2017-092 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

A Quarter Century of Changes 

in the Elementary and 

Secondary Teaching Force: 

From 1987 to 2012

Statistical Analysis Report
A Quarter Century of Changes 

in the Elementary and 

Secondary Teaching Force: 

From 1987 to 2012

Statistical Analysis Report 

APRIL 2017

Richard Ingersoll

University of Pennsylvania and

Consortium for Policy Research in Education

Lisa Merrill

Research Alliance for New York City Schools, New York University

Chelsea Owens

Andrew Zukerberg

Project Officers 

National Center for Education Statistics

NCES 2017-092

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
U.S. Department of Education

Betsy DeVos

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences

Thomas Brock

Commissioner of the National Center for Education Research

Delegated Duties of the Director

National Center for Education Statistics

Peggy Carr

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

practitioners, data users, and the general public. Unless specifically noted, all information contained

herein is in the public domain.

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

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

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

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

NCES, IES, U.S. Department of Education

Potomac Center Plaza

550 12th Street SW

Washington, DC 20202

April 2017 

The NCES Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov.

The NCES Publications and Products address is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch. 

This publication is only available online. To download, view, and print the report as a PDF file, go to the

NCES Publications and Products address shown above.

This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Statistics under Contract No. ED-IES-11-

0-0006 with Synergy Enterprises Inc. Mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations

does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Suggested Citation

Ingersoll, R., and Merrill, L. (2017). A Quarter Century of Changes in the Elementary and Secondary

Teaching Force: From 1987 to 2012. Statistical Analysis Report (NCES 2017-092). U.S. Department of

Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved [date] from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Content Contact

Andrew Zukerberg

(202) 245-6186

andrew.zukerberg@ed.gov
iii

Executive Summary

This report utilizes the nationally representative Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) to examine 

changes in the elementary and secondary teaching force in the United States over the quarter 

century from 1987–88 to 2011–12. The report focuses on three key demographic characteristics: 

the size of the teaching force, the level of teaching experience of the teaching force, and the 

racial/ethnic composition of the teaching force. 

SASS is a large-scale sample survey of elementary and secondary teachers and schools in the 

United States. SASS has been conducted seven times—in school years 1987–88, 1990–91, 

1993–94, 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2007–08, and 2011–12. SASS was developed to obtain 

comprehensive data on teachers, including a wide range of information on teachers’ 

backgrounds, characteristics, qualifications, and workplaces (Haggstrom, Darling-Hammond, 

and Grissmer 1988; Ingersoll 1995). As a result, SASS is an excellent source of data for 

examining changes in the demographic characteristics of the teaching force in the United States.

SASS is administered by the Institute of Education Sciences’ National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES), which is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Education. 

This report builds on and expands an earlier study by Ingersoll, Merrill, and Stuckey (2014) that 

analyzed SASS data to explore what demographic trends and changes have, or have not, 

occurred in the elementary and secondary teaching force since the late 1980s. This earlier study, 

summarized in a report (http://www.cpre.org/7trends) published by the Consortium for Policy 

Research in Education, found considerable changes in the teacher force, with significant, but 

under-recognized implications. Among the key findings were that the teaching force has become

• larger—The teaching force dramatically increased in size, growing at over twice the rate 

of student enrollment. 

• less experienced—With increases in hiring there has also been a correspondingly large 

increase in the number of teachers who are beginners in their first several years of 

teaching. In 1987–88, the modal, or most common, teacher had 15 years of teaching 

experience. By 2007–08, the modal teacher was in his or her first year of teaching. 

• more diverse—The teaching force has rapidly become more racially/ethnically diverse. 

Growth in the number of minority teachers has outpaced growth in minority students and 

has been more than twice the growth rate of White teachers.1 

The objective of the Ingersoll, Merrill, and Stuckey (2014) study was to provide a broad 

overview of national changes in the demographic characteristics of the teaching force and to 

 

1 Minority refers to all those who are not White, non-Hispanic. It includes: Hispanics or Latinos, regardless of race; 

Blacks or African Americans, non-Hispanic; Asians or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, non-Hispanic; American 

Indians/Alaska Natives, non-Hispanic; and those of Two or more races, non-Hispanic. For simplicity of 

presentation, “non-Hispanic” modifiers have been removed from the race-ethnicity categories in the text of the 

report. Asian in the text refers to Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic. Black refers to Black, nonHispanic. American Indian refers to American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic. Two or more races refers to 

Two or more races, non-Hispanic. White refers to White, non-Hispanic. Hispanic refers to Hispanics, regardless of 

race. 
iv

explore some of the possible reasons for, and implications of, the changes discovered. It did not 

disaggregate the data, nor did it investigate how the changes differ by type of teacher and by type 

of school. 

These variations are the subject of this report. This analysis investigates how changes in these 

characteristics of the teaching force—the number of teachers, the level of teaching experience, 

and the racial/ethnic diversity of the teaching force—varied across different types of teachers and 

across types of schools in the 25 years between 1987–88 and 2011–12. The data analysis shows 

that these changes have not been distributed evenly across teacher and school types. The major 

findings are summarized below.

Changes in the Size of the Teaching Force

While the teaching force has grown overall (by 46 percent), there have been large differences in 

growth across different teaching fields. The number of teachers reporting main teaching 

assignments in English as a second language (ESL), English/language arts (ELA), mathematics, 

foreign language, natural science, and special education, all grew at above-average rates. In 

contrast, the fields of general elementary, vocational-technical education, and art/music each had 

below-average growth (table 1 and figure 4). 

Additionally, the growth in the teaching force has not been equal across different types of 

schools. The teaching force in high-poverty public schools (those in which at least 75 percent of 

the students were approved for the free or reduced-price lunch program) grew by nearly 325 

percent. In contrast, the number of teachers employed in low-poverty public schools (in which 

less than a third of the students were approved for the free or reduced-price lunch program) 

declined by one-fifth (table 2 and figure 5). Between 1987–88 and 2011–12, the proportion of 

the teaching force employed in high-poverty schools increased from about 8 percent to 22 

percent. As of 2011–12 high- and mid-poverty public schools employed over two-thirds of all 

public school teachers. In contrast, the proportion of the teaching force employed in low-poverty 

schools decreased from about 60 percent to 33 percent. 

There were also differences in growth between public and private schools. The number of 

teachers employed in private schools increased between 1987–88 and 2011–12 at a higher rate 

than in public schools (table 2).Nevertheless, private schools in the United States account for a 

small portion of the elementary and secondary teaching force (about 12 percent in 2011–12). 

Moreover, as shown in the Ingersoll, Merrill, and Stuckey study (2014), unlike the public sector, 

the number of students in private schools decreased during this same period. 

Changes in the number of teachers also varied across different types of private schools. The 

period from 1987–88 to 2011–12 saw a relatively small (about 9 percent) increase in the number 

of teachers employed in Catholic schools. On the other hand, there were increases greater than 

100 percent in the total number of teachers in the non-Catholic religious private school sector 

and in the nonsectarian/nonreligious private school sector. 
v 

Changes in the Experience Levels of the Teaching Force

Parallel to the growth in the teaching force, between 1987–88 and 2011–12, there was also an 

increase in the number of beginning teachers. While the percentage of all teachers who were 

beginners (about 22 percent) did not change between 1987–88 and 2011–12, the data show that 

the number of beginners (those with 5 or less years of experience) increased by 43 percent, 

representing a gain of over 250,000 beginning teachers (table 3). As might be expected, those 

types of schools with the greatest hiring and growth also often had the largest gains in numbers 

of beginning teachers. For example, between 1987–88 and 2011–12, the number of beginners in 

high-poverty public schools increased from 41,000 to 189,400—a more than 350-percent gain. 

Thus, in 2011–12, there were over four times as many beginners in high-poverty schools as in 

1987–88 (table 4 and figure 6). In contrast, the number of beginning teachers employed in lowpoverty schools declined by one-fifth during the same period. 

The teaching force in the private school sector has been less experienced than that in public 

schools, but this gap decreased between 1987–88 and 2011–12. Beginners comprised 20 percent 

of public school teachers in 1987–88 and 38 percent of private school teachers that same year. In 

2011–12, 21 percent of public school teachers were beginners compared to 27 percent of private 

school teachers (table 4). 

Changes in the Racial/Ethnic Composition of the Teaching Force

The elementary and secondary teaching force in the United States has long been predominantly 

White and the proportion of minority students in schools has long been far greater than the

proportion of minority teachers. For instance, in the 2011–12 school year, 44 percent of all 

elementary and secondary students were minorities, and only 17.3 percent of all elementary and 

secondary teachers were minorities (Ingersoll, Merrill, and Stuckey 2014 and table 5). 

However, while minority teachers remain underrepresented in the teaching force, both the 

number and proportion of teachers who are minorities have increased. Between 1987–88 and 

2011–12 the number of minority teachers grew by 104 percent, compared to 38 percent for 

White teachers (table 1). The percentage of all teachers who belonged to minority groups 

increased from 12.4 percent in 1987–88 to 17.3 percent in 2011–12. In 1987–88, there were 

about 327,000 minority teachers; by 2011–12, there were about 666,000 (table 5). 

These changes in overall minority representation also have not been evenly distributed across 

different minority subgroups. The number of Asian and Hispanic teachers increased at a higher 

rate than Black teachers, and American Indian teachers sharply declined in number during this 

period (table 1). Teachers whose main fields were ESL, foreign language, ELA, math, science, 

social science and special education showed above-average gains in racial/ethnic diversity. In 

contrast, teachers whose main fields were general elementary, vocational-technical and art/music 

each had below-average growth of minority teachers (table 5). 

Additionally, there have been some notable differences, by teacher sex, in these changes in the 

racial/ethnic composition of the teaching force. During the period from 1987–88 to 2011–12, the 

number of White female teachers increased by 49 percent, while the number of White male 

teachers increased by only 12 percent. In contrast, during this same period, the number of 
vi 

minority female teachers increased by 102 percent, while the number of minority male teachers 

increased by 110 percent (figure 7).

In both 1987–88 and 2011–12, high-poverty public schools had the highest percentage of 

minority teachers of the types of schools examined in this report. Moreover, the number of 

minority teachers employed in high-poverty public schools grew during this period. In contrast, 

there was almost no growth in the number of minority teachers in low-poverty public schools 

(table 6 and figure 8). The result is that the distribution of minority teachers across schools, by 

poverty level, is uneven. For instance, in 2011–12, while high-poverty public schools employed 

about one-fifth of the entire teaching force, they employed 42 percent of all minority teachers. In 

contrast, in 2011–12, while low-poverty public schools employed about one-third of the entire 

teaching force, they employed only 15 percent of all minority teachers. 
vii 

Contents 

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

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x

List of Exhibits ................................................................................................................................ x

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

Background .............................................................................................................................. 1

 Prior Research .......................................................................................................................... 3 

Study Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 8

Changes in the Size of the Teaching Force ............................................................................... 8

Changes in the Experience Levels of the Teaching Force ....................................................... 8

Changes in the Racial/Ethnic Composition of the Teaching Force .......................................... 9

Data, Measures, and Statistical Comparisons .............................................................................. 10

Data ........................................................................................................................................ 10

Measures ................................................................................................................................ 10

Statistical Comparisons .......................................................................................................... 11

Limitations of the Measures .................................................................................................... 13

Findings......................................................................................................................................... 15

Changes in the Size of the Teaching Force ............................................................................ 15

Changes in the Experience Levels of the Teaching Force ..................................................... 21

Changes in the Racial/Ethnic Composition of the Teaching Force ....................................... 25

Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 30

Changes in the Size of the Teaching Force ............................................................................ 30

Changes in the Experience Levels of the Teaching Force ..................................................... 31

Changes in the Racial/Ethnic Composition of the Teaching Force ....................................... 31

References .................................................................................................................................... 33

Appendix A: Standard Error Tables ........................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B: Methodology and Technical Notes ....................................................................... B-1

Overview of the 2011–12 Schools and Staffing Survey ....................................................... B-1

Overview of the 1987–88 Schools and Staffing Survey ..................................................... B-10

Appendix C: Description of Variables Used in This Report ..................................................... C-1

Appendix D: Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................. D-1
viii

List of Tables

Table Page

1. Total number and percentage of elementary and secondary teachers, by teacher 

characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12 ..............................................................................17

2. Total number and percentage of elementary and secondary teachers, by school 

characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12 ..............................................................................20

3. Total number and percentage of beginning teachers (5 or less years), by teacher 

characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12 ..............................................................................22

4. Total number and percentage of beginning teachers (5 or less years), by school 

characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12 ..............................................................................24

5. Total number and percentage of minority teachers, by teacher characteristics: 

1987–88 and 2011–12 .......................................................................................................25

6. Total number and percentage of minority teachers, by school characteristics: 

1987–88 and 2011–12 .......................................................................................................28

A-1. Standard errors for table 1: Total number and percentage of elementary and 

secondary teachers, by teacher characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12 ......................... A-2

A-2. Standard errors for table 2: Total number and percentage of elementary and 

secondary teachers, by school characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12 .......................... A-3

A-3. Standard errors for table 3: Total number and percentage of beginning teachers 

(5 or less years), by teacher characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12 ............................... A-4

A-4. Standard errors for table 4: Total number and percentage of beginning teachers

(5 or less years), by school characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12 ............................... A-5

A-5. Standard errors for table 5: Total number and percentage of minority teachers, 

by teacher characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12 ......................................................... A-6

A-6. Standard errors for table 6: Total number and percentage of minority teachers, 

by school characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12 .......................................................... A-7

A-7. Standard errors for figure 1: Percentage increase in teachers, by main teaching 

field: 1987–88 to 2011–12 ............................................................................................. A-8

A-8. Standard errors for figure 2: Percentage change in teachers, by public school 

poverty level: 1987–88 to 2011–12 ............................................................................... A-9

A-9. Standard errors for figure 3: Percentage change in beginning teachers, by public 

school poverty level: 1987–88 to 2011–12 .................................................................. A-10
ix

A-10. Standard errors for figure 4: Percentage increase in teachers, by race/ethnicity 

and by sex: 1987–88 to 2011–12 ................................................................................. A-11

A-11. Standard errors for figure 5: Percentage increase in minority teachers, by type of 

school: 1987–88 to 2011–12 ........................................................................................ A-12

B-1. Weighted unit and overall response rates using initial base weight, by survey: 

2011–12 ...........................................................................................................................B-6

B-2. Summary of weighted item response rates, by survey: 2011–12 ....................................B-8

B-3. Summary of weighted item response rates, by survey: 1987–88 ..................................B-12

B-4. Number and percentage of teachers with missing school data in the 1987–88 

SASS .............................................................................................................................B-12

B-5. Total percentage of elementary and secondary teachers, by school characteristics: 

1987–88 and 1990–91 ...................................................................................................B-13

C-1. Teacher-level variables used in the report ......................................................................C-1

C-2. School-level variables used in the report ........................................................................C-2
x 

List of Figures

Figure Page

1. Number of elementary and secondary school teachers, 1987–88 to 2011–12 ....................4 

2. Teaching experience of school teachers, 1987–88, 2007–08, and 2011–12 .......................5 

3. Percentage increase in students and teachers, by race/ethnicity, 1987–88 to 

2011–12 ...............................................................................................................................6 

4. Percentage increase in teachers, by main teaching field: 1987–88 to 2011–12 ................16 

5. Percentage change in teachers, by public school poverty level: 1987–88 to 

2011–12 .............................................................................................................................18 

6. Percentage change in beginning teachers, by public school poverty level: 1987–

88 to 2011–12 ....................................................................................................................23 

7. Percentage increase in teachers, by race/ethnicity and by sex: 1987–88 to 2011–12 ............27 

8. Percentage increase in minority teachers, by public school poverty level: 1987–

88 to 2011–12 ...................................................................................................................29 

List of Exhibits 

Exhibit Page

1. Teacher-level measures used in the analyses ....................................................................11 

2. School-level measures used in the analyses ......................................................................12 
1 

Introduction 

This report utilizes the nationally representative Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) to examine 

changes in the demographic characteristics of the elementary and secondary teaching force in the 

United States over the quarter century from 1987–88 to 2011–12. The report focuses on three 

key characteristics: the size of the teaching force, the level of teaching experience of the teaching 

force, and the racial/ethnic diversity of the teaching force. 

SASS is a large-scale sample survey of elementary and secondary teachers and schools in the 

United States. SASS has been conducted seven times—in school years 1987–88, 1990–91, 

1993–94, 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2007–08, and 2011–12. SASS was developed to obtain 

comprehensive data on teachers, including a wide range of information on teachers’ 

backgrounds, characteristics, qualifications and workplaces (Haggstrom, Darling-Hammond, and 

Grissmer 1988; Ingersoll 1995). As a result, SASS is an excellent source of data for examining 

changes in the demographic characteristics of the teaching force in the United States. SASS has 

been administered and conducted by the Institute of Education Sciences’ National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), which is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of 

Education. 

Background

Elementary and secondary teaching is, as of 2012, the largest occupation in the United States, 

and teacher compensation is the single largest item in school district budgets (U.S. Bureau of the 

Census 2012). Right after World War II and before the post-war baby boom, there were just 

under one million elementary and secondary teachers in the United States. By 2011–12, there 

were about four times as many—almost 4 million elementary and secondary teachers. In the 

2007–08 school year alone, almost a quarter of a million newcomers entered teaching (Snyder 

and Dillow 2013; Ingersoll, Merrill, and Stuckey 2014). 

Researchers have long held that, along with out-of-school factors,the quality and characteristics

of the teaching force are important factors in the learning and growth of students and in the 

performance of elementary and secondary schools. The latter is deemed among the most 

significant influences on the quality and character of the nation’s talent pool, which, in turn, is 

considered central to national economic, civic, and social progress (National Commission on 

Excellence in Education 1983; National Academy of Sciences 1987; National Research Council 

2002; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future 1996 and 1997; U.S. Department 

of Education 2002). 

As a result, the characteristics of those who join the elementary and secondary teaching force 

have long been of great interest to policymakers, researchers, educators, and the public. Indeed, 

few educational issues have received more attention in the past few decades than the challenge of 

staffing the nation’s classrooms with a sufficient quantity, quality, and diversity of teachers 

(Cochran-Smith and Zeichner 2005; Finn, Kanstoroom, and Petrilli 1999; Guarino, Santibanez, 

and Daley 2006; Hirsch, Koppich, and Knapp 2001; Rice et al. 2009).

For example, in recent decades numerous highly publicized national reports have called attention 

to shortages in the supply of elementary and secondary school teachers (Darling-Hammond 
2 

1984; National Commission on Excellence in Education 1983; National Academy of Sciences 

1987 and 2007; National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st 

Century 2000; National Research Council 2002; National Academy of Sciences 2007). These 

reports hold that there has been a dramatic increase in the demand for new teachers, primarily 

resulting from two converging demographic trends—increasing student enrollments and rising

teacher attrition due to an aging teaching force. This view holds that the production of new 

teachers has been insufficient in meeting the increased demand, especially in the fields of math, 

science, special education, and English as a second language (ESL). These reports argue that 

insufficient numbers of qualified teachers, in turn, has forced many school systems to resort to 

lowering standards to fill teaching openings, inevitably resulting in high levels of underqualified 

teachers and lower school performance. 

In response, in recent decades numerous government and nongovernment organizations have 

instituted and funded a variety of initiatives designed to recruit new candidates into teaching. 

Among these are career-change programs, such as “Troops-to-Teachers,” designed to entice 

professionals into mid-career switches to teaching, and Peace Corps-like programs, such as 

Teach for America, designed to lure academically talented candidates into understaffed schools. 

Many states have instituted alternative certification programs, whereby college graduates can 

postpone some or all of their formal education training and begin teaching immediately. Some 

school districts have resorted to recruiting teaching candidates from overseas. Scholarships, 

financial incentives, student loan forgiveness, housing assistance, and tuition reimbursement 

have all been instituted to aid recruitment. These initiatives often have been targeted in particular 

to mathematics and science (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future 1996 and 

1997; National Research Council 2002; National Academy of Sciences 2007). 

There has also long been concern over adequate student access to experienced and seasoned 

teachers. While there is debate over exactly how much the performance of teachers improves 

with each additional year spent in the classroom (Ingersoll and Merrill 2010; National Council 

on Teacher Quality 2010; New Teacher Project 2010), there is wide acceptance that classroom 

teaching experience is an important factor in the quality of teachers and teaching. A growing 

number of studies have shown that the growth in teaching knowledge and skill that individuals 

acquire increases significantly through their first several years on the job (e.g., Henry, Fortner, 

and Bastian 2012; Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger 2006). In short, there is wide recognition that 

experience in a teaching staff is a vital school asset (Zumwalt and Craig 2005a and 2005b; Rice 

et al. 2009). Moreover, many critics of educational inequality believe that teacher experience is 

an important educational resource that is not equally allocated (Oakes 1990; Zumwalt and Craig 

2005a and 2005b). In this view, the neediest students–such as those from low-income 

communities–are often taught by the least experienced teachers. Such critics hold this up as a 

main reason why such students often perform poorly in educational assessments. In response, 

numerous government and nongovernment organizations in recent decades have instituted and 

funded a variety of programs and initiatives designed to recruit and retain experienced teachers 

to hard-to-staff and high-need schools (e.g., National Commission on Teaching and America’s 

Future 1996 and 1997; National Research Council 2002; National Academy of Sciences 2007). 

