STATS IN BRIEF

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MAY 2017 NCES 2017-200

Teacher 

Professional 

Development 

By Selected Teacher and School 

Characteristics: 2011–12

AUTHORS 

Susan Rotermund

John DeRoche

Randolph Ottem

RTI International

PROJECT OFFICERS

Chelsea Owens

Isaiah O’Rear

National Center for Education Statistics

Statistics in Brief publications present descriptive data in 

tabular formats to provide useful information to a broad audience, 

including members of the general public. They address simple and 

topical issues and questions. They do not investigate more complex 

hypotheses, account for inter-relationships among variables, or 

support causal inferences. We encourage readers who are interested 

in more complex questions and in-depth analysis to explore other 

NCES resources, including publications, online data tools, and 

public- and restricted-use datasets. See nces.ed.gov and references 

noted in the body of this document for more information.

Professional development

enables teachers to update their 

knowledge, sharpen their skills, and 

acquire new teaching techniques, with 

the intent of enhancing the quality of 

teaching and learning (Darling-Hammond

et al. 2009). Although past literature on 

professional development has found 

little causal evidence of its impact on 

student achievement, recent research 

on the effects of individual programs of 

professional development has found 

some positive effects on student 

outcomes (DeMonte 2013; Heller et al. 

2012; Polly et al. 2015; Yoon et al. 2007). 

In addition, two meta-analyses of research 

on professional development found 

statistically significant effects (Blank and 

de las Alas 2009; Gersten et al. 2014). 

Professional development has been 

shown to improve teachers’ content 

knowledge and classroom pedagogy in 

ways that are associated with improved 

student learning. Several studies using 

hierarchical linear modeling with preand post-tests administered to teachers 

showed that teachers participating in 

professional development improved 

their level of content knowledge and, in 

some cases, outperformed comparison 

This Statistics in Brief was prepared for the National 

Center for Education Statistics under Contract No. 

ED-IES-13-C-0079 with Insight Policy Research, Inc. 

Mention of trade names, commercial products, or 

organizations does not imply endorsement by the U.S. 

Government.
2 

groups on these tests (Bell et al. 2010; 

Garet et al. 2008; Polly et al. 2015). 

Other studies of professional development have used surveys, teachers’ 

logs, or classroom observations to 

document changes in pedagogy 

associated with improved teaching 

and learning, such as the use of 

student-centered instructional 

practices (Bell et al. 2010; Garet et al. 

2008; Goldschmidt and Phelps 2010; 

Heck et al. 2008; Hill, Ball, and 

Schilling 2008; Polly et al. 2015; 

Wallace 2009).

Recent research indicates that certain 

characteristics of professional development are related to effectiveness 

in changing teacher practice and improving student learning. In particular,

professional development has been 

found to be most effective when it 

focuses on the content of the subject 

taught; corresponds with school or 

classroom activities; provides active 

learning opportunities (e.g., observing 

expert teachers or leading discussions); 

is sustained over time; involves collective participation of teachers from the 

same school, subject, or grade; and 

includes administrative support for 

planning and implementing change 

(Darling-Hammond et al. 2009; 

Desimone 2009; Desimone and 

Garet 2015; Whitworth and Chiu 2015; 

Yoon et al. 2007). 

While workshops continue to be the 

most common type of professional 

development, research suggests that 

they may not necessarily be the most 

effective because of their short duration

and because they are removed in time 

from practice or implementation of 

the ideas contained in the workshops

(Penuel et al. 2007). Although more 

research is needed to establish a 

specific threshold, studies have suggested anywhere from 20 to 100 hours 

of professional development over 

6 to 12 months may be needed to 

affect teacher practice (Banilower et al. 

2006; Blank and de las Alas 2009; 

Desimone and Garet 2015; Yoon et al. 

2007). The descriptive data presented 

in this report give insight into the 

types of professional development 

teachers are participating in, with 

what support, and for how long. The 

data do not address the quality of 

these activities or their effectiveness in 

improving teaching or student learning. 

DATA, MEASURES, AND 

METHODS 

This report provides a snapshot of 

teacher professional development 

activities among U.S. public school 

(including charter schools) teachers 

using data collected through the 

2011–12 Schools and Staffing Survey 

(SASS). SASS covers a wide variety of 

topics related to elementary/secondary

schools, teachers, and principals, 

including school staff demographics, 

education and experience, and 

opinions and perceptions of school 

climate. Details on SASS data collection

methods and results can be found in 

the technical notes of this report.

This report relies on data reported by 

public school teachers about their 

professional development activities 

during the 2011–12 school year. The 

report focuses specifically on the 

characteristics of professional development activities most related to 

improving teacher effectiveness.1

These characteristics include the topic 

of the activities, the amount of time 

spent in those activities in the last 12 

months, and the support they received 

for participation. The report also 

 

1 Types of professional development were specified in the 

questionnaire and included content of subject(s) taught, use 

of computers for instruction, reading instruction, student 

discipline and classroom management, teaching students 

with disabilities, and teaching English language learner 

students. Teachers were able to add additional topics in the 

“other” category.
3 

examines less formal professional 

development activities, including 

conducting individual or collaborative 

research on a topic of professional 

interest, working collaboratively with 

other teachers on instruction, and 

observing or being observed by other 

teachers for at least 10 minutes.

Each of these aspects of public school 

teachers’ professional development is 

examined not only for public school 

teachers as a whole but also by the 

grades they taught (i.e., primary, 

middle, high, and combined), their 

years of teaching experience, and 

the school locale (community type)

2

 

in which they taught. Research drawn 

from analysis of the 2003–04 and 

2007–08 SASS suggests that teachers’ 

access to, and participation in, professional development opportunities 

varies by these characteristics, with, 

for example, secondary teachers and 

teachers in rural schools having less 

access to certain types of professional 

development compared to their peers 

in primary and urban or suburban 

schools (Wei, Darling-Hammond, and 

Adamson 2010). 

