92 2.73 0.77

 Grades 7–8 2.59 1.06 1.96 1.96 1.49 1.61 2.08 1.01

 Other middle 4.50 2.07 2.20 3.75 1.81 1.34 4.67 3.61

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 2.61 1.67 1.80 2.37 2.14 1.75 2.92 0.82

 Other secondary 0.90 0.41 0.56 0.58 0.45 0.58 0.67 0.43

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

Questionnaires): 1993–94.

Methods used to fill vacancies

_______

163
Table A21—Standard errors for table 21: Ratio of students per full-time-equivalent teacher in public

Table A21—schools, and percentage of public schools with librarians and counselors, by school level and

Table A21—grade configuration: 1993–94

Students per Librarians or

School characteristics FTE teacher media specialists Counselors

 Total 0.06 0.01 0.58

School level

 Elementary 0.08 0.03 1.01

 Middle 0.19 0 0.97

 Secondary 0.11 0.25 0.60

 Combined/ungraded only 0.39 0.09 2.84

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 0.24 0 0.82

 Grades 7–8 0.31 0.24 2.00

 Other middle 0.59 0 3.37

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 0.22 0 0.63

 Other secondary 0.12 0.27 0.59

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

and Public School Teacher Questionnaires): 1993–94.

Percentage of schools with:

_______

164
Table A22—Standard errors for table 22: Percentage distribution of public school teachers according to

Table A22—their teaching status the following school year, by school level and grade configuration:

Table A22—1993–95, 1990–92, and 1987–89

Stayed at Moved to

School characteristics same school different school Left teaching

 Total 0.52 0.35 0.34

School level

 Elementary 0.83 0.52 0.59

 Middle 2.09 1.29 1.26

 Secondary 0.69 0.50 0.48

 Combined/ungraded only 1.87 1.42 1.04

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 2.63 1.73 1.47

 Grades 7–8 2.86 1.56 2.14

 Other middle 3.61 1.48 3.28

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 2.64 1.91 1.39

 Other secondary 0.70 0.52 0.52

 Total 0.49 0.34 0.41

School level

 Elementary 0.68 0.56 0.49

 Middle 1.54 0.99 1.13

 Secondary 0.97 0.69 0.56

 Combined/ungraded only 2.23 2.00 1.29

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 2.01 1.18 1.59

 Grades 7–8 2.88 2.42 1.97

 Other middle 2.81 2.16 1.41

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 2.05 1.60 1.28

 Other secondary 1.03 0.75 0.60

1990–92

1993–95

_______

165
Table A22—Standard errors for table 22: Percentage distribution of public school teachers according to

Table A22—their teaching status the following school year, by school level and grade configuration:

Table A22—1993–95, 1990–92, and 1987–89—Continued

Stayed at Moved to

School characteristics same school different school Left teaching

 Total 0.47 0.42 0.30

School level

 Elementary 0.73 0.60 0.42

 Middle 1.39 1.09 0.62

 Secondary 0.95 0.84 0.48

 Combined/ungraded only 1.78 1.12 1.35

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 1.79 1.34 1.02

 Grades 7–8 1.79 1.48 0.79

 Other middle 6.90 6.19 1.86

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 3.20 3.03 1.02

 Other secondary 1.04 0.88 0.51

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-Up Survey: 1988–89, 

1991–92, and 1994–95.

1987–88

_______

166
Table A23—Standard errors for table 23: Percentage of public school principals who rated various goals as

Table A23—one of their top three, by school level and grade configuration: 1993–94

Good work Occupa- MultiBasic Academic habits/ Human tional/ cultural Specific

literacy excel- self- Personal relations vocational aware- moral

skills lence discipline growth skills skills ness values

 Total 0.60 0.67 0.75 0.61 0.54 0.40 0.55 0.30

School level

 Elementary 0.73 1.11 1.13 0.93 0.94 0.57 0.81 0.42

 Middle 2.10 1.67 1.84 2.02 1.15 1.38 0.96 0.96

 Secondary 0.98 1.01 0.96 0.95 0.57 0.78 0.48 0.39

 Combined/ungraded onl 3.07 2.59 3.17 2.51 1.57 2.76 3.40 1.18

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 2.55 2.06 2.75 2.72 1.97 1.82 1.14 1.21

 Grades 7–8 2.88 2.85 2.87 2.70 2.32 2.25 1.18 1.41

 Other middle 4.82 5.29 4.90 5.21 4.39 2.55 2.76 3.96

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 2.98 2.81 2.75 3.33 3.03 2.08 2.18 1.71

 Other secondary 1.03 1.05 1.04 0.95 0.57 0.83 0.48 0.45

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

and Public School Principal Questionnaires): 1993–94.

_______

167
Table A24—Standard errors for table 24: Percentage of public school teachers who had their students engage in various activi

Table A24—a week, by school level and grade configuration: 1994–95

Work on

Confer with problems

Lead or Respond Work on other with several Exp

participate in orally to Used printed group students or answers betw

whole-group open-ended material other projects or evaluate or methods lear

School characteristics discussions questions than textbooks presentations their work of solution rea Total 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.38 1.20 1.20 School level Elementary 1.19 1.02 1.43 2.01 1.74 1.65  Middle 2.81 2.99 3.00 4.14 3.19 3.46  Secondary 1.77 1.60 1.75 2.00 1.94 1.91  Combined/ungraded only 5.97 4.93 5.12 6.19 8.21 6.52 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 4.00 3.58 3.40 4.21 4.27 4.02 

 Grades 7–8 4.22 5.34 7.02 6.45 5.41 6.21 

 Other middle 7.94 6.68 8.02 9.78 8.63 8.64 Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 9.91 8.01 5.14 6.39 10.70 10.79 

 Other secondary 1.67 1.61 1.81 2.20 2.01 1.95 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey: 1994–95.
Table A25—Standard errors for table 25: Percentage of public school teachers who emphasized specific

Table A25—skills at least once a week, by school level and grade configuration: 1994–95

Organizing,

Analyzing and summarizing,

Generalizing from interpreting or displaying

School characteristics patterns or examples information information

 Total 0.86 0.88 1.03 

School level

 Elementary 1.41 1.41 1.73 

 Middle 3.32 3.20 3.43 

 Secondary 1.61 1.24 1.82 

 Combined/ungraded only 4.09 5.67 5.20 

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 4.52 4.31 4.07 

 Grades 7–8 4.92 5.27 4.79 

 Other middle 6.33 7.57 5.94 

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 9.19 10.33 10.09 

 Other secondary 1.67 1.34 1.83 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey: 1994–95.