For the past several decades, shortages of minority teachers have also been a major issue for the 

U.S. school system. It is widely held that, as the nation’s population and students have grown 

more racially and ethnically diverse, the teaching force has not kept pace (Torres, Santos, Peck, 
3 

and Cortes 2004; Villegas and Lucas 2004; Zumwalt and Craig 2005a and 2005b). The result, in 

this view, is that minority students in the nation’s schools increasingly lack minority adult role 

models and contact with teachers who understand their racial and cultural background (Irvine

1988; Ladson-Billings 1995). Critics hold that this is especially true for male minority teachers—

often considered the group in shortest supply. The shortage of minority teachers, in turn, is 

widely viewed as a key reason for the minority student academic achievement gap and, 

ultimately, unequal occupational and life outcomes for minorities (Oakes 1990; Zumwalt and 

Craig 2005a and 2005b). In response, numerous government and nongovernment organizations 

have instituted and funded a variety of minority teacher recruitment programs and initiatives in 

recent decades. By 2008, over half of the states had minority teacher recruitment initiatives or 

programs in place (Villegas and Irvine 2009). 

These policy concerns regarding the quantity, quality, and diversity of the teaching force have 

also generated a long line of empirical “teacher effects” research devoted to evaluating the 

importance and impacts of a wide variety of characteristics of individual teachers, such as their 

ability, education, qualifications, sex, age, experience, and race/ethnicity on a wide variety of 

teacher and student outcomes (for examples and reviews, see: Evans 1992; Clotfelter, Ladd, and

Vigdor 2006; Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger 2006; Dee 2007; Rice 2010; Rockoff 2004; Zumwalt 

and Craig 2005a and 2005b; Henry, Fortner, and Bastian 2012). However, there has been 

surprisingly little empirical research on the basic demographic characteristics of the teaching 

force, such as its size, experience levels and race/ethnicity composition, and the extent to which 

these characteristics have changed in recent decades. 

Prior Research

This report builds on an earlier study by Ingersoll, Merrill, and Stuckey (2014) that analyzed 

SASS data to explore what demographic trends and changes have, or have not, occurred in the 

elementary and secondary teaching force since the late 1980s. This earlier study is summarized 

in a report published in April 2014 by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education

(http://www.cpre.org/7trends). This study found that the teaching force has been greatly 

changing, with significant, but under-recognized, implications. Among the key findings, 

summarized below, were that the teaching force has become: larger, less experienced, and more 

racially and ethnically diverse. 

Changes in the Size of the Teaching Force. The teaching force has grown in size. The numbers 

of both students and teachers grew throughout the 20th century, and in the late 1940s the rate of 

growth for both groups began to soar with the post-World War II baby boom and the emergence 

of the comprehensive high school. Student enrollment peaked by 1970 and then declined until 

the mid-1980s. During this period, the numbers of teachers also peaked and then leveled off. In 

the mid-1980s, elementary and secondary student enrollment again began to grow. Since then, 

the teaching force also has grown in size (Snyder and Dillow 2013). 

The more recent rate of these teacher and student increases has not matched those of the babyboom years—with one large difference. In recent decades, the rate of increase for teachers has 

far outpaced the rate of increase for students—that is, the number of teachers increased at a 

higher rate than the number of students. From 1987–88 to 2011–12, total K–12 student 

enrollment in the nation’s schools (public, private, and charter combined) increased by 19.4 
4 

percent. During the same period, the teaching force employed in schools increased at over two 

times that rate, by 46.4 percent. This resulted in a decrease in the overall pupil-teacher ratio in 

schools, from 17.3 to 14. The increases in the number of teachers all took place between 1987–

88 and 2007–08 (see figure 1). Since the economic downturn that began after 2008, growth in the 

teaching force leveled off. Between 2007–08 and 2011–12, while the student population slightly 

increased (by less than 1 percent), the teaching force slightly decreased (by about 1 percent). 

The report also revealed that, during the 25-year period from 1987 to 2012, the number of 

teachers in private schools increased at a faster rate than in public schools, while the number of 

students in private schools decreased. The result was a decrease in the average pupil-teacher ratio 

in private schools, which was already lower than in public schools. The data showed that private 

schools in the United States account for a small portion of the elementary and secondary 

teaching force (about 12 percent in 2011–12) and of the student population (about 8.3 percent in 

2011–12). 

Figure 1. Number of elementary and secondary school teachers, 1987–88 to 2011–12 

NOTE: This figure is based on analyses of data from seven cycles of the Schools and Staffing Survey—1987–88, 1990–91, 

1993–94, 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2007–08, and 2011–12. 

SOURCE: Ingersoll, R., Merrill, E., and Stuckey, D. (2014). Seven Trends: The Transformation of the Teaching Force, Updated

(CPRE Report RR-80). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. 

Changes in the Experience Levels of the Teaching Force. Increases in the hiring of new 

teachers has been one factor leading to a second change—a dramatic increase in the number of 

teachers who are beginners—a trend referred to in the Ingersoll, Merrill, and Stuckey study 

(2014) as a “greening” of the teaching force. This trend is illustrated by the distribution of 
5 

teachers by their years of teaching experience. As shown in the earlier study, in 1987–88, the 

modal, or most common, school teacher had 15 years of teaching experience. By 2007–08, the 

modal teacher was not an experienced classroom teacher; he or she was a beginner in his or her 

first year of teaching. With the advent of the economic downturn beginning in 2007–08 and the 

subsequent decrease in hiring, which was accompanied by layoffs—usually of beginners—this 

greening of the teaching force slowed down. By 2011–12, the modal teacher was someone in his 

or her fifth year. 

However, because the teaching force has dramatically grown, numerically there are far more 

beginners than before. For example, in 1987–88, there were about 135,400 first-year teachers; by 

2007–08, there were over 239,000. By 2011–12, despite several years of layoffs and little hiring, 

there were still about 149,000 first-year teachers (see figure 2). Similarly, in 1987–88, 

approximately 1 million teachers (about 42 percent of all teachers) had 10 or fewer years of 

teaching experience; in 2007–08, this number had nearly doubled to 1.9 million (about half of 

the teaching force). By 2011–12, there were still over 1.7 million teachers (about 45 percent of 

the teaching force) with 10 or fewer years of experience (Ingersoll, Merrill, and Stuckey 2014). 

There are, of course, still large numbers of more experienced teachers; in 2011–12, about half of 

all school teachers had 11 or more years of teaching experience. 

Figure 2. Teaching experience of school teachers, 1987–88, 2007–08, and 2011–12

 

NOTE: this figure is based on analyses of data from three cycles of the Schools and Staffing Survey—1987–88, 2007–08, and 

2011–12. 

SOURCE: Ingersoll, R., Merrill, E., and Stuckey, D. (2014). Seven Trends: The Transformation of the Teaching Force, Updated

(CPRE Report RR-80). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. 
6 

Changes in the Racial/Ethnic Composition of the Teaching Force.

1

 The Ingersoll, Merrill, 

and Stuckey (2014) study also documented large changes in the racial/ethnic composition of the 

teaching force. To be sure, teaching remains a primarily White workforce, and a gap persists 

between the percentage of minority students and the percentage of minority teachers in the U.S. 

school system. For instance, in the 2011–12 school year, 37 percent of the nation’s population 

belonged to minority groups (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2012), 44 percent of all elementary and 

secondary students were minorities, but only 17.3 percent of all elementary and secondary 

teachers were minorities. 

Figure 3. Percentage change in students and teachers, by race/ethnicity, 1987–88 to 2011–12

NOTE: This figure is based on analyses of data from two cycles of the Schools and Staffing Survey—1987–88 and 2011–12. 

SOURCE: Ingersoll, R., Merrill, E., and Stuckey, D. (2014). Seven Trends: The Transformation of the Teaching Force, Updated

(CPRE Report RR-80). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. 

But the persistence of this gap has not been due to a failure to recruit minority teachers. The gap 

has persisted in recent years largely because the number of White students has decreased, while 

the number of minority students has increased. And, though persistent, the gap decreased. The 

percentage of all teachers who belonged to minority groups increased from 12.4 percent in 1987–

88 to 17.3 percent in 2011–12. Moreover, these percentages do not take into account the growth 

of the teaching force. Because the teaching force dramatically grew, numerically there are far 

more minority teachers than before. In 1987–88, there were about 327,000 minority teachers; by 

2011–12, there were over 666,000. Growth in the number of minority teachers (104 percent) has 

 

1 Minority refers to all those who are not White, non-Hispanic. It includes: Hispanics or Latinos, regardless of race; 

Blacks or African Americans, non-Hispanic; Asians or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, non-Hispanic; American 

Indians/Alaska Natives, non-Hispanic; and those of Two or more races, non-Hispanic. For simplicity of 

presentation, “non-Hispanic” modifiers have been removed from the race-ethnicity categories in the text of the 

report. Asian in the text refers to Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic. Black refers to Black, nonHispanic. American Indian refers to American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic. Two or more races refers to Two 

or more races, non-Hispanic. White refers to White, non-Hispanic. Hispanic refers to Hispanics, regardless of race.
7 

outpaced growth in minority students (88 percent) and was over twice the growth rate of White 

teachers (38 percent) (see figure 3). 

So, although the proportion of minority students in schools still remains greater than the 

proportion of minority teachers, the teaching force has become more racially and ethnically 

diverse (for detailed analyses of the SASS data on minority teacher recruitment, retention and 

shortages, see, Ingersoll and May 2011; Ingersoll 2015; Ingersoll, May, and Collins 2017). 

The objective of the earlier study was to provide a broad overview of national changes in the 

demographic characteristics of the teaching force and to explore some of the possible reasons 

for, and implications of, the changes discovered. It also raised a number of questions. Among 

them is the question of how widespread and uniform these demographic changes were across the 

nation—the subject of this report.
8 

Study Objectives

This Statistical Analysis Report builds on the Ingersoll, Merrill, and Stuckey (2014) study, using 

SASS data to further examine three demographic characteristics of the teaching force—size, 

levels of teaching experience, and racial/ethnic diversity. This is a descriptive study. The 

objective is not to explain the reasons behind the trends, nor to evaluate the implications of these 

trends. The objective of this report is to expand the earlier investigation to examine and describe 

variations in these demographic characteristics, and their changes, across subgroups. This 

analysis takes advantage of the depth and breadth of the SASS data to examine these differences

across a variety of types of teachers and types of schools, over the quarter century from the first 

SASS, administered in 1987–88, to the most recent SASS available, administered in 2011–12. 

There are three parts to this report, corresponding to the three characteristics of the teaching 

force examined. These three parts are described below. 

Changes in the Size of the Teaching Force

This report opens with an investigation of variations in growth across the teaching force. Tables 

1 and 2 detail changes in the numbers of teachers by various teacher and school characteristics 

between 1987–88 and 2011–12. The analysis examines to what extent increases in the number of 

teachers have disproportionately occurred for males or females and, in particular age, and 

experience subgroups and among racial/ethnic groups. The analysis also examines which fields 

of teaching have, or have not, shared in the overall growth. For example, has there been growth 

in fields, such as math, science, special education, and ESL, long deemed to suffer from 

shortages (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future 1996 and 1997, National 

Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century 2000, National 

Research Council 2002, National Academy of Sciences 2007)? It compares changes in the size 

of these fields to increases in the number of teachers in other fields, such as English and social 

studies, long deemed in the literature to not suffer from shortages. This report also analyzes 

variations in growth in the number of teachers across different types of schools. The

characteristics of schools considered in the report include school level, size, poverty level, and 

sector. Have particular types of schools had more growth than others? 

Changes in the Experience Levels of the Teaching Force

This report then moves to an investigation of changes in the experience levels of the teaching 

force. It specifically focuses on the numbers and distribution of beginners (those with 5 or fewer 

years of experience). Tables 3 and 4 detail changes in the numbers and percentages of beginners 

across various teacher and school types between 1987–88 and 2011–12. For instance, this report 

disaggregates the data to examine whether increases in the number of beginners has differed 

among males or females, in particular, age and experience subgroups, among different 

racial/ethnic groups, and across different teaching fields. 

Moreover, the analysis examines to what extent growth in beginning teachers has varied across 

different types of schools and documents which types of schools have the least experienced 

teaching staffs. For example, are schools in high-poverty communities likely to have more

beginning teachers than schools in more affluent communities, and has this changed over time? 
9 

Changes in the Racial/Ethnic Composition of the Teaching Force

This report closes with an investigation of the changes in the number of minority teachers across 

the teaching force. Tables 5 and 6 detail changes in the number and percentage of minority 

teachers across different types of teachers and types of schools between 1987–88 and 2011–12. 

For example, the analysis examines which teacher subgroups—males and females, age and 

experience subgroups, and different teaching fields—shared in the increase in the number of 

minority teachers and which did not. Likewise, the analysis examines variations in the number of 

minority teachers across different types of schools. 
10 

Data, Measures, and Statistical Comparisons

Data

The data presented in this report are from National Center for Education Statistic’s (NCES) 

SASS. This is the largest and most comprehensive source of data on teachers in the United 

States. NCES has administered seven cycles of SASS over a 25-year period—1987–88, 1990–

91, 1993–94, 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2007–08, and 2011–12. In each cycle, NCES administered

questionnaires to a nationally representative sample of about 50,000 teachers, 11,000 schoollevel administrators, and 5,000 district-level officials, collecting an unusually broad and deep 

array of information on teachers, their students, and their schools. This report focuses on 

comparisons of teacher data from the first and the most recent cycles of SASS: 1987–88 and 

2011–12 (see appendix B for further information on both the 1987–88 SASS and the 2011–12 

SASS). 

Measures

Tables 1 and 2 focus on all elementary and secondary school teachers employed in public 

(including charter) and private schools. The data in these two tables focus on the first of the three 

characteristics, described above—changes in the numbers of teachers and in the size of the 

teaching force. 

Tables 3 and 4 focus solely on beginning teachers—defined as those with 5 or fewer years of 

experience—to investigate the second of the characteristics, described above: changes in the 

experience levels of the teaching force. There are several reasons to focus on this group. The first 

5 years of a teacher’s career is a key period. Numerous studies have documented that the 

relationship between teachers’ departures and teachers’ experience follows a U-shaped curve. 

Teachers’ attrition rates are very high through their first 5 years on the job, then subsequently 

slow down through mid-career, and then again increase as teachers approach retirement 

(Murnane, Singer, and Willett. 1988; Hafner and Owings 1991; Grissmer and Kirby 1987 and 

1992; Ingersoll 2003; Ingersoll and Perda forthcoming). Moreover, a growing body of research

shows that the growth in teaching knowledge and skill that individuals acquire increases 

significantly through their first several years on the job (e.g., Henry, Fortner, and Bastian 2012; 

Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger 2006). Finally, for analytic purposes, defining beginners as those in 

their first 5 years is useful because it provides sample sizes large enough for the analysis to make 

more accurate conclusions about how the number of beginners varies across types of teachers 

and types of schools.2

 

2 This focus on teachers in their first 5 years of teaching differs from that used in the Ingersoll, Merrill, and Stuckey 

study (2014). The latter examined changes in the overall distribution of teaching experience across the teaching 

force from 1987–88 to 2011–12 and focused in particular on changes in the numbers of teachers in their first year of 

teaching. In addition, the method of measuring teaching experience used in this report also differs from that used in 

the earlier study. As a result of these differences in both focus and measure, the estimates of experience and of 

beginners slightly differ between this report and the earlier study. See appendix C for further details on these 

differences.
11 

Finally, tables 5 and 6 present data on minority teachers—defined as non-White teachers and 

Hispanic teachers, regardless of race—to focus on the third characteristic to be examined—

changes in the racial/ethnic composition of the teaching force. 

For each of the above three teaching force characteristics—numbers, experience, and 

race/ethnicity—and their accompanying pair of tables, the analysis disaggregates the data by key 

teacher and school characteristics. Following previous research on teachers and schools and 

other NCES reports, this analysis disaggregates the data by several key individual teacher 

characteristics: sex; race/ethnicity; age, teaching experience, and teaching field. In addition, this 

analysis disaggregates the data by several key school characteristics: school level, school size, 

the proportion of students from poverty-level families, school sector, and private school 

classification. These teacher-level and school-level measures are listed with definitions in 

Exhibits 1 and 2, and are described in detail in appendix C. 

Statistical Comparisons

The analyses undertake cross-tabulations and descriptive data analyses, examining changes and 

differences over time between 1987–88 and 2011–12. All bivariate comparisons in this study 

were tested for statistical significance using a two-tailed Student’s t statistic to ensure that the 

differences were larger than might be expected due to sampling variation. Unless specifically 

noted, all differences cited in the report were statistically significant at the .05 level. Given large 

sample sizes, differences that were statistically significant at the .05 level are not necessarily 

substantively significant. Adjustments were not made for multiple comparisons; consequently, 

some differences noted here might not be significant if a multiple comparison procedure was 

used. Standard errors for all the table estimates are provided in appendix A. The standard errors 

were calculated using PROC SURVEY FREQ in SAS with the SASS replicate weights to 

account for the complex sampling design. The analyses follow NCES standards for displaying 

data in the tables: noting where standard errors are 30 percent or more of the estimate value; or 

where standard errors are more than 50 percent of the estimate value. 

Exhibit 1. Teacher-level measures used in the analyses 

Measure Definition 

Sex 

Female Teacher self-identifies as female 

Male Teacher self-identifies as male 

Race/ethnicity 

White, non-Hispanic Teacher self-identifies as non-Hispanic and race as White 

Minority Teacher self-identifies as non-White or Hispanic 

Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race Teacher self-identifies as Hispanic and any race 

Black or African American, nonHispanic Teacher self-identifies ethnicity as non-Hispanic and race as Black or African 

American 

Asian or Native Hawaiian/Pacific 

Islander, non-Hispanic 

Teacher self-identifies ethnicity as non-Hispanic and race as Asian or Native 

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

American Indian/Alaska Native, nonHispanic Teacher self-identifies ethnicity as non-Hispanic and race as American 

Indian/Alaska Native 

Two or more races, non-Hispanic Teacher self-identifies with more than one race 

Age Teacher’s age as of fall of the school year

Teaching experience Teacher’s adjusted years of teaching experience. Experience is calculated as the 

sum of years taught full- or part-time in public and private schools. 

Field 

General elementary Teacher’s main assignment as early childhood or general elementary 

Continued next page. 
12 

Measure Definition 

Mathematics Teacher’s main assignment reported to be mathematics (algebra I, II, or III, basic 

and general mathematics, business and applied math, calculus and precalculus, 

computer science, geometry, pre-algebra, statistics and probability, or 

trigonometry) 

Natural science Teacher’s main assignment reported to be natural sciences (e.g., science, general, 

biology or life sciences, chemistry, earth sciences, engineering, integrated science, 

physical sciences, or physics)

Social science Teacher’s main assignment reported to be social sciences (e.g., social studies, 

general, anthropology, economics, geography, government or civics, history, native 

American studies, psychology, or sociology) 

English/language arts (ELA) Teacher’s main assignment reported to be English and language arts (e.g., 

communications, composition, English, journalism, language arts, reading, or 

speech) 

Foreign language Teacher’s main assignment reported to be foreign language (e.g., French, German, 

Latin, Spanish, or other foreign language) 

Vocational-technical education Teacher’s main assignment reported to be vocational, career, or technical 

education (e.g., agricultural and natural resources, business management, 

business support, marketing and distribution, healthcare occupations, construction 

trades, mechanics and repair, manufacturing, communications and related 

technologies, personal and public services, family and consumer sciences 

education, industrial arts, or other career or technical education) 

Art and music Teacher’s main assignment reported to be arts or arts and crafts, or music 

Drama or dance Teacher’s main assignment reported to be drama or theater, or dance 

Health and physical education Teacher’s main assignment reported to be health or physical education 

English as a second language (ESL) Teacher’s main assignment reported to be ESL or bilingual education 

Special education Teacher’s main assignment reported to be special education 

Other Those not included in above fields, such as, gifted and talented, alternative 

education, and leadership 

Exhibit 2. School-level measures used in the analyses 

Measure Definition 

Sector

Public Includes teachers working at both traditional public and charter schools. A charter 

school is a public school that, in accordance with an enabling state statute, has 

been granted a charter exempting it from selected state or local rules and 

regulation. 