All comparisons of estimates were 

tested for statistical significance using 

the Student’s t statistic, and all differences cited are statistically significant 

at the p < .05 level. Adjustments were 

not made for multiple comparisons. 

Only those differences meeting this 

significance level are discussed in the

key findings. For more information, 

see the technical notes at the end of 

the report.

 

2 School locale is a created variable collapsed from the 

12-category urban-centric school locale code(SLOCP12), 

which was assigned using the 2000 Decennial Census data 

and recoded into four categories: city(large, midsize, small), 

suburban (large, midsize, small), town (fringe, distant, 

remote), and rural (fringe, distant, remote). 
STUDY QUESTIONS

1 How prevalent are different 

professional development 

activities; how does the 

prevalence of these 

activities vary with teacher 

and school characteristics; 

and how much time do 

public school teachers 

spend on these activities?

2 How prevalent are 

professional development 

activities that could include 

collaboration with other 

teachers, and how does 

this prevalence vary with 

teacher and school 

characteristics among 

public school teachers?

3 How prevalent are 

different types of 

support for professional 

development activities 

among public school 

teachers, and how does 

this prevalence vary 

with teacher and school 

characteristics?

4 

KEY FINDINGS 

• The most prevalent topic of professional development among public 

school teachers in 2011–12 was the 

content of the subjects they taught 

(e.g., mathematics teachers participating in professional development 

about math content knowledge), 

with 85 percent of teachers participating in such development (figure 1).

• The next most common topic of 

professional development among 

public school teachers was the use of

computers for instruction (67 percent 

of teachers), followed by reading 

instruction (57 percent), student 

discipline and classroom management (43 percent), teaching students 

with disabilities (37 percent), and 

teaching limited-English-proficient 

(LEP) students or English language 

learners (ELLs) (27 percent) (figure 1).

• The percentage of public school 

teachers participating in professional development that focused on 

the subject(s) they taught varied by 

grade level taught. Proportionally 

more teachers of primary grades 

than teachers of middle and high 

school grades (92 percent vs. 83 

and 77 percent, respectively) 

participated in this type of professional development (table 1).3

• The majority of teachers engaged 

in professional development in 

2011–12 spent 8 hours or fewer on 

any specific type of activity with two 

exceptions: the content of subject(s) 

taught (21 percent) and reading 

instruction (47 percent) (figure 2).

• In addition to formal professional 

development activities, 81 percent 

of teachers participated in regularly 

scheduled collaboration with other 

teachers; 67 percent observed or

were observed by other teachers for 

at least 10 minutes; and 45 percent 

conducted individual or collaborative 

research on a topic of professional 

interest (figure 3).

• Scheduled time during the contract 

year (weekdays in which students 

were not in school, allowing teachers 

to participate in professional development activities) was the most 

prevalent type of support that 

public school teachers received for 

professional development, provided 

to 79 percent of teachers (figure 4). 

The next most common types of

support were release time from 

teaching (51 percent) and continuing

education credits (50 percent). 

 

3Primary grades teachers are those who taughtat least one grade 

lower than 5th gradeand no grade higher than 8th grade. Middle 

grades teachers taught no grade lower than 5th gradeand no grade 

higher than 8th grade. High schoolgrades teachers taught no grade 

lower than 7th gradeand at least one grade higher than 8th grade. 

Combined schoolgrades teachers are those who taughtat least one 

grade lower than 7th gradeand at least one grade higher than 8th

grade, or taughtall students in ungraded classrooms.
5 

1 

How prevalent are different professional development activities; 

how does the prevalence of these activities vary with teacher and 

school characteristics; and how much time do public school teachers 

spend on these activities?

Overall, 99 percent of teachers 

reported participating in some type of 

professional development in 2011–12 

(Goldring, Gray, and Bitterman 2013). 

The most prevalent topic of teacher 

professional development in 2011–12 

was the content of the subject(s) 

taught (85 percent), followed by 

the use of computers for instruction 

(67 percent) and reading instruction 

(57 percent). Teaching ELLs or LEP

students was the least prevalent topic 

for professional development, with 

27 percent of teachers participating

(figure 1). 

FIGURE 1. 

Percentage of public school teachers participating in selected

professional development activities in the past 12 months: 2011–12 

27

37

43

57

67

85

0 20 40 60 80 100

Teaching ELL/LEP students

Teaching students with disabilities

Student discipline and classroom management

Reading instruction

Use of computers for instruction

Content of subject(s) taught

Percent

NOTE: ELL refers to English language learner; LEP refers to Limited English Proficient.

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

“Public School Teacher Data File,” 2011–12.
6 

The percentage of public school 

teachers participating in professional 

development that focused on the 

subject(s) taught varied by grade level 

taught (table 1). Proportionally more 

teachers of primary grades than teachers 

of middle and high school grades 

(92 percent vs. 83 and 77 percent, 

respectively) participated in this type 

of professional development.4

 

The percentage of teachers participating in professional development 

focused on the use of computers for 

instruction varied with teachers’ 

years of experience. For example, the 

percentage of teachers with 3 or fewer 

years of experience participating in 

professional development on the 

use of computers (58 percent) was 

lower than the percentage of teachers 

with 20 or more years of experience 

(71 percent). 

The percentage of teachers who 

participated in professional development on reading instruction varied 

with the grade levels taught and by 

school locale. Teachers of primary 

grades (73 percent) participated at a 

higher rate than teachers of middle 

TABLE 1. 