_______

169
Table A26—Standard errors for table 26: Percentage of public school teachers who assigned their students

Table A26—various homework activities at least once a week, by school level and grade configuration:

Table A26—1994–95

Work on Work on

problems Apply project,

with no concepts gather

Prepare obvious to data, or Write Write

written Prepare method of unfamiliar conduct journal short 

School characteristics report oral report solution situation experiment entry assignment

 Total 1.04 0.70 0.81 1.15 1.06 1.07 1.25 

School level

 Elementary 1.51 1.10 1.13 1.37 1.54 1.84 1.81 

 Middle 2.40 1.52 2.84 2.90 2.99 3.24 3.45 

 Secondary 1.84 1.15 1.40 2.30 1.81 1.80 2.08 

 Combined/ungraded only 2.55 — 3.11 6.86 5.06 4.86 5.69 

Middle school grade configuration

 Grades 6–8 3.64 2.22 4.24 4.20 3.92 4.22 4.74 

 Grades 7–8 5.14 3.34 4.11 6.57 5.63 7.54 7.19 

 Other middle 5.63 — — 7.33 5.63 8.58 8.66 

Secondary school grade configuration

 Grades 7–9 6.35 — 5.13 9.44 10.28 6.22 10.70 

 Other secondary 1.75 1.13 1.44 2.41 1.75 1.89 1.97 

—Too few sample observations for a reliable estimate.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey: 1994–95.

_______

170
Table A27—Standard errors for table 27: Percentage of public school teachers who agreed with various statements about their 

Table A27—and grade configuration: 1993–94 and 1987–88*

Principal I try to Principal Paperwor

Teachers I receive Adminis- enforces coordinate makes Principal routine 

participate a great tration’s school course Teachers expec- does poor duties 

in important deal of behavior is rules, content are tations job of interfere 

educational parent supportive, backs with other evaluated for staff getting with my 

School characteristics decisions support ncouraging me up teachers fairly clear resources teaching  Total 0.44 0.38 0.41 0.40 0.25 0.22 0.30 0.21 0.38 School level Elementary 0.69 0.60 0.63 0.60 0.37 0.36 0.52 0.42 0.57  Middle 1.03 1.13 0.74 0.87 0.69 0.63 0.70 0.81 0.94  Secondary 0.54 0.53 0.38 0.36 0.20 0.31 0.31 0.41 0.29  Combined/ungraded only 1.30 1.09 1.11 1.10 0.69 0.74 0.69 1.01 1.04 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 1.63 1.38 1.06 1.34 1.04 0.90 0.93 1.17 1.33 

 Grades 7–8 1.47 1.41 1.23 0.94 0.90 0.61 0.83 0.94 0.93 

 Other middle 2.45 2.61 2.60 2.89 1.71 1.59 2.14 2.01 2.49 Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 1.78 1.41 1.38 1.22 1.13 0.83 1.09 1.22 1.00 

 Other secondary 0.53 0.55 0.40 0.39 0.30 0.33 0.32 0.37 0.29 

1993–94
Table A27—Standard errors for table 27: Percentage of public school teachers who agreed with various statements about their 

Table A27—and grade configuration: 1993–94 and 1987–88*—Continued

Principal I try to Principal Paperwor

Teachers I receive Adminis- enforces coordinate makes Principal routine 

participate a great tration’s school course Teachers expec- does poor duties 

in important deal of behavior is rules, content are tations job of interfere 

educational parent supportive, backs with other evaluated for staff getting with my 

School characteristics decisions support ncouraging me up teachers fairly clear resources teaching  Total 0.35 0.29 0.28 0.23 0.21 0.25 0.20 0.25 0.31 School level Elementary 0.50 0.48 0.37 0.40 0.31 0.36 0.28 0.43 0.49  Middle 1.07 1.04 0.91 0.78 0.62 0.85 0.59 0.71 0.76  Secondary 0.59 0.54 0.52 0.41 0.44 0.33 0.40 0.35 0.37  Combined/ungraded only 1.06 1.10 1.08 0.81 0.63 0.69 0.80 0.80 0.97 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 1.57 1.36 1.23 1.21 0.98 0.99 1.01 1.23 1.02 

 Grades 7–8 1.45 1.75 1.73 1.24 1.22 1.18 1.11 1.11 1.16 

 Other middle 2.48 2.61 2.45 1.99 1.19 2.07 1.41 1.56 2.36 Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 1.86 1.99 1.43 1.08 1.28 0.80 0.88 1.06 1.07 

 Other secondary 0.61 0.52 0.56 0.44 0.49 0.37 0.44 0.37 0.37 

*Only one of the column variables was included in the 1990–91 questionnaire, so data from that year are not shown.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School and Public School Te

1987–88 and 1993–94. 

1987–88
Table A28—Standard errors for table 28: Percentage of public school teachers who were satisfied with particular aspects of th

Table A28—by school level and grade configuration: 1994–95, 1991–92, and 1988–89

Availability Recognition Influence

of resources/ and support over 

Overall job Teaching materials/ from Intellectual policy, Caliber of Professional 

School characteristics satisfaction load equipment administrators challenge practices colleagues prestige  Total 0.93 1.22 1.41 1.30 0.74 1.27 0.96 1.49 School level Elementary 1.58 1.93 2.07 2.18 1.11 1.91 1.43 2.11  Middle 2.89 3.88 3.62 3.12 2.64 3.30 3.00 3.01  Secondary 1.60 1.63 1.94 1.98 1.74 2.32 1.74 2.39  Combined/ungraded only 5.22 6.76 5.88 5.24 5.93 6.62 3.78 5.56 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 3.98 4.54 4.79 4.11 3.52 3.87 4.04 4.84  Grades 7–8 4.83 5.26 5.40 5.92 5.09 7.22 4.39 6.59  Other middle 6.55 10.95 9.20 7.97 5.90 9.39 4.89 9.16 Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 7.84 6.98 7.98 10.93 5.95 9.94 6.61 9.41  Other secondary 1.60 1.80 2.00 1.81 1.77 2.21 1.75 2.51  Total 0.87 1.23 1.14 1.44 0.88 1.22 0.89 1.39 School level Elementary 1.53 1.62 1.80 1.99 1.22 1.76 1.32 1.66  Middle 2.36 3.52 3.55 3.41 2.60 3.91 2.01 3.21  Secondary 1.92 1.91 2.20 2.23 1.98 2.37 1.86 2.22  Combined/ungraded only 5.84 6.23 6.74 5.08 5.10 5.18 4.90 6.59 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 3.63 5.07 3.80 4.15 3.50 4.41 2.78 4.46  Grades 7–8 5.78 6.89 9.20 6.11 3.99 6.60 3.31 7.69  Other middle 6.00 8.73 6.89 8.49 7.58 12.52 5.58 9.80 Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 6.28 6.18 7.52 6.41 5.97 6.66 6.47 5.61  Other secondary 2.00 2.07 2.27 2.39 2.14 2.59 2.08 2.20 