Private Private school is a nonpublic, noncharter school 

School level 

Elementary Elementary school has any grades K–6 and none of grades 9–12 

Secondary If school has any grades 7–12 and none of grades K–6 

Combined elementary and secondary All other cases 

Student enrollment

Less than 100 students Total K–12 and ungraded student enrollment in the school is less than 100 

students 

Between 100 and 749 students Total K–12 and ungraded student enrollment in the school is more than 100 and 

less than 750 students 

750 or more students Total K–12 and ungraded student enrollment in the school is greater than 750 

students 

Percent poverty-level students Based on the percentage of students in a school who were approved for free or 

reduced-price lunches but the National School Lunch Program, which is a proxy 

measure equivalent to the percentage of families below the federal poverty line 

0 to 33 percent Less than 33 percent of students in a school were approved for free or reducedprice lunches by the National School Lunch Program 

Between 33 and 75 percent Thirty-three percent or more, and less than 75 percent of students in a school were 

approved for free or reduced-price lunches by the National School Lunch Program 

75 percent or more Seventy-five percent or more of students in a school were approved for free or 

reduced-price lunches by the National School Lunch Program 

Private school classification Based on the religious or nonreligious orientation of a school 

Catholic If the school was a Catholic—Parochial, Catholic—Diocesan, or Catholic—Private 

school 

Nonsectarian If the school was another religious, conservative Christian; other religious, affiliated 

with a religious school association; or other religious, not affiliated with a religious 

school association 

Other religious If the school identifies as a nonsectarian-regular, nonsectarian-special emphasis, 

or nonsectarian special education school 

Exhibit 1. Teacher-level measures used in the analyses—Continued 
13 

Limitations of the Measures

The 1987–88 and 2011–12 cycles of SASS differed in several aspects that pose limitations for 

the analyses contained in this report. These limitations are described below.

The 1987–88 SASS did not include measures of the teaching fields of drama and dance, while 

the 2011–12 SASS did include these measures. Similarly, the 1987–88 SASS did not contain a 

teacher race/ethnicity measure for those of Two or more races, while the 2011–12 SASS did 

contain a measure for those of Two or more races. Hence, in tables 1, 3, and 5 of this report, 

these categories are left blank in the columns for 1987–88 and in the columns for changes from 

1987–88 to 2011–12. Note, that in both cases—dance/drama and multiple races, the category 

represents a very small proportion of the teaching force—respectively, .5 and 1 percent of 

teachers in 2011–12. 

The 1987–88 and 2011–12 cycles of SASS differed in their definitions of urban, suburban, and 

rural school communities or locales. As a result, it is not possible to calculate accurate 

comparisons by locale across cycles. Hence, this report does not disaggregate and compare 

teachers by these categories.3

 

The 1987–88 and 2011–12 cycles of SASS differed in the use of imputation for missing values. 

As described in detail in appendix B, in the 2011–12 SASS, all missing values were fully 

imputed. However, in the 1987–88 SASS, while missing values due to item nonresponse were 

later imputed, other missing values were not all imputed. See Hammer and Gerald (1990) for 

details on missing data in the 1987–88 SASS. In particular, NCES did not impute variables for 

nonresponding schools on the school and district files. In the 1987–88 SASS, a number of 

teachers were sampled for which the School Questionnaire was not completed by a school 

administrator and, hence, for which school-level data are not available. Because teachers without 

school information could not be included in their calculation, the values reported in the 1987–88 

columns in tables 2, 4, and 6, of the number of teachers, by school-level characteristics (school 

level, student enrollment, percent low-income students, private school classification), may 

underestimate the true values. Weighting adjustments were made at the school level in the 1987–

88 SASS to adjust for school level nonresponse, and effectively correct for nonresponse for 

school-level estimates. Characteristics of teachers within nonresponding schools may vary from 

those of teachers within responding schools, however, and the school-level nonresponse 

adjustments may not correct for all teacher-level differences. As a result, the estimates of 

changes in the number of teachers by school characteristics between 1987–88 and 2011–12 could 

be underestimates, and caution should be exercised when interpreting these estimates. Table B-4 

in appendix B provides both the unweighted and weighted numbers of teachers in the 1987–88 

SASS with missing school-level data on school characteristics. See Bobbitt and McMillen (1995) 

for an example of an NCES report, similar to this current report, in that it compares the 1987–88 

SASS with another SASS (1990–91) dataset. The authors of this earlier NCES report were also 

 

3 In the 1987–88 SASS, the multiple Census Bureau locale categories were collapsed into three general types of 

communities: Urban, Suburban and Rural. However, in the 2011–12 SASS, the categories were collapsed into four 

types of communities: city, suburban, town and rural. Moreover, the decisions as to which of the multiple locales 

were included in which Census categories was changed. For a detailed examination, see Speicher, 2002. 
14 

unable to impute those missing values for analytic purposes, but they provided useful 

clarification of the amount and consequences of missing data. 

The 1987–88 SASS data were weighted and the weights were adjusted for nonresponse; hence, 

the 1987–88 data represent accurate national estimates. But, weighting for nonresponse may not 

always fully compensate for missing data due to nonresponding schools, especially if the latter 

represent a relatively large proportion of the sample. In this report the weighted number of 

teachers missing school-level data are included in the 1987–88 columns in tables 2, 4, and 6. 

Because teachers without school information could not be included in their calculation, the 

values reported in the 1987–88 columns in tables 2, 4, and 6, of the number of teachers, by 

school-level characteristics (school level, student enrollment, percent low-income students, 

private school classification), could underestimate the true values. Moreover, as a result of these

missing data, the estimates of changes in the number of teachers between 1987–88 and 2011–12 

could be underestimates. Hence, some caution must be exercised in the interpretation of 

estimates of the change in the number of teachers, by school characteristics, between 1987–88 

and 2011–12 in tables 2, 4, and 6. 

To assess the implications of the missing school-level data for the report’s findings, this analysis 

undertook two steps. First, appendix B includes a table (B-5) comparing the 1987–88 SASS and 

1990–91 SASS distributions of public and private school teachers across the types of schools 

examined in this report. This table reveals that the teacher distributions across school types for 

the 1987–88 SASS are similar to those for the 1990–91 SASS. This suggests that the teachers 

missing school data in the 1987–88 SASS are not concentrated within one category of school. 

Second, the analysis undertook additional tests to determine which of the significant school-level 

findings, discussed in reference to tables 2, 4, and 6 in the report, would not remain significant if 

the teachers with missing data were entirely nonrandomly distributed (i.e., were entirely located 

in one category of a school type) an unlikely event and a very high standard. 

For instance, the data displayed in table 2 show a large increase in teachers in high-poverty 

public schools between 1987–88 and 2011–12. Further tests found that even if the 166,000 

public school teachers missing school poverty data in 1987–88 had been employed in the highpoverty public schools category alone, the increase in teachers in those schools by 2011–12, 

would still be above average, and at a statistically significant level. The results of these 

additional tests of the school-level findings are reported in the relevant sections of the report. 
15 

Findings 

Changes in the Size of the Teaching Force

Teacher-level characteristics

The earlier Ingersoll, Merrill, and Stuckey (2014) study established the magnitude of growth in 

the size of the teaching force and explored some of the reasons for, and implications of, this 

increase in teachers. This section investigates to what extent these changes, and the growth in the 

number of teachers employed, varied across different kinds of teachers and schools. 

As shown in table 1, the two-decade growth in the number of teachers was not evenly spread 

across teachers’ sex, race/ethnicity, age, experience, and teaching field. For instance, the number 

of female teachers increased at a higher rate (56 percent) than male teachers (22 percent) (T = 

203, p < .001). The result is that teaching, while it has been a female-dominated occupation since 

the advent of the public school system (Tyack 1974), has become increasingly so in recent

decades—from 71 percent of all teachers in the late 1980s being female to about 76 percent of 

teachers in 2011–12. 

Moreover, the number of minority teachers increased at a significantly higher rate (104 percent) 

than the number of White teachers (38 percent) (T = 1756, p < .001). The result is that the 

teaching force, while it remains predominantly White, has become more racially/ethnically 

diverse—from about 12 percent of all teachers in the late 1980s being minority to about 17 

percent of teachers in 2011–12. However, this growth was not distributed evenly across the 

major minority subgroups. The number of Asian and Hispanic teachers while still a relatively

small portion of all teachers (2 percent and 7.5 percent, respectively in 2011–12) increased at 

higher rates (209 and 270 percent, respectively) than both Black teachers (25 percent) (T = 446, 

p < .001) and White teachers (38 percent) (T = 425, p < .001). On the other hand, the number of 

American Indian teachers, who made up less than 1 percent of the teaching force in 2011–12, 

declined during this period. (Note: changes in the racial/ethnic composition of the teaching force 

are examined in more detail in a later section of the findings). 

The distribution of age across the teaching force has changed. The numbers and proportions of 

both younger (less than 30 years old) and older (age 50 or more) teachers increased at higher 

rates (89 and 128 percent, respectively) than middle-aged (30–49) teachers (12 percent) since the 

late 1980s4

 (T = 703, p < .001; T = 981, p < .001). 

The distribution of teaching experience across the teaching force also changed during this period. 

Both the number of beginners (5 or less years of teaching experience) and those of mid-level 

experience (6 to 10 years) grew at higher rates (43 and 72 percent, respectively) than the number 

of veteran teachers (11 or more years) (T = 57, p < .001; T = 589, p < .001). (Note: changes in 

 

4 While there was an overall increase in the number of older teachers between 1987–88 and 2011–12, it should also 

be noted that the data suggest the aging trend in the teaching force has recently peaked. The Ingersoll, Merrill, and 

Stuckey study (2014) found that the number of teachers 50 years or older has begun to decline, from about 1.3 

million in 2007–08 to about 1.2 million in 2011–12, a drop of about 170,000 teachers. 
16 

the number and distribution of beginning teachers are examined in more detail in a later section

of the findings). 

There were also large differences in growth across teaching fields—some with large gains and 

others with small gains. ESL, a small field, had phenomenal growth—a 1,088-percent increase in 

the past two-and-a-half decades of the number of teachers reporting it as their main field (T = 

532, p < .001). Those whose main field was special education, the second-largest field in 

teaching, grew 92 percent—twice the average rate of 46 percent (T = 600, p < .001). Three of the 

four core academic fields—English/language arts, mathematics, and science—already relatively 

large fields, each also grew at above-average rates (T = 1,110, p < .001; T = 10,000, p < .001; 

T = 7,294, p < .001). Foreign language, a smaller field, also had above-average levels of growth 

(T = 671, p < .001). In contrast, general elementary school teachers, by far the largest field in 

teaching and comprising almost a third of all teachers, had below-average growth (T = 555, p < 

.001). Vocational-technical (T = 357, p < .001) and art/music (T = 775, p < .001) each also had 

below-average growth (table 1 and figure 4). The number of teachers in the “Other” field 

category decreased—perhaps because new field categories were introduced in later cycles of 

SASS that included those that were originally contained in “other” in 1987–88. 

Figure 4. Percentage increase in teachers, by main teaching field: 1987–88 to 2011–12 

NOTE: ELA refers to English/language arts and ESL refers to English as a second language. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 
17 

Table 1. Total number and percentage of elementary and secondary teachers, by teacher characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12 

 1987–88 2011–12 

Change from 1987–88 to 

2011–12 

Teacher characteristics 

Number of 

teachers 

Percent of 

teachers 

Number of 

teachers 

Percent of 

teachers 

Change in the 

number of 

teachers 

Percent 

change in the 

number 

 of teachers 

All teachers 2,630,300 100.0 3,850,100 100.0 1,219,700 46.4 

Sex 

Female 1,878,600 71.4 2,931,100 76.1 1,052,500 56.0 

Male 751,800 28.6 919,000 23.9 167,200 22.2 

Race/ethnicity 

Hispanic, regardless of race 77,800 3.0 287,800 7.5 209,900 269.8 

White, non-Hispanic 2,303,100 87.6 3,183,800 82.7 880,700 38.2 

Black, non-Hispanic 197,900 7.5 247,900 6.4 50,000 25.3 

Asian, Native Hawaiian/ 

 Pacific Islander, 

 non-Hispanic 24,500 0.9 75,500 2.0 51,100 208.6 

American Indian/Alaska 

 Native, non-Hispanic 27,000 1.0 17,100 0.4 -10,000 -36.9 

Two or more races, 

 non-Hispanic1 — — 37,900 1.0 — — 

Age 

Less than 30 379,800 14.4 717,000 18.6 337,200 88.8 

30–49 1,722,900 65.5 1,929,500 50.1 206,600 12.0 

50 or more 527,600 20.1 1,203,500 31.3 675,900 128.1 

Teaching experience 

0–5 years 591,400 22.5 845,500 22.0 254,000 43.0 

6–10 years 513,100 19.5 883,800 23.0 370,700 72.2 

11 or more years 1,525,800 58.0 2,120,800 55.1 595,000 39.0 

Field

General elementary 974,400 37.0 1,231,700 32.0 257,200 26.4 

Math 140,900 5.4 326,000 8.5 185,100 131.4 

Natural science 124,700 4.7 259,900 6.8 135,200 108.4 

Social science 126,200 4.8 239,700 6.2 113,500 89.9 

English/language arts 169,800 6.5 435,800 11.3 266,000 156.7 

Foreign language 56,900 2.2 130,900 3.4 74,000 130.1 

Vocational-technical 125,900 4.8 159,200 4.1 33,300 26.5 

Art and music 164,400 6.3 225,600 5.9 61,200 37.2 

Drama or dance1 — — 19,600 0.5 — — 

Health and P.E. 127,400 4.8 202,000 5.2 74,600 58.6 

English as a second 

 language (ESL) 6,000 0.2 71,600 1.9 65,600 1,088.3 

Special education 235,200 8.9 450,500 11.7 215,300 91.6 

Other 378,400 14.4 97,500 2.5 -281,000 -74.3 

— Not available. 

1

 The 1987–88 SASS did not include measures of the teaching fields of drama and dance, nor did it include a teacher race/ethnicity 

measure for those of Two or more races. Hence, these categories are left blank in the 1987–88 columns. 

NOTE: Due to rounding, frequencies may not sum to totals. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 
18 

School-level characteristics

As shown in table 2, the two-decade growth in the number of teachers also was not spread evenly 

across different types of schools.5

Considering public school teachers, there were larger-than-average increases in the numbers 

employed in combined schools (K–12), elementary schools, large schools, and especially in 

high-poverty schools. Among private school teachers, there were significant increases in the 

numbers employed in non-Catholic schools. 

In general, the number of teachers employed in public schools increased by 46 percent between 

1987–88 and 2011–12. Public school teachers working in combined schools represented a small 

proportion of all public school teachers in 2011–12 (about 9 percent), but the number of such 

teachers increased by 187 percent (T = 2,366, p < .001) during the period from 1987–88 to 

2011–12. The teaching force in public elementary schools grew at over double the rate of that in 

public secondary schools (T = 357, p < .001). However, as mentioned above, this was not due to 

large increases in regular general elementary teachers.

6

 The growth of teachers in large public 

schools (those enrolling 750 or more students) also increased at above-average rates (T = 649, 

p < .001). 

 

5 Table 2 indicates that in the 1987–88 SASS, of all public schools teachers, 7 percent are missing school data and of 

all private school teachers, 11.7 percent are missing school data. To assess the implications of teachers missing 

school-level data, the analysis tested which school-level findings, discussed above, would not hold if the missing 

data were entirely nonrandom (i.e., were entirely located in one category of a school type), an unlikely event and a 

very high standard. The results showed that the above findings on increases in teachers in elementary public schools, 

large public schools, high-poverty public schools, non-Catholic religious private schools and nonsectarian private 

schools, while of course of a lower magnitude, all remained statistically significant. For instance, even if the 

166,000 public school teachers missing school poverty data in 1987–88 were all employed in high-poverty schools 

alone, the increase in teachers in those schools by 2011–12 was still above average, and at a statistically significant 

level. There was one exception: the finding on an increase in teachers in public combined schools did not remain 

statistically significant because these are small in size and number (elem: T = 83, p < .001; large: T = 55, p < .001; 

high-poverty: T = 82, p < .001; nonsectarian: T=55, p < .001; other relig: T = 49, p < .001). 6 Additional analyses have shown there have been above-average increases in the number of elementary-level 

enrichment teachers and subject specialists, such as in math, English, reading, or computer science (Ingersoll, 

Merrill, and Stuckey 2014), which may account for the overall teacher growth in public elementary schools.
19 

Figure 5. Percentage change in teachers, by public school poverty level: 1987–88 to 2011–12

NOTE: Low-poverty schools refers to those with less than 33 percent students approved for free or reduced-price lunches; midpoverty schools refers to those with 33 to 74 percent students approved for free or reduced-price lunches; high-poverty schools 

refers to those with 75 or more students approved for free or reduced-price lunches. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 
20 

Table 2. Total number and percentage of elementary and secondary teachers, by school characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12

 1987–88 2011–12 

Change from 1987–88 

to 2011–12 

School characteristics1 

Number of 

teachers 

Percent of 

teachers 

Number of 

teachers 

Percent of 

teachers 

Change in the 

number of 

teachers 

Percent change 

in the number 

 of teachers 

All schools 2,630,300 100.0 3,850,100 100.0 1,219,700 46.4 

All public schools 2,323,200 88.3 3,385,200 87.9 1,062,000 45.7 

School level 

Elementary 1,263,600 54.4 2,087,300 61.7 823,700 65.2 

Secondary 789,200 34.0 998,300 29.5 209,200 26.5 

Combined 104,300 4.5 299,600 8.8 195,200 187.1 

Missing 166,100 7.2 

Student enrollment 

Less than 100 33,000 1.4 57,900 1.7 24,900 75.4 

100–749 1,393,000 60.2 2,002,400 59.2 609,300 43.7 

750 or more 731,000 31.2 1,324,900 39.1 593,900 81.2 

Missing 166,100 7.2 

Percent poverty-level students 

Less than 33 percent 1,383,800 59.6 1,108,000 32.7 -275,800 -19.9 

33–74 percent 595,200 25.6 1,522,700 45.0 927,500 155.8 

75 percent or more 178,100 7.7 754,500 22.3 576,400 323.7 

Missing 166,100 7.2 

All private schools 307,100 11.7 464,900 12.1 157,800 51.4 

School classification 

Catholic 131,500 42.8 143,100 30.8 11,600 8.8 

Nonsectarian 53,400 17.4 138,700 29.8 85,300 159.8 

Other religious 86,200 28.1 183,100 39.4 96,900 112.5 

Missing 36,100 11.7 

School level 

Elementary 145,000 47.2 201,000 43.2 56,000 38.6 

Secondary 52,100 16.9 72,000 15.5 20,000 38.4 

Combined 74,000 24.1 191,800 41.3 117,800 159.3 

Missing 36,100 11.7 

Student enrollment 

Less than 100 37,800 12.3 92,500 19.9 54,800 145.1 

100–749 201,400 65.7 309,000 66.5 107,500 53.4 

750 or more 31,900 10.3 63,400 13.6 31,500 99.0 

Missing 36,100 11.7 1 Because of missing school data, the values in the 1987–88 columns of the number of teachers, by school-level characteristics, are 

underestimates. Hence, caution must be exercised in the interpretation of estimates of the change in the number of teachers, by 

school characteristics, between 1987–88 and 2011–12. 

NOTE: Due to rounding, frequencies may not sum to totals. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 

There were large gains in the number of teachers employed in public schools with relatively high 

concentrations of students from lower-income families. The number of teachers in high-poverty 

schools (in which three-quarters of the students in a school were approved for the free or 

reduced-price lunch program) increased to nearly 325 percent. The increase in teachers in midpoverty public schools (in which a third to three-quarters of the students were approved for the 

free or reduced-price lunch program) was about half that rate (T = 730, p < .001). As of 2011–

12, these two categories of schools employed about two-thirds of all public school teachers. In 

contrast, the number of teachers in low-poverty public schools (in which less than a third of 

students were approved for the free or reduced-price lunch program) declined by one-fifth (see 

figure 5).

The private school sector differed from the public school sector in its teacher growth pattern. In 

recent decades, as shown in table 2, the number of teachers employed in private schools 
21 

increased at a higher rate than in public schools (T = 156, p < .001). Nevertheless, private 

schools continue to account for a relatively small portion of the teaching force (about 12 percent

in 2011–12).7 However, growth in teachers varied by type of private school. The period from 

1987–88 to 2011–12 saw a well below-average increase in the number of teachers employed in 

Catholic schools (T = 491, p < .001). In contrast, there were large increases in the number of 

teachers in non-Catholic religious private schools and in nonsectarian/nonreligious private 

schools. 

Changes in the Experience Levels of the Teaching Force

Teacher-level characteristics

As documented in the Ingersoll, Merrill, and Stuckey (2014) study, with the large increase in the 

hiring and employment of new teachers since the late 1980s, there has been an accompanying 

increase in the numbers of beginning teachers. This section investigates to what extent the 

increase in beginners varies—depending on what kinds of teachers and schools are examined. 

Tables 3 and 4 present data on teacher and school differences in the relative proportions of 

beginners, which are defined here as teachers with 5 or fewer years of teaching experience.8

While the percent of all teachers who were beginners (about 22 percent) did not change between 

1987–88 and 2011–12, the data show that the number of beginners increased by 43 percent– 

representing a gain of over 250,000 beginning teachers. As might be expected, those types of 

teachers and schools with the greatest growth, as illustrated in tables 1 and 2, also often had the 

largest gains in numbers of beginners. The main findings are summarized below. 

As shown in table 3, Asian and Hispanic teachers both had well above-average growth in 

beginners, 220 and 244 percent, respectively (T = 201, p < .001; T = 354, p < .001). However, 

because of the large growth in the number of Hispanic teachers, the proportion that were 

beginners actually declined slightly between 1987–88 and 2011–12, from 31 percent to 27 

percent. On the other hand, American Indian teachers have been a small and declining portion of 

the teaching force. 