Percentage of public school teachers participating in selected professional development activities in the past 12 

months, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 2011–12 

Teacher and school 

characteristics

Content of 

subject(s) 

taught

Use of 

computers for 

instruction

Reading 

instruction

Student 

discipline and 

classroom 

management

Teaching 

students with 

disabilities

Teaching ELL/ 

LEP students

Total 84.8 67.2 56.7 42.5 37.4 26.8

Grade level taught

Primary 91.8 67.8 73.5 43.7 35.7 30.7

Middle 83.4 67.9 52.9 43.3 38.9 27.6

High 77.5 66.3 39.9 37.7 36.9 22.5

Combined 80.4 65.2 44.7 50.5 42.7 19.6

Years of teaching experience

3 or fewer 83.1 58.0 53.4 52.2 35.9 28.0

4−9 84.8 66.1 57.6 42.5 37.2 28.3

10−19 85.3 68.1 57.5 39.2 37.2 26.0

20 or more 85.0 71.4 56.2 42.9 38.7 25.6

School locale

City 87.4 65.1 61.8 46.4 38.3 38.2

Suburb 85.9 69.3 56.1 40.1 37.2 25.8

Town 82.0 66.9 56.3 41.7 36.4 21.6

Rural 82.2 67.0 52.4 41.7 37.3 18.3

NOTE: ELL refers to English language learner; LEP refers to Limited English Proficient. Grade level taught refers to grades taught by teachers. Primary grades teachers are those who taughtat 

least one grade lower than 5th gradeand no grade higher than 8th grade. Middle grades teachers taught no grade lower than 5th gradeand no grade higher than 8th grade. High school

grades teachers taught no grade lower than 7th gradeand at least one grade higher than 8th grade. Combined grades teachers are those who taughtat least one grade lower than 7th grade

and at least one grade higher than 8th grade, or taughtall students in ungraded classrooms.School locale is a created variable collapsed from the 12-category urban-centric school locale 

code, which was assigned using the 2000 Decennial Census data and recoded into four categories: city, suburban, town, and rural.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Teacher Data File,” 2011–12. 

4Primary grades teachers are those who taughtat least one grade 

lower than 5th gradeand no grade higher than 8th grade. Middle 

grades teachers taught no grade lower than 5th gradeand no grade 

higher than 8th grade. High schoolgrades teachers taught no grade 

lower than 7th gradeand at least one grade higher than 8th grade. 

Combined grades teachers are those who taughtat least one grade 

lower than 7th gradeand at least one grade higher than 8th grade, or 

taughtall students in ungraded classrooms.
7 

grades (53 percent) or teachers of high 

school grades (40 percent). In city 

schools, 62 percent of teachers participated in professional development on 

reading instruction, compared with 

52 percent of teachers in rural areas. 

The percentage of teachers participating in professional development on 

student discipline and classroom 

management varied by years of 

experience and grade level taught. 

Teachers with the least experience, 

3 or fewer years, participated at a 

higher rate (52 percent) than their 

peers with more experience (39–43 

percent). Teachers of middle, primary, 

and combined grades (43, 44, and 

50 percent, respectively) participated 

at a higher rate than teachers of high 

school grades (38 percent).

The percentage of teachers who 

participated in professional development on teaching LEP students or 

ELLs varied by locale and grade level 

taught. Proportionally more teachers 

in city schools (38 percent) participated in this type of professional 

development, compared with their 

peers in suburbs (26 percent), 

towns (22 percent), and rural areas 

(18 percent). Teachers of primary 

grades (31 percent) participated at 

a higher rate than teachers of high 

school grades (23 percent) and 

combined grades (20 percent). 

Figure 2 shows the amount of time 

teachers who participated in a particular

type of professional development 

spent on that activity in 2011–12. 

The majority of teachers spent 8 or 

fewer hours on each professional 

development activity in which they 

participated, with the exception of 

professional development on the 

content of subject(s) taught (21 percent) and professional development 

on reading instruction (47 percent). 

Of teachers who participated in 

professional development for student 

discipline and classroom management, 

teaching students with disabilities, and 

teaching LEP students and ELLs, 

approximately two-thirds spent 8 or 

fewer hours on such activities during 

the year. Professional development 

in the subjects taught was more likely 

to be extended beyond 8 hours. Some 

53 percent of teachers participating in 

professional development in subject 

areas spent 9 to 32 hours on this 

activity and 26 percent spent 

33 hours or more. 

FIGURE 2. 

Among public school teachers participating in selected professional 

development activities, percentage distribution of hours spent on those 

activities in the past 12 months: 2011–12 

 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. ELL refers to English language learner; LEP refers to Limited

English Proficient. 

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

School Teacher Data File,” 2011–12.
8 

2 

How prevalent are professional development activities that could 

include collaboration with other teachers, and how does this 

prevalence vary with teacher and school characteristics among 

public school teachers?

In 2011–12, public school teachers 

were asked whether in the last 

12 months they had participated in 

regularly scheduled collaboration 

with other teachers on issues of 

instruction; participated in peer 

observation, either observing another 

teacher or being observed by another 

teacher for at least 10 minutes; or 

conducted research on a topic of 

professional interest to them, either 

alone or collaboratively. Four-fifths 

(81 percent) of all public school 

teachers reported participating in 

regularly scheduled collaboration with 

other teachers in 2011–12 (figure 3). 

Two-thirds (67 percent) of teachers 

participated in peer observation in 

2011–12, and almost half (45 percent) 

conducted individual or collaborative 

research on a topic of professional 

interest.

FIGURE 3. 