1991–92

1994–95
Table A28—Standard errors for table 28: Percentage of public school teachers who were satisfied with particular aspects of th

Table A28—by school level and grade configuration: 1994–95, 1991–92, and 1988–89—Continued

Availability Recognition Influence

of resources/ and support over 

Overall job Teaching materials/ from Intellectual policy, Caliber of Professional 

School characteristics satisfaction load equipment administrators challenge practices colleagues prestige  Total (*) 1.10 1.41 1.45 1.01 0.93 1.11 (*) School level Elementary (*) 1.83 1.47 1.89 1.53 1.97 1.43 (*)  Middle (*) 4.07 3.82 4.28 3.28 3.71 3.03 (*)  Secondary (*) 2.36 3.27 2.19 1.34 1.52 2.27 (*)  Combined/ungraded only (*) 4.98 6.18 5.77 5.75 5.37 6.10 (*) Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 (*) 5.80 4.97 4.69 4.23 5.10 4.14 (*)  Grades 7–8 (*) 7.30 5.40 9.07 6.98 6.84 5.56 (*)  Other middle (*) 13.22 13.04 13.15 8.94 10.16 5.30 (*) Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 (*) 9.61 8.61 6.72 7.49 7.97 0.73 (*)  Other secondary (*) 2.28 3.63 2.43 1.48 1.80 2.35 (*) 

*Data not collected for these variables in that year.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey: 1988–89, 1991–92, and 1994–95.

1988–89
Table A29—Standard errors for table 29: Percentage of public school teachers who rated various problems in their schools as 

Table A29—and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Students Lack of Physical

arrive Lack of Student parent conflicts

Student unprepared academic disrespect involve- among 

School characteristics apathy to learn challenge Absenteeism for teachers Poverty ment students  Total 0.35 0.39 0.17 0.29 0.40 0.52 0.40 0.20 School level Elementary 0.40 0.60 0.21 0.41 0.50 0.81 0.61 0.42  Middle 1.31 1.30 0.63 0.69 1.14 1.11 1.25 0.80  Secondary 0.48 0.51 0.24 0.67 0.41 0.42 0.76 0.33  Combined/ungraded only 1.20 1.21 0.63 0.83 1.19 1.63 1.41 0.73 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 1.64 1.71 0.87 0.96 1.59 1.54 1.61 1.18 

 Grades 7–8 1.19 1.42 0.71 1.02 1.06 1.43 1.40 0.96 

 Other middle 3.00 2.77 1.44 1.43 2.37 2.16 2.68 1.74 Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 1.34 1.60 0.82 1.45 1.20 1.21 1.80 1.14 

 Other secondary 0.47 0.50 0.20 0.69 0.48 0.47 0.78 0.41  Total (*) (*) (*) 0.29 (*) (*) (*) 0.23 School level Elementary (*) (*) (*) 0.29 (*) (*) (*) 0.33  Middle (*) (*) (*) 0.94 (*) (*) (*) 0.97  Secondary (*) (*) (*) 0.75 (*) (*) (*) 0.22  Combined/ungraded only (*) (*) (*) 1.15 (*) (*) (*) 1.20 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 (*) (*) (*) 1.24 (*) (*) (*) 1.21 

 Grades 7–8 (*) (*) (*) 1.60 (*) (*) (*) 1.29 

 Other middle (*) (*) (*) 1.32 (*) (*) (*) 2.54 Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 (*) (*) (*) 2.11 (*) (*) (*) 1.04 

 Other secondary (*) (*) (*) 0.80 (*) (*) (*) 0.24 

1990–911993–94
Table A29—Standard errors for table 29: Percentage of public school teachers who rated various problems in their schools as 

Table A29—and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Students Lack of Physical

arrive Lack of Student parent conflicts

Student unprepared academic disrespect involve- among 

School characteristics apathy to learn challenge Absenteeism for teachers Poverty ment students  Total (*) (*) (*) 0.23 (*) (*) (*) 0.18 School level Elementary (*) (*) (*) 0.29 (*) (*) (*) 0.28  Middle (*) (*) (*) 0.73 (*) (*) (*) 0.60  Secondary (*) (*) (*) 0.56 (*) (*) (*) 0.32  Combined/ungraded only (*) (*) (*) 0.77 (*) (*) (*) 0.53 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 (*) (*) (*) 1.07 (*) (*) (*) 0.73 

 Grades 7–8 (*) (*) (*) 1.27 (*) (*) (*) 1.28 

 Other middle (*) (*) (*) 1.41 (*) (*) (*) 1.60 Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 (*) (*) (*) 1.27 (*) (*) (*) 0.70 

 Other secondary (*) (*) (*) 0.66 (*) (*) (*) 0.33 

*Data not collected for these variables in that year.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School and Public School Te1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88
Table A30—Standard errors for table 30: Percentage of public school principals who rated various problems in their schools a

Table A30—level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88

Students Lack of Physical

arrive Lack of Student parent conflicts 

Student unprepared academic disrespect involve- among 

School characteristics apathy to learn challenge Absenteeism for teachers Poverty ment students  Total 0.31 0.42 0.16 0.23 0.22 0.55 0.41 0.20 School level Elementary 0.33 0.57 0.19 0.28 0.30 0.81 0.60 0.25  Middle 1.34 1.28 0.61 0.76 0.81 1.42 1.40 0.90  Secondary 0.62 0.55 0.33 0.54 0.37 0.66 0.73 0.28  Combined/ungraded only 1.28 1.22 0.54 1.00 1.00 2.01 1.43 0.74 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 1.81 1.89 1.09 1.07 1.28 2.21 2.18 1.12 