Many fields, including ESL, math, English/language arts, social science, foreign language, and 

natural science, had above-average growth in beginners (ESL: T = 184, p < .001; math: T = 178, 

p < .001; ELA: T = 233, p < .001; social science: T = 223, p < .001; language: T = 209, p < .001; 

science: T = 107, p < .001). By 2012, of those teachers reporting these as their main field, a fifth 

or more had 5 or fewer years of experience. It should be noted that, while there was aboveaverage growth in the number of beginning teachers in ESL (595 percent), its percentage of 

 

7 Interestingly, while the number of teachers employed in private schools increased between 1987–88 and 2011–12 

and at a higher rate than in public schools, unlike the public sector, the number of students in private schools 

decreased during this same period—by 13 percent. The overall result has been a sharp decrease in the average pupilteacher ratio in private schools, which was already lower than in public schools (Ingersoll, Merrill, and Stuckey 

2014).

8 The measure of teaching experience here differs from that used in the Ingersoll, Merrill, and Stuckey study (2014). 

For details on the rationale for, and measures of, teaching experience, see section on Measures, footnote #2, and 

appendix C. 
22 

beginners actually declined over this time period because of the even larger growth of ESL as a 

field (1,088 percent). 

Table 3. Total number and percentage of beginning teachers (5 or less years), by teacher characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12 

 1987–88 2011–12 

Change from 1987–88 to 

2011–12 

Teacher characteristics 

Number of 

beginning 

teachers 

Percent 

beginning 

teachers 

Number of 

beginning 

teachers 

Percent 

beginning 

teachers 

Change in the 

number of 

beginning 

teachers 

Percent 

change in the 

number 

of beginning 

teachers 

All beginning teachers 591,400 22.5 845,500 22.0 254,000 43.0 

Sex 

Female 464,100 24.7 639,800 21.8 175,700 37.9 

Male 127,300 16.9 205,700 22.4 78,300 61.5 

Race/ethnicity 

Hispanic, regardless of race 24,100 31.0 77,100 26.8 53,000 219.6 

White, non-Hispanic 523,100 22.7 676,600 21.3 153,500 29.3 

Black, non-Hispanic 33,000 16.7 56,500 22.8 23,500 71.4 

Asian, Native Hawaiian/ 

Pacific Islander, nonHispanic 5,700 23.3 19,600 26.0 13,900 243.8 

American Indian/Alaska 

Native, non-Hispanic 5,600 20.6 3,200 ! 18.8 ! -2,400 -42.5 

Two or more races, nonHispanic1 — — 12,500 33.0 — — 

Age 

Less than 30 316,400 83.3 527,700 73.6 211,300 66.8 

30–49 253,300 14.7 267,000 13.8 13,700 5.4 

50 or more 21,800 4.1 50,700 4.2 29,000 133.0 

Field

General elementary 213,500 21.9 251,100 20.4 37,600 17.6 

Math 28,000 19.9 80,000 24.6 52,000 185.6 

Natural science 28,300 22.7 64,600 24.9 36,300 128.5 

Social science 17,500 13.9 52,000 21.7 34,500 197.1 

English/language arts 30,900 18.2 87,500 20.1 56,700 183.4 

Foreign language 13,800 24.3 32,500 24.9 18,700 135.3 

Vocational-technical 23,100 18.4 38,200 24.0 15,100 65.2 

Art and music 42,900 26.1 47,900 21.2 5,000 11.6 

Drama or dance1 — — 3,500 17.6 — — 

Health and P.E. 27,500 21.6 37,800 18.7 10,300 37.6 

English as a second 

language (ESL) 2,500 40.8 17,100 23.9 14,600 595.4 

Special education 62,900 26.8 111,700 24.8 48,800 77.5 

Other 100,500 26.6 21,500 22.1 -79,000 -78.6 

— Not available. 

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

1 The 1987–88 SASS did not include measures of the teaching fields of drama and dance, nor did it include a teacher race/ethnicity 

measure for those of Two or more races. Hence, these categories are left blank in the 1987–88 columns. 

NOTE: Due to rounding, frequencies may not sum to totals. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 

In contrast, slow-growth fields generally became less “green.” These include teachers whose 

main fields were general elementary, art/music, and physical education (Elem: T = 178, p < .001; 

a/m: T = 140, p < .001; PE: T = 24, p < .001). Interestingly, middle-aged beginners (those 

between age 30 and 49), often referred to as mid-career switchers, increased at a well belowaverage rate in recent decades (T = 190, p < .001). 
23 

School-level characteristics

The increase in the number of beginning teachers has not been spread evenly across different 

kinds of schools. Among public schools combined (K–12) schools, large schools, and highpoverty schools all showed large gains in their numbers of beginning teachers. 9

 Among private 

schools, there were large gains in beginners in nonsectarian schools and combined (K–12) 

schools. 

Parallel to their very high levels of growth in the number of teachers employed in combined 

public schools, as earlier illustrated in table 2, the number of beginning teachers in such schools 

almost trebled between 1987–88 and 2011–12 (T = 241, p < .001). However, also because of the 

increase in teachers employed in such schools, the proportion that were beginners actually 

remained the same in 1987–88 and 2011–12. In addition, the number of beginners in large public 

schools also increased at above-average rates (T = 228, p < .001).

Figure 6. Percentage change in beginning teachers, by public school poverty level: 1987–88 to 2011–12 

NOTE: Low-poverty schools refers to those with less than 33 percent of students approved for free or reduced-price lunches; midpoverty schools refers to those with 33 to 74 percent of students approved for free or reduced-price lunches; high-poverty schools 

refers to those with 75 percent or more of students approved for free or reduced-price lunches. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 

 

9 Table 4 indicates that in the 1987–88 SASS, of all the public school teachers missing school-level data, about 

21percent were beginners and of all the private school teachers missing school-level data, about 36 percent were 

beginners. To assess the implications of teachers missing school-level data, the analysis tested which school-level 

findings, discussed above, would not hold if the missing data were entirely nonrandom (i.e., were entirely located in 

one category of a school type), an unlikely event and a very high standard. The results show that the above findings 

on increases in beginning teachers in large public schools, high-poverty public schools, small private schools, and 

nonsectarian private schools, while of course of a lower magnitude, all remained statistically significant. However, 

the finding on an increase in beginners in combined public schools did not remain statistically significant because 

these schools are small in size and number (large: T = 23, p < .001; high-poverty: T = 137, p < .001; 

nonsectarian:T=102, p < .001; small:T = 49, p < .001). 
24 

Table 4. Total number and percentage of beginning teachers (5 or less years), by school characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12

 1987–88 2011–12 

Change from 1987–88 

to 2011–12 

School characteristics1

Number of 

beginning 

teachers 

Percent 

beginning 

teachers 

Number 

beginning 

teachers 

Percent 

beginning 

teachers 

Change in the 

number of 

beginning 

teachers 

Percent change 

in the number 

of beginning 

teachers 

All schools 591,400 22.5 845,500 22.0 254,000 43.0 

All public schools 475,000 20.4 718,600 21.2 243,600 51.3 

School level 

Elementary 267,200 21.1 427,200 20.5 160,000 59.9 

Secondary 146,400 18.6 215,900 21.6 69,500 47.4 

Combined 26,200 25.1 75,600 25.2 49,400 188.6 

Missing 35,200 21.2 

Student enrollment 

Less than 100 9,800 29.8 14,900 25.7 5,000 51.2 

100–749 289,200 20.8 429,900 21.5 140,700 48.7 

750 or more 140,800 19.2 273,900 20.7 133,000 94.5 

Missing 35,200 21.2 

Percent poverty-level 

students 

Less than 33 percent 264,300 19.1 205,400 18.5 -58,900 -22.3 

33–74 percent 134,600 22.6 323,900 21.3 189,400 140.7 

75 percent or more 41,000 23.0 189,300 25.1 148,400 362.3 

Missing 35,200 21.2 

All private schools 116,500 37.9 126,800 27.3 10,400 8.9 

Religious affiliation 

Catholic 44,100 33.5 33,200 23.2 -10,900 -24.7 

Nonsectarian 20,600 38.6 37,600 27.1 17,000 82.5 

Other religious 38,900 45.2 56,000 30.6 17,100 43.9 

Missing 12,800 35.6 

School level 

Elementary 58,200 40.1 52,800 26.3 -5,400 -9.3 

Secondary 16,200 31.1 19,500 27.0 3,300 20.3 

Combined 29,300 39.6 54,600 28.5 25,300 86.5 

Missing 12,800 35.6 

Student enrollment 

Less than 100 20,800 55.2 32,100 34.7 11,300 54.3 

100–749 73,500 36.5 80,500 26.1 7,000 9.5 

750 or more 9,300 29.4 14,200 22.4 4,900 52.7 

Missing 12,800 35.6 1 Because of missing school data, the values in the 1987–88 columns of the number of teachers, by school-level characteristics, are 

underestimates. Hence, caution must be exercised in the interpretation of estimates of the change in the number of teachers, by 

school characteristics, between 1987–88 and 2011–12. 

NOTE: Due to rounding, frequencies may not sum to totals. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 

Well above-average increases occurred in high-poverty public schools—also parallel to their 

very high levels of hiring and growth in teachers, as earlier illustrated in table 2. In 2011–12, 

there were over four times as many beginners in high-poverty schools as in 1987–88. In contrast, 

the number of beginning teachers employed in low-poverty public schools declined by one-fifth 

during this same period (see figure 6) (T = 548, p < .001). Again, while the numbers changed, 

the proportions of beginners in such schools did not greatly change over this time period because 

of the overall respective increase and decrease in the numbers of teachers in high- and lowpoverty schools. 

Overall, the teaching force in the private school sector has been “greener” than that in public 

schools, but the growth of beginners has been far slower than in public schools. Hence, the 
25 

private-public school teacher experience gap decreased between 1987–88 and 2011–12. (T = 

2.65, p < .025) Beginners comprised 20 percent of public school teachers in 1987–88 and 38 

percent of private school teachers that same year. In 2011–12, 21 percent of public school 

teachers were beginners compared to 27 percent of private school teachers. Moreover, across

private schools there were differences in these changes. Beginners in nonsectarian private 

schools increased by over 80 percent between 1987–88 and 2011–12. In contrast, the number of 

beginners employed in Catholic schools dropped by 25 percent during this same period (T = 267, 

p < .001). Among the greenest of schools are small private schools, in which over half the staff 

were beginners in 1987–88 (table 4). However, while there was above-average growth in the 

number of beginning teachers in small private schools, the percentage of teachers in such schools 

that were beginners actually declined over this time period. 

Changes in the Racial/Ethnic Composition of the Teaching Force

Teacher-level characteristics

Table 1 shows that the overall increase in minority teachers, of 104 percent, has not been even 

across the major minority subgroups.10 The numbers of Asian and Hispanic teachers increased at 

a far higher rate than have Black teachers, while American Indian teachers declined in numbers 

since the late 1980s. This section investigates to what extent the increase in minority teachers, 

overall, has varied across different types of teachers and across different kinds of schools. 

The data reveal some interesting sex differences in these changes in the racial/ethnic composition 

of the teaching force. As shown earlier for table 1, the teaching force has become more female. 

Overall, female teachers increased by 56 percent and males by 22 percent. From the estimates on 

teacher race/ethnicity and sex in tables 1 and 5, it is possible to calculate how these teacher 

increases by sex differ by teacher race/ethnicity. The data reveal that during this period, from 

1987–88 to 2011–12, the number of female teachers who were minority increased by 102 

percent, while the number of male teachers who were minority increased by 110 percent. In 

contrast, the number of White female teachers increased by 49 percent, while the number of 

White male teachers increased by only 12 percent (table 5 and figure 7). In 2011–12, males 

represented about one quarter of both the White and the minority portions of the teaching force. 

As also shown in table 5, teachers whose main fields of assignment were ESL, foreign language, 

English, math, natural science, and to a lesser extent, special education and social science, all 

showed above-average gains in minority members. ESL had a 647-percent increase in minority 

teachers and is one of the most racially/ethnically diverse fields. In 2012, 42 percent of ESL 

teachers were minority. But, it is interesting to note that, while ESL had a high growth rate in 

terms of employing minorities, because it is a small field that has grown greatly in numbers, the 

percentage of ESL teachers who were minorities actually declined from 1987–88 to 2011–12. 

Likewise, foreign language, also a small field that has seen a large rise in numbers, had a 44- 

percent increase in minority teachers, and is one of the most racially/ethnically diverse fields. In 

2012, about a third of foreign language teachers were minority. In addition, all four core 

 

10 Minority refers to all those who are not White, non-Hispanic. It includes: Hispanics or Latinos, regardless of race; 

Blacks or African Americans, non-Hispanic; Asians or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, non-Hispanic; American 

Indians/Alaska Natives, non-Hispanic; and those of Two or more races, non-Hispanic.
26 

academic fields—English/language arts, mathematics, social science, and science—each also 

gained substantial numbers of minority members (math: T = 178, p < .001; ELA: T = 233, p < 

.001; social science: T = 128, p < .001; science: T = 107, p < .001). In contrast, the main fields of 

general elementary (T = 233, p < .001), vocational-technical (T = 357, p < .001), and art/music 

(T = 775, p < .001) each had below-average growth.

Table 5. Total number and percentage of minority teachers, by teacher characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12

 1987–88 2011–12 

Change from 1987–88 

to 2011–12 

Teacher characteristics 

Number of 

minority 

 teachers 

Percent 

minority 

 teachers 

Number of 

minority 

 teachers 

Percent 

minority 

 teachers 

Change in the 

number of 

minority 

 teachers 

Percent 

change in 

 the number 

 of minority 

 teachers 

All minority teachers 327,200 12.4 666,200 17.3 339,000 103.6 

Sex 

Female 247,700 13.2 499,600 17.0 251,900 101.7 

Male 79,500 10.6 166,600 18.1 87,100 109.5 

Age 

Less than 30 37,300 9.8 112,500 15.7 75,200 201.5 

30–49 217,200 12.6 376,700 19.5 159,500 73.4 

50 or more 72,800 13.8 177,100 14.7 104,300 143.4 

Teaching experience 

0 to 5 years 68,400 11.6 168,900 20.0 100,500 147.0 

6 to 10 years 59,800 11.7 179,500 20.3 119,600 200.0 

11 or more years 199,100 13.0 317,900 15.0 118,800 59.7 

Field

General elementary 122,100 12.5 206,900 16.8 84,800 69.4 

Math 15,600 11.1 58,300 17.9 42,700 273.7 

Natural science 12,600 10.1 42,600 16.4 29,900 237.7 

Social science 13,600 10.7 34,400 14.4 20,800 153.7 

English/language arts 16,300 9.6 68,700 15.8 52,400 322.0 

Foreign language 10,000 17.5 45,000 34.4 35,100 352.3 

Vocational-technical 13,700 10.8 24,400 15.3 10,800 78.8 

Art and music 14,200 8.6 20,100 8.9 5,900 41.2 

Drama or dance1 — — ‡ ‡ — — 

Health and P.E. 14,400 11.3 35,000 17.3 20,600 142.4 

English as a second 

language (ESL) 4,000 66.7 30,100 42.0 26,000 647.1 

Special education 30,400 12.9 78,900 17.5 48,500 159.5 

Other 60,400 16.0 20,100 20.7 -40,300 -66.7 

— Not available. 

‡ Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent 

or greater. 

1 The 1987–88 SASS did not include measures of the teaching fields of drama and dance; hence, this category is left blank in the 

1987–88 columns. 

NOTE: Due to rounding, frequencies may not sum to totals. Minority refers to all those who are not White, non-Hispanic. It includes: 

Hispanics or Latinos, regardless of race; Blacks or African Americans, non-Hispanic; Asians or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, 

non-Hispanic; American Indians/Alaska Natives, non-Hispanic; and those of Two or more races, non-Hispanic. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 
27 

Figure 7. Percentage increase in teachers, by race/ethnicity and sex: 1987–88 to 2011–12 

NOTE: Minority refers to all those who are not White, non-Hispanic. It includes: Hispanics or Latinos, regardless of race; Blacks or 

African Americans, non-Hispanic; Asians or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, non-Hispanic; American Indians/Alaskan Natives, 

non-Hispanic; and those of Two or more races, non-Hispanic. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 

School-level characteristics

As shown in table 6, increases in minorities in teaching also differed across different types of 

schools. In particular, combined public schools and high-poverty public schools showed large 

gains in minority teaching staff.

11 The data show that of the types of schools examined here, by 

far the most racially/ethnically diverse are public schools serving high-poverty communities 

(high-poverty vs. large public: T = 10, p < .001). As shown in table 2, the number of teachers, as 

a whole, employed in high-poverty public schools has grown dramatically (324 percent). As 

shown in table 6, this increase has included a large surge in the number of minority teachers in 

such schools (288 percent). Because of the very large increase in the number of overall teachers 

employed in high-poverty schools, however, the percentage of minority teachers in such schools 

actually fell slightly between 1987–88 and 2011–12. In contrast, the number and proportion of 

minority teachers employed in low-poverty schools is lower and has shown little change (T = 4, 

p < .001) (see figure 8). 

 

11 Table 6 indicates that in the 1987–88 SASS, of all the public school teachers missing school-level data, about 15

percent were minority and of all the private teachers missing school-level data, about 10 percent were minority. To 

assess the implications of teachers missing school-level data, the analysis tested which school-level findings, 

discussed above, would not hold if the missing data were entirely nonrandom (i.e., were entirely located in one

category of a school type), an unlikely event and a very high standard. The results showed that only one of the above 

findings on increases in minority teachers—that in high-poverty public schools, while of course of a lower 

magnitude, remained statistically significant. The findings on increases in minority teachers in combined public 

schools, small private schools, combined private schools, other religious private schools and nonsectarian private 

schools did not remain statistically significant. Because the numbers of minority teachers in these schools was low 

in 1987–88, adding the missing to them considerably increased their numbers of minority teachers, and hence, 

effectively undercut any gains by 2011–12. (high-poverty: T = 870, p < .001).
28 

Table 6. Total number and percentage of minority teachers, by school characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12 

 1987–88 2011–12 

Change from 1987–88 

to 2011–12 

School characteristics1 

Number of 

minority 

 teachers 

Percent 

minority 

 teachers 

Number of 

minority 

 teachers 

Percent 

minority 

 teachers 

Change in the 

number of 

minority 

teachers 

Percent change 

in the number 

of minority 

 teachers 

All schools 327,200 12.4 666,200 17.3 339,000 103.6 

All public schools 305,200 13.1 612,000 18.1 306,800 100.5 

School level 

Elementary 177,900 14.1 391,900 18.8 213,900 120.3 

Secondary 89,100 11.3 159,200 16.0 70,100 78.7 

Combined 12,800 12.3 60,900 20.3 48,000 374.2 

Missing 25,300 15.2 

Student enrollment 

Less than 100 2,600 7.7 9,000 ! 15.5! 6,400 250.5 

100–749 160,800 11.5 322,900 16.1 162,000 100.8 

750 or more 116,500 16.0 280,100 21.1 163,600 140.5 

Missing 25,300 15.2 

Percent poverty-level 

students 

Less than 33 percent 101,000 7.3 101,900 9.2 900 0.9 

33–74 percent 106,700 17.9 230,400 15.1 123,700 115.9 

75 percent or more 72,100 40.5 279,600 37.1 207,500 287.6 

Missing 25,300 15.2 

All private schools 22,000 7.2 54,200 11.7 32,200 146.3 

School classification 

Catholic 10,800 8.2 17,700 12.4 6,900 63.4 

Nonsectarian 2,900 5.4 16,000 11.5 13,100 456.5 

Other religious 4,600 5.4 20,600 11.2 15,900 343.6 

Missing 3,700 10.2 

School level 

Elementary 10,700 7.4 28,900 14.4 18,200 170.4 

Secondary 4,400 8.4 8,100 11.2 3,700 85.8 

Combined 3,300 4.5 17,300 9.0 14,000 421.2 

Missing 3,700 10.2 

School enrollment 

Less than 100 3,400 9.0 13,900 15.0 10,500 310.7 

100–749 12,800 6.3 35,400 11.5 22,600 177.3 

750 or more (!) 2,200 ! 6.9 ! 4,900 ! 7.8 ! 2,700 125.3 

Missing 3,700 10.2 

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

1 Because of missing school data, the values in the 1987–88 columns of the number of teachers, by school-level characteristics, are 

underestimates. Hence, caution must be exercised in the interpretation of estimates of the change in the number of teachers, by 

school characteristics, between 1987–88 and 2011–12. 

NOTE: Due to rounding, frequencies may not sum to totals. Minority refers to all those who are not White, non-Hispanic. It includes: 

Hispanics or Latinos, regardless of race; Blacks or African Americans, non-Hispanic; Asians or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, 

non-Hispanic; American Indians/Alaska Natives, non-Hispanic; and those of Two or more races, non-Hispanic. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 
29 

Figure 8. Percentage increase in minority teachers, by public school poverty level: 1987–88 to 2011–12 

NOTE: Low-poverty schools refers to those with less than 33 percent of students approved for free or reduced-price lunches; midpoverty schools refers to those with 33 to 74 percent of students approved for free or reduced-price lunches; high-poverty schools 

refers to those with 75 percent or more of students approved for free or reduced-price lunches. Minority refers to all those who are 

not White, non-Hispanic. It includes: Hispanics or Latinos, regardless of race; Blacks or African Americans, non-Hispanic; Asians or 

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, non-Hispanic; American Indians/Alaskan Natives, non-Hispanic; and those of Two or more races, 

non-Hispanic. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 

As a result of these different changes, there is a large uneven distribution of minority teachers 

across schools by poverty level. By re-examining and comparing the estimates in tables 2 and 6, 

it is possible to estimate this distribution. The data show that, in 2011–12, while high-poverty 

public schools employed about one-fifth of the entire teaching force, they employed 42 percent 

of all minority teachers. In contrast, in 2011–12, while low-poverty public schools employed 

about one-third of the entire teaching force, they employed only 15 percent of all minority 

teachers. 