Percentage of public school teachers participating in collaborative 

professional development activities in the past 12 months: 2011–12 

 

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

“Public School Teacher Data File,” 2011–12.
9 

The percentage of teachers who 

regularly participated in scheduled 

collaboration with other teachers 

varied by grade level taught and 

school locale. Higher percentages of 

teachers of primary (85 percent) and 

middle (83 percent) grades engaged 

in this activity, compared with 

teachers of high school grades (76 

percent), (table 2). Teachers in city 

schools (84 percent) participated at 

higher rates compared with their 

peers in suburban, town, and rural 

schools (81, 80, and 77 percent, 

respectively).

Observing or being observed by other 

teachers was more common among 

new teachers than those with more 

experience. For example, 77 percent 

of teachers with 3 or fewer years of 

experience observed other teachers 

or were observed by peers, compared 

with 62 percent of teachers with 20 or 

more years of experience. Fewer 

teachers in rural schools (42 percent) 

conducted research on their own or in 

collaboration with others, compared 

with their peers in city schools 

(46 percent) and suburban schools 

(48 percent). 

TABLE 2. 

Percentage of public school teachers participating in collaborative 

professional development activities in the past 12 months, by selected 

teacher and school characteristics: 2011–12 

Teacher and school

characteristics 

Participated in 

regularly 

scheduled 

collaboration 

with other teachers

Observed or 

was observed 

by other 

teachers

Conducted 

individual or 

collaborative 

research on topic 

of professional 

interest

Total 80.7 67.4 45.2

Grade level taught

Primary 84.6 68.2 44.9

Middle 83.0 68.4 44.4

High 75.9 67.5 46.6

Combined 70.5 60.9 44.6

Years of teaching 

experience 

3 or fewer 75.9 76.7 40.7

4−9 82.0 70.0 47.3

10−19 81.3 66.0 47.1

20 or more 80.5 62.4 42.4

School locale

City 84.0 72.9 46.2

Suburb 81.3 66.8 48.1

Town 80.0 65.8 42.9

Rural 76.7 63.2 41.8

NOTE: Grade level taught refers to grades taught by teachers. Primary grades teachers are those who taughtat least one 

grade lower than 5th gradeand no grade higher than 8th grade. Middle grades teachers taught no grade lower than 5th 

gradeand no grade higher than 8th grade. High schoolgrades teachers taught no grade lower than 7th gradeand at least 

one grade higher than 8th grade. Combined grades teachers are those who taughtat least one grade lower than 7th grade

and at least one grade higher than 8th grade, or taughtall students in ungraded classrooms.School locale is a created 

variable collapsed from the 12-category urban-centric school locale code, which was assigned using the 2000 Decennial 

Census data and recoded into four categories: city, suburban, town, and rural.

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

“Public School Teacher Data File,” 2011–12. 
10

3 How prevalent are different types of support for professional 

development activities among public school teachers, and how does 

this prevalence vary with teacher and school characteristics?

Teachers received a variety of types of 

support for professional development 

activities in 2011–12 (figure 4). The 

most prevalent type of support was 

scheduled time during the contract 

year, which refers to weekdays in 

which students are scheduled to 

be out of school so that teachers can 

participate in professional development activities. Approximately 

79 percent of teachers reported 

receiving this type of support. The 

next most common types of support 

were release time from teaching 

(51 percent) and education credits 

for completing professional development activities (50 percent). Nearly 

30 percent of teachers received 

conference fee reimbursement 

(28 percent) or a stipend (27 percent). 

The least common types of support 

were travel reimbursement (21 percent) and college tuition 

reimbursement (9 percent). 

FIGURE 4. 

Percentage of public school teachers receiving support for professional 

development activities in the past 12 months: 2011–12 

 

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

“Public School Teacher Data File,” 2011–12.
11 

Higher percentages of teachers who 

taught primary and middle grades 

(53 percent each) received release 

time from teaching, compared with 

45 percent of teachers of high school 

grades (table 3). 

The percentage of public school 

teachers receiving education credits 

for professional development varied 

by years of teaching experience. 

Fifty-five percent of teachers with 

4–9 years of experience received 

education credits in 2011–12, 

compared with 48 percent of teachers 

with 10–19 years of experience and 

46 percent of teachers with 20 or 

more years of experience. 

A higher percentage of teachers in 

cities (32 percent) received a stipend 

in support of their professional 

development, compared with their 

peers in suburbs (25 percent), 

towns (28 percent), and rural areas 

(24 percent). Travel reimbursement 

varied by grade level taught. It was 

more common among teachers of 

combined grades (30 percent) than 

among teachers of other grade levels 

(16–26 percent). 

TABLE 3. 

Percentage of public school teachers receiving support for professional development activities in the past 

12 months, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 2011–12 

Teacher and school 

characteristics 

Contract year 

scheduled time

Release time 

from teaching

Education 

credits

Conference fee 

reimbursement Stipend

Travel 

reimbursement

College tuition 

reimbursement

Total 78.5 50.7 49.5 28.4 27.1 20.7 9.3

Grade level taught

Primary 80.7 53.2 49.9 25.3 28.8 16.0 9.2

Middle 78.9 52.5 49.6 26.4 28.7 19.5 9.0

High 75.1 45.4 48.6 32.7 24.5 25.8 9.7

Combined 78.2 50.5 50.2 34.9 23.0 30.3 9.7

Years of teaching 

experience 

3 or fewer 74.3 51.6 50.0 30.5 29.1 21.3 10.0

4−9 79.5 51.0 54.7 30.1 28.4 20.8 12.8

10−19 79.2 52.7 47.9 27.8 26.9 20.9 8.0

20 or more 78.3 47.1 45.7 26.3 25.2 20.2 6.8

School locale

City 77.4 49.5 46.4 23.5 31.9 16.0 6.3

Suburb 79.3 50.5 47.6 26.5 25.1 15.7 10.4

Town 80.1 54.2 51.3 34.3 28.1 29.1 11.0

Rural 77.9 50.5 54.3 33.0 24.1 28.0 10.4

NOTE: Grade level taught refers to grades taught by teachers. Primary grades teachers are those who taughtat least one grade lower than 5th gradeand no grade higher than 8th grade. 