 Grades 7–8 1.30 1.57 0.84 0.80 0.64 1.71 2.30 0.56 

 Other middle 3.41 1.61 0.71 1.33 1.09 2.54 2.23 2.53 

Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 1.81 1.56 1.67 1.00 1.22 1.84 2.13 1.47 

 Other secondary 0.64 0.60 0.41 0.59 0.38 0.67 0.76 0.30  Total 0.40 (*) 0.23 0.30 0.26 0.49 0.37 0.23 School level Elementary 0.41 (*) 0.28 0.43 0.31 0.74 0.52 0.20  Middle 1.21 (*) 0.77 0.84 0.89 1.05 1.51 1.15  Secondary 0.78 (*) 0.40 0.86 0.30 0.74 0.86 0.20  Combined/ungraded only 1.61 (*) 1.20 1.22 0.81 1.41 1.89 0.65 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 1.51 (*) 1.21 1.21 1.04 1.47 1.94 0.82 

 Grades 7–8 2.02 (*) 1.41 1.62 1.91 2.03 2.39 1.21 

 Other middle 2.31 (*) 1.10 — 1.38 4.51 2.88 4.39 

Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 2.99 (*) 1.61 1.80 1.16 2.54 2.88 0.40 

 Other secondary 0.80 (*) 0.41 0.89 0.32 0.76 0.98 0.22 

1990–91

1993–94
Table A30—Standard errors for table 30: Percentage of public school principals who rated various problems in their schools a

Table A30—level and grade configuration: 1993–94, 1990–91, and 1987–88—Continued

Students Lack of Physical

arrive Lack of Student parent conflicts 

Student unprepared academic disrespect involve- among 

School characteristics apathy to learn challenge Absenteeism for teachers Poverty ment students  Total (*) (*) (*) 0.27 (*) (*) (*) 0.21 School level Elementary (*) (*) (*) 0.35 (*) (*) (*) 0.30  Middle (*) (*) (*) 0.61 (*) (*) (*) 0.64  Secondary (*) (*) (*) 0.75 (*) (*) (*) 0.27  Combined/ungraded only (*) (*) (*) 1.55 (*) (*) (*) 0.61 Middle school grade configuration Grades 6–8 (*) (*) (*) 0.91 (*) (*) (*) 0.80 

 Grades 7–8 (*) (*) (*) 1.02 (*) (*) (*) 1.02 

 Other middle (*) (*) (*) 1.38 (*) (*) (*) 1.74 Secondary school grade configuration Grades 7–9 (*) (*) (*) 1.77 (*) (*) (*) 0.97 

 Other secondary (*) (*) (*) 0.87 (*) (*) (*) 0.26 

—Too few sample observations for a reliable estimate.*Data not collected for these variables in that year.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (Public School and Public School Pr1987–88, 1990–91, and 1993–94.

1987–88
179

Appendix C—Technical Notes

Data from two surveys were analyzed for this report, the Schools and Staffing Survey

(SASS), and the Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS). The emphasis in this report, as well as in this

appendix, is on the most recent data available from each of these surveys, the 1993–94 SASS and

1994–95 TFS data. However, the report also includes some discussion of trends using earlier

SASS and TFS surveys. Technical information about the 1987–88 and 1990–91 SASS and 1988–

89 and 1991–92 TFS can be found in previous publications and on the SASS Web site

(http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/).24

The Schools and Staffing Survey

The 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS:93–94) is a nationally representative survey that collected public- and private-sector data on the nation’s elementary and secondary

schools, teachers, principals, and their school districts. (Note that data from the public sector only

are analyzed in this report.) The SASS:93–94 data are the most comprehensive nationally oriented data available, with information on numbers of schools, teachers, and students; programs

and services that schools provide; decision-making and influence; staff qualifications and staffing

matters; and a range of school climate topics; as well as other topics not examined in this report.

Sample Design

The 1993–94 SASS was the third in a series of cross-sectional surveys, following ones in

1990–91 and 1987–88. The public school survey consisted of four sets of linked questionnaires,

including surveys of schools, principals of the selected schools, a subsample of teachers within

 

24See the technical appendices in the statistical profile reports for the earlier two SASS data sets for more detailed information

(Choy, Henke, Alt, and Medrich 1993 [NCES 93–146] for information on SASS 1990–91; and Choy, Medrich, and Henke 1992

[NCES 92–120] for information on SASS 1987–88. See the technical appendices in Bobbitt 1991 (NCES 91–128) and Bobbitt

1994 (NCES 94–337) for more detailed information about the earlier TFS data sets. For complete details, see the user’s manuals

for these data sets: Gruber, Rohr, and Fondelier 1996 (the 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey Data File User’s Manual, volume I, NCES 96–142), Gruber 1994 (the 1990–91 SASS Data File User’s Manual, NCES 93–144-I), and Broene 1991 (the

1987–88 SASS Data File User’s Manual on public school data, NCES 91–136); and Whitener, Gruber, Rohr, and Fondelier

1998 (the 1994–95 Teacher Followup Survey Data File User’s Manual, NCES 98–232); Whitener, Kaufman, Rohr, Bynum, and

King 1994 (the 1991–92 TFS Data File User’s Manual, NCES 94–331), and Faupel, Bobbitt, and Friedrichs 1992 (the 1988–89

TFS Data File User’s Manual, NCES 92–058).
Appendix C—Technical Notes

180

each school, and public school districts. Schools were sampled first, and the sample25 was stratified by sector, state, and school level. Each selected school received a school questionnaire and

an administrator questionnaire. Within each school, a sample of teachers was selected and each

one received a teacher questionnaire. A Teacher Demand and Shortage Questionnaire for Public

School Districts was sent to each local education agency (LEA), or school district, that had at

least one school selected for the school sample.

The primary public school frame for the 1993–94 SASS was the 1991–92 school year

Common Core of Data (CCD) data file, believed to be the most complete public school listing

available. The CCD is based on administrative records collected annually by NCES from all state

education agencies, which work with NCES to assure comparability between data elements reported. For the 1991–92 school year, state education agencies reported data for a total of 86,287

schools. The CCD frame includes regular public schools and Department of Defense schools.