In general, private schools have proportionately fewer minority teachers than do public schools 

(in 2011–12, 18 vs. 12 percent), (T = 7.4, p < .001). However, as shown in table 6, the number of 

minority teachers in private schools has increased at a higher rate than in the public school 

system. Within the private sector, this was especially true for non-Catholic schools, small 

schools, and combined schools (non-Catholic: T = 121, p < .001; small: T = 53, p < .001; 

combined: (T = 110, p < .001). 
30 

Summary 

The elementary and secondary teaching force in the United States underwent large-scale 

demographic changes in the past quarter century, from 1987–88 to 2011–12. This report focuses 

on three major changes. The teaching force increased substantially in size, making it the largest 

occupation in the United States. The number of beginning teachers also grew at a higher rate 

than that of veteran teachers—making the teaching force less experienced than in the past.

Finally, the number of minority teachers grew more than the number of White teachers—making 

the teaching force more racially/ethnically diverse. 

For each of these changes, important questions immediately arise. Among them is the question of 

how widespread and uniform were these demographic changes in the teaching force across the 

nation? This report addresses this question by disaggregating the data to investigate how changes 

in the above three demographic characteristics—the numbers of teachers, levels of teaching 

experience, and the racial/ethnic diversity of the teaching force—varied across different types of 

teachers and across different types of schools between 1987–88 and 2011–12. The data show that 

these changes have not been spread evenly. The major findings are summarized below.

Changes in the Size of the Teaching Force

While the teaching force has grown overall, there have been large differences in growth across 

different teaching fields. ESL, ELA, mathematics, foreign language, science, and special 

education were all high-growth fields. In contrast, the fields of general elementary, vocationaltechnical education, and art/music each had below-average growth. 

Additionally, the growth in the teaching force has not been equal across schools. High-poverty 

schools employ a smaller portion of the teaching force than do lower-poverty schools (22 percent 

vs. 33 percent in 2011–12). But, this has been changing. During the period from 1987 to 2012, 

the teaching force in high-poverty public schools grew by nearly 325 percent. In contrast, the 

number of teachers employed in low-poverty public schools declined by one-fifth. 

There were also differences in growth between public and private schools. Between 1987–88 and 

2011–12, the number of teachers employed in private schools increased at a higher rate than in 

public schools. However, as documented in the Ingersoll, Merrill, and Stuckey (2014) study, 

private schools in the United States account for a small portion of the elementary and secondary 

student population (about 8.3 percent in 2011–12) and of the teaching force (about 12 percent in 

2011–12). Moreover, as also shown in the prior study, unlike the public sector, the number of 

students in private schools decreased during this same period. The result has been a decrease in 

the average pupil-teacher ratio in private schools, which was already lower than in public 

schools. 

These changes also varied across different types of private schools. The period from 1987–2012 

saw a relatively low (about 9 percent) increase in the number of teachers employed in Catholic 

schools. On the other hand, there were large increases in the number of teachers in non-Catholic 

religious private schools and in nonsectarian/nonreligious private schools. 
31 

Changes in the Experience Levels of the Teaching Force

Between 1987–88 and 2011–12, the total number of beginners (those with 5 or less years of 

experience) in the teaching force increased by over 250,000. As might be expected, those types 

of schools with the greatest hiring and growth also often had the largest gains in numbers of 

beginners. For example, the number of beginners in high-poverty schools increased by over 300 

percent between 1987–88 and 2011–12. In 2011–12, there were over four times as many 

beginners in high-poverty schools as in 1987–88. In contrast, the number of beginning teachers 

employed in low-poverty schools declined by one-fifth during the same period. 

The teaching force in the private school sector has been less experienced than that in public 

schools, but this private-public gap decreased between 1987-88 and 2011–12. Beginners 

comprised 20 percent of public school teachers in 1987-88 and 38 percent of private school 

teachers that same year. In 2011–12 some 21 percent of public school teachers were beginners 

compared to 27 percent of private school teachers. These changes also varied across different 

types of private schools. The number of beginners in nonsectarian/nonreligious private schools 

increased by over 83 percent between 1987–88 and 2011–12. In contrast, the number of 

beginners employed in Catholic schools dropped by 25 percent during this same period.

Changes in the Racial/Ethnic Composition of the Teaching Force

The elementary and secondary teaching force in the United States has long been predominantly 

White and the proportion of minority students in schools has long been far greater than the 

proportion of minority teachers (Ingersoll, Merrill, and Stuckey 2014). However, while minority 

teachers remain underrepresented in the teaching force, the proportion of teachers who are 

minorities increased over the last 25 years. Between 1987–88 and 2011–12, there was a 104- 

percent increase in the number of minority teachers, compared to 38 percent for White teachers.

The percentage of teachers who belonged to minority groups increased from 12.4 percent in 

1987–88 to 17.3 percent in 2011–12. In 1987–88, there were about 327,000 minority teachers; by 

2011–12, there were over 666,000. 

These changes in overall representation also have not been even across minority subgroups. The 

number of Asian and Hispanic teachers increased at a higher rate than the number of Black 

teachers, while the number of American Indian teachers sharply declined during this period. 

Teachers whose main fields were ESL, foreign language, ELA, math, science, social science, and 

special education showed large gains in racial/ethnic diversity. In contrast, teachers whose main 

fields were general elementary, vocational-technical, and art/music each had below-average 

growth of minority teachers. As of 2011–12, ESL and foreign language were the most racially/ 

ethnically diverse of the fields examined in this report; art/music was the least diverse. 

Additionally, there have been some interesting sex differences in these changes in the racial/ 

ethnic composition of the teaching force. During the period from 1987–88 to 2011–12, the 

number of White female teachers increased by 49 percent, while the number of White male 

teachers increased by only 12 percent. In contrast, during this same period, the number of 

minority female teachers increased by 102 percent, while the number of minority male teachers 

increased by 110 percent. 
32 

In both 1987–88 and 2011–12, high-poverty public schools had the highest percentage of 

minority teachers in the types of schools examined in this report. Moreover, the number of 

minority teachers employed in mid- and high-poverty public schools grew during this period, 

while there was almost no growth in the number of minority teachers in low-poverty schools. 

The result is a large unequal distribution of minority teachers across schools by poverty level. 

For instance, in 2011–12, while high-poverty public schools employed about one-fifth of the 

teaching force, they employed 42 percent of all minority teachers. In contrast, in 2011–12, while 

low-poverty public schools employed almost one-third of the teaching force, they employed only 

15 percent of minority teachers. 

This report presents the results of a descriptive study. The objective is to examine and describe 

variations in three sets of demographic characteristics, and their changes, across subgroups. The 

objective is not to either explain the reasons behind the trends, nor to evaluate the implications of 

these trends. However, such questions naturally arise. 

For instance, the data showing a large increase in the size of the teaching force raises an 

important set of questions: What are the sources of, and reasons for, the growth in the teaching 

force? Why have some fields grown so much faster than others? For instance, was the rapid 

growth in the number of special education teachers tied to changes in the federal Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or to changes in the level of learning disabilities diagnosed in 

children? What is behind the rapid increase in the proportion of the teaching force employed in 

high-poverty schools and the decrease in low-poverty schools? Has it been the size of such 

schools, or the number of schools in low and high-poverty communities that has changed? 

Moreover, what are the implications and consequences of the large increase in the size of the 

teaching force as a whole? How has the school system sustained the financial costs of a teaching 

force that has grown faster than the student population? In addition, what are the reasons behind, 

and the implications of, the larger increase of teachers in private schools than in public schools 

(while there was a decrease in the number of students in private schools)? These questions 

warrant further investigation.

Likewise, similar questions arise in regard to the second trend investigated in this report—the 

increase in beginning teachers. What are the implications of this growth and of the uneven 

distribution of beginners across schools? For instance, has the fourfold increase in beginners in 

high-poverty schools had an impact on those schools? Has the 20-percent decrease in beginners

in low-poverty schools had an impact on such schools? Moreover, what are the financial 

implications of the increase in beginners for schools? A teaching force with an increasingly 

larger portion of beginners, at the low end of the salary scale, could ameliorate some of the 

increased payroll costs of the large increase in the size of the teaching force, mentioned above. 

Finally, the data documenting the third trend—the increase in the number of minority teachers—

also raise important questions. What are both the reasons for, and the implications of, the 

unequal distribution of minority teachers across different types of schools revealed in this report? 

For instance, why has the increase in minority teachers been far larger in high-poverty schools 

than in low-poverty schools and what are the implications of this for student achievement? To 

what extent does this uneven distribution vary across different minority subgroups? What are the 

relative likelihoods of students being taught by minority teachers in different schools and is this 

changing over time? These questions warrant further research.
33 

References

Bobbitt, S., and McMillen, M. (1995). Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce: 

1988 and 1991 (NCES 95-665). Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. 

Chambers, L., Graham, S., Parmer, R., Stern, S., Strizek, G., and Thomas, T. (forthcoming). 

Survey Documentation for the 2011–12 Schools and Staffing Survey. Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 

Department of Education. 

Choy, S., Medrich, E., Henke, R., and Bobbit, S. (1992). Schools and Staffing in the United 

States: A Statistical Profile, 1987–88 (NCES 92-120). Washington, DC: National Center 

for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. 

Clotfelter, C.T., Ladd, H.F., and Vigdor, J.L. (2006, Fall). Teacher-Student Matching and the 

Assessment of Teacher Effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources, 41(4), 778–820. 

Cochran-Smith, M., and Zeichner, K.M. (Eds.). (2005). Studying Teacher Education: The Report 

of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum.Darling-Hammond, L. (1984). Beyond the Commission Reports: The Coming 

Crisis in Teaching. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. 

Dee, T. (2007). Teachers and the Gender Gaps in Student Achievement. Journal of Human 

Resources, 42(3): 528–554. 

Evans, M. (1992). An Estimate of Race and Gender Role Model Effects in Teaching High 

School. Journal of Economic Education, 29(3): 209–217. 

Finn, C., Kanstoroom, M., and Petrilli, M. (1999). The Quest for Better Teachers: Grading the 

States. Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. 

Goldring, R., Gray, L., and Bitterman, A. (2013). Characteristics of Public and Private

Elementary and Secondary School Teachers in the United States: Results From the 2011–

12 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2013-314). Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 

Goldring, R., Taie, S., Rizzo, L., Colby, D., and Fraser, A (2013). User’s Manual for the 2011–

12 Schools and Staffing Survey Volumes 1–6. (NCES 2013-330 through 2013-335). 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education 

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 

Grissmer, D., and Kirby, S. (1987). Teacher Attrition: The Uphill Climb to Staff the Nation’s 

Schools. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. 

Grissmer, D., and Kirby, S. (1992). Patterns of Attrition Among Indiana Teachers, 1965–1987. 

Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. 
34 

Guarino, C., Santibanez, L., and Daley, G. (2006). Teacher Recruitment and Retention: A 

Review of the Recent Empirical Literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(1): 173–

208. 

Hafner, A., and Owings, J. (1991). Careers in Teaching: Following Members of the High School 

Class of 1972 In and Out of Teaching (NCES Report No. 91-470). Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. 

Haggstrom, G.W., Darling-Hammond, L., and Grissmer, D. (1988). Assessing Teacher Supply 

and Demand. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. 

Hammer, C., and Gerald, E. (1990). Selected Characteristics of Public and Private School 

Teachers: 1987–88 (NCES 90-087). Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. 

Henry, G.T., Fortner, C.K., and Bastian, K.C. (2012). The Effects of Experience and Attrition for 

Novice High School Science and Mathematics Teachers. Science, 335: 1118–1121. 

Hirsch, E., Koppich, J., and Knapp, M. (2001). Revisiting What States Are Doing to Improve the 

Quality of Teaching: An Update on Patterns and Trends. Seattle, WA: Center for the 

Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. 

Ingersoll, R. (1995). An Agenda for Research on Teachers and Schools: Revisiting NCES’ 

Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES Working Paper 95-18). Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Statistics.

Ingersoll, R. (2003). Is There Really a Teacher Shortage? CPRE Research Report #R-03-4. 

Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. 

Ingersoll, R. (2015). “What Do the National Data Tell Us About Minority Teacher Shortages?” 

Section III, pp. 13–22, in The State of Teacher Diversity in American Education. 

Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute. 

Ingersoll, R. and May, H. (2011). Recruitment, Retention, and the Minority Teacher Shortage. 

CPRE Research Report #RR‐69. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in 

Education, University of Pennsylvania and Center for Educational Research in the 

Interest of Underserved Students, University of California, Santa Cruz. 

Ingersoll, R., May, H. and Collins, G. (2017). Minority Teacher Recruitment, Employment and 

Retention: 1987 to 2013. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.

Ingersoll, R., and Merrill, E. (2010). Review of “Teacher Layoffs: Rethinking ‘Last Hired, First 

Fired’ Policies.” Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center and 

Education Policy Research Unit. 
35 

Ingersoll, R., Merrill, E., and Stuckey, D. (2014). Seven Trends: The Transformation of the 

Teaching Force, Updated (CPRE Report RR-80). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for 

Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from 

http://www.cpre.org/7trends. 

Ingersoll, R., and Perda, D. (forthcoming). How High is Teacher Turnover and Is It a Problem?

Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of 

Pennsylvania. 

Irvine, J.J. (1988). An Analysis of the Problem of the Disappearing Black Educator. Elementary 

School Journal, 88(5): 503–514. 

Kane, T.J., Rockoff, J.E., and Staiger, D.O. (2006). What Does Certification Tell Us About 

Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence From New York City (Working Paper No. 12155). 

Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. 

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. American 

Educational Research Journal, 32(3): 465–491. 

Murnane, R., Singer, J., and Willett, J. (1988). The Career Paths of Teachers: Implications for 

Teacher Supply and Methodological Lessons for Research. Educational Researcher, 17(5), 

22–30. 

National Academy of Sciences. (1987). Toward Understanding Teacher Supply and Demand. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Academy of Sciences. (2007). Rising Above the Gathering Storm. Washington, DC: 

National Academies Press. 

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). NCES Statistical Standards (NCES 2014-097). 

Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for 

Educational Reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 

National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century (the John 

Glenn Commission). (2000). Before It’s Too Late. Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Office. 

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What Matters Most: Teaching 

for America’s Future. New York, NY: Author. 

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1997). Doing What Matters Most: 

Investing in Quality Teaching. New York: Author. 

National Council on Teacher Quality. (2010). Teacher Layoffs: Rethinking “Last Hired, First 

Fired” Policies. Washington, DC: Author. 
36 

National Research Council. (2002). Learning and Understanding: Improving Advanced Study of 

Mathematics and Science in U.S. Schools. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 

New Teacher Project. (2010). A Smarter Teacher Layoff System: How Quality-Based Layoffs 

Can Help Schools Keep Great Teachers in Tough Economic Times. Brooklyn, NY: 

Author. 

Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying Inequalities: The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Tracking on 

Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and Science. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND 

Corporation. 

Rice, J.K. (2010). The Impact of Teacher Experience: Examining the Evidence and Policy 

Implications. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, National Center for Analysis of 

Longitudinal Data in Education Research. 

Rice, J.K., Roellke, C., Sparks, D., and Kolbe, T. (2009). Piecing Together the Teacher Policy 

Landscape: A Policy-Problem Typology. Teachers College Record, 111(2): 511–546. 

Rockoff, J.E. (2004). The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence 

From Panel Data. American Economic Review, 94(2): 247–252. 

Sadker, M., and Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at Fairness. New York: Scribner.

Snyder, T.D., and Dillow, S.A. (2013). Digest of Education Statistics 2012 (NCES 2014-015). 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education 

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 

Speicher, N. (2002). School Locale Codes 1987–2000, (NCES 2002-02). Washington, DC: 

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

Torres, J., Santos, J., Peck, N.L., and Cortes, L. (2004). Minority Teacher Recruitment, 

Development, and Retention. Providence, RI: Brown University, Educational Alliance. 

Tyack, D. (1974). The One Best System. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2012). The Statistical Abstract (141st ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Commerce. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge: The 

Secretary’s Annual Report on Teacher Quality. Washington, DC: Author.

Villegas, A.M., and Irvine, J.J. (2009). Arguments for Increasing the Racial/Ethnic Diversity of 

the Teaching Force: A Look at the Evidence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 

American Educational Research Conference, San Diego, CA.
37 

Villegas, A.M., and Lucas, T. (2004). Diversifying the Teacher Workforce: A Retrospective and 

Prospective Analysis. In M.A. Smylie and D. Miretzky (Eds.), Developing the Teacher 

Workforce (103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1) 

(pp. 70–104). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Zumwalt, K., and Craig, E. (2005a). Teachers’ Characteristics: Research on the Demographic 

Profile. In M. Cochran-Smith and K.M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying Teacher Education: 

The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 111–156). 

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 

Zumwalt, K., and Craig, E. (2005b). Teachers’ Characteristics: Research on the Indicators of 

Quality. In M. Cochran-Smith and K.M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying Teacher Education: 

The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 157–260). 

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
A-1 

Appendix A: Standard Error Tables
A-2 

Table A-1. Standard errors for table 1: Total number and percentage of elementary and secondary teachers, by teacher 

characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12 

 1987–88 2011–12 

Change from 1987–88 

to 2011–12 

Teacher characteristics 

Number of 

teachers 

Percent of 

teachers 

Number of 

teachers 

Percent of 

teachers 

Change in the 

number of 

teachers 

Percent change 

in the number 

of teachers 

All teachers 299.2 † 22.8 † 300.1 0.02 

Sex 

Female 280.7 1.79 19.4 0.42 281.3 0.02 

Male 116.3 1.79 22.9 0.42 118.5 0.02 

Race/ethnicity 

Hispanic, regardless of race 46.5 0.13 25.2 0.32 52.9 0.22 

White, non-Hispanic 280.2 0.20 18.9 0.48 280.8 0.02 

Black, non-Hispanic 87.2 0.19 22.5 0.25 90.0 0.06 

Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific 

Islander, non-Hispanic 29.8 0.06 26.6 0.18 40.0 0.39 

American Indian/Alaska Native, 

non-Hispanic 26.6 0.07 22.6 0.07 34.9 0.10 

Two or more races, non-Hispanic — — 19.6 0.10 — — 

Age 

Less than 30 196.2 2.38 21.3 0.49 197.4 0.10 

30–49 217.3 1.55 20.5 0.53 218.2 0.01 

50 or more 109.4 0.87 27.0 0.54 112.7 0.05 

Teaching experience 

0-5 years 243.6 3.65 19.2 0.49 244.3 0.06 

6 to 10 years 114.1 0.65 20.4 0.44 115.9 0.04 

11 or more years 175.3 3.05 27.1 0.59 177.4 0.02 

Field

General elementary 231.8 2.30 20.7 0.63 232.8 0.03 

Math 54.9 0.27 20.6 0.25 58.7 0.09 

Natural science 50.5 0.26 13.7 0.17 52.4 0.09 

Social science 43.7 0.38 15.7 0.17 46.4 0.07 

English/language arts 63.9 0.26 20.3 0.30 67.1 0.10 

Foreign language 34.3 0.13 16.9 0.16 38.2 0.14 

Vocational-technical 47.0 0.32 13.9 0.13 49.1 0.05 

Art and music 62.1 0.28 16.6 0.21 64.3 0.05 

Drama and dance — — 20.6 0.07 — — 

Health and P.E. 48.5 0.33 20.7 0.23 52.7 0.06 

English as a second 

language (ESL) 9.7 0.03 29.9 0.20 31.4 1.97 

Special education 82.0 0.22 23.6 0.37 85.3 0.07 

Other 113.7 0.23 20.8 0.16 115.6 0.01 

— Not available. 