Middle grades teachers taught no grade lower than 5th gradeand no grade higher than 8th grade. High schoolgrades teachers taught no grade lower than 7th gradeand at least one grade 

higher than 8th grade. Combined grades teachers are those who taughtat least one grade lower than 7th gradeand at least one grade higher than 8th grade, or taughtall students in 

ungraded classrooms.School locale is a created variable collapsed from the 12-category urban-centric school locale code, which was assigned using the 2000 Decennial Census data and 

recoded into four categories: city, suburban, town, and rural.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Teacher Data File,” 2011–12. 
12

FIND OUT MORE

For questions about content or to order additional copies of this Statistics in Brief 

or view this report online, go to:

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017200

More detailed information on public school teachers 

can be found on the NCES website. Readers may be 

interested in the following NCES products related to 

the topic of this Statistics in Brief:

Education and Certification Qualifications of 

Departmentalized Public High School-Level Teachers 

of Selected Subjects: Evidence From the 2011–12 

Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2015-814). 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp? 

pubid=2015814 

Education and Certification Qualifications of Public 

Middle Grades Teachers of Selected Subjects: 

Evidence From the 2011–12 Schools and Staffing 

Survey (NCES 2015-815). 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp? 

pubid=2015815 

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). 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp? 

pubid=2013314 

Characteristics of Public School Teachers’ Professional 

Development Activities: 1999–2000 (NCES 2005-030). 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp? 

pubid=2005030 

For a selection of Schools and Staffing 

Survey data tables, go to 

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables.asp. 
13

TECHNICAL NOTES

Survey Methodology

The estimates provided in this Statistics

in Brief are based on data collected 

through the SASS during the 2011–12 

school year. SASS contains comprehensive data on elementary and 

secondary schools and their staff. In 

schools and their associated school 

districts, principals, library media 

center staff, and teachers completed 

a survey that asked questions about 

topics such as demographics, educational background, and professional 

development. The resulting data 

allow researchers to investigate 

questions such as what types of 

professional development teachers 

participate in, what types of support 

they receive for professional development, and how professional 

development varies by school and 

teacher characteristics. 

SASS was conducted by the U.S. Census

Bureau on behalf of the National Center

for Education Statistics (NCES). Schools 

were sampled from the 2009–10 

Common Core of Data. Once a school 

was selected for the SASS sample, 

the Census Bureau collected and 

compiled Teacher Listing Forms (i.e., 

teacher rosters) from sampled schools 

and districts, primarily by mail. The 

Census Bureau then sampled teachers 

within these schools, sorting the 

teachers into four strata based on 

the levels of teaching experience.

5

 

Within each school, teachers were 

sorted by the teacher stratum code, 

by the subject matter taught, and by a 

unique number assigned to identify 

the individual within the teacher list. 

Within each stratum in each school, 

teachers were selected with equal 

probability. The maximum number of 

teachers per school was set at 20. 

About 51,100 public school teachers 

were sampled. 

Survey responses were returned to the 

Census Bureau, where both central 

processing and headquarters staff 

checked returned questionnaires, 

captured data, and implemented 

quality control procedures. Responses 

were carefully checked and edited. 

After editing, cases with “notanswered” values were imputed in a 

two-stage process that first used donor 

respondent methods such as hot-deck 

imputation. If no suitable donor case 

could be matched, the few remaining 

items were imputed using mean or 

mode from groups of similar cases. 

Weights for the sampled units (teachers)

were developed to produce national 

and state estimates. The starting 

point was the base weight, which is 

the inverse of the sampled teacher’s 

probability of selection. The base 

weights were adjusted for nonresponse and to ensure that sample 

totals (based on responding, nonresponding, and out-of-scope cases) 

were comparable to frame totals.

Response Rates

The unit response rate indicates the 

percentage of sampled cases that meet 

the definition of a complete interview. 

The weighted SASS unit response 

rate is 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 

weighted unit response rate for public 

school teachers was 77.7 percent. 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. The weighted overall 

response rate, using the initial base 

weight for public school teachers, was 

61.8 percent. Because the NCES Statistical

Standards (4-4) require analysis of nonresponse bias for any survey stage with 

a base-weighted response rate less 

than 85 percent (U.S. Department of 

Education 2012), all SASS files were 

evaluated for potential bias. 

A comparison between the frame 

and the base-weighted estimates 

for the public school Teacher Listing 

Form at the national level showed 

evidence of bias in 43 percent of 130 

potential characteristics. When the 

estimates were recomputed using the 

nonresponse-adjusted weights and 

compared to the frame estimates for 

5 Teaching experience was stratified into four categories: 3 or 

fewer years, 4 to 9 years, 10 to 19 years, and 20 or more years.
14

the public school Teacher Listing 

Form, the estimates show that in 

the set of national estimates, bias 

remained in 14 percent of the characteristics compared. 