Nonregular schools such as special education, vocational or technical schools are also included in

the sample frame. Before sampling, duplicate schools and schools outside of the United States

were removed from the frame. Schools that teach only prekindergarten, kindergarten, or adult

education were also removed, leaving a total of 82,746 schools on the 1991–92 public school

frame.26

Data Collection Procedures

The data were collected for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) by the

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Questionnaires were mailed to school districts and administrators in

December 1993 and to schools and teachers in January and February 1994. Six weeks later, a

second questionnaire was sent to each nonrespondent. Telephone followup of nonrespondents

was conducted between March and June.

Weighting27

Weights of the sample units were developed to produce national and state estimates for

public schools, teachers, administrators, and LEAs. The basic weights were the inverse of the

probability of selection, and they were adjusted for nonresponse and to adjust the sample totals

(based on responding, nonresponding, and out-of-scope cases) to the frame totals in order to re-

 

25For a detailed description of the sample design and the differences between the designs in 1990–91 and 1993–94, see Abramson, Cole, Jackson, Parmer, and Kaufman 1996.

26In addition, the private school sample was drawn from the 1991–92 Private School Survey (PSS), updated with 1992–93 association lists. (Private schools were not included in this report.)

27For a detailed description of the weighting processes, see Abramson, Cole, Jackson, Parmer, and Kaufman 1996 (NCES 96–

089), 69–89.
Appendix C—Technical Notes

181

duce sampling variability. For teachers, the weight adjusted the estimated number of teachers on

the school file to match the teacher count on the teacher file.

Response Rates

The weighted response rate for public schools in SASS 1993–94 was 92.3 percent. The

overall weighted response rate for public school principals (taking into account nonresponse to

the School Questionnaire) was 96.6 percent. The overall weighted response rate for public school

teachers (taking into account both nonresponse to the Teacher Listing Form and to the School

Questionnaire) was 83.8 percent. In the public school teacher survey, 91 percent of the items had

a response rate of 90 percent or more. None of the items used in this report had a response rate of

less than 80 percent. Values were imputed for questionnaire items that should have been answered but were not (Abramson, Cole, Jackson, Parmer, and Kaufman 1996), using one of three

methods: 1) using data from other items on the questionnaire or a related component of the SASS

(a school record to impute district data, for example); 2) extracting data from the sampling frame

file (the Common Core of Data or Private School Survey); or 3) extracting data from a respondent with similar characteristics.28 The samples used for the 1993–94 analyses in this report consisted of 8,767 public schools, 9,098 public school principals, and 47,105 public school teachers.

Changes in the SASS Design from 1990–91 to 1993–94

After an evaluation of the 1990–91 SASS, several changes were made in the 1993–94

SASS. Changes made to the SASS sample design between 1987–88 and 1990–91 may affect

comparisons between 1987–88 and subsequent years of SASS data. These changes included:

• The source for the public school sampling frame was switched from QED29 to CCD,

resulting in a different definition of “school.”

• The estimated number of teachers from the teacher file was adjusted to the estimated

number of teachers from the school file.

Additional changes included the following.

• Schools in the Bureau of Indian Affairs stratum were selected with certainty.

• The cutoff for defining Native American schools was changed to a Native American/Alaskan Native enrollment greater than 19.5 percent, from 25 percent.

 

28For a detailed description of the imputation procedures, see Abramson, Cole, Jackson, Parmer, and Kaufman 1996 (NCES 96–

089).

29QED refers to a list of all the nation’s public and private parochial and nonparochial schools compiled by Quality Education

Data, Inc., of Denver.
Appendix C—Technical Notes

182

• Collapsing criteria were altered slightly for the LEA weighting.

• Administrators who also taught were eligible for the teacher sample and so could receive a teacher questionnaire if sampled as a teacher, in addition to an administrator

questionnaire.

• Computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) instruments were used extensively for

the nonresponse follow-up of the teacher survey, public school survey, and administrator survey (among others not used in this report).

These changes are discussed in more detail in other NCES documents.30

The Teacher Followup Survey

The 1994–95 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) was sponsored by the National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Department of Education to update information on

teacher attrition and career patterns. The U.S. Bureau of the Census collected and processed the

data. The TFS is a survey of elementary and secondary school teachers who participated in the

Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)31 and is conducted in the school year following the SASS

data collection. The sample for the 1994–95 TFS was selected from those teachers who participated in the 1993–94 SASS; it consisted of all who left teaching within the year after SASS was

administered and a subsample of those who continued teaching.

The TFS provides data on teacher attrition rates, characteristics of those who stay in the

teaching profession and those who leave, occupations or other activities for those who leave

teaching and career information for those who are still teaching, and attitudes about the teaching

profession and job satisfaction.

Sample Design

The 1994–95 TFS is a survey of approximately 7,200 teachers interviewed in the 1993–94

SASS Teacher Survey. As described earlier, the purpose of the 1994–95 TFS was to measure

teacher attrition rates one year after the 1993–94 SASS data collection. In SASS, schools were

selected first. Next, teachers were selected within each sampled school. TFS teachers were selected from teachers who responded to the SASS. The TFS sample is a stratified sample that was

allocated to allow comparisons of stayers, movers, and leavers within sector (public/private),

teachers with different amounts of experience, and grade levels taught.

 

30For a detailed description of the sample design and the differences between the designs for different SASS administrations, see

Kaufman and Huang 1993 (NCES 93–449); and Abramson, Cole, Jackson, Parmer, and Kaufman 1996 (NCES 96–089).

31For a complete description of the 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey, see Gruber, Rohr, and Fondelier 1996 (NCES 96–

142-I).
Appendix C—Technical Notes

183

Within each public TFS stratum, teachers who responded to the 1993–94 SASS Teacher

Survey were sorted by teachers’ main assignment field, Census region, urbanicity, school enrollment, and SASS teacher control number. After they were sorted, teachers were selected within

each stratum using a probability proportional to size sampling procedure.

Response Rates

TFS weighted survey response rates for current and former teachers are summarized below.

The cumulative overall response rates take into account the SASS response rates as well. (Note

that the TFS sample is a subset of the SASS respondents.) The cumulative overall response rates

were 80 percent for 1994–95 current teachers and 74.7 percent for former teachers. The cumulative overall response rates are calculated as follows: (SASS Teacher List response rate) x (SASS

Teacher Survey response rate) x (TFS Teacher response rate).