† Not applicable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 
A-3 

Table A-2. Standard errors for table 2: Total number and percentage of elementary and secondary teachers, by school 

characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12 

 1987–88 2011–12 

Change from 1987–88 

to 2011–12 

School characteristics 

Number of 

teachers 

Percent of 

teachers 

Number of 

teachers 

Percent of 

teachers 

Change in the 

number of 

teachers 

Percent change 

in the number 

of teachers 

All schools 299.2 † 22.8 † 300.1 0.02 

All public schools 277.4 0.37 22.5 0.26 278.3 0.02 

School level 

Elementary 261.0 2.68 14.8 0.74 261.5 0.03 

Secondary 125.9 2.54 23.3 0.51 128.1 0.02 

Combined 57.2 0.24 44.0 0.64 72.2 0.16 

Missing 20.8 1.65 

Student enrollment 

Less than 100 43.9 0.13 35.8 0.24 56.6 0.26 

100–749 259.8 2.03 17.9 0.86 260.5 0.03 

750 or more 128.0 2.11 33.2 0.82 132.3 0.03 

Missing 20.8 1.65 

Percent low-income 

Less than 33 percent 218.1 1.07 22.3 0.60 219.3 0.01 

33–74 percent 166.0 0.85 22.9 0.62 167.6 0.07 

75 percent or more 93.2 0.39 29.7 0.69 97.8 0.22 

Missing 20.8 1.65 

All private schools 113.2 0.37 16.3 0.26 114.3 0.06 

Religious affiliation 

Catholic 77.5 1.88 10.7 1.02 78.2 0.06 

Nonsectarian 60.4 1.31 23.0 1.50 64.6 0.30 

Other religious 75.8 1.39 20.2 1.49 78.5 0.19 

Missing 19.4 3.71 

School level 

Elementary 81.4 2.08 17.8 1.65 83.4 0.08 

Secondary 49.8 1.32 24.3 1.36 55.4 0.14 

Combined 80.9 2.41 24.4 1.82 84.5 0.29 

Missing 19.4 3.71 

Student enrollment 

Less than 100 60.2 1.48 22.1 1.46 64.1 0.39 

100–749 101.8 1.54 19.9 1.87 103.8 0.08 

750 or more 40.1 1.38 31.6 1.59 51.0 0.27 

Missing 19.4 3.71 

† Not applicable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 
A-4 

Table A-3. Standard errors for table 3: Total number and percentage of beginning teachers (5 or less years), by teacher 

characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12 

 1987–88 2011–12 

Change from 1987–88 

to 2011–12 

Teacher characteristics 

Number of 

beginning 

teachers 

Percent 

beginning 

teachers 

Number of 

beginning 

teachers 

Percent 

beginning 

teachers 

Change in the 

number of 

beginning 

teachers 

Percent 

change in the 

number 

of beginning 

teachers 

All beginning teachers 243.6 3.65 19.2 0.49 244.3 0.06 

Sex 

Female 223.5 3.84 18.9 0.52 224.3 0.07 

Male 98.5 2.78 18.7 0.87 100.2 0.13 

Race/ethnicity 

Hispanic, regardless of race 38.6 3.33 27.3 2.33 47.2 0.52 

White, non-Hispanic 232.2 3.80 18.2 0.50 232.9 0.06 

Black, non-Hispanic 60.0 2.88 19.5 1.83 63.1 0.32 

Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific 

Islander, non-Hispanic 14.5 2.85 22.1 3.95 26.5 0.96 

American Indian/Alaska Native, 

non-Hispanic 25.9 4.83 20! 5.4! 32.7 0.45 

Two or more races, non-Hispanic — — 18.4 5.19 — — 

Age 

Less than 30 200.2 4.66 21.9 1.17 201.4 0.11 

30–49 139.2 1.97 18.8 0.45 140.4 0.06 

50 or more 33.5 0.43 18.8 0.34 38.4 0.37 

Field

General elementary 166.5 3.61 22.8 0.85 168.1 0.09 

Math 48.1 3.33 18.0 1.93 51.4 0.49 

Natural science 56.4 5.13 16.5 1.49 58.8 0.46 

Social science 40.5 2.94 15.2 1.25 43.2 0.69 

English/language arts 60.1 4.06 19.6 1.14 63.2 0.56 

Foreign language 25.0 2.31 16.6 1.99 30.0 0.44 

Vocational-technical 44.9 3.50 12.5 1.31 46.6 0.33 

Art and music 56.3 3.74 15.2 1.44 58.4 0.15 

Drama and dance — — 12.4 3.73 — — 

Health and P.E. 41.0 2.91 18.8 1.90 45.1 0.22 

English as a second 

language (ESL) 10.0 4.93 30.7 4.37 32.3 3.09 

Special education 74.1 4.13 18.4 1.27 76.4 0.21 

Other 96.1 3.91 16.4 2.12 97.5 0.03 

— Not available. 

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 
A-5 

Table A-4. Standard errors for table 4: Total number and percentage of beginning teachers (5 or less years), by school 

characteristics: 1987–88 and 2011–12 

 1987–88 2011–12 

Change from 1987–88 

to 2011–12 

School characteristics 

Number of 

beginning 

teachers 

Percent 

beginning 

teachers 

Number of 

beginning 

teachers 

Percent 

beginning 

teachers 

Change in the 

number of 

beginning 

teachers 

Percent change 

in the number 

of beginning 

teachers 

All teachers 243.6 3.65 19.2 0.49 244.3 0.06 

All public schools 225.6 3.64 20.5 0.47 226.5 0.07 

School level 

Elementary 198.3 4.18 22.3 0.66 199.6 0.12 

Secondary 116.8 3.54 18.6 0.72 118.2 0.12 

Combined 52.3 4.54 28.5 1.39 59.6 0.59 

Missing 13.4 0.98 

Student enrollment 

Less than 100 31.2 3.65 18.3 2.00 36.2 0.52 

100–749 202.5 4.17 20.1 0.61 203.5 0.10 

750 or more 116.5 3.67 25.6 0.84 119.3 0.16 

Missing 13.4 0.98 

Percent low-income 

Less than 33 percent 181.5 3.94 15.3 0.58 182.2 0.05 

33–74 percent 135.2 4.44 18.8 0.66 136.5 0.24 

75 percent or more 63.1 2.79 24.4 1.31 67.7 0.71 

Missing 13.4 0.98 

All private schools 93.6 3.43 28.7 2.16 97.8 0.09 

Religious affiliation 

Catholic 64.3 4.16 23.3 3.01 68.4 0.12 

Nonsectarian 49.1 4.64 17.8 2.15 52.2 0.44 

Other religious 61.2 3.60 23.1 2.44 65.4 0.23 

Missing 12.0 2.31 

School level 

Elementary 70.0 4.03 19.2 1.98 72.6 0.11 

Secondary 41.8 4.95 25.4 3.89 48.9 0.35 

Combined 60.9 3.78 26.9 2.77 66.6 0.40 

Missing 12.0 2.31 

Student enrollment 

Less than 100 50.2 3.73 17.9 2.13 53.3 0.38 

100–749 81.9 ! 3.70 ! 31.2 2.61 87.7 0.13 

750 or more 33.7 5.67 37.7 5.65 50.5 0.69 

Missing 12.0 2.31 

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 
A-6 

Table A-5. Standard errors for table 5: Total number and percentage of minority teachers, by teacher characteristics: 1987–88 and 

2011–12 

 1987–88 2011–12 

Change from 1987–88 

to 2011–12 

Teacher characteristics 

Number of 

minority 

 teachers 

 Percent 

minority 

 teachers 

Number of 

minority 

 teachers 

Percent 

minority 

 teachers 

Change in the 

number of 

minority 

 teachers 

Percent 

change in the 

number 

of minority 

 teachers 

All minority teachers 105.3 0.20 27.9 0.48 109.0 0.07 

Sex 

Female 99.5 0.27 25.2 0.52 102.7 0.08 

Male 38.7 0.31 27.6 0.99 47.5 0.11 

Age 

Less than 30 57.2 0.66 26.1 1.07 62.9 0.47 

30–49 76.7 0.23 27.6 0.71 81.5 0.06 

50 or more 51.0 0.76 26.6 0.83 57.6 0.17 

Teaching experience 

0–5 years 74.6 0.73 25.3 1.06 78.7 0.27 

6–10 years 36.5 0.57 28.3 1.12 46.2 0.19 

11 or more years 72.3 0.39 25.8 0.55 76.8 0.06 

Field

General elementary 77.6 0.39 27.6 0.91 82.4 0.11 

Math 17.0 0.65 26.0 1.48 31.1 0.44 

Natural science 18.5 0.94 17.8 1.20 25.6 0.52 

Social science 19.2 1.03 15.5 1.14 24.7 0.38 

English/language arts 21.9 0.58 24.1 1.20 32.6 0.59 

Foreign language 15.0 1.41 16.6 2.24 22.4 0.70 

Vocational-technical 18.3 0.81 19.7 1.58 26.9 0.28 

Art and music 22.8 0.66 17.3 1.02 28.6 0.26 

Drama and dance — — ‡ ‡ — — 

Health and P.E. 17.9 0.95 26.1 2.02 31.6 0.35 

English as a second 

language (ESL) 7.7 3.79 31.1 4.77 32.1 1.63 

Special education 30.4 0.67 30.2 1.50 42.9 0.28 

Other 47.9 0.56 24.2 2.70 53.6 0.05 

— Not available. 

‡ Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent 

or greater. 

NOTE: Minority refers to all those who are not White, non-Hispanic. It includes: Hispanics or Latinos, regardless of race; Blacks or 

African Americans, non-Hispanic; Asians or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, non-Hispanic; American Indians/Alaska Natives, nonHispanic; and those of Two or more races, non-Hispanic. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 
A-7 

Table A-6. Standard errors for table 6: Total number and percentage of minority teachers, by school characteristics: 1987–88 and 

2011–12 

 1987–88 2011–12 

Change from 1987–88 

to 2011–12 

School characteristics 

 Number of 

minority 

 teachers 

Percent minority 

 teachers 

Number of 

minority 

 teachers 

Percent 

minority 

 teachers 

Change in the 

number of 

minority 

 teachers 

Percent change 

in the number 

of minority 

 teachers 

All schools 105.3 0.20 27.9 0.50 109.0 0.07 

All public schools 101.2 0.22 28.9 0.53 105.3 0.07 

School level 

Elementary 96.9 0.36 27.1 0.75 100.6 0.12 

Secondary 43.7 0.37 21.8 0.66 48.8 0.09 

Combined 21.6 0.92 40.9 1.92 46.3 0.86 

Missing 12.7 0.92 

Student enrollment 

Less than 100 12.0 1.40 ! 34.5 3.33 36.5 2.13 

100–749 91.7 0.29 21.8 0.58 94.2 0.12 

750 or more 55.5 0.60 30.4 0.82 63.3 0.12 

Missing 12.7 0.92 

Percent low-income 

Less than 33 percent 60.0 0.24 21.8 0.54 63.8 0.06 

33–74 percent 67.6 0.64 24.0 0.67 71.7 0.14 

75 percent or more 56.7 1.45 30.9 1.39 64.5 0.31 

Missing 12.7 0.92 

All private schools 30.3 0.48 13.6 0.69 33.2 0.34 

Religious affiliation 

Catholic 24.4 1.02 12.0 1.11 27.2 0.38 

Nonsectarian 20.4 1.09 16.1 1.42 26.0 4.00 

Other religious 16.6 1.01 16.2 1.20 23.2 1.63 

Missing 11.1 1.79 

School level 

Elementary 27.6 0.84 12.7 0.99 30.4 0.71 

Secondary 18.1 1.79 16.8 1.73 24.7 0.86 

Combined 15.3 1.04 15.5 1.06 21.8 2.45 

Missing 11.1 1.79 

Student enrollment 

Less than 100 22.4 1.57 16.0 1.74 27.5 2.76 

100–749 24.8 0.68 14.1 0.80 28.6 0.55 

750 or more 15.5 ! 2.01 ! 26.0 ! 2.9 ! 29.9 1.97 

Missing 11.1 1.79 

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

NOTE: Minority refers to all those who are not White, non-Hispanic. It includes: Hispanics or Latinos, regardless of race; Blacks or 

African Americans, non-Hispanic; Asians or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, non-Hispanic; American Indians/Alaska Natives, 

non-Hispanic; and those of Two or more races, non-Hispanic. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 
A-8 

Table A-7. Standard errors for figure 1: Percentage increase in teachers, by main teaching field: 1987–88 to 2011–12 

Main teaching field Estimate Standard error

All teachers 46 2 

English as a second language (ESL) 1,088 197 

English/language arts (ELA) 157 10 

Math 131 9 

Foreign language 130 14 

Natural science 108 9 

Special education 92 7 

Social science 90 7 

Art/music 37 5 

Vocational-technical 27 5 

General elementary 26 3 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 
A-9 

Table A-8. Standard errors for figure 2: Percentage change in teachers, by public school poverty level: 1987–88 to 2011–12 

Public school poverty level Estimate Standard error

All schools 46 2 

Low-poverty schools -20 1 

Mid-poverty schools 156 7 

High-poverty schools 324 22 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 
A-10 

Table A-9. Standard errors for figure 3: Percentage change in beginning teachers, by public school poverty level: 1987–88 to 

2011–12 

Public school poverty level Estimate Standard error

All schools 43 6 

Low-poverty schools -22 5 

Mid-poverty schools 141 24 

High-poverty schools 362 71 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 
A-11 

Table A-10. Standard errors for figure 4: Percentage increase in teachers, by race/ethnicity and by sex: 1987–88 to 2011–12 

Race/ethnicity Estimate Standard error

All

Male 22 2 

Female 56 2 

White (non-Hispanic) 

Male 12 2 

Female 49 2 

Minority 

Male 110 11 

Female 102 8 

NOTE: Minority refers to all those who are not White, non-Hispanic. It includes: Hispanics or Latinos, regardless of race; Blacks or 

African Americans, non-Hispanic; Asians or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, non-Hispanic; American Indians/Alaska Natives, nonHispanic; and those of Two or more races, non-Hispanic. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 
A-12 

Table A-11. Standard errors for figure 5: Percentage increase in minority teachers, by public school poverty level: 1987–88 to 2011–12

Type of School Estimates Standard errors

All Schools 104 7 

Low-poverty public schools 1 6 

Mid-poverty public schools 116 14 

High-poverty public schools 324 31 

NOTE: Minority refers to all those who are not White, non-Hispanic. It includes: Hispanics or Latinos, regardless of race; Blacks or 

African Americans, non-Hispanic; Asians or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, non-Hispanic; American Indians/Alaska Natives, nonHispanic; and those of Two or more races, non-Hispanic. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 
B-1 

Appendix B: Methodology and Technical Notes

Overview of the 2011–12 Schools and Staffing Survey

The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) is sponsored by the National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES) of the Institute of Education Sciences within the U.S. Department of Education 

and is conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. SASS is a nationally representative sample survey 

of public and private K–12 schools, principals, and teachers in the 50 states and the District of 

Columbia. School districts associated with public schools and library media centers in public 

schools are also part of SASS. SASS was conducted seven times—in school years 1987–88, 

1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000, 2003–04, 2007–08, and 2011–12. 

The 2011–12 SASS consisted of questionnaires for five types of respondents: school districts 

(public), schools (public and private), principals (public and private), teachers (public and 

private), and school library media centers (public). Modified versions of the public school 

principal, public school, and public school teacher questionnaires that incorporated wording and 

questions appropriate for private school settings were sent to private schools. Charter schools and 

schools in single-school districts received a modified public school questionnaire that included 

both district and school items. 

For public schools, information can be linked across teachers and their principals, schools, 

library media centers, and districts. For private schools, information can be linked across 

teachers and their principals and schools. For the content of the questionnaires, see 

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/questionnaire.asp. 

SASS was designed to produce national, regional, and state estimates for public elementary and 

secondary schools, school districts, principals, teachers, and school library media centers; and 

national and regional estimates for public charter schools, as well as principals, teachers, and 

school library media centers within these schools. For private schools, the sample supports 

national, regional, and affiliation strata estimates for schools, principals, and teachers. 

Comparisons between public and private schools and their principals and teachers are possible 

only at the regional and national levels, because private schools were selected for sampling by 

affiliation strata and region rather than by state. 

The teacher survey was designed to support comparisons between new and experienced teachers 

(3 years or less of experience vs. more than 3 years of experience) at the state level for public 

school teachers and at the regional or affiliation strata level for private school teachers. 

This appendix includes information on all components of SASS. For additional information on 

the specific SASS-related topics discussed in this appendix, consult the Survey Documentation 

for the 2011–12 Schools and Staffing Survey (Chambers et al. forthcoming) or the User’s 

Manual for the 2011–12 Schools and Staffing Survey Volumes 1–6 (Goldring et al. 2013) or 

Characteristics of Public and Private Elementary and Secondary School Teachers in the United 

States: Results From the 2011–12 Schools and Staffing Survey (Goldring et al. 2013). To access 

additional general information on SASS or for electronic copies of the questionnaires, go to the 

SASS home page (http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass). 
B-2 

Sampling Frames and Sample Selection

Public schools. The starting point for the 2011–12 SASS public school sampling frame was the 

preliminary 2009–10 Common Core of Data (CCD) Nonfiscal School Universe data file.1 The 

sampling frame was adjusted from the CCD in order to fit the definition of a school eligible for 

SASS. To be eligible for SASS, a school was defined as an institution or part of an institution 

that provides classroom instruction to students, has one or more teachers to provide instruction, 

serves students in one or more of grades 1–12 or the ungraded equivalent, and is located in one 

or more buildings apart from a private home. It was possible for two or more schools to share the 

same building; in that case, they were treated as different schools if they had different 

administrators (i.e., principal or school head). 

The SASS 2011–12 universe of schools is confined to the 50 states plus the District of Columbia 

and excludes the other jurisdictions, Department of Defense overseas schools, Bureau of Indian 

Education schools, and CCD schools that do not offer teacher-provided classroom instruction in 

grades 1–12 or the ungraded equivalent. This last group includes schools that are essentially 

administrative units that may oversee entities that provide classroom instruction or may only 

provide funding and oversight. 

The SASS definition of a school is generally similar to the CCD definition, with some 

exceptions. Because SASS allows schools to define themselves, Census Bureau staff observed 

that schools generally report as one entity in situations where the administration of two or more 

schools reported separately on CCD is the same. Thus, CCD schools with the same location, 

address, and phone number were collapsed during the SASS frame, building on the assumption 

that the respondent would consider them to be one school. A set of rules was applied in certain 

states to determine in which instances school records should be collapsed together. When school 

records were collapsed together, the student and teacher counts, grade ranges, and names as 

reported to CCD were all modified to reflect the change. 

Finally, additional school records were added to the sampling frame. Most of these records were 

for alternative, special education, or juvenile justice facilities in California, Pennsylvania, and 

New York.2 For a detailed list of frame modifications, see the Survey Documentation for the 

2011–12 Schools and Staffing Survey (Chambers et al. forthcoming). After deleting, collapsing, 

and adding school records, the SASS public school sampling frame consisted of about 90,530 

traditional public schools and 5,080 public charter schools. 

SASS uses a stratified, probability proportionate to size (PPS) sample (for an explanation of PPS 

sampling, see Cochran 1977). The first level of stratification was school type: (1) schools in a 

subset of the states where counties are the school districts (Florida, Maryland, Nevada, and West 

Virginia) so that each of these districts had school(s) selected; (2) public charter schools; and (3) 

all other traditional public schools. The second-level stratification was state and school district 

for type 1 schools, and states or groups of states for type 2 and 3 schools. Each of the school 

types was then stratified by grade level (elementary, secondary, and combined for public charter 

 

1 For more information about the CCD, see http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/. 2 In the 2007–08 SASS, records for Career Technical Centers (CTCs) were added to the frame because they were 

believed to be underrepresented in CCD. In 2011–12 SASS, special handling of CTCs was not deemed necessary. 

However, CTCs listed in CCD that met the SASS eligibility criteria were included on the SASS sampling frame. 
B-3 

schools; primary, middle, high, and combined for traditional public schools). Within each 

stratum, schools were sorted prior to sampling by state, community type (12 categories), 

collapsed ZIP code, percent free or reduced-price lunch (2 categories), highest grade in the 

school, percent minority enrollment (4 categories), and enrollment. The measure of size used for 

the schools was the square root of the number of full-time-equivalent teachers reported or 

imputed for each school during sampling frame development. If a school’s measure of size was 

greater than the sampling interval, the school was included in the sample with certainty. Each 

stratum was assigned a sample size to meet the defined precision goals of the survey. For 

example, for public primary schools, the goal was 15 percent or lower for coefficient of variation 

for national, regional, and state estimates for key characteristics. These sampling procedures 

resulted in a total public school sample of about 10,250 traditional public schools and 750 public 

charter schools. 

Private schools. The 2011–12 SASS private school frame was based on the 2009–10 Private 

School Universe Survey (PSS) as updated for the 2011–12 PSS. That update is conducted prior 

to each administration of PSS by collecting membership lists from private school associations 

and religious denominations, as well as private school lists from state education departments. 

The 2011–12 SASS private school frame was further augmented by the inclusion of additional 

schools that were identified through the 2009–10 PSS area frame data collection; these area 

frame schools were included in the SASS sample survey with certainty. Schools with 

kindergarten as the highest grade level were deleted from the frame to fit the SASS definition. 

After these changes, the private school sampling frame consisted of about 28,490 private 

schools.3

Private schools were stratified by affiliation strata, grade level (elementary, secondary, and 

combined), and Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West). The 11 affiliation strata 

included three strata for Catholic (parochial, diocesan, and private); Baptist; Jewish; Lutheran; 

Seventh-day Adventist; other religious; and three strata for nonsectarian (regular, special 

emphasis, and special education). Within each stratum, private schools in the list frame were 

sorted prior to sampling by state, highest grade in the school, community type (12 categories), 

ZIP code, and enrollment. The measure of size and PPS procedures described for public schools 

were used for private schools as well. Of the 3,000 private schools sampled for the 2011–12 

SASS, about 2,750 were from the list frame and about 250 were from the 2009–10 PSS area 

frame. 