A comparison between the frame and 

the base-weighted estimates for the 

public school teacher estimates 

showed evidence of bias in 35 percent 

of the 156 characteristics compared at 

the national level. After nonresponse 

adjustments were applied to the 

weights, the percentage of estimates 

with measurable bias decreased to 

5 percent at the national level. For 

public noncharter school teachers, 

who constitute 85 percent of the 

analytical population, one category 

used in the report showed evidence 

of potential bias after nonresponse 

adjustments: locale–town. For public 

charter school teachers, who constitute 3 percent of the analytical 

population, one category used 

in the report showed evidence 

of potential bias after nonresponse 

adjustments: locale–rural. Readers 

should use caution when interpreting 

the results in these categories.

Given the extent of nonresponse in 

the overall response rates for teachers, 

NCES has taken a conservative 

approach of not publishing estimates 

for which the overall response rate 

falls below 50 percent. For further 

information on unit response rates 

and nonresponse bias analysis, see 

Documentation for the 2011–12 SASS

(Graham et al. forthcoming).

 

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 baseweighted number of respondents who 

provided an answer to an item by the 

base-weighted number of respondents 

who were eligible to answer that item. 

No items in this report had a response 

rate less than 85 percent.

Variance Estimation

Two broad categories of error occur in 

estimates generated from surveys: 

sampling and nonsampling errors. 

Sampling errors occur when observations are based on samples rather than 

on entire populations. The standard 

error of a sample statistic is a measure 

of the variation due to sampling and 

indicates the precision of the statistic. 

The complex sampling design must be 

taken into account when calculating 

such variance estimates as standard 

errors. Estimates in this Statistics in 

Brief were generated in SAS 9.2 using 

the balanced repeated replication 

method to estimate variance.

Nonsampling errors can be attributed 

to several sources: incomplete information about all respondents (e.g., 

some teachers refused to participate, 

or participated but answered only 

certain items); differences among 

respondents in question interpretation; 

inability or unwillingness to give 

correct information; mistakes in recording or coding data; and other errors of 

collecting, processing, and imputing 

missing data.

Statistical Procedures

Comparisons of means, medians, 

and proportions were tested using 

Student’s t statistic. No adjustments 

were made for multiple comparisons. 

Differences between estimates were 

tested against the probability of a 

Type I error6 or significance level. The 

statistical significance of each comparison was determined by calculating 

the Student’s t value for the difference 

between each pair of means or proportions and comparing the t value with 

published tables of significance levels 

for two-tailed hypothesis testing. 

Student’s t values were computed to 

test differences between independent 

estimates using the following formula: 

1 2

2 2

1 2

E E

t

se se

− =

+

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to 

be compared and se1 and se2 are their 

corresponding standard errors.

There are some potential hazards in 

interpreting the results of statistical 

tests. First, the magnitude of the 

t statistics depends not only on 

observed differences between means 

or percentages, but also on the number 

of respondents. A small difference 

found in a comparison across a large 

6 A Type I error occurs when one concludes that a difference observed 

in a sample reflects a true difference in the population from which 

the sample was drawn, when no such difference is present. 
15

number of respondents would still 

produce possibly statistically significant t statistics, while a seemingly 

large difference observed among a 

small number of cases might not be 

statistically significant. 

A second hazard stems from reliance 

on a sample, rather than an entire 

population: one can conclude that a 

difference found in the sample is real 

when there is no true difference in the 

population. Statistical tests are designed 

to limit the risk of this Type 1, or “false 

positive,” error by setting a significance 

level, or alpha. An alpha level of .05 was 

selected for the findings in this report. 

It ensures that the probability of finding 

a false positive result is no more than 1 in 

20 (.05) occurrences. Note that failing to 

meet the significance level of .05 does 

not mean that there is no real difference 

between two quantities, only that the 

likelihood is less. 

Exhibit A-1 lists variables used in this 

report. 

Exhibit A-1. Constructs and variables used in this report

Variable

Variable name 

in data file

Professional development topics and time spent

Percentage of teachers who participated in professional development focused on content of subject(s) taught T0338

Number of hours spent on professional development in content of subject taught in past 12 months T0339

Percentage of teachers who participated in professional development focused on use of computers for instruction T0341

Number of hours spent on professional development in use of computers for instruction in past 12 months T0342

Percentage of teachers who participated in professional development focused on reading instruction T0344

Number of hours spent on professional development in reading instruction in past 12 months T0345

Percentage of teachers who participated in professional development focused on student discipline and classroom 

management T0347

Number of hours spent on professional development in student discipline and classroom management in past 

12 months T0348

Percentage of teachers who participated in professional development focused on teaching students with disabilities T0350

Number of hours spent on professional development in teaching students with disabilities in past 12 months T0351

Percentage of teachers who participated in professional development focused on teaching English language learner or

Limited English Proficient students T0353

Number of hours spent on professional development in teaching English language learner or Limited English Proficient 

students in past 12 months T0354

Support for professional development

Percentage of teachers who received credits for completing professional development activities T0357

Percentage of teachers who received release time from teaching to be able to participate in professional development T0358

Percentage of teachers who received scheduled time in the contract year for professional development T0359

Percentage of teachers who received stipend for professional development activities outside regular work hours T0360

Percentage of teachers who received reimbursement of college tuition T0361

Percentage of teachers who received reimbursement for conference fees T0362

Percentage of teachers who received reimbursement for travel for professional development T0363

Collaborative professional development activities

Percentage of teachers who engaged in individual or collaborative research on a topic of professional interest in past 

12 months T0364

Percentage of teachers who participated in regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers in past 12 months T0365

Percentage of teachers who observed or were observed by other teachers in the classroom for at least 10 minutes in 

past 12 months T0366

Teacher characteristics

Grade level taught TLEVEL

Number of years of teaching experience TOTYREXP

School characteristics

School locale URBANS12
16

REFERENCES

Banilower, E.R., Boyd, S.E., Pasley, J.D., 

and Weiss, I.R. (2006). Lessons From a 

Decade of Mathematics and Science 

Reform: A Capstone Report for the Local 

Systemic Change Through Teacher 

Enhancement Initiative. Chapel Hill, 

NC: Horizon Research, Inc.