TFS current teachers: (.95) (.882)(.925)(100)=80.0.

TFS former teachers: (.95)(.882)(.892)(100)=74.7.

Variable Definitions

Variable consistency. In tables where data points from different years are presented, questionnaire items have been checked for comparability. If items varied in any substantive way over

time (wording, response categories, or the subgroup that was asked the question), only those

from the most recent year available, or from years when they were consistent, are included.

Numbers of unweighted cases. In the tables that rely on data reported by teachers or principals as well as schools, the total number of cases (or unweighted N’s) in the total row is slightly

more than the sum of N’s in the detail rows, which rely on school data as well. The difference is

caused by some teachers and some principals responding to the survey while their schools did not

complete a school survey.

Public School Districts

A public school district (or LEA) was defined as a government agency that had administrative responsibility for providing public elementary and/or secondary instruction and educational

support services. The agency or administrative unit was required to operate under a public board

of education. Districts that did not operate schools but that hired teachers were included. A district was considered out of scope if it did not employ elementary or secondary teachers of any

kind, including special education and itinerant teachers.
Appendix C—Technical Notes

184

Public Schools

A public school was defined as an institution that provides educational services for at least

one of grades 1–12 (or comparable ungraded classes), has one or more teachers to provide instruction, is located in one or more buildings, receives public funds as primary support, has an

assigned administrator, and is operated by an education agency. Schools in juvenile detention

centers and schools located on military bases and operated by the U.S. Department of Defense

were included.

School Level and Grade Configuration

Schools were classified for this report as elementary, middle, secondary, or combined on

the basis of the grades they included, and principals and teachers were classified according to the

level of the school at which they worked. Schools were defined according to the following grade

ranges:

Elementary Schools with at least one grade lower than 5 and no grade higher than 8.

Middle Schools with no grade lower than 5 and no grade higher than 8.

Secondary Schools with no grade lower than 7 and at least one grade higher than 8.

Combined Schools with at least one grade lower than 7 and at least one grade higher

than 8. Schools with only ungraded classes (no grades reported in K–12)

were included with combined schools.

Grade configurations of 6–8 and 7–8 for the detailed subsets of middle schools, and of 7–9

for secondary schools, were selected because they were the groups with the largest number of

schools. In both middle and secondary school detail rows, an “other” category was used to encompass all residual grade ranges. All grade ranges other than the ones specified in the detail

rows are included in “other”; for example, schools with grades 5–8 are one of the subsets included in the “other” row for middle schools.

Teachers

For the purposes of SASS, a teacher was any full- or part-time teacher whose primary assignment was to teach in any of grades K–12. Part-time teachers were those who reported working less than full time as a teacher at their school. Itinerant teachers and long-term substitutes

who were filling the role of a regular teacher on an indefinite basis were also included. An itinerant teacher was defined as a teacher who taught at more than one school. Beginning in 1993–94,

anyone in the school who taught grades K–12 but whose primary assignment was something else

(e.g., a principal) was also defined to be a teacher. The following individuals were not considered
Appendix C—Technical Notes

185

teachers: short-term substitutes, student teachers, nonteaching specialists (such as guidance counselors, librarians, nurses, or psychologists), administrators, teacher aides, or other professional or

support staff.

Leavers. Leavers are teachers who left the teaching profession in the year of the TFS, one

year after the SASS was administered.

Movers. Movers are teachers who were still teaching in the year of the TFS but had moved

to a different school than the one they taught at in the previous school year.

Stayers. Stayers are teachers who were teaching in the same school in the TFS school year

as they were in the SASS school year.

Average Class Size

Average class size was calculated by averaging across teachers each teacher’s reported

class sizes (either one for self-contained classes or the number that were reported for departmentalized classes). The following restrictions were used in the computation:

• For self-contained classes, data from teachers in elementary and combined schools

only were included in calculations, and only if their primary assignment field was not

special education. (Special education classes tend to be much smaller than other

classes.)

• For departmentalized classes, data from teachers in middle, secondary, and combined

schools only were included.

• Teachers with elementary enrichment or pull-out classes were excluded from the class

size calculations.

Community Type

Community type was derived from the seven-category “urbanicity” (locale) code developed

by Johnson.32 The locale code was based on the school’s mailing address, which was used to link

to Bureau of the Census data files containing population density data, Standard Metropolitan

Statistical Area (SMSA) codes, and a Census code defining urban and rural areas. This variable

is believed to provide a more accurate characterization than the respondent’s report of community type that was originally collected in the 1987–88 SASS and 1989–90 TFS. (Since those data

files were first released, the same method was used to create a comparable urbanicity variable for

schools, which is what was used here for 1987–88 SASS and 1989–90 TFS data. Thus all three

 

32Johnson 1994 and Johnson 1989.
Appendix C—Technical Notes

186

years of data in each of these data sets use the same urbanicity variable.) For this report, the locale codes were aggregated into the three community types described below.

Central City

A large central city (a central city of an SMSA with population of at least 400,000 or a

population density of at least 6,000 per square mile), or a mid-size central city (a central city of

an SMSA, but not designated as a large central city).

Urban Fringe/Large Town

Urban fringe of a large or mid-size city (a place within an SMSA of a large or mid-size

central city and defined as urban by the U.S. Bureau of the Census) or a large town (a place not

within an SMSA, but with a population greater than or equal to 25,000 and defined as urban by

the U.S. Bureau of the Census).

Rural/Small Town

Rural area (a place with a population of less than 2,500 and defined as rural by the U.S. Bureau of the Census) or a small town (a place not within an SMSA, with a population of less than

25,000, but greater than or equal to 2,500, and defined as urban by the U.S. Bureau of the Census).

Minority Enrollment

Two categories for a school’s minority enrollment proportion were used in the tables: fewer

than 20 percent and 20 percent or more. Included in the minority category were American Indian

or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Hispanic, regardless of race (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other culture or origin); and Black (non-Hispanic)

students.

School Size

Size categories were based on the number of students (head count) who were enrolled in

grades K–12 in the school on or about October 1, 1993 (as reported on the School Questionnaire). School size categories were: fewer than 150 students, 150 to 499, 500 to 749, and 750 or

more.
Appendix C—Technical Notes

187

Region

Northeast

The Northeast encompassed these states: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,

Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Midwest

The Midwest encompassed these states: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.