Public school districts. Since the SASS sample design calls for schools to be selected first, the 

public school district sample consists of the districts that were associated with the schools in the 

public school sample. This provides the linkage between the district and the school. In Florida, 

Maryland, Nevada, and West Virginia, school sampling was done in such a way that all districts 

were taken with certainty. About 5,800 public school districts were pulled into the sample by 

being associated with sampled public schools. 

Teachers. Teachers are defined as staff members who teach regularly scheduled classes to 

students in any of grades K–12. Teacher Listing Forms (i.e., teacher rosters) were collected from 

sampled schools and districts, primarily by mail, and compiled at the Census Bureau. This 

 

3 For more information about the PSS, see http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss. 
B-4 

compilation was done on an ongoing basis throughout the roster collection period. Along with 

the names of teachers, sampled schools were asked to provide information about each teacher’s 

teaching experience (first year, 2–3 years, 4–19 years, and 20 or more years), teaching status 

(full or part time), and subject matter taught (special education, general elementary, math, 

science, English/language arts, social studies, vocational-technical, or other). 

Sampling was also done on an ongoing basis throughout the roster collection period. The Census 

Bureau first stratified teachers into four teacher strata: 1) beginning teachers (in their first year of 

teaching), 2) early-career teachers (in their second or third years of teaching), 3) mid-career 

teachers (in their 4th through 19th years of teaching), and 4) experienced teachers (in their 20th 

or later years of teaching). Beginning and early-career teachers were oversampled to improve the 

survey estimates for this subpopulation. Teachers within a school were sorted by the teacher 

stratum code, the subject matter taught, and the teacher line number code. The teacher line 

number is a unique number assigned to identify the individual within the teacher list. Within 

each teacher stratum in each school, teachers were selected systematically with equal probability. 

So that a school would not be overburdened by sampling too large of a proportion of its teachers, 

the maximum number of teachers per school was set at 20. About 20 percent of the eligible 

public schools and 28 percent of the eligible private schools did not provide teacher lists that 

could be used for sampling teachers. For these schools, no teachers were selected. About 51,100 

public school teachers and 7,100 private school teachers were sampled.

Principals. The principal of each sampled school was selected. About 14,000 school principals 

were sampled (10,250 traditional public school principals, 750 public charter school principals, 

and 3,000 private school principals). 

For details on sampling at all levels, see the Survey Documentation for the 2011–12 Schools and 

Staffing Survey (Chambers et al. forthcoming). 

Data Collection Procedures

In 2011–12, SASS employed a mail-based survey approach with subsequent telephone and inperson field follow-up. Prior to the beginning of data collection, research applications were 

submitted to public school districts that required applications to conduct research in their 

schools. Starting in June 2011, all districts were contacted by telephone to verify or collect the 

information about the district and sampled school(s) needed for data collection, identify the best 

person to receive the district questionnaire, and determine if the district would provide an 

electronic teacher list for sampled school(s). Survey packages were mailed to districts in October 

2011.4

 Follow-up was conducted sequentially by mail, telephone, and in person to districts that 

did not provide the requested questionnaire and/or teacher list. 

 

4 The SASS district package contained a cover letter, the School District Questionnaire, and postage-paid return 

envelope. Districts that indicated they would provide electronic list(s) of teachers for their selected school(s) 

received a letter that explained the purpose of the teacher list and provided instructions for uploading the file. In 

districts with only one school, the school received the Public School Questionnaire (with District Items) in lieu of 

the School District Questionnaire and School Questionnaire.
B-5 

In preparation for school-level data collection, advance letters were mailed to the sampled 

schools in June 2011 to verify their addresses. School packages were mailed in October 2011.5

Next, schools were telephoned using a computer-assisted telephone-interviewing instrument to 

verify school information, establish a survey coordinator (who became the main contact person 

at the school for subsequent communication), and follow up on the Teacher Listing Form if the 

school district had not already provided an electronic teacher list. Teacher questionnaires were 

mailed to schools on a flow basis as teachers were sampled on an ongoing basis from the data 

provided on the Teacher Listing Form or electronic teacher list. The field follow-up period was 

preceded by phone calls from the telephone centers to remind the survey coordinators to have 

staff complete and return all forms. Individual survey respondents (principal, librarian, and 

teachers) were also called from the telephone centers and asked to complete the questionnaire by 

phone. Data collection ended in June 2012. 

Data Processing and Imputation

The Census Bureau used both central processing and headquarters staff to check returned 

questionnaires, key the data, and implement quality control procedures. Questionnaires that had a 

preliminary classification of a complete interview were submitted to a series of computer edits 

consisting of a range check, a consistency edit, a blanking edit, and a logic edit.6 After these 

edits were run and reviewed by analysts, the records were put through another edit to make a 

final determination as to whether the case was eligible for the survey and whether sufficient data 

had been collected for the case to be classified as a complete interview. 

After the final edits were run, cases with “not-answered” values for items remained. Values were 

imputed using two main approaches. Donor respondent methods, such as hot-deck imputation, 

were used. If no suitable donor case could be matched, the few remaining items were imputed 

using mean or mode from groups of similar cases to impute a value to the item with missing 

data. After each stage of imputation, computer edits were run again to verify that the imputed 

data were consistent with the existing questionnaire data. If that was not the case, an imputed 

value was blanked out by one of these computer edits due to inconsistency with other data within 

the same questionnaire or because it was out of the range of acceptable values. In these 

situations, Census Bureau analysts looked at the items and tried to determine an appropriate 

value. Edit and imputation flags, indicating which edit or imputation method was used, were 

assigned to each relevant survey variable. For further information, see the sections on data 

processing and imputation in the Survey Documentation for the 2011–12 Schools and Staffing 

Survey (Chambers et al. forthcoming). 

 

5 The SASS school package contained a cover letter to the principal, a cover letter to the survey coordinator, the 

Teacher Listing Form if the district could not provide it, the Public School Principal Questionnaire or Private School 

Principal Questionnaire, the Public School Questionnaire or Public School Questionnaire (with District Items) or 

Private School Questionnaire, the School Library Media Center Questionnaire (for public schools only), postagepaid return envelopes, and the Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2011 CD. 6 Blanking edits delete answers to questions that should not have been filled in (e.g., if a respondent followed a 

wrong skip pattern).
B-6 

Response Rates

Unit response rates. The unit response rate indicates the percentage of sampled cases that met 

the definition of a complete interview. The weighted SASS unit response rate was produced by 

dividing the weighted number of respondents who completed questionnaires by the weighted 

number of eligible sampled cases, using the initial base weight (the inverse of the probability of 

selection).7 Table B-1 summarizes the weighted unit response rates for each survey type. 

Because response rates vary between surveys, it is possible to not have information for all the 

components related to a particular school. For example, a district may not have a corresponding 

school record, or there may not be a principal record for every school. 

Table B-1. Weighted unit and overall response rates using initial base weight, by survey: 2011–12

Survey Unit response rate (percent) Overall response rate (percent) 

Public school teacher listing form 79.6 † 

Private school teacher listing form 71.6 † 

Public school district 80.6 † 

Public school 72.5 † 

Private school 65.7 † 

Public school principal 72.7 † 

Private school principal 64.7 † 

Public school teacher 77.7 61.8 

Private school teacher 69.9 50.1 

Public school library media center 72.9 † 

† Not applicable. 

NOTE: The data that are summed to produce the numerator and denominator of the response weight are weighted, not the actual 

response rate. That is, the response rates were calculated using data that were weighted with the base weights (i.e., the inverse of 

the probability of selection). 

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

School and Private School Teacher Listing Forms; Public School District, Public School, Private School, Public School Principal, 

Private School Principal, Public School Teacher, Private School Teacher, and Public School Library Media Center Documentation 

Data Files,” 2011–12. 

Overall response rates. The overall response rate represents the response rate to the survey, 

taking into consideration each stage of the survey. For teachers, the overall response rate is 

calculated as the product of the response rate to two stages: the Teacher Listing Form and the 

Teacher Questionnaire.8

 The weighted overall response rate using the initial base weight for 

public school teachers was 61.8 percent; and for private school teachers, 50.1 percent. For the 

other surveys, the overall and unit response rates are the same since these surveys have only one 

sampling stage. 

Unit nonresponse bias analysis. Because the NCES Statistical Standards (U.S. Department of 

Education 2012) require analysis of nonresponse bias for any survey stage with a base-weighted 

response rate less than 85 percent, all SASS files were evaluated for potential bias. As shown in 

table B-1, the weighted response rate using the initial base weight was 80.6 percent for public 

school districts. The weighted response rate using the initial base weight was 72.5 percent for 

public schools and 65.7 percent for private schools. The weighted response rate using the initial 

 

7 For the formula used to calculate the unit response rate, see NCES Statistical Standards (U.S. Department of 

Education 2012). 8 For the formula used to calculate the overall response rate, see NCES Statistical Standards (U.S. Department of 

Education 2012). 
B-7 

base weight was 72.7 percent for public school principals and 64.7 percent for private school 

principals. The weighted response rate using the initial base weight for the teacher listing form 

was 79.6 for public schools and 71.6 for private schools. The weighted questionnaire response 

rate using the initial base weight for the teacher survey was 77.7 percent for public school 

teachers and 69.9 percent for private school teachers. The weighted response rate using the initial 

base weight was 72.9 percent for public school library media centers. 

Given the low overall response rates for both public and private school teachers, a decision was 

reached to consider all significant differences observed in the comparisons conducted for the 

nonresponse bias analysis. 

A comparison between the frame and the base-weighted estimates for the public school Teacher 

Listing Form showed evidence of bias in 8 percent of the characteristics compared at the national 

level and in 16 percent of the characteristics compared at the state level. A comparison between 

the frame and the base-weighted estimates for the public school teacher estimates showed 

evidence of bias in 6 percent of the characteristics compared at the national level and in 11 

percent of the characteristics compared at the state level. For the private school Teacher Listing 

Form, a comparison between the frame and the base-weighted estimates showed evidence of bias 

in 7 percent of the characteristics compared at the national level and in 10 percent of the 

characteristics compared at the affiliation level; and a comparison between the frame and the 

base-weighted estimates for the private school teacher estimates showed evidence of bias in 8 

percent of the characteristics compared at the national level and in 9 percent of the characteristics 

compared at the affiliation level. 

Nonresponse adjustments were designed to reduce or eliminate bias. When the estimates 

computed using the nonresponse-adjusted weights were compared to the frame estimates for the 

public school Teacher Listing Form, the estimates show that in the set of national estimates, bias 

remained in 4 percent of the characteristics compared, but in the state-level estimates, 15 percent 

were significantly biased after nonresponse adjustments were applied to the weights. The same 

comparison for the public school teacher data showed that after nonresponse adjustments were 

applied to the weights, the percentage of estimates with measurable bias decreased to 2 percent at 

the national level but remained at 9 percent at the state level. For the private school Teacher 

Listing Form, when the estimates computed using the nonresponse-adjusted weights were 

compared to the frame estimates, the estimates showed that in the set of national estimates, bias 

remained in 2 percent of the characteristics compared, but in the affiliation-level estimates, 

9 percent were significantly biased after nonresponse adjustments were applied to the weights. 

The same comparison for the private school teacher data showed that after nonresponse 

adjustments were applied to the weights, the percentage of estimates with measurable bias 

decreased to 3 percent at the national level but remained at 9 percent at the affiliation level. For 

further information on unit response rates and nonresponse bias analysis, see the Survey 

Documentation for the 2011–12 Schools and Staffing Survey (Chambers et al. forthcoming). 

Item response rates. The item response rate indicates the percentage of respondents who 

answered a given survey question or item. The weighted SASS item response rate is calculated 

by dividing the weighted number of respondents who provided an answer to an item by the 
B-8 

weighted number of respondents who were eligible to answer that item.9 Table B-2 provides a 

brief summary of the weighted item response rates for each questionnaire. 

For the public school teacher data, four of the survey items used in this report have item response 

rates of less than 85 percent. This includes three of the items used to calculate average class size 

for teachers in departmentalized instruction (T0137, T0138, and T0139) with item response rates 

of 83, 81, and 78 percent, respectively. In addition, the amount of salary supplement from 

additional compensation based on students’ performance (T0512) has an item response rate of 

83 percent. 

Table B-2. Summary of weighted item response rates, by survey: 2011–12

Survey 

Percent of items with a response 

 rate of 85 percent or more 

Percent of items with a response 

 rate of less than 85 percent 

Public school district 100.0 0.0 

Public school 96.2 3.8 

Private school1 93.5 6.1 

Public school principal 98.9 1.1 

Private school principal 98.3 1.7 

Public school teacher 94.2 5.8 

Private school teacher 92.5 7.5 

Public school library media center 100.0 0.0 

1 There was one item on the Private School Questionnaire that had 0 eligible respondents; thus, the response rate could not be 

calculated. For this reason, the percentages on this row do not sum to 100. 

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

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

School and Private School Teacher Listing Forms; Public School District, Public School, Private School, Public School Principal, 

Private School Principal, Public School Teacher, Private School Teacher, and Public School Library Media Center Documentation 

Data Files,” 2011–12. 

For the private school teacher data, five of the survey items used in this report have item 

response rates of less than 85 percent. This includes two of the items used to calculate average 

class size for teachers in departmentalized instruction (T0138 and T0139) with item response 

rates of 85 (rounded) and 80 percent, respectively. In addition, the average hours per week paid 

to deliver instruction to a class of students (T0390), average hours required to receive base pay 

during a typical full week (T0391), and average amount of the salary supplement from additional 

compensation based on students’ performance (T0512) have item response rates of 82, 82, and 

70 percent, respectively. For further information on item response rates and bias analysis, see the 

Survey Documentation for the 2011–12 Schools and Staffing Survey (Chambers et al. 

forthcoming). 

Weighting

The general purpose of weighting is to scale up the sample estimates to represent the target 

survey population. For SASS, a base weight is used as the starting point. In some cases, this base 

weight is the simple reciprocal of the unit’s probability of selection on the frame (the initial base 

weight), and in other cases, adjustments are made to this frame base weight to reflect multiple 

chances of selection from the frame or other situations such as subsampling. 

 

9 For the formula to calculate the item response rate, see NCES Statistical Standards (U.S. Department of Education 

2012).
B-9 

Next, a series of nonresponse adjustment factors are calculated and applied based on a weighting 

cell adjustment. Weighting cells are developed using tree search algorithms. These cells are 

selected to be homogeneous in response propensity within cells and heterogeneous in response 

propensity across cells (response propensity is the underlying “chance” that a particular sample 

unit will respond by completing the questionnaire: its individual response rate). The adjustment 

is the inverse of the weighted response rate within each cell, and each respondent in the cell 

receives this adjustment. Nonrespondents are given weights of zero: the respondents are 

reweighted to represent the nonrespondents. 

Finally, for some files, a ratio-adjustment factor is calculated and applied to the sample to adjust 

the sample totals to the frame totals. This improves the precision of survey estimates. 

The product of these factors is the final weight for each SASS respondent, which appears as 

DFNLWGT on the SASS Public School District Data File, AFNLWGT on all SASS Principal

Data Files, SFNLWGT on all SASS School Data Files, TFNLWGT on all SASS Teacher Data 

Files, and MFNLWGT on the SASS Library Media Center Data File. The counts in table 1 (in 

the Estimate Tables section) do not necessarily match the frame counts because some cases in 

the frame were found to be ineligible (i.e., out of scope) and because not all data files (e.g., 

principal or library media center) are poststratified to match the frame counts.

Variance Estimation

In surveys with complex sample designs, such as SASS, direct estimates of sampling errors that 

assume a simple random sample typically underestimate the variability in the estimates. The 

SASS sample design and estimation include procedures that deviate from the assumption of 

simple random sampling, such as stratifying the school sample, oversampling new teachers, and 

sampling with differential probabilities. 

One method of calculating sampling errors of complex sample designs is replication. Replication 

methods involve constructing a number of subsamples (i.e., replicates) from the full sample and 

computing the statistic of interest for each replicate. The mean square error of the replicate 

estimates around the full sample estimate provide an estimate of the variance of the statistic. 

Each SASS data file includes a set of 88 replicate weights designed to produce variance 

estimates. The set of replicate weights for each file should be applied to the respondents in that 

file. The replicate weights for SASS respondents are DREPWT1–DREPWT88 for districts, 

AREPWT1–AREPWT88 for principals, SREPWT1–SREPWT88 for schools, TREPWT1–

TREPWT88 for teachers, and MREPWT1–MREPWT88 for library media centers. In this report, 

the standard errors were calculated using PROC SURVEY FREQ in SAS with the SASS 

providing replicate weights to account for the complex sampling design. 

Reliability of Data

SASS estimates are based on samples. The sample estimates may differ somewhat from the 

values that would be obtained from the universe of respondents using the same questionnaire, 

instructions, and field representatives. The difference occurs because a sample survey estimate is 

subject to two types of errors: nonsampling and sampling. Estimates of the magnitude of 

sampling error for SASS data can be derived or calculated. Nonsampling errors are attributed to 
B-10 

many sources, including definitional difficulties, the inability or unwillingness of respondents to 

provide correct information, differences in the interpretation of questions, an inability to recall 

information, errors made in collection (e.g., in recording or coding the data), errors made in 

processing data, and errors made in estimating values for missing data. Quality control and edit 

procedures were used to reduce errors made by respondents, coders, and interviewers. 

Caution Concerning Changes in Estimates

Care must be taken in estimating change over time in a SASS data element, because some of the 

measured change may not be attributable to a change in the education system. 

Some of the change may be due to changes in the sampling frame, changes in questionnaire item 

wording, or other changes. For example, the definition of locale codes has undergone major 

changes since the 2000 Decennial Census. The first major change was an improvement in 

geocoding technology, which enhanced the assignment of specific addresses to physical 

locations. In 2005, a new locale code for CCD was implemented based on the new urban-centric 

method of classifying locale. Changes in how areas and, thus, schools are categorized may 

account for at least some changes that are noted from previous administrations.

Overview of the 1987–88 Schools and Staffing Survey

For detailed information on the 1987–88 SASS, see Choy, Medrich, Henke, and Bobbit 1992. 

Sampling Frames and Sample Selection

Public schools. The public school sample of 9,317 schools was selected from the Quality of 

Education Data (QED) file of public schools. All public schools in the file were stratified first by 

state (50 states and the District of Columbia) and then by three grade levels (elementary, 

secondary, and combined elementary and secondary). Within each stratum, the schools were 

sorted by urbanicity, percentage minority (four categories), ZIP code (first three digits), highest 

grade in the school, enrollment, and PIN number (assigned by QED). For each stratum within 

each state, sample schools were selected by systematic (interval) sampling with probability 

proportional to the square root of the number of teachers within a school.

Private schools. The private school sample of 3,513 schools was selected primarily from the 

QED file of private schools. Because this list of private schools did not fully cover all private 

schools in the country, two additional steps were taken to improve coverage. The first step was to 

update the QED file with current lists of schools from 17 private school associations. All private 

schools obtained in this way and the private schools on the QED list were stratified by state and 

within state by grade level and affiliation group. Sampling within each stratum was done as it 

was for public schools.

The second step taken to improve private school coverage was to select an area frame of schools 

contained in 75 Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) selected from the universe of 2,497 PSUs with 

probability proportional to the square root of the PSU population. The PSUs, each of which 

consisted of a county or group of counties, were stratified by Census geographic region 

(Northeast, Midwest, South, and West), Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) status (MSA or 
B-11 

non-MSA), and private school enrollment (two groups). Within each of the 75 PSUs, a telephone

search was conducted to find all in-scope private schools. Sources included yellow pages, 

religious institutions (except for Roman Catholic religious institutions, because each Catholic

diocese is contacted annually when the QED list is updated), local education agencies (LEAs), 

chambers of commerce, local government offices, commercial milk companies, and commercial 

real estate offices. All schools not on the QED file or the lists from private school associations 

were eligible to be selected for the area sample. Most of these schools were selected with 

certainty, but when sampling was done, schools were sampled with probability proportional to 

the square root of the number of teachers (for schools that could be contacted) or a systematic 

equal probability procedure (for schools that could not be contacted). 

The private school sample was designed to allow detailed comparisons among the following 

affiliations: Catholic, Friends, Episcopal, Jewish, Lutheran, Seventh Day Adventist, Christian 

Schools International, American Association of Christian Schools, Exceptional Children, 

Military Schools, Montessori, and Independent Schools. At least 100 schools were selected from 

each affiliation or all schools in the affiliation if there were fewer than 100 schools.

Public school districts. All LEAs that had at least one school selected for the school sample

were included in the LEA sample for the Teacher Demand and Shortage Survey. In addition, a 

sample of 70 LEAs that did not contain eligible schools was selected directly. Only eight of these 

70 were actually in scope (that is, reported hiring teachers). The total LEA sample was 5,592.