Bell, C.A., Wilson, S.M., Higgins, T., and 

McCoach, D.B. (2010). Measuring the 

Effects of Professional Development 

on Teacher Knowledge: The Case of 

Developing Mathematical Ideas. 

Journal for Research in Mathematics 

Education, 41(5): 479–512.

Blank, R.K., and de las Alas, N. (2009). The 

Effects of Teacher Professional 

Development on Gains in Student 

Achievement: How Meta Analysis 

Provides Scientific Evidence Useful to 

Education Leaders. Washington, DC: 

Council of Chief State School Officers.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.C., Andree, 

A., Richardson, N., and Orphanos, S. 

(2009). Professional Learning in the 

Learning Profession: A Status Report on 

Teacher Professional Development in 

the United States and Abroad. 

Washington, DC: National Staff 

Development Council.

DeMonte, J. (2013). High-Quality 

Professional Development for Teachers: 

Supporting Teacher Training to Improve 

Student Learning. Washington, DC: 

Center for American Progress.

Desimone, L.M. (2009). Improving Impact 

Studies of Teachers’ Professional 

Development: Toward Better 

Conceptualizations and Measures. 

Educational Researcher, 38(3): 181–199.

Desimone, L.M., and Garet, M.S. (2015). 

Best Practices in Teachers’ 

Professional Development in the 

United States. Psychology, Society and 

Education, 7(3): 252–263.

Garet, M.S., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., 

Ludwig, M., Jones, W., Uekawa, K., 

Falk, A., Bloom, H., Doolittle, F., Zhu, P., 

and Sztejnberg, L. (2008). The Impact 

of Two Professional Development 

Interventions on Early Reading 

Instruction and Achievement (NCEE 

2008-4030). National Center for 

Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance, Institute of Education 

Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC.

Gersten, R., Taylor, M.J., Keys, T.D., 

Rolfhus, E., and Newman-Gonchar, R. 

(2014). Summary of Research on the 

Effectiveness of Math Professional 

Development Approaches. National 

Center for Education Evaluation and 

Regional Assistance, Institute of 

Education Sciences, U.S. Department 

of Education. Washington, DC. 

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).

National Center for Education 

Statistics, Institute of Education 

Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC.

Goldschmidt, P., and Phelps, G. (2010). 

Does Teacher Professional 

Development Affect Content and 

Pedagogical Knowledge: How Much 

and For How Long? Economics of 

Education Review 29: 432–439.

Graham, S., Parmer, R., Strizek, G., and 

Thomas, T. (Forthcoming). 

Documentation for the 2011–12 

Schools and Staffing Survey. National 

Center for Education Statistics, 

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 

Department of Education. 

Washington, DC.

Heck, D.J., Banilower, E.R., Weiss, I.R., and 

Rosenberg, S.L. (2008). Studying the 

Effects of Professional Development: 

The Case of the NSF’s Local Systemic 

Change Through Teacher 

Enhancement Initiative. Journal for 

Research in Mathematics Education, 

39(2): 113–152.

Heller, J.I., Daehler, K.R., Wong, N., 

Shinohara, M., and Miratrix, L.W. 

(2012). Differential Effects of Three 

Professional Development Models on 

Teacher Knowledge and Student 

Achievement in Elementary Science. 

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 

49(3): 333–362.

Hill, H.C., Ball, D.L., and Schilling, S.G. 

(2008). Unpacking Pedagogical 

Content Knowledge: Conceptualizing 

and Measuring Teachers’ TopicSpecific Knowledge of Students. 

Journal for Research in Mathematics 

Education, 39(4): 372–400.

Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., 

and Gallagher, L. (2007). What Makes 

Professional Development Effective? 

Strategies That Foster Curriculum 

Implementation. American 

Educational Research Journal, 44(4): 

921–958.
17

Polly, D., McGee, J., Wang, C., Martin, C., 

Lambert, R., and Pugalee, D. (2015). 

Linking Professional Development, 

Teacher Outcomes, and Student 

Achievement: The Case of a Learnercentered Mathematics Program for 

Elementary School Teachers. 

International Journal of Educational 

Research, 72: 26–37. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2012). 

2012 Revision of NCES Statistical 

Standards (NCES 2014-097). National 

Center for Education Statistics, 

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 

Department of Education. 

Washington, DC.

Wallace, M.R. (2009). Making Sense of the 

Links: Professional Development, 

Teacher Practices, and Student 

Achievement. Teachers College Record, 

111: 573–596.

Wei, R.C., Darling-Hammond, L., and

Adamson, F. (2010). Professional 

Development in the United States:

Trends and Challenges (Vol. 28). 

Dallas, TX: National Staff Development 

Council.

Whitworth, B., and Chiu, J. (2015). 

Professional Development and 

Teacher Change: The Missing 

Leadership Link. Journal of Science 

Teacher Education, 26(2): 121–137.

Yoon, K.S., Duncan, T., Lee, S.W.-Y., 

Scarloss, B., and Shapley, K. (2007). 

Reviewing the Evidence on How Teacher 

Professional Development Affects 

Student Achievement (Issues and 

Answers Report, REL 2007-No. 033). 

National Center for Education 

Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 

Regional Educational Laboratory 

Southwest, Institute of Education 

Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC. 
18

APPENDIX A: DATA TABLES

Table A-1. Estimates for figure 2: Among public school teachers participating in selected professional 

development activities, percentage distribution of hours spent on those activities in the past 12 months: 2011–12 

Professional development activities 8 hours or fewer 9–32 hours 33 or more hours

Content of subject(s) taught 20.9 53.0 26.1

Use of computers for instruction 59.3 33.6 7.1

Reading instruction 47.3 42.5 10.2

Student discipline and classroom management 69.2 26.1 4.6

Teaching students with disabilities 67.0 26.5 6.6

Teaching ELL/LEP students 65.2 27.9 6.9

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. ELL refers to English language learner; LEP refers to Limited English Proficient.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Teacher Data File,” 2011–12.
19

APPENDIX B: STANDARD ERROR TABLES

Table B-1. Standard errors for table 1 and figure 1: Percentage of public school teachers participating in selected 

professional development activities in the past 12 months, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 

2011–12 

Teacher and school 

characteristics

Content of 

subject(s) 

taught

Use of 

computers for 

instruction

Reading 

instruction

Student 

discipline and 

classroom 

management

Teaching 

students with 

disabilities

Teaching 

ELL/LEP 

students

Total 0.34 0.52 0.61 0.57 0.60 0.59

Grade level taught

Primary 0.57 1.04 1.07 1.07 1.14 1.15

Middle 0.58 0.87 1.02 0.85 0.90 0.88

High 0.72 0.83 0.76 0.76 0.81 1.02

Combined 1.12 1.66 1.66 1.64 1.53 1.32

Years of teaching experience

3 or fewer 0.95 1.44 1.30 1.37 1.45 1.85

4−9 0.68 1.02 1.09 1.14 1.11 1.04

10−19 0.61 0.84 0.97 0.99 0.98 0.87

20 or more 0.67 0.97 1.26 1.15 1.08 1.04

School locale

City 0.67 1.36 1.26 1.16 1.30 1.16

Suburb 0.58 1.03 0.91 1.01 0.99 1.01

Town 0.93 1.38 1.46 1.30 1.45 1.31

Rural 0.64 0.88 1.11 0.96 0.85 0.78

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Teacher Data File,” 2011–12.

Table B-2. Standard errors for table A-1 and figure 2: Among public school teachers participating in selected 

professional development activities, percentage distribution of hours spent on those activities in the past 12 

months: 2011–12 

Professional development activities 8 hours or fewer 9–32 hours 33 or more hours

Content of subject(s) taught 0.54 0.63 0.65

Use of computers for instruction 0.81 0.71 0.34

Reading instruction 0.81 0.80 0.52

Student discipline and classroom management 0.81 0.80 0.46

Teaching students with disabilities 0.86 0.81 0.39

Teaching ELL/LEP students 1.11 1.05 0.55

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Teacher Data File,” 2011–12.
20

 

Table B-3. Standard errors for table 2 and figure 3: Percentage of public school teachers participating in 

collaborative professional development activities in the past 12 months, by selected teacher and school 

characteristics: 2011–12 

Teacher and school characteristics 

Participated in regularly 

scheduled collaboration 

with other teachers

Observed or 

was observed 

by other teachers

Conducted individual or 

collaborative research on topic of 

professional interest

Total 0.38 0.51 0.55

Grade level taught

Primary 0.80 1.07 1.20

Middle 0.69 1.01 0.91

High 0.71 0.66 0.78

Combined 1.54 1.70 1.81

Years of teaching experience

3 or fewer 1.36 1.07 1.61

4−9 0.81 1.00 1.03

10−19 0.64 1.04 1.00

20 or more 0.83 1.13 1.12

School locale

City 0.82 1.21 1.19

Suburb 0.76 0.99 1.07

Town 1.06 0.99 1.26

Rural 0.66 0.75 0.89

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Teacher Data File,” 2011–12.

Table B-4. Standard errors for table 3 and figure 4: Percentage of public school teachers receiving support for 

professional development activities in the past 12 months, by selected teacher and school characteristics: 2011–12 

Teacher and school 

characteristics 

Contract year 

scheduled time

Release time 

from teaching

Education 

credits

Conference fee 

reimbursement Stipend

Travel 

reimbursement

College tuition 

reimbursement

Total 0.47 0.64 0.58 0.50 0.52 0.39 0.30

Grade level taught

Primary 0.96 1.21 1.20 0.94 1.00 0.88 0.59

Middle 0.96 1.03 0.96 0.74 0.93 0.70 0.44

High 0.64 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.66 1.00 0.49

Combined 1.09 1.61 1.62 1.68 1.42 1.38 0.89

Years of teaching 

experience 

3 or fewer 1.40 1.57 1.44 1.42 1.60 1.33 0.89

4−9 0.89 1.04 1.16 1.02 0.88 0.81 0.67

10−19 0.81 1.02 1.00 0.68 0.88 0.59 0.44

20 or more 0.79 1.21 1.14 1.02 0.89 0.79 0.40

School locale

City 1.11 1.57 1.08 1.08 1.27 0.98 0.62

Suburb 0.92 1.00 1.12 0.67 0.87 0.65 0.51

Town 1.15 1.53 1.61 1.26 1.38 1.12 0.85

Rural 0.77 0.93 0.82 0.80 0.91 0.73 0.47

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Teacher Data File,” 2011–12.
21

RUN YOUR OWN ANALYSIS WITH DATALAB

You can replicate or expand upon the figures and tables in this report, 

or even create your own. DataLab has several different tools that allow 

you to customize and generate output from a variety of survey datasets. 

Visit DataLab at: 

https://nces.ed.gov/datalab/

Cover artwork © iStockphoto.com/centauria.