South

The South encompassed these states: Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia,

West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.

West

The West encompassed these states: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico,

Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, and Hawaii.

District Size

Size categories were based on the number of students (head counts) who were enrolled in

the district on or about October 1 of the survey year (as reported on the Teacher Demand and

Shortage Questionnaire). District size categories were: fewer than 1,000; 1,000 to 9,999; and

10,000 or more.

Minority Teachers

Minority teachers were those with one of the following racial or ethnic backgrounds:

American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Hispanic, regardless of race (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Hispanic culture or origin); or

Black, not of Hispanic origin.

The two categories for proportion of all teachers in the school (or district) who belonged to

a minority group were: Fewer than 10 percent, and 10 percent or more.
Appendix C—Technical Notes

188

Standard Errors

The estimates in the tables in this report are based on samples and are subject to sampling

variability. 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 sample statistic would include the population value in approximately 95 percent of the cases. Note, however, that the

standard errors do not take into account the effects of bias due to item nonresponse, measurement

error, data processing error, or other possible systematic error. Standard errors for all tables are

shown in appendix B. The standard errors, which indicate the accuracy of the estimates, were estimated using the REPTAB program developed by MPR Associates. The program uses a Balanced Repeated Replications method to calculate standard errors taking into account the complex

sample design. (The standard errors reported are generally higher than standard errors calculated

under the assumptions of simple random sampling.)

Accuracy of Estimates

The accuracy of any statistic is determined by the joint effects of nonsampling and sampling errors. Both types of error affect the estimates presented in this report.33

Nonsampling error. Both universe and sample surveys are subject to nonsampling errors,

which are difficult to estimate. Nonsampling errors are of two kinds—nonobservation error and

measurement error.

Nonobservation error may be due to noncoverage, which occurs when members of the

population of interest are excluded from the sampling frame, and therefore are not included in the

survey sample. Nonobservation error also occurs when sampled units (for example, schools,

teachers, or students) refuse to answer some or all of the survey questions. These types of errors

are referred to as questionnaire or unit nonresponse (where the entire questionnaire is missing)

and item nonresponse (where only some items of the questionnaire are missing). Weighting procedures (for units) and imputation procedures (for items) were used to compensate for nonresponse.

Measurement error occurs when mistakes are made during data editing, coding, or entry

into computers (processing errors), when the responses that participants provide differ from the

“true” responses (response errors), and when measurement instruments such as tests or questionnaires fail to measure the characteristics they are intended to measure. Sources of response errors

 

33See Kalton, Winglee, Krawchuck, and Levine 2000 and Gruber 1994 for detailed information about the quality of the SASS

data.
Appendix C—Technical Notes

189

include differences in the ways that respondents interpret questions, faulty respondent memory,

and mistakes that respondents make when recording their answers. Because estimating the magnitude of these various types of nonsampling errors would require special experiments, access to

independent data, or re-interviewing of respondents, information on the magnitude of such error

is seldom available.

Sampling error. Sampling error occurs when members of a population are selected (sampled), and only sample members respond to survey questions. Estimates that are based on a sample will differ somewhat from the data that would have been obtained if a complete census of the

relevant population had been taken using the same survey instruments, instructions, and procedures. The estimated standard error of a statistic is a measure of the variation due to sampling

and can be used to examine the precision obtained in a particular sample.

Some of the estimates shown in the tables of this report may have large standard errors. For

example, cells with small sample sizes tend to have large standard errors. Therefore, numbers

that are in the tables but are not discussed in the text should be interpreted with caution. Moreover, apparent differences between numbers that are not discussed may not be statistically significant.

Statistical Procedures

Comparisons made in the text have been tested for statistical significance to ensure that the

differences are larger than might be expected due to sampling variation. The first of these statistical tests is the Student’s t statistic. Generally, whether a difference is considered statistically

significant is determined by calculating a t value for the difference between a pair of proportions,

or means, and comparing this value to published tables of values at certain critical levels, called

alpha levels. The alpha level is an a priori statement of the probability of inferring that a difference exists when, in fact, it does not. The alpha level used in this report is .05; differences discussed in the text have been tested using this level.

In order to make proper inferences and interpretations from the statistics, several points

must be kept in mind. First, comparisons resulting in large t statistics may appear to merit special

note. However, this is not always the case, because the size of the t statistic depends not only on

the observed differences in means or the percentages being compared, but also on the standard

error of the difference. Thus, a small difference between two groups with a much smaller standard error could result in a large t statistic, but this small difference is not necessarily noteworthy.

Second, when multiple statistical comparisons are made within one category of data, it becomes

increasingly likely that a finding of a statistically significant difference is erroneous. Even when
Appendix C—Technical Notes

190

there is no difference in the population, at an alpha level of .05, there is still a 5 percent chance of

concluding that an observed t value representing one comparison in the sample is large enough to

be statistically significant. As the number of comparisons increases, so does the risk of making

such an error in inference.

To guard against errors of inference based upon multiple comparisons, the Bonferroni procedure to correct significance tests for multiple contrasts was used. This method corrects the significance (or alpha) level for the total number of contrasts made with a particular classification

variable. For each classification variable, there are K possible contrasts (or nonredundant pairwise comparisons), where K=(N*(N–1)/2) and N is the number of categories in the variable. For

example, because school size has 4 categories, N=4; and there are (4*3)/2=6 possible comparisons among the categories. The Bonferroni procedure divides the alpha level for a single t test

(for example, .05) by the number of possible pairwise comparisons in order to provide a new alpha that adjusts for the possible multiple comparisons.

The formula used to compute the t statistic is:

t = E1− E2

(se1)

2 + (se2 )2

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding standard errors. This formula is valid only for independent estimates. When the estimates are not independent (for example, when comparing any estimates that constitute a percentage distribution),

a covariance term must be added to the denominator of the t-test formula. Because the actual covariance terms were not known, it was assumed that the estimates were perfectly negatively correlated. Consequently, 2*(se1*se2) was added to the denominator of the t-test formula for

nonindependent estimates.

Standard errors for all tables are presented in appendix B. The standard errors were calculated using the REPTAB program developed by MPR Associates, Inc., which uses a Balanced

Repeated Replications method to calculate standard errors based upon complex survey designs.