Teachers. All 56,242 public and 11,529 private school teachers in the teacher samples were 

selected from the public and private school samples. The specified average teacher sample size 

was four, eight, and six teachers for public elementary, secondary, and combined schools, 

respectively and four, five, and three teachers for private elementary, secondary, and combined 

schools, respectively. A list that included all full- and part-time teachers, itinerant teachers, and 

long-term substitutes was obtained from each sample school. Within each school, teachers were 

stratified by experience into two groups: new teachers and all others. New teachers were those 

who, counting 1987–88, were in their first, second, or third year of teaching. New teachers in 

private schools were oversampled by 60 percent; oversampling in public schools was not 

necessary. Within each new and experienced teacher stratum, elementary teachers were sorted 

into general elementary, special education, and “other” categories; and secondary teachers were 

sorted into mathematics, science, English, social science, vocational education, and “other” 

categories. Within each school and teacher stratum, teachers were selected systematically with 

equal probability. In order to obtain more reliable estimates of bilingual-ESL teachers, both the 

public and private school teacher samples included a bilingual-ESL supplement that included 

teachers who used a native language other than English to instruct students with limited English 

proficiency and teachers who provided intensive instruction in English to students with limited

English proficiency. The bilingual-ESL supplement of 2,447 teachers was selected independently 

from the basic sample. It was designed to provide estimates for California, Texas, Florida, 

Illinois, New York, and for all other states combined. The sample size within each school was 

chosen to be proportional to the weighted number of bilingual-ESL teachers in the school. 

Within a school containing bilingual-ESL teachers, the teachers were selected systematically 

with equal probability. 
B-12 

Data Collection Procedures

The data were collected for NCES by the U.S. Census Bureau. Questionnaires were mailed to 

school districts, schools, administrators, and teachers in January and February 1988. Six weeks 

later, a second questionnaire was sent to each nonrespondent. A telephone follow-up of 

nonrespondents was conducted during April, May, and June. Because of the large number of 

nonresponding teachers and the need to complete the survey before the end of the school year, 

the telephone follow-up was conducted for only a subsample of teachers. The weights for this 

subsample were adjusted to reflect the subsampling. 

Data Processing, Response Rates, and Imputation

Most item-level missing data on the district and school files were imputed using a sequential hot 

deck procedure that matched the nonrespondent district or school with the most similar

respondent in the same stratum. “Most similar” was determined based on metropolitan status,

percent minority, and enrollment. On the public school file, all missing items were imputed. On 

the private school file, items 7 and 35 were not imputed. On both the public and private school 

teacher demand and shortage file, items 3, 11, 12, 13, and 28 were not imputed. No imputation 

was done for either the teacher or administrator files. Item nonresponse was treated as missing 

data in the computation of estimates for tables that include data from either of these files. This is 

equivalent to assuming equal distributions for both respondents and nonrespondents. Not 

imputing for item nonresponse when averages are estimated results in bias, and the nature of this 

bias is unknown. 

Table B-3. Summary of weighted item response rates, by survey: 1987–88

Survey Public Private 

Teacher demand and shortage 90.8 66.0 

Administrator 94.4 79.3 

School 91.9 78.6 

Teacher 86.4 79.1 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88. 

Table B-4. Number and percentage of teachers with missing school data in the 1987–88 SASS

Number of missing 

observations 

Percent of 

observations missing

Weighted number of 

missing observations 

Percent of missing 

weighted observations 

Public schools

School level 2,518 6.2 166,120 7.2 

Student enrollment 2,518 6.2 166,120 7.2 

Percent low-income 2,518 6.2 166,120 7.2 

Private schools

School level 660 9.8 36,066 11.7 

Student enrollment 660 9.8 36,066 11.7 

School classification 660 9.8 36,066 11.7 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88. 
B-13 

Table B-5. Total percentage of elementary and secondary teachers, by school characteristics: 1987–88 and 1990–91 

 1987–88 1990–91 

School characteristics Percent of teachers Percent of teachers 

All schools 100.0 100.0 

All public schools 88.3 88.5 

School level 

Elementary 58.6 60.6 

Secondary 36.6 35.4 

Combined 4.8 4.0 

Student enrollment 

Less than 100 1.5 1.6 

100–749 64.6 63.8 

750 or more 33.9 34.7 

Percent poverty-level students 

Less than 33 percent 64.2 61.8 

33–74 percent 27.6 29.2 

75 percent or more 8.3 10.0 

All private schools 11.7 11.5 

School classification 

Catholic 48.5 42.6 

Nonsectarian 19.7 21.1 

Other religious 31.8 36.3 

School level 

Elementary 53.5 48.1 

Secondary 19.2 18.8 

Combined 27.3 33.1 

Student enrollment 

Less than 100 13.9 14.4 

100–749 74.3 75.4 

750 or more 11.8 10.2 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

199091. 

Weighting

Weights of the sample units were developed to produce national and state estimates for public 

schools, teachers, administrators, and LEAs. The private sector data were weighted to produce 

national and affiliation group estimates. The affiliation groups for private schools were Catholic,

other religious, and nonsectarian. The basic weights were the inverse of the probability of 

selection and were adjusted for nonresponse. 

Variance estimation. The estimates in these tables are based on samples and are subject to 

sampling variability. Standard errors were estimated using a balanced repeated replications 

procedure that incorporates the design features of this complex sample survey. The standard 

errors were calculated using PROC SURVEY FREQ in SAS, with the SASS providing replicate 

weights to account for the complex sampling design. The standard errors indicate the accuracy of

each estimate. If all possible samples of the same size were surveyed under the same conditions, 

an interval of 1.96 standard errors below to 1.96 standard errors above a particular statistic would

include the universe value in approximately 95 percent of the cases. Note, however, that the 

standard errors do not take into account the effects of biases due to item nonresponse, 

measurement error, data processing error, or other possible systematic error. 
B-14 

Reliability of Data

The statistics in this report are population estimates derived from the samples described in the

preceding section. Consequently, they are subject to sampling variability. In addition, they are 

subject to nonsampling errors, which can arise because of nonresponse, errors in reporting, or 

errors in data collection. These types of errors can bias the estimates and are not easy to measure.

They can occur because respondents interpret questions differently, remember things incorrectly,

or misreport their responses. Nonsampling errors can also be due to incorrect editing, coding, 

preparing, or entering of the data or to differences related to the time the survey was conducted. 

The precision with which one can use survey results to make inferences to a population depends 

upon the magnitude of both sampling and nonsampling errors. In large sample surveys, such as 

the SASS, sampling errors are generally minimal, except when estimates are made for relatively 

small subpopulations (Native Americans, for example). 

SASS school and LEA estimates for some states were lower than the estimates produced by the 

NCES Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey of CCD. This occurred because 

some small LEAs (with an average of 10.2 students) were not in the QED file and because the 

QED definition of school differs somewhat from the CCD definition. QED defines a school as a 

physical location, while CCD defines it as an administrative unit.

Because of these missing schools, the SASS counts of public schools and administrators are 

underestimated. The effect of these missing schools on the nature of the bias for averages is

unknown. On a national basis, there were 6 percent more CCD schools than SASS schools. The

differences were greatest for Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana. For private 

schools, the SASS estimate of the number of schools was less than the sampling frame because 

of frame schools being out of scope, no longer in existence, or duplicated in the frame.

In some states, full-time-equivalent (FTE) teacher counts were not the same on the teacher and 

school files. In the average state, there were 5 percent fewer teachers on the teacher frame than

the number of teachers reported by the schools, which would cause SASS estimates from the

teacher file to be underestimates if all teachers were not included in the frame. In addition, 

schools appeared to have problems providing FTE counts, because in the average state, 19 

percent of the schools reported the same number of teachers as FTEs when some part-time 

teachers were reported. Thus, the SASS FTE counts from the school file are likely to be 

overestimates. 
C-1 

Appendix C: Description of Variables Used in This Report 

Table C-1. Teacher-level variables used in the report 

Teacher-level characteristics 2011–12 code 1987–88 code 

Sex T5025: Are you male or female? TSC319: Are you male or female? 

Female T5025 = 2 TSC319 = 2

Male T5025 = 1 TSC319 = 1

Race/ethnicity RACETH_T- Teacher’s race/ethnicity, based off 

of two questions: What is your race? (T0528–

0530) and Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin? 

(T0527) 

RACE_ETH was created in 4 mutually 

exclusive categories (e.g., American Indian, 

Aleut, Eskimo, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, 

or White). 

White, non-Hispanic IF RACETH_T = 47 THEN WHITE = 1; ELSE 

IF RACETH_T ^=. THEN WHITE = 0;

if RACE_ETH = 4 then race = ‘RACE: White’;

Minority IF RACETH_T NOT IN ( . , 47 ) THEN 

MINORITY = 1 ; 

ELSE IF RACETH_T = 47 THEN MINORITY = 

0;

If Hispanic, Black, Asian or Pacific Islander, 

American Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo 

Hispanic or Latino, regardless 

of race 

IF RACETH_T IN 

(1,11,16,17,2,20,22,24,25,31,4,6,7,8,9) THEN 

HISPNC = 1; ELSE IF ^=. THEN HISPNC = 0;

if RACE_ETH = 5 then race = ‘RACE: 

Hispanic’;

Black or African American, nonHispanic 

IF RACETH_T = 39 THEN BLACK = 1; ELSE 

IF RACETH_T ^ =. THEN BLACK = 0;

RACE_ETH = 3 then race = ‘RACE: Black’;

Asian or Native 

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 

non-Hispanic 

IF RACETH_T IN (33,35,37) THEN ASIAN = 1; 

ELSE IF RACETH_T ^ = . THEN ASIAN = 0;

if RACE_ETH = 2 then race = ‘RACE: Asian or 

Pacific Islander.’ 

American Indian/Alaska Native, 

non-Hispanic 

IF RACETH_T = 32 THEN NATAM = 1; ELSE 

IF RACETH_T ^ = . THEN NATAM = 0;

if RACE_ETH = 1 then race = ‘RACE: 

American Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo’; 

Two or more races, nonHispanic IF RACETH_T NOT IN 

(47,39,1,11,16,17,2,20,22,24,25,31,4,6,7,8,9, 

33,35,37, 32.) THEN MULTI =1; 

ELSE IF RACETH_T ^=. THEN MULTI=0;

Age T0534 (What is your year of birth) subtract 2011 TSC322(What is your year of birth) subtract 

1987 

Teaching experience Teacher's adjusted years of teaching 

experience. Experience is calculated as the 

sum of years taught full or part-time in public 

and private schools. 

TOTYREXP cannot sum to more than the 

number of years that have elapsed between 

the year the teacher began teaching (T0040) 

and the survey year 2012. Teachers who 

began teaching in the 2011–12 school year 

are assigned 1 year of experience. 

Teacher's adjusted years of teaching 

experience. Experience is calculated as the 

sum of years taught full or part-time in public 

and private schools. 

TOTYREXP cannot sum to more than the 

number of years that have elapsed between 

the year the teacher began teaching (TSC016) 

and the survey year 1988. Teachers who 

began teaching in the 1987–88 school year are 

assigned 1 year of experience. 

Field T0090 (This school year, what is your MAIN 

teaching assignment field at THIS school?) 

(Your main assignment is the field in which 

you teach the most classes.) ASSIGN03 is a 

created variable based on T0090. 

TSC075 (What is your current primary 

teaching assignment field at THIS SCHOOL, 

that is, the field in which you teach the most 

classes) TSUBJ is a created variable based on 

TSC075. 

General elementary If ASSIGN03 = 1 If tsubj = 0 

Mathematics If ASSIGN03 = 8 If tsubj = 3 

Natural science If ASSIGN03 = 9 If tsubj = 4 

Social science If ASSIGN03 = 10 If tsubj = 6 

English/language arts (ELA) If ASSIGN03 = 4 If tsubj = 5 

Foreign language If ASSIGN03 = 6 If TSC075 = 11 

Vocational-technical education If ASSIGN03 = 11 If tsubj = 7 

Art and music If T0090 = 141 or T0090 = 145 If TSC075 = 17 

Drama and dance If T0090 = 143 or T0090 = 144 Cannot be disaggregated from Art/Music in this 

SASS cycle

Health and physical education If ASSIGN03 = 7 If TSC075 = 13 

English as a second language 

(ESL)

If ASSIGN03 = 5 If TSC075 = 6 

Special education If ASSIGN03 = 2 If tsubj = 0 

Other All other teachers, not in a category above 

such as gifted and talented, alternative 

education and leadership 

All other teachers, not in a category above, 

such as gifted and talented, alternative 

education, and leadership 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 
C-2 

Table C-2. School-level variables used in the report 

School-level characteristics 2011–12 code 1987–88 code 

Sector Determined by classification on sampling 

frames, 

Determined by classification on sampling 

frames, 

Public/charter SECTOR = 1 SECTOR = 1 

Private SECTOR = 2 SECTOR = 2 

School level SCHLEVEL: a created variable derived 

from items S0024–S0038 

SCHLEVEL: a created variable derived from 

items SSC024–SSC038 

Elementary SCHLEVEL = 1 SCHLEVEL = 1 

Secondary SCHLEVEL = 2 SCHLEVEL = 2 

Combined elementary and 

secondary 

SCHLEVEL = 3 SCHLEVEL = 3 

Student enrollment ENRK12UG: Total K–12 and ungraded 

enrollment in school 

ENRK12UG: Total K–12 and ungraded 

enrollment in school 

Less than 100 students If ENRK12UG lt 100 If ENRK12UG lt 100 

Between 100 and 749 students If ENRK12UG ge 100 and lt 750 If ENRK12UG ge 100 and lt 750 

750 or more students If ENRK12UG ge 750 If ENRK12UG ge 750 

Percent poverty-level students NSLAPP_S: created variable measuring 

the percentage of student approved for 

NSLP at school 

SSC085, how many students are eligible for 

free or reduced price lunch? Divided by 

ENRK12UG 

0 to 33 percent If percentage lt 33 If percentage lt 33 

Between 33 and 75 percent If percentage ge 33 and le 75 If percentage ge 33 and le 75 

75 percent or more If percentage gt 75 If percentage gt 75 

Private school classification Created variable, based on nine-level 

private school typology, RELIG 

Created variable, based on nine-level private 

school typology, AFFIL 

Catholic If RELIG = 1 If AFFIL = 1 

Nonsectarian If RELIG = 2 If AFFIL = 2 

Other religious If RELIG = 3 If AFFIL = 3 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1987–88 and 

2011–12. 

Teaching Experience

In SASS there are two methods of measuring teaching experience—the first entails summing the 

total years taught, using the item that asks teachers what year they began teaching. The second 

method entails using the item that asks teachers to report their total years of teaching experience.

In each method, the SASS questionnaire items contributing to these measures changed slightly 

between the 1987–88 and 2011–12 SASS cycles. 

The Ingersoll, Merrill, and Stuckey study (2014) used the first method. In 1987–88, SASS asked

teachers the year they began teaching full time (TSC016). In 2011–12, SASS asked teachers the 

year they began teaching full time or part time. These questions could yield more beginning 

teachers in 2011–12, given that part-time teachers were also counted in this cycle. 

This NCES report uses the second method—the variable that sums up the total amount of years 

of experience as reported by the teacher. These questionnaire items also differed across the two 

cycles of SASS. In the 1987–88 cycle, the TOTEXPER variable summed up the amount of 

teacher experience, but did not account for the year a teacher began teaching. In the 2011–12 

SASS, teacher experience was measured through the TOTYREXP variable that accounts for the 

first year teaching. The 1987–88 dataset does not have an identical TOTRYEXP variable. 

To ensure a consistent definition across SASS cycles, this analysis used the TOTRYEXP 

variable to create a teaching experience measure that is identical across the two cycles of SASS. 

Creation of a consistent measure entailed three steps: 
C-3 

• The first step was an analysis of the TOTYREXP definition from the 2011–12 SASS (B563 from the 2011–12 User’s Manual). 

• The second step sought to recreate that definition as closely as possible with the 1987–88 

data to make a new variable TOTYREXPb. 

• The third step was to create a 2011–12 TOTYREXPb variable to match the 1987–88 

version and correlated the new (TOTYREXPb) and old variable (TOTYREXP) to check 

for sensitivity. 

These three steps are described in detail below:

Step 1: 

TOTYREXP—Teacher’s years of experience, accounting for year began teaching

Type: Numeric 

Start Position: 3453

End Position: 3454 

Width: 2

Variable Source: Created Variable

Variable Description: Teacher’s adjusted years of teaching experience. Experience is calculated 

as the sum of years taught full or part-time in public and private schools. Teaching experience 

may overlap by sector (public and private) or status (full- or part-time). To adjust for this, 

TOTYREXP cannot sum to more than the number of years that have elapsed between the year 

the teacher began teaching (T0040) and the survey year 2012. Teachers who began teaching in 

the 2011–12 school year are assigned one year of experience. Calculated as follows: 

TOTYREXP = T0042; TYRPOSS = sum (2012, -t0040); TYRSECT = sum (T0043, T0044, 

T0047) if TYRPOSS = 0 then TYRPOSS = 1; if TOTYREXP gt TYRPOSS then TOTYREXP = 

TYRPOSS; if TYRPOSS gt TYRSECT then TOTYREXP=TYRSECT; drop TYRPOSS 

TYRSECT;

Step 2: 

Because the 1987–88 cycle does not include an analogous item to T0043, this analysis dropped it 

from the 2011–12 definition of TOTYREXP and relabeled it TOTYREXPB. 

/*t0043 is question 12a. Of the school years you have worked as an elementary- or secondarylevel teacher in public, public charter, or private schools, how many were—In public and private 

schools during the SAME school year?*/ 

1987–88 

TOTYREXPb = SUM(TSC023, TSC024, TSC025, TSC026); /*sum part time and full time 

teaching in public and private schools*/ 

 if TSC016 = . then TYPOSS = .; 

else TYRPOSS = 87 -TSC016 /*year began teaching*/; 

 
C-4 

TYRSECT = sum (TSC023, TSC025); 

if TYRPOSS ge 0 or TYRPOSS lt 1 then TYRPOSS = 1; 

if TOTYREXPb gt TYRPOSS then TOTYREXPb = TYRPOSS; 

if TYRPOSS gt TYRSECT then TOTYREXPb=TYRSECT;

Step 3: 

2011–12 

t0040yr = substrn(t0040, 1, 4); /*get the year in the correct form*/

TOTYREXPb = T0042; TYRPOSS = sum (2012, -t0040yr/*year began teaching*/); 

TYRSECT = sum ( T0044, T0047) ; if TYRSECT = 0 then TYRSECT = T0042; 

if TYRPOSS = 0 then TYRPOSS = 1; if TOTYREXPb gt TYRPOSS then TOTYREXPb 

= TYRPOSS; if TYRPOSS gt TYRSECT then TOTYREXPb=TYRSECT; 

The estimated correlations between TOTYREXP and TOTYREXPb, showed that the two 

variables are highly related, ~.95. 
D-1 

Appendix D: Glossary of Terms

Percent poverty-level students: Of the total number of K–12 and ungraded students enrolled in 

a school, the percentage approved for the National School Lunch Program. This is often 

considered a proxy measure equivalent to the percentage of families below the federal poverty 

line.

Private school: A school not in the public system that provides instruction for any of grades 1–

12 (or comparable ungraded levels). The instruction must be given in a building that is not used 

primarily as a private home.

Private school classification: A three-category variable based on the variables that identify the 

religious or nonreligious orientation of a private school: Catholic, other religious, or 

nonsectarian.

Public school: A public school is an institution or part of an institution that provides classroom 

instruction to students, has one or more teachers to provide instruction, serves students in one or 

more of grades 1–12 or the ungraded equivalent, and is located in one or more buildings. It is 

possible for two or more schools to share the same building; in this case, they are treated as 

different schools if they have different administrators (i.e., principals). Public schools include 

regular, special education, vocational/technical, alternative, and public charter schools. Schools in 

juvenile detention centers and schools located on domestic military bases and operated by the 

Department of Defense are included. 

School level: A three-category variable based on grades reported by the school: elementary, 

secondary, and combined. Elementary schools are those with any of grades K–6 and none of 

grades 9–12. Secondary schools have any of grades 7–12 and none of grades K–6. Combined 

schools are those schools with grade levels in both elementary and secondary grade levels, or 

with all students in ungraded classrooms.

Student enrollment: The number of students officially enrolled in the school as of October 1 of 

the survey year. 

Teacher: A teacher is defined as a full-time or part-time teacher who teaches any regularly 

scheduled classes in any of grades K–12. This definition includes administrators, librarians, and 

other professional or support staff members who teach regularly scheduled classes on a part-time

basis. Itinerant teachers are included, as well as long-term substitutes who are filling the role of a 

regular teacher on a long-term basis. An itinerant teacher is defined as a teacher whose 

assignment requires teaching at more than one school (e.g., a music teacher who teaches 3 days 

per week at one school and two days per week at another). Itinerant teachers who teach full time

in any district, but teach part time in a particular school, are considered part-time teachers at that

particular school. The definition of a regular full-time teacher does not include any teacher whose 

primary position in a school is an itinerant teacher, a long-term substitute, a short-term substitute, 

a student teacher, a teacher aide, an administrator, a library media specialist or librarian, another 

type of professional staff (e.g., counselor, curriculum coordinator, social worker), support staff

(e.g., secretary), or a part-time teacher. 
D-2 

Teacher field: The field in which a teacher teaches the most classes at their school. 

Teacher race/ethnicity: Minority refers to all those who are not White, non-Hispanic. It 

includes: Hispanics or Latinos, regardless of race; Blacks or African Americans, non-Hispanic; 

Asians or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, non-Hispanic; American Indians/Alaska Natives, 

non-Hispanic; and those of Two or more races, non-Hispanic.