A version of this program is available from NCES upon request. The standard errors reported

take into account the complex sample design; they are generally higher than standard errors calculated under the assumptions of simple random sampling.

Other Statistical Tests

Some comparisons across categories of an ordered variable with three or more categories

were tested for statistical significance with either a linear trend or an ANOVA (analysis of vari-
Appendix C—Technical Notes

191

ance) test, rather than a series of t tests between pairs of categories. In other instances, an

ANOVA test (using orthogonal contrasts) was used to examine differences among categories of

an independent variable, particularly when sample sizes were small (for example, in the tables

using Teacher Follow-up Survey data).

Linear trend test. When possible differences were examined among estimates from a variable with ordered categories, the Student’s t-test was applied to a measure of linear trend. Based

on a simple linear regression, with an ordered variable serving as the independent variable (e.g.,

school level), and the proportions compared serving as the dependent variable (e.g., the percentage of schools providing bilingual programs), the test involves computing the weighted regression coefficient (b) and its corresponding standard error (s.e.). The estimates are weighted by the

inverse of their respective standard errors. The ratio of these two (b/s.e.) is the test statistic t. If t

is greater than 1.96, the critical value for one comparison at the .05 alpha level, there is evidence

of a linear relationship between the two variables, school level and provision of bilingual programs.34

ANOVA test. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was also used to examine differences

among groups. To do this, ANOVA models included orthogonal contrasts designed to assess

whether the independent and dependent variables’ relationship was linear or quadratic or whether

there were other differences among the categories of the independent variable. The squares of the

standard errors, the variance between the means, and the unweighted sample sizes were used to

partition the total sum of squares into within- and between-group sums of squares. These were

used to create mean squares for the within- and between-group variance components and their

corresponding F statistics, which were then compared with published values of F for a significance level of .05. Significant values of both the overall F and the F associated with the appropriate contrast were used as evidence of a relationship between the two variables.

 

34For more information about this modification of Student’s t-test, see Snedecor and Cochran 1967, pp. 246–247. For more information about linear regression, see Lewis-Beck 1980.
193

Appendix D—Selected SASS Publications and Data Products

Results from SASS, along with other information about the survey’s design, development, and improvement are available in SASS publications. Copies of the publications below are available by telephoning

(877) 4-EDPUBS or through the World Wide Web at www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html.

General Publications about SASS

• Public School Districts in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1987–88 to 1993–94 (NCES 98–

203)

• Public and Private School Principals in the United States: A Statistical Profile, 1987–88 to 1993–94

(NCES 97–455)

• America’s Teachers: Profile of a Profession, 1993–94 (NCES 97–460)

• Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile: 1993–94 (NCES 96–124)

• The Schools and Staffing Survey: Recommendations for the Future (NCES 97–596)

SASS State Data

• SASS by State, 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey: Selected State Results (NCES 96–312))

SASS Teacher Data

• America’s Teachers: Profile of a Profession, 1993–94 (NCES 97–460)

• What Happens in Classrooms? Instructional Practices in Elementary and Secondary Schools, 1994–

95 (NCES 99–348)

• Toward Better Teaching: Professional Development in 1993–94 (NCES 98–230)

• Time Spent Teaching Core Academic Subjects in Elementary Schools: Comparisons Across Community School, Teacher, and Student Characteristics (NCES 97–293)

• Job Satisfaction Among America’s Teachers: Effects of Workplace Conditions, Background Characteristics, and Teacher Compensation, 1993–94 (NCES 97–471)

• A Profile of Policies and Practices for Limited English Proficiency Students: Screening Methods,

Program Support, and Teacher Training (SASS 1993–94) (NCES 97–472)

• Out-of-Field Teaching and Educational Equality (NCES 96–040)

• Teacher Supply, Teacher Qualifications and Teacher Turnover, Aspects of Teacher Supply and Demand in the U.S., 1990–91 (NCES 95–744)

SASS Private School Data

• Private Schools in the U.S.: A Statistical Profile, 1993–94 (NCES 97–459)

SASS American Indian Data

• Characteristics of American Indian and Alaska Native Education, Results from the 1993–94 SASS

(NCES 97–451)

SASS School Library Media Center Data

• School Library Media Centers: 1993–94 (NCES 98–282)
Appendix D—Selected SASS Publications and Data Products

194

SASS Methodology

• School-level Correlates of Academic Achievement: Student Assessment Scores in SASS Public

Schools (NCES 1999–338)

• Quality Profile for SASS: Aspects of the Quality of Data in the Schools and Staffing Surveys (NCES

94–340)

• An Analysis of Total Nonresponse in the 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). (NCES 98–

243)

• 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation (NCES 96–089)

• 1990–91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation (NCES 93–449)

• 1987–88 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and Estimation (NCES 91–127)

SASS Issue Briefs

• Schools Serving Family Needs: Extended-Day Programs in Public and Private Schools (NCES 97–

590)

• Programs for Aspiring Principals: Who Participates? (NCES 97–591)

• Credentials and Tests in Teacher Hiring: What Do Districts Require? (NCES 97–592)

• Are Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students Being Taught by Teachers with LEP Training?

• How Widespread Is Site-Based Decisionmaking in Public Schools? (NCES 97–908)

• Public School Choice Programs, Availability and Student Participation (NCES 97–909)

• Teachers’ Sense of Community: How Do Public and Private Schools Compare? (NCES 97–910)

• Are High School Teachers Teaching Core Subjects Without College Majors or Minors in Those

Subjects? (NCES 96–839)

Teacher Followup Survey

• Characteristics of Stayers, Movers, and Leavers: Results from the Teacher Followup Survey, 1994–

95 (E.D. Tab, NCES 97–450)

SASS Data on CD-ROM

• Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and Teacher Followup Survey (TFS) CD-ROM: Electronic

Codebook and Public Use Data for 3 Cycles of SASS and TFS (NCES 97–453)

SASS and TFS User’s Manuals

• 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey Data File User’s Manual Volume 1: 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)

• 1993–94 Schools and Staffing Survey Data File User’s Manual Volume III: Public-Use Codebook

(WP 1999–12)

• 1994–95 Teacher Followup Survey Data File User’s Manual: Public-Use Version (NCES 98–232)

• 1994–95 Teacher Followup Survey Data File User’s Manual: Restricted-Use Version (WP 1999–14)

SASS information can also be found on the Internet (http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass).