U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2007–337

Documentation for the

2003–04 Schools and

Staffing Survey
U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2007–337

Documentation for the

2003–04 Schools and

Staffing Survey

January 2007

Steven C. Tourkin

Toni Warner

Randall Parmer

Cornette Cole

Betty Jackson

Andrew Zukerberg

Shawna Cox

Andrew Soderborg

U.S. Bureau of the Census

Kerry Gruber

Project Officer

National Center for

Education Statistics
U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences

Grover J. Whitehurst

Director

National Center for Education Statistics

Mark Schneider

Commissioner

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

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

mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and

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

systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign countries.

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

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

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

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

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

effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we

would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to

National Center for Education Statistics

Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

1990 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006-5651

January 2007

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

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

Suggested Citation

Tourkin, S.C., Warner, T., Parmer, R., Cole, C., Jackson, B., Zukerberg, A., Cox, S., and Soderborg, A. (2007).

Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2007–337). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

For ordering information on this report, write to

U.S. Department of Education

EDPubs

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398

Or call toll free 1-877-4ED–Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.org.

Content Contact:

Kerry Gruber

(202) 502-7349

kerry.gruber@ed.gov
iii 

Contents 

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

List of Exhibits........................................................................................................................................... xiv 

Chapter 1. Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1 

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

 Purpose and Content of the Survey ........................................................................................................ 2 

 School District Questionnaire (Form SASS-1A)............................................................................. 3 

 Principal and Private School Principal Questionnaires (Forms SASS-2A and -2B) ....................... 4 

 School Questionnaire (Form SASS-3A).......................................................................................... 4 

 Private School Questionnaire (Form SASS-3B).............................................................................. 5 

 Unified School Questionnaire (Form SASS-3Y)............................................................................. 5 

 Teacher and Private School Teacher Questionnaires (Forms SASS-4A and -4B) .......................... 6 

 School Library Media Center Questionnaire (Form LS-1A) ........................................................... 7 

 Target Populations and Estimates .......................................................................................................... 7 

 Target Populations ........................................................................................................................... 7 

 Estimates.......................................................................................................................................... 9 

 Periodicity of the Survey........................................................................................................................ 9 

 Contents................................................................................................................................................ 10 

Chapter 2. Changes in SASS Design, Content, and Methodology From 1999–2000 to 2003–04.............. 11 

 Design Changes.................................................................................................................................... 11 

 Changes to the Sample Design for 2003–04 SASS ....................................................................... 11 

 Other Design Changes ................................................................................................................... 12 

 Content Changes................................................................................................................................... 12 

 Public School Questionnaire.......................................................................................................... 13 

 Private School Questionnaire......................................................................................................... 14 

 Indian School Questionnaire.......................................................................................................... 15 

 Public Charter School Questionnaire............................................................................................. 18 

 Public School Principal Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 21 

 Private School Principal Questionnaire ......................................................................................... 22 

 Indian School Principal Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 23 

 Public Charter School Principal Questionnaire ............................................................................. 24 

 Public School Teacher Questionnaire............................................................................................ 24 

 Private School Teacher Questionnaire........................................................................................... 26 

 Indian School Teacher Questionnaire............................................................................................ 28 

 Public Charter School Teacher Questionnaire............................................................................... 31 

 School District Questionnaire........................................................................................................ 33 

 Public School Library Media Center Questionnaire...................................................................... 35 

 Indian School Library Media Center Questionnaire ...................................................................... 37 

 Methodological and Procedural Changes............................................................................................. 39 

 Field-Based Data Collection.......................................................................................................... 39 

 Advance Work with School Districts............................................................................................. 39 

 Early Detection of Out-of-Scope Schools...................................................................................... 40 

 Early Start to the Teacher Survey .................................................................................................. 40 

 Promotional Materials.................................................................................................................... 41 

 Internet Reporting Option.............................................................................................................. 41 
iv Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Chapter 3. Preparation for the 2003–04 SASS............................................................................................ 43 

 Research on New SASS Methodology................................................................................................. 43 

 SASS Field Pretest......................................................................................................................... 43 

 Test of SASS Teacher Listing Instrument ..................................................................................... 44 

 Research on the Teacher Questionnaire ............................................................................................... 46 

 Study One ...................................................................................................................................... 46 

 Study Two...................................................................................................................................... 47 

 Research on the School and Principal Questionnaires ......................................................................... 47

 Focus Groups ................................................................................................................................. 48 

 School Questionnaire..................................................................................................................... 48 

 Principal Questionnaire.................................................................................................................. 49 

 Research on the School Library Media Center Questionnaire ............................................................. 50 

Chapter 4. SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures ......................................................... 51 

 Public and BIA-Funded School Sampling Frame and Sample Selection............................................. 51 

 Public and BIA Frame Creation..................................................................................................... 51 

 District Frame Creation.................................................................................................................. 57 

 Sample Allocation.......................................................................................................................... 58 

 Sample Selection............................................................................................................................ 61 

 Private School Frame Creation and Sample Selection ......................................................................... 65 

 List and Area Frames Creation ...................................................................................................... 65 

 Complete Private School Frame Creation...................................................................................... 67 

 Sample Allocation.......................................................................................................................... 68 

 Sample Selection............................................................................................................................ 71 

 SASS Teacher Frame and Sample Selection........................................................................................ 73 

 Frame Creation .............................................................................................................................. 73 

 Stratification................................................................................................................................... 73 

 Sample Allocation.......................................................................................................................... 73 

 Sample Selection............................................................................................................................ 75 

 Field Sampling Activities .............................................................................................................. 76 

Chapter 5. Data Collection.......................................................................................................................... 77 

 Advance Work With School Districts .................................................................................................. 77 

 Timing of School District Data Collection........................................................................................... 78 

 Details of School District Data Collection ........................................................................................... 78 

 Advance Letters to School Districts .............................................................................................. 78 

 Questionnaire Mailings and Reminder Postcards to School Districts ........................................... 79 

 Nonresponse Follow-up of School Districts .................................................................................. 79

 Overview of School Data Collection.................................................................................................... 79 

 Advance Work With Schools......................................................................................................... 80 

 Overall Timing of School Data Collection .................................................................................... 80 

 Details of School Data Collection.................................................................................................. 80 

 Evaluation of Field-Based Methodology ....................................................................................... 87 

Chapter 6. Response Rates.......................................................................................................................... 89 

 Survey Response Rates ........................................................................................................................ 89 

 Item Response Rates ............................................................................................................................ 94 

 Nonresponse Bias Analysis .................................................................................................................. 96 

 Unit-Level Nonresponse ................................................................................................................ 96 

 Item Nonresponse Bias Analysis ................................................................................................. 108 
Contents v 

Chapter 7. Data Processing ....................................................................................................................... 113 

 Questionnaire Check-in...................................................................................................................... 113 

 Data Capture....................................................................................................................................... 115 

 Reformatting....................................................................................................................................... 116 

 Outcome Code Resolution.................................................................................................................. 116 

 Teacher Sampling Issues.............................................................................................................. 116 

 ROSCO to ATAC Mismatches.................................................................................................... 117 

 SASS Teacher Listing Instrument to Questionnaire Mismatches................................................ 118 

 Primary Data Review and Preliminary Interview Status Recode (ISR) Classification ...................... 118 

 Computer Edits................................................................................................................................... 119 

 Final Interview Status Edit ................................................................................................................. 120 

 Creating Imputation Flags .................................................................................................................. 124 

 Data Products ..................................................................................................................................... 126 

Chapter 8. Imputation Procedures............................................................................................................. 127 

 Overview of Imputation Procedures................................................................................................... 127 

 First-Stage Imputation ................................................................................................................. 127 

 Second-Stage Imputation............................................................................................................. 128 

 Third-Stage Imputation................................................................................................................ 131 

 Post-Imputation Processing ......................................................................................................... 131 

 Imputation Procedures for the School District Questionnaire (Form SASS-1A)............................... 131 

 First-Stage Imputation for School District Data .......................................................................... 132 

 Second-Stage Imputation for School District Data...................................................................... 132 

 Third-Stage Imputation for School District Data......................................................................... 133 

 Final File Imputation Table for School District Data .................................................................. 133 

 Imputation Procedures for the Principal and Private School Principal Questionnaires (Forms 

SASS-2A and -2B) ............................................................................................................................. 134 

 First-Stage Imputation for Principal Data.................................................................................... 134 

 Second-Stage Imputation for Principal Data ............................................................................... 135 

 Third-Stage Imputation for Principal Data .................................................................................. 137 

 Final File Imputation Tables for Principal Data .......................................................................... 137 

 Imputation Procedures for the School Questionnaire (Form SASS-3A)............................................ 138 

 First-Stage Imputation for Public and Public Charter School Data ............................................. 139 

 Second-Stage Imputation for Public and Public Charter School Data......................................... 140 

 Third-Stage Imputation for Public and Public Charter School Data............................................ 140 

 Final File Imputation Table for Public School Data .................................................................... 141 

 Imputation Procedures for the Private School Questionnaire (Form SASS-3B)................................ 142 

 First-Stage Imputation for Private School Data........................................................................... 142 

 Second-Stage Imputation for Private School Data ...................................................................... 142 

 Third-Stage Imputation for Private School Data ......................................................................... 143 

 Final File Imputation Table for Private School Data................................................................... 144 

 Imputation Procedures for the Unified School Questionnaire (Form SASS-3Y)............................... 144 

 First-Stage Imputation for Unified School Data .......................................................................... 145 

 Second-Stage Imputation for Unified School Data...................................................................... 145 

 Third-Stage Imputation for Unified School Data ........................................................................ 146 

 Final File Imputation Table for BIA-Funded School Data .......................................................... 146 

 Imputation Procedures for the Teacher and Private School Teacher Questionnaires (Forms 

SASS-4A and -4B) ............................................................................................................................. 147 

 First-Stage Imputation for Teacher Data ..................................................................................... 147 

 Second-Stage Imputation for Teacher Data................................................................................. 148 
vi Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

 Third-Stage Imputation for Teacher Data.................................................................................... 149 

 Final File Imputation Tables for Teacher Data............................................................................ 150 

 Imputation Procedures for the School Library Media Center Questionnaire (Form LS-1A)............. 151 

 First-Stage Imputation for School Library Media Center Data ................................................... 151 

 Second-Stage Imputation for School Library Media Center Data ............................................... 152 

 Third-Stage Imputation for School Library Media Center Data.................................................. 153 

 Final File Imputation Tables for School Library Media Center Data.......................................... 154 

Chapter 9. Weighting and Variance Estimation........................................................................................ 155 

 Weighting ........................................................................................................................................... 155 

 School Weight (School, Private School, and Unified School Questionnaires)............................ 156 

 School Weighting Adjustment Cells............................................................................................ 157 

 Principal Weight (Principal and Private School Principal Questionnaires)................................. 159 

 Public School District Weight (School District Questionnaire) .................................................. 159 

 District Initial Basic Weights....................................................................................................... 160 

 Teacher Weights (Teacher and Private School Teacher Questionnaires).................................... 162 

 School Library Weights (School Library Media Center Questionnaire) ..................................... 163 

 Public, Public Charter, and BIA-Funded School Library Adjustment Cells ............................... 165 

 Variance Estimation ........................................................................................................................... 165 

 Producing Replicate Weights....................................................................................................... 165 

 Applying Replicate Weights........................................................................................................ 167 

 Public and BIA-Funded School and School Principal Replicates ............................................... 168 

 Private School and School Principal Replicates .......................................................................... 168 

 School Library Media Center Replicates..................................................................................... 168 

 Teacher Replicates....................................................................................................................... 169 

 School District Replicates............................................................................................................ 169 

Chapter 10. Reviewing the Quality of SASS Data ................................................................................... 171 

 General Data Quality.......................................................................................................................... 171 

 Response Rates................................................................................................................................... 171 

 Replicated Weights............................................................................................................................. 172 

 External Data Checks ......................................................................................................................... 172 

 Public School District Unit Count Comparison (Public School District File)............................. 172 

 Public School Unit Count Comparison (Public School and BIA-Funded School Files) ............. 180 

 Public School Student Count Comparison (Public School and BIA-Funded School Files) ........ 183 

 Public School Teacher FTE Comparison (Public School Teacher and BIA-Funded School 

Teacher Files) .............................................................................................................................. 186 

 Public Charter School Comparison (Public School File)............................................................. 189 

 Private School Comparison (Private School File) ....................................................................... 191 

 Private School Student Comparison (Private School File) .......................................................... 192 

 Private FTE Teacher Comparison (Private School Teacher File)................................................ 194 

 Non-Charter Public School Library Media Center Comparison (Public School Library 

Media Center and BIA-Funded School Library Media Center Files).......................................... 196 

 Response Variance ............................................................................................................................. 199 

 Content of Reinterview Questionnaires ....................................................................................... 200 

 Reinterview Procedures ............................................................................................................... 200 

 Reinterview Sample Design......................................................................................................... 200 

 Reinterview Response Rates........................................................................................................ 200 

 Measures ...................................................................................................................................... 201 

 Major Findings............................................................................................................................. 201 
Contents vii 

Chapter 11. Information on Data Files and Merging Components........................................................... 203 

 Availability of Data ............................................................................................................................ 203 

 How to Get Restricted-Use Data Files......................................................................................... 204 

 How to Access Public-Use Data .................................................................................................. 205 

 Understanding the Data Files ............................................................................................................. 205 

 Confidentiality Edits to the Data.................................................................................................. 205 

 Treatment of Public Charter Schools and BIA-Funded Schools ................................................. 205 

 Categories of Variables................................................................................................................ 206 

 Nonresponding Units ................................................................................................................... 208 

 Linking Data Files Within SASS ....................................................................................................... 209 

 Sample SAS Syntax for Merging Data Files and Attaching Variable Labels.............................. 209 

 Sample SPSS Syntax for Merging Data Files Within SASS ....................................................... 211 

 Sample Stata Syntax for Merging Data Files Within SASS ........................................................ 213 

Chapter 12. User Notes and Cautions ....................................................................................................... 215 

 Percent Minority Enrollment (MINENR) .......................................................................................... 215 

 Title I Data in Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Funded Schools ........................................................ 215 

 Data Anomalies in Created Variables ................................................................................................ 216 

 Missing Data Can Cause Inconsistencies Across Files ...................................................................... 216 

 Locale Codes Based on 1990 and 2000 Census Geography .............................................................. 216 

 Departmentalized and Elementary Enrichment Teachers With No Reported Classes (T0076) ......... 216 

 Leading Spaces on Character Variables ............................................................................................. 217

References................................................................................................................................................. 219 

Appendixes 

Appendix A. Key Terms for SASS ......................................................................................................A-1 

Appendix B. Questionnaire Availability.............................................................................................. B-1 

Appendix C. Report on 2001–02 SASS Pretest and Recommendations for 2003–04 SASS............... C-1 

Appendix D. Report of Findings From a Test on the SASS Teacher Listing Instrument ....................D-1 

Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels................................ E-1 

Appendix F. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to the 2003–04 SASS Teacher 

Questionnaire...................................................................................................................F-1 

Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups.......................................................................................G-1 

Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions ..............................H-1 

Appendix I. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to Select 2003–04 SASS Principal Items.......I-1 

Appendix J. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS School Library Media Center Questions....... J-1 

Appendix K. Details of SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures ..............................K-1 

Appendix L. Report on Results of Special Contact Districts............................................................... L-1 

Appendix M. School District Experiment Findings............................................................................. M-1

Appendix N. Results From the Quality Control Reinterview of the 2003–04 Schools and 

Staffing Survey ...............................................................................................................N-1 

Appendix O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations..................................................O-1 

Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File.............................P-1 

Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File ..............................................................Q-1 

Appendix R. Weighting Adjustment Cells........................................................................................... R-1 

Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey ...................................S-1 

Appendix T. Frame and Created Variables.......................................................................................... T-1 

Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000, and 

2003–04 SASS................................................................................................................U-1

Appendix V. Main Teaching Assignment Variable .............................................................................V-1 
viii Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

List of Tables 

Table Page 

1. Response rates (in percent) for the SASS field pretest, by regional office: 2001–02.................... 44 

2. Respondent characteristics for principal questionnaire qualitative study: 2003............................ 49 

3. Total number of public and BIA-funded school records during frame creation, by each 

step in frame creation process and state: 2003–04......................................................................... 54 

4. Total number of public school districts (includes public charter and single school 

districts), by frame creation stage and state: 2003–04 ................................................................... 57 

5. Final selected sample sizes for traditional public schools at different school levels 

(allocated sample sizes in parenthesis if different) and percentage of frame in sample, by 

state: 2003–04 ................................................................................................................................ 61 

6. Final selected sample sizes for public charter schools at different school levels (allocated 

sample sizes in parenthesis if different) and percentage of frame in sample, by state: 

2003–04 ......................................................................................................................................... 63 

7. Final selected sample sizes for schools with high American Indian or Alaska Native 

enrollment at different school levels (allocated sample sizes in parenthesis if different) 

and percentage of frame in sample, by state: 2003–04 .................................................................. 63 

8. Number of sampled public school districts (includes district-level data from one-school 

districts and public charter schools), by state: 2003–04 ................................................................ 65 

9. Allocated private school list frame stratum sample sizes, by region, school level, and 

affiliation stratum: 2003–04........................................................................................................... 70 

10. Number of private school list frame as allocated and as actually selected and the 

proportion selected, by affiliation stratum: 2003–04 ..................................................................... 72 

11. Proportion of private school list frame selected in SASS sample, by school level and 

region: 2003–04 ............................................................................................................................. 72 

12. Average expected number of new and experienced teachers selected per school, by 

school level and type: 2003–04...................................................................................................... 74 

13. Number of selected public and private school teachers in SASS sample, by school type 

and teacher stratum: 2003–04 ........................................................................................................ 76 

14. Data collection time schedule for public school districts: 2003–04 .............................................. 78 

15. Data collection time schedule for schools: 2003–04 ..................................................................... 80 

16. Cumulative response rates (in percent) during data collection, by date and questionnaire: 

2003–04 ......................................................................................................................................... 85 

17. Approximate percentage of interviews completed at key milestone dates, by 

questionnaire: 2003–04.................................................................................................................. 86 

18. Number of telephone interview attempts and interviews, by questionnaire: February 2004......... 87 

19. Percentage interviewed, by date and questionnaire: 1999, 2003 ................................................... 87 

20. Weighted and unweighted response rates and weighted overall response rates in percent, 

by survey population: 2003–04...................................................................................................... 90 

21. Final weighted response rates in percent for public school districts, schools, principals, 

teachers, and school library media centers, by state: 2003–04 ...................................................... 91 

22. Final weighted response rates in percent for private schools, principals, and teachers, by 

NCES typology: 2003–04.............................................................................................................. 94 

23. Summary of weighted item response rates, by survey population: 2003–04................................. 95 

24. Base-weighted public school district frame distribution, interviewed sample distribution, 

standard errors, and t statistic, by selected state and reporting characteristics: 2003–04 .............. 97 

25. Base-weighted public school frame distribution, interviewed sample distribution, 

standard errors, and t statistic, by selected state and reporting characteristics: 2003–04 .............. 99 
Contents ix 

Table Page 

26. Base-weighted private school frame distribution, interviewed sample distribution, 

standard errors, and t statistic, by selected strata and reporting characteristics: 2003–04........... 101 

27. Base-weighted public school principal frame distribution, interviewed sample 

distribution, standard errors, and t statistic, by selected state and reporting characteristics: 

2003–04 ....................................................................................................................................... 102 

28. Base-weighted private school principal frame distribution, interviewed sample 

distribution, standard errors, and t statistic, by selected strata and reporting 

characteristics: 2003–04............................................................................................................... 104 

29. Base-weighted public school library media center frame distribution, interviewed sample 

distribution, standard errors, and t statistic, by selected state and reporting characteristics: 

2003–04 ....................................................................................................................................... 105 

30. Number of questionnaire items, by response rate category and data file: 2003–04..................... 109 

31. Summary of changes made to variables in the computer edit, by data file: 2003–04.................. 120 

32. Preliminary and final interview status recode (ISR) counts and percent change, by data 

file: 2003–04................................................................................................................................ 124 

33. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for public school districts, including district items from the Unified 

School Questionnaire: 2003–04................................................................................................... 134 

34. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for public school principals, including public charter school principals: 

2003–04 ....................................................................................................................................... 138 

35. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for private school principals: 2003–04 ............................................................. 138 

36. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for BIA-funded school principals: 2003–04..................................................... 138 

37. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation during 

each stage for public schools, including public school items from the Unified School 

Questionnaire: 2003–04............................................................................................................... 141 

38. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for the Private School Questionnaire, including PSS items: 2003–04 ............. 144 

39. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for BIA-funded schools: 2003–04 .................................................................... 147 

40. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for public school teachers, including public charter school teachers: 

2003–04 ....................................................................................................................................... 150 

41. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for private school teachers: 2003–04................................................................ 150 

42. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for BIA-funded school teachers: 2003–04........................................................ 151 

43. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for public school library media centers, including public charter school 

library media centers: 2003–04.................................................................................................... 154 

44. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for BIA-funded school library media centers: 2003–04................................... 154 

45. Distribution of final weights for interviewed cases, by data file: 2003–04 ................................. 156 

46. Estimated number and percentage of public school districts in 2003–04 SASS compared 

with total and regular districts in 2001–02 CCD Public Education Agency Universe, by 

state, region, and community type: 2001–02 and 2003–04 ......................................................... 174 
x Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table Page 

47. Estimated number and percentage of public school districts in 2003–04 SASS compared 

with total public school districts in 2001–02 CCD Public Education Agency Universe, by 

state and region: 2001–02 and 2003–04 ...................................................................................... 178 

48. Estimated number and percentage of public and BIA-funded schools in 2003–04 SASS 

compared with 2001–02 CCD, by state, region, and community type: 2001–02 and 2003–

04 ................................................................................................................................................. 181 

49. Estimated number and percentage of public and BIA-funded school students in 2003–04 

SASS compared to 2001–02 and 2003–04 CCD, by state and region: 2001–02 and 2003–

04 ................................................................................................................................................. 184 

50. Estimated number and percentage of full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers in public and 

BIA-funded schools in 2003–04 SASS compared to the 2001–02 and 2003–04 CCD, by 

state and region: 2001–02 and 2003–04 ...................................................................................... 186 

51. Estimated number and percentage of public charter schools in 2003–04 SASS compared 

to 2001–02 CCD, by state, region, and community type: 2001–02 and 2003–04 ....................... 190 

52. Estimated number and percentage of private schools in 2003–04 SASS compared to the 

2001–02 PSS, by affiliation stratum, NCES typology, and region: 2001–02 and 2003–04 ........ 191 

53. Estimated number of private school students in 2003–04 SASS compared to 2001–02 and 

2003–04 PSS, by affiliation stratum, NCES typology, and region: 2001–02 and 2003–04 ........ 193 

54. Estimated number and percentage of full-time-equivalent (FTE) private school teachers 

in 2003–04 SASS compared to 2001–02 and 2003–04 PSS, by affiliation stratum, NCES 

typology, and region: 2001–02 and 2003–04............................................................................... 195 

55. Estimated number and percentage of non-charter public school library media centers 

(LMCs) in 2003–04 SASS compared to 1999–2000 SASS estimates, by state, region, and 

community type: 1999–2000 and 2003–04.................................................................................. 197 

56. Reinterview response rates, by school type and respondent: 2003–04........................................ 201 

57. Names of data files and the questionnaires from which the data were drawn: 2003–04 ............. 203 

58. Number of missing cases in combined datasets, by nonresponding component and dataset 

providing unit of analysis: 2003–04 ............................................................................................ 208 

C-1. Number of errors found in Teacher Listing Forms, by sampling procedure: 2001–02 ............... C-7 

C-2. Number and percentage of school questionnaires, by completeness of questionnaire: 

2001–02 ....................................................................................................................................... C-9 

C-3. Item nonresponse (in percent) on school questionnaires in 1999–2000 SASS compared 

with 2001–02 Pretest: 1999–2000 and 2001–02........................................................................ C-10 

C-4. Consistency of responses on school questionnaires, by item and method of evaluation: 

2001–02 ..................................................................................................................................... C-10 

C-5. Number and percentage of principal questionnaires, by completeness of questionnaire: 

2001–02 ..................................................................................................................................... C-11 

C-6. Item nonresponse (in percent) on principal questionnaires in 1999–2000 SASS compared 

with 2001–02 Pretest: 1999–2000 and 2001–02........................................................................ C-11 

C-7. Number and percentage of school library media center questionnaires, by completeness 

of questionnaire: 2001–02.......................................................................................................... C-12 

C-8. Item nonresponse (in percent) on school library media center questionnaires in 1999–

2000 SASS compared with 2001–02 Pretest: 1999–2000 and 2001–02.................................... C-12 

C-9. Number and percentage of teacher questionnaires, by completeness of questionnaire: 

2001–02 ..................................................................................................................................... C-13 

C-10. Item nonresponse (in percent) on teacher questionnaires in 1999–2000 SASS compared 

with 2001–02 Pretest: 1999–2000 and 2001–02........................................................................ C-13 

C-11. Consistency of responses on teacher questionnaires, by item and method of evaluation: 

2001–02 ..................................................................................................................................... C-14 
Contents xi 

Table Page 

C-12. Pretest response rates (in percent), by Regional Office and questionnaire: 2001–02................ C-14 

C-13. Comparison of response rates (in percent) in 1999–2000 SASS and in 2001–02 Pretest, 

by questionnaire: 1999–2000 and 2001–02 ............................................................................... C-15 

F-1. Characteristics of respondents in cognitive test on teacher questionnaire items: 2003 ................F-2 

G-1. Are the following school personnel “paraprofessionals”?...........................................................G-5 

I-1. Characteristics of respondents in cognitive test on principal questionnaire items: 2003...............I-2 

J-1. Characteristics of respondents in cognitive test on school library media center 

questionnaire items: 2003 ............................................................................................................. J-2 

K-1. National teacher and student enrollment totals based on Schools and Staffing Survey 

(SASS), Common Core of Data (CCD), and adjusted CCD frame numbers, by survey 

administration: 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000...........................................................K-5 

K-2. Indicators of grade range error for public school questionnaire, by selected states: 1999–

2000 .............................................................................................................................................K-8 

K-3. SASS edit corrections for traditional problem states, by number of schools meeting 

collapsing criteria (weighted number of schools in parentheses): 1999–2000 ..........................K-11 

K-4. Collapsing results for traditional problem states, by matching criteria and enrollment: 

2003–04 .....................................................................................................................................K-11 

K-5. Collapsing results using restricted criteria for nonproblem states, by enrollment 

distribution: 2003–04.................................................................................................................K-12 

K-6. Collapsing results, by state: 2003–04 ........................................................................................K-14 

K-7. Results for sort research in SASS public school sampling: 2003–04 ........................................K-17 

K-8. Results for sort research in SASS private school sampling: 2003–04.......................................K-17 

L-1. Response rate comparison between in-scope schools in special contact districts and all inscope public schools, by selected questionnaires: 2003–04......................................................... L-2 

M-1. Unweighted counts of schools and districts, by group: 2003–04................................................ M-4 

M-2. Comparison of weighted response rates for district questionnaire, by group: 2003–04............. M-5 

M-3. Comparison of weighted response rates for district questionnaire, by type of follow-up 

required: 2003–04 ....................................................................................................................... M-5 

M-4. Comparison of weighted response rates for district questionnaire, by outcome of request 

for permission to conduct SASS at district schools: 2003–04 .................................................... M-6 

M-5. Comparison of weighted response rates for Teacher Listing Form and school 

questionnaire, by group: 2003–04............................................................................................... M-6 

M-6. Comparison of weighted response rates for Teacher Listing Form and school 

questionnaire, by type of follow-up required: 2003–04.............................................................. M-7 

M-7. Comparison of weighted response rates of treatment group cases for Teacher Listing 

Form and school questionnaire, by outcome of district precontact: 2003–04 ............................ M-7 

M-8. Comparison of weighted school response rates, by district response to district 

questionnaire: 2003–04............................................................................................................... M-7 

M-9. Comparison of weighted average number of field representative contacts with a school, 

by group: 2003–04 ...................................................................................................................... M-8 

M-10. Comparison of weighted average minutes spent by field representatives contacting 

schools, by group: 2003–04 ........................................................................................................ M-8 
xii Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table Page 

N-1. Analysis of discrepancy between number of teachers listed on the Teacher Listing Form 

and number of teachers keyed into CAPI instrument: 2003–04 ................................................N-20 

P-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the public 

school district data file, by variable: 2003–04 ..............................................................................P-2 

P-2. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the public 

school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04...........................................................................P-6 

P-3. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

private school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04...............................................................P-9 

P-4. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the BIA 

school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04.........................................................................P-12 

P-5. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the public 

school data file, by variable: 2003–04 ........................................................................................P-15 

P-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

private school data file, by variable: 2003–04 ............................................................................P-18 

P-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the BIA 

school data file, by variable: 2003–04 ........................................................................................P-23 

P-8. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the public 

school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04............................................................................P-29 

P-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04................................................................P-34 

P-10. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the BIA 

school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04............................................................................P-39 

P-11. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the public 

school library media center data file, by variable: 2003–04 .......................................................P-44 

P-12. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the BIA 

school library media center data file, by variable: 2003–04 .......................................................P-46 

Q-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 imputation 

of the public school district data file, by variable: 2003–04........................................................Q-2 

Q-2. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 imputation 

of the public school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04...................................................Q-10 

Q-3. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 imputation 

of the private school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04..................................................Q-16 

Q-4. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 imputation 

of the BIA school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04......................................................Q-22 

Q-5. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 imputation 

of the public school data file, by variable: 2003–04 ..................................................................Q-28 

Q-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 imputation 

of the private school data file, by variable: 2003–04.................................................................Q-34 

Q-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 imputation 

of the BIA school data file, by variable: 2003–04 .....................................................................Q-45 

Q-8. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 imputation 

of the public school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04......................................................Q-56 

Q-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 imputation 

of the private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04 ....................................................Q-65 

Q-10. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 imputation 

of the BIA school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04.........................................................Q-77 

Q-11. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 imputation 

of the public school library media center data file, by variable: 2003–04.................................Q-86 
Contents xiii 

Table Page 

Q-12. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 imputation 

of the BIA school library media center data file, by variable: 2003–04 ....................................Q-89 

S-1. Summary of response variance for the SASS Principal Reinterview Questionnaire-private 

school principals, by question group: 2003–04 ............................................................................S-4 

S-2. Summary of response variance for the SASS Principal Reinterview Questionnaire-public 

school principals, by question group: 2003–04 ............................................................................S-4 

S-3. Summary of response variance for the SASS School Reinterview Questionnaire-private 

schools, by question group: 2003–04............................................................................................S-5 

S-4. Summary of response variance for the SASS School Reinterview Questionnaire-public 

schools, by question group: 2003–04............................................................................................S-5 

S-5. Summary of response variance for the SASS Private Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire, 

by question group: 2003–04..........................................................................................................S-6 

S-6. Summary of response variance for the SASS Public Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire, 

by question group: 2003–04..........................................................................................................S-6 

S-7. Response variance level for each question in the SASS Principal Reinterview 

Questionnaire for private school principals, by question group: 2003–04 .................................S-39 

S-8. Response variance level for each question in the SASS Principal Reinterview 

Questionnaire for public school principals, by question group: 2003–04...................................S-40 

S-9. Response variance level for each question in the SASS School Reinterview Questionnaire 

for private schools, by question group: 2003–04........................................................................S-41 

S-10. Response variance level for each question in the SASS School Reinterview Questionnaire 

for public schools, by question group: 2003–04.........................................................................S-42 

S-11. Response variance level for each question in the SASS Private Teacher Reinterview 

Questionnaire, by question group: 2003–04 ...............................................................................S-43 

S-12. Response variance level for each question in the SASS Public Teacher Reinterview 

Questionnaire, by question group: 2003–04 ...............................................................................S-44 
xiv Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

List of Exhibits 

Exhibit Page 

1. Summary of research conducted for 2003–04 SASS..................................................................... 43 

2. United States map, by Census Bureau Regional Office................................................................. 93 

3. Items with weighted response rates of less than 70 percent, by survey population: 2003–04....... 95 

4. Items with a response rate below 70 percent, by data file: 2003–04 ........................................... 110 

5. Critical item editing table, by questionnaire: 2003–04 ................................................................ 114 

6. Flags used in processing questionnaires, by processing step: 2003–04....................................... 125 

7. Adjustment factors and collapsing criteria as applied to school weights: 2003–04..................... 158 

8. Adjustment factors and collapsing criteria as applied to public school district weights: 

2003–04 ....................................................................................................................................... 160 

9. Adjustment factors and collapsing criteria as applied to teacher weights: 2003–04 ................... 163 

N-1. Mean number of teachers listed on the Teacher Listing Form vs. mean number of teachers 

keyed in CAPI instrument: 2003–04..........................................................................................N-21

O-1. Error codes and definitions ..........................................................................................................O-8 

O-2. Quality assurance decision rules: 2003–04..................................................................................O-9 

O-3. Cumulative key from paper (KFP) data keying verification report, by form: 2003–04 ............O-10 

O-4. Distribution of key from paper (KFP) errors, by form and error: 2003–04...............................O-11 

O-5. Cumulative key from image (KFI) data keying verification report, by form: 2003–04 ............O-12 

O-6. Distribution of key from image (KFI) errors, by form and error: 2003–04...............................O-15 

O-7. Printing (Docuprint) quality assurance, by type of inspection and form: 2003–04 ...................O-17 

O-8. Package assembly quality assurance, by type of inspection and form: 2003.............................O-19 

O-9. Kit assembly quality assurance, by type of inspection and form: 2003.....................................O-19 

O-10. Label imaging quality assurance, by type of inspection and form: 2003...................................O-20 

O-11. Packet assembly quality assurance, by type of inspection and form: 2003 ...............................O-21 

O-12. Duplo booklet maker inspection quality assurance, by type of inspection and form: 

2003–04 .....................................................................................................................................O-23 

O-13. Printing (Docuprint) quality assurance for reinterview questionnaires, by type of inspection 

and form: 2003–04.....................................................................................................................O-24 

O-14. Duplo booklet maker inspection quality assurance for reinterview questionnaires, by type 

of inspection and form: 2003–04 ...............................................................................................O-29 

O-15. Package assembly quality assurance for reinterview questionnaires, by type of inspection 

and form: 2003–04.....................................................................................................................O-32 

S-1. Computation of private school and principal reinterview sample size: 2003–04 .........................S-7 

S-2. Computation of public school and principal reinterview sample size: 2003–04 ..........................S-8 

S-3. Computation of teacher reinterview sample size: 2003–04 ..........................................................S-8 

S-4. SASS sample sizes and response rates for private and public school principal reinterviews: 

2003–04 ........................................................................................................................................S-9 

S-5. SASS sample sizes and response rates for private and public school reinterviews: 2003–04 ......S-9 

S-6. SASS sample size and response rates for public and private school teachers: 2003–04 ............S-10 
1 

Chapter 1. Overview 

The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) is conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education in order to collect extensive data on American 

public and private elementary and secondary schools. SASS provides data on the characteristics and 

qualifications of teachers and principals, teacher hiring practices, professional development, class size, 

and other conditions in schools across the nation. 

SASS is the largest, most extensive survey of K–12 school districts, schools, teachers, and administrators 

in the United States today. It includes data from public, public charter, private, and Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA) funded school sectors. Therefore, SASS provides a multitude of opportunities for analysis 

and reporting on elementary and secondary educational issues. 

Background 

In the early 1980s, education policymakers became increasingly aware of the need for studies that would 

provide national data on public and private schools, their programs, teachers, and staffing levels. Such 

data would inform policymakers about the status of teaching and education, identify the areas that most 

need improvement, and clarify conflicting reports on issues related to policy initiatives, such as teacher 

shortages. 

The first attempt to address these concerns was a series of surveys that began in 1983 and included five 

surveys: 

• The Survey of Teacher Demand and Shortage was conducted in 1983–84 among public and 

private schools and included questions on teacher demand and incentive plans for teachers. 

• The Public School Survey—School Questionnaire was conducted in 1984–85 to provide 

descriptive information about public schools (e.g., enrollment and number of teachers), as well as 

data on use of teacher incentive plans, volunteers, and computers. 

• The National Survey of Private Schools—School Questionnaire was conducted in 1985–86 to 

provide parallel information about private schools. 

• The Public School Survey—Teacher Questionnaire was conducted in 1984–85 to provide 

information about teacher characteristics, qualifications, incentives, and opinions concerning 

policy issues. 

• The National Survey of Private Schools—Teacher Questionnaire was conducted in 1985–86 to 

provide parallel information about private school teachers. 

Due to methodology and substance problems within these surveys and the increasing demands for more 

and better education data, NCES initiated a redesign of its elementary/secondary education surveys in 

1985. This redesign began with an evaluation of the then-current data system; opinions and advice were 

solicited from the education policy and research community on matters of context, methodology, and 

analytic utility. In late 1985, NCES reported the findings of this evaluation under the heading of 

Excellence in Schools Surveys and Analysis Study, which has become a continuing series and was 

renamed the Schools and Staffing Survey. 

In response to concern expressed in the evaluation about the scarcity of information on schooling, NCES 

expanded the purposes of its earlier surveys. These expansions were also responses to conflicting reports 

of teacher shortages and to increasing public concern about the status of teaching and schools in general. 
2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Under a contract with NCES, the Rand Corporation redesigned the elementary/secondary education 

surveys to collect information relevant to their expanded purposes and to correct the methodological 

difficulties affecting the surveys. The outcome of that effort was a set of concurrent and integrated 

surveys called the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), which was designed to provide a national 

snapshot of America’s public and private schools. The first administration of these surveys was in the 

1987–88 school year. Also, in order to achieve high response rates and to maintain consistency in 

procedures across types of SASS questionnaires, NCES selected the U.S. Census Bureau to collect and 

process the data for all parts of the survey. 

After the 1987–88 administration of SASS, the survey was conducted again in 1990–91, 1993–94, and 

1999–2000. During the 6-year hiatus between the 1993–94 and 1999–2000 administrations, NCES 

examined the purpose, direction, and use of the survey. Toward this purpose NCES commissioned 12 

papers from experts to recommend how to improve and expand the scope and utility of SASS. These 

papers are compiled in The Schools and Staffing Survey: Recommendations for the Future (NCES 97-

596) by John E. Mullens and Daniel Kasprzyk. Many of the recommendations in this report were 

considered for inclusion in SASS, but only some of them were implemented. Factors—such as the burden 

on the respondent, the need to test new items, how well the recommendations fit into the overall vision for 

SASS, and cost constraints—had to be balanced in the SASS survey redesign. 

As a result of this redesign, the 1999–2000 SASS implemented a new set of questionnaires. The 

questionnaires for public charter schools were designed to collect some of the same data as the 4-year 

longitudinal design survey titled “National Study of Charter Schools,” funded by the Office of 

Educational Research and Improvement (renamed the Institute of Education Sciences in 2002). By 

including public charter schools in SASS, public charter school data could be directly compared to 

“traditional” public school data for the first time. The availability of a complete universe, or sampling 

frame, for public charter schools made this development feasible in 1999–2000. The redesign also led to 

the discontinuation of the student records questionnaire. Although the experimental inclusion of this 

questionnaire in the 1993–94 SASS provided interesting data, both the sampling methods and the ability 

to gain the respondent’s cooperation in obtaining administrative records on student dropout and behavior 

proved to be too difficult for continuation in 1999–2000 and beyond. 

The 2003–04 SASS provides valuable data for educators, researchers, and policymakers on public school 

districts (Local Education Agencies); public (including public charter), private, and BIA-funded schools, 

principals, and teachers; and public and BIA-funded school library media centers. Public charter school 

data are included with traditional public school data, rather than in separate data files, in the 2003–04 

SASS. A sample of public charter schools was implemented because the public charter school frame used 

for the 1999–2000 SASS was out-of-date and the 2001–02 Common Core of Data (CCD) frame for 

charter schools was considered to be incomplete. Moreover, funding to continue administering a separate 

questionnaire for public charter schools was not available. Additionally, the 2003–04 SASS collected data 

from public charter and BIA-funded schools in the School or Unified School Questionnaires as well as in 

the School Principal and School Teacher Questionnaires. Chapter 2 includes details on the changes to 

questionnaires since the 1999–2000 SASS. 

Purpose and Content of the Survey 

The overall objective of SASS is to collect the information necessary for a comprehensive picture of 

elementary and secondary education in the United States. The abundance of data collected permits 

detailed analyses of the characteristics of schools, principals, teachers, school libraries, and public school 

district policies. The linkage of the SASS questionnaires enables researchers to examine the relationships 

among these elements of education. 
Chapter 1. Overview 3 

The 2003–04 SASS consisted of five types of questionnaires: a school district questionnaire, principal 

questionnaires, school questionnaires, teacher questionnaires, and a school library media center 

questionnaire. The principal, school, and teacher questionnaires were modified slightly between the 

public versions (Principal Questionnaire, School Questionnaire, Teacher Questionnaire) and private 

school versions (Private School Principal Questionnaire, Private School Questionnaire, and Private 

School Teacher Questionnaire) to refer to either the public or private sector correctly. The Private School 

Questionnaire also incorporated the Private School Universe Survey (PSS) items that were collected at the 

same time as SASS in 2003–04.1

 The School Library Media Center Questionnaire was administered to 

public (including public charter) and BIA-funded schools in 2003–04. 

School District Questionnaire (Form SASS-1A) 

The purpose of the 2003–04 School District Questionnaire was to obtain information about school 

districts, such as student enrollment, number of full-time equivalent teachers, teacher recruitment and 

hiring practices, teacher dismissals, existence of a teacher union, length of the contract year, teacher 

salary schedules, school choice, magnet programs, graduation requirements, and professional 

development for teachers and principals. The applicable sections (e.g., comparable sections on hiring, 

etc.) for private schools were added to the Private School Questionnaire. Independent public charter 

schools, BIA-funded schools, and schools that are the only school in the district were given the Unified 

School Questionnaire and not the School District Questionnaire. The Unified School Questionnaire 

includes all of the items included on the School Questionnaire in addition to selected items from the 

School District Questionnaire. 

The 2003–04 School District Questionnaire had these nine sections: 

• Section I—Enrollment Information obtained grades offered, counts of students by race, the 

number of days in the school year, participation in the National School Lunch Program, full-time 

equivalent (FTE) counts of all teachers employed by the school district and counts of teachers by 

race/ethnicity. 

• Section II—Recruitment and Hiring of Staff collected information on teacher certification, 

recruitment incentives, newly hired teachers and principals, dismissal of teachers from the 

previous school year, and teacher union contractual information. 

• Section III—Teacher Compensation collected data on salary schedules and benefits. 

• Section IV—School and Student Performance obtained data on performance reports, assessment 

programs, and rewards or sanctions to district schools for student achievement. 

• Section V—School Organization obtained information about the existence of public charter 

schools and the availability of choice and magnet programs in the district. 

• Section VI—Homeschooling obtained information about the existence of homeschooled students 

and the criteria for evaluating their performance. 

• Section VII—Graduation Requirements collected data on high school graduation requirements, 

community service requirements, and other assessments necessary for graduation. 

• Section VIII—Professional Development obtained information on professional development 

programs, funding, and incentives for participation, along with incentives used to recruit or retain 

teachers to teach in fields of shortage. 

 

1

 The 2003–04 school year was a survey year for both SASS and the Private School Universe Survey (PSS). PSS is 

administered by NCES every 2 years to all private K–12 schools in the United States. The SASS Private School 

Questionnaire was modified to include all the PSS questions so that private schools selected for SASS would not be 

asked to complete two separate questionnaires. 
4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

• Section IX—Migrant Education obtained information about the enrollment of migrant students 

and the services provided for them. 

Principal and Private School Principal Questionnaires (Forms SASS-2A and -2B) 

The purpose of the 2003–04 principal questionnaires was to obtain information about principal/school 

head demographic characteristics, training, experience, salary, and judgments about the seriousness of 

school problems. The questionnaire appeared in two versions that contained minor variations in phrasing 

to reflect differences between public and private schools in governing bodies and position titles in the 

schools. 

The 2003–04 Principal Questionnaire and Private School Principal Questionnaire had these seven 

sections: 

• Section I—Experience, Training, and Working Conditions obtained information about principal 

work experience, previous positions held, training, and satisfaction with the position. 

• Section II—Goals and Decision Making obtained attitudinal information about educational goals 

and school governance. 

• Section III—Teacher and Principal Professional Development collected information on 

professional development opportunities and activities for teachers and principals. 

• Section IV—Teacher and School Performance collected information about teacher performance, 

barriers to dismissal of underperforming teachers, progress towards school, state, or district 

performance goals during the previous year, and awards or penalties the school received related 

to these goals. 

• Section V—School Climate and Safety obtained information on drug and violence prevention 

programs, security practices, and health and safety issues at the school. 

• Section VI—Parent or Guardian Involvement collected information on parent or guardian 

participation in school events and school resources to encourage parental involvement. 

• Section VII—Demographic Information obtained information about the principal’s highest 

degree, salary, race/ethnicity, gender, and age. 

School Questionnaire (Form SASS-3A) 

The purpose of the 2003–04 public school questionnaire was to obtain information about traditional 

public schools, such as grades offered, number of students enrolled, staffing patterns, teaching vacancies, 

high school graduation rates, programs and services offered, and college application rates. 

The 2003–04 School Questionnaire for public schools had these seven sections: 

• Section I—General Information About This School obtained information about grade range, 

race/ethnicity of students, building capacity, attendance, and enrollment. 

• Section II—Admissions, Programs and Performance collected information on the operation of the 

school, requirements for admission, school programs (including courses on American Indians and 

Alaska Natives), and measurement of student performance. 

• Section III—Student and Class Organization collected information about class and calendar 

organization, career preparation, and graduation requirements. 

• Section IV—Staffing obtained information about the number of full- and part-time staff, racial 

composition of teachers, methods used to cover teaching vacancies, and level of difficulty 

involved in filling teacher vacancies. 
Chapter 1. Overview 5 

• Section V—Technology collected information about the number of computers, access to the 

Internet, and staff responsible for computer education and support. 

• Section VI—Special Programs and Services obtained information about the National School 

Lunch Program, Title I services, Individual Education Plans, and services for limited-Englishproficient students and parents. 

• Section VII—Charter School Information collected information from public charter schools on 

the creation of the school, the granting of the charter, and support for homeschooled students. 

Private School Questionnaire (Form SASS-3B) 

The purpose of the 2003–04 private school questionnaire was to obtain information about schools, such as 

grades offered, number of students enrolled, staffing patterns, teaching vacancies, high school graduation 

rates, programs and services offered, and college application rates. Private schools received the Private 

School Questionnaire, an expanded version of the public school questionnaire that included items from 

the School District Questionnaire (Form SASS-1A). 

The 2003–04 Private School Questionnaire had these 11 sections: 

• Section I—General Information About This School obtained information about grade range, 

race/ethnicity of students, building capacity, attendance, and enrollment. 

• Section II—School Affiliation collected information about the religious orientation and affiliation 

with religious organizations and school accreditation. 

• Section III—Staffing obtained information about the number of full- and part-time staff members 

and racial composition of teachers. 

• Section IV—Graduation Requirements collected data on high school graduation requirements, 

community service requirements, and other assessments necessary for graduation. 

• Section V—Tuition and Admissions collected information about student boarding, tuition, and 

admission requirements. 

• Section VI—Students and Class Organization collected information about class and calendar 

organization, curriculum, after-school programs, and career preparation. 

• Section VII—Recruitment and Hiring of Teachers obtained information about teacher 

certification, newly hired teachers and principals, teaching vacancies, and dismissal of teachers 

from the previous school year. 

• Section VIII—Teacher Compensation collected data on salary schedules, benefits, pay incentives, 

and recruitment incentives. 

• Section IX—Professional Development obtained information about professional development 

programs, funding, and training to prepare teachers to teach in fields of shortage. 

• Section X—Technology collected information about the number of computers, access to the 

Internet, and staff responsible for computer education and support. 

• Section XI—Special Programs and Services obtained information about the National School 

Lunch Program, Title I services, Individual Education Plans, and services for limited-Englishproficient students and parents. 

Unified School Questionnaire (Form SASS-3Y) 

The purpose of the 2003–04 Unified School Questionnaire was to obtain information about schools, such 

as grades offered, number of students enrolled, staffing patterns, teaching vacancies, high school 

graduation rates, programs and services offered, and college application rates. Schools that are the only 

school in the district, state-run schools (e.g., schools for the blind), charter schools that do not report to a 

traditional school district, and BIA-funded schools received the Unified School Questionnaire, an 
6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

expanded version of the public school questionnaire that included items from the School District 

Questionnaire (Form SASS-1A). 

The 2003–04 Unified School Questionnaire had these 11 sections: 

• Section I—General Information About This School obtained information about grade range, 

race/ethnicity of students, building capacity, attendance, and enrollment. 

• Section II—Admissions, Programs and Performance collected information on the operation of the 

school, requirements for admission, school programs (including courses on American Indians and 

Alaska Natives), and measurement of student performance. 

• Section III—Student and Class Organization collected information about class and calendar 

organization and career preparation. 

• Section IV—Graduation Requirements collected data on high school graduation requirements, 

community service requirements, and other assessments necessary for graduation. 

• Section V—Staffing obtained information about the number of full- and part-time staff, racial 

composition of teachers, methods used to cover teaching vacancies, and level of difficulty 

involved in filling teacher vacancies. 

• Section VI—Recruitment and Hiring of Staff obtained information about teacher certification, 

newly hired teachers and principals, principal hiring practices, and dismissal of teachers from the 

previous school year. 

• Section VII—Teacher Compensation collected data on salary schedules, benefits, pay incentives, 

and recruitment incentives. 

• Section VIII—Professional Development obtained information about professional development 

programs, funding, and training to prepare teachers to teach in fields of shortage. 

• Section IX—Technology collected information about the number of computers, access to the 

Internet, and staff responsible for computer education and support. 

• Section X—Special Programs and Services obtained information about the National School 

Lunch Program, Title I services, Individual Education Plans, and services for limited-Englishproficient students and parents. 

• Section XI—Charter Schools and Homeschooling collected information on charter school status 

and support for homeschooled students. 

Teacher and Private School Teacher Questionnaires (Forms SASS-4A and -4B) 

The purpose of the 2003–04 teacher questionnaires was to obtain information about teachers, such as 

education and training, teaching assignment, certification, workload, and perceptions and attitudes about 

teaching. 

The 2003–04 Teacher Questionnaire and Private School Teacher Questionnaire had these 11 sections: 

• Section I—General Information obtained general information about teaching status, teaching 

experience, and other professional experiences. 

• Section II—Class Organization obtained information about class enrollments, organization of 

classes, and subjects taught. 

• Section III—Educational Background collected information on academic degrees and teacher 

preparation programs. 

• Section IV—Certification and Training obtained information on types of teaching certification 

held by the teacher, content area, and grades covered by the certification. For new teachers, 

information was collected on attitudes toward their preparation for teaching, participation in an 

induction program, and mentoring. 
Chapter 1. Overview 7 

• Section V—Professional Development collected information about professional development 

activities and their impact. 

• Section VI—Resources and Assessments of Students collected information about student 

characteristics, resources provided to students, and application of student assessment scores. 

• Section VII—Working Conditions obtained information about hours worked. 

• Section VIII—Decision Making collected information about teacher influence on staffing and 

budgeting, and perceptions of teaching issues. 

• Section IX—Teacher Attitudes and School Climate obtained attitudinal information on satisfaction 

with teaching, school safety, collaboration between teachers, and student problems. 

• Section X—General Employment Information obtained information about teacher salary, 

supplemental income, union affiliation, gender, age, and race/ethnicity. 

• Section XI—Contact Information requested that respondents provide personal contact information 

as well as contact information for two additional people who would be able to reach them in the 

event that they relocated before the mailing of the Teacher Follow-Up Survey. This information 

was necessary for the Teacher Follow-Up Survey that was administered the following year. 

School Library Media Center Questionnaire (Form LS-1A) 

The purpose of the 2003–04 School Library Media Center Questionnaire was to obtain information about 

public school and BIA-funded library media centers and librarians, such as amount and experience of 

library staff, and the organization, expenditures, and collections of the library media center. 

The 2003–04 School Library Media Center Questionnaire had these six sections: 

• Section I—Facilities obtained data about the organization, content, and capacity of the library 

media center. 

• Section II—Staffing collected data about the number of professional, clerical, and volunteer staff 

in the library, and the highest degrees held by the professional staff members. 

• Section III—Technology obtained data about the different technology resources in the school, 

such as computers, television, DVD, etc. 

• Section IV—2002–03 Collections and Expenditures collected data about the size, expenditures, 

and currency of the library media collection. 

• Section V—Scheduling, Transactions, and Policies obtained data about scheduling, frequency of 

use, and borrowing policies. 

• Section VI—Information Literacy and Collaboration collected data about frequency of library 

media staff collaboration with classroom teachers, and formal information literacy programs. 

Target Populations and Estimates 

Target Populations 

The target populations for the 2003–04 SASS are described below. For more information on sampling see 

chapter 4. 

• School districts. The target population included school districts that operated one or more 

schools, employed elementary and/or secondary level teachers, and were themselves in operation 

in the 2003–04 school year; for example, public school districts, state agencies that operated 

schools for special student populations (such as inmates of juvenile correctional facilities), 

domestic schools under the Department of Defense (DoD), and cooperative agencies that 
8 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

provided special services to more than one school district. Entities that authorized public charter 

schools were not included, unless they were also public school districts or operated the charter 

schools they authorized. Independently operated public charter schools or single school districts 

received the Unified School Questionnaire, since the school and district respondents were likely 

to be the same person. 

• Schools. The target population included public, public charter, private, and BIA-funded schools 

with students in any of grades 1–12 or in comparable ungraded levels and in operation in school 

year 2003–04. 

• Principals. The target population included principals of the targeted school populations. 

• Teachers. The target population included teachers in the targeted school populations who taught 

students in any of grades K–12 or in comparable ungraded levels in the 2003–04 school year. 

• School library media centers. The target population included school library media centers, 

libraries, or resource centers in public, public charter, and BIA-funded schools that have such a 

facility. A school library was defined as an organized collection of printed, audiovisual, or 

computer resources that is administered as a unit, is located in a designated place, and makes 

resources available to students, teachers, and administrators. 

The sampling frame for public schools was an adjusted version of the 2001–02 CCD. The sample of 

public schools was drawn from the sampling frame for the 2001–02 school year. CCD includes regular 

public schools, charter schools, DoD-operated domestic military base schools, and special purpose 

schools, such as special education, vocational, and alternative schools. NCES collects CCD data annually 

from all state education agencies. Schools outside of the United States and schools that teach only 

prekindergarten, kindergarten, or postsecondary students were deleted from the CCD frame prior to 

sampling for SASS. Public schools that closed in the school year 2001–02 or were not yet opened were 

not included. School districts operating a sampled school were also selected. Prior to stratification and 

sampling, CCD schools were collapsed to a more inclusive grade range. The purpose and operations of 

this collapsing activity are discussed in chapter 2. 

The sampling frame for private schools is based on a dual frame approach, as described further in chapter 

4, since the list frame does not provide complete coverage. The list frame was based on the 2001–02 PSS, 

updated with private school organizations and state lists collected by the Census Bureau in the autumn of 

2002 for updating the 2003–04 PSS list frame. An area frame was used to find schools missing from the 

list frame, thereby compensating for the incomplete coverage of the list frame. 

The BIA frame consisted of a list of elementary, secondary, and combined K–12 schools that BIA 

operated or funded during the 2001–02 school year. The list was obtained from CCD. All BIA-funded 

school records that met the SASS definition of a school were included in the SASS sample. 

All library media centers in public, public charter, and BIA-funded schools in the SASS sample were 

asked to complete the School Library Media Center Questionnaire. 

The sampling frame for the teacher questionnaires consisted of lists of teachers provided by schools in the 

SASS sample. Teachers were defined as any long-term staff who taught a regularly scheduled class to 

students in grades K–12. The Teacher Listing Form was collected by Census Bureau field representatives 

as early as possible in the 2003–04 school year at all public, private, BIA-funded, and public charter 

schools in the SASS sample to obtain a complete list of all the teachers employed at each school. The 

form included space for schools to indicate the following: race/ethnicity of each teacher, whether the 

teacher was “new,” the teacher’s assignment (subject matter and/or grade level), and whether the teacher 

was full- or part-time. The sample of teachers was selected from all of the schools that provided teacher 

lists. 
Chapter 1. Overview 9 

Estimates 

SASS was designed to produce national, regional, and state estimates for public elementary and 

secondary schools and related components (e.g., schools, teachers, principals, school districts, and school 

library media centers); national estimates for BIA-funded and public charter schools and related 

components (i.e., schools, teachers, principals, and school library media centers); and national, regional, 

and affiliation group estimates for the private school sector (i.e., schools, teachers, and principals). The 

affiliation groups for private schools were 

• Catholic—parochial; 

• Catholic—diocesan; 

• Catholic—private; 

• Amish; 

• Assembly of God; 

• Baptist; 

• Episcopal; 

• Jewish; 

• Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod; 

• Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod; 

• Mennonite; 

• Pentecostal; 

• Seventh-Day Adventist; 

• other religious; 

• nonsectarian—regular; 

• nonsectarian—special emphasis; and 

• nonsectarian—special education. 

Comparisons between public and private schools are possible only at the regional and national levels, 

because private schools were selected for sampling by affiliation group 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. Comparisons between 

teachers by race and by full-time or part-time status are possible at the national level. The school library 

media center survey was designed to produce estimates at the state level for public schools. 

Periodicity of the Survey 

Periodicity is based on the balance between the need for more up-to-date data with the realities of 

mounting data collection and completing a data collection and processing cycle. A 3-year cycle was 

maintained for the first three data collections but proved to be too frequent to allow for the analysis of the 

previous SASS to be incorporated in the next one. Six years separated the 1999–2000 SASS from the 

previous one, due to a major redesign of the survey. Following this SASS redesign, it was determined that 

4 years provided the best balance between data needs and operational needs. The 2003–04 SASS was 

conducted on a 4-year interval, and this cycle length will be repeated for the upcoming SASS 

administrations. 
10 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Contents 

This report contains chapters on changes in SASS design, content, and methodology from 1999–2000, 

preparation for the 2003–04 SASS, sample design and implementation, data collection, response rates, 

data processing, imputation procedures, weighting and variance estimation, a review of the quality of 

SASS data, SASS data files and merging information, and user notes and cautions. 

Information in the chapters is supported by material in the following appendixes: 

• A. Key Terms for SASS; 

• B. Questionnaire Availability; 

• C. Report on 2001–02 SASS Pretest and Recommendations for 2003–04 SASS; 

• D. Report of Findings From a Test on the SASS Teacher Listing Instrument; 

• E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels; 

• F. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to the 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire; 

• G. Report on SASS Focus Groups; 

• H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions; 

• I. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to Select 2003–04 SASS Principal Items; 

• J. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS School Library Media Center Questions; 

• K. Details of SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures; 

• L. Report on Results of Special Contact Districts; 

• M. School District Experiment Findings; 

• N. Results From the Quality Control Reinterview of the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey; 

• O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations; 

• P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File; 

• Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File; 

• R. Weighting Adjustment Cells; 

• S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey; 

• T. Frame and Created Variables; 

• U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000, and 2003–04 

SASS; and 

• V. Main Teaching Assignment Variable. 
11 

Chapter 2. Changes in SASS Design, Content, and 

Methodology From 1999–2000 to 2003–04 

Several changes in survey sample design, questionnaire content, procedures, and methodology were made 

for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). 

Design Changes 

Changes to the Sample Design for 2003–04 SASS 

A number of changes were made in the sample design from the 1999–2000 SASS to the 2003–04 SASS. 

Changes were made to the stratification, sample sizes, sample sort, and school definition. Further details 

describing why these changes were made are presented in chapter 3. Details on the sampling design used 

for the 2003–04 SASS are discussed in chapter 4. 

Schools 

• Rather than surveying all public charter schools, as was done in the 1999–2000 SASS, 303 public 

charter schools were sampled for the 2003–04 SASS. Since there were over 2,000 public charter 

schools on the sampling frame, it was decided that sampling was an appropriate method for 

achieving the overall goals of the survey estimation. 

• Affiliation for private schools was redefined and stratified into 17 groups rather than the previous 

20 groups. Catholic schools were split into three groups based on typology. Other religious 

schools were divided into 11 groups corresponding to the 10 largest non-Catholic religious 

organizations (by school count) and a catch-all “other.” Nonsectarian schools were divided into 

three groups by typology. 

• Grade-level stratification in public and private schools was defined purely on the basis of grade 

level of the school. Schools classified as a type other than “regular school” were no longer placed 

in the combined school category, which includes schools with some elementary and some 

secondary grades. Many nonregular schools (i.e., special education, alternative, and vocational 

schools) cover a specific grade range. To the extent this grade range is known, this seemed a 

more appropriate method of stratification than placing them all in the combined school strata. 

Nonregular schools with a grade range that is ungraded or unknown remained in the combined 

school strata. 

• Public schools from the Common Core of Data (CCD) were collapsed into what was perceived to 

be a better fit with the SASS definition of a school prior to the stratification. See chapter 4 and 

“Appendix K. Details of SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures” for further 

discussion of how this was done. The sample allocation was correspondingly revised to avoid 

undersampling schools now classified as the “combined” grade level. In other words, the revision 

of the sample allocation ensured that the newly combined schools were sampled at the same 

approximate rate as they would have been prior to the collapsing procedure. In general, the 

combined school sample size was increased to the point at which the combined school sampling 

rate equaled the overall state-level sampling rate. For example, if one in five schools were 

sampled in a particular state, then one in five of the combined schools were sampled rather than 

using the default sample size of 10 combined schools. 
12 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

• The sort order for the public and private school sampling was altered to sort on enrollment in a 

serpentine fashion within higher-level sort variables instead of always sorting in descending 

order. Serpentine sorting involves sorting in ascending order with respect to higher-level sort 

variables one time, then sorting in descending order the next time, then ascending, and then 

descending throughout the file. This reduced the variation in enrollment between adjacent 

sampled schools and thus reduced the overall sampling error. 

School Districts 

• Florida and Maryland were added to the list of states where at least one school is selected in each 

school district. This was done to decrease the standard error of the state-level school district 

estimates. 

Teachers 

• Oversampling of bilingual/English as a second language (ESL) teachers was discontinued since a 

sufficient number of bilingual teachers to produce the desired reliability would be selected in the 

sample without oversampling. 

• Teacher sampling was automated to speed up the distribution of the teacher questionnaires. This, 

however, reduced the level of control over the sample sizes for the remaining oversampled 

teacher strata (Asian/Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaska Native). The automation no 

longer allowed the sampling rate for these teachers to be periodically revised during the sampling 

process. If the number of these teachers listed differed from the expected, the sample size goal 

would no longer be met. See chapter 4 for further discussion of the goals of the teacher sampling. 

Other Design Changes 

• The School Library Media Center Questionnaire was not administered to private schools for 

budget reasons. 

• There was no separate questionnaire for public charter schools. The reduction in the public 

charter school sample size from 1,100 in the 1999–2000 SASS to 303 in the 2003–04 SASS 

meant it was no longer feasible to produce a separate questionnaire since public charter school 

data could not be published with as much detail (for this SASS, only at the national and regional 

level). Public charter school data are included with traditional public school data. 

• The Unified School Questionnaire is a new questionnaire that contains the public school 

questions and many of the school district questions. It was administered to most public charter, 

state-operated (e.g., often schools for the blind or schools located in juvenile detention facilities), 

and BIA-funded schools, as well as public schools in one-school districts. This change was made 

to ease the respondent burden in cases where the respondent for the school and school district 

questionnaires was expected to be the same. 

Content Changes 

Prior to the 2003–04 administration, extensive pretesting was undertaken. (For a detailed explanation of 

this testing, please refer to chapter 3.) As a result of this pretesting and changes in priorities for SASS, the 

following alterations and deletions were made to the SASS questionnaires between 1999–2000 and 2003–

04. The specific question numbers from the 1999–2000 and 2003–04 questionnaires, respectively, are 
 Chapter 2. Changes in SASS Design, Content, and Methodology From 1999–2000 to 2003–04 13

included in parenthesis below. The discussion below begins with the 1999–2000 questionnaires and 

identifies what modifications, deletions, and additions were made for the 2003–04 questionnaires. 

Public School Questionnaire 

Public School Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were Significantly 

Altered for the 2003–04 SASS 

• Items 1 and 5 were compiled and placed in the instructions of the 2003–04 SASS. 

• Has the school implemented the following items? (22 revised into 24d, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30a, and 

30b.) 

• Any students enrolled in the 12th grade? (26 revised into 33.) 

• Did school use following list of methods to cover vacancies? (35b1–8 revised into 39.) 

• Select statement that best describes person at school who helps teachers use technology for 

teaching/learning. (38a revised into 44.) 

• Title I items (41 revised into 59, 60, 61, and 62.) 

• Are limited-English-proficient students provided with [the following types of language 

instruction]? (45b1 and 45b3 revised into 50.) 

Public School Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were Added to the 

2003–04 SASS 

• Does school have kindergarten? (8) 

• Does school use cafeteria, gymnasium, or other areas for overflow of students? (11) 

• Any teachers with no classroom due to lack of space? (12) 

• Does school have library or media center? (13) 

• Is school operated by a private organization or company? (15) 

• Does school have performance reports? (20) 

• Does school offer courses on American Indian/Alaska Native topics? (23) 

• How many full-time/part-time teachers? (34) 

• How many short-term substitute teachers? (37) 

• Do most students have internet access through school computers? (42) 

• Does school require limited-English-proficient students to pass test of English? (52) 

• Are limited-English-proficient students administered assessments? (53) 

• Does school have prekindergarten students? (55) 

• Is this school a public charter school? (63) 

• In what year did school provide instruction as a charter school? (64) 

• Who granted charter? (65) 

• Is this charter school a newly created school or was it pre-existing? (66) 

• Did this charter school provide support for/monitor homeschooling? (67) 

Public School Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data in the 1999–2000 

SASS That Were Not Included in the 2003–04 SASS 

• Is institution/organization named on front of questionnaire a school? (3) 

• If answered NO to any of 3a–3e, call Census; if answered YES for same, continue. (4) 

• What is best estimate of percent of student absenteeism last year? (11a) 

• Does school have students in one or more of grades 1–8? (23) 

• List of items used to describe organization of classes in core subjects. (24b) 

• Select [from list] means of facilitating parent participation in place last school year. (27) 

• This school year, does school have following items? (28) 
14 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

• Does school have drug, alcohol, or tobacco use prevention program? (29) 

• Does school have following safety measures? (30) 

• Does school have violence prevention program? (31) 

• How many full-time/part-time teachers were absent? (34) 

• Select statement that best describes person at school who helps teachers with technical setup and 

maintenance for computers. (38b) 

• Are any students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch? (39a) 

• How many at first of October were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch? (39b) 

• Is this school operating a schoolwide Title I program? (40b) 

• For limited-English-proficient students, are instructions to maintain fluency provided? (45b2) 

• Any migrant students in this school? (48) 

• Were any migrant students receiving services funded in part by the Title I Part C Migrant 

Education Program (MEP)? (49) 

Private School Questionnaire 

Private School Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were Significantly 

Altered for the 2003–04 SASS 

• Items 1 and 4 were compiled and placed in the instructions of the 2003–04 SASS. 

• What is enrollment capacity of this school? (14 revised into 10 and 11.) 

• Does school have community service requirement? (30 revised into 30 and 31.) 

• Were any students enrolled in 12th grade? (31 revised into 32 through 34.) 

• Does school charge tuition? (33 revised into 36 through 38.) 

• Does school have following methods to organize classes/students? (37 revised into 41.) 

• Has school implemented following—extended instructional blocks of time? (38a revised into 42.) 

• Has school implemented following—before-school/after-school enrichment? (38b revised into 

47d.) 

• Has school implemented following—academic intersessions for enrichment/acceleration? (38c 

revised into 48.) 

• Are the following programs/services currently available regardless of funding? (43 revised into 

47.) 

• What is normal yearly base salary for the following [teachers with certain experience and/or 

degrees]? (52 revised into 60.) 

• Does school offer following benefits to teachers? (57 revised into 63.) 

• Does school offer the following income in-kind to teachers? (58 revised into 63.) 

• Select statement that best describes person at school who helps teachers use technology for 

teaching/learning. (75a revised into 77.) 

• How many students are served by this Title I program? (78 revised into 92.) 

Private School Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were Added to the 

2003–04 SASS 

• Does school use cafeteria, gymnasium, or other areas for overflow of students? (12) 

• Any teachers with no classroom due to lack of space? (13) 

• How many short-term substitute teachers? (27) 

• How many teachers were newly hired? (50) 

• Are there formal procedures to counsel out poor-performing/incompetent teachers? (55) 

• Does this school have paraprofessionals that provide instructional support? (57) 

• Are the following criteria used for considering applicants for paraprofessional staff? (58) 

• Do most students have internet access through school computers? (75) 
 Chapter 2. Changes in SASS Design, Content, and Methodology From 1999–2000 to 2003–04 15

• Does this school primarily serve students with disabilities? (79) 

• Does school require limited-English-proficient students to pass test of English? (86) 

• Are limited-English-proficient students administered assessments? (87) 

• Does school provide the following services for parents with limited-English-proficient skills? 

(88) 

Private School Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data in the 1999–2000 

SASS That Were Not Included in the 2003–04 SASS 

• Is institution/organization named on front of questionnaire a school? (2) 

• If answered NO to any of 3a–3e, call Census; if answered YES for same, continue. (3) 

• What is best estimate of percent of student absenteeism last year? (11) 

• How many full-time/part-time teachers were absent? (25) 

• Does this school have students in any of grades 1–12 or comparable ungraded levels? (26) 

• Does school have requirements that reflect a 3-year/4-year program? (29) 

• Does school have students in one or more of grades 1–8? (39) 

• List of items used to describe organization of classes in core subjects in grades 9–12. (40b) 

• How many newly hired teachers are there for grades K–12 and comparable ungraded levels? (47) 

• Has school used following procedures to dismiss poor/incompetent teachers? (48) 

• What are estimated benefit rates for the following [types of staff at this school]? (55) 

• Does association/institution affiliated with this school make additional contributions for employee 

benefits for teachers? (56) 

• Select [from list] means of facilitating parent participation in place last school year. (69) 

• Does school have the following [types of parental involvement options]? (70) 

• Does school have drug, alcohol, or tobacco use prevention program? (71) 

• Does school have following safety measures? (72) 

• Does school have violence prevention program? (73) 

• Select statement that best describes person at school who helps teachers with technical setup and 

maintenance for computers. (75b) 

• Are any students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch? (76a) 

• How many at first of October were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch? (76b) 

• For limited-English-proficient students, are instructions to maintain fluency provided? (86b) 

• Are the following methods used to teach limited-English-proficient students? (88) 

Indian School Questionnaire2

Indian School Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were Significantly 

Altered for the 2003–04 SASS 

• Items 1, 3, and 4 were compiled and placed in the instructions of the 2003–04 SASS. 

• List of student ethnicity categories used by respondents to report number of students enrolled in 

grades K–12 and ungraded levels. (8 revised into 5.) 

• What is current capacity of this school? (11 revised into 9 and 10.) 

• Does this school use the following requirements for admission? (15 revised into 18b1–7.) 

• Are the following programs/services currently available regardless of funding? (17 revised into 

24.) 

• Does school offer courses on American Indian/Alaska Native topics? (18 revised into 23.) 

 

2

 For the 2003–04 SASS, there was not a separate Indian School Questionnaire. These data were collected on the 

Unified School Questionnaire (Form SASS-3Y). 
16 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

• Has school implemented following—academic intersessions for extra assistance to meet 

academic expectations? (21c revised into 25.) 

• Has school implemented following—academic intersessions for enrichment/acceleration? (21d 

revised into 26.) 

• How many part-time/full-time people held the following positions? (31 revised into 36.) 

• Of the part-time/full-time teachers, how many of them were [choose from a list of ethnicity 

options]? (32 revised into 35.) 

• Did school use following methods to cover vacancies? (35b1–8 revised into 39.) 

• How many students are served by the Title I program? (64a revised into 59.) 

• Are limited-English-proficient students provided with the following types of language 

instruction? (68b revised as 49, 50, and 51.) 

Indian School Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were Added to the 

2003–04 SASS 

• Does school have kindergarten? (8) 

• Does school use cafeteria, gymnasium, or other areas for overflow of students? (11) 

• Any teachers with no classroom due to lack of space? (12) 

• Does school have library or media center? (13) 

• Is school operated by a private organization or company? (15) 

• Does this school have a magnet program? (17) 

• Does this school receive performance reports from the district that include students’ achievement 

scores? (19) 

• Does this school use a calendar where the number of days for students exceeds the mandatory 

days per year? (29) 

• Last year were any students enrolled in 12th grade? (33) 

• How many full-time/part-time teachers? (34) 

• How many short-term substitute teachers? (37) 

• Do most students have internet access through school computers? (42) 

• Does this school primarily serve students with disabilities? (46a) 

• Does school require limited-English-proficient students to pass test of English? (52) 

• Are limited-English-proficient students administered assessments? (53) 

• Does school have prekindergarten students? (55) 

• Is this school a public charter school? (63) 

• In what year did school provide instruction as a charter school? (64) 

• Who granted charter? (65) 

• Is this charter school a newly created school or was it pre-existing? (66) 

• Did this charter school provide support for/monitor homeschooling? (67) 

• What is the name of the person who completed most of this questionnaire? (68) 

• What is his/her job title? (69) 

• What is his/her telephone number? (70) 

Indian School Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data in the 1999–2000 

SASS That Were Not Included in the 2003–04 SASS 

• Is institution/organization named on front of questionnaire a school? (2) 

• If answered NO to any of 3a–3e, call Census; if answered YES for same, continue. (3) 

• How many days are in the school year for students in this school? (9b) 

• What is best estimate of percent of student absenteeism last year? (10a) 

• Has school implemented the following [before-school or after-school enrichment programs]? 

(21b) 
 Chapter 2. Changes in SASS Design, Content, and Methodology From 1999–2000 to 2003–04 17

• List of items used to describe organization of classes in core subjects in grades 9–12. (23b) 

• Does this school grant high school diplomas? (25) 

• For high school graduates of the class of 2000, how many years of instruction are required in 

[each of the following areas]? (26) 

• Do these reflect a 3-year/4-year program? (27) 

• Does this school have a community service requirement for students? (28) 

• Are students required to pass a state assessment to graduate from this school? (29) 

• Were any students enrolled in the 12th grade? (30) 

• How many full-time/part-time teachers were absent? (33) 

• Are the following [criteria] used in considering applicants [for teaching positions at this school]? 

(34) 

• How many teachers were newly hired by this school for grades K–12 and comparable ungraded 

levels? (37) 

• Has this school used the following procedures to dismiss poor or incompetent teachers? (38) 

• During the last school year, how many teachers of the following types were dismissed for poor 

performance? (39) 

• How many months is the normal contract year for a teacher in this school? (40) 

• Is there a salary schedule for teachers at this school? (41) 

• According to the salary schedule, what is the normal yearly base salary for the following [teacher 

qualifications]? (42) 

• If you completed item 42, GO TO item 45 on the next page. (43) 

• What is the range of full-time teachers’ yearly base salaries at this school? (44) 

• According to the school budget for this fiscal year, what is the estimated benefit rate for the 

following [types of staff at this school]? (45) 

• Does an agency or institution other than this school make additional contributions for employee 

benefits for teachers? (46) 

• What is the estimated benefit rate for additional agency or institution contributions for teachers’ 

benefits? (47) 

• Does this school offer the following benefits to teachers? (48) 

• Does this school offer the following income in-kind to teachers? (49) 

• Does this school currently use any pay incentives such as cash bonuses, salary increases, or 

different steps on the salary schedule to [do the following]? (50) 

• Does this school currently use any pay incentives to recruit or retain teachers to teach in fields of 

shortage? (51) 

• Is free training available by this school, regardless of funding source, to prepare staff members to 

teach in fields with current or anticipated shortages? (52) 

• With regard to in-service professional development activities for TEACHERS in this school, who 

has PRIMARY responsibility for [the following]? (53) 

• Are the following sources of funding for teacher professional development activities used at this 

school? (54) 

• Were the following means of facilitating parent participation in place at this school? (55) 

• Does this school have the following? (56) 

• Does this school currently have a drug, alcohol, and/or tobacco use prevention program? (57) 

• Does school have following safety measures? (58) 

• Does school have violence prevention program? (59) 

• Select statement that best describes person at school who helps teachers with technical setup and 

maintenance for computers. (61b) 

• Are any students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch? (62a) 

• How many students at the first of October were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch? (62b) 

• Is this school operating a schoolwide Title I program? (63b) 

• Are the following methods used to teach limited-English-proficient students? (69) 
18 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

• Any migrant students in this school? (71) 

• Were any migrant students receiving services funded in part by Title I Part C Migrant Education 

Program (MEP) funds? (72) 

Public Charter School Questionnaire3

Public Charter School Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were 

Significantly Altered for the 2003–04 SASS 

• Items 1 and 4 were revised and placed in the instructions of the 2003–04 SASS. 

• Does this school offer the following programs? (25 revised into 22.) 

• Are the following programs/services currently available regardless of funding? (26 revised into 

24.) 

• Do performance reports include [the following]? (27b revised into 21.) 

• Does this school use these performance reports to [do the following]? (27c revised into 21.) 

• Has this school implemented academic intersessions or summer school activities for students 

needing extra assistance to meet academic expectations? (29c revised into 25.) 

• Has this school implemented academic intersessions or summer school activities for students 

seeking academic advancement or acceleration? (29d revised into 26.) 

• Last school year, were any students enrolled in 12th grade? (38 revised into 33.) 

• Around the first of October, how many staff held part-time/full-time positions or assignments in 

this school in each of the following categories? (45 revised into 36.) 

• How difficult or easy was it to fill the vacancies for this school year in each of the following 

fields? (49 revised into 38.) 

• Which of the following statements best describes the person at this school who helps teachers use 

technology for teaching and learning? (51a revised into 44.) 

• If this school is designated as a targeted assistance school, how many students are served by the 

Title I program? (54a revised into 59.) 

• Are limited-English-proficient students provided with the following types of language 

instruction? (58b revised into 50.) 

• Is this public charter school operated by an organization or company, other than a public school 

district, that also manages other schools? (61a revised into 15.) 

Public Charter School Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were Added 

to the 2003–04 SASS 

• Does school have kindergarten? (8) 

• Does this school have one or more temporary buildings? (10a) 

• Does school use cafeteria, gymnasium, or other areas for overflow of students? (11) 

• Any teachers with no classroom due to lack of space? (12) 

• Which of the following best describes this school? (14) 

• Does this school receive performance reports from the district that include students’ achievement 

scores? (19) 

• Does this school offer any course(s) on American Indian or Alaska Native topics? (23) 

• This school year, are class periods scheduled to create extended blocks of instruction time at this 

school? (28) 

• How many full-time/part-time teachers? (34) 

• How many short-term substitute teachers? (37) 

 

3

 For the 2003–04 SASS, there was not a separate Public Charter School Questionnaire. These data were collected 

on the Unified School Questionnaire (Form SASS-3Y) or the School Questionnaire (Form SASS-3A). 
 Chapter 2. Changes in SASS Design, Content, and Methodology From 1999–2000 to 2003–04 19

• Do most students have internet access through school computers? (42) 

• Does this school primarily serve students with disabilities? (46a) 

• Does school require limited-English-proficient students to pass test of English? (52) 

• Are limited-English-proficient students administered assessments? (53) 

• Does school have prekindergarten students? (55) 

• Does this school participate in the National School Lunch Program (that is, the federal free or 

reduced-price lunches)? (56) 

• Is this charter school a newly created school or was it pre-existing? (66) 

• Did this charter school provide support for/monitor homeschooling? (67) 

• What is the name of the person who completed most of this questionnaire? (68) 

• What is his/her job title? (69) 

• What is his/her telephone number? (70) 

Public Charter School Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data in the 1999–

2000 SASS That Were Not Included in the 2003–04 SASS 

• Is the institution/organization named on the front of questionnaire a school? (2a) 

• Is the school on the front of this questionnaire still in operation? (2c) 

• Does this school teach students in one or more of grades 1 to 12, or comparable ungraded levels? 

(2d) 

• Is this school’s name the same as that shown on the front page? (2e) 

• If answered NO to any of 2a–2e, call Census; if answered YES for same, continue. (3) 

• From the start of the regular school year through the summer session, were any migrant students 

enrolled in this school? (7) 

• During the regular school year, did the migrant students in this school receive services covered at 

least in part by Title I Part C Migrant Education Program (MEP) funds under school control? (8) 

• How many days are in the school year for students in this school? (11b) 

• During the last school year what is your best estimate of the percent of students in this school 

who were absent for the following number of days? (12a) 

• Is this charter school facility [any of the following]? (14) 

• When was this school’s charter granted? (15a) 

• Does your school’s charter include waivers or exemptions from the following state or district 

policies? (18) 

• What type of public charter school is this? (19) 

• Has this school implemented before-school or after-school enrichment programs? (29b) 

• Does this school have students in one or more of grades 1–8? (30) 

• Which of the following best describes the organization of classes in core subjects for regular 

students in grades 9–12? (31b) 

• Does this school grant high school diplomas? (33) 

• For high school graduates of the class of 2000, how many years of instruction are required in each 

of the following areas? (34) 

• Do these requirements reflect a 3-year or 4-year program? (35) 

• Does this school have a community service requirement for students in the class of 2000? (36) 

• Are students required to pass a state assessment to graduate from this school? (37) 

• Were the following means of facilitating parent participation in place at this school? (39) 

• Are parents or family members required to participate or volunteer at this school? (40) 

• Does this school have the following [types of parental involvement options]? (41) 

• Does this school currently have a drug, alcohol, and/or tobacco use prevention program? (42) 

• Does school have following safety measures? (43) 

• Does school have violence prevention program? (44) 

• How many full-time/part-time teachers were absent on the most recent school day? (47) 
20 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

• Which of the following statements best describes the person at this school who helps teachers 

with technical computer set-up and maintenance? (51b) 

• Are any students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch? (52a) 

• How many students at the first of October were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch? (52b) 

• Is this school operating a schoolwide Title I program? (53b) 

• Are the following methods use to teach limited-English-proficient students? (59) 

• Is this school part of (district name)? (61b) 

• Is this public charter school part of another public school district? (61c) 

• Are the following criteria used for considering applicants for teaching positions in this public 

charter school? (62) 

• For this school year, how many teachers were newly hired by this public charter school for grades 

K–12 and comparable ungraded levels? (63) 

• Has this public charter school used the following procedures to dismiss poor or incompetent 

teachers? (64) 

• During the last school year, how many teachers of the following types were dismissed for poor 

performance? (65) 

• Does this public charter school have an agreement with a teachers’ union or organization for the 

purpose of collective bargaining or meet-and-confer discussions? (66) 

• How many months is the normal contract year for a teacher at this charter school? (67) 

• Is there a salary schedule for teachers at this public charter school? (68) 

• According to the salary schedule, what is the normal yearly base salary for [the following]? (69) 

• What is the range of full-time teachers’ yearly base salaries at this school? (70) 

• According to the school budget for this fiscal year, what is the estimated benefit rate for [the 

following]? (71) 

• Does a state, city, or county agency other than this school make additional benefit rate 

contributions for employee benefits for teachers? (72) 

• Does this school offer the following benefits to teachers? (73) 

• Does this school offer the following income in-kind to teachers? (74) 

• Does this state reward public charter schools for student achievement? (75) 

• Does this state sanction public charter schools for poor student achievement? (76) 

• With regard to the in-service professional development activities for teachers in this school, who 

has primary responsibility for [the following]? (77) 

• Are the following sources of funding for teacher professional development activities used at this 

school? (78) 

• Does this school currently use any pay incentives such as cash bonuses, salary increases, or 

different steps on the salary schedule to [do the following]? (79) 

• Does this school currently use any pay incentives to recruit or retain teachers to teach in fields of 

shortage? (80) 

• Is free training available by this school, regardless of funding source, to prepare staff members to 

teach in fields with current or anticipated shortages? (81) 

• Does this school have a formal arrangement with another school or a public library to provide 

library media services to your students and staff? (83) 

• Does your school use internet resources to access reference materials, rather than a library media 

center? (84) 

• Does this school’s library media center have any paid library aides or clerical workers? (85) 

• Does this school’s library media center have paid professional staff who are not certified as 

library media specialists? (86) 

• Does this school’s library media center have paid professional staff who are certified in this state 

as library media specialists? (87) 

• Do any volunteers provide services for the library media center? (88) 
 Chapter 2. Changes in SASS Design, Content, and Methodology From 1999–2000 to 2003–04 21

• During the most recent full week of school, approximately how many students used the library 

media center? (89) 

• At the end of the 1998–99 school year, approximately what was the total number of books held in 

the library media center? (90) 

• At the end of the 1998–99 school year, approximately what was the total number of current 

periodical subscriptions? (91) 

Public School Principal Questionnaire 

Public School Principal Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were 

Significantly Altered for the 2003–04 SASS 

• Items 1, 3, and 4 were compiled and placed in the instructions of the 2003–04 SASS. 

• How many years employed in each of following positions? (5 revised into 1 and 2.) 

• What importance do you place on [list of educational goals]? (8 revised into 14.) 

• How much actual influence do you think ... has on decisions? (10 revised into 15.) 

• Are the following items a problem or not in school? (11 revised into 36 and 37.) 

• Are the following considerations barriers to dismissal of poor or incompetent teachers? (18 

revised into 25.) 

• List of professional development items for which principals are asked about their participation. 

(19 revised into 21.) 

• Performance goals and consequences/rewards concerning such. (22 revised into 26.) 

• Does school have formal improvement plan? (23 revised into 26.) 

• Are you of Hispanic origin? (28 revised into 42.) 

Public School Principal Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were Added 

to the 2003–04 SASS 

• What are total hours during full week spent on all school-related activities? (10) 

• What are total hours during full week spent interacting with students? (11) 

• How many months is the contract year for your position as principal? (12) 

• An opinion/attitude question indicating how principals feel about working in that school. (13) 

• Are instructional aides provided with time for professional development? (17) 

• Are you a member of a national professional association of principals? (23) 

• Does school currently have a drug, alcohol, or tobacco use prevention program? (31) 

• Does school currently have a violence prevention program? (32) 

• Last school year, how many students were expelled? (33) 

• What was total number of suspensions last school year? (34) 

• Did school implement safety measures (metal detectors, etc.) or have students wear uniforms, 

require clear or ban book bags? (35) 

• What percent of parents/guardians participated in listed events? (38) 

• Were the following things offered to parents/guardians? (39) 

• Does school have list of parental involvement elements? (40) 

Public School Principal Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data in the 1999–

2000 SASS That Were Not Included in the 2003–04 SASS 

• Is (the school named on the cover page) still in operation? (2) 

• An opinion/attitude question regarding if school is accomplishing list of items regarding specific 

goals. (9) 

• An opinion/attitude question regarding in-service professional development activities. (12) 
22 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

• Does school have a decisionmaking body? (20) 

• How often did you engage in the following list of events? (21) 

Private School Principal Questionnaire 

Private School Principal Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were 

Significantly Altered for the 2003–04 SASS 

• Items 1 and 4 were compiled and placed in the instructions of the 2003–04 SASS. 

• Are the following items a problem or not in school? (11 revised into 30 and 31.) 

• Are the following considerations barriers to dismissal of poor or incompetent teachers? (17 

revised into 24.) 

Private School Principal Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were Added 

to the 2003–04 SASS 

• What are total hours during full week spent on all school-related activities? (9) 

• What are total hours during full week spent interacting with students? (10) 

• How many months is the contract year for your position as principal? (11) 

• How much actual influence do you think .... has on decisions? (12) 

• Does school have budget for professional development that YOU control? (15) 

• Are instructional aides provided with time for professional development? (16) 

• Are a member of professional association of principals/school heads? (22) 

• Does school currently have a drug, alcohol, or tobacco use prevention program? (25) 

• Does school currently have a violence prevention program? (26) 

• Last school year, how many students were expelled? (27) 

• What was total number of suspensions last school year? (28) 

• Did school implement safety measures (metal detectors, etc.) or have students wear uniforms, 

require clear or ban book bags? (29) 

• What percent of parents/guardians participated in listed events? (32) 

• Were the following things offered to parents/guardians? (33) 

• Does school have list of parental involvement elements? (34) 

Private School Principal Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data in the 1999–

2000 SASS That Were Not Included in the 2003–04 SASS 

• Is (the school named on the cover page) still in operation? (2) 

• If marked NO for either above items, do not complete this questionnaire. (3) 

• List of items indicating criteria regarding goals. (9) 

• An opinion/attitude question involving in-service professional development activities. (12) 

• Is there a decisionmaking body? (19) 

• List of activities engaged in past year used in question. (20) 
 Chapter 2. Changes in SASS Design, Content, and Methodology From 1999–2000 to 2003–04 23

Indian School Principal Questionnaire4

Indian School Principal Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were 

Significantly Altered for the 2003–04 SASS 

• Items 1 and 4 were compiled and placed in the instructions of the 2003–04 SASS. 

• Prior to current position how many years as principal in specific locations? (5 revised into 1 and 

2.) 

• List of items that are believed to be a problem used in question (11 revised into 36 and 37.) 

Indian School Principal Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were Added 

to the 2003–04 SASS 

• What are total hours during full week spent on all school-related activities? (10) 

• What are total hours during full week spent interacting with students? (11) 

• How many months is the contract year for your position as principal? (12) 

• An opinion/attitude question indicating how principals feel about working in that school. (13) 

• Are instructional aides provided with time for professional development? (17) 

• Are you a member of a national professional association of principals? (23) 

• Has either district/state established school performance standards? (27) 

• Which of the following best describes this school’s performance last year? (28) 

• As a result of meeting these goals, did the school [do the following]? (29) 

• As a result of not meeting some or all of your performance standards last year, was this school 

[any of the following]? (30) 

• Does school currently have a drug, alcohol, or tobacco use prevention program? (31) 

• Does school currently have a violence prevention program? (32) 

• Last school year, how many students were expelled? (33) 

• What was total number of suspensions last school year? (34) 

• Did school implement safety measures (metal detectors, etc.) or have students wear uniforms, 

require clear or ban book bags? (35) 

• What percent of parents/guardians participated in listed events? (38) 

• Were following things offered to parents/guardians? (39) 

• Does school have list of parental involvement elements? (40) 

Indian School Principal Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data in the 1999–

2000 SASS That Were Not Included in the 2003–04 SASS 

• Is (the school named on the cover page) still in operation? (2) 

• If marked NO for either above items, do not complete this questionnaire. (3) 

• List of items indicating criteria regarding goals. (9) 

• An opinion/attitude question involving in-service professional development activities. (12) 

• Is there a decisionmaking body? (20) 

• List of activities engaged in past year used in question. (21) 

 

4

 For the 2003–04 SASS, there was not a separate Indian School Principal Questionnaire. These data were collected 

on the Principal Questionnaire (Form SASS-2A). 
24 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Public Charter School Principal Questionnaire5

Public Charter School Principal Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data 

Were Significantly Altered for the 2003–04 SASS 

• Items 1 and 4 were compiled and placed in the instructions of the 2003–04 SASS. 

• Prior to current position how many years as principal in specific locations? (5 revised into 1 and 

2.) 

• List of items that are believed to be a problem used in question. (11 revised into 36 and 37.) 

Public Charter School Principal Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data 

Were Added to the 2003–04 SASS 

• What are total hours during full week spent on all school-related activities? (10) 

• What are total hours during full week spent interacting with students? (11) 

• How many months is the contract year for your position as principal? (12) 

• An opinion/attitude question indicating how principals feel about working in that school. (13) 

• Are instructional aides provided with time for professional development? (17) 

• Are you a member of a national professional association of principals? (23) 

• Does this school have a formal school improvement plan? (26) 

• Does school currently have a drug, alcohol, or tobacco use prevention program? (31) 

• Does school currently have a violence prevention program? (32) 

• Last school year, how many students were expelled? (33) 

• What was total number of suspensions last school year? (34) 

• Did school implement safety measures (metal detectors, etc.) or have students wear uniforms, 

require clear or ban book bags? (35) 

• What percent of parents/guardians participated in listed events? (38) 

• Were following things offered to parents/guardians? (39) 

• Does school have list of parental involvement elements? (40) 

Public Charter School Principal Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data in 

the 1999–2000 SASS That Were Not Included in the 2003–04 SASS 

• Is (the school named on the cover page) still in operation? (2) 

• If marked NO for either above items, do not complete this questionnaire. (3) 

• List of items indicating criteria regarding goals used in question. (9) 

• An opinion/attitude question involving in-service professional development activities. (12) 

• Is there a decisionmaking body? (20) 

• List of activities engaged in past year used in question. (21) 

Public School Teacher Questionnaire 

Public School Teacher Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were 

Significantly Altered for the 2003–04 SASS 

• Item c was moved to the Instruction section, and information was deleted. (Revised into e.) 

• What kind of work were you doing? (4c revised into 6b.) 

• What were your most important activities or duties at that job? (4d revised into 6c.) 

 

5

 For the 2003–04 SASS, there was not a separate Public Charter School Principal Questionnaire. These data were 

collected on the Principal Questionnaire (Form SASS-2A). 
 Chapter 2. Changes in SASS Design, Content, and Methodology From 1999–2000 to 2003–04 25

• How many years have you worked as a full-time elementary or secondary teacher in public 

schools? (6a revised into 9a.) 

• How many years have you worked as a part-time elementary or secondary teacher in public 

schools? (6b revised into 9b.) 

• Do you have a bachelor’s degree? (8a revised into 20a.) 

• What was your major field of study for each degree? (11c revised into 23b.) 

• In what year did you receive each degree? (11d revised into 23d.) 

• In what year did you begin your first teaching position, either full-time or part-time, at the 

elementary or secondary level? (19a revised into 8.) 

• In the last 12 months, have you participated in the following activities related to teaching...? (27 

revised into 39 and 47.) 

• In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional development activities that 

focused on in-depth study of the content in your main teaching assignment field? (28 revised into 

40 through 44.) 

• Of all the students you teach at this school, how many have disabilities or are special education 

students, that is, how many have an Individual Education Plan (IEP)? (39a revised into 49.) 

• Using the scale 1–5 where 1 is “Not at all” and 5 is “To a great extent,” to what extent do you use 

state or district standards to guide your instructional practice in your main teaching assignment 

field? (44 revised into 56.) 

• Do you receive your students’ scores on state or local achievement tests? (47a revised into 54.) 

• Using the scale 1–5, where 1 is “Not at all” and 5 is “To a great extent,” to what extent do you 

use the information from your students’ test scores [to rank the following]? (47b revised into 55.) 

• Using the scale of 1–5, where 1 means “No influence” and 5 means “A great deal of influence,” 

how much actual influence do you think teachers have over school policy at this school in each of 

the following areas? (57 revised into 61.) 

• Using the scale of 1–5, where 1 means “No control” and 5 means “Complete control,” how much 

control do you think you have in your classroom at this school over each of the following areas of 

your planning and teaching? (58 revised into 62.) 

• Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? (59 revised into 63.) 

• To what extent is each of the following a problem in your school? (60 revised into 64 and 65.) 

Public School Teacher Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were Added 

to the 2003–04 SASS 

• Error correction to name in the instruction section. 

• This school year, what is your main teaching assignment field at this school [added for teachers 

who marked box 1 or 2 for item 12]? (17) 

• Was this degree awarded by a university’s department or college of education, or a college’s 

department or school of education? (20c) 

• Was this degree awarded by a university’s department or college of education, or a college’s 

department or school of education? (22c) 

• Was this degree awarded by a university’s department or college of education, or a college’s 

department or school of education? (23c) 

• Have you taken any of the following tests? (24) 

• Have you ever taken any graduate or undergraduate courses that focused on teaching methods or 

teaching strategies? (27) 

• How many of these courses did you complete before you started teaching at the elementary or 

secondary level? (28) 

• Which of the following describes how you obtained the teaching methods or teaching strategies 

coursework? (29) 
26 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

• How many hours are you required to work to receive base pay during a typical full week at this 

school? (59) 

• During this school year, do you or will you [do any of the following items]? (60) 

• To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? (66) 

Public School Teacher Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data in the 1999–

2000 SASS That Were Not Included in the 2003–04 SASS 

• Items a and b from the instruction section were not included. 

• Is this school a public charter school? (3) 

• Did you have a minor study field? (8f) 

• Thinking about all of the professional development you have participated in over the past 12 

months, how useful was it? (29) 

• Are you a Title I teacher, that is, are you paid in full or in part by federal funds under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act? (43) 

• Do you use different groupings of students in your classroom to teach students who learn at 

different rates? (45) 

• Are students assigned to your classes on the basis of achievement or ability level? (46) 

• Do students in any of your classes use computers during class time? (48) 

• In your main teaching assignment field, do students in your classes use computers during class 

time? (49) 

• On answering items 50a–e below, first designate one of your classes in your main teaching 

assignment field that uses computers during class time. Items 50a–e refer to this designated class. 

(50) 

• In your most recent full week of teaching, how much scheduled school time did you have for 

planning? (52) 

• During your most recent full week of teaching, how many hours did you spend after school, 

before school, and on the weekend on each of the following types of activities? (53) 

• During your most recent full week of teaching at this school [did student incidents occur]? (54) 

Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

Private School Teacher Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were 

Significantly Altered for the 2003–04 SASS 

• Do you have a teaching certificate in this state in your other teaching assignment field at this 

school? (16 revised into 32.) 

• Do you currently hold any additional regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional 

teaching certificate in this state or any other state? (17 revised into 32.) 

• Was your first year of teaching, reported in item 19a above, before the 1995–96 school year? (19b 

revised into 33.) 

• Did your preparation for teaching include [the following]? (19c revised into 25.) 

• In your first year of teaching, how well prepared were you to [do the following]? (21 revised into 

34.) 

• Were the following duties part of your first-year teaching assignment? (24 revised into 37.) 

• In the past 12 months, have you participated in the following activities related to teaching? (27 

revised into 40.) 

• In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional development activities that 

focused on uses of computers for instruction? (28d revised into 42.) 

• In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional development activities that 

focused on discipline and management of the classroom? (28f revised into 44.) 
 Chapter 2. Changes in SASS Design, Content, and Methodology From 1999–2000 to 2003–04 27

• Which category best describes the way your classes at this school are organized? (34 revised into 

12 and 13.) 

• At this school, what is the total number of students enrolled in the class you taught during your 

most recent full week of teaching? (35 revised into 14.) 

• Do you receive your students’ scores on state or local achievement tests? (47 revised into 55 and 

56.) 

• How many hours were you required to be at this school during your most recent full week of 

teaching? (51 revised into 58.) 

• Has a student from this school ever threatened to injure you? (55 revised into 69.) 

• Has a student from this school ever physically attacked you? (56 revised into 70.) 

• Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements [pertaining to teaching 

satisfaction]? (59 revised into 64.) 

• To what extent is each of the following a problem in your school? (60 revised into 65 and 66.) 

Private School Teacher Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were Added 

to the 2003–04 SASS 

• Error correction to name in the instruction section. 

• This school year, what is your main teaching assignment field at this school [added for teachers 

who marked box 1 or 2 for item 12]? (17) 

• Was this degree awarded by a university’s department or college of education, or a college’s 

department or school of education? (20c) 

• Was this degree awarded by a university’s department or college of education, or a college’s 

department or school of education? (22c) 

• Was this degree awarded by a university’s department or college of education, or a college’s 

department or school of education? (23c) 

• Have you taken any of the following tests? (24) 

• Have you ever taken any graduate or undergraduate courses that focused on teaching methods or 

teaching strategies? (27) 

• How many of these courses did you complete before you started teaching at the elementary or 

secondary level? (28) 

• Which of the following describes how you obtained the teaching methods or teaching strategies 

coursework? (29) 

• Do you currently hold regular or full certification by an accrediting or certifying body other than 

the state? (30) 

• In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional development activities that 

focused on reading instruction? (43) 

• In the past 12 months, did you do any of the following [professional development items]? (48) 

• How many hours are you required to work to receive base pay during a typical full week at this 

school? (59) 

• How many hours a week do you spend delivering instruction to a class of students? (60) 

• During this school year, do you or will you [any of the following activities]? (61) 

• To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements [that describe 

teacher satisfaction]? (67) 

• Are you a member of a teacher’s union or an employee association similar to a union? (77) 

Private School Teacher Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data in the 1999–

2000 SASS That Were Not Included in the 2003–04 SASS 

• Did you have a minor study field? (8f) 

• What was your minor field of study? (8g) 
28 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

• Did you mark box 1 or 2 in item 13b above? (13c) 

• How did you earn this certificate in your main teaching assignment field? (13d) 

• Are you currently in a program to obtain state certification on your main teaching assignment 

field? (14) 

• This school year, are you assigned to teach classes in other fields at this school in addition to your 

main teaching assignment field? (15) 

• What was your main teaching assignment field from last school year? (18) 

• In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional development activities that 

focused on methods of teaching? (28c) 

• In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional development activities that 

focused on student assessment, such as methods of testing, evaluation, performance assessments, 

etc.? (28e) 

• In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional development activities that 

focused on other topics not included in 28a–28f above? (28g) 

• Are you a Title I teacher, that is, are you paid in full or in any part by federal funds under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act? (43) 

• Are students assigned to your classes on the basis of achievement or ability level? (46) 

• Do students in any of your classes use computers during class time? (48) 

• In your main teaching assignment field, do students in your classes use computers during class 

time? (49) 

• On answering items 50a–e below, first designate one of your classes in your main teaching 

assignment field that uses computers during class time. Items 50a–e refer to this designated class. 

(50) 

• In your most recent full week of teaching, how much scheduled school time did you have for 

planning? (52) 

• During your most recent full week of teaching, how many hours did you spend after school, 

before school, and on the weekend on each of the following types of activities? (53) 

• During your most recent full week of teaching at this school [did student incidents occur]? (54) 

Indian School Teacher Questionnaire6

Indian School Teacher Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were 

Significantly Altered for the 2003–04 SASS 

• Do you have a master’s degree? (10 revised into 22.) 

• Was your first year of teaching, reported in item 19a above, before the 1995–96 school year? (19b 

revised into 32.) 

• In your first year of teaching, how well prepared were you to [do the following]? (21 revised into 

33.) 

• Did you receive the following kinds of support during your first year of teaching? (23 revised into 

35.) 

• Were the following duties part of your first year teaching assignment? (24 revised into 36.) 

• In the past 12 months, have you participated in the following activities related to teaching? (27 

revised into 39.) 

• Which category best describes the way your classes at this school are organized? (34 revised into 

12 and 13.) 

• During your most recent full week of teaching, approximately how many hours did you spend 

teaching each of these subjects at this school? (36 revised into 16.) 

 

6

 For the 2003–04 SASS, there was not a separate Indian School Teacher Questionnaire. These data were collected 

on the Teacher Questionnaire (Form SASS-4A). 
 Chapter 2. Changes in SASS Design, Content, and Methodology From 1999–2000 to 2003–04 29

• During your most recent full week of teaching, how many separate classes (or sections) did you 

teach at this school? (37 revised into 18.) 

• For each class (or section) that you taught during your most recent full week of teaching at this 

school.... (38 revised into 19.) 

• Do you receive your students’ scores on state or local achievement tests? (47a revised into 54.) 

• Using the scale 1–5, where 1 is “Not at all” and 5 is “To a great extent,” to what extent do you 

use the information from your students’ test scores [to rank the following]? (47b revised into 55.) 

• How many hours were you required to be at this school during your most recent full week of 

teaching? (51 revised into 57.) 

• Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements [that describe teacher 

satisfaction]? (59 revised into 63.) 

• To what extent is each of the following a problem in your school? (60 revised into 64 and 65.) 

Indian School Teacher Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were Added 

to the 2003–04 SASS 

• Error correction to name in the instruction section. 

• This school year, what is your main teaching assignment field at this school [added for teachers 

who marked box 1 or 2 for item 12]? (17) 

• Was this degree awarded by a university’s department or college of education, or a college’s 

department or school of education? (20c) 

• What this degree awarded by a university’s department or college of education, or a college’s 

department or school of education? (22c) 

• Was this degree awarded by a university’s department or college of education, or a college’s 

department or school of education? (23c) 

• Have you taken any of the following tests? (24) 

• Have you ever taken any graduate or undergraduate courses that focused on teaching methods or 

teaching strategies? (27) 

• How many of these courses did you complete before you started teaching at the elementary or 

secondary level? (28) 

• Which of the following describes how you obtained the teaching methods or teaching strategies 

coursework? (29) 

• Some certificates may allow you to teach in multiple content areas. In what content area(s) does 

the teaching certificate marked above allow you to teach in this state? (30b) 

• If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach, 

please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 31a on page 22. (30c) 

• Some certificates may allow you to teach in multiple content areas. In what content area(s) does 

the teaching certificate marked in 30a allow you to teach in this state? (30d) 

• If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach, 

please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 31a on page 22. (30e) 

• If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach, 

please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 31a on page 22. (30f) 

• In what content area(s) does this current teaching certificate, marked in 31b above, allow you to 

teach in this state? (31c) 

• If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach, 

please list it in 31e on page 23. Otherwise, GO TO item 32 on page 24. (32d) 

• In what content area(s) does this current teaching certificate, marked in 31b, allow you to teach in 

this state? (32e) 

• If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach, 

please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 32 on page 24. (32f) 
30 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

• If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach, 

please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 32 on page 24. (32g) 

• In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional development activities that 

focused on reading instruction? (42) 

• In the past 12 months, did you do any of the following [professional development items]? (48) 

• How many hours are you required to work to receive base pay during a typical full week at this 

school? (58) 

• How many hours a week do you spend delivering instruction to a class of students? (59) 

• During this school year, do you or will you [do any of the following items]? (60) 

• To what extent is each of the following a problem in this school? (65) 

• To what extent to you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? (66) 

Indian School Teacher Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data in the 1999–

2000 SASS That Were Not Included in the 2003–04 SASS 

• Is this school a public charter school? (3) 

• Did you have a minor study field? (8f) 

• What was your minor field of study? (8g) 

• Do you have a teaching certificate in this state in your main teaching assignment field? (13a) 

• Did you mark box 1 or 2 in item 13b above? (13c) 

• How did you earn this certificate in your main teaching assignment field? (13d) 

• Are you currently in a program to obtain state certification on your main teaching assignment 

field? (14) 

• This school year, are you assigned to teach classes in other fields at this school in addition to your 

main teaching assignment field? (15) 

• Do you currently hold any additional regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional 

teaching certificate in this state or any other state? (17) 

• What was your main teaching assignment field from last school year? (18) 

• In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional development activities that 

focused on methods of teaching? (28c) 

• Thinking about all of the professional development you have participated in over the past 12 

months, how useful was it? (29) 

• Are you a Title I teacher, that is, are you paid in full or in part by federal funds under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act? (43) 

• Do you use different groupings of students in your classroom to teach students who learn at 

different rates? (45) 

• Are students assigned to your classes on the basis of achievement or ability level? (46) 

• Do students in any of your classes use computers during class time? (48) 

• In your main teaching assignment field, do students in your classes use computers during class 

time? (49) 

• On answering items 50a–e below, first designate one of your classes in your main teaching 

assignment field that uses computers during class time. Items 50a–e refer to this designated class. 

(50) 

• In your most recent full week of teaching, how much scheduled school time did you have for 

planning? (52) 

• During your most recent full week of teaching, how many hours did you spend after school, 

before school, and on the weekend on each of the following types of activities? (53) 

• During your most recent full week of teaching at this school [did student incidents occur]? (54) 
 Chapter 2. Changes in SASS Design, Content, and Methodology From 1999–2000 to 2003–04 31

Public Charter School Teacher Questionnaire7

Public Charter School Teacher Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were 

Significantly Altered for the 2003–04 SASS 

• Was your first year of teaching, reported in item 19a above, before the 1995–96 school year? (19b 

revised into 32.) 

• In your first year of teaching, how well prepared were you to...? (21 revised into 33.) 

• Did you receive the following kinds of support during your first year of teaching? (23 revised into 

35.) 

• Were the following duties part of your first year teaching assignment? (24 revised into 36.) 

• In the past 12 months, have you participated in the following activities related to teaching? (27 

revised into 39.) 

• Which category best describes the way your classes at this school are organized? (34 revised into 

12 and 13.) 

• During your most recent full week of teaching, approximately how many hours did you spend 

teaching each of these subjects at this school? (36 revised into 16.) 

• During your most recent full week of teaching, how many separate classes (or sections) did you 

teach at this school? (37 revised into 18.) 

• For each class (or section) that you taught during your most recent full week of teaching at this 

school...? (38 revised into 19.) 

• Do you receive your students’ scores on state or local achievement tests? (47a revised into 54.) 

• Using the scale 1–5, where 1 is “Not at all” and 5 is “To a great extent,” to what extent do you 

use the information from your students’ test scores [to rank the following]? (47b revised into 55.) 

• How many hours were you required to be at this school during your most recent full week of 

teaching? (51 revised into 57.) 

• Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements [that describe teacher 

satisfaction]? (59 revised into 63.) 

• To what extent is each of the following a problem in your school? (60 revised into 64 and 65.) 

Public Charter School Teacher Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were 

Added to the 2003–04 SASS 

• Error correction to name in the instruction section. 

• This school year, what is your main teaching assignment field at this school [added for teachers 

who marked box 1 or 2 for item 12]? (17) 

• Was this degree awarded by a university’s department or college of education, or a college’s 

department or school of education? (20c) 

• Was this degree awarded by a university’s department or college of education, or a college’s 

department or school of education? (22c) 

• Was this degree awarded by a university’s department or college of education, or a college’s 

department or school of education? (23c) 

• Have you taken any of the following tests? (24) 

• Have you ever taken any graduate or undergraduate courses that focused on teaching methods or 

teaching strategies? (27) 

• How many of these courses did you complete before you started teaching at the elementary or 

secondary level? (28) 

 

7

 For the 2003–04 SASS, there was not a separate Public Charter School Teacher Questionnaire. These data were 

collected on the Teacher Questionnaire (Form SASS-4A). 
32 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

• Which of the following describes how you obtained the teaching methods or teaching strategies 

coursework? (29) 

• Some certificates may allow you to teach in multiple content areas. In what content area(s) does 

the teaching certificate marked above allow you to teach in this state? (30b) 

• If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach, 

please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 31a on page 22. (30c) 

• Some certificates may allow you to teach in multiple content areas. In what content area(s) does 

the teaching certificate marked in 30a allow you to teach in this state? (30d) 

• If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach, 

please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 31a on page 22. (30e) 

• If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach, 

please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 31a on page 22. (30f) 

• In what content area(s) does this current teaching certificate, marked in 31b above, allow you to 

teach in this state? (31c) 

• If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach, 

please list it in 31e on page 23. Otherwise, GO TO item 32 on page 24. (32d) 

• In what content area(s) does this current teaching certificate, marked in 31b, allow you to teach in 

this state? (32e) 

• If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach, 

please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 32 on page 24. (32f) 

• If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach, 

please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 32 on page 24. (32g) 

• In the past 12 months have you participated in any professional development activities that 

focused on reading instruction? (42) 

• In the past 12 months, did you do any of the following [professional development items]? (48) 

• How many hours are you required to work to receive base pay during a typical full week at this 

school? (58) 

• How many hours a week do you spend delivering instruction to a class of students? (59) 

• During this school year, do you or will you [do any of the following items]? (60) 

• To what extent is each of the following a problem in this school? (65) 

• To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? (66) 

Public Charter School Teacher Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data in the 

1999–2000 SASS That Were Not Included in the 2003–04 SASS 

• Is this school a public charter school? (3) 

• Did you have a minor study field? (8f) 

• What was your minor field of study? (8g) 

• Do you have a teaching certificate in this state in your main teaching assignment field? (13a) 

• Did you mark box 1 or 2 in item 13b above? (13c) 

• How did you earn this certificate in your main teaching assignment field? (13d) 

• Are you currently in a program to obtain state certification in your main teaching assignment 

field? (14) 

• This school year, are you assigned to teach classes in other fields at this school in addition to your 

main teaching assignment field? (15) 

• Do you currently hold any additional regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional 

teaching certificate in this state or any other state? (17) 

• What was your main teaching assignment field from last school year? (18) 

• In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional development activities that 

focused on methods of teaching? (28c) 
 Chapter 2. Changes in SASS Design, Content, and Methodology From 1999–2000 to 2003–04 33

• Thinking about all of the professional development you have participated in over the past 12 

months, how useful was it? (29) 

• Are you a Title I teacher, that is, are you paid in full or in part by federal funds under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act? (43) 

• Do you use different groupings of students in your classroom to teach students who learn at 

different rates? (45) 

• Are students assigned to your classes on the basis of achievement or ability level? (46) 

• Do students in any of your classes use computers during class time? (48) 

• In your main teaching assignment field, do students in your classes use computers during class 

time? (49) 

• On answering items 50a–e below, first designate one of your classes in your main teaching 

assignment field that uses computers during class time. Items 50a–e refer to this designated class. 

(50) 

• In your most recent full week of teaching, how much scheduled school time did you have for 

planning? (52) 

• During your most recent full week of teaching, how many hours did you spend after school, 

before school, and on the weekend on each of the following types of activities? (53) 

• During your most recent full week of teaching at this school [did student incidents occur]? (54) 

School District Questionnaire 

School District Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were Significantly 

Altered for the 2003–04 SASS 

• Around the first of October, what was the total number of students enrolled in this district in all 

grade levels? (5 revised into 2 and 3.) 

• Around the first of October, how many students in grades K–12 and comparable ungraded levels 

were [choose from a list of ethnicity options]? (6 revised into 4.) 

• Regardless of whether this district participates in the National School Lunch Program, around the 

first of October, were any students in this district eligible for free or reduced-price lunches? (7 

revised into 6.) 

• Around the first of October, how many part-time and full-time teachers employed by this district 

for grades K–12 and comparable ungraded levels were [the following]? (9 revised.) 

• Are the following criteria used in considering applicants for teaching positions in this district? (11 

revised into 13.) 

• Does this district have an agreement with a teachers’ union or organization for the purpose of 

collective bargaining or meet-and-confer discussions? (15 revised into 17.) 

• Is there a salary schedule for teachers in this district? (17 revised into 24.) 

• According to the salary schedule, what is the normal yearly base salary for [the following]? (18 

revised into 25.) 

• Does this district offer the following benefits to teachers? (23 revised into 28.) 

• Does this district offer the following income in-kind to teachers? (24 revised into 28.) 

• Does this district have performance reports that include [the following]? (25 revised into 29.) 

• Does this district require schools to participate in a district-level assessment program? (28 revised 

into 31.) 

• Does this state reward districts or schools for student achievement? (29 revised into 36 through 

41 series.) 

• Does this district reward schools for student achievement? (30 revised into 36 through 41 series.) 

• Skip pattern item. (31 revised into 36 through 41 series.) 

• During the last 12 months, how many schools in this district received the following rewards or 

sanctions for student achievement? (32 revised into 36 through 41 series.) 
34 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

• During the last 12 months, has this district [been involved in an action pertaining to achievement 

goals]? (33 revised into 36 through 41 series.) 

• Does this district have a public school “choice” program in which students can choose to enroll in 

either their assigned school or another school within the district? (35 revised into 43, with “b” 

deleted.) 

• Does this district have a public school “choice” program in which students, at no tuition cost to 

themselves or their families, can enroll in a school in another district? (36 revised into 44, with 

“b” deleted.) 

• Does this district offer the following public school “choice” programs? (39 revised into 41h.) 

• Are homeschooled students required to perform at or above the same specific level as public 

school students on state or district achievement tests? (42 revised into 54.) 

• Are homeschooled students required to perform at or above a specified level on another 

achievement test, other than the above state or district tests? (43 revised into 55.) 

• Are homeschooled students required to submit evidence of grade level performance other than 

achievement testing? (44 revised into 56.) 

• Does this district have a community service requirement for students in the class of 2000? (48 

revised into 59 and 60.) 

• Are students required to pass a state or district assessment to graduate from high school? (49 

revised into 61.) 

• Are the following sources of funding for teacher professional development activities used in this 

district? (53 revised into 65.) 

School District Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data Were Added to the 

2003–04 SASS 

• Does this district offer all of grades K–12? (1) 

• Does this district have any prekindergarten students? (5) 

• Around the first of October, how many principals were employed by this district for grades K–12 

and comparable ungraded levels? (10) 

• Does this district have a district-wide library media center coordinator? (11) 

• Does this district currently use the following to recruit teachers? (14) 

• For this school year, how many principals were newly hired by this district for grades K–12 and 

comparable ungraded levels? (19) 

• Are the following criteria used in considering applicants for principal positions in this district? 

(20) 

• Does this district currently use any incentives to recruit principals? (21) 

• Does this district hire paraprofessionals who provide instructional support? (22) 

• Are the following criteria used in considering applicants for paraprofessional staff who provide 

instructional support in this district? (23) 

• Are any students in this district given state or district required assessments in mathematics? (32) 

• Are any students in this district given state or district required assessments in English, reading, 

and/or language arts? (33) 

• Are any students in this district given state or district required assessments in science? (34) 

• Are any students in this district given state or district required assessments in social studies and/or 

history? (35) 

• Does this district have a school “choice” program in which students from this district can choose 

to enroll in a private school using state or district funds? (45) 

• Does this district offer supplemental educational services to underperforming students at no cost 

to themselves or their families? (49) 

• Last school year (2002–03), were there any homeschooled students in this district? (51) 

• Does this district provide any of the following to homeschooled students and their families? (52) 
 Chapter 2. Changes in SASS Design, Content, and Methodology From 1999–2000 to 2003–04 35

• During the 2003 summer session, what was the total cumulative enrollment of migrant students? 

(76) 

School District Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data in the 1999–2000 

SASS That Were Not Included in the 2003–04 SASS 

• Please record the time that you begin. (3) 

• Of the newly hired teachers, how many of the job offers to these teachers were made [choose 

from a list of time frames]? (12b) 

• Has this district used the following procedures to dismiss poor or incompetent teachers? (13) 

• According to the district budget for this fiscal year, what is the estimated benefit rate for [types of 

staff at this school]? (21) 

• Does a state, city, or county agency other than this school district make additional contributions 

for employee benefits for teachers? (22) 

• Does this district distribute school-level performance reports to the schools? (27) 

• Are homeschooled students in this district required to meet state or district accountability 

standards? (41) 

• Do these requirements reflect a 3-year or a 4-year program? (47) 

• During the last regular school year, were Title I Part C Migrant Education Program (MEP) funded 

services provided by [the following entities]? (60) 

• Approximately what percentage of your district’s migrant students attended schools in your 

district for the entire 1998–99 regular school year, excluding the 1999 summer session? (62) 

• Now consider just the migrant students who spent less than the entire 1998–99 regular school 

year in one of your schools. About how many spent less than the entire regular school year 

because of an agricultural-related move? (63) 

• During the 1999 summer school session, were Title I Part C Migrant Education Program (MEP) 

funded services provided by [the following entities]? (65) 

• During the 1999 summer school session, were any of the following staff positions in this district 

funded in whole or in part with Title I Part C Migrant Education Program (MEP) funds? (66) 

Public School Library Media Center Questionnaire 

Public School Library Media Center Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data 

Were Significantly Altered for the 2003–04 SASS 

• For this item: count each professional staff member only once. Report each person by his/her 

highest degree earned. If no paid professional staff have a particular degree as their highest 

degree, mark the “None” box for that degree. Do not include library aides or clerical staff. If this 

library media center does not have any paid professional staff, skip to item 10a on page 7. (9 

revised into 8.) 

• Is the following equipment located within this library media center? (13 revised.) 

• During the 1998–99 school year, what were the total holdings, additions, and expenditures for the 

library media center for each of the following kinds of materials? (22 revised into 18.) 

• During the 1998–99 school year, what was the total expenditure for the types of materials listed 

above (in item 22) for this library media center? (23 revised into 22.) 

• When may students use the library media center independently? (31 revised into 29.) 

• During the most recent full week of school, how many times was the library media center space 

used by groups for nonlibrary related activities? (34 revised into 32.) 

• Does this school have any of the following school board-approved policies? (40 revised into 35.) 
36 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Public School Library Media Center Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data 

Were Added to the 2003–04 SASS 

• How many of the paid professional library media center staff have earned a master’s degree in a 

library-related education field such as librarianship, educational media, instructional design, 

instructional technology, library science, or information science? (9) 

• How many computer workstations does this library media center have for student and staff use? 

(14) 

• If this library media center was not in existence last school year (2002–03), please mark (X) this 

box and go to item 25 on page 13. Otherwise, continue below. (17) 

• During the 2002–03 school year, did this library media center subscribe to any current magazines, 

journals, or newspapers (in any format)? (19) 

• During the 2002–03 school year, did this library media center have access to electronic databases 

of periodical articles provided by a state agency or a school district at no charge to the school? 

(20) 

• During the 2002–03 school year, did this library media center purchase access to any electronic 

databases? (21) 

• During the 2002–03 school year, were any computer hardware donations, grants, or other 

contributions received by this library media center? (23) 

• During the 2002–03 school year, were any audio-visual equipment donations, grants, or other 

contributions received by this library media center? (24) 

• How much influence do you think each group or person has on scheduling classes in this library 

media center? (27) 

• During the most recent full week of school, was this library media center used as a classroom, 

due to a classroom shortage? (32) 

• In the past 12 months, have any staff in this school received formal training on information 

literacy instruction? (37) 

• Does this school follow formal state or district content standards in information literacy? (38) 

• Does this school follow a formal state or district information literacy curriculum? (39) 

• Does this library media center receive formal feedback on students’ information literacy skills? 

(40) 

• During the 2002–03 school year, what percent of teachers in this school collaborated with the 

library media center staff to plan and deliver instruction? (41) 

Public School Library Media Center Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data 

in the 1999–2000 SASS That Were Not Included in the 2003–04 SASS 

• Do you have a district library media center coordinator? (12) 

• Are the following electronic services available in the library media center either through standalone terminals, library local area network (LAN), building-wide LAN, or district wide area 

network (WAN)? (14) 

• Does this school have any television sets or video monitors? (15) 

• How does this school receive its television programming? (16) 

• Does this library media center have multimedia production facilities (a computer using any text, 

full color, images and graphics, video, animation, and sound)? (17) 

• Does this library media center use prerecorded video tapes? (18) 

• Does this school have in-house television production facilities? (20) 

• Does this school participate in distance learning? (21) 

• For each of the following Dewey decimal numbers or categories, how many volumes were 

purchased for this library media center during the 1998–99 school year? (25) 
 Chapter 2. Changes in SASS Design, Content, and Methodology From 1999–2000 to 2003–04 37

• During the 1998–99 school year, how many volumes did this library media center purchase for its 

professional collection for teachers (e.g., curriculum development, instructional practice, 

educational psychology)? (26) 

• During the 1998–99 school year, what was the total expenditure for computer hardware, other 

than communications equipment, for this library media center? (27) 

• During the 1998–99 school year, what was the total expenditure for other audio-visual equipment 

for this library media center? (28) 

• Who makes library media center scheduling decisions? (30) 

• During the most recent full week of school, how many times was this library media center used 

by the following kinds of school groups? (32) 

• During the most recent full week of school, how many students used the library media center? 

(35) 

• During the most recent full week of school, what was the total number of books and other 

materials checked out from the library media center? (36) 

• What is the maximum number of books that a student may take out of the library media center at 

a time? (37a) 

• Are you a library media specialist or school librarian? (39) 

Indian School Library Media Center Questionnaire8

Indian School Library Media Center Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data 

Were Significantly Altered for the 2003–04 SASS 

• For this item: count each professional staff member only once. Report each person by his/her 

highest degree earned. If no paid professional staff have a particular degree as their highest 

degree, mark the “None” box for that degree. If this library media center does not have any paid 

professional staff, skip to item 10a on page 6. Do not include library aides or clerical staff. (9 

revised into 8.) 

• Is the following equipment located within this library media center? (12 revised into 13.) 

• During the 1998–99 school year, what were the total holdings, additions, and expenditures for the 

library media center for each of the following kinds of materials? (21 revised into 18.) 

• During the 1998–99 school year, what was the total expenditure for the types of materials listed 

above (in item 21) for this library media center? (22 revised into 22.) 

• When may students use the library media center independently? (30 revised into 29.) 

• During the most recent full week of school, how many times was the library media center space 

used by groups for non-library related activities? (33 revised into 32.) 

Indian School Library Media Center Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data 

Were Added to the 2003–04 SASS 

• How many computer workstations does this library media center have for student and staff use? 

(14) 

• If this library media center was not in existence last school year (2002–03), please mark (X) this 

box and go to item 25 on page 13. Otherwise, continue below. (17) 

• During the 2002–03 school year, did this library media center subscribe to any current magazines, 

journals, or newspapers (in any format)? (19) 

 

8

 For the 2003–04 SASS, there was not a separate Indian School Library Media Center Questionnaire. These data 

were collected on the School Library Media Center Questionnaire (Form LS-1A). 
38 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

• During the 2002–03 school year, did this library media center have access to electronic databases 

of periodical articles provided by a state agency or a school district at no charge to the school? 

(20) 

• During the 2002–03 school year, did this library media center purchase access to any electronic 

databases? (21) 

• During the 2002–03 school year, were any computer hardware donations, grants, or other 

contributions received by this library media center? (23) 

• During the 2002–03 school year, were any audio-visual equipment donations, grants, or other 

contributions received by this library media center? (24) 

• How much influence do you think each group or person has on scheduling classes in this library 

media center? (27) 

• During the most recent full week of school, was this library media center used as a classroom, 

due to a classroom shortage? (32) 

• Does this school have any of the following school board-approved policies? (35) 

• In the past 12 months, have any staff in this school received formal training on information 

literacy instruction? (37) 

• Does this school follow formal state or district content standards in information literacy? (38) 

• Does this school follow a formal state or district information literacy curriculum? (39) 

• Does this library media center receive formal feedback on students’ information literacy skills? 

(40) 

• During the 2002–03 school year, what percent of teachers in this school collaborated with the 

library media center staff to plan and deliver instruction? (41) 

Indian School Library Media Center Questionnaire—Questions That Collected the Following Data 

in the 1999–2000 SASS That Were Not Included in the 2003–04 SASS 

• How many of the paid professional library media center staff have earned an education specialist 

or professional diploma (at least one year beyond the master’s level) as their highest degree? (9b) 

• How many of the paid professional library media center staff have a master’s degree in a library 

related field PLUS a second master’s degree as their highest degree? (9e) 

• Are the following electronic services available in the library media center either through standalone terminals, library local area network (LAN), building-wide LAN, or district wide area 

network (WAN)? (13) 

• Does this school have any television sets or video monitors? (14) 

• How does this school receive its television programming? (15) 

• Does this library media center have multimedia production facilities (a computer using any text, 

full color, images and graphics, video, animation and sound)? (16) 

• Does this library media center use prerecorded video tapes? (17) 

• Does this school have in-house television production facilities? (19) 

• Does this school participate in distance learning? (20) 

• For each of the following Dewey decimal numbers or categories, how many volumes were 

purchased for this library media center during the 1998–99 school year? (24) 

• During the 1998–99 school year, how many volumes did this library media center purchase for its 

professional collection for teachers (e.g., curriculum development, instructional practice, 

educational psychology)? (25) 

• During the 1998–99 school year, what was the total expenditure for computer hardware, other 

than communications equipment, for this library media center? (26) 

• During the 1998–99 school year, what was the total expenditure for other audio-visual equipment 

for this library media center? (27) 

• Who makes library media center scheduling decisions? (29) 
 Chapter 2. Changes in SASS Design, Content, and Methodology From 1999–2000 to 2003–04 39

• During the most recent full week of school, how many times was this library media center used 

by the following kinds of school groups? (31) 

• During the most recent full week of school, how many students used the library media center? 

(34) 

• During the most recent full week of school, what was the total number of books and other 

materials checked out from the library media center? (35) 

• What is the maximum number of books that a student may take out of the library media center at 

a time? (36a) 

• Are you a library media specialist or school librarian? (38) 

Methodological and Procedural Changes 

Field-Based Data Collection 

The data collection procedures for all questionnaires administered at the schools changed substantially for 

the 2003–04 SASS. In previous administrations of SASS, self-administered questionnaires were mailed to 

the selected schools. Nonrespondents were contacted by telephone, using a computer-assisted telephone 

interviewing (CATI) instrument. Finally, remaining nonrespondents were assigned to field representatives 

who contacted them by telephone and/or by personal visits. Under that methodology, most respondents 

completed self-administered questionnaires, while some were interviewed by telephone (12 to 23 percent, 

depending on the questionnaire type). 

During the 2003–04 SASS, field representatives were responsible for all of the SASS data collection for 

each of the sampled schools, and nearly all questionnaires were completed directly by respondents (fewer 

than 900 cases were attempted as telephone interviews). The field activities included 

• mailing an advance postcard to the schools; 

• telephoning the school and using a computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) instrument 

(the SASS Teacher Listing instrument) to verify school information and set up appointments; 

• visiting the school to meet the school principal, school head(s), and/or other school contact 

person(s) to explain the 2003–04 SASS, to pick up the teacher roster (or make arrangements to 

obtain it), and to drop off questionnaires for the principal, school, and school library media 

center; 

• entering the teacher roster information into the SASS Teacher Listing instrument, which selected 

a sample of teachers; 

• passing out questionnaires to the selected teachers; and 

• following up on all questionnaires via telephone calls and return personal visits, if needed. 

Chapter 5 on data collection provides details on the fieldwork. A brief evaluation of the field-based 

methodology is included at the end of chapter 5. 

Advance Work with School Districts 

In prior administrations of SASS, school districts were contacted before data collection began to obtain 

the name of the person to whom the School District Questionnaire should be mailed. Additional efforts to 

contact school districts were made for the 2003–04 SASS, because of concerns that the district’s 

participation impacts not only the response rate on the School District Questionnaire but also the 

participation of schools within the district. School district participation in SASS is critical because a 

refusal from the school district can lower response rates for multiple school, principal, teacher, and school 
40 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

library media center questionnaires as well as lower the school district response rate. The new field-based 

methodology had the potential to impact the participation of the school districts in two ways: 

• Decrease school-level response. A field representative contacted schools in each school district 

individually. If a school requested approval by the school district as a condition for participation, 

and the school district refused, all of the schools in the district could become nonrespondents. In 

the past, many schools completed their questionnaire before the school district had a chance to 

refuse. 

• Increase school participation. By sending people with extensive knowledge of the area and good 

communication skills to the schools and districts, the participation rate within schools could 

increase. 

Since the impact of the new methodology was unknown, two approaches to deal with school districts 

were implemented. First, school districts that were in the sample in the past and had special procedures 

for allowing participation, or were known to have research applications with deadlines before the field 

period would begin, were identified. These were referred to as “special districts” and efforts were made to 

contact them for approval prior to the field period. These efforts are documented in “Appendix L. Report 

on Results of Special Contact Districts.” 

Second, to better understand how districts would respond to precontact and what implications it would 

have on the cost and timing of SASS, a small experiment was embedded in this implementation of SASS. 

Three of the 12 Census Bureau Regional Offices were selected to participate in this experiment. All of the 

school districts in these areas, except the “special districts,” were assigned either to the test group or the 

control group. Those in the test group were called prior to the field period to determine if they had any 

research requirements or paperwork that must be completed before a field representative could visit their 

schools. If they did have requirements, efforts were made to meet them and gain approval prior to the 

field period. During the survey, field representatives kept detailed logs of their efforts in completing data 

collection at the schools in each of these districts, in order to provide data to ascertain the impact of the 

precontacts. The results of the experiment are covered in “Appendix M. School District Experiment 

Findings.” 

Early Detection of Out-of-Scope Schools 

In previous administrations of SASS, schools’ self-reported grade ranges, addresses, and/or number of 

teachers differed from the variables recorded on the Common Core of Data (CCD). These differences 

impact whether a school was in-scope or out-of-scope for SASS (i.e., eligible for SASS). In previous 

SASS administrations, these discrepancies were identified during post-data collection processing. 

Identifying these discrepancies during processing delayed the final completion of previous 

administrations of SASS. To reduce processing time and burden on out-of-scope schools, the Census 

Bureau reengineered the process to start with the use of the SASS Teacher Listing instrument that 

determined if a school was in-scope or out-of-scope. Details on the SASS Teacher Listing instrument are 

covered in chapter 5. 

Early Start to the Teacher Survey 

In previous administrations of SASS, the Teacher Listing Form was mailed to schools in order to obtain a 

list of teachers’ names and additional information on the teachers’ subject matter and grades taught, fulltime/part-time status, race/ethnicity, experience level (whether in first 3 years of teaching or not), and 

whether they taught students with limited-English proficiency. Once enough Teacher Listing Forms were 

received and keyed, the information was used to sample teachers and mail the appropriate teacher 

questionnaires. Mailout of teacher questionnaires occurred in waves, with the first wave occurring several 
 Chapter 2. Changes in SASS Design, Content, and Methodology From 1999–2000 to 2003–04 41

weeks after the other survey forms were mailed. Follow-up of the teacher questionnaires continued 

through the end of the school year. The Census Bureau reengineered the process by having the field 

representative obtain Teacher Listing Form information as early as possible, and key the teacher names 

and information into CAPI, which then selected the teachers for each school, enabling the teacher 

questionnaires to be distributed much earlier than in previous administrations of SASS. The data 

collection was substantially completed by February 2004. 

Promotional Materials 

To encourage response, the 2003–04 SASS used several promotional materials, including brochures, 

pens, and CD-ROMs. The brochures, which contained summaries of the results from the 1999–2000 

SASS, were provided to the school’s principal during the first meeting at the school. The purpose of the 

brochures was to emphasize to educators the importance of their participation in SASS. Public schools 

were given A Brief Profile of America’s Public Schools (NCES 2003-418) and private schools were given 

A Brief Profile of America’s Private Schools (NCES 2003-417). All schools also were given an 

informational brochure, Schools and Staffing Survey: 2003–04 (NCES 2003-409), and a CD-ROM 

containing the Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2002. 

Individual respondents (i.e., principals, teachers, and library media center specialists) were provided pens 

inscribed with the “Schools and Staffing Survey” and the SASS website. 

Internet Reporting Option 

There was no internet reporting option for the 2003–04 SASS. The 1999–2000 SASS offered an internet 

reporting option for the School Library Media Center Questionnaire. 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
43 

Chapter 3. Preparation for the 2003–04 SASS 

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the U.S. Census Bureau continually work to 

improve questionnaires and procedures for the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). Prior to the 

administration of the 2003–04 SASS, the survey and methodology were tested iteratively and improved. 

Methodology changes were based on experience conducting previous SASS studies and on debriefings 

conducted with Census Bureau field staff (field representatives). Decisions on revisions to items were 

informed by a number of sources, including qualitative research, item response rates from previous 

surveys, results of reinterview studies, and review of data issues from previous studies. A summary of the 

research conducted is presented in exhibit 1, and the full reports are included as appendixes C through J. 

Exhibit 1. Summary of research conducted for 2003–04 SASS 

Title Methodology 

Study 

period Respondent(s) Key areas of focus 

Report on 2001–02 SASS Pretest 

and Recommendations for 2003–04 

SASS 

Field test 10/2001–

3/2002 

ALL Methodology 

Report of Findings From a Test on 

the SASS Teacher Listing 

Instrument 

Field test/ 

Telephone 

1/2003 ALL Methodology 

Report on SASS Cognitive 

Interviews of Teachers in Two 

Panels 

In-person 

cognitive interview 

12/2002–

1/2003 

Teacher Most areas—working 

conditions, certification, 

degrees 

Report on a Follow-up Cognitive 

Testing to the 2003–04 SASS 

Teacher Questionnaire 

Telephone 

cognitive interview 

3/2003 Teacher Teacher certification 

Report on SASS Focus Groups Focus groups 3/2003 Public school 

and principal 

Overcrowding, time 

use, staffing, school 

lunch, and Title 1 

Results of the Cognitive Pretest on 

SASS Public School Questions 

In-person 

cognitive interview 

3/2003–

4/2003 

Public school All except some counts 

Report on a Follow-up Cognitive 

Testing to Select 2003–04 SASS 

Principal Items 

Telephone 

cognitive interview 

3/2003–

4/2003 

Public school 

principal 

Time use, professional 

development, and 

performance standards 

Results of the Cognitive Pretest on 

SASS School Library Media Center 

Questions 

Telephone 

cognitive interview 

3/2003 Library Information literacy, 

computers, staffing, and 

certification 

Research on New SASS Methodology 

SASS Field Pretest 

For the 1999–2000 SASS, selected schools were sent questionnaires by mail. Nonrespondents were 

contacted first by telephone (using computer-assisted telephone interviewing [CATI] instruments for most 

questionnaires) and ultimately by field representatives. In an attempt to shorten the data collection period 
44 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

for SASS and increase response rates, a new methodology was proposed for the 2003–04 SASS. The new 

methodology was essentially a shift to an in-person field-based methodology that would begin with a 

personal visit to each school by a field representative, with all subsequent follow-up conducted by the 

field representative. The purpose of the pretest was to see if this new approach was advantageous in terms 

of timing, response, data quality, and cost. The field test was conducted between October 2001 and March 

2002. A complete description of the methodology and detailed findings can be found in “Appendix C. 

Report on 2001–02 SASS Pretest and Recommendations for 2003–04 SASS.” 

Methods 

Three Census Bureau Regional Offices—Seattle, Atlanta, and Denver—were selected to participate in the 

pretest. A total of 29 field representatives across the three Regional Offices were trained on the 

procedures to conduct the SASS interviews. Over 300 schools were selected to participate in this test. An 

advance letter was sent to the schools that were selected to participate informing them that a field 

representative would contact them. Field representatives attempted to contact schools via telephone and 

gain the school’s participation in SASS. Field representatives also returned to schools to pick up 

completed questionnaires. A debriefing was held at the end of the field pretest. The response rates are 

presented in table 1. 

Table 1. Response rates (in percent) for the SASS field pretest, by regional office: 2001–02 

Regional office response rates 

Questionnaire 

Total 

response rates Seattle Atlanta Denver

Teacher Listing Form 88.1 83.8 91.5 89.2

Principal 84.4 81.2 88.8 83.2

School 83.0 77.8 88.0 83.3

School Library Media Center 84.8 78.9 87.0 88.5

Teacher 86.7 87.4 92.6 80.2

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 2001–02 Pretest. 

Key Findings 

• Surveys potentially could be completed 6 to 8 months earlier using the new methods. 

• The response rates for schools in the pretest were lower than the rates achieved on the 1999–2000 

SASS, but higher for teachers. The lower school-level rates occurred because several schools that 

may have participated in a full-scale SASS refused to participate in the pretest. 

• There was no clear improvement in data quality. However, there were indications that the data 

from the Teacher Listing Form were less problematic and that a few questions on the other SASS 

questionnaires may have had better item response rates. 

Test of SASS Teacher Listing Instrument 

In previous administrations of SASS, screening of schools to determine if they were in-scope or out-ofscope was embedded in the Teacher Listing Form and school questionnaires. The screening process 

sometimes yielded inaccurate or inconsistent information about the school’s status. For example, a private 

school might report that it is public, because it receives tuition money from a public school district on 

behalf of some students. The methodology itself added significant time to the data collection. Although 

the SASS operation typically started in October, the last teacher questionnaires were mailed out in the 

spring, leaving little time in the school year for nonresponse follow-up. In an attempt to improve the 

screening process and reduce the time required to conduct SASS, a computer-assisted personal 

interviewing (CAPI) instrument, called the SASS Teacher Listing instrument, was developed that could 
Chapter 3. Preparation for the 2003–04 SASS 45 

screen schools and select a sample of teachers from eligible schools. The instrument was designed to 

screen schools by phone for in-scope and out-of-scope status. Next, the field representative was instructed 

to set up an appointment with the school to collect the Teacher Listing Form data. The field representative 

could then key these data into the instrument and a sample of teachers was selected. This allowed the field 

representative to sample teachers and hand questionnaires to the selected teachers all in one visit to the 

school. In order to verify that the SASS Teacher Listing instrument and procedures would work in a field 

setting, a two-part test was conducted prior to the full-scale SASS administration. 

The instrument and procedures were modified based on findings from the test. The test was conducted in 

early January 2003. Detailed information on the study can be found in “Appendix D. Report of Findings 

From a Test on the SASS Teacher Listing Instrument.” 

Methods 

One hundred and eighty schools in states likely to be problematic9

 (Oklahoma, Montana, and South 

Dakota) and the Washington, DC metropolitan area (Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, 

and Maryland) were selected to participate in this test. For details on sampling, please refer to “Chapter 4. 

SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures.” In order to ensure that a variety of scenarios 

were encountered (e.g., merged or split schools), some of the schools selected had their sampling frame 

information altered (grade ranges or enrollment counts were modified to create discrepancies). Following 

normal SASS procedures, an advance letter was sent to schools prior to interviewing. Five field 

representatives and members of Census Bureau telephone interviewing staff were trained to administer 

the SASS Teacher Listing instrument and conduct a debriefing with respondents about their experience. A 

standardized debriefing form was used to structure the feedback. Twenty cases in the DC area were 

selected for in-person visits. All other interviews were conducted by telephone. Daily debriefing sessions 

were held at the Census Bureau to identify issues and solutions during the test period. 

Key Findings 

• The instrument was not able to handle breaks in grade range. For example, a high school that had 

a kindergarten would have needed to be reported as 9–12. It was recommended that grade range 

handling be improved to allow this flexibility. 

• The instrument moved slowly during the keying operation. It was recommended that 

improvements be made to the performance of the Teacher Listing Form portion of the instrument. 

• The instrument was successful at identifying in-scope and out-of-scope schools and collecting 

teacher lists from schools. It was recommended that a modified instrument be used in the fullscale SASS. 

• The test indicated that Regional Offices should conduct a prefield clean-up operation of the 

listing file before field interviewing begins. 

• The test identified many procedural recommendations: 

o Training for field representatives should be modified to improve their understanding of how 

to use the instrument and contact schools. 

o Field representatives should review every Teacher Listing Form with a knowledgeable person 

at the school before keying the form into the instrument. During the pretest, field 

representatives did not check the quality of the Teacher Listing Form before leaving the 

school, which led to the inclusion of nonteachers in the sample. 

 

9

 In previous SASS administrations, it was more common to find a discrepancy between grade ranges on the 

Common Core of Data (CCD) and actual grade ranges identified in SASS for schools in Oklahoma, Montana, and 

South Dakota than it was for schools in other states. 
46 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

o Greater flexibility should be built into the instrument so that field representatives could 

change demographic fields such as name and address during the interview. 

Research on the Teacher Questionnaire 

In an effort to develop questionnaire items that would accurately capture teachers’ responses to the key 

questionnaire items, Census Bureau analysts conducted a series of cognitive interviews (such as “thinkaloud” sessions) to identify problems that could be corrected prior to the survey’s official release. The 

results from this first study were used to make revisions, and a second, small-scale study was conducted 

to test some of these key revisions. 

Study One 

An initial round of cognitive interviews was conducted on key items from the teacher questionnaire from 

December 2002 through February 2003. The study evaluated some items from the 1999–2000 

administration of SASS that were deemed problematic, as well as new items that were being considered 

for addition to the 2003–04 administration. Details on methodology and findings can be found in 

“Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels.” 

The test included items on 

• background and work status; 

• class organization; 

• degrees obtained and their source (education program); 

• certification and preparation for teaching; 

• working conditions; 

• professional development; 

• resources and assessment of students; and 

• school climate. 

In addition, the study tested a different approach to the certification section that was included in the 1999–

2000 teacher questionnaire. The series was revised to ask first about the teacher’s certification and content 

area rather than asking for the teacher’s main assignment first followed by items on certification status in 

the assignment area. All other items were tested as written in the 1999–2000 teacher questionnaire. 

Methods 

Due to the number of questions and subquestions in these sections, the test was conducted in two panels. 

Both panels included sections on background, work status, and working conditions. Panel A contained 

items on class organization, educational background, certification, and preparation for teaching. Panel B 

contained additional items on professional development, school climate, resources, and assessment of 

students. There were 16 participants in panel A and 14 participants in panel B for a total of 30 

participants. 

Interviewers followed a protocol but were free to vary from the protocol as necessary. The protocol 

utilized a variety of cognitive techniques, including think-aloud, probing, and retrospective probes. 

Respondents received a cash incentive for their participation in the study. 
Chapter 3. Preparation for the 2003–04 SASS 47 

Key Findings 

• Confusion about certification items should be resolved by asking respondent to first identify their 

school level (e.g., elementary or secondary) and then identify the area of specialization or 

endorsement. 

• The items concerning hours worked at the school should be revised to better capture how teachers 

spend their time at their school each week. This includes adding additional instructions that 

clarify which specific activities to include in the hours reported for each of these items. 

• The items on standardized testing should be revised for content and worded more clearly so that 

respondents can accurately reflect testing in schools. 

Study Two 

The teacher questionnaire was revised based on recommendations from the previous study. As a result, a 

small-scale test was conducted on some of the key revisions. Complete findings and methodology can be 

found in “Appendix F. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to the 2003–04 SASS Teacher 

Questionnaire.” 

Methods 

This research was conducted through telephone interviewing during March 2003. Schools were contacted 

by phone and asked to nominate a teacher to participate in the study. A questionnaire was then faxed to 

the school and an appointment was set for the researcher to call the teacher directly. A concurrent 

interview was conducted by phone following a structured protocol. The interviewer was free to deviate 

from the protocol as required. The form contained revised items on certification, preparation for teaching, 

and source of degree. The initial proposed certification questions were administered to three respondents. 

The form was revised based on these interviews and an additional six interviews were conducted with this 

second form. Interviews lasted 15 to 25 minutes. Teachers were offered a copy of the Schools and 

Staffing Survey, 1999–2000: Overview of the Data for Public, Private, Public Charter, and Bureau of 

Indian Affairs Elementary and Secondary Schools(NCES 2002-313) as an incentive for participation. 

Key Findings 

• Certification items should be revised to focus on certification areas instead of endorsements, 

which caused confusion. 

• The research indicated that teachers have a difficult time recalling their specific certification. 

• Certification requirements varied by state and changed from year to year within states. 

• Items on the types of assessments taken by teachers and the results of those tests suffered from 

recall issues and order effects. 

Research on the School and Principal Questionnaires 

New items on principal’s time use, paraprofessionals, hiring and dismissal of teachers, and testing were 

proposed for the 2003–04 administration of SASS. Additionally, items on overcrowding and attendance 

were found to be unreliable in a reinterview study conducted on the previous SASS administration. (For 

more details see “Appendix H. Response Variance in the 1999–2000 Schools and Staffing Survey,” in the 

1999–2000 Schools and Staffing Survey Data File User’s Manual, NCES 2004-303.) A two-pronged 

approach was used to study these issues. First, a series of exploratory focus groups was conducted to look 

at the constructs of interest. The focus groups were followed by small-scale, questionnaire specific, 

cognitive research. 
48 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Focus Groups 

Traditionally, SASS has used techniques such as cognitive interviewing and behavior coding to validate 

and revise existing questions. The weakness of these methods is that they start from the researcher’s 

initial question wording. For this test, focus groups were conducted with the target population to learn 

how they think about and verbalize the constructs before the SASS questions were presented to them. The 

research focused on the proposed new series of items as well as existing questions on overcrowding, the 

free- and reduced-price school lunch program, staffing, average daily attendance, Title I programs, and 

participation in SASS. For details on methodology and complete findings, see “Appendix G. Report on 

SASS Focus Groups.” 

Methods 

Four focus groups were conducted in March 2003 to understand respondents’ perspectives on these 

issues. Two groups contained principals and two other groups were comprised of what SASS defines as 

“other knowledgeable persons” (usually school secretaries). A trained facilitator moderated the focus 

groups. Participants were recruited from multiple school systems in the Baltimore-Washington 

metropolitan area. Participants were provided an incentive for participating in the research. 

Key Findings 

• Gaining support from the district and providing an incentive are likely to increase participation. 

• The term “paraprofessional” was not interpreted universally. 

• As indicators of overcrowding in a school, participants recommended asking whether 

noninstructional areas are used for instruction or portable facilities are used for classroom space 

and how many teachers are without a classroom. 

• Some aspects of teacher hiring and firing are handled at the district level and should be moved to 

that questionnaire. 

• Participants were not able to answer questions on the number of students eligible for the free- or 

reduced-price lunch program. However, participants could easily provide the number of students 

receiving free- or reduced-price lunch. 

• Principals are more accurately able to provide information on Title I than other knowledgeable 

respondents, suggesting that these items should be moved to the principal questionnaire. 

School Questionnaire 

Questions for the school questionnaire were revised based on focus group findings. An additional study 

was conducted to evaluate the revisions. The test used a modified version of the school questionnaire that 

omitted items on student and staffing counts by race. Interviews focused on the revised items related to 

average daily attendance, limited-English-proficiency students, and measures of school overcrowding as 

well as the pre-existing school questionnaire items. For complete methods and findings, please see 

“Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions.” 

Methods 

During March and April 2003, 12 cognitive style interviews with public school principals were 

conducted. A trained interviewer followed a protocol and utilized concurrent think-aloud and 

retrospective probing techniques for this study. Respondents received an incentive for participating in this 

study. 
Chapter 3. Preparation for the 2003–04 SASS 49 

Key Findings 

• Respondents were better able to report the school’s average daily attendance as a percentage than 

as the number of students present. 

• Emphasis on transitional grades led respondents to underreport the presence of kindergarten. 

• Guidelines for determining school capacity change over time, so the question should probe for 

specific measures, such as current capacity of the building, presence of temporary buildings, and 

number of classrooms. 

• Some items, such as drug and violence prevention programs, would be more appropriate on the 

principal questionnaire. 

• The series on academic intersessions should be revised to improve the reference period and 

clarify eligible populations. 

Principal Questionnaire 

Following the focus groups, items on state and district performance standards, time use, and professional 

development were revised. A small-scale test was conducted to ensure that respondents could accurately 

respond to the revised items. For complete details and findings, see “Appendix I. Report on a Follow-up 

Cognitive Testing to Select 2003–04 SASS Principal Items.” 

Methods 

In order to test proposed revisions to the principal questionnaire, a small-scale qualitative study was 

conducted during March 2003. Low and high performing schools were identified through state and 

district internet sites. Principals were contacted by phone and asked if they would be willing to participate 

in a brief telephone interview. A total of four principals agreed to participate in this study and set an 

appointment to talk with an interviewer (table 2). The study questions were faxed to principals in advance 

of the interview. At the scheduled times, the interviewer contacted the principals and asked them to read 

aloud and think-aloud as they answered each question. The interviewer probed following a protocol. 

Principals were sent a copy of the Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999–2000: Overview of the Data for 

Public, Private, Public Charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs Elementary and Secondary Schools (NCES 

2002-313) as an incentive for participation. This was a small-scale qualitative study, and caution should 

be used in interpreting the findings. 

Table 2. Respondent characteristics for principal questionnaire qualitative study: 2003 

Respondent State School type Performance on standards

1 Ohio Middle/high Low

2 Missouri Elementary Low

3 Arizona Elementary High

4 Missouri High High

SOURCE: Report on a Follow-Up Cognitive Testing to Select 2003–04 SASS Principal Items, U.S. Census Bureau, April 2003. 

Key Findings 

• The instruction to include time away from school in calculation of hours worked should be more 

apparent. 

• Nonprofessional development activities (e.g., coaching and serving as the department head) were 

included when answering about methods for providing time for professional development. 

• Respondents were able to understand and answer the items on state/district standards. 
50 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Research on the School Library Media Center Questionnaire 

In order to test proposed changes to the school library media center questionnaire, researchers conducted 

a small qualitative research study during March 2003. Complete details on the research can be found in 

“Appendix J. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS School Library Media Center Questions.” 

Methods 

Schools were contacted by phone and asked if their librarian would participate in the study. When contact 

was established with the school librarian, he or she was asked the following questions: 

• Are you familiar with the term information literacy? 

• What does information literacy mean to you? 

A questionnaire was then faxed to the school and an appointment was set for the researcher to call the 

librarian directly. A concurrent interview was conducted by phone following a structured protocol. The 

interviewer was free to deviate from the protocol as required. Interviews lasted 25 to 98 minutes. 

Librarians were offered a copy of the Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999–2000: Overview of the data for 

Public, Private, Public Charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs Elementary and Secondary Schools (NCES 

2002-313) as an incentive for participation. 

Key Findings 

• Respondents did not interpret the term “information literacy” in a uniform manner. 

• All respondents had trouble answering budget questions for computer hardware and audiovisual 

equipment. 

• Most respondents confused specific questions about information literacy in standardized testing 

with general standardized testing. 

• Some items in the scheduling table were either not applicable to respondents or needed 

clarification. 
51 

Chapter 4. SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection 

Procedures 

This chapter discusses how the sampling frame was created and how cases were sampled for the 2003–04 

Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). The first major section discusses the creation of the frame for public 

and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools, including schools deleted, added, and otherwise 

edited. Next, the public and BIA-funded school sampling procedure is described. This is followed by the 

district sampling, which is simply a by-product of the school sampling. The next major section covers the 

private school frame creation and sampling. The final major section discusses teacher sampling. 

Public and BIA-Funded School Sampling Frame 

and Sample Selection 

Public and BIA Frame Creation 

The foundation for the 2003–04 SASS public and BIA-funded school frame was the 2001–02 Common 

Core of Data (CCD) file. CCD is based on survey data collected annually by the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) from each state education agency. For the 2001–02 school year, state 

education agencies used their administrative record data to report information for 97,623 schools. NCES 

and the state education agencies worked cooperatively to ensure comparability between the elements 

reported. CCD is believed to be the most complete public school listing available. The frame includes 

regular and nonregular schools (special education, alternative, vocational, or technical), public charter 

schools, and BIA-funded schools. 

Due to an accelerated survey schedule, the preliminary 2001–02 CCD file was used as the basis for the 

SASS sampling frame rather than the final version. When the final CCD file became available, the two 

files were compared and any major updates were added to the frame. The updates that were added 

consisted of school locale codes and public charter school flags. 

In 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 

grades (1–12) or the ungraded equivalent and is located in one or more buildings. It was possible for two 

or more schools to share the same building; in this case they were treated as different schools if they had 

different administrations (i.e., principals). 

The SASS definition of a school was generally similar to CCD with some exceptions. CCD included 

some schools that did not offer teacher-provided classroom instruction that included academic subjects in 

grades 1–12 or the equivalent ungraded. In some instances, schools in CCD were essentially 

administrative units that may have overseen entities that provided classroom instruction, or the school on 

CCD may have provided funding and oversight only. SASS collapsed CCD schools where the location, 

address, and phone number were the same on the assumption that the respondent would consider this to 

be all one school. (Further discussion of this issue is provided later in this Public and BIA Frame Creation 

section—see the “School Collapsing” subsection.) CCD required only that schools have an assigned 

administrator, but since SASS allowed schools to define themselves, Census Bureau staff observed that 

schools generally reported as one entity in situations where the administration of two or more schools on 

CCD was the same. SASS was confined to the 50 states plus the District of Columbia and excluded 

territories and overseas schools. 
52 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

To illustrate, some examples of the differences between SASS and CCD are presented below: 

• In California, CCD listed the special education program at each county office of education as a 

school, whereas SASS tried to determine which special education programs were operated by 

each office. 

• Homebound school programs that are publicly-supported were included in CCD but not SASS. 

• Schools overseas that are operated by the Department of Defense (DoD) were included in CCD 

but not in SASS. 

• Multiple CCD schools at the same address and with the same phone number were considered one 

school in SASS. 

• Multiple CCD schools each with a unique administrator who reports to the high school principal 

were considered one school in SASS if the respondent said the school covered multiple CCD 

grade ranges. 

Frame Deletions 

Since CCD and SASS differ in scope and their definition of a school, some records were deleted, added, 

or modified in order to provide better coverage and a more efficient sample design for SASS. The 

following types of school records were deleted from the CCD during the creation of the SASS sampling 

frame:

• There were 1,413 schools that were closed as of the 2001–02 school year and deleted from the 

frame. These schools were identified by the status code found on the CCD file. They are carried 

on the CCD for one additional year for completeness but are clearly designated as not operating. 

• There were 1,851 schools located outside the 50 states and the District of Columbia that were 

deleted. These schools were identified as having a Federal Information Processing Standards 

(FIPS) state code of 58 (overseas DoD), 60 (American Samoa), 66 (Guam), 69 (Northern 

Marianas), 72 (Puerto Rico), or 78 (U.S. Virgin Islands). 

• There were 250 Home School or Homebound school programs that were deleted. These schools 

and programs were clerically identified from a list of schools from CCD that had “HOME 

SCHOOL” or “HOMEBOUND” in the name. Since they did not provide classroom instruction, 

they were not eligible for SASS. 

• Twelve BIA-funded dormitories that were listed on CCD as schools were deleted. These schools 

were identified by comparing the 1999–2000 SASS BIA-funded schools to the current CCD list 

of BIA-funded schools. These dormitories exist in support of BIA-funded schools but do not 

actually provide instruction. 

• Ten regular public schools that were also listed as BIA-funded schools were deleted. These 

schools were identified during the above BIA comparison. Since they were duplicated between 

the BIA-funded list and the state-funded list, the public school record was deleted to ensure each 

case would have only one chance of selection. 

• Twenty-four schools reported as closed or not providing classroom instruction were deleted when 

contacted for other reasons, such as to obtain grade range where it was missing. 

• There were 124 school records that were actually administrative units in California and 

Pennsylvania that were deleted. Schools operated by these administrative units were subsequently 

added as described in the upcoming subsection on frame additions. These records were clerically 

identified based on previous experience. Pennsylvania records that had the term “Penn 

Department of Data Services” in the school name were deleted. California records were deleted if 

they had “County Office of Education” as part of the district name or “Special Education,” 

“Juvenile,” “Community,” “Alternative,” or “Opportunity” as part of the school name and were 

associated with a county office of education on the district file. 
Chapter 4. SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 53 

o These records were deleted from the school file because they were not schools but were 

offices that oversaw certain types of education within the county. This type of education is 

often provided at a number of locations within a particular county, but not necessarily at 

schools listed on CCD. To avoid confusion, these records were taken off the school file, 

contacted by phone, and requested to provide a list of the schools they oversaw. These lists 

were subsequently matched to CCD. If any of the schools from these lists were not already on 

CCD, they were added at that time. 

• There were 1,361 schools that offered kindergarten or less as the highest grade that were deleted. 

These schools were identified using the school’s highest grade offered as provided on CCD. 

School Collapsing 

There were 2,872 school records that were “collapsed” into other school records at the building level and 

deleted. Past data collections have shown that there are sampled schools that report survey data for the 

entire building when there is one head principal instead of reporting only for the part of the school that 

has been sampled. This issue occurs most often in certain states, in rural areas, or in schools that offer 

grades K–12 in the same building with one head principal. The problem lies in the conflicting definition 

of a school as held by the schools themselves and as reported by states to CCD. The schools often 

consider themselves one cohesive unit while the state does not. For accounting or other administrative 

purposes, the states artificially split these schools by grade level and report them as two or three separate 

schools. 

If a CCD school within the associated school districts is selected for SASS, then the school often reports 

for all of grades K–12. This has caused substantial overreporting in SASS reports of state aggregates, 

such as enrollment and teacher counts, because these schools were sampled based on the particular grade 

range as reported on CCD but these schools then responded based on a much broader grade range 

(matching how they perceived themselves). In other words, these schools had unrecognized multiple 

chances of selection for sampling. The unrecognized chances of selection refer to the fact that regardless 

of which CCD record in the building was selected, the school was likely to report for the whole. Thus, the 

entity that reports could be selected via multiple CCD records. In the past, SASS data were edited after 

the field data collection to conform to the CCD grade range. This method was costly and time-consuming. 

Furthermore, many school respondents have reported they do not keep records at the school level as 

reported on CCD, making it difficult for them to respond to SASS in this manner. For this reason, it was 

decided for 2003–04 SASS to collapse the CCD records whenever it was believed that this problem was 

likely to occur. 

The Census Bureau and NCES jointly determined a set of rules for school collapsing to apply during 

frame creation. In order to make the sampling frame more consistent with the school’s actual grade range, 

these potential problem schools were identified and collapsed to the appropriate building level. When the 

school records were collapsed together, the student and teacher counts, grade range, and name as reported 

to CCD were all modified to reflect the change. The complete set of collapsing rules and the results of the 

procedure are presented in “Appendix K. Details of SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection 

Procedures.” 

Frame Additions 

The following types of school records were added to the original CCD while creating the SASS sampling 

frame: 
54 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

• Thirteen records that were listed on CCD as districts with no associated school records were 

determined to be newly-opened schools, based on the name, teacher, and enrollment counts, and 

were added. 

• A total of 520 school records, primarily alternative, special education, and juvenile justice 

facilities, identified by contacting the deleted county or regional administrative units in California 

(415 schools) and Pennsylvania (105 schools), were also added. 

After the addition, deletion, and collapsing of school records, the SASS school sampling frame consisted 

of 87,764 traditional public, 2,309 public charter, and 166 BIA-funded schools. From this point on, this is 

considered the 2003–04 SASS public school sampling frame. Table 3 shows the totals by state during 

each step in the frame creation process. 

Table 3. Total number of public and BIA-funded school records during frame creation, by each 

step in frame creation process and state: 2003–04 

State 

Preliminary 

2001–02 

CCD1

 file 

After deletions 

(ineligible and 

duplicate 

school records)

After additions 

(Pennsylvania and 

California eligible 

school records) 

Final public 

school universe 

(after collapsing 

procedure)

 Total 97,623 92,578 93,111 90,239

 

BIA-funded schools2 189 166 166 166

Domestic DoD schools3 59 58 58 58

Alabama 1,544 1,515 1,515 1,507

Alaska 524 521 521 512

Arizona 1,863 1,774 1,785 1,760

Arkansas 1,164 1,144 1,144 948

California 8,974 8,769 9,184 9,152

 

Colorado 1,680 1,623 1,623 1,544

Connecticut 1,259 1,039 1,039 1,036

Delaware 202 194 194 193

District of Columbia 200 196 196 196

Florida 3,453 3,352 3,352 3,343

 

Georgia 1,990 1,963 1,963 1,957

Hawaii 279 279 279 279

Idaho 699 680 680 670

Illinois 4,418 4,234 4,234 4,111

Indiana 1,992 1,955 1,955 1,947

 

Iowa 1,543 1,499 1,499 1,322

Kansas 1,447 1,423 1,423 1,382

Kentucky 1,550 1,427 1,427 1,405

Louisiana 1,559 1,517 1,517 1,514

Maine 717 705 705 703

 

Maryland 1,394 1,359 1,359 1,358

Massachusetts 1,933 1,849 1,849 1,843

Michigan 4,065 3,895 3,895 3,849

Minnesota 2,461 2,307 2,307 2,122

Mississippi 1,049 1,034 1,034 1,032

See notes at end of table. 
Chapter 4. SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 55 

Table 3. Total number of public and BIA-funded school records during frame creation, by each 

step in frame creation process and state: 2003–04—Continued 

State 

Preliminary 

2001–02 

CCD1

 file 

After deletions 

(ineligible and 

duplicate 

school records)

After additions 

(Pennsylvania and 

California eligible 

school records) 

Final public 

school universe 

(after collapsing 

procedure)

Missouri 2,391 2,326 2,326 2,027

Montana 885 869 869 583

Nebraska 1,370 1,279 1,279 1,107

Nevada 532 523 523 511

New Hampshire 530 461 461 436

 

New Jersey 2,453 2,389 2,389 2,389

New Mexico 798 779 779 737

New York 4,386 4,281 4,281 4,281

North Carolina 2,252 2,232 2,232 2,229

North Dakota 580 562 562 436

 

Ohio 3,954 3,878 3,878 3,841

Oklahoma 1,839 1,806 1,808 1,484

Oregon 1,320 1,300 1,300 1,293

Pennsylvania 3,285 3,228 3,333 3,333

Rhode Island 336 320 320 320

 

South Carolina 1,160 1,135 1,135 1,134

South Dakota 777 756 756 514

Tennessee 1,664 1,636 1,636 1,636

Texas 7,931 7,608 7,608 7,493

Utah 797 789 789 787

 

Vermont 395 356 356 355

Virginia 2,115 2,066 2,066 2,064

Washington 2,351 2,165 2,165 2,138

West Virginia 841 814 814 813

Wisconsin 2,228 2,156 2,156 2,036

Wyoming 396 387 387 356

 

Other jurisdictions4

 1,851 0 0 0 1

 CCD refers to the Common Core of Data. 

2

 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

3

 DoD refers to the U.S. Department of Defense. 4

 Other jurisdictions include American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local 

Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2001–02, version 1a; Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Frame File” 

before, during, and after frame creation activities, 2003–04. 

Frame Corrections 

As mentioned above, the preliminary version of the 2001–02 CCD file was used as the basis for the 

2003–04 SASS sampling frame. Using this file required the correction of variables necessary for 

sampling or conducting the survey, such as grade range, enrollment, teacher count, enrollment by race, 

school county code, school name, address information, and phone number. The following section outlines 

the steps taken to correct those variables. 
56 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

If the school’s grade range was missing from the CCD file, three methods were applied, in the following 

hierarchical order, to resolve the issue: 

• taking data from earlier CCD files or SASS data; 

• assigning a generic grade range based on the school’s name; or 

• calling the school for clarification. NOTE: During this calling process a few schools were 

discovered to be closed or otherwise out-of-scope and were deleted from the sampling frame, as 

described in the prior “Frame Deletions” subsection. 

The student and teacher counts were imputed for those schools missing this information by applying one 

of the methods listed below, in the following hierarchical order: 

• pulling information from previous CCD data for that school; 

• extrapolating from current CCD student-teacher ratios and averages for the state; or 

• using data that were collected in the 1999–2000 SASS for that particular school. 

NOTE: BIA-funded schools as well as the state education agencies in Massachusetts and Tennessee did 

not report teacher counts to CCD for any schools in 2001–02. 

The enrollment by race information was used to identify the schools in which American Indian or Alaska 

Native students composed at least 19.5 percent of the enrollment. These schools were sampled at a 

different rate than other public schools, so they needed to be identified during the SASS frame creation. 

These schools were identified using one of the following methods: 

• examining the current CCD enrollment by race information, if present; 

• examining previous CCD enrollment by race information; or 

• reviewing the characteristics of the surrounding schools. If most of the surrounding schools in the 

county were flagged as having a high American Indian or Alaska Native enrollment, the school in 

question was also flagged. 

Another important component used in conducting SASS was the school’s physical location. The sampled 

schools were grouped by location and then broken into smaller segments (workloads) and assigned to an 

individual field representative to contact. The county information was not available on the school file, but 

was on the school district file. The county information was copied onto the record of the appropriate 

schools and then compared to the school’s location ZIP code. This comparison was done because it is 

possible for the school and its associated district to be in different counties. If the county information was 

not valid for that particular ZIP code, it was corrected to reflect the school’s physical location. 

In instances where the school name implied considerably fewer grades than it actually offered, the name 

was modified to eliminate inappropriate descriptions. These schools were identified by comparing the 

school’s name to the grades currently offered. If the name differed considerably from the grade range 

(e.g., the name contained “High School,” but the grades offered were K–12), then the name was modified 

accordingly. 

Due to time constraints, missing address information and phone numbers were filled in after the school 

sample was selected. These fields were not crucial to the selection of the school sample. 
Chapter 4. SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 57 

District Frame Creation 

The public school district frame consisted of those districts that were operating within the United States 

and that oversaw at least one school on the 2003–04 SASS school universe file. The 2001–02 CCD 

included 17,276 district records, of which 16,042 were presumed to be eligible for SASS according to 

these rules. The following types of records were deleted from the 2001–02 CCD district file: 

• the 18 districts listed on the CCD file that operated outside of the United States; 

• the 24 BIA regional offices that did not meet the SASS definition of a school district—while they 

do provide funding to the schools, they often are not involved in hiring, firing, or setting policies; 

and 

• districts on the CCD file that were presumed not to operate schools. Comparing the district file to 

the school file identified these records. There were 1,192 districts without at least one 

corresponding school that were deleted from the file. 

Table 4 shows the state totals for all districts by state during the frame creation. 

Table 4. Total number of public school districts (includes public charter and single school 

districts), by frame creation stage and state: 2003–04 

State 

Preliminary 

2001–02 CCD1 file

After deletions (outlying, 

closed, and BIA2 districts)

Final public district universe 

(ineligible districts deleted)

 Total 17,276 17,234 16,042

BIA districts2 24 0 0

Alabama 133 133 133

Alaska 55 55 55

Arizona 531 531 492

Arkansas 338 338 325

California 1,058 1,058 1,049

Colorado 202 202 189

Connecticut 198 198 193

Delaware 30 30 30

District of Columbia 34 34 34

Florida 73 73 73

Georgia 183 183 183

Hawaii 1 1 1

Idaho 116 116 115

Illinois 1,063 1,063 1,009

Indiana 328 328 308

Iowa 389 389 371

Kansas 304 304 304

Kentucky 198 198 180

Louisiana 88 88 88

Maine 325 325 236

See notes at end of table. 
58 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table 4. Total number of public school districts (includes public charter and single school 

districts), by frame creation stage and state: 2003–04—Continued 

State 

Preliminary 

2001–02 CCD1 file

After deletions (outlying, 

closed, and BIA2 districts)

Final public district universe 

(ineligible districts deleted)

Maryland 24 24 24

Massachusetts 480 480 373

Michigan 806 806 794

Minnesota 500 500 456

Mississippi 162 162 162

Missouri 530 530 530

Montana 532 532 378

Nebraska 698 698 550

Nevada 18 18 18

New Hampshire 257 257 164

New Jersey 679 679 642

New Mexico 89 89 89

New York 788 788 763

North Carolina 219 219 213

North Dakota 275 275 259

Ohio 825 825 775

Oklahoma 568 568 544

Oregon 221 221 204

Pennsylvania 695 695 679

Rhode Island 41 41 40

South Carolina 107 107 105

South Dakota 199 199 187

Tennessee 138 138 138

Texas 1,256 1,256 1,233

Utah 46 46 42

Vermont 354 354 271

Virginia 207 207 194

Washington 305 305 296

West Virginia 57 57 57

Wisconsin 452 452 437

Wyoming 59 59 57

Other jurisdictions3

 18 0 0 1

 CCD refers to the Common Core of Data. 

2

 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

3

 Other jurisdictions include American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands. 

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 District Frame,” 2003–04; Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2001–02, version 

1a. 

Sample Allocation 

The goals for the public and BIA-funded school sample of the 2003–04 SASS were similar to those of the 

1999–2000 SASS and were as follows: 
Chapter 4. SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 59 

• Use the 2001–02 CCD school file as the sample frame with exceptions noted in the previous 

“Public and BIA Frame Creation” section. 

• Produce state estimates of public school characteristics. 

• Produce state/elementary and state/secondary estimates of the number of public schools and 

associated public school characteristics. 

• Produce national estimates of combined-grade public schools, meaning schools that offer grades 

that span both elementary and secondary levels. 

• Produce national estimates by various geographic (e.g., region and locale) and school 

characteristics for public schools. 

• Minimize the overlap between the 2003–04 SASS and the 2004 follow-up of the Education 

Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002) in order to reduce respondent burden. 

• Oversample schools with 19.5 percent or greater American Indian or Alaska Native enrollment, 

in order to be able to produce national estimates of these schools and selected school 

characteristics. 

• Produce national and regional estimates of public charter schools and selected school 

characteristics. 

• Select all BIA-funded schools. 

Methodology 

The SASS sample is not a simple random sample, but rather is a stratified probability proportionate to 

size sample. The first level of stratification for public and BIA-funded schools was school type: (A) BIAfunded schools were selected with certainty (automatically in sample); (B) schools with high American 

Indian or Alaska Native student enrollment (schools with 19.5 percent or more American Indian or 

Alaska Native students); (C) schools in Delaware, Maryland, Florida, Nevada, and West Virginia, where 

at least one school from each district in the state was selected as described in the following “Sample 

Selection” section; (D) public charter schools; and (E) all other schools. Schools falling into more than 

one category were assigned to types A, B, D, C, and E in that order. 

The second level of stratification varied within school type. All of the type A schools were selected for 

the sample so no additional stratification was needed. Type B schools were stratified by state (Arizona, 

California, Montana, New Mexico, Washington, the remaining Western states, Minnesota, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, the remaining Midwestern states, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and the remaining states 

except Alaska10). Type C schools were stratified first by state and then school district. Type D schools 

were stratified by state (Arizona, California, Colorado, the remaining Western states, Michigan, Ohio, 

Wisconsin, the remaining Midwestern states, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, the remaining Southern 

states, Pennsylvania, and the remaining Northeastern states). The type E schools were stratified by state 

(all remaining states including the District of Columbia). 

Each of school types B through E was then stratified by grade level (elementary, secondary, and 

combined) as defined below: 

Elementary = lowest grade ≤ 6 and highest grade ≤ 8;

Secondary = lowest grade ≥ 7 and highest grade ≤ 12; and 

Combined = lowest grade ≤ 6 and highest grade > 8, or school is ungraded. 

 

10 Alaska was excluded because most schools have a high Alaska Native enrollment and because the sampling rate 

applied to Alaska schools was higher than the sampling rate applied to other schools with high American Indian or 

Alaska Native student enrollment. 
60 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

The 2003–04 SASS sample was allocated so that state-level elementary and secondary public school 

estimates and national estimates of combined public schools could be made. The sample was allocated to 

each state by grade range and school type (traditional public, public charter, and schools with high 

American Indian enrollment). A full description of the allocation procedure is located in “Appendix K. 

Details of SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures.” 

Sample Sort 

To facilitate the calculation of school district weights, it was important that within a stratum all schools 

belonging to the same school district were listed together. This could have been achieved by sorting first 

by the school district’s identification variable (LEA ID). However, to increase the efficiency of the school 

sample design, it was better to sort by other variables before LEA ID. To achieve both these goals, the 

ZIP code variables were recoded to make them the same for every school within a stratum/school district. 

After the ZIP code was recoded, the non-BIA-funded schools were sorted by the following variables: 

1. School Stratum code as defined in the “Methodology” subsection above 

2. State 

3. Locale code 

1 = large central city 

2 = midsize central city 

3 = urban fringe of large central city 

4 = urban fringe of mid-size central city 

5 = large town 

6 = small town 

7 = rural, outside Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) 

8 = rural, inside MSA 

4. Recoded ZIP code (all schools in stratum/district have the same value for this variable) 

5. District ID as defined on CCD 

6. School’s highest grade offered (in descending order) 

7. Recoded percent minority enrollment (in descending order) and defined as: 

1 = less than 5.5 percent minority enrollment or unknown 

2 = at least 5.5 percent but less than 20.5 percent minority enrollment 

3 = at least 20.5 percent but less than 50.5 percent minority enrollment 

4 = at least 50.5 percent minority enrollment 

8. Total enrollment (in serpentine sort order, which was defined as enrollment being sorted first in 

ascending then descending order within the other sort variables) 

9. CCD school ID 

This sort order differed slightly from the sort used in previous SASS administrations. A discussion of the 

steps taken to determine the sort order for the non-BIA-funded schools is listed in “Appendix K. Details 

of SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures.” The first four variables allowed a geographic 

balance to be achieved within locale for each state. The fifth variable guaranteed that schools within a 

district and school stratum stayed together. The sixth variable (school’s highest grade) allowed the sample 

size requirements for middle schools to be met. Since middle schools were not stratified explicitly into 

one grade level stratum, some of them were classified as elementary and some as secondary. To better 

control the actual number of middle schools selected, this sort achieved that aim by placing middle 

schools at the end of the secondary stratum and at the beginning of the elementary school stratum. The 

seventh variable (recoded minority) allowed a balance with respect to ethnicity. The eighth variable 

(school enrollment) also encouraged a balance with respect to school size. 
Chapter 4. SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 61 

Sample Selection 

Schools 

Within each stratum, all non-BIA-funded schools were systematically selected using a probability 

proportionate to size algorithm. The measure of size used for the schools was the square root of the 

number of full-time-equivalent teachers reported for each school or imputed during sampling frame 

creation. Any school with a measure of size greater than the sampling interval (the inverse of the rate at 

which the sample is selected) was included in the sample with certainty and automatically excluded from 

the probability sampling operation. The BIA-funded schools were also selected for the sample with 

certainty. This produced a non-BIA-funded school sample of 10,202 (455 high American Indian 

enrollment schools, 303 public charter schools, and 9,444 other traditional public schools) and a BIAfunded school sample of 166 schools for a total of 10,368 sampled public and BIA-funded schools in 

2003–04 SASS.11

Table 5 shows both the allocated and selected sample sizes for traditional public schools (excludes public 

charter, high American Indian or Alaska Native enrollment, and BIA-funded schools). The public charter 

and high American Indian or Alaska Native enrollment schools are listed in subsequent tables (tables 6 

and 7). The difference in these two sample sizes is attributable to the use of conditional probabilities of 

selection to achieve the minimization of overlap with ELS as described in “Appendix K. Details of SASS 

Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures.” 

Table 5. Final selected sample sizes for traditional public schools at different school levels 

(allocated sample sizes in parenthesis if different) and percentage of frame in sample, by 

state: 2003–04 

School level 

State Elementary Secondary Combined

Total 

sampled schools 

Percentage of state’s 

frame in sample

 Total 4,453 3,780 (3,715) 1,211 (1,208) 9,444 10.95

 

Alabama 80 81 (80) 26 187 12.46

Alaska 80 53 53 186 37.42

Arizona 80 85 (80) 20 185 14.80

Arkansas 80 81 (80) 36 197 20.91

California 227 80 50 357 4.10

 

Colorado 80 82 (80) 19 (20) 181 12.49

Connecticut 80 81 (80) 20 181 17.73

Delaware 73 25 (24) 13 111 60.99

District of Columbia 70 18 10 98 60.12

Florida 80 83 (80) 48 211 6.68

 

Georgia 80 82 (80) 24 (23) 186 9.65

Hawaii 80 31 5 116 45.14

Idaho 80 82 (80) 20 182 28.04

Illinois 80 88 (86) 20 188 4.60

Indiana 80 82 (80) 20 182 9.35

See notes at end of table. 

 

11 After the certainty schools were removed, the sampling interval was recalculated as the sum of the measures of 

size of the noncertainty schools divided by the desired remaining sample (the stratum total sample size minus the 

number of certainty schools). The noncertainty schools’ probabilities were then calculated as the measure of size 

divided by the new sampling interval. 
62 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table 5. Final selected sample sizes for traditional public schools at different school levels 

(allocated sample sizes in parenthesis if different) and percentage of frame in sample, by 

state: 2003–04—Continued 

School level 

State Elementary Secondary Combined

Total 

sampled schools 

Percentage of state’s 

frame in sample

Iowa 80 81 (80) 21 (20) 182 13.78

Kansas 80 81 (80) 19 180 13.17

Kentucky 80 83 (80) 20 183 12.90

Louisiana 80 82 (80) 22 184 12.37

Maine 80 81 (80) 9 170 24.28

 

Maryland 80 84 (80) 20 184 13.55

Massachusetts 80 80 20 180 10.01

Michigan 98 81 (80) 20 199 5.51

Minnesota 136 81 (80) 63 280 14.16

Mississippi 80 80 22 (23) 182 17.65

 

Missouri 92 82 (80) 40 214 10.67

Montana 80 53 (52) 28 161 31.14

Nebraska 80 81 (80) 33 194 17.75

Nevada 80 67 12 159 32.32

New Hampshire 80 43 8 131 30.05

 

New Jersey 80 80 20 180 7.70

New Mexico 80 81 (80) 20 181 29.87

New York 112 82 (80) 21 (20) 215 5.09

North Carolina 80 83 (80) 20 183 8.68

North Dakota 80 43 37 160 41.34

 

Ohio 93 81 (80) 20 194 5.17

Oklahoma 80 82 (80) 21 183 20.56

Oregon 80 80 20 180 14.38

Pennsylvania 110 81 (80) 20 211 6.48

Rhode Island 80 38 2 120 38.10

 

South Carolina 80 81 (80) 12 173 15.31

South Dakota 80 37 (38) 42 159 37.32

Tennessee 80 82 (80) 21 (20) 183 11.19

Texas 80 175 (170) 62 317 4.37

Utah 80 81 (80) 19 180 23.68

 

Vermont 80 41 26 147 41.41

Virginia 146 83 (80) 20 249 12.08

Washington 80 80 20 180 8.65

West Virginia 80 80 14 (13) 174 21.40

Wisconsin 96 83 (80) 20 199 10.45

Wyoming 80 52 (51) 13 145 42.03

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 Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 
Chapter 4. SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 63 

Table 6. Final selected sample sizes for public charter schools at different school levels (allocated 

sample sizes in parenthesis if different) and percentage of frame in sample, by state: 

2003–04 

School level 

State Elementary Secondary Combined

Total 

sampled schools 

Percentage of state’s 

frame in sample

 Total 139 81 83 (82) 303 13.45

Arizona 14 18 (17) 9 41 12.16

California 21 11 (12) 14 46 13.77

Colorado 6 2 5 13 15.29

Florida 12 3 4 19 10.44

Michigan 16 5 10 (9) 31 15.42

North Carolina 7 2 2 11 12.22

Ohio 7 3 3 13 15.29

Pennsylvania 5 3 4 12 16.00

Texas 7 8 15 30 12.45

Wisconsin 4 4 2 10 10.10

Remaining Western states 4 4 3 11 10.47

Remaining Midwestern states 7 5 4 16 13.01

Remaining Southern states 12 9 2 23 16.79

Remaining Northeastern states 17 4 6 27 16.98

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 

Charter School Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 

Table 7. Final selected sample sizes for schools with high American Indian or Alaska Native 

enrollment at different school levels (allocated sample sizes in parenthesis if different) 

and percentage of frame in sample, by state: 2003–04 

NOTE: BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 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 BIA School Documentation Data Files,” 2003–04. 

School level 

State Elementary Secondary Combined

Total 

sampled schools 

Percentage of state’s 

frame in sample

 Total 219 155 (152) 81 455 28.67

Arizona 25 25 (24) 3 53 30.81

California 8 7 2 17 14.05

Minnesota 5 5 4 14 18.67

Montana 9 3 6 18 27.27

New Mexico 21 14 3 38 34.23

North Carolina 12 3 (5) 1 16 34.04

North Dakota 3 5 5 13 28.89

Oklahoma 87 61 (60) 41 189 32.31

South Dakota 10 5 6 21 23.60

Washington 6 5 2 13 22.81

Remaining Western states 11 9 (8) 2 22 26.83

Remaining Midwestern states 14 7 (6) 4 25 27.17

Remaining Southern states and 

 Northeastern states 8 6 (5) 2 16 35.56
64 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Districts 

Two methods were used for sampling districts within specific states. Districts in five states were selected 

differently than those in the remaining states, so the sampling procedure for most states is described first 

followed by the sampling procedure for the exceptional states. 

1. Districts outside Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Nevada, and West Virginia. During the initial design 

development of SASS, consideration was given to selecting the school districts first and then selecting 

schools within these districts. It was hypothesized that doing this would reduce the reliability of both 

school and teacher estimates but might be offset by the improvement in reliability of school district 

estimates. Simulations done on the reliability of school district estimates when the districts were selected 

first confirmed the loss of reliability in school and teacher estimates. The simulations also showed that 

selecting schools first would produce only slightly less accurate district estimates. For these reasons the 

SASS sample design selects the schools first. 

Therefore, the school district sample consists of the set of districts that were associated with the SASS 

public school sample. This provides the linkage between the district and the school. Table 8 provides the 

number of school districts selected by state. This can be compared with the number of districts on the 

frame in each state as presented earlier in table 4. Note that district totals for some states appear higher 

than expected due to the inclusion of public charter school districts. In parts of Maine, Vermont, and New 

Hampshire, some of the districts were dropped and the sampled schools were instead associated with their 

Supervisory Unions. This was done because evidence indicated that the Supervisory Union handled the 

day-to-day administration of the schools rather than the school districts. There were not any districts 

without schools selected for the 2003–04 sample as had been done in some previous SASS cycles since 

most of these districts did not have associated teachers, and thus were ineligible for the survey. 

2. Districts inside Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Nevada, and West Virginia. In 2003, a simulation 

study was done for each state to assess the reliability of SASS school district estimates. The complete 

results of this study are presented in “Appendix K. Details of SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection 

Procedures.” The study showed that standard errors from Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Nevada, and West 

Virginia were high relative to the sampling rate. To reduce the standard error, all districts in these states 

were defined as school sampling strata. This placed all districts in each of these five states in the school 

district sample thus reducing the standard error to zero, if all districts respond. 
Chapter 4. SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 65 

Table 8. Number of sampled public school districts (includes district-level data from one-school 

districts and public charter schools), by state: 2003–04 

State Number of sampled districts State Number of sampled districts

 Total 5,437 

 

Alabama 96 Missouri 149

Alaska 40 Montana 132

Arizona 153 Nebraska 120

Arkansas 130 Nevada 17

California 281 New Hampshire 84

 

Colorado 76 New Jersey 154

Connecticut 103 New Mexico 69

Delaware 22 New York 149

District of Columbia 7 North Carolina 96

Florida 73 North Dakota 100

 

Georgia 95 Ohio 171

Hawaii 1 Oklahoma 233

Idaho 82 Oregon 105

Illinois 142 Pennsylvania 175

Indiana 127 Rhode Island 35

 

Iowa 136 South Carolina 70

Kansas 118 South Dakota 105

Kentucky 101 Tennessee 79

Louisiana 62 Texas 250

Maine 108 Utah 32

 

Maryland 24 Vermont 58

Massachusetts 133 Virginia 102

Michigan 197 Washington 111

Minnesota 168 West Virginia 57

Mississippi 108 Wisconsin 155

 Wyoming 46

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 District Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 

Private School Frame Creation and Sample Selection 

List and Area Frames Creation 

The 2003–04 SASS private school sample consisted of schools selected from a list frame and an area 

frame. The SASS private school sample size was 3,622 of which 3,443 schools were from the list frame 

and 179 were from the area frame. The area frame serves as coverage improvement since the list frame 

omits about 8 percent of eligible private schools. 

List Frame 

Most of the SASS private school sample comes from a list frame, which is a frame constructed from 

matching lists of private schools. The base list for the 2003–04 SASS list frame was the 2001–02 Private 

School Universe Survey (PSS). In order to provide coverage of private schools founded since 2001 and to 
66 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

improve coverage of private schools existing in 2001, membership lists were collected from private 

school associations and religious denominations. The associations were asked to include schools that met 

the PSS school definition when they provided lists. The 50 states and the District of Columbia were also 

asked to provide lists of private schools meeting the PSS definition of a school. Schools on private school 

association membership lists and the state lists were compared to the base list. Any school that did not 

match a school on the base list was added to the existing list frame as a list frame birth. This is the usual 

method that is followed to create a revised PSS list frame every 2 years. 

This updating process was conducted specifically for the 2003–04 PSS, but was used as the starting point 

for the sampling frame for SASS private schools. To create the SASS sampling frame, schools with a 

highest grade of kindergarten, which are schools by the PSS definition but not the SASS definition, were 

deleted. 

Area Frame 

The source for the 2003–04 SASS area frame schools was the 2001–02 PSS area frame, excluding 

schools with a highest grade of kindergarten. To create the 2001–02 PSS area frame, the United States 

was divided into 2,054 primary sampling units (PSUs). Each PSU consisted of a single county, 

independent city, or cluster of geographically contiguous areas with a minimum population of 20,000 

according to population projections for 1988, which was when the PSUs were first formed. To avoid 

having PSUs covering too large a land area, the minimum population standard was relaxed in sparselypopulated areas. 

Due to time constraints, the Census Bureau did not have time to wait for the 2003–04 PSS area frame 

schools to be identified. The PSS area frame operation was conducted several weeks after data collection 

began for SASS. The 2003–04 SASS area frame consists only of those schools in noncertainty PSUs in 

the 2001–02 PSS area frame that had not already been added to the 2003–04 PSS list frame as part of the 

2003–04 PSS list frame updating operation (described in the “List Frame” section above). Noncertainty 

PSUs are those counties not guaranteed to be included in the PSS area frame and thus subject to a random 

sampling process. Schools from the noncertainty PSUs in the 2001–02 PSS area frame that were also 

2003–04 PSS list frame births were identified and dropped from the area frame. Schools that could be 

defined as only teaching kindergarten as the highest grade, or only teaching adult education or 

postsecondary, were also removed from the frame. 

Using these PSUs, the 2001–02 PSS area frame was designed to produce approximately 50 percent 

overlap with the previous PSS. By maintaining a 50 percent overlap of PSUs, the reliability of estimates 

of change was maintained at a reasonable level. Consequently, the area frame consisted of two sets of 

sample PSUs: 1) a subsample of the 1999–2000 PSS area frame sample PSUs (overlap); and 2) a sample 

of PSUs selected independently from the 1999–2000 PSS sample (nonoverlap). 

A total of 124 distinct PSUs were in the 2001–02 PSS area sample. The eight PSUs (certainty PSUs) that 

are included in every PSS area sample remained in the 2001–02 PSS area frame with certainty. All 58 

PSUs that had been in the 1999–2000 PSS area frame for the first time and not previously included in the 

overlap sample were selected again for the 2001–02 PSS, resulting in a total overlap sample of 66 PSUs. 

An additional 58 PSUs were selected independently. 

The strata for selecting the nonoverlap PSUs were defined the same as the 1999–2000 PSS area frame 

design. Initially, 16 strata were created as had been done for prior cycles of PSS. The strata include region 

(Northeast, Midwest, South, West), metro/nonmetro status, and high/low percent private enrollment 

within metro/nonmetro status (i.e., above or below the median within each metro/nonmetro status). The 

high/low cutoffs were then adjusted so as to more nearly equalize the expected variance between the two 
Chapter 4. SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 67 

strata. The purpose of this was to try to lower the PSS or SASS standard errors resulting from the PSU 

sampling. 

Sample sizes were determined for each metro/nonmetro status within each region, proportional to the sum 

of the square root of the PSU-estimated PSS private school enrollment. Some adjustments were made so 

that each sample size was an even number and that sample size was evenly distributed between the high 

and low percent private enrollment groups. This was done in order to have an even number of cases in 

each stratum (with a minimum of two) for pairing purposes for the PSS or SASS variance estimation. 

Within each of the 124 PSUs, the Census Bureau attempted to find all private schools eligible for PSS. A 

block-by-block listing of all private schools in a sample of PSUs was not attempted. Rather, Regional 

Office field staff created the frame by using yellow pages, local Catholic dioceses, religious institutions, 

local education agencies, and local government offices. Once the area search lists of schools were 

constructed, they were matched with the PSS list frame school universe. Schools not found on the list 

frame were considered part of the area frame. 

Complete Private School Frame Creation 

The list and area frames were combined to create the complete frame. At this point, the frame still 

contained ineligible school records and records that were missing vital information. 

Frame Deletions 

The following types of records were deleted from the PSS list and area frames to create the SASS sample 

frames: 

• schools not previously appearing on the 2003–04 list frame (births) that were identified from the 

early childhood center frame (a PSS operation whereby states are specifically asked for schools 

with kindergarten as the highest grade); 

• schools from noncertainty PSUs of the 2001–02 PSS area frame that were added to the 2003–04 

PSS list frame; 

• schools with kindergarten as the highest grade level; and 

• schools that were determined to be out-of-scope for the 2001–02 PSS (i.e., closed, 

prekindergarten only, not providing classroom instruction). 

Frame Corrections 

There were several school records that were missing information needed during the school sample 

selection. The school grade range and affiliation variables were used in stratifying schools during the 

private school sampling process. The number of teachers was used to form the measure of size in the 

private school sampling process. Finally, the number of students was used in sorting private school 

records during sampling. Values were assigned for any of these fields if the data were missing in the 

manner discussed below. 

The school’s grade range was assigned in one of four ways: 

• taking information from earlier PSS data; 

• using the school’s name to assign a generic grade range; 

• calling the school to assign a specific grade range; or 

• assigning a grade level of combined (both elementary and secondary levels), as a last resort. 
68 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

The school’s affiliation stratum was assigned by 

• using information from earlier PSS data; 

• using the school’s name to assign an affiliation stratum; and 

• assigning the rest to the “All Other” category. 

The school’s student and teacher counts were imputed in the following ways: 

• using previous PSS data for that school; and 

• using current SASS frame student-teacher ratios and averages by grade level and affiliation strata. 

Sample Allocation 

The goals for the 2003–04 SASS private school sample size allocation for the most part remained the 

same as the 1999–2000 goals: 

• Produce detailed private school affiliation strata estimates for each of the 17 affiliations. (NOTE: 

Some new affiliations were added to the list since 1999–2000 and some others were deleted, 

changing the total number of affiliations from 20 to 17.) 

• Produce national private sector estimates. 

• Produce national private sector school level estimates. 

• Produce estimates for national public versus private sector comparisons. 

The affiliation strata were redefined so as to create larger groups that would more readily lend themselves 

to publication. Catholic schools were split by parochial, diocesan, and private. Other religious schools 

were reorganized into 11 groups corresponding to the 11 largest religious affiliations. Nonsectarian 

schools were split by regular, special emphasis, and special education. 

List Frame Methodology 

The list frame was partitioned into an initial set of cells using affiliation stratum (17 groups), grade level 

(three groups), and Census region (four groups). These cells were defined using the 2001–02 PSS data. 

For any variables with missing values for variables used in the assignment, the data were imputed. 

The first level of stratification was school affiliation stratum (17 groups): 

• Catholic—parochial; 

• Catholic—diocesan; 

• Catholic—private; 

• Amish; 

• Assembly of God; 

• Baptist; 

• Episcopal; 

• Jewish; 

• Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod; 

• Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod; 

• Mennonite; 

• Pentecostal; 

• Seventh-Day Adventist; 
Chapter 4. SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 69 

• other religious; 

• nonsectarian—regular; 

• nonsectarian—special emphasis; and 

• nonsectarian—special education. 

Within each affiliation stratum, schools were stratified by grade level (elementary, secondary, and 

combined schools). The definitions are provided below: 

Elementary = lowest grade ≤ 6 and highest grade ≤ 8;

Secondary = lowest grade ≥ 7 and highest grade ≤ 12; and 

Combined = lowest grade ≤ 6 and highest grade > 8, also includes ungraded schools.12

Within affiliation stratum/grade level, schools were stratified by four Census regions: Northeast, 

Midwest, South, and West. 

The private school sample size selected from the list frame was 3,443 schools. The goal was to select an 

overall sample of 3,421 private sample schools from the list frame. This difference can be explained by 

the school’s conditional probability of selection used to minimize the overlapping sample schools with 

other surveys. This procedure introduces some variability into the sample size, which can result in a 

sample size slightly larger or smaller than the allocated sample size. The allocation process consists of the 

steps outlined in “Appendix K. Details of SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures.” 

Table 9 shows the allocated sample sizes by selected characteristics. 

 

12 Ungraded schools refer to schools that serve students whose grade levels are not defined as grade 1 through 12. 

For example, special education centers and alternative schools often classify their students as ungraded. 
70 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table 9. Allocated private school list frame stratum sample sizes, by region, school level, and 

affiliation stratum: 2003–04 

Northeast Midwest 

Affiliation stratum Total Elementary Secondary Combined Total Elementary Secondary Combined

 Total 857 449 135 273 856 546 107 203

 

Catholic—parochial 155 139 10 6 183 163 12 8

Catholic—diocesan 98 66 28 4 128 94 27 7

Catholic—private 52 16 27 9 41 11 24 6 

Amish 55 45 0 10 35 29 0 6

Assembly of God 15 8 0 7 14 5 2 7

Baptist 25 6 2 17 33 5 2 26

Episcopal 14 6 5 3 6 2 2 2

Jewish 74 32 18 24 11 6 2 3

Lutheran—Missouri 

 Synod 8 4 2 2 54 47 5 2

Wisconsin Evangelical 

 Lutheran Synod 0 0 0 0 81 68 9 4

Mennonite 52 24 2 26 19 9 1 9

Pentecostal 14 5 0 9 24 6 2 16

Seventh Day Adventist 13 8 2 3 17 10 2 5

Other religious 84 35 5 44 116 51 8 57 

Nonsectarian—regular 106 31 25 51 46 17 4 25

Nonsectarian—special 

 emphasis 37 21 4 12 34 21 3 10

Nonsectarian—special ed. 55 3 6 46 14 2 2 10 

 South West 

Affiliation stratum Total Elementary Secondary Combined Total Elementary Secondary Combined

 Total 1,053 462 90 501 655 343 79 233

 

Catholic—parochial 92 81 5 6 59 54 2 3

Catholic—diocesan 71 48 19 4 50 34 13 3

Catholic—private 40 12 19 9 25 7 13 5 

Amish 8 5 1 2 2 2 0 0

Assembly of God 41 13 2 26 30 14 2 14

Baptist 109 30 2 77 28 10 2 16

Episcopal 65 38 5 22 16 9 2 5

Jewish 16 9 2 5 13 8 3 2

Lutheran—Missouri 

 Synod 19 15 2 2 19 15 2 2

Wisconsin Evangelical 

 Lutheran Synod 6 4 0 2 13 10 2 1

Mennonite 22 8 2 12 7 3 0 4

Pentecostal 43 9 2 32 19 6 1 12

Seventh Day Adventist 36 22 3 11 34 18 3 13

Other religious 250 83 8 159 151 64 9 78 

Nonsectarian—regular 152 48 12 92 107 51 16 40

Nonsectarian—special 

 emphasis 55 33 3 19 59 35 6 18

Nonsectarian—special ed. 28 4 3 21 23 3 3 17

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), 

“Private School Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 
Chapter 4. SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 71 

List Frame Sample Sort 

Within each stratum, sorting took place on the variables listed below. Sorting serves to improve the 

efficiency of the overall design. 

1. State (one for each state and the District of Columbia) 

2. Highest grade in the school 

3. Locale code based on 1990 Census geography 

1 = large central city 

2 = mid-size central city 

3 = urban fringe of large city 

4 = urban fringe of mid-size city 

5 = large town 

6 = small town 

7 = rural, outside Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) 

8 = rural, inside MSA 

4. ZIP code 

5. Enrollment as reported in the 2001–02 PSS (or imputed) 

6. PIN number (the PIN number is a unique number assigned to identify the school on PSS) 

Area Frame 

There were 179 area frame schools identified in the 2001–02 PSS area frame within noncertainty PSUs 

that had not already been added as part of the 2003–04 PSS list frame updating operation. All 179 area 

frame cases (in the noncertainty PSUs) remained in the area frame and were in sample. 

Sample Selection 

List Frame 

Within each stratum, private schools in the list frame were systematically selected using a probability 

proportionate to size algorithm. The measure of size used was the square root of the 2000–01 PSS number 

of teachers in the school. Any school with a measure of size larger than the sampling interval was 

excluded from the probability sampling process and included in the sample with certainty.13

Table 10 shows the number of private schools that were allocated for sampling from the list frame, the 

number of schools actually sampled, and the percentage of the frame that was sampled for each affiliation 

stratum. Table 11 shows the number of private schools sampled from the list frame by school level and 

Census region as well as the percentage of the frame that was sampled within these categories. 

 

13 After the certainty schools were removed, the sampling interval was recalculated as the sum of the measures of 

size of the noncertainty schools divided by the desired remaining sample (the stratum total sample size minus the 

number of certainty schools). The noncertainty schools’ probabilities were then calculated as the measure of size 

divided by the new sampling interval. 
72 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table 10. Number of private school list frame as allocated and as actually selected and the 

proportion selected, by affiliation stratum: 2003–04 

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), 

“Private School Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 

Table 11. Proportion of private school list frame selected in SASS sample, by school level and 

region: 2003–04 

School level and region Sample size Percentage of frame in sample

 Total 3,443 11.8

School level 

 Elementary 1,800 10.9

 Secondary 429 15.7

 Combined 1,214 12.1

Region 

 Northeast 862 12.5

 Midwest 861 11.8

 South 1,061 11.9

 West 659 10.6

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), 

“Private School Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 

Area Frame 

All area frame private schools were selected for the sample. 

Sample size 

Affiliation stratum Allocated Actual

Percentage of stratum’s 

frame in sample

 Total 3,421 3,443 11.8

Catholic—parochial 489 492 11.6

Catholic—diocesan 347 353 12.5

Catholic—private 158 166 15.7

Amish 100 100 15.6

Assembly of God 100 101 21.3

Baptist 195 194 9.2

Episcopal 101 102 27.0

Jewish 114 114 13.7

Lutheran—Missouri Synod 100 100 9.0

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod 100 101 26.7

Mennonite 100 98 28.3

Pentecostal 100 101 27.3

Seventh Day Adventist 100 100 10.5

Other religious 601 603 9.4

Nonsectarian—regular 411 414 11.8

Nonsectarian—special emphasis 185 185 7.8

Nonsectarian—special education 120 119 9.3
Chapter 4. SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 73 

SASS Teacher Frame and Sample Selection 

Frame Creation 

In previous SASS administrations, sampled schools were asked to provide a list of their teachers 

primarily by mail. This accumulated list of teacher rosters formed the teacher sampling frame. For the 

2003–04 SASS, sampled schools provided teacher rosters to field representatives during personal visits. 

The field representatives keyed the roster information into a laptop and teachers were selected from each 

cooperating sampled school, sometimes during the same personal visit. 

Along with the names of its teachers, sampled schools were asked to provide the following descriptive 

characteristics of each teacher: 

• New/Experienced. Teachers in their 1st, 2nd, or 3rd year of teaching were classified as new 

teachers. 

• Teaching status: 

o Part time; or 

o Full time. 

• Race/Ethnicity: 

o White (non-Hispanic); 

o Black (non-Hispanic); 

o Hispanic—regardless of race; 

o Asian or Pacific Islander; or 

o American Indian or Alaska Native. 

• Subject matter taught. Teachers were classified as special education, general elementary, math, 

science, English/language arts, social studies, vocational/technical, or other. 

Stratification 

Within each sample school, teachers were stratified into one of four teacher types in the following 

hierarchical order: 

1. Asian or Pacific Islander; 

2. American Indian or Alaska Native; 

3. New (3 years or fewer in the teaching profession); and 

4. Experienced (more than 3 years of teaching). 

To illustrate the hierarchical ordering, if a teacher was both new and Asian, that teacher would be 

classified as Asian. 

Sample Allocation 

The goals of the teacher sampling were as follows: 

• Select at least 1,600 Asian or Pacific Islander teachers and 1,600 American Indian or Alaska 

Native teachers. 

• Select a minimum of 2,300 new teachers by sector. For new teachers in public schools, 

oversampling was not required due to the large number of sampled schools with new teachers. 

Therefore, teachers were allocated to the new and experienced categories proportional to their 

numbers in the school. However, for private school teachers, new teachers were oversampled to 
74 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

ensure that there would be enough new private school teachers in both the 2003–04 SASS and the 

2004–05 Teacher Follow-up Survey. In private schools, new teachers were oversampled by a 

factor of 1.5. 

• Select a minimum of one and a maximum of 20 teachers per school. 

• Minimize the variance of teacher estimates within school stratum by attempting a self-weighting 

design. This constraint was relaxed to accommodate the other goals of teacher sampling. 

• Select an average of three to eight teachers per school depending upon grade range and sector. 

The average teacher sample size was limited to this to avoid overburdening the schools, while 

allowing for a large enough teacher sample to meet the reliability requirements. 

Before teachers were allocated to the new/experienced strata, schools were first allocated an overall 

number of teachers to be selected. This overall sample size was chosen so as to equalize the teacher 

weights within school stratum (state/level for public schools, association stratum/level/region for private 

schools). Teacher weights within stratum were not always equalized, however, due to the differential 

sampling for Asian or Pacific Islander and American Indian or Alaska Native teachers. 

Table 12 provides the average number of new and experienced teachers to be selected within each public 

and private school by school level. These averages do not include Asian or Pacific Islander or American 

Indian or Alaska Native teachers. 

Table 12. Average expected number of new and experienced teachers selected per school, by 

school level and type: 2003–04 

School level 

School type Elementary Secondary Combined

Public 3.8 7.5 5.7

Private 3.8 4.7 2.8

NOTE: These averages do not include Asian or Pacific Islander or American Indian or Alaska Native teachers. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 2003–

04. 

Given the numbers in table 12, the new/experienced teacher sample size was chosen to equalize the 

teacher weights within a school stratum. Since the school sample was selected proportional to the square 

root of the number of teachers in the school, an equally-weighted teacher sample within a school stratum 

was obtained by selecting ti new or experienced teachers in school i. 

ti = Wi*Ti(C/Y) 

 where: 

Wi is the school weight for school i (the inverse of the school selection probability), 

Ti is the number of new and experienced teachers in school i, as reported on the 

Teacher Listing Form, 

C is the average teacher cluster size in the frame/grade level category (see table 

12); and 

Y is the simple average of the school’s base-weighted number of teachers over all 

schools in the school stratum. 

Given the allocation of teachers, ti, teachers were allocated to the new/experienced strata, tn and tei, 

respectively, in the following manner. 

tni = (A*Tni*ti)/(Tei+A*Tni), and 
Chapter 4. SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures 75 

tei = (Tei*ti)/(Tei+A*Tni) 

where: 

A is the oversampling factor for new teachers (A = 1.0 for public school teachers 

and A = 1.5 for private school teachers); 

Tni is the number of new teachers in school i; and 

Tei is the number of experienced teachers in school i. 

The new and experienced teacher sample sizes were constrained to force the sample size to be between 

one and twice the average cluster size for that type of school. 

The Asian or Pacific Islander and American Indian or Alaska Native teachers were allocated in the 

following manner: 

tpi = (Wi *Tpi)/R

tai = (Wi *Tai)/H

where: 

Wi is the school weight for school i (the inverse of the school selection probability); 

 Tpi is the number of Asian or Pacific Islander teachers in school i; 

 Tai is the number of American Indian or Alaska Native teachers in school i; 

R is the national sampling interval to ensure that at least 1,600 Asian or Pacific 

Islander teachers are selected nationwide (R = 17.74); and 

H is the national sampling interval to ensure that at least 1,600 American Indian or 

Alaska Native teachers are selected nationwide (H = 5.42). 

The Census Bureau estimated the R and H factors conservatively so that there would be more than the 

designated number of oversampled teachers. 

To make sure a school was not overburdened, the maximum number of teachers per school was set at 20. 

When the number of sample teachers exceeded 20 in a school, Asian or Pacific Islander and American 

Indian or Alaska Native teachers were proportionally reduced to meet the maximum requirement. In all 

such cases, at least five Asian or Pacific Islander or American Indian or Alaska Native teachers would 

have remained in sample, since the sum of the new and experienced teacher sample could not exceed 15. 

Sample Selection 

Teacher records within a school were sorted by the teacher stratum code, the teacher subject code, and the 

teacher line number code. The teacher line number is a unique number assigned to identify the teacher 

within the list of teachers keyed by the field representative. Within each teacher stratum in each school, 

teachers were selected systematically with equal probability. Table 13 shows the actual number of 

teachers selected as described above. 
76 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table 13. Number of selected public and private school teachers in SASS sample, by school type 

and teacher stratum: 2003–04 

School type 

Teacher stratum Total Public Private

 Total 63,135 53,188 9,947

American Indian or Alaska Native 1,530 1,435 95

Asian or Pacific Islander 1,814 1,466 348

New 10,528 8,032 2,496

Experienced 49,263 42,255 7,008

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), 2003–

04. 

The actual sample may differ from the desired sample due to the fact that in allocating the sample, the 

average of the school’s weighted measure of size over all schools in the school stratum was based on 

universe files of teacher counts from 2 years prior (CCD for public, PSS for private) instead of reported 

teacher counts from the school just prior to data collection. Also, the response rate for the completed 

Teacher Listing Forms may be somewhat different than expected, changing the number of schools from 

which to select sampled teachers. About 16 percent of the in-scope private schools and 11 percent of the 

in-scope public schools did not provide teacher lists. For these schools, no teachers were selected. A 

factor in the teacher weighting was used to adjust the weights to reflect the fact that some schools did not 

provide teacher lists. These factors may cause the overall average number of teachers per school to be 

slightly different than the target numbers. 

To reduce the variance of teacher estimates, one goal of the teacher selection was to make the teacher 

sample self-weighting (i.e., equal probabilities of selection), within teacher and school stratum, but not 

across strata. The goal was generally met. However, since the sample size of teachers was altered due to 

the minimum constraint (i.e., at least one teacher per school) or maximum constraint (i.e., no more than 

either twice the average stratum allocation or 20 teachers per school) in some schools, this goal was not 

fully achieved in all schools. 

Field Sampling Activities 

Once a sample school was contacted, the grade range was verified. Occasionally, the grade range differed 

considerably due to a difference in the school’s actual grade range and how it was reported on the 

sampling frame. When a considerable difference occurred, if the school reported fewer grades than 

expected, the sample school was considered a split and one school was randomly subsampled from the list 

of schools covering the expected grade range. The base weights were adjusted upward accordingly as 

described in chapter 9. If the school reported having more grades than expected, the respondent was 

interviewed, but the sampling frame was reviewed to see if the responding school corresponded to more 

than one sampling frame record. When this occurred, the sampled school was considered a merged 

school, and the base weight was adjusted downward to account for the fact that the respondent could have 

fallen into the sample through more than one sampling frame record. 
77 

Chapter 5. Data Collection 

The 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) utilized a field-based methodology for the principal, 

school, school library media center, and teacher data collection (school-level data collection). Census 

Bureau field representatives were responsible for all data collection at the sampled schools. The field 

representatives’ work was coordinated by staff at 12 Census Bureau Regional Offices. The Regional 

Office staff was responsible for making assignments, supervising fieldwork, checking-in completed 

questionnaires, editing questionnaires, and implementing quality control procedures. 

The collection of the school district data was conducted separately and accomplished first by mailout, 

with field representatives following up with nonrespondents. Advance work with school districts and 

schools was done to accommodate both collection efforts. 

An overview of the purpose and content of each questionnaire is discussed in chapter 1. The changes in 

methodology from the 1999–2000 SASS are described in chapter 2. A brief evaluation of the field-based 

methodology is included at the end of this chapter. 

Advance Work With School Districts 

School districts were contacted prior to the beginning of data collection for four main reasons. 

First, approval for conducting the SASS needed to be obtained from 77 school districts that were known 

to have a formal approval process in order for their schools to participate. These efforts began in February 

2003 and continued throughout data collection. Depending upon the requirements of each district, a cover 

letter, a research application or standard proposal for research, and copies of the SASS surveys were sent 

to each district. The background, methods, findings, and recommendations of this operation are contained 

in detail in “Appendix L. Report on Results of Special Contact Districts.” 

Second, school districts were verified as “one-school districts,” or districts having only one school. These 

schools received the SASS Unified School Questionnaire, which contains questions from the School 

Questionnaire in addition to some items from the School District Questionnaire. (See chapter 2 for a more 

detailed explanation of this questionnaire.) During June and July of 2003, approximately 1,300 school 

districts were contacted by phone. These included districts that contained only one school (after the 

collapsing of schools from the Common Core of Data (CCD) frame, discussed in more detail in chapter 

4), districts containing only public charter schools, and districts identified to be state agencies, such as the 

Department of Corrections (in these cases calls were made to the schools). The intent of the calls was to 

identify entities that would receive the SASS Unified School Questionnaire and those that had an entity 

separate from the school that should receive the School District Questionnaire. The calling operation 

resulted in the identification of 744 one-school districts. The calls revealed that many of the state agencies 

did not function as “districts,” so the schools were redesignated as one-school districts. Some schools 

listed as one-school districts in New England states were found to be operated by “supervisory unions” 

rather than by the entity identified as the district on CCD. These “supervisory unions” replaced the district 

named by CCD on the sample file for those schools. (See chapter 4 for details.) 

Third, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) wanted to determine if other school districts 

had formal approval processes in order for their schools to participate in SASS. During June and July of 

2003, 650 school districts were called. These efforts were the first step in a test embedded in this 

administration of SASS to better understand how districts respond to precontacts, and what implications 

this has on the cost and timing of SASS. The results of the experiment are covered in “Appendix M. 
78 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

School District Experiment Findings.” Precontacting the districts had no significant impact on district or 

school response rates, or on cost or timing of the data collection. 

Finally, NCES wanted to obtain and/or verify contact information. In August 2004, remaining school 

districts were called to determine the best persons to receive the School District Questionnaire and to 

obtain their mailing address and telephone number. The calls made to school districts during June and 

July of 2003 to verify one-school districts also obtained this information. 

Timing of School District Data Collection 

The schedule for the school district data collection is presented in table 14. 

Table 14. Data collection time schedule for public school districts: 2003–04 

Activity Month of activity

Advance work with some school districts to inquire about and respond to requirements by 

 the school districts to approve surveys Feb.–Aug. 2003

Telephone operation to some schools and school districts to determine which ones would 

 receive the Unified School Questionnaire and to determine if some school districts had 

 requirements to approve surveys Jun.–Jul. 2003

Telephone operation to obtain contact person information for the School District 

 Questionnaire Aug. 2003

Introductory letters mailed to school districts, and approximately 1 week later, School 

 District Questionnaires mailed to school districts Sept. 2003

Continuation of work with some school districts to inquire about and respond to their 

 requirements to approve participation in surveys Sept. 2003–Feb. 2004

Mailing of reminder postcard to school districts that were mailed a School District 

 Questionnaire Oct. 2003

Second mailing of School District Questionnaire to nonresponding school districts Nov. 2003

Field follow-up of remaining nonresponding school districts Dec. 2003–Apr. 2004

SOURCE: Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 2003–04, U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Details of School District Data Collection 

Advance Letters to School Districts 

On September 19, 2003, advance letters were mailed to school districts, with the exception of the school 

districts designated to receive the Unified School Questionnaire in lieu of the School District 

Questionnaire and the school districts that refused to participate during the precontact operations. Two 

versions of the advance letter were used. Most school districts were sent a letter that described SASS, 

requested the school district’s participation, provided the legislation authorizing the survey and 

information on confidentiality, and informed them that they would be receiving a questionnaire. This 

letter also informed school district personnel that a field representative would contact the sampled schools 

to ask for a list of teachers. A brief letter was sent to 34 school districts with research application 

requirements that agreed to participate during the precontact operations. This letter thanked them for 

agreeing to participate, provided the collection authority and confidentiality information, and informed 

them that they would be receiving a questionnaire and that a Census Bureau field representative would 

contact the sampled schools to ask for a list of teachers. 
Chapter 5. Data Collection 79 

Questionnaire Mailings and Reminder Postcards to School Districts 

The first mailout of the School District Questionnaires to the sampled school districts was on September 

23, 2003, which was 4 days after the advance letters. As with the advance letters, questionnaires were not 

mailed to school districts designated to receive the Unified School Questionnaire or to school districts that 

refused to participate during the precontact operations. The questionnaires were addressed to the contact 

person whose name had been provided in the advance contact, or, if no name had been provided, to the 

“Superintendent.” The eligible respondent for the School District Questionnaire included any 

knowledgeable school district employee. (For some school districts, the data were provided by several 

staff members.) 

Reminder postcards were mailed in October 2003, approximately 1 week after the initial mailout. On 

November 10, 2003, a second copy of the questionnaire was mailed to each school district that had not 

returned the original form. Another reminder postcard was mailed to them on November 17, 2003. 

Nonresponse Follow-up of School Districts 

Beginning in October, refusals from the premailout contact operations were assigned to field 

representatives in an attempt to obtain interviews. Field staff was given an instruction manual to conduct 

follow-up and to check in and edit completed questionnaires. 

From December 8, 2003, through February 27, 2004, all nonresponding school districts were assigned to 

field representatives for telephone and/or personal visit follow-up. During March, follow-up of a few 

large school districts continued. In addition, nonresponding districts with special research requirements 

that indicated that they would respond during the precontact operations received additional follow-up. 

During March and April, some additional follow-up efforts were made selectively to increase state-level 

response rates. 

Regional Office staff closely tracked 298 large school districts that have a significant impact on state level 

estimates (e.g., refusals from these districts would undermine the estimates produced for that state). The 

Regional Offices assigned potential refusals to senior staff with the most experience in the refusal 

conversion process. 

Overview of School Data Collection 

An advance look-up operation was conducted by field staff prior to data collection to verify school name 

and address information and to obtain principals’ names. Beginning in September 2003, field 

representatives were responsible for all data collection at the sampled schools. These included 

• mailing an advance postcard to the schools; 

• telephoning the school and asking questions using a computer-assisted personal interviewing 

(CAPI) instrument—the SASS Teacher Listing instrument—to verify school information and set 

up appointments; 

• visiting the school to meet the school principal and/or other school contact person(s) to explain 

the 2003–04 SASS, to pick up a teacher roster (or make arrangements to obtain one), and to drop 

off the appropriate principal, school, and school library media center questionnaires; 

• entering the teacher roster information into the SASS Teacher Listing instrument, which selected 

a sample of teachers; 

• passing out questionnaires to the selected teachers; and 

• following up on all questionnaires via telephone calls and return personal visits, if needed. 
80 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Experienced field representatives were trained by using an interactive self-study guide that covered 

procedures, questionnaires, and use of the laptop questionnaire for the survey. Newly hired field 

representatives received 2 days of classroom training covering topics in more detail. 

Advance Work With Schools 

An advance look-up operation was conducted by Census Bureau Regional Office staff beginning June 4, 

2003, and ending July 1, 2003. The purpose of the address look-up operation was to verify school names 

and other critical information and to identify and resolve sampling frame issues before the survey began 

on September 24, 2003. In addition, during this look-up operation staff members were to obtain the name 

of the principal for the schools whenever possible. The look-up operations were conducted in the 

Regional Office using an online interactive database, internet searches, Phonedisc software, various local 

resources, and the staff’s general local knowledge of the area. Any name changes or major discrepancies 

that were discovered were investigated by Census Bureau staff with in-depth knowledge of the sampling 

frame. 

Overall Timing of School Data Collection 

The 2003–04 SASS principal, school, school library media center, and teacher data were collected during 

the 2003–04 school year. Table 15 summarizes the specific data collection activities and the time frame 

within which each occurred. Later in this chapter, the response by questionnaire and details on the timing 

of follow-up efforts of each questionnaire are presented. 

Table 15. Data collection time schedule for schools: 2003–04 

Activity Month of activity

Advance work to verify school name and address information and to obtain principals’ 

 names June 2003

Introductory letters mailed to schools Sept. 2003

Field representatives mailed notification postcards to schools informing them that they 

 would be calling Sept.–Oct. 2003

Approximately 4 days after mailing postcards, field representatives called schools to verify 

 school information and set up appointments Sept.–Oct. 2003

Field representatives visited schools to 

 distribute principal questionnaires; 

 distribute school questionnaires; 

 distribute school library media center questionnaires in public schools; and 

 obtain a roster of teachers, sample teachers, and distribute teacher questionnaires Oct. 2003–Jan. 2004

Field representatives followed up on all distributed principal, school, library media center, 

 and teacher questionnaires Oct. 2003–May 2004

SOURCE: Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), U.S. Department 

of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Details of School Data Collection 

Preparation of Questionnaires and Associated Materials 

All questionnaires and associated field materials, including handouts and promotional materials for school 

staff, were prepared in advance by the Census Bureau clerical processing staff. Each school’s materials 

were enclosed in zip-lock bags and included 

• an advance postcard to mail to the principal before calling the school; 
Chapter 5. Data Collection 81 

• all labeled SASS questionnaires for the school: principal, school, school library media center 

(private schools were not included in the school library media center survey), and the expected 

number of teacher questionnaires (teacher questionnaires were inserted in envelopes for the 

teachers); 

• for each respondent, one copy of the appropriate NCES booklet—either A Brief Profile of 

America’s Public Schools (NCES 2003-418) or A Brief Profile of America’s Private Schools

(NCES 2003-417); 

• optional form SASS-16—an unlabeled Teacher Listing Form14 on which schools could list their 

teachers; 

• two sets of extra peel-off labels that might be needed for replacement questionnaires; 

• a copy of the school advance letter that was sent to each of the sampled schools; 

• a copy of the advance letter that was sent to each public school’s school district; 

• a SASS overview, Schools and Staffing Survey: 2003–04 (NCES 2003-409), providing general 

information, topics covered in the SASS, and resources available; 

• a CD-ROM of the Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2002; and 

• “Schools and Staffing Survey” pens with the SASS website. 

Advance Letter and Postcard to Schools 

On September 19, 2003, the Census Bureau clerical processing staff mailed advance letters to schools. 

The letter was not personalized, but addressed to the “principal/school head.” The letter described SASS, 

encouraged their participation, provided the collection authority and confidentiality information, and 

informed them that they would be called by a field representative to set up a meeting, request a list of 

teachers, and deliver questionnaires. Beginning September 24, 2004, field representatives mailed handaddressed postcards to the school, using the name of the principal/school head. The postcard provided the 

name and phone number of the field representative and informed the principal/ school head that the 

school would be called in order to set up an appointment. 

Screening Schools for Eligibility and Making Appointments to Visit Schools 

A few days after mailing postcards to schools, field representatives called schools to administer the SASS 

Teacher Listing instrument. Once they reached the school by phone, they utilized the SASS Teacher 

Listing instrument to ascertain whether the school was in-scope or out-of-scope for SASS, and to make 

appointments to visit schools. In some cases, when field representatives were unable to reach the school 

by phone to administer the questions, they completed this part of the SASS Teacher Listing instrument at 

the school. 

In previous administrations of SASS, many cases were identified where schools had self-reported 

addresses, grade ranges, or numbers of teachers that differed from that provided in other collections of 

data by NCES. These differences impact whether a school is in-scope or out-of-scope for SASS. The 

screening section of the SASS Teacher Listing instrument verified the school name and address, school 

type, and grade range in order to determine if the school was in-scope. 

The name/address verification section of the SASS Teacher Listing instrument obtained each school’s 

correct name, physical address, and mailing address. In some instances it was possible to establish that the 

school had closed or did not meet the SASS definition of a school. The physical address of the school 

may or may not have differed from the mailing address. In some districts, mail is addressed to a central 

 

14 Schools were asked to provide teacher information for field representatives to enter into the SASS Teacher Listing 

instrument. While many schools generated listings with the requested information, others used this optional form to 

record the information. 
82 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

location and then is distributed internally so the mailing address will not agree with the location. In some 

rural areas, all mail is addressed to P.O. boxes, so it was necessary to collect physical location 

information. 

The question verifying the school’s type provided the respondent with six categories from which to 

choose: public, private, public charter, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), homeschool, or only web-based 

instruction.15 The SASS Teacher Listing instrument compared this reported information with the 

preloaded designation from the sampling process (discussed in more detail in chapter 4) in order to 

determine if the school should be made out-of-scope. Homeschools and schools with only web-based 

instruction were considered out-of-scope for SASS. If the “public” or “private” designation was incorrect, 

the school was coded as out-of-scope. 

The instrument also prompted the field representative to check grade ranges to confirm that the school in 

question was the correct school. If the grade range differed completely from the expected grade range, 

then the instrument collected the information and instructed the field representative to report the 

information to the sampling frame staff. This staff checked the source files to determine whether the 

school was in-scope or out-of-scope. If the respondent reported that grade ranges of the school differed 

significantly from the preloaded grade ranges from the sampling process, then there was a possible 

problem. In situations where the reported grade range was significantly less than expected, the instrument 

presented questions to find out if the anticipated grade range was covered by more than one school in the 

local community. These situations could arise because of an error in the source file or because the original 

sampled school was split into two or more schools. Once the information for these additional schools was 

entered, the instrument randomly selected ONE of the schools as the in-scope school for the survey. In 

that instance, the instrument instructed the field representative how to proceed. In situations where the 

reported grade range was significantly more than expected, the instrument presented a question to probe 

for a reason. For example, the school of interest may have merged with another school or the source may 

have been incorrect. In either instance, however, the school remained in-scope. If the grade range differed 

by no more than one grade range at either end of the range (e.g., a school with grades 3–5 was reported as 

having grades 2–4), then the instrument simply collected the new grade range of the school. More detail 

on these operations is contained in “Appendix K. Details of SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection 

Procedures.” 

If the school was determined to be out-of-scope, the instrument made all questionnaires for the school 

out-of-scope. If the instrument determined that the school was in-scope, then it led the field representative 

through a series of questions to set up an appointment to visit the school to collect a roster of teachers and 

hand out the questionnaires. 

Confirming School Appointments and Making Arrangements to Obtain Rosters of Teachers 

When field representatives called schools to administer the instrument prior to visiting the school, the 

school staff was alerted that they would be asked to provide a roster of teachers when the field 

representative came to the school. They were told whom to include and to exclude as teachers. Field 

representatives explained that for each teacher they needed to obtain 

• the subject taught by each teacher; 

• the teacher’s full-time or part-time status at the school; 

• the teacher’s race/ethnicity; and 

 

15 Definitions of school types are provided in “Appendix A. Key Terms for SASS.” Homeschools are not included in 

SASS. Organizations or institutions that provide support for homeschooling but do not offer classroom instruction 

for students also are not included. 
Chapter 5. Data Collection 83 

• whether the teacher had taught for more than 3 years at any school (teacher’s experience). 

After field representatives completed making appointments with their schools, they alerted the staff in 

their Regional Office. Some of the staff from Regional Offices faxed appointment confirmations to the 

schools. These faxes included a paper version of the Teacher Listing Form, which is the form that was 

used in previous rounds of the SASS to collect the teacher roster information by mail. In this SASS, the 

Teacher Listing Form was provided by fax so that the school staff could see which data items were 

needed for each teacher. 

Distributing Principal, School, and School Library Media Center Questionnaires 

Beginning in early October 2003, field representatives went to the schools to explain the survey 

operations, provide promotional materials (NCES brochures, CD-ROM of the Statistical Abstract of the 

United States, SASS pens), and obtain the list of teachers. If they had set up an appointment in advance, 

they requested to meet with the principal. Usually the meeting did include the principal, but in some cases 

the meeting was with an assistant principal or other school staff. The field representatives used the 

various handouts and promotional materials to explain the purpose and timing of the survey and to gain 

cooperation. The appropriate principal questionnaire was given to or left for the principal, the only 

eligible respondent, to complete. In most cases the school questionnaire also was provided to the principal 

during the meeting at the school. However, the respondent for the school questionnaire could be any 

knowledgeable school staff member (e.g., assistant principal or school secretary), and efforts were made 

to establish who would be the specific respondent. 

In public schools (including BIA-funded and public charter schools), the School Library Media Center 

Questionnaire was provided during the visit. Field representatives attempted to locate the school library to 

deliver it to the school librarian or another school staff member who was familiar with the library. If they 

were not allowed to walk through the school, they left the questionnaire with the principal or other staff 

with whom they were meeting. 

The field procedures allowed the field representative to decide whether to return to the institution to pick 

up completed questionnaires or whether to leave a return envelope in which each respondent could mail 

completed questionnaires to the Census Bureau Regional Offices. Regional Office staff provided 

guidelines for the field representatives; in general, if the school was more than 50 miles away from the 

field representative, an envelope was left at the school to have respondents mail back the forms. 

After questionnaires were distributed, field representatives used an automated case management system 

on their laptops to indicate that each of the questionnaires had been distributed, along with notes 

indicating the intended respondent’s name and contact information, and the plan for completing the 

questionnaire. In the event that the school had no library, they made the School Library Media Center 

Questionnaire out-of-scope. 

The questionnaire distribution meetings were completed on a flow basis, with 45 percent completed in 

October 2003, 31 percent completed in November, and 12 percent completed in December. The 

remaining schools were completed during follow-up visits in January and February 2004. 

Sampling Teachers and Distributing Teacher Questionnaires 

During the school visit, field representatives attempted to obtain the roster of teachers. In many cases the 

person who would produce the roster was not included in the initial meeting, so the field representatives 

had to make arrangements for another meeting. They sought to obtain the teacher roster during this first 

visit or, when that was not possible, to make specific arrangements to return after it was completed. Once 
84 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

they received the information, the teachers’ names and associated data from the list that the school 

provided were entered into the SASS Teacher Listing instrument, which then selected the sample of 

teachers for each school. The teacher questionnaires were distributed to the sampled teachers. 

The specific arrangement for completing the Teacher Listing Form generally depended on the size of the 

school. 

• At smaller schools, the principal or knowledgeable respondent could dictate the list of teachers, 

which the field representative then entered into the instrument. Alternatively, the respondent 

provided a handwritten list of teachers. 

• At some schools, the respondent completed the optional Teacher Listing Form before the field 

representative arrived at the school or once the field representative got there. 

• At larger schools, the information often was stored in a database, and respondents preferred to 

provide a printout of their teacher roster. 

Before the field representatives entered the teacher roster information, they reviewed the roster for 

completeness and accuracy. They went through the list of teachers and verified that the correct teachers 

were listed (e.g., that the teachers listed taught in the sampled grade range). Once they finished entering 

all information into the SASS Teacher Listing instrument, the instrument selected up to 20 teachers, based 

on the sampling process. An average of five teachers per school was selected. (See chapter 4 for more 

information on the sampling.) 

Once the teachers were selected, the field representatives took prelabeled teacher questionnaires with the 

control numbers matching the control numbers assigned to each teacher by the instrument. On each, they 

entered the teacher’s name on the front of the questionnaire. An envelope containing the teacher 

questionnaire, return envelopes, promotional material, and a note indicating whether the field 

representative intended to pick up the questionnaire or have the teacher mail it back was prepared for each 

teacher. In most cases, this envelope was left in teachers’ mailboxes or with administrative staff to be 

distributed to the teachers. Field representatives used the case management system on their laptops to 

indicate that each of the questionnaires was distributed, along with notes indicating the contact 

information, and the plan for returning the questionnaire. 

Nonresponse Follow-up of Principal, School, Teacher, and School Library Media Center 

Questionnaires 

When questionnaires were distributed, respondents were requested to return them within 2 weeks. In 

many cases, field representatives made arrangements to return to the school to pick up completed 

questionnaires and then FedEx them to the Regional Office. Otherwise, return envelopes were provided 

so that respondents could mail back questionnaires to the Regional Offices. Regional Office staff 

provided guidelines to the field representative—generally, if the school was more than 50 miles away 

from the field representative, an envelope would be left in order for the respondents to mail back the 

forms. However, some Regional Offices emphasized one approach over the other. For example, the 

Atlanta and Dallas Regional Offices emphasized picking up questionnaires, and the Denver Regional 

Office emphasized returning the questionnaires by mail.16 

Follow-up efforts began approximately 2 weeks after questionnaires were distributed. Follow-up efforts 

consisted of telephone calls and personal visits to schools to obtain completed questionnaires or verify 

that they had been mailed. Each time field representatives contacted a school, they first checked the case 

 

16 The Census Bureau has Regional Offices located in Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, 

Kansas City, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, and Seattle. 
Chapter 5. Data Collection 85 

management on their laptop, which indicated the status of each questionnaire assigned to the school. Then 

they would follow up on all questionnaires that had not been completed. After taking a follow-up action 

(e.g., leaving a message or note, picking up a questionnaire, verifying that the questionnaire had been 

mailed), they would indicate what had occurred by changing outcome codes and entering notes into the 

case management system. Field representatives were supplied with extra preprinted labels in the event 

that respondents needed a new blank questionnaire to complete; they would peel off the label for that 

respondent, affix it to the questionnaire, and provide it to the respondent. 

Regional Offices received mail returns from respondents and questionnaires that were FedExed by field 

representatives. They edited questionnaires for completeness and worked with their field representatives 

to resolve incomplete questionnaires. Once complete, they used scanning equipment to check the 

questionnaires in as “completed,” which updated the case management system. They boxed completed 

questionnaires and sent them to the Census Bureau clerical processing staff for data capture. Regional 

Office staff also administered a quality control program, which was designed to detect and deter 

falsification by field representatives; this is discussed in “Appendix N. Results From the Quality Control 

Reinterview of the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey.” 

The original plan for data collection had specific goals for completion: (1) teacher listing/sampling would 

be completed by the end of November 2003; (2) principal, school, and school library media center 

questionnaires would be completed by the end of December 2003; and (3) teacher questionnaires would 

be completed by the end of January 2004. These goals turned out to be overly ambitious. Table 16 shows 

the response rates of each questionnaire by month, and table 17 shows the approximate percentage of 

interviews that were completed by the key milestone dates. 

Table 16. Cumulative response rates (in percent) during data collection, by date and 

questionnaire: 2003–04 

Questionnaire 11/4/03 12/2/03 1/2/04 2/2/04 3/1/04 4/16/04 

Adjusted 

final rate 

(unweighted)

Principal 15.2 45.1 65.2 77.5 83.1 84.2 82.4

Private School Principal 14.8 40.7 57.0 70.7 76.2 76.8 73.8

 

School 14.0 43.0 62.4 75.6 82.4 83.6 80.5

Private School 14.8 40.6 56.9 70.7 76.4 77.2 74.4

Unified School (all) 11.6 32.7 54.9 73.7 81.9 85.7 84.7

Unified School (BIA-funded 

 schools only1

) 3.6 23.6 42.3 56.2 64.8 74.1 89.5

 

School Library Media Center 13.7 41.2 60.5 74.2 81.5 83.2 78.2

Public Teacher Listing 44.9 75.6 85.2 88.2 88.9 88.9 89.4

Private Teacher Listing 43.0 69.4 79.5 83.1 83.6 83.6 84.1

 

Teacher 13.9 43.7 65.5 80.2 87.8 89.1 84.0

Private School Teacher 16.2 46.5 65.1 79.8 86.3 87.3 81.6 1

 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

NOTE: The 11/4/03 through 4/16/04 response rates were based on preliminary field data. Corrections and adjustments were made 

after fieldwork and during data processing. Final response rates are presented in detail in chapter 6. 

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

“Preliminary Field Data File,” 2003–04. 
86 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table 17. Approximate percentage of interviews completed at key milestone dates, by 

questionnaire: 2003–04 

Questionnaire 

End of November 

(Teacher Listing 

Forms)

End of December 

(principal, school, 

school library 

media center 

questionnaires)

End of January 

(teacher 

questionnaires) 

End of February 

(extension for all 

questionnaires)

Principal † 77 † 99

Private School Principal † 74 † 99

School † 75 † 99

Private School † 74 † 99

Unified School (all) † 65 † 97

Unified School (BIA-funded 

 schools only1

) † 47 72

School Library Media Center † 73 † 98

Public Teacher Listing 85 † † 99

Private Teacher Listing 83 † † 99

Teacher † † 90 99

Private School Teacher † † 91 99

† Not applicable. 

1

 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

NOTE: These response rates were computed by dividing the field response rate at the milestone date by the field response rate at 

the conclusion of data collection. 

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

“Preliminary Field Data File,” 2003–04. 

Approximately three-quarters of the principal, school, and school library media center questionnaires for 

public and private schools were completed by the original target date. Approximately half of the BIAfunded schools were completed at that date. Approximately 85 percent of the Teacher Listing Forms and 

90 percent of the teacher questionnaires were completed by the target dates. 

At the end of January, it was decided to extend data collection by 1 month. Regional Offices were 

instructed to work all productive cases (those thought likely to refuse), but were given the option to 

conduct telephone interviews consisting of a subset of questionnaire items if respondents were unlikely to 

respond otherwise. Table 18 summarizes the telephone interview attempts and interviews. By the end of 

February, data collection was closed out in almost all cases. Exceptions were made for BIA-funded 

schools, which had unusually low response rates; for public schools that encountered delayed data 

collection efforts as a result of the school district’s late approval for participation, and selected school 

districts to increase state-level response rates. (See earlier section discussing follow-up for school 

districts.) Field staff continued to attempt to interview BIA respondents through early May. 
Chapter 5. Data Collection 87 

Table 18. Number of telephone interview attempts and interviews, by questionnaire: February 

2004 

Questionnaire Number attempted Completed interviews Partial interviews

Principal 106 14 25

Private School Principal 26 1 11

School 123 12 36

Private School 36 2 16

Unified School 20 0 14

School Library Media Center 109 17 37

Teacher 358 105 86

Private School Teacher 67 0 8

NOTE: The teacher listing operations were completed prior to this operation. 

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

“Preliminary Field Data File,” 2003–04. 

Evaluation of Field-Based Methodology 

As noted, the 2003–04 survey utilized a field-based data collection strategy, with field representatives in 

charge of distributing forms and conducting all follow-up. In some cases they made arrangements to pick 

up completed forms; otherwise they gave respondents return envelopes addressed to their Regional 

Office. The results of this approach compared to prior rounds of SASS were as follows: 

• Most fieldwork was completed by the end of February, rather than the end of May, but poor 

response caused some school district and BIA work to extend to April/May. 

• Response rates for school, principal, and school library media center questionnaires were lower. 

Procedures called for field representatives to establish questionnaire pick-up or mailback dates, 

and to follow up if questionnaires were not received. Under the new methodology, it was 

expected that response rates on December 31, 2003, would have exceeded the corresponding 

response rates on December 31, 1999—when the mail phase, and only for some questionnaires, 

the computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) follow-up phase, took place. In fact, only 

the school questionnaires had higher interview rates in 2003. Table 19 shows the comparisons by 

questionnaire. Response rates are covered in more detail in chapter 6. 

Table 19. Percentage interviewed, by date and questionnaire: 1999, 2003 

Questionnaire 12/31/1999 12/31/2003

School District 67 61

Principal1

 83 64

Private School Principal1

 76 52

School2

 51 61

Private School2

 45 53

School Library Media Center3

 62 52

1

 In 1999, included mail and computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) data collection by December 31. 

2

 In 1999, included only mail data collection by December 31. 

3

 In 1999, included mail and CATI to encourage mail or internet response by December 31. 

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

“Preliminary Field Data File,” 1999–2000 and 2003–04. 
88 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

• Response rates for Teacher Listing Form and teacher questionnaires were about the same. 

• Response rates varied by Regional Office. 

• Use of the SASS Teacher Listing instrument up-front enabled out-of-scope schools to be 

identified at the beginning of the survey, rather than during processing. However, tracking cases 

and resolving whether a case was an interview, noninterview, or out-of-scope remained 

problematic and time consuming. 
89 

Chapter 6. Response Rates 

This chapter presents the survey response rates for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). 

First, the unit response rates are presented in detail. Next, the item response rates for each survey type are 

summarized. Following these sections, the nonresponse bias analyses that were conducted on both the 

unit and the items for this SASS are described, and major findings are presented. 

Survey Response Rates 

Unit response rates are the rate at which the sampled units respond by substantially completing the 

questionnaire. Unit response rates can be calculated as unweighted or weighted. The unweighted response 

rates are the number of interviewed sampled units divided by the number of eligible (i.e., in-scope) 

sampled units, which include respondents plus nonrespondents but not ineligible (i.e., out-of-scope) units. 

The weighted response rates are the base-weighted (i.e., initial basic weight multiplied by the sampling 

adjustment factor) number of interviewed cases divided by the base-weighted number of eligible cases. 

The base weight for each sampled unit is the inverse of the probability of selection. See chapter 9 for 

further discussion of the weighting. 

The unweighted, weighted, and weighted overall (across all stages of selection, in the case of teachers) 

response rates for each data file and the Teacher Listing Forms are listed in table 20. Table 21 provides 

public school response rates by state for districts, schools, principals, teachers, and school library media 

centers. Exhibit 2 shows which states comprise each of the Census Bureau Regional Offices and which 

are the 12 offices that were responsible for data collection. Table 22 provides private school response 

rates by private school typology for schools, principals, and teachers. The response rate tables are useful 

as an indication of possible nonresponse bias. The unweighted response rates provide a general indication 

of the success of the data collection effort, while the weighted response rates provide a measure of the 

quality of the data and the potential for nonresponse bias. 
90 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table 20. Weighted and unweighted response rates and weighted overall response rates in 

percent, by survey population: 2003–04 

Survey population 

Unweighted 

response rate

Weighted 

response rate 

Weighted overall 

response rate1

Public school Teacher Listing Form 89.4 89.2 †

Private school Teacher Listing Form 84.1 85.4 †

BIA-funded school Teacher Listing Form2

 93.8 93.8 †

Public school district 81.9 82.9 †

Public school 80.5 80.8 †

Private school 74.4 75.9 †

BIA-funded school2

 89.5 89.5 †

Public school principal 82.4 82.2 †

Private school principal 73.8 74.9 †

BIA-funded school principal2

 90.7 90.7 †

Public school teacher 84.0 84.8 75.7

Private school teacher 81.6 82.4 70.4

BIA-funded school teacher2

 91.4 92.0 86.3

Public school library media center 78.2 76.9 †

BIA-funded school library media center2

 82.1 82.1 †

† Not applicable. 

1

 Weighted questionnaire response rate times the weighted response rate for the Teacher Listing Form. 2

 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

NOTE: Response rates were weighted using 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 District, Public School, BIA School, Private School, Public School Principal, BIA School Principal, Private School 

Principal, Public School Teacher, BIA School Teacher, Private School Teacher, Public School Library Media Center, and BIA 

School Library Media Center Documentation Data Files,” 2003–04. 
Chapter 6. Response Rates 91

Table 21. Final weighted response rates in percent for public school districts, schools, principals, 

teachers, and school library media centers, by state: 2003–04 

Teachers 

State 

Public 

school 

districts Schools Principals

Teacher 

Listing Form

Teacher 

Questionnaire

Overall teacher 

response rate1 

School library 

media centers

 Total 82.9 80.8 82.2 89.2 84.8 75.7 76.9

Alabama 97.0 89.5 90.2 99.1 89.4 88.6 87.6

Alaska 89.9 79.9 81.1 95.9 84.0 80.6 74.0

Arizona 88.5 86.0 84.8 89.8 92.1 82.7 81.2

Arkansas 74.2 82.6 83.4 94.2 82.8 78.0 84.7

California 82.5 71.2 72.8 83.4 79.9 66.7 71.4

 

Colorado 86.0 81.6 78.3 86.1 85.2 73.4 74.4

Connecticut 70.6 81.7 82.8 86.8 87.6 76.1 72.8

Delaware 71.6 73.4 75.6 87.7 83.7 73.5 71.7

District of Columbia 100.0 73.2 77.6 94.7 73.9 70.0 48.8

Florida 87.9 83.1 84.5 90.8 86.0 78.1 78.8

 

Georgia 86.5 82.9 87.9 93.0 89.3 83.0 87.6

Hawaii 100.0 80.1 82.5 85.4 83.5 71.3 77.8

Idaho 89.2 97.1 97.2 99.4 93.6 93.1 93.3

Illinois 84.9 78.0 79.1 82.3 84.4 69.5 65.1

Indiana 82.4 84.2 86.0 94.8 84.1 79.7 79.3

 

Iowa 83.9 87.2 91.4 94.3 86.2 81.4 87.2

Kansas 88.0 82.6 88.5 95.0 83.7 79.5 89.6

Kentucky 78.4 78.8 81.1 89.8 81.1 72.8 69.9

Louisiana 97.4 87.0 89.9 94.8 91.1 86.4 83.7

Maine 77.8 85.6 87.7 93.8 85.3 80.1 85.1

 

Maryland 79.2 75.4 66.8 90.5 70.7 63.9 65.2

Massachusetts 80.4 85.2 84.3 89.1 82.1 73.2 73.6

Michigan 69.2 84.2 86.0 92.1 80.8 74.4 69.1

Minnesota 81.2 76.9 77.4 88.7 80.2 71.1 73.1

Mississippi 96.2 95.3 94.9 97.5 96.3 93.9 91.5

 

Missouri 84.0 80.8 86.4 92.1 84.3 77.6 84.1

Montana 87.8 86.5 90.5 96.9 83.5 80.9 87.6

Nebraska 87.2 86.9 84.6 91.8 88.7 81.4 85.4

Nevada 76.5 78.9 80.1 83.9 88.7 74.4 68.9

New Hampshire 86.2 87.0 85.8 87.5 91.9 80.4 80.6

 

New Jersey 83.3 67.5 72.0 83.4 80.9 67.4 65.4

New Mexico 95.5 74.8 80.0 87.4 79.8 69.7 73.8

New York 77.4 68.5 70.9 81.0 79.2 64.2 67.3

North Carolina 70.9 80.1 82.9 90.4 84.0 75.9 78.2

North Dakota 90.8 89.4 93.9 97.9 84.3 82.6 87.0

See notes at end of table. 
92 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table 21. Final weighted response rates in percent for public school districts, schools, principals, 

teachers, and school library media centers, by state: 2003–04—Continued 

Teachers 

State 

Public 

school 

districts Schools Principals

Teacher 

Listing Form 

Teacher 

Questionnaire

Overall teacher 

response rate1 

School library 

media centers

Ohio 78.0 86.2 86.5 90.5 89.6 81.1 77.3

Oklahoma 85.8 86.0 89.4 96.3 84.9 81.7 84.3

Oregon 77.4 74.0 79.2 77.6 88.7 68.8 72.4

Pennsylvania 90.9 81.7 81.3 91.8 85.7 78.7 76.9

Rhode Island 68.3 74.1 76.3 76.7 84.1 64.5 69.6

 

South Carolina 87.1 86.4 89.3 90.8 91.2 82.8 82.6

South Dakota 82.6 83.1 91.2 97.1 82.2 79.8 79.8

Tennessee 86.0 92.4 92.0 95.5 90.8 86.7 84.6

Texas 92.9 87.9 86.8 90.3 90.8 82.0 83.6

Utah 93.8 82.0 82.1 87.6 92.1 80.6 80.1

 

Vermont 37.3 71.9 72.8 77.9 85.6 66.7 69.2

Virginia 72.2 67.9 69.7 78.9 80.0 63.1 68.4

Washington 69.5 79.0 82.7 91.4 84.1 76.9 82.2

West Virginia 75.4 94.2 94.5 99.2 88.1 87.4 76.6

Wisconsin 78.3 81.2 84.4 89.6 80.2 71.8 78.2

Wyoming 90.8 83.0 84.4 90.4 82.6 74.7 77.3

1

 Weighted questionnaire response rate times the weighted response rate for the Teacher Listing Form. 

NOTE: Response rates were weighted using 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 District, Public School, Public School Principal, Public School Teacher, and Public School Library Media Center 

Documentation Data Files,” 2003–04. 
Chapter 6. Response Rates 93

The geographic variation in response rates also can be examined by looking at the state response rates 

(from table 21) within each Census Bureau Regional Office. The 2003–04 SASS data collection was 

administered by 12 different Census Bureau Regional Offices. The states comprising each Regional 

Office are shown below in exhibit 2. 

Exhibit 2. United States map, by Census Bureau Regional Office 

Seattle Regional Office

Denver Regional Office

Los Angeles 

Regional Office 

Dallas Regional Office Atlanta Regional Office 

Charlotte Regional Office 

Philadelphia 

Regional Office 

New York Regional Office

Chicago Regional Office

Kansas City 

Regional Office Detroit Regional Office

Boston Regional Office
94 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table 22. Final weighted response rates in percent for private schools, principals, and teachers, by 

NCES typology: 2003–04 

Teachers 

NCES typology Schools Principals

Teacher 

Listing 

Form 

Private School 

Teacher 

Questionnaire 

Overall

teacher 

response rate1

 All private schools 75.9 74.9 85.4 82.4 70.4

Catholic 81.6 82.9 88.3 85.9 75.8

 Parochial 84.3 84.4 90.0 85.1 76.6

 Diocesan 80.0 82.5 87.6 87.6 76.7

 Private 74.5 77.0 82.8 84.1 69.7

Other religious 74.0 71.1 84.5 80.6 68.1

 Conservative Christian 75.8 73.9 84.2 81.5 68.6

 Affiliated with a religious school association 78.5 77.8 85.3 82.3 70.1

 Unaffiliated with a religious school 

 association 68.8 62.7 84.3 77.0 64.9

Nonsectarian 72.6 72.7 83.6 79.2 66.2

 Regular program 60.4 61.4 76.2 77.3 58.9

 Special emphasis 77.3 77.9 85.9 79.2 68.0

 Special education 85.8 83.8 92.3 85.9 79.2

1

 Weighted questionnaire response rate times the weighted response rate for the Teacher Listing Form. 

NOTE: Response rates were weighted using the inverse of the probability of selection. 

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

“Private School, Private School Principal, and Private School Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2003–04. 

Item Response Rates 

The weighted item response rates are the number of sampled cases responding to an item divided by the 

number of sampled cases eligible to answer the item (i.e., not a valid skip) and adjusted by the final 

weight. For all items except the student race items on the district and school questionnaires, a counted 

response is any item that is not missing and the value of the associated imputation flag is 0. For the 

student race items on the district (d0052–d0057) and school (s0417–s0422) questionnaires, a counted 

response is any item that is not missing and the value of the associated imputation flag is 0 or 1. See 

chapter 8 for detailed information on imputations. 

For SASS, the weighted item response rates ranged from 0 percent to 100 percent. Table 23 provides a 

brief summary of the item response rates. The item response rates in these tables are weighted and do not 

reflect additional response loss due to cases that refused to participate in the survey. Exhibit 3 lists the 

questionnaire items with weighted response rates of less than 70 percent. 
Chapter 6. Response Rates 95

Table 23. Summary of weighted item response rates, by survey population: 2003–04 

Survey population 

Range of item 

response rates

Percentage of 

items with a 

response rate of 

85 percent or more

Percentage of 

items with a 

response rate of 

70–84 percent 

Percentage of

 items with a 

response rate of 

less than 70 percent

Public school district 52–100 90 8 2

Public school 71–100 91 9 0

Private school 49–100 90 9 1

BIA-funded school1

 65–100 70 26 4

Public school principal 76–100 95 5 0

Private school principal 86–100 100 0 0

BIA-funded school principal1

 61–100 93 2 5

Public school teacher 44–100 90 7 3

Private school teacher 64–100 92 7 1

BIA-funded school teacher1

 0–100 81 16 3

Public school library media center 84–100 97 3 0

BIA-funded school library media 

 center1 71–100 90 10 0 1

 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

2

 The zero response rate resulted from one item where the only eligible respondent did not answer the item; the next lowest 

response rate was 63 percent. 

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

School District, Public School, BIA School, Private School, Public School Principal, BIA School Principal, Private School 

Principal, Public School Teacher, BIA School Teacher, Private School Teacher, Public School Library Media Center, and BIA 

School Library Media Center Documentation Data Files,” 2003–04. 

Exhibit 3. Items with weighted response rates of less than 70 percent, by survey population: 

2003–04 

Survey population Items 

Public school district 58C, 58F, 65A, 66D 

 

Private school 5F, 23E, 29C, 62 (high) 

 

BIA-funded school1

 4, 78A, 78B, 78C, 78D, 78E, 78F, 78G, 78H, 78I, 78J, 78K, 78L 

 

BIA-funded school principal1

 29A, 29B, 29C, 30A, 30B, 30C, 30D, 30E, 30F, 30G, 30H 

 

Public school teacher 19(8, subject), 19(8, grade), 19(8, enrollment), 19(9, subject), 19(9, grade), 19(9, 

enrollment), 19(10, subject), 19(10, grade), 19(10, enrollment), 23D(7, year) 

 

Private school teacher 19(10, grade), 19(10, enrollment), 31G(1, code), 31G(2, code) 

 

BIA-funded school teacher1

 4, 6E, 19(10, subj), 19(10, enrollment), 23B(7, code), 23D(5, year), 23D(7, year), 

31F(2, code), 31G(1, code) 1

 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

NOTE: Numbers in this table refer to questionnaire item numbers, while letters or parenthetical descriptions refer to subitems.

The first item number presented in this table, 58C, is subitem C on the School District Questionnaire. 

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

School District, BIA School, Private School, BIA School Principal, Public School Teacher, BIA School Teacher, and Private 

School Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2003–04. 
96 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Nonresponse Bias Analysis 

A comprehensive nonresponse bias analysis was conducted for each of the components of the 2003–04 

SASS. The analysis evaluated the extent of potential bias introduced by nonresponse from school 

districts, schools, school principals, teachers, and school library media centers at both the unit and item 

levels. 

Unit-Level Nonresponse 

Overview of Methodology 

The first step in conducting the bias analysis was to examine the overall response rate for each file by 

state or affiliation stratum and the reporting characteristics (i.e., urbanicity, school level, and enrollment). 

If the response rate fell below 50 percent, that population would not be reported separately in a published 

table. Instead, the data would be replaced with a double dagger, but the estimates would be included in 

the total. The footnote would read, “Reporting standards not met. The base-weighted unit response rate 

was below 50 percent.” For any state or affiliation stratum where the response rate was less than 85 

percent, a more detailed analysis was done on the other reporting characteristics. The results were 

highlighted if that particular cell had a significantly higher or lower response rate than the file as a whole 

and bolded if the difference was noteworthy. A noteworthy difference had to meet the following 

conditions: 

• The difference relative to the overall response rate, or frame proportion, was greater than 10 

percent. 

• The absolute difference was greater than one percentage point. 

• The coefficient of variation was less than 15 percent. 

• The cell had at least 30 interviews. 

In addition, the base-weighted distribution of the respondents was compared to the distribution on the 

frame, which was adjusted for sampled units identified as out-of-scope. As discussed above, significant 

differences were highlighted and noteworthy cells were bolded. Finally, these same comparisons were 

analyzed using the final-weighted distributions. 

Comparing the overall response rate of each file to the tabulation cells helped to identify areas of potential 

concern. Comparing the base-weighted distribution of the respondents to the adjusted frame helped to 

identify areas of potential bias for data items that were not particularly well correlated with the weighting 

cells. Comparisons with the final-weighted distributions identified areas of potential bias for data items 

correlated with the weighting cells. 

Summary of Conclusions. Evidence of substantial bias was not found on any of the 12 data files or the 3 

Teacher Listing Form files. Nevertheless, response rates that fell below the acceptable level of 50 percent 

for particular states in public sector files and strata in private sector files were found and will not be 

reported separately in publications. These include public school districts in Vermont, public school library 

media centers in the District of Columbia, and principals in Amish private schools. 
Chapter 6. Response Rates 97

Summary for Public School Districts (LEA)17

The overall response rate for public school districts was 82.9 percent, requiring a closer examination of 

nonresponse. The more detailed analysis was performed by state and the two primary reporting 

characteristics (i.e., urbanicity and enrollment). 

The overall response rate for 27 states was below 85 percent and 1 state, Vermont, had a response rate of 

36.3 percent. For these states, the frame distribution was compared to the base-weighted respondent 

distribution for the reporting characteristics. The results of this analysis identified 3 out of 225 

comparisons that were significant and noteworthy based upon the previously identified criteria. These 

differences were found in the enrollment categories for Maine and New Jersey (table 24). 

Table 24. Base-weighted public school district frame distribution, interviewed sample 

distribution, standard errors, and t statistic, by selected state and reporting 

characteristics: 2003–04 

Frame distribution 

(adjusted for out-of-scope districts) 

and standard error 

Interviewed sample distribution 

(adjusted for out-of-scope districts) 

State and reporting and standard error 

characteristic Proportion Standard error Proportion Standard error

t statistic 

(frame 

compared 

to sample)

Maine 

 Urbanicity 

 Central city 0.028 0.0000 0.046 0.0245 -0.7313

 Urban fringe or large town 0.152 0.0000 0.159 0.0175 -0.4351

 Small town or rural 0.820 0.0000 0.795 0.0938 0.2724

 Enrollment 

 Less than 250 0.197 0.0000 0.123 0.0407 1.8035

 250–999 0.393 0.0000 0.422 0.0803 -0.3584

 1,000–1,999 0.197 0.0000 0.204 0.0207 -0.3615

 2,000 or more 0.208 0.0000 0.251 0.0092 -4.6538

New Jersey 

 Urbanicity 

 Central city 0.061 0.0000 0.072 0.0181 -0.6199

 Urban fringe or large town 0.902 0.0000 0.877 0.2093 0.1180

 Small town or rural 0.037 0.0000 0.051 0.0147 -0.9127

 Enrollment 

 Less than 250 0.164 0.0000 0.141 0.1677 0.1371

 250–999 0.336 0.0000 0.187 0.1500 0.9997

 1,000–1,999 0.198 0.0000 0.269 0.1063 -0.6724

 2,000–4,999 0.199 0.0000 0.265 0.0310 -2.1273

 5,000–9,999 0.078 0.0000 0.117 0.0095 -4.1020

 1,000 or more 0.025 0.0000 0.022 0.0014 2.3194

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

School District Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 

The frame and base-weighted respondent distributions were also compared for the district’s urbanicity 

and student enrollment, but no significant and noteworthy differences were found. 

Conclusion/Course of Action. Based on this analysis, evidence of substantial bias was not found. 

Nevertheless, the overall response rate for districts in Vermont was below the 50 percent threshold and, as 

 

17 LEA refers to Local Education Agency. 
98 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

a result, the district data for that state will not be reported. Data for Vermont will be included in the total 

and footnoted. 

Footnote: ‡ Reporting standards not met. The base-weighted unit response rate was below 50 percent. 

Summary for Public Schools 

The overall response rate for public schools was 80.9 percent, requiring a closer examination of 

nonresponse on this file. The more detailed analysis was performed by state and the three primary 

reporting characteristics (i.e., school level, urbanicity, and enrollment). 

The overall response rate for 33 states was below 85 percent. For these states, the frame distribution was 

compared to the base-weighted respondent distribution for the reporting characteristics. The results of this 

analysis identified 10 out of 396 comparisons that were significant and noteworthy based upon the 

previously identified criteria.

While the proportion of respondents from California public schools differed significantly from the 

proportion on the frame, there were no significant differences in the distribution of the reporting 

characteristics. This suggests that there is no substantial evidence of a nonresponse bias for California 

public schools. Nine states did have noteworthy differences in the distribution of respondents within 

urbanicity or enrollment. A selection of these is presented in table 25. 

Among the reporting characteristics, there were significant and noteworthy differences for two of the 

enrollment categories: public schools with 100–199 students and 750–999 students. Neither of these 

enrollment categories was identified as noteworthy and significant within the states. 
Chapter 6. Response Rates 99

Table 25. Base-weighted public school frame distribution, interviewed sample distribution, 

standard errors, and t statistic, by selected state and reporting characteristics: 2003–04 

Frame distribution 

(adjusted for ineligible units) 

and standard error 

Interviewed 

sample distribution 

State and reporting and standard error 

characteristic Proportion Standard error Proportion Standard error 

t statistic

(frame 

compared to 

sample)

Alaska 

 School level 

 Elementary 0.369 0.0000 0.429 0.0353 1.7022

 Secondary 0.172 0.0126 0.169 0.0254 -0.1015

 Combined 0.459 0.0366 0.402 0.0460 -0.9742

 Urbanicity 

 Central city 0.196 0.0000 0.263 0.0325 2.0582

 Urban fringe or large town 0.060 0.0123 0.029 0.0103 -1.9438

 Small town or rural 0.745 0.0386 0.709 0.0555 -0.5293

 Enrollment 

 Less than 100 0.397 0.0338 0.281 0.0548 -1.8009

 100–199 0.154 0.0204 0.169 0.0324 0.3859

 200–499 0.315 0.0127 0.409 0.0387 2.2874

 500–749 0.084 0.0000 0.092 0.0121 0.6314

 750–999 0.020 0.0000 0.028 0.0076 1.0050

 1,000 or more 0.030 0.0000 0.023 0.0043 -1.6727

California 

 School level 

 Elementary 0.701 0.0079 0.677 0.0307 -0.7679

 Secondary 0.259 0.0047 0.284 0.0376 0.6718

 Combined 0.040 0.0014 0.039 0.0030 -0.3297

 Enrollment 

 Less than 100 0.111 0.0009 0.134 0.0394 0.5621

 100–199 0.054 0.0065 0.058 0.0159 0.2251

 200–499 0.235 0.0041 0.226 0.0283 -0.2897

 500–749 0.254 0.0027 0.227 0.0280 -0.9475

 750–999 0.175 0.0043 0.193 0.0218 0.8202

 1,000 or more 0.172 0.0005 0.162 0.0188 -0.4961

Georgia 

 School level 

 Elementary 0.808 0.0229 0.809 0.0274 0.0263

 Secondary 0.172 0.0064 0.170 0.0133 -0.0908

 Combined 0.020 0.0004 0.021 0.0016 0.2410

 Urbanicity 

 Central city 0.158 0.0117 0.132 0.0194 -1.1661

 Urban fringe or large town 0.500 0.0057 0.571 0.0231 2.9881

 Small town or rural 0.343 0.0199 0.298 0.0219 -1.5090

 Enrollment 

 Less than 100 0.008 0.0000 0.016 0.0109 0.7468

 100–199 0.013 0.0206 0.009 0.0045 -0.2223

 200–499 0.249 0.0114 0.288 0.0431 0.8869

 500–749 0.349 0.0000 0.307 0.0540 -0.7791

 750–999 0.180 0.0024 0.186 0.0386 0.1300

 1,000 or more 0.201 0.0000 0.196 0.0305 -0.1920

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

School Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 
100 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Conclusion/Course of Action. Based on this analysis, evidence of substantial bias was not found. 

Summary for BIA-Funded Schools 

The overall response rate for BIA-funded schools was 89.3 percent. BIA-funded schools were stratified 

by state groupings: Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, and all other states. Only one category, “All 

Other States,” had a response rate of less than 85 percent. Comparisons of the frame distribution to the 

base-weighted respondent distribution for the state groupings and reporting characteristics revealed that 

none were both significant and noteworthy. 

Conclusion/Course of Action. Based on this analysis, evidence of substantial bias was not found. 

Summary for Private Schools 

The overall response rate for private schools was 75.8 percent, requiring a closer examination of 

nonresponse on this file. A more detailed analysis was performed by strata and the three primary 

reporting characteristics (i.e., school level, urbanicity, and enrollment). 

The overall response rate for 15 strata (including the “missing” category) was below 85 percent. For these 

strata, the frame distribution was compared to the base-weighted respondent distribution for the reporting 

characteristics. The results of this analysis identified 5 out of 165 comparisons that were significant and 

noteworthy based upon the previously identified criteria. These differences were found in the Catholic—

diocesan and other religious strata (table 26). 

Among the reporting characteristics, there was one significant and noteworthy difference between the 

frame and base-weighted distribution of respondents—for small town or rural private schools. 
Chapter 6. Response Rates 101

Table 26. Base-weighted private school frame distribution, interviewed sample distribution, 

standard errors, and t statistic, by selected strata and reporting characteristics: 2003–04 

Frame distribution 

(adjusted for ineligible units) 

 and standard error 

Interviewed 

sample distribution 

Stratum and reporting and standard error 

characteristic Proportion Standard error Proportion Standard error 

t statistic 

(frame 

compared to 

sample)

All strata 

 Urbanicity 

 Central city 0.345 0.0039 0.320 0.0100 2.3375

 Urban fringe or large town 0.473 0.0047 0.467 0.0104 0.5071

 Small town or rural 0.183 0.0036 0.214 0.0102 -2.8556

Catholic—diocesan 

 School level 

 Elementary 0.776 0.0054 0.756 0.0144 1.2970

 Secondary 0.171 0.0056 0.180 0.0115 -0.7130

 Combined 0.054 0.0014 0.064 0.0090 -1.1830

 Urbanicity 

 Central city 0.415 0.0046 0.351 0.0228 2.7651

 Urban fringe or large town 0.455 0.0047 0.469 0.0277 -0.4954

 Small town or rural 0.130 0.0048 0.181 0.0224 -2.1965

 Enrollment 

 Less than 100 0.096 0.0047 0.149 0.0219 -2.3340

 100–199 0.254 0.0048 0.284 0.0277 -1.0500

 200–499 0.485 0.0048 0.415 0.0253 2.7180

 500–749 0.104 0.0022 0.082 0.0134 1.6610

 750 or more 0.061 0.0014 0.072 0.0098 -1.0770

Other religious 

 School level 

 Elementary 0.468 0.0124 0.484 0.0183 -0.7350

 Secondary 0.035 0.0074 0.039 0.0065 -0.3735

 Combined 0.497 0.0117 0.477 0.0183 0.9200

 Urbanicity 

 Central city 0.314 0.0096 0.250 0.0208 2.7912

 Urban fringe or large town 0.473 0.0115 0.483 0.0247 -0.3718

 Small town or rural 0.214 0.0109 0.268 0.0249 -1.9825

 Enrollment 

 Less than 100 0.519 0.0127 0.567 0.0237 -1.7810

 100–199 0.245 0.0086 0.219 0.0199 1.1745

 200–499 0.173 0.0042 0.167 0.0162 0.4028

 500–749 0.038 0.0014 0.032 0.0067 0.9046

 750 or more 0.025 0.0012 0.015 0.0041 2.2552

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

“Private School Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 

Conclusion/Course of Action. Based on this analysis, evidence of substantial bias was not found. 

Summary for Public School Principals 

The overall response rate for public school principals was 82.3 percent, requiring a closer examination of 

nonresponse on this file. The more detailed analysis was performed by state and the three primary 

reporting characteristics (i.e., school level, urbanicity, and enrollment). 
102 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

The overall response rate for 29 states was below 85 percent. For these states, the frame distribution was 

compared to the base-weighted respondent distribution for the reporting characteristics. The results of this 

analysis identified 7 out of 348 comparisons that were significant and noteworthy based upon the 

previously identified criteria. 

While the proportion of respondents from California public schools differed significantly from the 

proportion on the frame, only central city public school principals differed significantly from the 

proportion on the frame. Noteworthy differences were found in five other states. A selection of these is 

presented in table 27. Among the reporting characteristics, there were significant and noteworthy 

differences between the frame and base-weighted respondents for principals from combined schools and 

schools in central cities. 

Table 27. Base-weighted public school principal frame distribution, interviewed sample 

distribution, standard errors, and t statistic, by selected state and reporting 

characteristics: 2003–04 

Frame distribution 

(adjusted for ineligible units) 

 and standard error 

Interviewed 

sample distribution 

State and reporting and standard error 

characteristic Proportion Standard error Proportion Standard error 

t statistic 

(frame 

compared to 

sample)

California 

 School level 

 Elementary 0.702 0.0080 0.689 0.0277 -0.4313

 Secondary 0.258 0.0060 0.275 0.0376 0.4358

 Combined 0.040 0.0014 0.036 0.0030 -1.2472

 Urbanicity 

 Central city 0.319 0.0052 0.280 0.0190 -1.9820

 Urban fringe or large town 0.598 0.0083 0.608 0.0410 0.2372

 Small town or rural 0.083 0.0029 0.112 0.0166 1.7250

 Enrollment 

 Less than 100 0.111 0.0009 0.111 0.0350 -0.0011

 100–199 0.054 0.0065 0.065 0.0176 0.5860

 200–499 0.235 0.0041 0.247 0.0284 0.4256

 500–749 0.254 0.0027 0.220 0.0277 -1.2248

 750–999 0.175 0.0059 0.194 0.0214 0.8724

 1,000 or more 0.172 0.0018 0.163 0.0187 -0.4515

Virginia 

 School level 

 Elementary 0.718 0.0059 0.751 0.0289 1.1245

 Secondary 0.214 0.0032 0.219 0.0236 0.1949

 Combined 0.068 0.0067 0.030 0.0082 -3.5546

 Urbanicity 

 Central city 0.238 0.0059 0.191 0.0224 -2.0141

 Urban fringe or large town 0.480 0.0059 0.428 0.0295 -1.7325

 Small town or rural 0.282 0.0046 0.381 0.0203 4.7547

 Enrollment 

 Less than 100 0.029 0.0000 

 100–199 0.050 0.0000 0.088 0.0297 1.2663

 200–499 0.406 0.0067 0.399 0.0442 -0.1456

 500–749 0.280 0.0059 0.294 0.0376 0.3511

 750–999 0.109 0.0000 0.099 0.0227 -0.4701

 1,000 or more 0.126 0.0032 0.121 0.0202 -0.2517

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

School Principal Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 
Chapter 6. Response Rates 103

Conclusion/Course of Action. Based on this analysis, evidence of substantial bias was not found. 

Summary for Private School Principals 

The overall response rate for private school principals was 74.9 percent, requiring a closer examination of 

nonresponse on this file. The more detailed analysis was performed by strata and the three primary 

reporting characteristics (i.e., school level, urbanicity, and enrollment). 

The overall response rate for 16 strata (including the “missing” category) was below 85 percent and the 

response rate for the Amish strata was 40.7 percent. For these strata, the frame distribution was compared 

to the base-weighted respondent distribution for the reporting characteristics. Overall, there were no 

comparisons that were both significant and noteworthy for each strata and reporting characteristic. 

Examining the strata by school level, urbanicity, and enrollment, identified five comparisons out of a total 

of 154 that were significant and noteworthy based upon the previously identified criteria. The noteworthy 

differences occurred in three strata: Catholic—diocesan, Jewish, and other religious (table 28). 

Among the reporting characteristics, there were no significant and noteworthy differences between the 

frame and base-weighted respondents for private school principals. 
104 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table 28. Base-weighted private school principal frame distribution, interviewed sample 

distribution, standard errors, and t statistic, by selected strata and reporting 

characteristics: 2003–04 

Frame distribution (adjusted for 

ineligible units) and standard error

Interviewed sample distribution 

Stratum and reporting and standard error 

characteristic Proportion Standard error Proportion Standard error 

t statistic 

(frame compared 

to sample)

Catholic—diocesan 

 School level 

 Elementary 0.776 0.0054 0.755 0.0131 1.4333

 Secondary 0.171 0.0056 0.178 0.0101 -0.5815

 Combined 0.054 0.0014 0.067 0.0075 -1.7759

 Urbanicity 

 Central city 0.415 0.0046 0.345 0.0224 3.0801

 Urban fringe or large town 0.455 0.0047 0.474 0.0268 -0.7251

 Small town or rural 0.130 0.0048 0.181 0.0222 -2.2236

 Enrollment 

 Less than 100 0.096 0.0047 0.138 0.0210 -1.9255

 100–199 0.254 0.0048 0.294 0.0269 -1.4761

 200–499 0.485 0.0048 0.416 0.0254 2.6490

 500–749 0.104 0.0022 0.084 0.0142 1.3917

 750 or more 0.061 0.0014 0.067 0.0092 -0.7024

Jewish 

 School level 

 Elementary 0.485 0.0200 0.635 0.0387 -3.4593

 Secondary 0.277 0.0131 0.159 0.0389 2.8696

 Combined 0.239 0.0243 0.206 0.0310 0.8358

 Urbanicity 

 Central city 0.554 0.0198 0.551 0.0580 0.0429

 Urban fringe or large town 0.441 0.0199 0.449 0.0580 -0.1283

 Small town or rural 0.005 0.0002 0.000 0.0000 23.9285

 Enrollment 

 Less than 100 0.331 0.0190 0.285 0.0582 0.7632

 100–199 0.239 0.0100 0.195 0.0502 0.8663

 200–499 0.288 0.0275 0.360 0.0575 -1.1305

 500–749 0.085 0.0036 0.117 0.0285 -1.1025

 750 or more 0.056 0.0023 0.044 0.0182 0.6869

 

Other religious 

 School level 

 Elementary 0.469 0.0135 0.481 0.0174 -0.5726

 Secondary 0.036 0.0075 0.036 0.0058 -0.0489

 Combined 0.496 0.0125 0.482 0.0171 0.6185

 Urbanicity 

 Central city 0.315 0.0108 0.252 0.0216 2.6179

 Urban fringe or large town 0.474 0.0116 0.498 0.0258 -0.8209

 Small town or rural 0.211 0.0118 0.251 0.0247 -1.4646

 Enrollment 

 Less than 100 0.513 0.0133 0.560 0.0244 -1.7038

 100–199 0.248 0.0089 0.222 0.0206 1.1735

 200–499 0.176 0.0044 0.170 0.0162 0.3755

 500–749 0.038 0.0014 0.031 0.0069 1.1035

 750 or more 0.025 0.0012 0.018 0.0049 1.3789

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

“Private School Principal Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 
Chapter 6. Response Rates 105

Conclusion/Course of Action. Based on this analysis, evidence of substantial bias was not found. 

Nevertheless, the overall response rate for principals in the Amish strata was below the 50 percent 

threshold and, as a result, the data for that stratum will not be reported separately. Data for Amish school 

principals will be included in the total and footnoted. 

Footnote: ‡ Reporting standards not met. The base-weighted unit response rate was below 50 percent. 

Summary for BIA-Funded School Principals 

The overall response rate for BIA-funded school principals was 90.4 percent. Comparisons of the frame 

distribution to the base-weighted respondent distribution for state groupings, school level, enrollment, and 

urbanicity showed that none of the comparisons were both significant and noteworthy, because all 

significant cells had fewer than 30 interviews. 

Conclusion/Course of Action. Based on this analysis, evidence of substantial bias was not found. 

Summary for Public School Library Media Centers 

The overall response rate for public school library media centers was 76.9 percent, requiring a closer 

examination of nonresponse on this file. The more detailed analysis was performed by state and the three 

primary reporting characteristics (i.e., school level, urbanicity, and enrollment). 

The overall response rate for 40 states was below 85 percent and the response rate for the District of 

Columbia was 48.8 percent. For these states, the frame distribution was compared to the base-weighted 

respondent distribution for the reporting characteristics. The results of this analysis identified 26 out of 

480 comparisons that were significant and noteworthy based upon the previously identified criteria. The 

noteworthy differences occurred in 15 states. Selected states are highlighted below in table 29. 

Among the reporting characteristics, there were significant and noteworthy differences between the frame 

and base-weighted respondents for library media centers in combined schools, central city and small 

town/rural schools, and schools in the lowest and highest enrollment categories (less than 100 and 1,000 

or more). 

Table 29. Base-weighted public school library media center frame distribution, interviewed 

sample distribution, standard errors, and t statistic, by selected state and reporting 

characteristics: 2003–04 

Frame distribution 

(adjusted for ineligible units) 

and standard error 

Interviewed 

sample distribution 

State and reporting and standard error 

characteristic Proportion Standard error Proportion Standard error 

t statistic 

(frame 

compared to 

sample)

Alaska 

 School level 

 Elementary 0.374 0.0124 0.461 0.0410 2.0334

 Secondary 0.162 0.0177 0.145 0.0160 -0.6969

 Combined 0.464 0.0391 0.394 0.0460 -1.1686

 Urbanicity 

 Central city 0.194 0.0078 0.285 0.0387 2.2973

 Urban fringe or large town 0.061 0.0126 0.049 0.0099 -0.7645

 Small town or rural 0.744 0.0431 0.666 0.0533 -1.1440

See notes at end of table. 
106 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table 29. Base-weighted public school library media center frame distribution, interviewed 

sample distribution, standard errors, and t statistic, by selected state and reporting 

characteristics: 2003–04—Continued 

Frame distribution 

(adjusted for ineligible units) 

and standard error 

Interviewed 

sample distribution 

State and reporting and standard error 

characteristic Proportion Standard error Proportion Standard error 

t statistic 

(frame 

compared to 

sample)

Alaska 

 Enrollment 

 Less than 100 0.393 0.0419 0.188 0.0454 -3.3102

 100–199 0.155 0.0203 0.176 0.0371 0.4844

 200–499 0.317 0.0154 0.454 0.0466 2.7826

 500–749 0.084 0.0066 0.118 0.0146 2.1475

 750–999 0.020 0.0000 0.033 0.0091 1.4050

 1,000 or more 0.031 0.0000 0.031 0.0054 0.0151

Arizona 

 School level 

 Elementary 0.649 0.0269 0.761 0.0327 2.6642

 Secondary 0.251 0.0147 0.198 0.0124 -2.7474

 Combined 0.101 0.0183 0.041 0.0144 -2.5691

 Urbanicity 

 Central city 0.481 0.0284 0.460 0.0340 -0.4907

 Urban fringe or large town 0.329 0.0111 0.317 0.0264 -0.4324

 Small town or rural 0.190 0.0220 0.224 0.0180 1.1990

 Enrollment 

 Less than 100 0.179 0.0342 0.027 0.0141 -4.0891

 100–199 0.119 0.0136 0.057 0.0284 -1.9733

 200–499 0.230 0.0084 0.308 0.0434 1.7673

 500–749 0.228 0.0053 0.302 0.0420 1.7535

 750–999 0.130 0.0013 0.131 0.0340 0.0312

 1,000 or more 0.115 0.0014 0.175 0.0226 2.6455

Colorado 

 School level 

 Elementary 0.702 0.0150 0.737 0.0474 0.7127

 Secondary 0.211 0.0152 0.196 0.0110 -0.7968

 Combined 0.088 0.0129 0.067 0.0086 -1.3240

 Urbanicity 

 Central city 0.289 0.0085 0.319 0.0302 0.9702

 Urban fringe or large town 0.440 0.0133 0.378 0.0361 -1.6056

 Small town or rural 0.272 0.0221 0.303 0.0337 0.7786

 Enrollment 

 Less than 100 0.081 0.0244 0.037 0.0233 -1.3110

 100–199 0.102 0.0077 0.069 0.0238 -1.3338

 200–499 0.441 0.0093 0.487 0.0490 0.9105

 500–749 0.246 0.0019 0.255 0.0333 0.2747

 750–999 0.050 0.0000 0.045 0.0170 -0.2616

 1,000 or more 0.079 0.0000 0.107 0.0138 1.9939

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

School Library Media Center Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 

Conclusion/Course of Action. Based on this analysis, evidence of substantial bias was not found. 

Nevertheless, the overall response rate for public school library media centers in the District of Columbia 
Chapter 6. Response Rates 107

was below the 50 percent threshold and, as a result, the library data for that state will not be reported. 

Data for the District of Columbia will be included in the total and footnoted. 

Footnote: ‡ Reporting standards not met. The base-weighted unit response rate was below 50 percent. 

Summary for BIA-Funded School Library Media Centers 

The overall response rate for BIA-funded school library media centers was 81.9 percent. Though this falls 

below the desired 85 percent response rate, a more detailed analysis of selected states, school level, 

enrollment, and urbanicity showed that none of the base-weight frame to respondent distribution 

comparisons was both significant and noteworthy. All of the significant comparisons can be explained by 

having fewer than 30 interviews. 

Conclusion/Course of Action. Based on this analysis, evidence of substantial bias was not found. 

Summary for Public School Teachers 

The overall response rate for public school teachers was 86.0 percent. The more detailed analysis was 

performed by state and the three primary reporting characteristics (i.e., school level, urbanicity, and 

enrollment). 

The overall response rate for 19 states was below 85 percent and the response rate for the District of 

Columbia was 76.5 percent. For these states, the frame distribution was compared to the base-weighted 

respondent distribution for the reporting characteristics. The results of this analysis identified 15 out of 

871 comparisons that were significant and noteworthy based upon the previously identified criteria. 

Conclusion/Course of Action. Based on this analysis, evidence of substantial bias was not found. 

Summary for Private School Teachers 

The overall response rate for private school teachers was 85.4 percent. 

The overall response rate for nine strata (not including the “missing” category) was below 85 percent. For 

these states, the frame distribution was compared to the base-weighted respondent distribution for the 

reporting characteristics. None of the comparisons were significant and noteworthy based upon the 

previously identified criteria. 

Conclusion/Course of Action. Based on this analysis, evidence of substantial bias was not found. 

Summary for BIA-Funded School Teachers 

The overall response rate for BIA-funded school teachers was 92.3 percent. Comparisons of the frame 

distribution to the base-weighted respondent distribution by state groupings, school level, enrollment, and 

urbanicity showed that one of the comparisons was significant and noteworthy. The proportion of 

teachers from BIA-funded schools located in states other than Arizona, New Mexico, and South Dakota 

who responded to the survey was significantly less than the proportion on the frame. 

Conclusion/Course of Action. Based on this analysis, evidence of substantial bias was not found. 
108 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Summary for the Public School Teacher Listing Form 

The overall response rate for the public school Teacher Listing Form was 89.2 percent. The overall 

response rate for nine states was below 85 percent. For these states, the frame distribution was compared 

to the base-weighted respondent distribution for the reporting characteristics. The results of this analysis 

identified 5 out of 104 comparisons that were significant and noteworthy based upon the previously 

identified criteria. 

Conclusion/Course of Action. Based on this analysis, evidence of substantial bias was not found. 

Summary for the Private School Teacher Listing Form 

The overall response rate for the private school Teacher Listing Form was 85.2 percent. The overall 

response rate for seven strata (not including the “missing” category) was below 85 percent. The stratum 

with the lowest response rate, at 62.8 percent, was Jewish. However, none of the analysis variables within 

Jewish schools had response rates significantly different than the overall unit response rate. 

For these strata, the frame distribution was compared to the base-weighted respondent distribution for the 

reporting characteristics. Four out of 74 comparisons were significant and noteworthy based upon the 

previously identified criteria. 

Conclusion/Course of Action. Based on this analysis, evidence of substantial bias was not found. 

Summary for the BIA-Funded School Teacher Listing Form 

The overall response rate for the BIA-funded school Teacher Listing Form was 94.0 percent. 

Comparisons of the frame distribution to the base-weighted respondent distribution by state grouping, 

school level, enrollment, and urbanicity showed that none of the comparisons were both significant and 

noteworthy. 

Conclusion/Course of Action. Based on this analysis, evidence of substantial bias was not found. 

Item Nonresponse Bias Analysis 

Overview of Methodology 

The item bias analysis examined the overall response rate for each item on each file.18 The analysis 

included examining the item response rates by state for public sector files, affiliation stratum for private 

sector files, state groupings for BIA sector files, and by the reporting characteristics (i.e., urbanicity, 

school level, and enrollment) for all files using the final weight for all in-scope sampled units. If the 

overall response rate for the item fell below 70 percent, the item will be footnoted in National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) publications with “Item response rate is below 70 percent” as a method of 

cautioning the user that the low item response rate introduces some potential for bias in the imputation 

procedure. For any state, affiliation stratum, or state grouping where the item response rate was less than 

85 percent, a more detailed analysis was done by the reporting characteristics. The results were 

 

18 For public school districts, screening items used to determine a district’s eligibility for the survey (A1–A4) or 

whether the district’s physical location or street address were different than what was presented on the survey cover 

(C1) were excluded from the analysis. The screening items excluded were used to verify that the respondent was a 

district and whether the district was still in operation, had the correct grade range, or had merged with another 

district. 
Chapter 6. Response Rates 109

highlighted if that particular cell had a significantly higher or lower response rate than the file as a whole 

and bolded if the difference was noteworthy. A noteworthy difference met the following conditions: 

• The difference relative to the overall response rate for the particular item was greater than 10 

percent. 

• The absolute difference was greater than one percentage point. 

• The coefficient of variation was less than 15 percent. 

• The cell had at least 30 interviews. 

Table 30 presents the number of items by response rate for each data file. Of particular concern are the 

items with an overall response rate below 70 percent. These items are listed in exhibit 4. 

Table 30. Number of questionnaire items, by response rate category and data file: 2003–04 

Data file 

Total 

items

Items 

95 percent 

and above

Items 

between 

85 and 94 

percent

Items 

between 

70 and 84 

percent 

Items below 

70 percent

Public School District 216 84 112 16 4

Public School 219 95 105 19 0

BIA School1

 351 93 153 92 13

Private School 335 120 180 31 4

Public School Principal 202 184 7 11 0

BIA School Principal1

 202 80 107 4 11

Private School Principal 167 161 6 0 0

Public School Library Media Center 98 73 22 3 0

BIA School Library Media Center1

 97 37 50 10 0

Public School Teacher 294 190 74 20 10

BIA School Teacher1

 296 97 141 49 9

Private School Teacher 307 183 99 21 4

1

 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

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

School District, Public School, BIA School, Private School, Public School Principal, BIA School Principal, Private School 

Principal, Public School Teacher, BIA School Teacher, Private School Teacher, Public School Library Media Center, and BIA 

School Library Media Center Documentation Data Files,” 2003–04. 
110 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Exhibit 4. Items with a response rate below 70 percent, by data file: 2003–04 

Data file Item 

Public School District Item 58c: Years of computer science instruction required for graduation 

 Item 58f: Years of foreign language instruction required for graduation 

 Item 65a: General district operating funds used for teacher professional development 

 Item 66d: Pay incentives used to recruit or retain teachers in less desirable locations 

 

BIA School1

 Item 4: Number of male students enrolled in the school 

 Item 78a: General elementary training available to teachers at no cost to cover 

anticipated shortages 

 Item 78b: Special education training available to teachers at no cost to cover anticipated 

shortages 

 Item 78c: English training available to teachers at no cost to cover anticipated shortages 

 Item 78d: Social studies training available to teachers at no cost to cover anticipated 

shortages 

 Item 78e: Computer science training available to teachers at no cost to cover anticipated 

shortages 

 Item 78f: Mathematics training available to teachers at no cost to cover anticipated 

shortages 

 Item 78g: Physical science training available to teachers at no cost to cover anticipated 

shortages 

 Item 78h: Biology training available to teachers at no cost to cover anticipated shortages 

 Item 78i: English as a second language training available to teachers at no cost to cover 

anticipated shortages 

 Item 78j: Foreign language training available to teachers at no cost to cover anticipated 

shortages 

 Item 78k: Music or art training available to teachers at no cost to cover anticipated 

shortages 

 Item 78l: Vocational education training available to teachers at no cost to cover 

anticipated shortages 

 

Private School Item 5f: Total enrollment 

 Item 23e: Has this school been accredited by another organization 

 Item 29c: Years of computer science instruction required for graduation 

 Item 62-high: Highest annual teacher’s base salary 

 

BIA School Principal1

 Item 29a: Received additional resources that support school-wide activities 

 Item 29b: Received additional resources to distribute to teachers 

 Item 29c: Received nonmonetary recognition 

 Item 30a: Required to write a program improvement plan 

 Item 30b: Put on an evaluation cycle with required improvement 

 Item 30c: Provided with additional resources to support instructional improvement 

 Item 30d: Penalized by reduction in resources 

 Item 30e: Principal replaced 

 Item 30f: Reconstituted or taken over 

 Item 30g: Required to provide supplemental educational services 

 Item 30h: Required to provide a school choice program 

 

Public School Teacher Item 19_8subj: Subject matter taught in 8th class 

 Item 19_8grade: Grade level of 8th class taught 

 Item 19_8enrl: Enrollment of 8th class taught 

 Item 19_9subj: Subject matter taught in 9th class 

 Item 19_9grade: Grade level of 9th class taught 

 Item 19_9enrl: Enrollment of 9th class taught 

See notes at end of exhibit. 
Chapter 6. Response Rates 111

Exhibit 4. Items with a response rate below 70 percent, by data file: 2003–04—Continued 

Data file Item 

Private School Teacher Item 19_10subj: Subject matter taught in 10th class 

 Item 19_10grade: Grade level of 10th class taught 

 Item 19_10enrl: Enrollment of 10th class taught 

 Item 23_d7_year: Year doctorate earned 

 

BIA School Teacher1

 Item 4: How much time worked as a teacher at this school 

 Item 6e: Status of teaching position 

 Item 19_10subj: Subject matter taught in 10th class 

 Item 19_10enrl: Enrollment of 10th class 

 Item 23_d5_year: Year educational specialist degree earned 

 Item 23_b7_code: Field of study for doctorate 

 Item 23_d7_year: Year doctorate earned 

 Item 31_f2_grade: Grade level for additional content area certified 

 Item 31_g1_code: Subject matter of additional content area certified 

 

Private School Teacher Item 19_10grade: Subject matter taught in 10th class 

 Item: 19_10enrl: Enrollment of 10th class taught 

 Item 32_g1_code: Subject matter of additional content area certified 

 Item 32_g2_grade: Grade level of additional content area certified 1

 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

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

School District, BIA School, Private School, BIA School Principal, Public School Teacher, BIA School Teacher, and Private 

School Teacher Documentation Data Files,” 2003–04. 

Summary of Conclusions 

Public School Districts. Twenty items had a response rate below 85 percent, requiring a closer 

examination. Of those items, four had a response rate below 70 percent, necessitating a footnote. The 

closer examination of response rates revealed no substantial evidence of a bias. 

Public Schools. Nineteen items had a response rate below 85 percent, requiring a closer examination. Of 

those items, all were above 70 percent, so no footnoting was necessary. The closer examination of 

response rates revealed no substantial evidence of a bias. 

BIA-Funded Schools. One hundred five items had a response rate below 85 percent, requiring a closer 

examination. Of those items, thirteen were below 70 percent, necessitating a footnote. The closer 

examination of response rates revealed no substantial evidence of a bias, primarily because most of the 

detailed analysis cells had fewer than 30 interviews. 

Private Schools. Thirty-five items had a response rate below 85 percent, requiring a closer examination. 

Of those items, four were below 70 percent, necessitating a footnote. The closer examination of response 

rates revealed no substantial evidence of a bias. 

Public School Principals. Eleven items had a response rate below 85 percent, requiring a closer 

examination. All of those items had a response rate above 70 percent, so no footnoting was necessary. 

The closer examination of response rates revealed no substantial evidence of a bias. 

BIA-Funded School Principals. Fifteen items had a response rate below 85 percent, requiring a closer 

examination. Eleven of these items had a response rate below 70 percent, necessitating a footnote. The 
112 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

closer examination of response rates revealed no substantial evidence of a bias, primarily because most of 

the analysis cells had fewer than 30 interviews. 

Private School Principals. No items had a response rate below 85 percent, so no closer examination was 

needed. 

Public School Library Media Centers. Three items had a response rate below 85 percent, requiring a 

closer examination. All of the items had a response rate above 70 percent, so no footnoting was necessary. 

A closer examination of response rates revealed no substantial evidence of a bias. 

BIA-Funded School Library Media Centers. Ten items had a response rate below 85 percent, requiring a 

closer examination. All of the items had a response rate above 70 percent, so no footnoting was necessary. 

A closer examination of the response rates revealed no substantial evidence of a bias. 

Public School Teachers. Thirty items had a response rate below 85 percent, necessitating a closer 

examination. Ten items had a response rate below 70 percent requiring a footnote. A closer examination 

of the response rates revealed no substantial evidence of a bias. 

BIA-Funded School Teachers. Fifty-eight items had a response rate below 85 percent, requiring a closer 

examination. Nine items had a response rate below 70 percent requiring a footnote. A closer examination 

of the response rates revealed no substantial evidence of a bias, primarily because most of the cells had 

fewer than 30 interviews. 

Private School Teachers. Twenty-five items had a response rate below 85 percent, requiring a closer 

examination. Four items had a response rate below 70 percent, necessitating a footnote. A closer 

examination of response rates revealed no substantial evidence of a bias. 
113 

Chapter 7. Data Processing 

Once the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) data collection was completed, data processing 

began. Census Bureau field representatives, who were responsible for all of the data collection at the 

sampled schools, were also responsible for the first phase of data processing. This involved using the 

Regional Office Systems Control (ROSCO) system to track cases, as well as assign an outcome code to 

each one. Once this was completed, all cases were shipped to the Census Bureau clerical processing staff 

in Jeffersonville, Indiana. There, the cases were assigned a check-in code that indicated their status, and 

the data from completed questionnaires were captured and sent to Census Bureau analysts in reformatted 

datasets. Census Bureau analysts were responsible for resolving outcome codes, conducting preliminary 

data review, and assigning the preliminary interview status. They performed a series of computer edits on 

the data to identify inconsistencies, assigned a final interview status to each case, and imputed items that 

were still “not-answered.” Up to this point, all data were processed and split into data files by 

questionnaire. The final step of data processing was to split the questionnaire datasets up into 12 final 

files by respondent type. All tables in this chapter contain data by final file, not questionnaire. 

Questionnaire Check-in 

School district questionnaires were returned to the Census Bureau Regional Offices. The school district 

questionnaires were checked in and tracked at the Regional Offices using a specially designed database. 

Field representatives had discretion over the way in which respondents returned their forms. The field 

representatives could arrange to pick up completed questionnaires at the school or could provide postagepaid envelopes for the schools to mail their completed questionnaires to the Regional Office. In both 

cases, the school-level forms were checked in and tracked using the ROSCO system, a system that 

interacted with a case management system on the field representatives’ laptops. Field staff used ROSCO 

to assign an outcome code to each case. The three outcome codes were completed interview, out-ofscope, and noninterview. 

Questionnaires were assigned outcome codes and edited for critical items. (See exhibit 5.) Critical items 

are those that must be answered in order for a questionnaire to be considered completed. If a critical item 

was missing, the Regional Office supervisor contacted the field representative or respondent directly to 

obtain the data. After editing the school district questionnaires, field staff grouped them into batches of 

100 and shipped all complete and incomplete interviews to the clerical processing staff in Jeffersonville, 

Indiana, where data keying took place. The remaining SASS questionnaires that were complete interviews 

were grouped into batches of 100 by questionnaire type and shipped to the same clerical processing staff. 

Upon receipt, clerical processing staff assigned a check-in code (separate from the outcome code 

previously assigned by field staff) to each questionnaire to indicate its status. All school district 

questionnaires were assigned a check-in code, but only complete interviews were assigned a check-in 

code for the remaining SASS forms. The code was entered into the Automated Tracking And Control 

(ATAC) system. The questionnaires were then grouped into batches by type and interview status (i.e., 

interviews, noninterviews, and out-of-scope for the survey) for data capture. 
114 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Exhibit 5. Critical item editing table, by questionnaire: 2003–04 

Questionnaire Page Item Source code1 Description 

4 3 0051 Total number of K–12 students was reported 

 (number should be greater than 0) 

School District— 

 2 critical items 

6 8 0064 Total number of full-time equivalent teachers was 

 reported (number should be greater than 0) 

4 1 or 2 0025 or 0026 Years as principal of this school OR years as 

 principal of any other school was reported 

And at least 5 of the following items should have data: 

4 3 0027 Teaching experience before becoming a principal 

4 4 0028 Teaching experience since becoming principal 

5 6a–g 0030–0036 Prior positions held by the principal 

6 9 0039 Highest degree earned by the principal 

26 41 0254 Gender 

26 42 0255 Hispanic origin 

26 43 0256–0260 Race 

Principal— 

 9 critical items, 

 6 required 

26 44 0262 Year of birth 

4 1 or 2 0025 or 0026 Years as principal of this school OR years as 

 principal of any other school was answered 

And at least 5 of the following items should have data: 

4 3 0027 Teaching experience before becoming a principal 

4 4 0028 Teaching experience since becoming principal 

5 6a–g 0030–0036 Prior positions held by the principal 

6 8 0039 Highest degree earned by the principal 

22 35 0254 Gender 

22 36 0255 Hispanic origin 

22 37a 0256–0260 Race 

Private School 

 Principal— 

 9 critical items, 

 6 required 

22 38 0262 Year of birth 

4 2 0414 Number of K–12 students was reported 

 (number should be greater than 0) 

School— 

 2 critical items 

15 34 0513 or 0514 Number of full- and/or part-time teachers was 

 reported 

5 2 0734 Number of K–12 students was reported 

 (number should be greater than 0) 

Private School— 

 2 critical items 

15 24 0513, 791–795 Number of full- and/or part-time teachers was 

 reported 

4 2 0414 Number of K–12 students was reported 

 (number should be greater than 0) 

Unified School— 

 2 critical items 

22 51 0513 or 0514 Number of full- and/or part-time teachers was 

 reported 

6 7 or 8 0034 or 0035 Year began teaching at this school OR at any school 

 was reported 

8 11 0051–0065 Listed teaching at least one grade 

One of these two items: 

9 15 0069 or 5069 

11 17 0075 or 5075 

Main teaching assignment at the school was reported 

And at least one of the following questions answered: 

13 20a 0116 Bachelor’s degree 

14 22a 0123 Master’s degree 

Teacher and Private 

 School Teacher— 

 7 critical items, 

 4 required 

15 23 0127 Other degrees 

See notes at end of exhibit. 
Chapter 7. Data Processing 115 

Exhibit 5. Critical item editing table, by questionnaire: 2003–04—Continued 

Questionnaire Page Item Source code1 Description 

School Library Media 4 2 0026 Total number of seats in the library was reported 

 Center— 

 2 critical items 

10 18a 0089 Total number of books in the library was reported 

1

 Source codes are used to identify specific items on the SASS questionnaires. For each questionnaire item, the four-digit source 

code can be found to the left of the first answer choice. 

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

School District, Public School, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) School, Private School, Public School Principal, BIA School 

Principal, Private School Principal, Public School Teacher, BIA School Teacher, Private School Teacher, Public School Library 

Media Center, and BIA School Library Media Center Documentation Data Files,” 2003–04. 

Data Capture 

The 2003–04 SASS data were captured (converted from paper to electronic format) using a combination 

of manual data keying and imaging technology. Manual data keying, used for most of the SASS 

questionnaires, was accomplished using a Key from Paper (KFP) data capture system. The KFP system 

was programmed to present screens of questionnaire items to data keying staff, who worked through each 

page of the questionnaire and keyed any entries into the appropriate fields on the screens. The KFP 

system performed various edits as the data were keyed. Imaging technology differs from KFP by first 

capturing an electronic image of each questionnaire page. Along with the image capture, data could be 

captured using Optical Mark Recognition (OMR). The OMR recognized the marked box (next to 

precoded items) or the written alphanumerical entry, and entered the appropriate data into the OMR 

database for that questionnaire. Alternatively, the images could be presented to data keying staff, who 

captured the data by keying any entries into the appropriate fields on the screens (similar to the KFP 

process). 

All of the SASS questionnaires except for the public and private teacher questionnaires (including all 

SASS reinterview questionnaires) were captured utilizing the KFP system.19 Prior to keying, KFP 

programs were developed for each questionnaire. Images of these forms were captured after data entry 

was completed. The image files were used during subsequent steps of data processing to view the actual 

questionnaires online. All KFP entries were 100 percent verified by the keying staff, meaning that each 

field was keyed twice and the results were compared automatically for discrepancies and, subsequently, 

verified. The verification during this operation allowed up to a 1 percent error on a field-to-field basis. 

Unacceptable batches of questionnaires (where there was more than a 1 percent error) were 100 percent 

verified a second time by keying staff. A more detailed discussion of data capture and results of the 

keying verification for all SASS questionnaires are provided in “Appendix O. Quality Assurance for 

Keying and Mailout Operations.” 

The data from SASS teacher questionnaires were captured using imaging technology and a combination 

of OMR and Key from Image (KFI). The precoded items (all items where the respondent answered by 

marking a box) on the SASS public and private school teacher questionnaires were captured utilizing 

OMR. All write-in fields (e.g., open-ended, numeric, and character fields) for these questionnaires were 

captured by the KFI process. OMR and KFI are both methods used by the Workflow and Image 

Processing System (WIPS), an automated data capture system. 

When the SASS public and private school teacher questionnaires were received and checked in by the 

Census Bureau clerical processing staff, they were disassembled, and each duplex page was scanned. 

Images of each duplex page were created along with a data response file. The data response file was 

 

19 The Teacher Listing Form data were captured using the SASS Teacher Listing instrument. 
116 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

processed through imaging recognition software at a 99 percent confidence level. If the recognition 

software was 99 percent certain that the box next to the precoded response field contained a valid mark, 

the entry was copied to an output file. If the response fell outside the confidence level, the imaged 

response was presented to a member of the keying staff. This member of the keying staff then had to 

interpret and key the data from the image of the questionnaire duplex page. 

All of the open-ended items also were presented to members of the keying staff. All nonblank write-in 

KFI entries were 100 percent verified, meaning that each field was keyed twice, and the results were 

compared automatically for discrepancies and, subsequently, verified. The fields that were read as blank 

by the KFI system were verified at a 5 percent rate. That is, of the total number of write-in fields that 

were read as blanks for each item, 5 percent were verified a second time to verify that they were blank. 

The sample verification during this operation allowed a 1 percent error on a field-to-field basis. 

Unacceptable (sample verified) batches of questionnaires where there was more than a 1 percent error 

were 100 percent reverified by keying staff by referring back to the original survey. A more detailed 

discussion of data capture and results of the keying verification for all SASS teacher questionnaires are 

provided in “Appendix O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations.” 

The automated OMR and KFI data capture methods were chosen for the teacher forms because of the 

large quantity of questionnaires, as compared to the other SASS forms. Generally, it takes more time to 

program the automated OMR and KFI programs than it takes to program the KFP method. But the OMR 

captures data much faster than keying from paper, so the time savings from a large quantity of OMR data 

capture can offset the additional programming time for the operation. 

Reformatting 

After the SASS questionnaire data were captured, the output files were reformatted into SAS datasets in 

order to facilitate the remaining data processing and cleaning. 

Outcome Code Resolution 

Automation issues led to a number of problems with accurately recording outcome codes for the library 

media center, school, teacher, and principal questionnaires and the Teacher Listing Form. The problems 

fell into three distinct categories: teacher resampling, ROSCO to ATAC mismatches, and SASS Teacher 

Listing instrument to questionnaire mismatches. 

Teacher Sampling Issues 

Three types of errors occurred during the teacher sampling and data collection: teacher lists were 

resampled after they had been sampled once, teachers received questionnaires for invalid control 

numbers, and teacher questionnaires were swapped. A total of 5,045 teacher records, including 1,150 

private school teacher records and 3,895 public school teacher records, required some form of 

reconciliation. 

The teacher resampling occurred in about 40 schools because the Teacher Listing instrument, as 

originally released, allowed the field representative to reenter the listing of teachers after the sample of 

teachers was drawn. Additions or changes to the list of teachers forced the teacher sampling to be rerun 

and a new teacher sample to appear in place of the original one. Generally, the teacher questionnaires had 

already been distributed to the original sample, so the original sample was considered valid. To resolve 

this problem, names of teachers from the instrument were compared to names on the returned 

questionnaires. If most of the names within a school were nonmatches, then resampling was presumed to 
Chapter 7. Data Processing 117 

have occurred. The questionnaire names were accepted as the valid sample provided they fit a valid 

sampling pattern and the listing information was corrected to be consistent with these sampled teachers. 

The resampling problem had minor implications for the sampling; primarily due to uncertainty in the 

identity of the nonresponding teachers and their specific listing information. The sampling problem also 

had implications for field follow-up, since field staff were unable to pursue the nonrespondents. Listing 

information for these teachers was imputed in order to complete the weighting procedure as described in 

chapter 9. 

The second type of error occurred when the field representative had to conduct nonresponse follow-up on 

sampled teachers and, rather than using replacement labels and blank questionnaires to conduct this 

operation, the sampled teachers were provided with unused questionnaires from the sampling procedure. 

This resulted in the correct teachers being interviewed, but the wrong control number being included on 

the questionnaires. The control numbers were subsequently corrected for responding teachers. This 

problem had no implications for the integrity of the teacher sampling, because the identity of the correct 

sample was preserved in the automated case management system. 

The third type of error occurred when questionnaires were distributed to the correct sample of teachers, 

but in the wrong order, resulting in a swapping of control numbers for the sampled teachers. Teacher 

names from the returned questionnaires were compared to the names from the Teacher Listing instrument. 

When swapping occurred, control numbers on the returned questionnaires were corrected to be consistent 

with the sampling. This problem had no implications for the integrity of the teacher sampling, since the 

identities of the correct sample of teachers were preserved in the automated case management system. 

ROSCO to ATAC Mismatches 

SASS utilized two distinct systems to track outcome codes for questionnaires. The ROSCO system was 

set up so that field representatives could update the status of each individual case using their laptop by 

recording when questionnaires were dropped off or picked up. When each questionnaire was received by 

the Regional Office, field staff would ensure that the form was a valid and completed interview and 

update the outcome code appropriately. In order to clear a case from the field representative’s laptop to 

indicate that it was no longer active, the field representative needed to update the outcome code in 

ROSCO’s case management and transmit the case to the Regional Office. The field representative would 

then transmit the case once again to remove the case from his or her laptop. Finally, the Regional Office 

would check the form out and send it to the centralized check-in facility in Jeffersonville, the Census 

Bureau’s clerical processing staff. Problems within the ROSCO system caused some Regional Offices to 

intentionally miscode refusals as completed interviews, because it was the only way to remove the cases 

from the case management system in the field representatives’ laptops. Only complete, in-scope 

interviews were supposed to be transmitted to the clerical processing staff (for all questionnaires other 

than the district). 

The Census Bureau clerical processing staff used the ATAC check-in system for the questionnaires. 

Initially, each questionnaire, as identified by the respondent’s control number, was assigned a check-in 

code of “99,” which means that the form had not been received. As forms were received, the check-in 

code was changed to “01,” meaning that the interview was received. The field staff mailed a number of 

forms that were not valid interviews to the clerical processing staff. In some cases, these were discovered 

before the form was checked in and each one was pulled from the batching process. The ATAC code for 

these cases remained a “99.” In other cases, the invalid interviews were not discovered until keying; these 

interviews already had been assigned the ATAC code of “01.” These cases were pulled from the keying 

process and their ATAC codes were changed to an invalid interview code, either a “97” (blank 

questionnaire, misc.) or “98” (received but not complete). 
118 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

At the conclusion of data collection, Census Bureau analysts compared outcome codes from ROSCO to 

the check-in codes from ATAC and found many inconsistencies. For example, for some cases, the 

Regional Office indicated that a form had a ROSCO code of “201” (completed interview), but ATAC did 

not show that the clerical processing staff had received a completed form. Likewise, there were several 

cases where a completed form was received by the clerical processing staff, but the ROSCO outcome 

code indicated an out-of-scope, refusal, or other noninterview code. Census Bureau analysts worked to 

reconcile each of these cases and then updated the ROSCO and ATAC outcome codes accordingly. 

Approximately 800 cases went through this resolution process. 

SASS Teacher Listing Instrument to Questionnaire Mismatches 

After reconciliation was completed with regard to teacher sampling and the ROSCO/ATAC mismatches, 

Census Bureau analysts investigated inconsistencies that were discovered between outcome codes from 

the SASS Teacher Listing instrument and the outcome codes on the related forms (e.g., school, principal, 

or school library media center questionnaire). For example, some Teacher Listing Forms were coded as 

complete in ROSCO (code of “801”), but the corresponding teacher questionnaires had an outcome code 

of “233,” meaning that the Teacher Listing Form had not been completed. This problem was most 

prevalent on the public and private teacher questionnaires. Over 2,000 individual cases went through this 

reconciliation. 

The problem with inconsistencies between the Teacher Listing Form and questionnaire outcome codes 

was an artifact of the teacher resampling issue and of field representatives restarting cases. Investigation 

of the discrepancy showed that these cases were refusals that were converted into interviews at a later 

time. When a Teacher Listing Form was a refusal, all 20 of the teacher records were set to an outcome 

code of “233” (Teacher Listing Form not completed).20 When a case was converted to an interview during 

follow-up, the teacher control numbers were assigned valid outcome codes. However, the unused teachers 

(20 records minus the teachers actually sampled) should have had their outcome codes changed to “247” 

(unused teacher), but many actually remained as “233.” 

Similar situations occurred with cases in which the district refused to participate in SASS (code of 

“923”)21 or the school had no principal (code of “252”). Census Bureau analysts reviewed each case by 

looking at the questionnaires (which were stored in image files), Teacher Listing instrument notes, and 

the output from the Teacher Listing instrument. A spreadsheet was created for each of the surveys. These 

spreadsheets included updated outcome codes for each inconsistent case. Upon completion of the file, 

analysts updated the outcome codes and reran the comparison. If a new set of mismatches was identified, 

then it was corrected in a new spreadsheet. 

Primary Data Review and 

Preliminary Interview Status Recode (ISR) Classification 

A data review process ran simultaneously with the outcome code resolution process. During data review, 

Census Bureau analysts examined frequencies of each data item in order to identify any suspicious values 

(e.g., if an item’s response was outside the range of possible answer choices, or if an answer seemed 

unlikely given the respondent’s other responses in the survey). For these, they looked at the image of the 

 

20 The case management system was initialized with 20 teacher records for each school. If the school was made outof-scope in the Teacher Listing instrument, all cases associated with the school were made out-of-scope. If the 

school remained in scope, some of the 20 teacher records became sampled cases, and the remainders were coded as 

“unused teachers.” 

21 In some cases, the school district refused to allow its schools to participate in SASS from the beginning. Later, 

some of these districts approved the survey. 
Chapter 7. Data Processing 119 

questionnaire page to verify that the data were keyed correctly. Appropriate fixes were made to the data 

files. Analysts also reviewed questionnaires to ensure that key items were answered and that enough of 

the questionnaire items were completed. When analysts identified a potential problem, they verified that 

data were keyed correctly by reviewing an electronic image of the questionnaire. If data were missing, 

analysts attempted to recontact the school or use nonintrusive means of obtaining the data (e.g., school 

website, intraquestionnaire imputation). 

The next step in data processing was the preliminary determination of each case’s interview status recode 

(ISR); that is, whether each case was an interview, a noninterview, or was out-of-scope for SASS. In 

general, cases with an “out-of-scope” outcome code that had been assigned by the SASS Teacher Listing 

instrument were classified as out-of-scope (ISR = 3) for the preliminary ISR. Otherwise, cases with data 

entries were classified as completed interviews (ISR = 1). Cases with no data, cases lacking critical items, 

or cases where the district or school had refused for all respondents were classified as noninterviews 

(ISR = 2). 

Computer Edits 

After primary data review and the preliminary ISR classification, all files were submitted to a series of 

computer edits. These edits consisted of a range check, a consistency edit, and a blanking edit. 

The first of the computer edits was the range check. The range check was used to delete entries that were 

outside the range of acceptable values that were set prior to the administration of SASS. 

Actual changes to the data were made during the consistency edit. The consistency edits identified 

inconsistent entries within each case and, whenever possible, corrected them. If the inconsistencies could 

not be corrected, the entries were deleted. These inconsistencies occurred 

• within items (e.g., if the response to the “Yes/No” part of School Questionnaire item 10—

whether or not the school has one or more temporary buildings—was “No,” but the capacity of 

temporary buildings was greater than zero for the second part of the item); or 

• between items (e.g., if School Questionnaire item 56 indicated that the school does not participate 

in the National School Lunch Program, but one or more students were reported as approved for 

this program in item 57). 

In addition, the consistency edit filled in some items where data were missing or incomplete by using 

other information on the same data record. For example, if some parts of School Questionnaire item 5—

student counts by race—had entries, and the sum of those parts was greater than or equal to the school’s 

total enrollment, then a zero entry was put in each part that was unanswered during the consistency edit. 

The blanking edits deleted extraneous entries (e.g., in situations where skip patterns were not followed 

correctly) and assigned the “not answered” (.N) code to items that should have been answered but were 

not. 

The only records that were put through the series of edits were those classified as interviews in the 

preliminary ISR. The tables in “Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by 

Data File,” show the number of edit changes made to entries for each of the variables within each data 

file. For information about how the data files were created from the questionnaire data, see the final 

section, “Data Products,” in this chapter. These changes are summarized in table 31 below. 
120 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table 31. Summary of changes made to variables in the computer edit, by data file: 2003–04 

Number of variables changed during edits by percent of 

records on which the variable was changed 

Data file 

Total 

number 

of cases 

Total

number of 

variables in 

questionnaire None

1–15 

percent

16–30 

percent 

More than 

30 percent

Public School District 4,421 294 0 247 41 6

 

Public School Principal 8,143 202 0 189 13 0

Private School Principal 2,376 167 1 163 3 0

BIA School Principal1 146 202 20 165 6 11

 

Public School 7,991 239 0 197 20 22

Private School 2,456 402 0 338 57 7

BIA School1

 145 238 15 118 63 42

 

Public School Teacher 43,244 326 15 307 4 0

Private School Teacher 7,979 349 15 331 3 0

BIA School Teacher1

 624 326 18 289 19 0

Public School Library Media 

 Center 7,229 99 1 88 7 3

BIA School Library Media 

 Center 1 124 99 5 74 17 3 1

 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

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

School District, Public School, BIA School, Private School, Public School Principal, BIA School Principal, Private School 

Principal, Public School Teacher, BIA School Teacher, Private School Teacher, Public School Library Media Center, and BIA 

School Library Media Center Documentation Data Files,” 2003–04. 

Final Interview Status Edit 

After the range checks, consistency edits, and blanking edits were completed, the records were put 

through an edit to make a final determination of whether the case was eligible for the survey and, if so, 

whether sufficient data had been collected for the case to be classified as a completed interview. A final 

interview status recode (ISR) value was assigned to each case as a result of this edit. 

1. School District Questionnaire (Form SASS-1A) 

• A case was classified as out-of-scope (ISR = 3) if 

o the district named on the questionnaire was no longer in operation; or 

o the district did not serve any students in grades 1–12 or comparable ungraded levels; or 

o the agency named on the questionnaire label was not a school district or other public 

education agency that employed elementary and/or secondary teachers. 

• A case was classified as an interview (ISR = 1) if 

o none of the conditions for out-of-scope cases was met; and 

o the number of students in K–12 and comparable ungraded levels in the district was 

reported (D0051); and 

o the total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers was reported (D0064); and 

o There were data in at least 10 percent (28) of the remaining items. 

• A case was classified as a noninterview (ISR = 2) if an eligible case did not meet the 

requirements to be an interview case. 
Chapter 7. Data Processing 121 

2. Principal and Private School Principal Questionnaires (Forms SASS-2A and -2B) 

• A case was classified as out-of-scope (ISR = 3) if 

o the school named on the questionnaire label was classified as out-of-scope; or 

o the school had no principal, headmaster, or administrator. 

• A case was classified as an interview (ISR = 1) if 

o neither of the conditions for out-of-scope cases was met; and 

o the respondent had reported the total number of years served as a principal of his/her 

current school as well as any other school (A0025) or the respondent had reported the 

total number of years served as principal at the school where she/he is currently principal 

(A0026); and 

o there were valid entries in at least five of these items: 

- Years of elementary or secondary teaching experience before becoming a principal 

(A0027) 

- Years of elementary or secondary teaching experience since becoming a principal 

(A0028) 

- School positions held prior to becoming a principal (A0030–A0036) 

- Highest degree earned (A0039) 

- Gender (A0254) 

- Hispanic origin (A0255) 

- Race (A0256–A0260) 

- Year of birth (A0262); and 

o there were data in at least 10 percent (19) of the remaining items. 

• A case was classified as a noninterview (ISR = 2) if an eligible case did not meet the 

requirements to be an interview case. 

3. School Questionnaire (Form SASS-3A) 

• A case was classified as out-of-scope (ISR = 3) if 

o the school named on the questionnaire was not in operation during the 2003–04 school 

year; or 

o the school did not serve students in any of grades 1–12 or comparable ungraded levels; or 

o the institution named on the questionnaire was not a public school. 

• A case was classified as an interview (ISR = 1) if 

o none of the conditions for out-of-scope cases was met; and 

o the number of K–12 students was reported (S0414); and 

o the number of teachers working at the school was reported (S0513 and/or S0514) or the 

count of teachers from the Teacher Listing Form was greater than zero; and 

o there were data in at least 10 percent (23) of the remaining items. 

• A case was classified as a noninterview (ISR = 2) if an eligible case did not meet the 

requirements to be an interview case. 

4. Private School Questionnaire (Form SASS-3B) 

• A case was classified as out-of-scope (ISR = 3) if 

o the school named on the questionnaire was not in operation during the 2003–04 school 

year; or 

o the school did not serve students in any of grades 1–12 or comparable ungraded levels; or 

o the institution named on the questionnaire was not a private school. 

• A case was classified as an interview (ISR = 1) if 

o none of the conditions for out-of-scope cases was met; and 

o the number of K–12 students was reported (S0734); and 
122 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

o the number of teachers working at the school was reported (S0795) or the count of 

teachers from the Teacher Listing Form was greater than zero; and 

o there were data in at least 10 percent (22) of the remaining items. 

• A case was classified as a noninterview (ISR = 2) if an eligible case did not meet the 

requirements to be an interview case. 

5. Unified School Questionnaire (Form SASS-3Y) 

• A case was classified as out-of-scope (ISR = 3) if 

o the school named on the questionnaire was not in operation during the 2003–04 school 

year; or 

o the school did not serve students in any of grades 1–12 or comparable ungraded levels; or 

o the institution named on the questionnaire was not a public or Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) funded school. 

• A case was classified as an interview (ISR = 1) if 

o none of the conditions for out-of-scope cases was met; and 

o the number of K–12 students was reported (S0414); and 

o the number of teachers working at the school was reported (S0513 and/or S0514) or the 

count of teachers from the Teacher Listing Form was greater than zero; and 

o there were data in at least 10 percent (22) of the remaining items. 

• A case was classified as a noninterview (ISR = 2) if an eligible case did not meet the 

requirements to be an interview case. 

6. Teacher and Private School Teacher Questionnaires (Forms SASS-4A and -4B) 

• The school where the teacher was selected for sample was classified as out-of-scope by the 

Teacher Listing instrument. A case was classified as out-of-scope (ISR = 3) if 

o the teacher no longer worked at the school named on the questionnaire (e.g., he/she 

transferred to another school, left teaching, retired, or was deceased); or 

o the person named on the label was a short-term substitute teacher, student teacher, or 

teacher’s aide; or 

o the person named on the label was not a teacher; or 

o the person named on the questionnaire label had never worked at the school; 

o the person named on the questionnaire worked at the school but did not teach any classes 

(e.g., he/she was an assistant principal, counselor, or librarian); or 

o the teacher moved out of the United States. 

• A case was classified as an interview (ISR = 1) if 

o none of the conditions for out-of-scope cases was met; and 

o the respondent reported either the year that he/she began teaching in the school where 

he/she was selected for the survey sample (T0034) or the year he/she began full- or parttime teaching at the elementary or secondary level (T0035); and 

o the respondent reported whether he/she had a college degree (T0116 or T0123 or T0127); 

and 

o the respondent reported his/her main teaching assignment field (T0069 or T0075); and 

o at least one grade level of students taught by the respondent was reported (T0051–

T0065); and 

o there were data in at least 10 percent (34) of the remaining items (28 for the private 

school teachers). 

• A case was classified as a noninterview (ISR = 2) if an eligible case did not meet the 

requirements to be an interview case. 
Chapter 7. Data Processing 123 

7. School Library Media Center Questionnaire (Form LS-1A) 

• A case was classified as out-of-scope (ISR = 3) if 

o the school named on the questionnaire was classified as out-of-scope; or 

o the school did not have a library. 

• A case was classified as an interview (ISR = 1) if 

o neither of the conditions for out-of-scope cases was met; and 

o the number of books in the library (M0089) was greater than zero; or 

o the number of books acquired during the 2002–03 school year (M0090) was greater than 

zero; and 

o there were data in at least 10 percent (12) of the remaining items. 

• Cases were classified as noninterviews (ISR = 2) if an eligible case did not meet the 

requirements to be an interview case. 

The preliminary ISR and final ISR counts for each data file and the percent of change for each ISR 

classification are shown in table 32. For information about the file creation from the questionnaire data, 

see the final section of this chapter. 
124 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table 32. Preliminary and final interview status recode (ISR) counts and percent change, by data 

file: 2003–04 

Preliminary ISR Final ISR 

Percent change in 

ISR status 

Data file 

Sample 

size 

Number 

of 

interviews

Number 

of noninterviews

Number 

of

out-ofscope

Number 

of 

interviews

Number 

of noninterviews

Number 

of 

 out-ofscope 

Interviews 

Noninterviews

Out-ofscope

Public School District 5,437 4,745 647 45 4,421 976 40 -6.83 50.85 -10.87

 

Public School Principal 10,202 8,251 1,634 317 8,143 1,742 317 -1.31 6.61 0

Private School Principal 3,622 2,448 773 401 2,376 845 401 -2.94 9.31 0

BIA School Principal1 166 147 14 5 146 15 5 -0.68 7.14 0

 

Public School 10,202 8,123 1,801 278 7,991 1,933 278 -1.63 7.32 0

Private School 3,622 2,515 788 319 2,456 847 319 -2.35 7.48 0

BIA School1 166 145 17 4 145 17 4 0 0 0

 

Public School Teacher Listing 10,202 8,875 1,049 278 8,875 1,049 278 † † †

Private School Teacher Listing 3,622 2,777 526 319 2,777 526 319 † † †

BIA School Teacher Listing1 166 152 10 4 152 10 4 † † †

 

Public School Teacher 52,478 44,037 7,442 999 43,244 8,235 999 -1.8 10.66 0

Private School Teacher 9,947 8,323 1,452 172 7,979 1,796 172 -4.13 23.69 0

BIA School Teacher1 710 631 52 27 624 59 27 -1.11 13.45 0

 

Public School Library Media 

 Center 10,202 7,562 1,677 963 7,229 2,010 963 -4.4 19.86 0

BIA School Library Media 

 Center1 166 137 14 15 124 27 15 -9.49 92.86 0

† Not applicable. 

1

 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

NOTE: The Teacher Listing did not have a separate final interview status recode (ISR) step. 

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

School District, Public School, BIA School, Private School, Public School Principal, BIA School Principal, Private School 

Principal, Public School Teacher, BIA School Teacher, Private School Teacher, Public School Library Media Center, and BIA 

School Library Media Center Documentation Data Files,” 2003–04. 

Creating Imputation Flags 

After the final ISR edits, there were still several cases with “not-answered” values on the files for some 

variables. Values were created for these items in the next step of the processing, imputation, which is 

described in “Chapter 8. Imputation Procedures.” Exhibit 6 includes the naming convention for flags 

created to identify changes made to the data during the pre-edit, consistency edit, and imputation stages. 

Only the imputation flags remain on the restricted-use data files. All three types of flags can be found on 

the documentation data files. (See the next section for a description of the documentation files.) 

As discussed earlier, the 2003–04 school year was a survey year for both SASS and Private School 

Universe Survey (PSS). The SASS Private School Questionnaire collected all of the PSS data, in addition 

to some SASS school data, so that private schools selected for the SASS data sample would not be asked 

to complete two separate questionnaires. Items 1–5e, 7–9, 14–21, 24, 32–34, and 96–100 were all “PSS 

items” and were processed with the PSS data files. For the purpose of imputation, PSS items are defined 
Chapter 7. Data Processing 125 

as any item collected for the PSS that remains on the SASS private school record. The private school data 

file has a distinct set of imputation flag values and definitions. See exhibit 6. The imputation procedures 

for the Private School Questionnaire are described in greater detail in the “Imputation Procedures for the 

Private School Questionnaire (Form SASS-3B)” section of chapter 8. 

Exhibit 6. Flags used in processing questionnaires, by processing step: 2003–04 

Processing step Flag variables Flag values and definitions 

Pre-edit prf_[source code]+1 

(e.g., prf_0014+1) 

† 

Consistency edit ef_[source code]+1 

(e.g., ef_s0014+1) 

† 

Imputation specs f_[source code] = x 

(e.g., f_s0014 = 7) For all questionnaires except the Private School Questionnaire: 

 0 Not imputed 

 1 Original value was ratio adjusted 

 

2 Value was imputed by using data from other variables in same 

record 

 

3 Value was imputed by using data from the principal record, 

district record, school record or Teacher Listing Form 

 

4 Value was imputed by using data from the sample file 

(Common Core of Data for nonteachers or Teacher Listing 

Form for teachers) 

 7 Imputed from donor 

 8 Clerical imputation 

 

 For the Private School Questionnaire: 

 P0 Private School Universe Survey (PSS) item - Not imputed 

 P1 PSS item - Original value was ratio adjusted 

 

P2 PSS item - Value was imputed by using data from other 

variables in same record or from the sample file (data from 

previous PSS) 

 P3 PSS item - Imputed from donor 

 P4 PSS item - Value was imputed by hand (clerical) 

 

 S0 Not a PSS item - Not imputed 

 S1 Not a PSS item - Original value was ratio adjusted 

 

S2 Not a PSS item - Value was imputed by using data from other 

variables in same record 

 

S3 Not a PSS item - Value was imputed by using data from 

principal questionnaire record 

 S7 Not a PSS item - Imputed from donor 

 S8 Not a PSS item - Value was imputed by hand (clerical) 

† Not applicable. 

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

School District, Public School, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) School, Private School, Public School Principal, BIA School 

Principal, Private School Principal, Public School Teacher, BIA School Teacher, Private School Teacher, Public School Library 

Media Center, and BIA School Library Media Center Documentation Data Files,” 2003–04. 
126 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Data Products 

After all stages of imputation were completed and the blanking and consistency edits were run once 

again, the data were still split into files by questionnaire type (i.e., district, principal, school, teacher, and 

school library media center). Twelve data files were created from the questionnaire data files so that the 

data could be categorized by school type, that is, public, private, and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The 

sixth digit of each respondent’s unique control number was used to separate BIA-funded schools from the 

data files, because a sixth digit of a “3” indicates a BIA-funded school. 

• Public School District (doc_District). The public school district final file includes all items from 

the School District Questionnaire. It also includes the district items included on the Unified 

School Questionnaire for non-BIA cases. 

• Public School Principal (doc_PubPrinc). The public school principal final file includes all items 

from the Principal Questionnaire for all principals from non-BIA-funded schools. 

• Private School Principal (doc_PriPrinc). The private school principal final file includes all items 

from the Private School Principal Questionnaire. 

• BIA School Principal (doc_BIAPrinc). The BIA school principal final file includes all items from 

the Principal Questionnaire for all principals from BIA-funded schools. 

• Public School (doc_PubSch). The public school final file includes all items from the School 

Questionnaire. It also includes the school-level items from the Unified School Questionnaire for 

non-BIA-funded schools. 

• Private School (doc_PriSch). The private school final file includes all items from the Private 

School Questionnaire. 

• BIA School (doc_BIASch). The BIA school final file includes all items from the Unified School 

Questionnaire for all BIA-funded schools. 

• Public School Teacher (doc_PubTea). The public school teacher final file includes all items from 

the Teacher Questionnaire for all teachers from non-BIA-funded schools. 

• Private School Teacher (doc_PriTea). The private school teacher final file includes all items from 

the Private School Teacher Questionnaire. 

• BIA School Teacher (doc_BIATea). The BIA school teacher final file includes all items from the 

Teacher Questionnaire for all teachers from BIA-funded schools. 

• Public School Library Media Center (doc_PubLibr). The public school library media center final 

file includes all items from the School Library Media Center Questionnaire for all non-BIAfunded public schools. 

• BIA School Library Media Center (doc_BIALibr). The BIA school library media center final file 

includes all items from the School Library Media Center Questionnaire for all BIA-funded public 

schools. 

Each of these files contained all variables, including frame variables, survey variables, created variables, 

weighting variables, and imputation flags. These files were used as the source files for the bias analysis 

files, the documentation files, and the restricted-use files. The bias analysis files were used to run the unit 

and item bias analyses. The documentation files were used to produce unit and item response rates and 

contain all sampled cases and the base weights in addition to the final weights. The restricted-use files 

contain only the respondents’ records, and processing variables and most sampling variables were 

removed. In addition, the restricted-use files were altered to meet the requirements of data nondisclosure. 

(See chapter 11 for additional description of the restricted-use files.) 
127 

Chapter 8. Imputation Procedures 

Following the computer edit stage of the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) data processing, 

“not answered” items still remained. These “not answered” items do not include items that respondents 

should not have answered because of skip patterns in the questionnaires. In order to fill these “not 

answered” items with data, questionnaires were put through three separate stages of imputation. With 

each stage, larger assumptions were made about how the participant might have responded. The first stage 

of imputation involved using items from either the same questionnaire or other questionnaires from the 

same school or district to impute missing items. The second stage of imputation included “hot deck” 

imputation (establishing donor records and using them to impute data), creating regression models to 

predict and impute data, ratio imputation (by subsamples of data), and random ratio imputation (by 

subsamples of data). After the first two stages of imputation, Census Bureau analysts imputed the 

remaining unanswered items clerically in the third stage of imputation. 

Overview of Imputation Procedures 

As questionnaires went through the different stages of imputation, a numerical flag corresponding to the 

stage of imputation and type of imputation was assigned to each imputed item. In this way it is possible 

for data users to identify which items were imputed and how the imputations were performed. Data users 

can use this imputation flag to decide whether or not to include imputed data in their analysis and which 

types of imputed data to employ. 

First-Stage Imputation 

In the first stage of imputation, missing (not answered) survey data were imputed with a valid response 

using data from other items in the same questionnaire or from other related sources. In addition, data were 

ratio adjusted in some circumstances so that items were consistent with one another. For example, if the 

counts of students by race on a school questionnaire did not sum to the reported total enrollment, the ratio 

of each race to the total enrollment was preserved, but the actual number was adjusted to be consistent 

with the total enrollment figure. Except for the Private School Questionnaire, there were four different 

sources for stage 1 imputations, and each was given a particular numerical flag. The definitions of these 

flags are as follows: 

 0 Data reported. No adjustment or imputation was made. 

 1 The item was ratio adjusted to be consistent with another item on the questionnaire. 

 2 The item was imputed based on data from another item within the same questionnaire. 

 3 The item was imputed based on data from another questionnaire associated with the same school. 

 4 The item was imputed from the 2001–02 Common Core of Data (CCD) or the Teacher Listing 

Form. 

Both the Private School Universe Survey (PSS) and SASS were conducted during the 2003–04 school 

year. The SASS Private School Questionnaire collected the same items that were present on PSS, plus 

additional SASS school data, for the private schools included in the SASS sample. The PSS data that 

were collected on the SASS Private School Questionnaire were processed jointly as part of the PSS 

processing. These PSS items received PSS imputation flags. The remaining items that appeared only on 

the SASS Private School Questionnaire were processed during SASS processing. These SASS-only items 

received SASS imputation flags. The definitions of these two different types of flags are as follows: 

 P0 Data reported for the PSS item. No adjustment or imputation was made. 

 P1 The PSS item was ratio adjusted to be consistent with another item on the questionnaire. 
128 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

 P2 The PSS item was imputed based on data from other items in the same questionnaire or based on 

data from the 2001–02 PSS. 

 S0 Data reported for the SASS-only item. No adjustment or imputation was made. 

 S1 The SASS-only item was ratio adjusted to be consistent with another item on the questionnaire. 

 S2 The SASS-only item was imputed based on data from other items in the same questionnaire. 

Second-Stage Imputation 

Several different approaches were used in the second stage of imputation. Data were imputed from items 

found on questionnaires of the same type that had certain characteristics in common or from the 

aggregated answers of similar questionnaires. These records are called “donor records.” 

When a missing item was imputed from a donor record, and the donor answered using the “other” option, 

the write-in “please specify” portion was also imputed.22 For instance, if the donor answered item 5 on the 

Teacher Questionnaire, which asks the respondent’s main activity last school year, using the “other” 

option, the information he or she specified in the write-in portion would also be imputed to the missing 

item. However, not all write-in items (e.g., open-ended items) were imputed from donor records. Many of 

the write-in items ask about things that are very specific to each respondent. For instance, item 21 on the 

public school teacher questionnaire asks the name of the college or university in which the respondent 

earned his or her degree. Items such as these were not imputed and were left unanswered. All items that 

were imputed during the second stage of imputation were assigned an imputation flag of “7.” 

Hot Deck Imputation 

In hot deck imputation, responses were determined by establishing a donor record and then basing 

imputation on data found within the donor record. Donors were selected based on their answers to 

specified items called “matching variables.” If two respondents answered the selected matching variables 

in similar ways, then it was assumed that they were comparable and that imputation of one data item from 

the other was reasonable. 

The matching variables used to establish donor relationships were selected based on the type of data the 

donor would supply to the record undergoing imputation. For example, since a respondent’s answer to a 

given item may be influenced by the school’s enrollment and the proximity of the school to a city, these 

variables were used to find another respondent in a school with similar characteristics. 

The datasets were sorted by matching variables in the order of their importance. The sorting helped to 

ensure that appropriate donors were the most similar to the record with the unanswered data. For example, 

on the Principal Questionnaire, item 44 asks for the principal’s birth year. If the respondent left this item 

blank, then important variables in predicting its value would be the number of years of educational 

experience (EXPER) and the highest degree that he or she had earned (DEGREE). Therefore, the records 

were sorted by LEVEL / DEGREE / EXPER. However, items 38 to 40 concern the level of parent or 

guardian involvement at the school, an area in which the number of years of educational experience and 

the highest degree that he or she has earned would not be useful predictors. Instead, the type of school at 

which the respondent served as principal (TYPE) and the county of the respondent’s school (GFIPCT) 

would be more useful indicators. These variables followed the sort routine LEVEL / TYPE / GFIPCT. 

The various sort routines ensured that the most similar record to the unanswered one served as the donor. 

 

22 This was done for item 44 on the SASS School Questionnaire; items 23e and 77 on the SASS Private School 

Questionnaire; items 5, 6, 29, 44, and 48 on the SASS Teacher Questionnaire; and items 5, 6c, 6e, 29, 45, and 48 on 

the SASS Private School Teacher Questionnaire. 
Chapter 8. Imputation Procedures 129 

When there were not enough donor records within any given stratification cell, a collapsing routine was 

instituted. This was done to make sure that values that were not consistent with other data on the same 

record would not be imputed simply because a record was close to the boundary between the stratification 

cells (e.g., there were other records that were suitable donors or the record was not similar enough to be a 

donor). 

For example, for the School Questionnaire, the collapsing routine for the matching variable MINEN23

(percentage of students in school who are of a racial/ethnic minority) was as follows: 

(1,2,3,4,0, 

 2,3,1,4,0, 

 3,2,1,4,0, 

 4,3,2,1,5, 

 5,4,0,0,0) 

If the value for MINEN on the record with missing data was one and there was no available donor where 

MINEN = 1, the collapsing program looked for a donor where MINEN = 2. If there was still no available 

donor, the program looked for a donor where MINEN = 3, then MINEN = 4. It did not look for cases 

where MINEN = 5. Likewise, if the value for MINEN on the record with missing data was a three and 

there was no available donor where MINEN = 3, the collapsing program searched for a donor where 

MINEN = 2, then MINEN = 1, then MINEN = 4. When the collapsing routine hit zero, there was no 

donor available for this case. In these instances, the value was clerically imputed in the third stage of 

imputation. 

In many cases, the donor and imputed records were required to have the same answers on key variables. 

For example, for public school sector records donors needed to be from the same state as the record with 

missing data, and for private school sector records donors needed to have the same religious affiliation, or 

matching strata, as the record with missing data. Finally, to prevent a single record from having an undue 

impact on the data, a record could only be used as a donor a maximum of five times. There were no 

exceptions to this procedure. 

Once the donor relationship was established, the donor record provided data items either directly or 

indirectly to the imputed record. For example, the unanswered item requesting the “number of white nonHispanic students” was filled by accepting the ratio of White students to total students from the donor 

record and by applying that ratio to the total number of students on the imputed record. 

Regression Imputation 

When unanswered items remained after the hot deck imputation process was completed, simple linear 

regression was used to impute data for items requiring numerical answers. Linear models for such items 

were based on data from other items on the questionnaire and data from the school survey. 

Items used in the regression model were selected based on how much explanatory power each had in the 

model and on the manner in which each influenced the overall explanatory power of the model. This was 

measured by examining the coefficient of the variable in the regression as well as the adjusted R-squared 

statistic associated with the model. In addition, the certainty of the relationship established through 

 

23 MINEN = 1 if the percentage of students in school who were of a racial/ethnic minority was less than 5.5 percent. 

MINEN = 2 if the percentage was between 5.5 percent and 20.5 percent. MINEN = 3 if minority enrollment was 

between 20.5 percent and 50.5 percent. MINEN = 5 if the percentage was greater than or equal to 50.5 percent. 

MINEN = 4 if the percentage was unclassified. 
130 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

regression was a factor in determining which variables to use in the regression. This was measured by the 

t statistic associated with the coefficient of each variable in the regression as well as the overall F statistic 

associated with the model. In general, Census Bureau analysts attempted to produce models in which each 

t statistic was less than 0.20, the F statistic was less than 0.20, and the R-squared was at least 0.40; 

however, it was not always possible to fulfill all of these requirements. When a sufficient model could not 

be built for a variable, it was imputed clerically during third-stage imputation. 

Subsample Ratio Imputation 

For unanswered items that remained after the hot deck imputation and that were categorical variables, 

subsample ratio imputation was employed. First, data were broken into five subsamples (or groupings) 

based on the grade levels offered at the school (LEVEL). The groups were broken down as follows: 

 LEVEL = 1 Grades kindergarten through 6 (elementary) 

 LEVEL = 2 Grades kindergarten through 8 

 LEVEL = 3 All grades (combined) 

 LEVEL = 4 Grades 5 through 12 

 LEVEL = 5 Grades 7 through 12 (secondary) 

The ratio of each type of response was found for each grouping. Finally, the items were assigned answers 

according to the subsample to which they belonged in order to preserve the response ratios within that 

subsample. 

For example, an item composed of four categories as answered by a subsample of schools, where LEVEL 

= 1, had the following distribution of answers: 40 percent chose the first category, 20 percent chose the 

second, 30 percent chose the third, and 10 percent chose the fourth category. These distributions would 

then be used to impute the records with missing data for this item where LEVEL = 1. Similarly, the 

percentage distribution of responses for records where LEVEL = 2 was calculated and the records with 

missing data that had the same LEVEL value were imputed accordingly. This operation was performed 

for all LEVEL values, or subsamples. 

Random Subsample Ratio Imputation 

Random subsample ratio imputation is a method similar to subsample ratio imputation but is more 

effective at handling items that require continuous answers. For a random subsample ratio, cases were 

imputed using a program that randomly assigned values to categorical variables while preserving the 

observed distribution of the data. The program also sorted the data into groupings based on the value of 

those variables that might have impacted the respondent’s answer. Continuous variables were assigned a 

random probable value (i.e., a value between the 5th and 95th percentile) to cases with missing responses 

based on the range of values provided by respondents with similar characteristics. 

Type of school (i.e., school sector), school program type, level of classes taught, and teaching experience 

were variables used to define a subsample within the dataset. If a record within this subsample had an 

unanswered item, an answer was randomly assigned so that the distribution of responses to that item 

remained the same. For example, if teachers who worked in private schools that were alternative schools, 

taught elementary level students, and had 20 years of teaching experience had a base annual teaching 

salary that ranged from $20,000 in the 5th percentile to $50,000 in the 95th percentile, then the imputation 

procedure randomly assigned salary figures to teachers with missing data that were consistent with this 

distribution. 
Chapter 8. Imputation Procedures 131 

Third-Stage Imputation 

In some cases, items still remained “not answered” after the first two stages of imputation. This happened 

when there was no available donor, the value imputed by the computer was out-of-range or inconsistent 

with values in other items, or there was no method of imputation suitable for the item other than clerical 

imputation. Therefore, all remaining unanswered items after the first two stages of imputation were 

imputed clerically during the third stage of imputation. All third-stage imputations were given an 

imputation flag of “8.” In order to determine an appropriate value for each unanswered item, Census 

Bureau analysts reviewed 

• the original image of the questionnaire to see if the respondent had made any notes in the margin 

that might provide insight; 

• other items within the same record with related information; 

• similar cases to get an understanding of what the respondent might have answered; and/or 

• averages of similar subsamples. 

Post-Imputation Processing 

Following both the second and third stages of imputation, the computer edits were re-run and any 

remaining data issues were resolved. (See chapter 7 for details.) At this point, any items that were 

imputed at a rate greater than 15 percent were analyzed as part of the item bias analysis. (See chapter 6 

for details about the nonresponse bias analysis.) The computer edits were used to ensure that the values 

imputed in each stage of imputation were within acceptable ranges and were consistent with other items 

on the questionnaire. 

Imputation Procedures for the School District Questionnaire 

(Form SASS-1A) 

Items on the School District Questionnaire that still were “not answered” went through a first stage of 

imputation in which unanswered items were imputed from other items on the same record or items on the 

district’s sample file (including CCD). The questionnaires then went through the second stage of 

imputation, or hot deck imputation, in which some of the remaining “not answered” items were filled 

using the data record from a similar record. The third stage of imputation filled in the remaining “not 

answered” items that were not resolved during the first two stages of imputation. 

Public and public charter one-school districts had their district data collected on the Unified School 

Questionnaire and were imputed separately from the public and public charter school districts that 

completed the School District Questionnaire. Following the stage 3 imputation of both the School District 

Questionnaire and Unified School Questionnaire, the school district items that appeared on the Unified 

School Questionnaire were split out from the Unified School Questionnaire data file and included in the 

School District Questionnaire data file. For further details, see the “Imputation Procedures for the Unified 

School Questionnaire” section. 
132 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

First-Stage Imputation for School District Data 

In the first stage, unanswered items from the School District Questionnaire were filled in whenever 

possible using information about the district from the following sources: 

• Other questionnaire items on the district’s school district questionnaire record. Based on entries 

from related questionnaire items, assumptions were made about how the respondent might have 

answered items. For example, if item 59, which asks whether or not the district requires 

community service for seniors to graduate, was blank, and item 60a, which asks if there is a 

certain number of hours of community service required, was marked no, then item 59 had the 

answer “no” imputed, and items 60a and 60b (actual number of hours required) were marked as 

valid skips since those items did not apply. 

• District’s sample file record, including data from the 2001–02 CCD. In some cases, CCD data 

from the sample file were used to impute entries to items. For example, if item 1a did not indicate 

that the district offers kindergarten or 1st grade through 12th grade, and item 1b, which asks which 

grades are offered, was unanswered, the grades offered were imputed from the sample file data, 

which was derived from the 2001–02 CCD. 

In addition to filling in items where values were missing, some inconsistencies between items were 

corrected by ratio adjustment during the first stage of imputation. For records where the sum of the entries 

in item 4 (number of students by race) did not equal the districts’ K–12 enrollment in item 3, the item 4 

entries were adjusted to be consistent with item 3. For example, if the sum of the students reported by the 

racial categories in item 4 differed from the district’s K–12 enrollment reported in item 3, the assumption 

was made that the total enrollment was correct. Consequently, the difference between the racial counts in 

item 4 and the total value reported in item 3 was resolved by adding or subtracting the misreported 

students from each racial category without changing the proportion of each racial group to the total 

enrollment. 

Table 33 includes a summary of imputation performed in stage 1 processing. 

Second-Stage Imputation for School District Data 

Hot Deck Imputation 

In general, the hot deck stage of imputation filled in unanswered items by using data from the record of a 

similar district. For example, districts were similar if they were the same level, of similar size, had a 

similar percentage of minority students, etc. Imputation variables that describe certain characteristics of 

the districts (e.g., enrollment size, school level, and percent minority students) were created and used to 

sort the records and to match incomplete records to those with complete entries (donors). 

For some items, such as item 7, which asks for the number of days in the school year, data were copied 

directly from the donor record to the record with the missing value. For others, such as item 12 (number 

of teachers newly hired), the entries on the donor record were used along with other questionnaire data to 

fill the incomplete items. For example, suppose district A had not answered item 12, number of teachers 

newly hired, and district B had been established as an appropriate donor for district A. In this case, the 

ratio of newly hired teachers to the total number of teachers in district B was multiplied by the total 

number of teachers reported in district A to yield the number that was filled in for the total number of 

newly hired teachers in district A. Consequently, while district A had the same ratio of newly hired 

teachers to total teachers as district B, the actual number of newly hired teachers was likely to be 

different. 
Chapter 8. Imputation Procedures 133 

The School District Questionnaire records were grouped into 23 state groups (typically according to their 

geographic location) so that records for similar districts were together. District records were sorted by the 

following variables to ensure similarity between the records receiving information and their donors: 

GROUP Groups of states with similar districts 

STATE State in which the school district is located 

LEVEL Grade levels offered 

URB Proximity to a metropolitan center 

D0051 Total K–12 and ungraded enrollment 

For items 5 through 7, 12 through 14, and 24 through 70, records were sorted by GROUP / STATE / 

LEVEL / URB / D0051. For items 2 through 4, 8 through 11, 15 through 23, and 71 through 77, the 

records were sorted by GROUP / STATE / URB / D0051. 

Table 33 includes a summary of the amount of imputation performed in stage 2 processing. 

Third-Stage Imputation for School District Data 

Clerical Imputation 

Values were imputed clerically for cases where there was no available donor, the value imputed by 

computer was out-of-range or inconsistent with values in other items, or there was no method of 

imputation appropriate for the item other than clerical imputation. In order to determine an appropriate 

value for each unanswered item, Census Bureau analysts reviewed 

• the original image of the questionnaire to see if the respondent had made any notes in the margin 

that might provide insight; 

• other items within the same record with related information; 

• similar cases to get an understanding of what the respondent might have answered; and/or 

• averages of similar subsamples. 

Table 33 includes a summary of the amount of imputation performed in stage 3 processing. 

Final File Imputation Table for School District Data 

District-level data were collected on the School District Questionnaire or the Unified School 

Questionnaire. Please see the “Imputation Procedures for the Unified School Questionnaire” section 

below for details on the processing of the Unified School Questionnaire data. Public and public charter 

one-school districts had their district data collected on the Unified School Questionnaire and were 

imputed separately from public and public charter school districts that completed the School District 

Questionnaire. Following stage 3 imputation, the school district items that were included on the Unified 

School Questionnaire were included in the final school district data file, while the school items on the 

Unified School Questionnaire were included in the public school data file for public and public charter 

schools. The School District Questionnaire items that were not asked on the Unified School Questionnaire 

(e.g., items concerning district-wide library media centers, principal hiring policies, homeschooling) were 

assigned a value of -8, which indicates they were “Not asked of one-school districts” for the Unified 

School Questionnaire records. Data from the Unified School Questionnaire for BIA-funded schools were 

placed on the BIA School data file. The number of source codes (specific items) that were imputed, 

including district items from the Unified School Questionnaire, for a given percentage of records during 
134 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

each stage of processing appears in table 33 below. For example, during stage 1 imputation 124 survey 

items were imputed for between 1 and 15 percent of the public school district records. 

Table 33. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for public school districts, including district items from the Unified 

School Questionnaire: 2003–04 

Imputation stage 

Not imputed for 

any record

Imputed for 

1–15 percent 

of the records

Imputed for 

16–30 percent 

of the records 

Imputed for 

more than 30 percent

of the records

Stage 1 162 124 7 1

Stage 2 28 266 0 0

Stage 3 70 224 0 0

NOTE: Every question item and data entry in the questionnaires has a corresponding source code. The source codes are the 

4-digit numbers found to the left of each item or data entry field in the questionnaires, which become the survey names for these 

data. 

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

School District Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 

“Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File,” contains the total number of imputations 

applied at each stage to each source code. 

Imputation Procedures for the Principal and Private School Principal 

Questionnaires (Forms SASS-2A and -2B) 

Principal data for public, public charter, private, and BIA-funded schools were on the same data file when 

entering the imputation step of data processing. Items on the principal questionnaires that still had items 

that were “not answered” went through the first stage of imputation in which unanswered items were 

imputed from other items on the same principal record or items on the corresponding school record. 

Before the principal questionnaires went through the second stage of imputation, both public charter 

school principals and private school principals were split into their own data files in order to establish 

appropriate donors and sort patterns. Data for principals from BIA-funded schools were kept in the same 

dataset as data for principals from public schools. The second and third stages of imputation proceeded 

with the data split into these types of datasets. After all stages of imputation were completed and no more 

“not answered” items remained, the BIA-funded school and private school principal data remained in 

their own separate datasets. Public and public charter school principal data were moved back into the 

same data file. 

First-Stage Imputation for Principal Data 

In the first stage, items that were unanswered on the principal questionnaires were filled in whenever 

possible by using information about the principal from these sources: 

• Other questionnaire items on the principal questionnaire record. Based on entries from related 

items on the principal record, assumptions were made about how the respondent might have 

answered the item. For example, if there was no response to item 1 (total number of years spent 

as a principal at any school), and item 2 (total number of years spent as principal of the current 

school) indicated that the respondent had been a principal at the school since he or she was 22 

years of age, it was assumed that the respondent had only been principal of the current school. 

The answer to item 2 was filled in for item 1. 
Chapter 8. Imputation Procedures 135 

• School questionnaire record. Information from the record of the principal’s school was used to 

impute values in the first stage as well. For example, if item 15, on the level of influence that 

particular groups have on the school, had any section asking about curriculum specialists 

unanswered, and the school record indicated there were no curriculum specialists at the school, 

then “No Influence” was imputed for these items. 

Tables 34 through 36 include summaries of the amount of imputation performed in stage 1 processing. 

Second-Stage Imputation for Principal Data 

Hot Deck Imputation 

In general, the hot deck imputation filled unanswered items using data from the record for a similar 

principal (e.g., a principal of similar age, experience, education, etc.) who worked at a similar school 

(e.g., a school that was the same level, the same type, of similar size, etc.). Imputation variables that 

describe certain characteristics of the principals and their schools were created and used to sort the 

records and to match incomplete records to those with complete entries (donors). 

For some items, such as item 5 (whether or not the principal also serves as a teacher in the school), data 

were copied directly from the donor to the record with the missing value. For other items, such as item 10 

(number of hours spent per week on school-related activities), the entries on the donor record were 

factored with other questionnaire data to fill in the incomplete items. For example, if item 10 was 

unanswered, the donor’s ratio of hours spent on school activities per week to hours spent interacting with 

students was multiplied by the principal’s reported hours spent interacting with students to calculate the 

answer that was imputed into item 10. 

Public School and BIA-Funded School24 Principals. BIA-funded school principal data were kept in the 

same data file as the public school principal data and received the same processing as a result. Non-BIAfunded school principals could be in a donor relationship with BIA-funded school principals. 

The hot deck imputation was done within state; that is, the donor principal record had to be from the same 

state as the principal record with missing data. Within each state, the principal records were sorted by the 

following variables: 

DEGREE Highest degree attained 

LEVEL Grade levels offered 

EXPER Years of educational experience 

YEARPRIN Years served as a principal 

HOWOLD Principal’s age 

GFIPCT FIPS county code for the county of the respondent’s school 

TYPE School type 

For item 44, the records were sorted by LEVEL / DEGREE / EXPER. For items 1 through 6 and 14, the 

records were sorted by LEVEL / DEGREE / YEARPRIN / HOWOLD. For items 7 through 13, 15 

through 37, 41 through 43, and 45, the records were sorted by LEVEL / DEGREE / YEARPRIN / 

GFIPCT. For items 38 through 40, the records were sorted by LEVEL / TYPE / GFIPCT. 

 

24 “BIA-funded school” refers to schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that were not operated by a 

local school district. These schools may be operated by BIA, a tribe, or a private contractor. 
136 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Private School Principals. The hot deck imputation was done within general religious affiliation 

(AFFILG, where 1 = Catholic, 2 = Other religious, 3 = Nonsecular); that is, the donor principal record 

had to be for a principal at a school with the same general affiliation as the principal record with missing 

data. Within each general affiliation category, private school principals were sorted by the following 

variables: 

DEGREE Highest degree attained 

LEVEL Grade levels offered 

EXPER Years of educational experience 

YEARPRIN Years served as a principal 

HOWOLD Principal’s age 

AFFILR School’s religious affiliation25

For item 38, the records were sorted by LEVEL / DEGREE / EXPER. For items 1 through 6 and 13, the 

records were sorted by LEVEL / DEGREE / YEARPRIN / HOWOLD. For items 7 through 12, 14 

through 37, and 39, the records were sorted by LEVEL / DEGREE / YEARPRIN / AFFILR. 

Public Charter School Principals. Public charter school principal data were kept in the same dataset as 

the public school principal data through the first stage of imputation. However, the datasets were split 

prior to hot deck imputation. This was to ensure that no non-public charter school data would be used in 

the charter school imputation process. Because there were only 220 public charter school principals that 

were accepted as completed interviews in the data file, it was not possible to use donor imputation for 

these records. Public charter school data went directly into the next steps of processing, which included 

regression subsample ratio imputation. 

Regression Imputation 

Following hot deck imputation, some unanswered items remained. For questions that ask for continuous 

value answers, such as Principal Questionnaire item 45 (current annual salary), simple linear regression 

was used to impute the data. Linear models for such items were based on data from other items on the 

questionnaire and data from the school survey. For example, to impute item 45, a model of public school 

principal salary was created through linear regression using the answers to item 1 (total number of years 

served as a principal in all schools), item 2 (years spent as a teacher prior to becoming a principal), item 9 

(highest degree earned), item 10 (total hours spent per week on all school related activities), item 11 (total 

hours spent per week interacting with students), item 2 from the public school survey (total K–12 and 

ungraded school enrollment), and URB (a numerical variable based on the school’s proximity to a 

metropolitan center) as coefficients in the linear regression model. 

Items used in the regression model were selected based on how much explanatory power each had in the 

model and the manner in which each influenced the overall explanatory power of the model. This was 

measured by examining the coefficient of the variable in the regression, as well as the adjusted R-squared 

statistic associated with the model. In addition, the certainty of the relationship established through 

regression was a factor in determining which variables to use in the regression. This was measured by the 

t statistic associated with the coefficient of each variable in the regression, as well as the overall F statistic 

associated with the model. 

 

25 AFFILR indicates the religion with which the private school was associated. A code of 26 was assigned when 

there was no religious affiliation associated with the school. 
Chapter 8. Imputation Procedures 137 

Subsample Ratio Imputation 

For items that lacked data following hot deck imputation and required categorical answers, subsample 

ratio imputation was employed. First, data were broken into five subsamples based on the value of 

LEVEL (grade levels offered at the school). Then, the ratio of each type of response was found for each 

subsample. Finally, the items were assigned answers according to the subsample they belonged to in such 

a way as to preserve the response ratios within that subsample. 

For example, on Principal Questionnaire item 15b(1) (level of influence of state department of education 

or other state-level bodies on school’s curriculum), there were five available answer categories ranging 

from 1 (no influence) to 4 (major influence) with 5 indicating “not applicable.” If it was found that 10 

percent of respondents with LEVEL equal to 1 answered “1” for this item, and 90 percent answered “2” 

and that when LEVEL was equal to 3, some 80 percent answered “3” and 20 percent answered “4,” then 

items were imputed to maintain this ratio. 

Tables 34 through 36 include summaries of the amount of imputation performed in stage 2 processing. 

Third-Stage Imputation for Principal Data 

Clerical Imputation 

Some values on the public, public charter, private, and BIA-funded school principal records were imputed 

clerically. This method was used when there was no available donor that matched the record with the 

missing values, when the imputed values were outside the range of valid entries or inconsistent with other 

entries on the record, or if there was no method of imputation appropriate for the item other than clerical 

imputation. In order to determine an appropriate value for each unanswered item, Census Bureau analysts 

reviewed 

• the original image of the questionnaire, to see if the respondent had made any notes in the margin 

that might provide insight; 

• other items within the same record with related information; 

• similar cases, to get an understanding of what the respondent might have answered; and/or 

• averages of similar subsamples. 

Tables 34 through 36 include summaries of the amount of imputation performed in stage 3 processing. 

Final File Imputation Tables for Principal Data 

Following stage 3 processing, public charter school principal records were added back into the public 

school principal data file, while BIA-funded school principal records were removed and placed in a 

separate BIA school principal data file for the final data files. The number of source codes (specific items) 

that were imputed on a given percentage of records during a given stage of processing appears below in 

tables 34 through 36. For example, during stage 1 imputation 115 survey items were imputed for between 

1 and 15 percent of the public school (including public charter school) principal records. 
138 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table 34. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for public school principals, including public charter school 

principals: 2003–04 

Imputation stage 

Not imputed for 

any record

Imputed for 

1–15 percent 

of the records

Imputed for 

16–30 percent 

of the records 

Imputed for 

more than 30 percent

of the records

Stage 1 91 115 0 0

Stage 2 6 200 0 0

Stage 3 178 28 0 0

NOTE: Every question item and data entry in the questionnaires has a corresponding source code. The source codes are the 

4-digit numbers found to the left of each item or data entry field in the questionnaires, which become the survey names for these 

data. 

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

School Principal Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 

Table 35. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for private school principals: 2003–04

Imputation stage 

Not imputed for 

any record

Imputed for 

1–15 percent 

of the records

Imputed for 

16–30 percent 

of the records 

Imputed for 

more than 30 percent

of the records

Stage 1 111 95 0 0

Stage 2 43 163 0 0

Stage 3 191 15 0 0

NOTE: Every question item and data entry in the questionnaires has a corresponding source code. The source codes are the 

4-digit numbers found to the left of each item or data entry field in the questionnaires, which become the survey names for these 

data. 

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

“Private School Principal Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 

Table 36. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for BIA-funded school principals: 2003–04 

Imputation stage 

Not imputed for 

any record

Imputed for 

1–15 percent 

of the records

Imputed for 

16–30 percent 

of the records 

Imputed for 

more than 30 percent

of the records

Stage 1 176 30 0 0

Stage 2 36 169 1 0

Stage 3 203 3 0 0

NOTE: BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Every question item and data entry in the questionnaires has a corresponding 

source code. The source codes are the 4-digit numbers found to the left of each item or data entry field in the questionnaires,

which become the survey names for these data. 

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

School Principal Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 

“Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File,” contains the total number of imputations 

applied at each stage to each source code. 

Imputation Procedures for the School Questionnaire 

(Form SASS-3A) 

School data for public and public charter schools were on the same data file when entering the imputation 

step of data processing. Items on the School Questionnaire that were “not answered” went through a first 
Chapter 8. Imputation Procedures 139 

stage of imputation in which unanswered items were imputed from other items on the same school record, 

items on the corresponding school district record, or items from the Teacher Listing Form. Before the 

public school questionnaires went through the second stage of imputation, public charter schools were 

split into their own data file in order to establish appropriate donors and sort patterns. The second and 

third stages of imputation proceeded with the data split into these types of datasets. After all stages of 

imputation were completed and no more “not answered” items remained, the public and public charter 

school data were moved back into the same data file. 

Public and public charter one-school districts had their school data collected on the Unified School 

Questionnaire and were imputed separately from the public and public charter schools that completed the 

School Questionnaire. Following the stage 3 imputation of both the School Questionnaire and Unified 

School Questionnaire items, the school items that appeared on the Unified School Questionnaire were 

split out from the Unified School Questionnaire data file and were included in the School Questionnaire 

public school data file. More details are available in the “Imputation Procedures for the Unified School 

Questionnaire” section below. 

First-Stage Imputation for Public and Public Charter School Data 

In the first stage, unanswered items for the School Questionnaire were filled whenever possible by using 

information about the school from these sources: 

• Other questionnaire items on the school’s public school questionnaire record. Based on entries 

from related items on the school record, assumptions were made about how the respondent might 

have answered items. For example, if the type of school was not reported in item 14, and item 17a 

indicated the school had a magnet program, code 3, “Special program emphasis,” was imputed to 

item 14. 

• School District Questionnaire record for the district that operated the school. If the school’s 

district participated in SASS, information from the district’s questionnaire was used to complete 

some unanswered items on the school record. For example, if the number of migrant students was 

not reported in item 3 and the School District Questionnaire record indicated that there were no 

migrant students in the district, then zero was imputed to item 3. 

• Teacher Listing Form for the school. If the counts of full-time and part-time teachers were not 

reported in item 34 of the School Questionnaire and the school had completed a Teacher Listing 

Form, the counts of full-time and part-time teachers from the Teacher Listing Form were used to 

impute missing values in item 34. 

• School’s sample file record, including data from the 2001–02 CCD. In some cases CCD data 

from the school’s sample file record were used to complete items. For example, if there was no 

response to item 55a, whether or not the school has prekindergarten students, and the sample file 

indicated that there were prekindergarten students in the school, “yes” was imputed to the item. 

In addition to filling in items where values were missing, some inconsistencies between items were 

corrected by ratio adjustment during the first stage of imputation. For example, if the sum of the students 

reported by the racial categories in item 5 was greater than the school’s total enrollment reported in item 

2, the assumption was made that the proportions assigned to the categories were correct, and the counts in 

item 5 were adjusted to fit the total reported in item 2; that is, each entry in item 5 was multiplied by the 

ratio of the enrollment reported in item 2 to the sum of the entries in item 5. 

Table 37 includes a summary of the amount of imputation performed in stage 1 processing. 
140 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Second-Stage Imputation for Public and Public Charter School Data 

Hot Deck Imputation 

In the second stage of imputation, School Questionnaire items that remained unanswered were filled by 

using data from the record for a similar school (e.g., a school that was the same level, type, etc.). 

Imputation variables that describe certain characteristics of the school (e.g., type of community where 

school is located, type of school, and school level) were created and used to sort the records and to match 

incomplete records to those with complete data (donors). 

For some items, such as item 53 (whether students with limited-English proficiency are tested to 

determine their level of English proficiency), data were copied directly from the donor to the record with 

the missing value. For others, such as item 62 (number of Title I teachers), the entries on the donor record 

were used as factors along with other questionnaire data to fill the incomplete items. For example, if item 

62 was unanswered for school A, the number of teachers who were Title I on the donor record were used 

with the total teacher count for school A to calculate and impute the number of Title I teachers for school 

A (school A item 34 = school A total teacher count * (donor school item 34 / donor school total teacher 

count)). 

Public Schools. The second stage imputation was done within state; that is, the donor record had to be for 

a school located in the same state as the school with the incomplete record. Within each state, the public 

school records were sorted by the following variables: 

STCNTY Sample file code identifying the state and county location of the school 

S0414 Total enrollment 

TYPE School type 

LEVEL Grade levels offered 

MINEN Minority enrollment 

URB Proximity to a metropolitan center 

For items 34, 1, 7, 27 through 33, 40 through 44, 4, 18, 20 through 21, 22, 24, 38, 39, 9, 10, 36, the 

records were sorted by LEVEL / TYPE / STCNTY / S0414. For items 5, 3, 37, 35, 47 through 54, 6, 56 

through 62, 45 through 46, and 17, the records were sorted by LEVEL / MINEN / URB /STCNTY / 

S0414. 

Public Charter Schools. Public charter school data were kept in the same data file as the public school 

data through the first stage of imputation. However the datasets were split prior to hot deck imputation. 

This ensured that no non-public charter school data would be used in the public charter school imputation 

process. Because there were only 190 public charter schools in the dataset, it was not possible to use 

donor imputation on the dataset and public charter school data went directly into clerical imputation. 

Table 37 includes a summary of the amount of imputation performed in stage 2 processing. 

Third-Stage Imputation for Public and Public Charter School Data 

Clerical Imputation 

Some values on the public school records were imputed clerically. This method was used when there was 

no available donor that matched the record with the missing values, and when the computer-imputed 

value was outside the range of valid entries or inconsistent with other entries on the record, or if there was 
Chapter 8. Imputation Procedures 141 

no method of imputation appropriate for the item other than clerical imputation. In order to determine an 

appropriate value for each unanswered item, Census Bureau analysts reviewed 

• the original image of the questionnaire, to see if the respondent had made any notes in the margin 

that might provide insight; 

• other items within the same record with related information; 

• similar cases, to get an understanding of what the respondent might have answered; and/or 

• averages of similar subsamples. 

Table 37 includes a summary of the amount of imputation performed in stage 3 processing. 

Final File Imputation Table for Public School Data 

One of the 2003–04 SASS questionnaires was the Unified School Questionnaire. This questionnaire was 

distributed to school district institutions with only one school and included items from the School 

Questionnaire and the School District Questionnaire in order to simultaneously collect information on the 

school district and the single school administered by that school district. All BIA-funded schools received 

the Unified School Questionnaire. Following stage 3 imputation, items on the questionnaire that dealt 

with the school district were included in the final school district data file, while the items that dealt with 

the school were included either on the public school data file, if the school was not a BIA-funded school, 

or on the BIA-funded school data file otherwise. Below is a summary of the amount of imputation 

performed on both the School Questionnaire and the school items included on the Unified School 

Questionnaire. Please see the “Imputation Procedures for the Unified School Questionnaire” section 

below for details on the processing of Unified School Questionnaire data and for the table indicating the 

amount of imputation performed on the Unified School Questionnaire given to BIA-funded schools. The 

number of source codes (specific items), including unified school items, that were imputed on a given 

percentage of records during a given stage of processing appears below in table 37. For example, during 

stage 1 imputation 135 survey items were imputed for between 1 and 15 percent of the public school 

records. 

Table 37. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation during 

each stage for public schools, including public school items from the Unified School 

Questionnaire: 2003–04 

Imputation stage 

Not imputed for 

any record

Imputed for 

1–15 percent 

of the records

Imputed for 

16–30 percent 

of the records 

Imputed for 

more than 30 percent

of the records

Stage 1 94 135 4 5

Stage 2 36 200 2 0

Stage 3 14 224 0 0

NOTE: Every question item and data entry in the questionnaires has a corresponding source code. The source codes are the 

4-digit numbers found to the left of each item or data entry field in the questionnaires, which become the survey names for these 

data. 

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

School Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 

“Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File,” contains the total number of imputations 

applied at each stage to each source code. 
142 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Imputation Procedures for the Private School Questionnaire 

(Form SASS-3B) 

The 2003–04 school year was a survey year for both SASS and PSS. The SASS Private School 

Questionnaire collected the same items that are present on PSS, plus additional SASS school data, for the 

private schools included in the SASS sample. Items 1 through 5a–e, 7 through 9, 14 through 21, 24, 32 

through 34, and 96 through 100 (the PSS items within the Private School Questionnaire records) were 

processed with the PSS data files. Therefore, imputation for the Private School Questionnaire data was 

done in six stages: PSS stage 1, SASS Private School Questionnaire stage 1, PSS stage 2, SASS Private 

School Questionnaire stage 2, PSS clerical imputation, and SASS Private School Questionnaire clerical 

imputation. Following each PSS processing step the relevant PSS data were copied onto the 

corresponding SASS Private School Questionnaire records. 

First-Stage Imputation for Private School Data 

In the first stage of imputation, values for unanswered items were imputed whenever possible by using 

information about the school from these sources: 

• 2003–04 PSS. If PSS items (items 1–5, 7–9, 14–21, 24, 32–34, and 96–100) on the SASS Private 

School Questionnaire record were unanswered, data from the 2001–02 PSS were used to fill the 

unanswered items whenever possible. For example, if the school’s religious affiliation was not 

reported in item 14c and it had been reported on the 2001–02 PSS questionnaire, the PSS entry 

was copied to item 14c of the Private School Questionnaire record. 

• Other questionnaire items on the school’s Private School Questionnaire record. Based on entries 

from related items on the school record, assumptions were made about how the respondent might 

have answered items with missing values. For example, if item 40b(4) (whether the school is 

specifically for special needs students) was unanswered and item 15 indicated the school was a 

special education school, the assumption was made that the school was specifically for special 

needs students and the code for “Yes” was imputed to item 40b(4). 

In addition to filling in items where values were missing, some inconsistencies between items were 

corrected by ratio adjustment during the first stage of imputation. For those where the number of teachers 

reported in item 25 (teachers by race) did not equal the number reported in item 24, the entries in item 25 

were adjusted. For example, if the sum of the teachers reported by the racial categories in item 25 were 

greater than the total number of teachers reported in item 24, the assumption was made that the 

proportions assigned to the categories in item 25 were correct and the counts in item 25 were adjusted to 

fit the total reported in item 24; that is, each entry in item 25 was multiplied by the ratio of the teacher 

count reported in item 24 to the sum of the entries in item 25. 

Table 38 includes a summary of the amount of imputation performed in stage 1 processing. 

Second-Stage Imputation for Private School Data 

Hot Deck Imputation 

In the second stage of imputation, unanswered items for the Private School Questionnaire were filled by 

using data from the records for similar schools (e.g., schools that were the same level, type, size, etc.). As 

noted previously, items 1 through 5, 7 through 9, 14 through 21, 24, 32 through 34, and 96 through 100 

were imputed during the PSS processing. Therefore, for these items, the imputed entries could have come 
Chapter 8. Imputation Procedures 143 

from private schools not selected for SASS, as well as those that participated in SASS. For non-PSS 

items, entries were imputed by using data from other SASS private schools. 

For some items, such as item 75 (whether or not most students have access to the internet at the school), 

data were copied directly from the donor to the record with the missing value. For others, such as item 10 

(school capacity), the entries on the donor record were used as factors along with other questionnaire data 

to fill the incomplete items. For example, if item 10 was unanswered, the donor survey’s ratio of school 

capacity to total enrollment was multiplied by the reported total enrollment to yield the value of school 

capacity that was imputed into item 10. 

Imputation variables that describe certain characteristics of the schools (e.g., religious affiliation, size, and 

school level) were created and used to sort the records and to match incomplete records to those with 

complete data (donors). During the stage 2 imputations, the school records were sorted so that records for 

similar schools were near each other on the file. The variables used for sorting were as follows: 

S0734 Total enrollment 

TYPE School type 

LEVEL Grade levels offered 

PERMINOR Percent of enrollment that is minority 

URB Proximity to a metropolitan center 

AFFILR26 School’s religious affiliation 

AFFILG27 School’s general affiliation 

AFFILS28 School’s religious and or association affiliation 

During the PSS second-stage imputation, the PSS school records (those selected for SASS and those that 

were not) were sorted AFFLG / LEVEL / AFFILS / TYPE / P305 (PSS total enrollment variable). 

The items that were not part of PSS, the records for SASS private schools for items 5f, 10 through 13, 22 

through 23, 30 through 31, 35 through 63, 26, 73, 74, 76, 75, and 77 through 80 were sorted by AFFLG / 

LEVEL / AFFILS / TYPE / AFFILR / URB / S0734. For items 6, 25, 27, 64 through 72, 89 through 95, 

and 81 through 88, the records were sorted by AFFLG / LEVEL / AFFILS / URB / PERMINOR / S0734. 

Table 38 includes a summary of the amount of imputation performed in stage 2 processing. 

Third-Stage Imputation for Private School Data 

Clerical Imputation 

Some values on the private school records were imputed clerically. This method was used when there was 

no available donor that matched the record with the missing values, and when the computer-imputed 

value was outside the range of valid entries or inconsistent with other entries on the record. This method 

was also used for schools where the religious affiliation was not reported and there was no previous PSS 

information available, or if there was no method of imputation appropriate for the item other than clerical 

 

26 AFFILR indicates the specific religion with which the private school was associated. There were 26 different 

religious affiliation indicators. 

27 AFFILG indicates the school’s general affiliation. This indicates if the school was Catholic, Other religious 

affiliation, or No religious affiliation. 

28 AFFILS indicates the school’s religious and/or associated affiliation. It provides more detailed categories for type 

of Catholic or nonsecular school and identifies whether the school was affiliated with the Conservative Christian 

school association. 
144 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

imputation. In order to determine an appropriate value for each unanswered item, Census Bureau analysts 

examined 

• the original image of the questionnaire, to see if the respondent had made any notes in the margin 

that might provide insight; 

• other items within the same record with related information; 

• similar cases, to get an understanding of what the respondent might have answered; and/or 

• averages of similar subsamples. 

Table 38 includes a summary of the amount of imputation performed in stage 3 processing. 

Final File Imputation Table for Private School Data 

The number of source codes (specific items), including PSS items, that were imputed on a given 

percentage of records during a given stage of processing appears below in table 38. For example, during 

stage 1 imputation 253 survey items were imputed for between 1 and 15 percent of the private school 

records. 

Table 38. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for the Private School Questionnaire, including PSS items: 2003–04 

Imputation stage 

Not imputed for 

any record

Imputed for 

1–15 percent 

of the records

Imputed for 

16–30 percent 

of the records 

Imputed for 

more than 30 percent

of the records

Stage 1 142 253 4 3

Stage 2 136 259 7 0

Stage 3 309 93 0 0

NOTE: PSS refers to the Private School Universe Survey. Every question item and data entry in the questionnaires has a 

corresponding source code. The source codes are the 4-digit numbers found to the left of each item or data entry field in the 

questionnaires, which become the survey names for these data. 

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

“Private School Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 

“Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File,” contains the total number of imputations 

applied at each stage to each source code. 

Imputation Procedures for the Unified School Questionnaire 

(Form SASS-3Y) 

The Unified School Questionnaire was sent to public and public charter school districts with only one 

school and all BIA-funded schools. In order to simultaneously collect data on the school and the school 

district that administers the school, items from the School District Questionnaire and the School 

Questionnaire were included. After all stages of imputation were completed and no more “not answered” 

items remained, the BIA-funded schools that received the Unified School Questionnaire were separated 

into a single dataset. The remaining public and public charter school records had their data split between 

the school district data file and the public school data file. Thus, items dealing with school district 

information for public and public charter schools were included on the school district data file and items 

providing school level information for public and public charter schools were added to the public school 

data file. 
Chapter 8. Imputation Procedures 145 

First-Stage Imputation for Unified School Data 

In the first stage, Unified School Questionnaire unanswered items were filled whenever possible by using 

information about the school from these sources: 

• Other questionnaire items on the school’s Unified School Questionnaire record. Based on entries 

from related items on the school record, assumptions were made about how the respondent might 

have answered items. For example, if the type of school was not reported in item 15, and item 18a 

indicated the school had a magnet program, code 3, “Special program emphasis,” was imputed to 

item 15. 

• Teacher Listing Form for the school. If the counts of full-time and part-time teachers were not 

reported in item 51 of the Unified School Questionnaire and the school had completed a Teacher 

Listing Form, the counts of full-time and part-time teachers from the Teacher Listing Form were 

used to impute missing values in item 51. 

• School’s sample file record, including data from the 2001–02 CCD. In some cases, CCD data 

from the school’s sample file record were used to complete items. For example, if item 15, type 

of school, was unanswered and the sample file indicated the type of school, then the sample file 

type was imputed to the item. 

In addition to filling in items where values were missing, some inconsistencies between items were 

corrected by ratio adjustment during the first stage of imputation. For example, if the sum of the students 

reported by the racial categories in item 5 was greater than the school’s total enrollment reported in item 

2, the assumption was made that the proportions assigned to the categories were correct, and the counts in 

item 5 were adjusted to fit the total reported in item 2; that is, each entry in item 5 was multiplied by the 

ratio of the enrollment reported in item 2 to the sum of the entries in item 5. 

Table 39 contains the amount of stage 1 imputation performed on BIA-funded school records. Imputation 

count information is included in table 33 for the items that deal with the district data, while imputation 

count information for items dealing with public school data are included in table 37. 

Second-Stage Imputation for Unified School Data 

Hot Deck Imputation 

Since there were relatively few Unified School Questionnaire records, it was not possible to perform hot 

deck imputation on them. As a result, the records only underwent regression imputation, subsample ratio 

imputation, and clerical imputation. 

Regression Imputation 

For questions that asked for continuous value answers, such as item 68a on the Unified School 

Questionnaire (annual salary for a teacher with a bachelor’s degree and no teaching experience), simple 

linear regression was used to impute data. Linear models for such items were based on data both from 

other items on the questionnaire and data from the school survey. For example, to impute item 68a a 

model of the salary of teachers with no experience and a bachelor’s degree was created through linear 

regression using the answers to item 63 (contract length), item 51 (number of full-time and part-time 

teachers employed at the school), and URB (a numerical variable based on the school’s proximity to a 

metropolitan center) as coefficients in the linear regression model. 

Items used in the regression model were selected based on how much explanatory power each had in the 

model and the manner in which each influenced the overall explanatory power of the model. This was 
146 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

measured by examining the coefficient of the variable in the regression, as well as the adjusted R-squared 

statistic associated with the model. In addition, the certainty of the relationship established through 

regression was a factor in determining which variables to use in the regression. This was measured by the 

t statistic associated with the coefficient of each variable in the regression as well as the overall F statistic 

associated with the model. 

Subsample Ratio Imputation 

For items that lacked data following first-stage imputation and required categorical answers, subsample 

ratio imputation was employed. First, data were broken into five subsamples based on the value of 

LEVEL (grade levels offered at the school). Then the ratio of each type of response was found for each 

subsample. Finally, the items were assigned answers according to the distribution within the subsample to 

which they belonged in order to preserve the response ratios within that subsample. 

For example, on Unified School Questionnaire item 67 (whether or not there is a salary scale at the 

school), there were two available answer categories; 1 = “yes” and 2 = “no.” If 10 percent of the 

respondents with LEVEL equal to 1 answered “1” for this item and 90 percent answered “2,” then blank 

responses were imputed to maintain this ratio within the subsample. 

Table 39 contains the amount of stage 2 imputation performed on BIA-funded school records. Imputation 

count information is included in table 33 for the items that deal with the district data, while imputation 

count information for items dealing with public school data are included in table 37. 

Third-Stage Imputation for Unified School Data 

Clerical Imputation 

Some values for records from the Unified School Questionnaire were imputed clerically. This method 

was used when there was no available donor that matched the record with the missing values, and when 

the computer-imputed value was outside the range of valid entries or inconsistent with other entries on the 

record, or if there was no method of imputation appropriate for the item other than clerical imputation. In 

order to determine an appropriate value for each unanswered item, Census Bureau analysts examined 

• the original image of the questionnaire, to see if the respondent had made any notes in the 

margins that might provide insight; 

• other items within the same record with related information; 

• similar cases, to get an understanding of what the respondent might have answered; and/or 

• averages of similar subsamples. 

Table 39 contains the amount of stage 3 imputation performed on BIA-funded school unified school 

records. Imputation count information is included in table 33 for the items that deal with the district data, 

while imputation count information for items dealing with public school data are included in table 37. 

Final File Imputation Table for BIA-Funded School Data 

The number of source codes (specific items) that were imputed on a given percentage of records during a 

given stage of processing appears below in table 39. For example, during stage 1 imputation 85 survey 

items were imputed for between 1 and 15 percent of the BIA-funded school records. 
Chapter 8. Imputation Procedures 147 

Table 39. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for BIA-funded schools: 2003–04 

Imputation stage 

Not imputed for 

any record

Imputed for 

1–15 percent 

of the records

Imputed for 

16–30 percent 

of the records 

Imputed for 

more than 30 percent

of the records

Stage 1 346 85 2 0

Stage 2 398 18 17 0

Stage 3 87 277 68 1

NOTE: BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Every question item and data entry in the questionnaires has a corresponding 

source code. The source codes are the 4-digit numbers found to the left of each item or data entry field in the questionnaires,

which become the survey names for these data. 

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

School Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 

“Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File,” contains the total number of imputations 

applied at each stage to each source code. 

Imputation Procedures for the Teacher and Private School Teacher 

Questionnaires (Forms SASS-4A and -4B) 

When entering the imputation step of data processing, teacher data for public, public charter, and BIAfunded school teachers were kept together on one data file, and teacher data for private school teachers 

were on a separate data file. Items on the teacher questionnaires that still had items that were “not 

answered” went through a first stage of imputation in which unanswered items were imputed from other 

items on the same teacher record or items on the corresponding school record. The teacher questionnaires 

then went through the second stage of imputation in which some of the remaining “not answered” items 

were filled using either the data record from a similar record or random ratio imputation. The third stage 

of imputation filled in the remaining “not answered” items that were not resolved during the first two 

stages of imputation. 

After all stages of imputation were completed and no more “not answered” items remained, the private 

school teacher data stayed in a separate dataset. The teacher data from BIA-funded school teachers were 

separated into a single dataset. Public and public charter school teacher data remained in the same data 

file. 

First-Stage Imputation for Teacher Data 

In the first stage, unanswered items for the teacher questionnaires were filled whenever possible by using 

information about the teacher from these sources: 

• Other questionnaire items on the teacher questionnaire record. Based on entries from related 

items on the teacher record, assumptions were made about how the respondent might have 

answered items. For example, if item 4, which asks how much time spent at the school, was 

unanswered, and item 1 indicated that the teacher was a long-term substitute, and item 57 

indicated that the teacher worked more than 35 hours per week, then “full-time” was imputed to 

item 4. 

• School questionnaire record for the school in which the teacher taught. If the teacher’s school 

participated in SASS, information from the record for the school was used to impute values in the 

first stage. For example, if Teacher Questionnaire item 49, which asks for the number of students 
148 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

taught with individual education plans (IEP), and item 45 on the school form indicated there were 

no students with IEPs, then zero was imputed to item 49 on the teacher form. 

In addition to filling in items where values were missing, some inconsistencies between items were 

corrected by ratio adjustment during the first stage of imputation. For example, if the number of hours 

spent teaching different subjects reported in item 16 was greater than 40, then the ratio of hours per 

subject to total hours reported was maintained but was adjusted to be consistent with the total hours spent 

delivering instruction as reported in Teacher Questionnaire item 59. 

Tables 40 through 42 include summaries of the amount of imputation performed in stage 1 processing. 

Second-Stage Imputation for Teacher Data 

Hot Deck Imputation 

In general, hot deck imputation filled unanswered items by using data from the record for a similar 

teacher (e.g., a teacher of similar teaching level, etc.) who worked at a similar school (e.g., a school that 

was the same level, the same type, of similar size, etc.). Imputation variables that describe certain 

characteristics of the teachers and their schools were created and used to sort the records and to match 

incomplete records to those with complete entries (donors). 

For some items, such as item 4 (how much time worked as a teacher in the school), data were copied 

directly to the record with the missing value. For other items, such as item 8 (year started teaching), the 

entries on the donor record were used as factors along with other questionnaire data to fill in the 

incomplete items. For example, if item 8 was unanswered, then the teacher’s year of birth and the donor’s 

age at the time they started teaching were used to impute an answer for item 8. 

Public School Teachers. For stage 2, the states were combined into 23 groups according to their 

geographic location in order to increase the size of the data pool. All imputation was done within the state 

group; that is, the donor record had to be from a teacher within the same state group as the incomplete 

record. Within each state group, the records were sorted by the following variables: 

STATE State school location 

S0414 School’s total enrollment 

SCHKND29 Kind of school 

TEALEVEL Grade levels taught 

The records were sorted by STATE / SCHKND / TEALEVEL / S0414. 

Private School Teachers. The records were sorted by the following variables: 

AFFILG School’s general affiliation 

AFFILS School’s religious and/or association affiliation 

TEALEVEL Grade levels taught 

URB Proximity to a metropolitan center 

S0734 School’s total enrollment 

The records were sorted by AFFILG / AFFILS / TEALEVEL / URB / S0734. 

 

29 SCHKND indicates whether the school is a regular public school (including Department of Defense and some 

one-school districts), BIA-funded school, or public charter school. 
Chapter 8. Imputation Procedures 149 

BIA-funded School30 Teachers. BIA-funded school teacher data were in the same dataset as the rest of 

public school teacher data and received the same treatment. However, because SCHKND was one of the 

sorting variables, non-BIA-funded school teachers could not be in a donor relationship with BIA-funded 

school teachers. 

Public Charter School Teachers. Public charter school teacher data were in the same dataset as the rest 

of public school teacher data and received the same treatment. However, because SCHKND was one of 

the sorting variables, non-public charter school teachers could not be in a donor relationship with public 

charter school teachers. 

Random Subsample Ratio Imputation 

After hot deck imputations were completed, remaining unanswered items were filled in using a program 

that randomly assigned values to categorical variables while preserving the observed distribution of the 

data. The program also sorted the data in order to take into account those variables that might explain why 

respondents answered one way or another. Continuous variables were assigned a random “plausible 

value” (a value between the 5th and 95th percentile) to cases with missing responses based on the range of 

values provided by respondents with similar characteristics. 

For example, type of school, level of classes taught, school program type, and teaching experience were 

used to define a subsample within the data. Then, if a record had an item missing and that record 

belonged to the subset within the data, a random answer was assigned to the record in such a way so as to 

maintain the distribution of answers to that item within that subsample. So, if it was found that for private, 

elementary, and Montessori school teachers with 20 years of teaching experience Teacher Questionnaire 

item 71, base academic pay, had a 5th percentile answer of $20,000 and a 95th percentile answer of 

$50,000, then the program randomly assigned answers consistent with that distribution to teachers that fit 

the description. 

Tables 40 through 42 include summaries of the amount of imputation performed in stage 2 processing. 

Third-Stage Imputation for Teacher Data 

Clerical Imputation 

For cases where the respondent did not report gender in Teacher Questionnaire item 76, a value was 

imputed clerically by referring to the respondent’s name whenever possible. For names that were not 

clearly gendered, Census Bureau analysts clerically imputed the item by looking at other records with 

similar characteristics (e.g., teaching assignment field, teaching level) and making an appropriate decision 

on a case-by-case basis. In addition, some values on the teacher records were imputed clerically when 

there was no available donor that matched the record with the missing values, when the computerimputed value was outside the range of valid entries or inconsistent with other entries on the record, or 

when there was no method of imputation appropriate for the item other than clerical imputation. In order 

to determine an appropriate value for each unanswered item, Census Bureau analysts reviewed 

• the original image of the questionnaire, to see if the respondent had made any notes in the 

margins that might provide insight; 

• other items within the same record with related information; 

• similar cases, to get an understanding of what the respondent might have answered; and/or 

 

30 BIA-funded school refers to schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that were not operated by a 

local school district. These schools may be operated by BIA, a tribe, or a private contractor. 
150 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

• averages of similar subsamples. 

Tables 40 through 42 include summaries of the amount of imputation performed in stage 2 processing. 

Final File Imputation Tables for Teacher Data 

Following stage 3 processing, BIA-funded school teacher records were removed to create the final data 

files. The number of source codes (specific items) that were imputed on a given percentage of records 

during a given stage of processing appears for each file below in tables 40 through 42. For example, 

during stage 1 imputation 141 survey items were imputed for between 1 and 15 percent of the public 

school (including public charter school) teachers. 

Table 40. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for public school teachers, including public charter school teachers: 

2003–04 

Imputation stage 

Not imputed for 

any record

Imputed for 

1–15 percent 

of the records

Imputed for 

16–30 percent 

of the records 

Imputed for 

more than 30 percent

of the records

Stage 1 195 141 0 0

Stage 2 37 297 2 0

Stage 3 284 52 0 0

NOTE: Every question item and data entry in the questionnaires has a corresponding source code. The source codes are the 

4-digit numbers found to the left of each item or data entry field in the questionnaires, which become the survey names for these 

data. 

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

School Teacher Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 

Table 41. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for private school teachers: 2003–04 

Imputation stage 

Not imputed for 

any record

Imputed for 

1–15 percent 

of the records

Imputed for 

16–30 percent 

of the records 

Imputed for 

more than 30 percent

of the records

Stage 1 216 120 0 0

Stage 2 69 266 1 0

Stage 3 268 68 0 0

NOTE: Every question item and data entry in the questionnaires has a corresponding source code. The source codes are the 

4-digit numbers found to the left of each item or data entry field in the questionnaires, which become the survey names for these 

data. 

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

“Private School Teacher Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 
Chapter 8. Imputation Procedures 151 

Table 42. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for BIA-funded school teachers: 2003–04 

Imputation stage 

Not imputed for 

any record

Imputed for 

1–15 percent 

of the records

Imputed for 

16–30 percent 

of the records 

Imputed for 

more than 30 percent

of the records

Stage 1 228 108 0 0

Stage 2 82 247 7 0

Stage 3 324 12 0 0

NOTE: BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Every question item and data entry in the questionnaires has a corresponding 

source code. The source codes are the 4-digit numbers found to the left of each item or data entry field in the questionnaires,

which become the survey names for these data. 

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

School Teacher Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 

“Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File,” contains the total number of imputations 

applied at each stage to each source code. 

Imputation Procedures for the School Library Media Center 

Questionnaire (Form LS-1A) 

Library media center data for public and BIA-funded schools were on the same data file when entering 

the imputation step of data processing. Items from the School Library Media Center questionnaire that 

still had items that were “not answered” went through a first stage of imputation in which unanswered 

items were imputed from other items on the same library media center record or items on the 

corresponding school record. The library media center data then went through the second stage of 

imputation in which some of the remaining “not answered” items were filled using either the data record 

from a similar record, regression imputation, or random ratio imputation. The third stage of imputation 

filled in the remaining “not answered” items that were not resolved during the first two stages of 

imputation. After all stages of imputation were completed and no more “not answered” items remained, 

the library media center data from BIA-funded schools were separated into a single dataset. 

First-Stage Imputation for School Library Media Center Data 

In the first stage, unanswered items were completed whenever possible by using information about the 

school library from the following sources: 

• Other questionnaire items on the library record. Based on entries from related items on the 

library record, some assumptions were made about how the respondent might have answered 

items. For example, if item 4 on the School Library Media Center Questionnaire (whether the 

library has a paid state-certified librarian) was unanswered and item 12 indicated that no school 

staff member has primary responsibility for the library, the code for “Yes” was imputed to item 4. 

• Matching SASS school questionnaire. For a few unanswered items, data from the matching school 

record were used to impute the entries. For example, if item 6 on the School Library Media 

Center Questionnaire was unanswered and entries on the school record indicated that the school 

did not have any library aides, the code for “No” was imputed to item 6 of the library record. 

Tables 43 and 44 include summaries of the amount of imputation performed in stage 1 processing. 
152 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Second-Stage Imputation for School Library Media Center Data 

Hot Deck Imputation 

In general, the second stage of imputation filled unanswered items by using data from the record for a 

library of a similar school (e.g., a school that was the same level, of similar size, located in same type of 

community). Imputation variables that described certain characteristics of the schools (e.g., enrollment 

size and school level) were copied from the matching school record. In addition, a variable that 

categorized the size of the library was created by using the number of books held at the end of the 2002–

03 school year. These school variables and the library variable were used to sort the library records and to 

match incomplete records to those with complete entries (donors). 

For some items, such as item 1 on the School Library Media Center Questionnaire (whether library is 

centralized or decentralized), data were directly copied to the record with the missing value. For others, 

however, such as item 18a(2) (number of books acquired during the 2002–03 school year), entries on the 

donor record were used as factors along with other information on the incomplete record to fill the 

unanswered items. For example, if the number of books held was reported for Library A, but the number 

acquired was not, the donor’s ratio of books acquired to books held was used with the number of books 

held by Library A to impute the number acquired by Library A (Library A books acquired = Library A 

books held * (donor library books acquired / donor library books held)). 

Public School Library Media Centers. The School Library Media Center Questionnaire records were 

sorted so that records for libraries of similar schools were near each other on the file. The data were sorted 

by the following variables: 

STATE State location of school 

ENR School’s total enrollment 

LEVEL Grade levels offered 

URB Proximity to a metropolitan center 

M0089 Total number of books in library 

The records were sorted by STATE / ENR / LEVEL / URB / M0089. 

BIA-funded School31 Library Media Centers. BIA-funded school library media centers were not treated 

separately from public school library media centers. 

Public Charter School Library Media Centers. Public charter school library data were kept in the same 

dataset as the public school library data through the first stage of imputation. However, the datasets were 

split prior to hot deck imputation to ensure that no non-public charter school library data would be used in 

the public charter school library imputation process. Because there were a relatively small number of 

school libraries in the dataset, it was not possible to use hot deck imputation on the dataset containing 

only public charter school library data. As a result, public charter school library data went directly into the 

next steps of processing, which included regression imputation and subsample ratio imputation. 

Regression Imputation 

Following hot deck imputation, there were still some unanswered items. For questions that ask for 

continuous value answers, such as item 21b on the School Library Media Center Questionnaire (total 

 

31 BIA-funded school refers to schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that were not operated by a 

local school district. These schools may be operated by BIA, a tribe, or a private contractor. 
Chapter 8. Imputation Procedures 153 

amount spent on electronic databases in the 2002–03 school year), simple linear regression was used to 

impute data. Linear models for such items were based on other items on the questionnaire. For example, 

to impute item 21b, a model of expenditures on electronic databases was created through linear regression 

using the answers to item 18b(3) (amount spent on video materials), item 18c(3) (amount spent on CDROM titles), and item 19c (amount spent on subscriptions). 

Items used in the regression model were selected based on how much explanatory power each had in the 

model and the manner in which each influenced the overall explanatory power of the model. This was 

measured by examining the coefficient of the variable in the regression, as well as the adjusted R-squared 

statistic associated with the model. In addition, the certainty of the relationship established through 

regression was a factor in determining which variables to use in the regression. This was measured by the 

t statistic associated with the coefficient of each variable in the regression, as well as the overall F statistic 

associated with the model. 

Subsample Ratio Imputation 

For items that lacked data following hot deck imputation and required categorical answers, subsample 

ratio imputation was employed. First, data were broken into five subsamples based on the value of 

LEVEL (grade levels offered at the school). Then the ratio of each type of response was found for each 

subsample. Finally, the items were assigned answers according to the subsample to which they belonged 

in such a way so as to preserve the response ratios within that subsample. 

For example, on School Library Media Center Questionnaire item 20 (whether or not the library had 

access to electronic databases of periodicals provided for free), there were two answer categories 

available, “yes” or “no.” If it was found that 10 percent of respondents with LEVEL equal to 1 answered 

“no” for this item and 90 percent answered “yes,” then items were imputed to maintain this ratio. 

Tables 43 and 44 include summaries of the amount of imputation performed in stage 2 processing. 

Third-Stage Imputation for School Library Media Center Data 

Clerical Imputation 

Some values on the library records were imputed clerically. This method was used when there was no 

available donor that matched the record with the missing values, when the imputed values were outside 

the range of valid entries or inconsistent with other entries on the record, or when there was no method of 

imputation appropriate for the item other than clerical imputation. In order to determine an appropriate 

value for each unanswered item, Census Bureau analysts examined 

• the original image of the questionnaire, to see if the respondent had made any notes in the 

margins that might provide insight; 

• other items within the same record with related information; 

• similar cases, to get an understanding of what the respondent might have answered; and/or 

• averages of similar subsamples. 

Tables 43 and 44 include summaries of the amount of imputation performed in stage 3 processing. 
154 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Final File Imputation Tables for School Library Media Center Data 

Following stage 3 processing, BIA-funded school library records were removed to create a separate 

dataset, while the public charter school library records where added back into the public school library 

dataset. The number of source codes (specific items) that were imputed on a given percentage of records 

during a given stage of processing appears for each file below in tables 43 and 44. For example, during 

stage 1 imputation 63 survey items were imputed for between 1 and 15 percent of the public school 

(including public charter school) library media centers. 

Table 43. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for public school library media centers, including public charter 

school library media centers: 2003–04 

Imputation stage 

Not imputed for 

any record

Imputed for 

1–15 percent 

of the records

Imputed for 

16–30 percent 

of the records 

Imputed for 

more than 30 percent

of the records

Stage 1 37 63 0 0

Stage 2 3 97 0 0

Stage 3 58 42 0 0

NOTE: Every question item and data entry in the questionnaires has a corresponding source code. The source codes are the 

4-digit numbers found to the left of each item or data entry field in the questionnaires, which become the survey names for these 

data. 

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

School Library Media Center Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 

Table 44. Number of source codes imputed, by percentage of records receiving imputation and 

imputation stage for BIA-funded school library media centers: 2003–04 

Imputation stage 

Not imputed for 

any record

Imputed for 

1–15 percent 

of the records

Imputed for 

16–30 percent 

of the records 

Imputed for 

more than 30 percent

of the records

Stage 1 62 38 0 0

Stage 2 21 78 1 0

Stage 3 78 22 0 0

NOTE: BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Every question item and data entry in the questionnaires has a corresponding 

source code. The source codes are the 4-digit numbers found to the left of each item or data entry field in the questionnaires,

which become the survey names for these data. 

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

School Library Media Center Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 

“Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File,” contains the total number of imputations 

applied at each stage to each source code. 
155 

Chapter 9. Weighting and Variance Estimation 

This chapter describes the weighting procedure used for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

(SASS). The final weights are needed to have the sample estimates reflect the target survey population 

when analyzing the data. In addition, the variance estimation procedures are discussed, which include the 

methods of estimating sampling errors for weighted estimates in SASS using the replicate weights. 

Weighting is presented first, followed by variance estimation. 

Weighting 

This section describes the weighting processes for each SASS respondent. The general purpose of 

weighting is to inflate the sample estimates to represent the target survey population. The steps for 

weighting various types of respondents are largely the same. The initial basic weight (the inverse of the 

sampled unit’s probability of selection at the time of initial selection) is used as the starting point, then a 

sampling adjustment factor is applied to account for any additional circumstances impacting the 

probability of selection (e.g., subsampling in the field). This product is the base weight. Next, a 

nonresponse adjustment factor is calculated and applied using whatever information is known about the 

respondents from the sampling frame data. Finally, various ratio adjustment factors are calculated and 

applied to the sample. The type and number of ratio adjustment factors varies with each SASS data file, 

but in general, they each adjust the sample totals to frame totals in order to reduce sampling variability. 

Most components of the weighting employed weighting classes in the calculation of the weighting 

adjustments. Weighting classes allow for differential adjustment factors to be computed for the same 

weighting component. This technique is especially useful when the computed factors are presumed to 

differ substantially, such as when patterns of nonresponse vary across subpopulations. For each 

component of SASS described in subsequent sections, the formula for computing the particular weighting 

component is presented, along with a brief description of each component of the weight. When 

computations were done within weighting classes, or cells, such as nonresponse adjustments, the cells are 

described. Sometimes a cell did not have enough data to produce a reliable estimate; in such cases, cells 

were collapsed. The most important variables were always collapsed last. The collapsing criteria are also 

described below for each component of SASS. 

The school weight is described first since it is the primary sampling unit. The public, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA) funded, and private school weights have similar structures and are presented together. They 

differ only by the definition of the cells that were used to compute the nonresponse adjustment factor and 

the ratio adjustment factor(s). The specific weighting adjustment factors and cells are described in the 

second section. Since the public, BIA-funded, and private school administrator weights are similar to the 

school weights, they are described third. In the fourth section, the public school district weights are 

described. The fifth section describes how district base weights were computed. Teacher weights are 

described in the sixth section. Since the public, BIA-funded, and private school teacher weights have the 

same structure, they are presented together. They differ only in the definition of the cells that were used to 

compute the various weighting factors. These cells are described separately within the teacher weight 

section. The final two sections describes the school library weights. The library media center survey was 

only offered to public and BIA-funded schools in this administration of SASS. 

The distribution of the final weights from each file is provided in table 45 below. 
156 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table 45. Distribution of final weights for interviewed cases, by data file: 2003–04 

Weight at given percentile 

Data file 

Minimum 1st 5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th 99th

Maximum Mean

Public School 

 District 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.39 2.10 3.99 7.28 10.05 20.04 137.06 3.51

 

Public School 0.82 1.17 1.63 2.11 3.48 6.70 13.65 24.87 35.81 62.23 219.43 11.03

BIA School1

 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.09 1.40 1.40 2.57 2.80 1.16

Private School 0.84 1.87 3.49 4.52 7.04 9.98 14.03 19.62 24.69 37.80 76.81 11.56

 

Public School 

 Principal 0.90 1.14 1.57 2.04 3.43 6.47 13.23 24.37 35.05 61.17 236.48 10.76

BIA School 

 Principal1 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.07 1.11 1.30 1.30 2.59 2.68 1.14

Private School 

 Principal 0.82 1.94 3.47 4.55 7.24 10.20 14.40 19.29 24.33 37.37 85.12 11.65

 

Public School 

 Teacher 0.81 5.76 8.76 11.29 19.63 37.24 83.37 181.46 267.60 565.69 1,535.22 75.17

BIA School 

 Teacher1

 0.87 1.11 3.06 3.69 4.37 6.15 8.02 9.46 10.69 15.50 23.18 6.43

Private School 

 Teacher 0.89 5.18 8.34 15.10 34.66 50.21 70.28 111.10 136.87 216.12 390.51 58.58

 

Public School 

 Library Media 

 Center 0.97 1.14 1.56 2.06 3.39 6.45 13.33 25.43 34.65 64.86 156.77 10.83

BIA School 

 Library Media 

 Center1

 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.21 1.25 1.41 1.41 2.57 2.83 1.24 1

 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

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

School District, Public School, Private School, BIA School, Public School Principal, Private School Principal, BIA School 

Principal, Public School Teacher, Private School Teacher, BIA School Teacher, Public School Library Media Center, and BIA 

School Library Media Center Restricted Use Data Files,” 2003–04. 

School Weight (School, Private School, and Unified School Questionnaires) 

The final weight for the public and private school data is the product of: 

(Initial Basic Weight) and (Sampling Adjustment Factor) and (Nonresponse Adjustment Factor) and 

(First-Stage Ratio Adjustment Factor) and (Second-Stage Ratio Adjustment Factor32) 

where: 

Initial Basic Weight is the inverse of the probability of selection of the school at the time of 

selection. 

Sampling Adjustment Factor is an adjustment that accounts for circumstances that affect the 

school’s probability of selection that are identified after the data collection has begun, such as a 

merger, duplication, or incorrect building-level collapsing (i.e., a junior high school and a senior 

 

32 The second-stage ratio adjustment factor applies to private schools only. 
Chapter 9. Weighting and Variance Estimation 157 

high school merge to become a junior/senior high school). Any changes in the school collapsing, 

as described in chapter 4 (i.e., uncollapsing or additional collapsing of schools), are adjusted for 

in this step. The collapsing described in chapter 4 is reflected in the initial basic weight. 

Nonresponse Adjustment Factor is an adjustment that accounts for total school nonresponse. It is 

the weighted (product of initial basic weight and sampling adjustment factor) ratio of the total 

eligible in-scope schools (interviewed schools plus noninterviewed schools) to the total 

responding in-scope schools (interviewed schools) within cells. Variables used to define cells are 

presented in exhibit 7. At this stage of the weighting process, noninterviewed and out-of-scope 

schools are assigned a weight of zero. 

First-Stage Ratio Adjustment Factor is a factor that adjusts the sample estimates to known final 

frame totals after all frame construction. Construction of the frame is described in chapter 4. For 

public schools, the first-stage ratio adjustment factor is equal to the ratio of the total number of 

SASS frame noncertainty schools (i.e., schools not selected with certainty as described in chapter 

4) to the weighted sample estimate of the total number of noncertainty schools within each 

weighting class, or cell, defined for this step in the weighting procedure. Certainty schools were 

excluded from both the numerator and denominators and were assigned a factor equal to one. 

Since all BIA-funded schools were selected with certainty, this step in the weighting was not 

applied to them. All BIA-funded schools received a factor of one. For private schools, the 

adjustment was the same, except for the area frame. For the area frame, all private schools in 

noncertainty primary sampling units were in sample and there were no universe counts for all 

noncertainty primary sampling units. These schools were assigned a factor equal to one. Certainty 

private schools were also excluded from this calculation and received a factor set equal to one. 

Second-Stage Ratio Adjustment Factor applies only to private schools. It is a factor that adjusts 

sample estimates based on an older sampling frame to current independent control counts. For the 

2003–04 SASS, the list frame for private schools was the current 2003–04 Private School 

Universe Survey (PSS) list frame, whereas the area frame was based on an older 2001–02 PSS 

area frame sample. The second-stage ratio adjustment factor is the ratio of the weighted 2003–04 

PSS estimates of schools to the weighted 2003–04 SASS sample estimate of schools within each 

cell. 

School Weighting Adjustment Cells 

School noninterview and first- and second-stage ratio adjustments were computed within cells. The 

schools were classified into cells based on sampling frame data for the noninterview and first-stage ratio 

adjustments. For the second-stage ratio adjustment, private schools were classified into cells using 

questionnaire data. 

For both public and private schools, schools selected with certainty were adjusted using a separate set of 

cells for the nonresponse adjustment within each sector. This was done due to changes in the variance 

methodology, which was changed to reflect a variance associated with nonresponding certainty schools. 

See the “Variance Estimation” section later in this chapter for further details on the variance 

methodology. 

Public, Public Charter, BIA-Funded, and Private School Adjustment Cells 

The following exhibit presents a summary of the collapsing criteria applied for each adjustment factor to 

the different types of schools in the weighting process. The exact cells are shown in “Appendix R. 

Weighting Adjustment Cells.” 
158 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Exhibit 7. Adjustment factors and collapsing criteria as applied to school weights: 2003–04 

Nonresponse adjustment factor First-stage ratio adjustment factor 

Second-stage ratio adjustment 

factor (list and area frames) 

Type of school Collapsing criteria 

Collapsing 

order Collapsing criteria 

Collapsing 

order Collapsing criteria 

Collapsing 

order 

Public schools 

Factor ≤ 2.0 

Interviews ≥ 5 Certainty 

Noninterviews ≥ 1 

Enrollment, 

school 

level, 

state/region

† 

Factor ≤ 2.0 

Interviews ≥ 10 BIA-funded1

Noninterviews ≥ 1 

Enrollment, 

school 

level, state 

† 

Factor ≤ 2.0 Factor ≥ 0.667 

and ≤ 1.5 

 High 

 American 

 Indian 

 enrollment Interviews ≥ 10 

Enrollment, 

school 

level, 

state/region Interviews ≥ 10 

Enrollment, 

school 

level, 

state/region

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ 0.667 

 Public charter and ≤ 1.5 

Interviews ≥ 15 

School 

level, 

state/region Interviews ≥ 10 

School 

level, 

state/region

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ 0.667 

and ≤ 1.5 Other public 

Interviews ≥ 15 

Enrollment, 

urbanicity, 

school level Interviews ≥ 15 

Enrollment, 

urbanicity, 

school level

† 

Private schools 

 Certainty † † † 

Factor ≤ 2.0 Factor ≥ 0.667 

 List frame and ≤ 1.5 

Interviews ≥ 15 

Enrollment, 

school level Interviews ≥ 15 

School 

level, 

affiliation 

Factor ≥ 0.667 

and ≤ 1.5

Factor ≤ 2.0 

 Area frame Interviews ≥ 15 

Enrollment, 

school 

level, 

affiliation 

† Interviews ≥ 15 

Enrollment, 

urbanicity, 

school level

† Not applicable. 

1

 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 2003–

04. 

Exhibit 7 is used to identify the differences in the criteria used in each adjustment factor calculation. The 

collapsing criteria are used within a cell, while the collapsing order is used to determine a similar cell 

with which to collapse. The categories used in the collapsing order differed by sector, type of public 

school, state, or affiliation stratum and are detailed in “Appendix R. Weighting Adjustment Cells.” Note 

that collapsing for public schools was restricted to within type (i.e., certainty, BIA-funded, public charter, 

high American Indian or Alaska Native enrollment, other). For example, if a particular cell in the 

certainty public school table met the collapsing criteria (i.e., had at least five interviewed schools, at least 

one noninterviewed school, and an initial factor of less than two), then it was not collapsed into another 

cell. However, if that cell did not meet any one of the above criteria, it was collapsed with a similar cell. 

In this case, the cell would have been collapsed into a cell with a similar enrollment. The number of 

noninterviewed schools was only used in certainty school cells to determine if the cell needed to be 

collapsed. In the certainty public school example above, the number of interviewed schools was 

insufficient to prevent collapsing of the nonresponse adjustment factor cells even though the number of 
Chapter 9. Weighting and Variance Estimation 159 

noninterviewed schools was sufficient. The number of interviews needed to keep the cell from collapsing 

was always used as a criterion for collapsing and can differ for different types of schools. 

Principal Weight (Principal and Private School Principal Questionnaires) 

The public, public charter, BIA-funded, and private school principal weighting was done the same way as 

the school questionnaire weighting described above. Since the response status for each of the principal 

surveys and the corresponding school surveys could be different, the weighting process was done 

separately for each questionnaire. The sum of the principal weights may be less than the sum of the 

school weights because some schools do not have principals. See chapter 7 for a discussion of the 

interview status of schools and principals. 

Public School District Weight (School District Questionnaire) 

The final weight for the public school district data is the product of: 

(Initial Basic Weight) and (Sampling Adjustment Factor) and (Nonresponse Adjustment Factor) and 

(First-Stage Ratio Adjustment Factor) 

where: 

Initial Basic Weight is the inverse of the probability of selection of the district at the time of 

selection. Note that districts were not selected directly, making the computation of this 

probability more complex. See the next section, “District Initial Basic Weights,” for a detailed 

description of the computation. 

Sampling Adjustment Factor is an adjustment that accounts for circumstances that affect the 

district’s probability of selection that are identified after the data collection has begun, such as a 

merger or split. For example, if two districts consolidated into one, the consolidated district’s 

base weight would reflect the two chances of selection. 

Nonresponse Adjustment Factor is an adjustment that accounts for total district nonresponse. It is 

the weighted (product of the initial basic weight and sampling adjustment factor) ratio of total 

eligible in-scope districts to the total responding in-scope districts, computed within weighting 

classes, or cells (as shown in exhibit 8), within each state. At this stage of the weighting, out-ofscope and noninterviewed districts were assigned a weight of zero. A separate nonresponse 

adjustment factor was computed for Hawaii. Since there is only one district in Hawaii, no amount 

of collapsing would satisfy the collapsing criteria. 

First-Stage Ratio Adjustment Factor is a factor that adjusts the sample estimates to the 2001–02 

Common Core of Data (CCD) frame totals. It is the ratio of the total number of noncertainty 

districts in the frame to the weighted sample estimate of the total number of noncertainty districts 

in the frame, computed within weighting classes, or cells (as shown in exhibit 8), within each 

state. Certainty districts were assigned a factor of one. 
160 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Exhibit 8. Adjustment factors and collapsing criteria as applied to public school district weights: 

2003–04 

Type of public school Nonresponse adjustment factor First-stage ratio adjustment factor 

district Collapsing criteria Collapsing order Collapsing criteria Collapsing order 

Factor ≤ 1.5 Certainty districts Interviews ≥ 10 †

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ 0.667 and 

Remaining districts ≤ 1.5 

Interviews ≥ 10 

Urbanicity, 

enrollment 

Interviews ≥ 10 

Urbanicity, 

enrollment 

† Not applicable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 2003–

04. 

Exhibit 8 is used to identify the differences in the criteria used in each adjustment factor calculation. 

Some of the criteria (collapsing criteria) apply within a cell, while the other criteria (collapsing order) are 

used to determine a similar cell with which to collapse. Criteria vary by whether or not the district was 

selected with certainty. 

District Initial Basic Weights 

Given the complexity of the sampling scheme, the calculation of the district initial basic weights is not 

straightforward. Districts were divided into two groups: 1) districts outside Delaware, Florida, Maryland, 

Nevada, and West Virginia; and 2) districts in Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Nevada, and West Virginia, 

which are all certainty districts. 

District Base Weights for Districts Outside Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Nevada, and West Virginia 

The district sample was not selected directly through a district frame. Instead, the districts were selected 

through the school sampling. In other words, the districts associated with the sampled schools comprised 

the district sample. As a result, district weighting requires more factors than other respondents. 

Since schools were stratified by school level (i.e., elementary, secondary, and combined) and by type (i.e., 

high proportion of American Indian enrollment, public charter, other public) the probability of selection 

for district k, (Pk(sel)) can be written as follows: 

Pk(sel) = 1 - [(1 - Pk(HAI,ELM))(1 - Pk(HAI,SEC))(1 - Pk(HAI,COM)) 

(1 - Pk(PUB,ELM))(1 - Pk(PUB,SEC))(1 - Pk(PUB,COM)) 

(1 - Pk(CHA,ELM))(1 - Pk(CHA,SEC))(1 - Pk(CHA,COM))] 

where: Pk(HAI,ELM) is the probability of selecting district k that includes schools that are classified as 

elementary (ELM) and have a high American Indian enrollment (HAI). This 

equals the sum of the school selection probabilities for the schools that are 

American Indian, elementary, and in district k. If the sum is greater than one, 

then Pk(HAI,ELM) is set equal to one. 

Pk(HAI,SEC) is the probability of selecting district k that includes schools that are classified as 

secondary (SEC) and have a high American Indian enrollment (HAI). This equals 

the sum of the school selection probabilities for the schools that are American 

Indian, secondary, and in district k. If the sum is greater than one, then 

Pk(HAI,SEC) is set equal to one. 
Chapter 9. Weighting and Variance Estimation 161 

Pk(HAI,COM) is the probability of selecting district k which contains schools that are classified 

as combined (COM) and have a high American Indian enrollment (HAI). This 

equals the sum of the school selection probabilities for the schools that are 

American Indian, combined, and in district k. If the sum is greater than one, 

Pk(HAI,COM) is set equal to one. 

Pk(PUB,ELM) is the probability of selecting district k which contains schools that are 

elementary (ELM) and are not public charter schools or do not have high 

American Indian enrollment (PUB). This equals the sum of the school selection 

probabilities for the schools that are not American Indian or public charter, but 

are elementary and in district k. If the sum is greater than one, then 

Pk(PUB,ELM) is set equal to one. 

Pk(PUB,SEC) is the probability of selecting district k which contains schools that are secondary 

(SEC) and do not have a high American Indian enrollment or are not public 

charter schools (PUB). This equals the sum of the school selection probabilities 

for the schools that are not American Indian, not public charter, and are 

secondary and in district k. If the sum is greater than one, then Pk(PUB,SEC) is 

set equal to one. 

Pk(PUB,COM) is the probability of selecting district k which contains schools that are combined 

(COM) and not American Indian or public charter (PUB). This equals the sum of 

the school selection probabilities for the schools that are not American Indian or 

public charter, are combined and in district k. If the sum is greater than one, then 

Pk(PUB,COM) is set equal to one. 

Pk(CHA,ELM) is the probability of selecting district k which contains schools that are 

elementary (ELM) and public charter (CHA). This equals the sum of the school 

selection probabilities for the schools that are public charter, elementary, and in 

district k. If the sum is greater than one, then Pk(CHA,ELM) is set equal to one. 

Pk(CHA,SEC) is the probability of selecting district k in which contains schools that are 

classified as secondary (SEC) and public charter (CHA). This equals the sum of 

the school selection probabilities for the schools that are public charter, 

secondary, and in district k. If the sum is greater than one, then Pk(CHA,SEC) is 

set equal to one. 

Pk(CHA,COM) is the probability of selecting district k which contains schools that are classified 

as combined (COM) and public charter (CHA). This equals the sum of the school 

selection probabilities for the schools that are public charter, combined, and in 

district k. If the sum is greater than one, Pk(CHA,COM) is set equal to one. 

Note that 1/Pk(sel) equals the initial basic weight. 

District Base Weights for Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Nevada, and West Virginia 

The initial basic weight was one for all districts in Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Nevada, and West 

Virginia since all districts in these five states were guaranteed to be selected for sample. Their final 

weights, however, may not equal one due to adjustment for nonresponse. 
162 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Teacher Weights (Teacher and Private School Teacher Questionnaires) 

The final weight for public and private school teachers is the product of: 

(Initial Basic Weight) and (School Sampling Adjustment Factor) and (Teacher List Nonresponse 

Adjustment Factor) and (Teacher-Within-School Nonresponse Adjustment Factor) and (First-Stage Ratio 

Adjustment Factor) and (Teacher Adjustment Factor) 

where: 

Initial Basic Weight is the inverse of the probability of selection of the teacher at the time of 

selection. 

Sampling Adjustment Factor is an adjustment that accounts for circumstances that affect the 

school’s probability of selection that are identified after the data collection has begun, such as a 

merger, duplication, or incorrect building-level collapsing (i.e., a junior high school and a senior 

high school merge to become a junior/senior high school). Any changes in the school collapsing 

described in chapter 4 (i.e., uncollapsing or additional collapsing) are adjusted for in this step. 

The collapsing described in chapter 4 is reflected in the initial basic weight. 

Teacher List Nonresponse Adjustment Factor is an adjustment that accounts for teachers in 

schools that did not provide a list of its teachers. It is the weighted (the product of the school 

initial basic weight and the school sampling adjustment factor) ratio of total eligible in-scope 

schools to the total in-scope schools providing teacher lists, computed within cells. (See exhibit 

9.) 

Teacher-within-school Nonresponse Adjustment factor is an adjustment that accounts for sampled 

teachers who did not respond to the survey. It is the weighted (product of all previously defined 

components) ratio of the total eligible teachers to the total eligible responding teachers computed 

within cells. (See exhibit 9.) At this stage of the weighting procedure, noninterviewed and out-ofscope teachers are assigned a weight of zero. 

First-Stage Ratio Adjustment Factor is a factor computed at the school level that adjusts the 

sampled schools’ frame estimates of full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers to the total full-time 

equivalent teachers in the whole school sampling frame (either the 2001–02 CCD or the updated 

2001–02 PSS). For the set of noncertainty schools, the factor is the ratio of the frame estimate of 

the total number of FTE teachers to the weighted (product of all previously defined components) 

sample estimate of the total number of FTE teachers. These factors are computed within cells. 

(See exhibit 9.) The sample estimate uses the frame count of the number of FTE teachers in the 

school. 

For teachers from certainty schools, the factor is one. 

Teacher Adjustment Factor is a factor that adjusts the inconsistency between the estimated 

number of teachers from the SASS school data files and the SASS teacher data files. It is the ratio 

of the weighted number of teachers from the school data file for a cell to the weighted number of 

teachers on the teacher data file for a cell. The weight is the product of all previously defined 

components. This factor ensures that teacher estimates from the teacher file will agree with the 

corresponding teacher aggregates from the school file (after imputation), since the teacher file 

counts are being adjusted to agree with the school counts. 
Chapter 9. Weighting and Variance Estimation 163 

The teacher list nonresponse adjustments, the teacher-within-school nonresponse adjustments, 

the first-stage ratio adjustments, and the teacher adjustments are computed within cells. The 

cells for the teacher list nonresponse adjustments and the first-stage ratio adjustments are the 

same as those used in the school nonresponse and first-stage adjustments. The cells are 

described in the school weight section. 

Exhibit 9. Adjustment factors and collapsing criteria as applied to teacher weights: 2003–04 

Teacher within-school nonresponse 

adjustment factor Teacher adjustment factor1

Type of teacher Collapsing criteria Collapsing order Collapsing criteria Collapsing order

Public school teachers 

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ 0.667 and ≤ 1.5 BIA-funded2

Interviews ≥ 15 Interviews ≥ 15 

 High American Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ 0.667 and ≤ 1.5 

 Indian Interviews ≥ 15 Interviews ≥ 15 

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ 0.667 and ≤ 1.5 Public charter Interviews ≥ 15 Interviews ≥ 15 

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ 0.667 and ≤ 1.5 Other public Interviews ≥ 15 

Ethnicity, race, 

enrollment, region, 

teacher subject 

Interviews ≥ 15 

Ethnicity, 

enrollment, 

school level 

Private school teachers 

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ 0.667 and ≤ 1.5 List frame Interviews ≥ 15 

School level, 

affiliation Interviews ≥ 15 

Factor ≤ 1.5 Factor ≥ 0.667 and ≤ 1.5 

 Area frame Interviews ≥ 15 

Enrollment, 

teaching field, 

affiliation Interviews ≥ 15 

Ethnicity 

enrollment, 

school level, 

affiliation 

1

 The list and area frames were combined for private school teachers. 

2

 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 2003–

04. 

This exhibit is used to identify the differences in the criteria used in each adjustment factor calculation. 

The collapsing criteria apply within a cell, while the collapsing order is used to determine a similar cell 

with which to collapse. Criteria vary by school sector and type of school. 

School Library Weights (School Library Media Center Questionnaire) 

SASS school library media center data were used to estimate the characteristics of schools with library 

media centers as well as schools without library media centers. Whenever possible, sampled schools with 

library media centers and sampled schools without library media centers were adjusted separately. Thus, 

interviewed library media centers were weighted up to the weighted estimate of sampled schools known 

to have library media centers, as determined at the time school library media center questionnaires were 

distributed. Likewise, the number of interviewed schools without library media centers was weighted up 

to the weighted number of all schools without library media centers as determined from the questionnaire 

distribution. This was done to study the characteristics of each type of school. When it was not possible to 

adjust the library weights by the type of school, all sampled school library media centers and schools 

without library media centers were adjusted as a whole. This was necessary to handle instances where the 

existence of the library media center could not be established during data collection. Due to reporting 

inconsistencies between the school library media center questionnaire and the school questionnaire, 

school library media center survey data were not adjusted directly to schools reporting to have library 

media centers on the school questionnaire. 
164 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

The final weight for the public school library media center data is the product of the following: 

(Initial School Basic Weight) and (Sampling Adjustment Factor) and (Library Type A, or Unknown 

status, Nonresponse Adjustment Factor) and (Library Type B, or Known Status, Nonresponse Adjustment 

Factor) and (First-Stage Ratio Adjustment Factor) 

where: 

Initial School Basic Weight is the inverse of the probability of selection from the school sample 

file as reflected at the time of the school sampling. 

Sampling Adjustment Factor is an adjustment that accounts for circumstances that affect the 

school’s probability of selection that were identified after the data collection has begun, such as a 

merger, duplication, or incorrect building-level collapsing (i.e., a junior high school and a senior 

high school merge to become a junior/senior high school). Any changes in the school collapsing 

described in chapter 4 (i.e., uncollapsing or additional collapsing) are adjusted for in this step. 

The collapsing described in chapter 4 is reflected in the initial basic weight. 

Library Type A (Unknown Status) Nonresponse Adjustment Factor is an adjustment that accounts 

for schools that were general refusals or were never contacted and the library media center status 

was not known. Because it was not clear if the school had a library media center or not, this factor 

adjusts all schools (with and without library media centers) together. It is the weighted (product 

of the initial basic weight and the sampling adjustment factor) ratio of the total school library 

media center records to the total in-scope interviewed school library media centers plus out-ofscope school library media centers. 

Library Type B (Known Status) Nonresponse Adjustment Factor is an adjustment that accounts 

for library media center nonrespondents where the status of the library media center is known 

based on the status of the library media center questionnaire. Given that schools with library 

media centers were able to be distinguished from schools without library media centers, this 

adjustment was made separately for SASS sampled schools with and without library media 

centers. 

Schools with libraries. This adjustment is the weighted (product of the initial basic weight 

and the sampling adjustment factor and the type A nonresponse adjustment factor) ratio of the 

interviewed schools with library media centers plus the noninterviewed schools with library 

media centers to the interviewed library media centers. 

Schools without libraries. This adjustment is the weighted (product of the initial basic weight 

and the sampling adjustment factor and the type A nonresponse adjustment factor) ratio of the 

interviewed schools without library media centers plus the noninterviewed schools without 

library media centers to the interviewed schools without library media centers. 

At the conclusion of the nonresponse adjustment procedures, noninterviewed school library 

media centers were assigned a weight of zero. 

First-Stage Ratio Adjustment Factor is a factor that adjusts the sample estimates to known frame 

totals. Construction of the frame is described in chapter 4. For public schools, it is equal to the 

ratio of the total number of SASS frame noncertainty schools (i.e., those schools not selected with 

certainty as mentioned in chapter 4) to the weighted sample estimate of the total number of 

noncertainty schools within each weighting class, or cell, defined for this step in the weighting 

procedure. Certainty schools were excluded from both the numerator and denominators and were 
Chapter 9. Weighting and Variance Estimation 165 

assigned a factor equal to one. Since all BIA-funded schools were selected with certainty, this 

step in the weighting did not apply, so all BIA-funded school received a factor of one. 

This is the same factor that was applied to the SASS school sample. 

Public, Public Charter, and BIA-Funded School Library Adjustment Cells 

Library noninterview and ratio adjustments were computed within cells. 

For all school library media centers, the types A and B nonresponse adjustment cells were defined the 

same as those used for the school nonresponse adjustment in the school weighting. The general collapsing 

criteria were also the same as those used in the school nonresponse adjustment in the school weighting. 

For all school library media centers, the first-stage ratio adjustment cells were the same as those used in 

the first-stage ratio adjustment in the school weighting. The collapsing criteria were also the same as 

those used in the first-stage ratio adjustment in the school weighting. 

Private school library media centers were not surveyed in the 2003–04 SASS. 

Variance Estimation 

This section describes the variance estimation used for the 2003–04 SASS, how the replicates were 

assigned, and how to use the replicate weights to compute variances. 

Producing Replicate Weights 

In surveys with complex sample designs, such as SASS, direct estimates of sampling errors that assume a 

simple random sample will typically underestimate the variability in the estimates. The SASS sample 

design and estimation included procedures that deviate from the assumption of simple random sampling, 

such as stratifying the school sample, oversampling new teachers, and sampling with differential 

probabilities. 

The preferred method of calculating sampling errors to reflect these aspects of the complex sample design 

of SASS is using replication. Replication methods involve constructing a number of subsamples, or 

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 provides an estimate of the variance of the 

statistic. The replicate weights are used to compute the variance of a statistic, Y, as given below: 

Variance ⎟∑ − ⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ = r

Yr Y

n

Y 2 ( ) 1 ( )

Where: Yr = the estimate of Y using the r

th set of replicate weights 

n = the number of replicates 

The SASS surveys completed before 1993 used a procedure known as balanced repeated replication 

(BRR) for the calculation of sampling variance. BRR assumes sampling is done with replacement, and 

hence, BRR does not reflect the increase in precision due to sampling a large proportion of a finite 

population. For most surveys, where the sampling rates are small, the increase in precision will be small 

and can be disregarded safely. However, with SASS, the public sector surveys (i.e., school, principal, 

school district, teacher, and library media center) are designed to produce reliable state estimates. This 
166 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

necessarily implies large sampling rates, which can lead to very large overestimates of variance with 

BRR. Likewise, the private sector surveys (i.e., school, principal, and teacher) are designed to produce 

detailed private school affiliation stratum estimates, which also imply large sampling rates, and 

subsequent overestimation of variance with BRR. 

It is possible to adjust the BRR to include a finite population correction (FPC). The FPC corrects the 

standard error in instances where a large proportion of the frame is in sample. However, since SASS uses 

a probability proportionate to size systematic selection procedure, it is not clear what the appropriate FPC 

would be. It is even possible for an appropriate FPC to be greater than one. (See Kaufman 2001.) 

To overcome this limitation, a bootstrap variance estimator was implemented for the 1993–94 SASS, and 

its role was expanded in the 1999–2000 and even more so in the 2003–04 SASS. The bootstrap variance 

estimator was used for public schools, private list frame noncertainty schools, and public school districts 

in the 1993–94 SASS. In the 1999–2000 SASS, an additional bootstrap estimator was also included for 

public schools and private list frame certainty schools. The bootstrap estimator used in the 2003–04 SASS 

was modified from the 1999–2000 estimator to make it more stable. In the 2003–04 SASS, a new 

bootstrap estimator for both public and private school teachers was included. The bootstrap variance 

reflects the increase in precision due to large sampling rates because the bootstrap sampling is done 

systematically without replacement, as was the original sampling. 

The idea behind the public school district bootstrap variance estimation is to use the distribution of the 

sampling weights to generate a bootstrap frame. A series of bootstrap samples of a prespecified bootstrap 

sample size can be selected from the bootstrap frame, respective replicate weights computed, and 

variances estimated with standard BRR software. This process is repeated for a number of independent 

samples following the SASS sample design, using variables from the frame. With estimates from a 

number of samples, a true estimate of the variance is computed. Given the true variance estimate, the 

bootstrap stratum sample sizes are chosen to get as close as possible to the true stratum variance 

estimates. Once the bootstrap stratum sample sizes are determined, bootstrap samples and replicate 

weights are generated for the actual fielded sample using these bootstrap stratum sample sizes. This 

process indirectly generates an appropriate FPC. For further details, see Kaufman (1998). The district 

bootstrap replicate base weights (inverse of the probability of selection) generated for the fielded sample 

were subsequently reweighted by processing each set of replicate base weights through the weighting 

procedure. 

The other bootstrap weights (public schools and teachers and private list frame schools and teacher) were 

calculated using the updated bootstrap system. This system is based on a series of assumptions about the 

sampling design: 1) the traditional systematic probability proportionate to size first-stage sample can be 

approximated using a randomized systematic sample; and 2) the stratified equal probability systematic 

sample can be approximated by a stratified without replacement simple random sample. Using these 

assumptions, the bootstrap replicate weights are computed from a single sample. Again, the appropriate 

bootstrap replicate base weights (inverse of the probability of selection) generated for the sample were 

subsequently reweighted by processing each set of replicate base weights through the weighting 

procedure. 

Since the number of certainty schools is substantial, it was decided to treat nonresponse as a stage of 

sample selection. For certainty schools, this allowed for the reflection of a variance component that 

otherwise would be regarded as a bias. The nonresponse sampling model is as follows: 

• For noncertainty schools, nonresponse is considered a nested random process within selected 

primary sampling units. Within appropriately defined cells (as described in the earlier section on 
Chapter 9. Weighting and Variance Estimation 167 

“School Weighting Adjustment Cells” in this chapter), it is assumed nonresponse follows a 

“missing at random process.” 

• For certainty schools, nonresponse is considered the first stage of selection. It is assumed that this 

process follows a simple random sample without replacement model within appropriately defined 

cells. (See the earlier section on “School Weighting Adjustment Cells” in this chapter.) The frame 

size for this selection is assumed to be the number of selected certainty schools in the cell and the 

sample size is the number of responding certainty schools in the cell. 

This procedure also allows for correctly estimating variances for school-based estimates that use school 

teacher averages generated from the SASS teacher data files. 

To be consistent with the bootstrap procedures described above, the nonresponse modeling of certainty 

schools was reflected through an appropriately defined bootstrap procedure. For more details on the 

bootstrap methodology and how it applies to SASS, see Efron (1982), Kaufman (1992, 1993, 1994, 1998, 

and 2001), and Sitter (1990). 

The newest version of the bootstrap procedure made it possible to compute teacher bootstrap replicate 

weights at the same time as the school weights, considerably reducing the processing time to form the 

replicates. 

Applying Replicate Weights 

Each SASS data file includes a set of 88 replicate weights designed to produce variance estimates. 

Replicate weights were created for each of the 88 samples using the same estimation procedures used for 

the full sample and are included in the data files. Most of the replicate weights were produced using a 

bootstrap procedure. 

As described above, the replicate weights are used to compute the variance of a statistic, Y, as given 

below. 

Variance ∑=

⎟ − ⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ =

88

1

2 ( ) 88

1 ( ) r

Y Yr Y

Where: Yr = the estimate of Y using the r

th set of replicate weights, and the number of 

replicate weights is 88 for SASS. 

Analysis of the bootstrap replicate weights revealed that approximately 3 percent of the school (public 

and private) and teacher (public and private) weights and approximately 9 percent of the district replicate 

weights fell outside a 95 percent confidence interval. These are nearly the expected 5 percent, indicating 

the bootstrap replicate weights are close to being distributed normally. 

The computation of sampling errors using these replicate weights can be done easily using one of the 

following software: WesVar Complex Sample Software, SUDAAN (Research Triangle Institute 2001), 

AM Statistical Software, or STATA 9. 

• WesVar. The user needs to create a new WesVar data file by specifying the full sample weight 

variable and the replicate weight variables as defined above, and the replication method, BRR. 

The replicate weights and the full sample weight can be highlighted and dragged to their 

appropriate place on the “New WesVar Data File” window. For more information, visit 

www.westat.com/wesvar/. 
168 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

• SUDAAN. The user needs to specify the sample design as a “Balanced Repeated Replication” 

design as well as specifying the replicate weight variables. Specifying the sample design 

(DESIGN = BRR) is done in the procedure call statement (i.e., PROC DESCRIPT DESIGN = 

BRR;). The specification of the replicate weights is done with the REPWGT statement (i.e., to 

produce the sampling errors for estimates from the principal data files use the statement: 

REPWGT AREPWT1-AREPWT88;). For more information, visit www.rti.org/sudaan/. 

• AM. The user needs to set the replicate weights along with the replication method using the rightclick context menu in the variable list window. Once the “Set Replicate Weights” window is 

displayed, the replicate weights as identified above can be highlighted and dragged into the 

window. At the bottom of the window are four options for replication method; BRR should be 

selected. For more information, visit http://am.air.org. 

• STATA. The use of replicate weights for the generation of standard errors is a new feature to 

STATA 9. First, the user needs to survey set the data (SVY SET) by defining: the probability 

weight ([pw = ]); balanced repeated replication weights (brrweight(varlist)); variance estimation 

type ((vce(brr)); and turning on the mse formula (mse). Once these parameters are set, users are 

able to call up the survey settings and tell STATA which type of standard errors to produce using 

the SVY BRR command. SVY BRR also allows users to specify the statistics to be collected 

(exp_list) and the command to perform (e.g., mean or tab). For more information, visit 

http://www.stata.com. 

Public and BIA-Funded School and School Principal Replicates 

The bootstrap estimator as described in the previous section was used for developing both the public and 

BIA-funded school and principal replicates. The replicate weights for the public and BIA-funded school 

files are SREPWT1 through SREPWT88. The replicate weights for the public and BIA-funded principals 

are AREPWT1 through AREPWT88. 

Private School and School Principal Replicates 

For private schools, the list frame used the bootstrap methodology as described above. For the area frame, 

the sampling rates for the primary sampling units were very small; consequently, there is no advantage in 

using the bootstrap. BRR methodology was used in the area frame as it had been for all previous rounds 

of SASS. Half-samples are defined by pairing sample primary sampling units within each sampling 

stratum, forming variance strata. The final product is 88 replicate weights. After the variance strata were 

assigned, an orthogonal matrix (matrix H where: HHT

 = nIn, where In is the identity matrix of order n) was 

used to form the 88 balanced half-sample replicates. Thus, the same methodology can be applied to both 

the list frame and the area frame replicate weights to compute variances. The replicate weights for the 

private school file are SREPWT1 through SREPWT88. 

Private school principal replicate weights were calculated similarly to the school replicate weights. The 

replicate weights for the private school principal file are AREPWT1 through AREPWT88. 

School Library Media Center Replicates 

The library replicate weights were developed similarly to the school bootstrap replicate weights. The 

replicate weights for the public and BIA-funded school library media center files are MREPWT1 through 

MREPWT88. 
Chapter 9. Weighting and Variance Estimation 169 

Teacher Replicates 

The teacher replicate weights were generated at the same time as the school replicate weights as part of 

the 2003–04 bootstrap system. 

BRR methodology was employed rather than bootstrap if a teacher was in the private school area frame. 

Teacher sample records were assigned replicate weights by multiplying the school BRR replicate weight 

times the teacher’s conditional probability of selection given the school is selected in the SASS school 

sample. The replicate weights for the public, BIA-funded, and private teacher files are TREPWT1 

through TREPWT88. 

School District Replicates 

To reflect that the districts were selected through the school, the school district bootstrap samples were 

drawn from a frame that reflected both the public school and district distributions. This frame was the 

major difference between the district bootstrap methodology and that described above for schools. The 

replicate weights for the district file are DREPWT1 through DREPWT88. 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
171 

Chapter 10. Reviewing the Quality of SASS Data 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) program staff members have the responsibility of 

ensuring that data files are acceptable for public release. Before files are released to the public, staff 

members review the data for errors associated with the edit, imputation, and weighting programs. This 

review incorporates a number of checks that incorporate univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analysis 

that rigorously examine as many aspects of the data as possible without delaying timely release of the 

Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). 

Below are aspects of the datasets that were reviewed: 

• general data quality; 

• nonresponse; 

• weighting; 

• external data checks; and 

• response variance. 

General Data Quality 

General data quality included a number of reviews that could be characterized as consistency edits. These 

checks involved an examination of the individual responses, patterns of response, and summary statistics 

for variables and files to ensure consistency within items, respondents, and files. In addition, key 

variables and crosstabulations of key variables were examined for distributions and relationships that 

were expected based upon prior administrations and other research, a check of face validity. The specific 

data checks included edits, frequency counts, and reasonableness of data, as described below. 

Edits. The validity of the skip patterns in the questionnaire was established for each SASS questionnaire 

during the processing of the data; that is, Census Bureau analysts verified that each item in the 

questionnaire had the number of responses it should have if skip instructions were followed correctly. 

Quality checks on the edit specifications were performed and resulted in some corrections (which were 

treated as a form of imputation). 

Frequency Counts. Unweighted record counts for every variable were examined from the restricted-use 

data files. Variables with out-of-range values or inconsistent values were identified, and these values were 

corrected. 

Reasonableness of Data. Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate tabulations of key survey variables were 

obtained and compared to estimates from the previous SASS. Tabulations were reviewed to determine 

whether the basic relationships observed were within reasonable bounds, allowing for elements of change 

(such as random fluctuations in variance, or a trend such as overall population growth in a state). The 

distributions and relationships observed were consistent with expectations. 

Response Rates 

Response rates were examined for possible bias, and little evidence of bias at the unit or item level was 

found. The details of this analysis are discussed in greater detail in chapter 6, but the nonresponse analysis 

includes a detailed analysis of unit nonresponse and item nonresponse. 
172 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Unit Nonresponse. Response rates were calculated at the state or affiliation stratum level for all SASS 

data files. (See chapter 6 for unit response rate information.) Nonresponding districts, schools, principals, 

teachers, and library media centers were studied in greater detail to identify patterns of unit nonresponse. 

(See chapter 6 for information on the nonresponse unit bias analysis.) While no evidence of substantial 

bias was found, the response rate fell below 50 percent for particular respondents by state or affiliation 

stratum: public school districts in Vermont, public school library media centers in the District of 

Columbia, and principals in Amish private schools. Consequently, these data will not be reported 

separately in NCES publications. 

Item Nonresponse. The extent of item nonresponse for each SASS data file was determined. (See chapter 

6 for item response rate information.) Items with high nonresponse rates are identified and reported in 

tables. Following this review, no items were removed from the data files. However, items with a response 

rate lower than 70 percent are footnoted as such in published tables. 

Replicated Weights 

The review of the SASS replicate weights consisted of reviewing the distribution of these weights. The 

following was done: 

1. For each replicate, the weights were totaled. Each replicate total, as well as the average of those 

numbers, was checked against the full-sample estimate. The standard error of the replicate totals 

was computed and checked for reasonableness. 

2. A check was performed to verify that 95 percent of the replicate weights were contained in an 

appropriately computed 95 percent confidence interval. This was done with both the basic 

replicate weights and the final replicate weights. 

External Data Checks 

One way to verify the external validity of SASS data is to make comparisons to the survey universe, or 

frame, from which the sample is drawn. For public school districts, schools, principals, and teachers, the 

external file is an adjusted version of the Common Core of Data (CCD), an annual administrative census 

of all public schools, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools, and public school districts in the 

United States and its territories. The corresponding frame for private schools, principals, and teachers is 

the Private School Universe Survey (PSS). 

The sampling frame is generally drawn from the universe data files about 2 years prior to the field 

collection of SASS data. Direct comparison can be made between the estimated count of the survey unit, 

such as school districts or schools, and the corresponding CCD or PSS count. Such comparisons are 

usually made between SASS and the sampling frame year of the universe data files. 

SASS survey estimates of a characteristic of districts or schools, such as enrollment, were compared to 

CCD or PSS estimates. Those comparisons are usually made to the concurrent years of the universe data 

files, as the data collected in the field for 1 year are only valid for the same year of the universe. The 

number of students attending school or the number of teachers employed is subject to more year-to-year 

change than the number of schools or districts. 

Public School District Unit Count Comparison (Public School District File) 

Comparisons of the number of public school districts by state and region were made to the CCD 2001–02 

Public Education Agency Universe as well as to the CCD 2003–04 Public Education Agency Universe. 
Chapter 10. Reviewing the Quality of SASS Data 173 

The CCD estimates are independent from SASS, because SASS collects its data directly from school 

districts that are in sample and CCD data are collected from the state education agencies. For the 2003–04 

SASS, the district sample consisted of the set of districts that were associated with the SASS public 

school sample, including public charter schools that operated independently of a public school district. 

The districts in-scope (i.e., eligible) for SASS were those that employed elementary- and/or secondarylevel teachers and were in operation in the 2003–04 school year. CCD utilizes a less restrictive definition 

of a district and collects information on supervisory unions and districts that neither administer schools 

nor hire teachers. Thus, two SASS-CCD comparisons were made; one to the total number of CCD 

districts for the state and one to the number of “regular” CCD districts (as defined by CCD) in the state. 

Depending upon the number of out-of-scope districts in each particular state, the SASS estimates are 

either closer to the total number of districts or to the number of regular districts in CCD. 

Comparisons in counts of public school districts by state between CCD and SASS are shown in tables 46 

and 47. The first table compares the estimated number of public school districts in SASS (calculated 

using the district final weight) with the number of total and regular school districts in the 2001–02 CCD 

Public Education Agency Universe. The second table compares the estimated number of public school 

districts in SASS (calculated using the district basic weight) with the adjusted frame developed by the 

sampling statisticians at the Census Bureau in preparation for SASS data collection. These are two 

different measures of “fit” between the weighted count from SASS and the frame count of districts. The 

sampling frame version of CCD used in table 47 is between the total number of districts and the number 

of regular districts. 
174 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table 46. Estimated number and percentage of public school districts in 2003–04 SASS 

compared with total and regular districts in 2001–02 CCD Public Education Agency 

Universe, by state, region, and community type: 2001–02 and 2003–04 

Characteristic 

2001–02 

CCD 

regular 

districts1

2001–02 

CCD 

regular 

districts 

with 

students2

2001–02 

CCD 

regular 

districts 

with 

schools3

2003–04 

SASS frame 

(2001–02 

CCD 

without 

charter and 

state run 

districts)4

2003–04 

SASS 

frame 

(charter 

and state 

run 

districts 

only)5

2003–04 

SASS 

districts 

(without 

charter

and state 

run)6

2003–04 

SASS 

districts 

(charter 

and state 

run 

only)7

SASS 

estimate 

as a 

percentage 

of CCD 

districts 

with 

schools8

SASS 

estimate 

as a 

percentage 

of 2003–04 

SASS 

frame9

 Total 14,559 14,229 14,974 14,421 1,327 14,331 1,207 95.7 99.4

 

State 

 Alabama 128 128 131 128 3 126 7 96.2 98.4

 Alaska 53 53 55 53 2 55 0 100.0 103.8

 Arizona 323 301 231 239 253 202 273 87.4 84.5

 Arkansas 312 312 323 320 5 314 8 97.2 98.1

 California 986 986 1,046 1,024 25 1,021 28 97.6 99.7

 

 Colorado 178 178 190 189 0 189 0 99.5 100.0

 Connecticut 166 166 179 174 20 173 3 96.6 99.4

 Delaware 19 19 20 20 10 21 9 105.0 105.0

 District of Columbia 1 1 1 1 33 1 23 100.0 100.0

 Florida 67 67 72 71 2 71 2 98.6 100.0

 

 Georgia 180 180 178 178 2 181 1 101.7 101.7

 Hawaii 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 100.0 100.0

 Idaho 114 114 115 114 1 114 1 99.1 100.0

 Illinois 893 893 1,008 1,002 7 996 5 98.8 99.4

 Indiana 294 292 309 305 3 306 1 99.0 100.3

 

 Iowa 371 371 371 371 0 371 0 100.0 100.0

 Kansas 304 304 304 304 0 304 0 100.0 100.0

 Kentucky 176 176 178 176 2 180 0 101.1 102.3

 Louisiana 66 66 76 68 20 65 7 85.5 95.6

 Maine 282 279 235 174 4 171 6 72.8 98.3

 

 Maryland 24 24 24 24 0 24 0 100.0 100.0

 Massachusetts 350 244 330 329 44 306 66 92.7 93.0

 Michigan 554 554 611 611 187 593 210 97.1 97.1

 Minnesota 417 413 391 382 74 393 54 100.5 102.9

 Mississippi 152 152 162 152 10 156 7 96.3 102.6

 

 Missouri 524 523 530 528 2 520 3 98.1 98.5

 Montana 452 444 446 376 2 378 0 84.8 100.5

 Nebraska 555 526 550 546 5 551 0 100.2 100.9

 Nevada 17 17 18 17 1 16 1 88.9 94.1

 New Hampshire 178 164 164 123 0 167 0 101.8 135.8

See notes at end of table. 
Chapter 10. Reviewing the Quality of SASS Data 175 

Table 46. Estimated number and percentage of public school districts in 2003–04 SASS 

compared with total and regular districts in 2001–02 CCD Public Education Agency 

Universe, by state, region, and community type: 2001–02 and 2003–04—Continued 

Characteristic 

2001–02 

CCD 

regular 

districts1

2001–02 

CCD 

regular 

districts 

with 

students2

2001–02 

CCD 

regular 

districts 

with 

schools3

2003–04 

SASS 

frame 

(2001–02 

CCD 

without 

charter and 

state run 

districts)4

2003–04 

SASS 

frame 

(charter 

and 

state run 

districts 

only)5

2003–04 

SASS 

districts 

(without 

charter 

and state 

run)6

2003–04 

SASS 

districts 

(charter 

and state 

run 

only)7

SASS 

estimate 

as a 

percentage 

of CCD 

districts 

with 

schools8

SASS 

estimate 

as a 

percentage 

of 

2003–04 

SASS 

frame9

 New Jersey 603 579 592 592 50 597 45 100.8 100.8

 New Mexico 89 89 89 89 0 89 0 100.0 100.0

 New York 703 701 739 718 44 724 35 98.0 100.8

 North Carolina 121 121 119 117 94 125 81 105.0 106.8

 North Dakota 222 218 259 256 3 210 0 81.1 82.0

 

 Ohio 662 612 690 689 88 672 64 97.4 97.5

 Oklahoma 543 543 543 544 0 545 0 100.4 100.2

 Oregon 198 197 205 203 2 198 0 96.6 97.5

 Pennsylvania 501 500 589 590 90 605 65 102.7 102.5

 Rhode Island 36 36 37 36 4 39 1 105.4 108.3

 

 South Carolina 89 86 103 103 0 105 0 101.9 101.9

 South Dakota 176 173 187 183 5 173 5 92.5 94.5

 Tennessee 138 138 138 138 0 138 0 100.0 100.0

 Texas 1,040 1,040 1,055 1,041 192 1,010 193 95.7 97.0

 Utah 40 40 42 40 2 40 1 95.2 100.0

 

 Vermont 292 244 305 75 1 69 0 22.6 92.0

 Virginia 137 132 192 171 23 167 1 87.0 97.7

 Washington 296 296 296 296 0 307 0 103.7 103.7

 West Virginia 55 55 57 55 2 56 1 98.2 101.8

 Wisconsin 433 433 431 428 9 439 0 101.9 102.6

 Wyoming 48 48 57 57 1 57 0 100.0 100.0

 

Region 

 Northeast 3,111 2,913 3,170 2,811 252 2,851 220 89.9 101.4

 Midwest 5,405 5,312 5,641 5,602 375 5,529 342 98.0 98.7

 South 3,248 3,240 3,372 3,307 412 3,285 341 97.4 99.3

 West 2,795 2,764 2,791 2,701 288 2,666 304 95.5 98.7

 

Community type (Census) 

 Central city † † 820 787 801 751 697 91.6 95.4

 Urban fringe † † 5,940 5,840 327 5,811 271 97.8 99.5

 Non-MSA10 † † 8,214 7,794 199 7,770 239 94.6 99.7

See notes at end of table. 
176 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table 46. Estimated number and percentage of public school districts in 2003–04 SASS 

compared with total and regular districts in 2001–02 CCD Public Education Agency 

Universe, by state, region, and community type: 2001–02 and 2003–04—Continued 

Characteristic 

2001–02 

CCD 

regular 

districts1

2001–02 

CCD 

regular 

districts 

with 

students2

2001–02 

CCD 

regular 

districts 

with 

schools3

2003–04 

SASS frame 

(2001–02 

CCD 

without 

charter and 

state run 

districts)4

2003–04 

SASS 

frame 

(charter 

and state 

run 

districts 

only)5

2003–04 

SASS 

districts 

(without 

charter 

and state 

run)6

2003–04 

SASS 

districts 

(charter 

and state 

run 

only)7

SASS 

estimate 

as a 

percentage 

of CCD 

districts 

with 

schools8

SASS 

estimate 

as a 

percentage 

of 2003–04 

SASS 

frame9

Community type 

 Central city † † 820 787 801 751 697 91.6 95.4

 Urban fringe/large 

 town 

† † 

6,060 5,954 347 5,915 303 97.6 99.3

 Rural/small town † † 8,094 7,680 179 7,666 208 94.7 99.8

† Not applicable. 

1 Overview of Public and Secondary Schools and Districts: School Year 2001–02 (NCES 2003-411), Table 2, Column 2 (regular 

school districts include those that are components of supervisory unions). 2 Overview of Public and Secondary Schools and Districts: School Year 2001–02 (NCES 2003-411), Table 4, Column 1. 3

 Common Core of Data (CCD), “Preliminary File,” 2001–02, ag011a.sas7bdat (regular districts do not include those that 

supervise charter schools or are run by the state). 

4

 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 2003–04 SASS Frame (CCD 2001–02 with Adjustments) “Final District Frame Data File” 

(only includes regular school districts). 

5

 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 2003–04 SASS Frame (CCD 2001–02 with Adjustments) “Final District Frame Data File” 

(only includes charter and state run districts). 

6

 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “District Data File,” 2003–04 (Final Weight—only includes regular school districts). 7

 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “District Data File,” 2003–04 (Final Weight—only includes charter school and state run 

districts). 

8

 Column 6 / Column 3. 

9

 Column 6 / Column 4. 

10 MSA refers to Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

NOTE: CCD refers to the Common Core of Data. 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), “Final 

District Frame Data File and District Data File,” 2003–04; Common Core of Data (CCD), “Preliminary File,” 2001–02, 

ag011a.sas7bdat; Overview of Public and Secondary Schools and Districts: School Year 2001–02, Common Core of Data (CCD), 

“Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2001–02. 

In the 2003–04 SASS, the sample selection for districts included “other” types of districts that have 

become more common in CCD. These “other” types of districts are largely (960 out of 1,066 “other” 

districts in the 2001–02 CCD) either administrative units that oversee charter schools or independent 

charter schools that are recognized within their state as if they were districts. Methodologically, singleschool districts, some public charter schools, and state or federally-run schools were not sent a separate 

district questionnaire, but instead received the Unified School Questionnaire. The Unified School 

Questionnaire incorporated district-level items into the school questionnaire. When the data files were 

created from the questionnaires, district-level data for these “other” types of districts were included on the 

district data file. It is important to include these district-level data for a single-school district, state or 

federally funded school, or public charter school record on the district file in order to approximate the 

district data reported by CCD and to provide SASS data for “other” types of districts that exist at the 

elementary and secondary level. Table 47 provides the comparison between the total district count in 

CCD and the SASS estimate of districts, including those for public charter or state-run schools. 

Differences in the count of districts between CCD and SASS do occur for various reasons. In New 

England, the main reason why CCD and SASS estimates diverge is because CCD counts all local districts 
Chapter 10. Reviewing the Quality of SASS Data 177 

as districts. SASS, however, defines a district as an entity that operates at least one school and is 

responsible for hiring, firing, and setting policies. In Vermont and, to some extent, in Maine, the functions 

that define a district in SASS are performed by the supervisory union, school union, or co-op. Supervisory 

unions, school unions, or co-ops may oversee several districts, as defined by CCD. Consequently, the 

“district of record” in CCD may not actually be the district that directs the operations for these small, 

rural schools. 

The adjusted SASS sampling frame reflects the changes that are made to better fit the SASS definition of 

eligible districts for sampling. Even after those adjustments are made, there are still some remaining 

discrepancies between the SASS sampling frame and the actual sample, as shown in table 46’s rightmost 

column. In general, it is not possible to completely subtract districts that would be ineligible for SASS 

from CCD, because they are not always readily identifiable. For example, in some states supervisory units 

may oversee school operations, while in other states that is not as common. 
178 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table 47. Estimated number and percentage of public school districts in 2003–04 SASS 

compared with total public school districts in 2001–02 CCD Public Education Agency 

Universe, by state and region: 2001–02 and 2003–04 

Characteristic 

2001–02 CCD 

total districts 

2003–04 SASS 

frame total 

with charter 

and state-run 

schools

2003–04 SASS 

total districts 

(including 

charter and 

state-run)

SASS estimate 

as a percentage 

of CCD total 

districts1

SASS estimate 

as a percentage 

of 2003–04 

SASS frame2

 Total 17,085 15,748 15,538 90.9 98.7

 

State 

 Alabama 131 131 133 101.5 101.5

 Alaska 55 55 55 100.0 100.0

 Arizona 513 492 475 92.6 96.5

 Arkansas 338 325 322 95.3 99.1

 California 1,056 1,049 1,049 99.3 100.0

 

 Colorado 200 189 189 94.5 100.0

 Connecticut 197 194 176 89.3 90.7

 Delaware 30 30 30 100.0 100.0

 District of Columbia 34 34 24 70.6 70.6

 Florida 73 73 73 100.0 100.0

 

 Georgia 180 180 182 101.1 101.1

 Hawaii 1 1 1 100.0 100.0

 Idaho 115 115 115 100.0 100.0

 Illinois 1,060 1,009 1,001 94.4 99.2

 Indiana 326 308 307 94.2 99.7

 

 Iowa 386 371 371 96.1 100.0

 Kansas 304 304 304 100.0 100.0

 Kentucky 196 178 180 91.8 101.1

 Louisiana 88 88 72 81.8 81.8

 Maine 325 178 177 54.5 99.4

 

 Maryland 24 24 24 100.0 100.0

 Massachusetts 479 373 372 77.7 99.7

 Michigan 799 798 803 100.5 100.6

 Minnesota 485 456 447 92.2 98.0

 Mississippi 162 162 163 100.6 100.6

 

 Missouri 530 530 523 98.7 98.7

 Montana 531 378 366 68.9 96.8

 Nebraska 671 551 551 82.1 100.0

 Nevada 18 18 17 94.4 94.4

 New Hampshire 257 123 168 65.4 136.6

 

 New Jersey 665 642 642 96.5 100.0

 New Mexico 89 89 89 100.0 100.0

 New York 787 762 759 96.4 99.6

 North Carolina 212 211 206 97.2 97.6

 North Dakota 263 259 222 84.4 85.7

See notes at end of table. 
Chapter 10. Reviewing the Quality of SASS Data 179 

Table 47. Estimated number and percentage of public school districts in 2003–04 SASS 

compared with total public school districts in 2001–02 CCD Public Education Agency 

Universe, by state and region: 2001–02 and 2003–04—Continued 

Characteristic 

2001–02 CCD 

total districts 

2003–04 SASS 

frame total 

with charter 

and state-run 

schools

2003–04 SASS 

total districts 

(including 

charter and 

state-run)

SASS estimate 

as a percentage 

of CCD total 

districts1

SASS estimate 

as a percentage 

of 2003–04 

SASS frame2

 Ohio 817 777 736 90.1 94.7

 Oklahoma 566 544 545 96.3 100.2

 Oregon 221 205 198 89.6 96.6

 Pennsylvania 695 680 670 96.4 98.5

 Rhode Island 41 40 40 97.6 100.0

 

 South Carolina 103 103 105 101.9 101.9

 South Dakota 199 188 178 89.4 94.7

 Tennessee 138 138 138 100.0 100.0

 Texas 1,254 1,233 1,203 95.9 97.6

 Utah 46 42 41 89.1 97.6

 

 Vermont 354 76 68 19.2 89.5

 Virginia 199 194 168 84.4 86.6

 Washington 305 296 307 100.7 103.7

 West Virginia 57 57 57 100.0 100.0

 Wisconsin 452 437 439 97.1 100.5

 Wyoming 58 58 57 98.3 98.3

 

Region 

 Northeast 3,800 3,063 3,071 80.8 100.3

 Midwest 6,292 5,977 5,882 93.5 98.4

 South 3,785 3,719 3,626 95.8 97.5

 West 3,208 2,989 2,959 92.2 99.0

1

 Column 3 / column 1. 

2

 Column 3 / column 2. 

NOTE: Total school districts include all types of education agencies that manage traditional public or public charter schools. 

CCD refers to the Common Core of Data. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Preliminary 

Public Education Agency Universe Survey File,” 2001–02; Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Final District Frame Data 

File,” 2003–04. 
180 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Public School Unit Count Comparison (Public School and BIA-Funded33 School 

Files) 

Comparisons of the number of public schools in SASS were made to the total number of public schools 

and the number of public schools with students in the 2001–02 CCD, the year in which SASS drew its 

sample of schools. The number of public schools in SASS is 2.1 percentage points smaller than the 

number of CCD public schools with students (table 48). Two states have an estimated number of public 

schools for SASS that is below 90 percent of the SASS frame: Alaska and Minnesota. There are 14 states 

in which SASS estimates are higher than the CCD estimates: Arkansas, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, 

Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, and 

Wisconsin. Ten of those states are within 1 percentage point of the CCD estimates (Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, 

Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin), while the SASS 

estimates for the other four range from 2.4 percentage points to 13 percentage points higher than the CCD 

counts (Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma). Overall, the percentage difference between SASS 

and the frame year CCD count of public schools was 6.4; this narrows to 2.1, once the school collapsing 

operation is taken into consideration. 

The school collapsing operation described in chapter 9 was expected to reduce the consistency of the 

count of schools between CCD (particularly in the frame year) and SASS, in some states. These are states 

in which K–12 schools may be broken up administratively into several different schools for either internal 

state administrative reasons or for reporting to CCD. 

 

33 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 
Chapter 10. Reviewing the Quality of SASS Data 181 

Table 48. Estimated number and percentage of public and BIA-funded schools in 2003–04 SASS 

compared with 2001–02 CCD, by state, region, and community type: 2001–02 and 

2003–04 

Characteristic 

2001–02 CCD 

public 

schools1

2003–04 SASS 

frame (2001–02 

CCD with 

adjustments)2

2003–04 

SASS public 

schools3

SASS estimate 

as a percentage 

of CCD4

SASS estimate 

as a percentage 

of SASS frame5

 Total 94,112 90,015 88,113 93.6 97.9

State 

 Alabama 1,526 1,507 1,490 97.6 98.9

 Alaska 522 512 447 85.6 87.3

 Arizona 1,815 1,760 1,703 93.8 96.8

 Arkansas 1,153 948 1,071 92.9 113.0

 California 8,916 9,152 8,866 99.4 96.9

 Colorado 1,667 1,544 1,516 90.9 98.2

 Connecticut 1,246 1,036 1,008 80.9 97.3

 Delaware 199 193 183 92.0 94.8

 District of Columbia 198 196 193 97.5 98.5

 Florida 3,419 3,343 3,089 90.3 92.4

 Georgia 1,969 1,957 1,874 95.2 95.8

 Hawaii 279 279 281 100.7 100.7

 Idaho 688 670 651 94.6 97.2

 Illinois 4,351 4,111 4,150 95.4 100.9

 Indiana 1,980 1,947 1,901 96.0 97.6

 Iowa 1,521 1,322 1,326 87.2 100.3

 Kansas 1,431 1,382 1,415 98.9 102.4

 Kentucky 1,459 1,405 1,397 95.8 99.4

 Louisiana 1,540 1,514 1,465 95.1 96.8

 Maine 711 703 698 98.2 99.3

 Maryland 1,385 1,358 1,362 98.3 100.3

 Massachusetts 1,908 1,843 1,797 94.2 97.5

 Michigan 3,984 3,849 3,675 92.2 95.5

 Minnesota 2,408 2,122 1,782 74.0 84.0

 Mississippi 1,037 1,032 1,035 99.8 100.3

 Missouri 2,380 2,027 1,998 83.9 98.6

 Montana 871 580 585 67.2 100.9

 Nebraska 1,307 1,107 1,146 87.7 103.5

 Nevada 531 511 499 94.0 97.7

 New Hampshire 472 436 437 92.6 100.2

 New Jersey 2,430 2,389 2,390 98.4 100.0

 New Mexico 793 737 703 88.7 95.4

 New York 4,351 4,281 4,257 97.8 99.4

 North Carolina 2,234 2,229 2,201 98.5 98.7

 North Dakota 569 436 400 70.3 91.7

See notes at end of table. 
182 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table 48. Estimated number and percentage of public and BIA-funded schools in 2003–04 SASS 

compared with 2001–02 CCD, by state, region, and community type: 2001–02 and 

2003–04—Continued 

Characteristic 

2001–02 CCD 

public 

schools1

2003–04 SASS 

frame (2001–02 

CCD with 

adjustments)2

2003–04 

SASS public 

schools3

SASS estimate 

as a percentage 

of CCD4

SASS estimate 

as a percentage 

of SASS frame5

 Ohio 3,912 3,841 3,875 99.1 100.9

 Oklahoma 1,824 1,484 1,564 85.7 105.4

 Oregon 1,300 1,293 1,248 96.0 96.5

 Pennsylvania 3,251 3,333 3,108 95.6 93.2

 Rhode Island 333 320 303 91.0 94.7

 South Carolina 1,145 1,134 1,119 97.7 98.7

 South Dakota 762 514 493 64.7 95.9

 Tennessee 1,646 1,636 1,634 99.3 99.9

 Texas 7,761 7,493 7,420 95.6 99.0

 Utah 791 787 776 98.1 98.6

 Vermont 392 355 329 83.9 92.7

 Virginia 2,090 2,064 2,004 95.9 97.1

 Washington 2,233 2,138 2,072 92.8 96.9

 West Virginia 822 813 776 94.4 95.4

 Wisconsin 2,212 2,036 2,050 92.7 100.7

 Wyoming 388 356 353 91.0 99.2

Region 

 Northeast 15,094 14,696 14,328 94.9 97.5

 Midwest 26,817 24,694 24,209 90.3 98.0

 South 31,407 30,306 29,876 95.1 98.6

 West 20,794 20,319 19,699 94.7 96.9

Community type (Census) 

 Central city 23,158 22,869 21,410 92.5 93.6

 Urban fringe 41,066 39,986 39,072 95.1 97.7

 Non-MSA6

 29,888 27,160 27,631 92.4 101.7

Community type 

 Central city 23,158 22,869 21,410 92.5 93.6

 Urban fringe/large town 42,269 41,162 40,107 94.9 97.4

 Rural/small town 28,685 25,984 26,596 92.7 102.4

BIA-funded schools only 189 166 168 88.9 101.2

1

 Common Core of Data (CCD), “Preliminary File,” 2001–02, sc011a.sas7bdat (only includes schools that are not closed). 2

 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 2003–04 SASS Frame (2001–02 CCD with Adjustments) “Final Public School Frame 

Data File,” 2003–04 (Final Basic Weight). 

3

 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Data File,” 2003–04 (Final School Weight). 4

 Column 3 / Column 1. 

5

 Column 3 / Column 2. 

6

 MSA refers to Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

NOTE: CCD refers to the Common Core of Data. BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. BIA-funded schools are not 

included in the total. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Preliminary 

File,” 2001–02, sc011a.sas7bdat; Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Final Public School Frame and Public School Data 

Files,” 2003–04. 
Chapter 10. Reviewing the Quality of SASS Data 183 

Public School Student Count Comparison (Public School and BIA-Funded School 

Files) 

Comparisons of the number of public school students in SASS were made to the frame year of CCD from 

the published student counts for 2001–02 and to the 2003–04 CCD (table 49). Two comparisons were 

made, one to the CCD total number of students, and the other to the CCD K–12 student count. The latter 

count does not include any prekindergarten students. The SASS student counts are for K–12 grade levels, 

as long as the school reporting a kindergarten also has a 1st grade. While there are at least some public 

schools included in CCD’s definition of K–12 that may not have been eligible for SASS, in general most 

public kindergarten students would be eligible as students in SASS; therefore, it does not make sense to 

exclude kindergarten from the student counts when making the comparison to CCD. 

Overall, the SASS student count is about 1 percent higher than CCD’s count of total K–12 students from 

2 years prior to SASS and 0.6 percent lower than CCD’s count of total K–12 students from the same year 

as SASS (table 49). There were 866,969 prekindergarten students included in CCD in 2001–02 and 

949,643 prekindergarten students included in CCD in 2003–04. Excluding them brings the SASS student 

count into a closer degree of “fit” than was achieved with the comparison of the number of schools in 

SASS to CCD. However, excluding the prekindergarten students enlarges the amount of difference in 

those states for which SASS has a higher number of students than the prekindergarten–12 frame year 

CCD counts. Population growth (i.e., births and/or migration) may account for SASS count in 2003–04 

being higher than the frame year CCD count, but that does not help to explain why the SASS count of 

students in 2003–04 is lower for some states than the frame year CCD count. The amount of that 

difference is reduced in some states when comparing the SASS data to the same year of CCD. Exceptions 

to this pattern are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, and Utah. There were 14 states in which the number of students was higher in SASS compared to 

the 2003–04 CCD, but because of a declining number of students reported in the CCD between 2001–02 

and 2003–04, the SASS student count was closer to the frame year: Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, West 

Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Some of these changes were relatively small; and some of these 

states are among those that have sometimes had overreporting of enrollment and teachers in SASS. This 

may indicate that the school collapsing operation narrowed, but did not entirely eliminate, the 

overreporting of students. 
184 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table 49. Estimated number and percentage of public and BIA-funded school students in 2003–

04 SASS compared to 2001–02 and 2003–04 CCD, by state and region: 2001–02 and 

2003–04 

Characteristic 

2001–02 

CCD public 

students1

2001–02 

CCD public 

students 

less pre-K2

2003–04 

CCD public 

students3

2003–04 

CCD public 

students 

less pre-K4

2003–04 

SASS 

public 

students5 

SASS as a 

percentage 

of 2001–02 

CCD less 

pre-K6

SASS as a 

percentage 

of 2003–04 

CCD less 

pre-K7

 Total 47,687,871 46,820,902 48,540,725 47,591,082 47,315,662 101.1 99.4

 

State 

 Alabama 737,294 725,349 731,220 729,368 742,813 102.4 101.8

 Alaska 134,358 133,105 133,933 132,050 125,226 94.1 94.8

 Arizona 922,180 915,556 1,012,068 1,002,692 979,096 106.9 97.6

 Arkansas 449,805 448,182 454,523 451,950 489,070 109.1 108.2

 California 6,248,610 6,147,375 6,413,862 6,298,928 5,771,918 93.9 91.6

 

 Colorado 742,145 722,629 757,693 737,700 716,172 99.1 97.1

 Connecticut 570,228 559,178 577,203 565,380 541,893 96.9 95.8

 Delaware 115,555 114,969 117,668 117,026 116,341 101.2 99.4

 District of Columbia 75,392 71,287 78,057 72,889 72,908 102.3 100.0

 Florida 2,500,478 2,443,440 2,587,628 2,538,040 2,518,510 103.1 99.2

 

 Georgia 1,470,634 1,437,324 1,522,611 1,486,125 1,383,173 96.2 93.1

 Hawaii 184,546 183,629 183,609 182,434 196,159 106.8 107.5

 Idaho 246,521 244,180 252,120 249,448 250,955 102.8 100.6

 Illinois 2,071,391 2,013,841 2,100,961 2,033,813 1,993,566 99.0 98.0

 Indiana 996,133 989,986 1,011,130 1,005,569 987,794 99.8 98.2

 

 Iowa 485,932 480,218 481,226 474,319 475,145 98.9 100.2

 Kansas 470,205 468,173 470,490 468,044 445,556 95.2 95.2

 Kentucky 654,363 621,956 663,885 631,851 676,189 108.7 107.0

 Louisiana 731,328 714,129 727,709 704,522 727,449 101.9 103.3

 Maine 205,586 204,253 202,084 200,287 222,411 108.9 111.0

 

 Maryland 860,640 840,326 869,113 847,722 859,556 102.3 101.4

 Massachusetts 973,140 952,474 980,459 957,926 1,017,085 106.8 106.2

 Michigan 1,730,668 1,714,106 1,757,604 1,735,880 1,740,115 101.5 100.2

 Minnesota 851,384 841,713 842,854 831,978 862,457 102.5 103.7

 Mississippi 493,507 491,702 493,540 491,332 510,002 103.7 103.8

 

 Missouri 909,792 891,277 905,941 894,726 906,237 101.7 101.3

 Montana 151,947 151,441 148,356 147,692 147,302 97.3 99.7

 Nebraska 285,095 280,031 285,542 279,622 295,166 105.4 105.6

 Nevada 356,814 354,667 385,401 382,623 363,066 102.4 94.9

 New Hampshire 206,847 205,017 207,417 205,196 199,749 97.4 97.3

 

 New Jersey 1,341,656 1,321,905 1,380,753 1,358,007 1,297,491 98.2 95.5

 New Mexico 320,260 316,761 323,066 319,090 323,357 102.1 101.3

 New York 2,872,132 2,831,920 2,864,775 2,823,319 2,905,019 102.6 102.9

 North Carolina 1,315,363 1,306,043 1,360,209 1,348,523 1,347,202 103.2 99.9

 North Dakota 106,047 105,326 102,233 101,481 108,355 102.9 106.8

See notes at end of table. 
Chapter 10. Reviewing the Quality of SASS Data 185 

Table 49. Estimated number and percentage of public and BIA-funded school students in 2003–

04 SASS compared to 2001–02 and 2003–04 CCD, by state and region: 2001–02 and 

2003–04—Continued 

Characteristic 

2001–02 

CCD public 

students1

2001–02 

CCD public 

students 

less pre-K2

2003–04 

CCD public 

students3

2003–04 

CCD public 

students 

less pre-K4

2003–04 

SASS 

public 

students5 

SASS as a 

percentage 

of 2001–02 

CCD less 

pre-K6

SASS as a 

percentage 

of 2003–04 

CCD less 

pre-K7

 Ohio 1,830,985 1,807,129 1,845,428 1,819,277 1,900,029 105.1 104.4

 Oklahoma 622,139 596,432 626,160 595,957 650,332 109.0 109.1

 Oregon 551,480 551,018 551,273 550,874 543,147 98.2 98.6

 Pennsylvania 1,821,627 1,819,090 1,821,146 1,818,558 1,760,770 96.8 96.3

 Rhode Island 158,046 156,817 159,375 157,902 165,159 105.3 104.6

 

 South Carolina 691,078 671,797 699,198 679,091 684,420 101.9 100.8

 South Dakota 127,542 126,366 125,537 123,405 125,783 99.5 101.9

 Tennessee 925,030 910,043 936,681 919,896 932,358 102.5 101.4

 Texas 4,163,447 3,993,346 4,331,751 4,137,601 4,097,317 102.6 99.0

 Utah 484,677 477,801 495,981 487,383 459,567 96.2 94.3

 

 Vermont 101,179 98,612 99,103 96,076 99,967 101.4 104.0

 Virginia 1,163,091 1,148,954 1,192,092 1,175,568 1,188,166 103.4 101.1

 Washington 1,009,200 1,001,098 1,021,349 1,009,997 1,078,591 107.7 106.8

 West Virginia 282,885 276,115 281,215 273,304 296,515 107.4 108.5

 Wisconsin 879,361 854,688 880,031 853,363 929,145 108.7 108.9

 Wyoming 88,128 88,128 87,462 85,278 89,894 102.0 105.4

 

Region 

 Northeast 8,250,441 8,149,266 8,292,315 8,182,651 8,209,543 100.7 100.2

 Midwest 10,744,535 10,572,854 10,808,977 10,621,477 10,769,348 101.9 101.4

 South 17,252,029 16,811,394 17,673,260 17,200,765 17,292,320 102.9 100.5

 West 11,440,866 11,287,388 11,766,173 11,586,189 11,044,451 97.8 95.3

 

BIA-funded students 

 only 46,476 46,476 45,828 — 44,306 95.3 †

— Not available. 

† Not applicable. 

1

 Common Core of Data (CCD), “Preliminary File,” 2001–02, sc011a.sas7bdata (Total Student Count). 2

 Common Core of Data (CCD), “Preliminary File,” 2001–02, sc011a.sas7bdata (Total Student Count without Total 

Prekindergarten Students). 

3 Public Elementary and Secondary School Students, Staff, Schools, and School Districts: School Year 2003–04 (NCES 2006-

307), Table C-1, Column 1. 

4 Public Elementary and Secondary School Students, Staff, Schools, and School Districts: School Year 2003–04 (NCES 2006-

307), Table C-1, Column 1 minus Column 2. 

5

 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School and BIA School Documentation Data Files,” 2003–04 (Total Student 

Count, School Final Weight). 

6

 Column 5 / Column 2. 

7

 Column 5 / Column 4. 

NOTE: CCD refers to Common Core of Data. BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. BIA students are not included in the 

total. Pre-K refers to prekindergarten. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Preliminary 

File,” 2001–02, sc011a.sas7bdata; Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School and BIA School Documentation Data 

Files,” 2003–04; Public Elementary and Secondary Students, Staff, Schools, and School Districts: School Year 2003–04, 

Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education,” 2003–04, Version 1a.
186 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Public School Teacher FTE Comparison (Public School Teacher and BIA-Funded 

School Teacher Files) 

The comparison between the number of teachers in the SASS Public School data file and the CCD State 

Nonfiscal Survey is an approximation, since the public school teacher data are reported in head counts, 

not full-time equivalents (FTE) (table 50). As an external check, this spots gross differences. There are 

several reasons why the number of teachers, approximated to FTE counts from the Public School Teacher 

data file, would differ from CCD State Nonfiscal Survey counts. CCD counts are statewide official tallies 

of teaching positions, reported from a central agency, and unduplicated to account for teachers in multiple 

districts or schools. The teacher count from SASS depends in part on the cooperation of the schools to 

provide a list of all teachers. Approximately 11 percent of schools in 2003–04 SASS did not provide a 

teacher list. The CCD count reflects some teaching positions for which the teacher is away from the 

school during the SASS data collection, such as a teacher who is on maternity leave. The assumptions 

about the proportions of part-time to full-time teachers, which are used to adjust the headcount data to 

FTEs, may be reasonable overall but may not be as accurate on a state-by-state basis. When a public 

school in sample for SASS is declared out-of-scope, such as when that school merged with another 

nonsampled school, the teachers that would have been or actually were sampled are also declared out-ofscope. While such factors affect relatively small proportions of the sampled cases, there may be a 

cumulative effect on the overall count of teachers in some states. 

Table 50. Estimated number and percentage of full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers in public 

and BIA-funded schools in 2003–04 SASS compared to the 2001–02 and 2003–04 CCD, 

by state and region: 2001–02 and 2003–04

Characteristic 

2001–02 

CCD FTE 

public 

school 

teachers1

2003–04 

CCD FTE 

public 

school 

teachers2

2003–04 

SASS FTE 

public 

school 

teachers 

(teacher 

file)3

2003–04 

SASS 

public 

school 

teachers 

(approx. 

FTE) 

(school 

file)4

SASS 

school file 

(approx. 

FTE) as a 

percentage 

of 2001–02 

CCD5

SASS 

school file 

(approx. 

FTE) as a 

percentage 

of 2003–04 

CCD6

SASS 

teacher file 

as a 

percentage 

of SASS 

school 

file7

 Total 2,997,741 3,048,549 3,117,208 3,129,360 104.5 102.8 99.6

 

State 

 Alabama 46,796 58,070 49,215 49,676 106.2 85.5 99.1

 Alaska 8,026 7,808 8,300 8,218 102.4 105.3 101.0

 Arizona 46,015 47,507 54,038 54,006 117.4 113.7 100.1

 Arkansas 33,079 30,876 35,954 35,986 108.8 116.5 99.9

 California 304,296 304,311 274,298 276,080 90.7 90.7 99.4

 

 Colorado 44,182 44,904 45,699 45,652 103.3 101.7 100.1

 Connecticut 41,773 42,370 42,625 42,829 102.5 101.1 99.5

 Delaware 7,571 7,749 7,689 7,995 105.6 103.2 96.2

 District of Columbia 4,951 5,676 5,371 5,736 115.9 101.1 93.6

 Florida 134,684 144,955 154,047 153,435 113.9 105.9 100.4

See notes at end of table. 
Chapter 10. Reviewing the Quality of SASS Data 187 

Table 50. Estimated number and percentage of full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers in public 

and BIA-funded schools in 2003–04 SASS compared to the 2001–02 and 2003–04 CCD, 

by state and region: 2001–02 and 2003–04—Continued

Characteristic 

2001–02 

CCD FTE 

public 

school 

teachers1

2003–04 

CCD FTE 

public 

school

teachers2

2003–04 

SASS FTE 

public 

school 

teachers 

(teacher 

file)3

2003–04 

SASS 

public 

school 

teachers 

(approx. 

FTE) 

(school 

file)4

SASS 

school file 

(approx. 

FTE) as a 

percentage 

of 2001–02 

CCD5

SASS 

school file 

(approx. 

FTE) as a 

percentage 

of 2003–04 

CCD6

SASS 

teacher file 

as a 

percentage 

of SASS 

school

 file7

 Georgia 92,732 97,150 99,268 99,570 107.4 102.5 99.7

 Hawaii 11,007 11,129 13,176 13,252 120.4 119.1 99.4

 Idaho 13,854 14,049 14,610 14,572 105.2 103.7 100.3

 Illinois 129,600 127,669 133,366 133,225 102.8 104.4 100.1

 Indiana 59,658 59,924 60,254 60,618 101.6 101.2 99.4

 

 Iowa 34,906 34,791 36,272 35,832 102.7 103.0 101.2

 Kansas 33,084 32,589 35,467 34,931 105.6 107.2 101.5

 Kentucky 40,375 41,201 46,256 46,607 115.4 113.1 99.2

 Louisiana 49,980 50,495 51,018 51,451 102.9 101.9 99.2

 Maine 16,741 17,621 17,653 17,787 106.3 100.9 99.2

 

 Maryland 53,774 55,140 56,055 56,803 105.6 103.0 98.7

 Massachusetts 68,942 72,062 80,049 80,483 116.7 111.7 99.5

 Michigan 98,849 97,014 94,177 94,567 95.7 97.5 99.6

 Minnesota 53,081 51,611 56,879 56,349 106.2 109.2 100.9

 Mississippi 31,213 32,591 33,574 33,782 108.2 103.7 99.4

 

 Missouri 65,240 65,169 70,896 71,514 109.6 109.7 99.1

 Montana 10,408 10,301 11,360 11,655 112.0 113.1 97.5

 Nebraska 21,083 20,921 24,333 24,174 114.7 115.5 100.7

 Nevada 19,276 20,234 19,236 19,347 100.4 95.6 99.4

 New Hampshire 14,677 15,112 15,625 15,756 107.4 104.3 99.2

 

 New Jersey 103,611 109,077 107,692 110,442 106.6 101.3 97.5

 New Mexico 21,823 21,569 20,455 21,070 96.6 97.7 97.1

 New York 209,128 216,116 226,176 226,983 108.5 105.0 99.6

 North Carolina 85,684 89,988 93,256 93,173 108.7 103.5 100.1

 North Dakota 8,035 8,037 8,911 9,016 112.2 112.2 98.8

 

 Ohio 122,115 121,735 127,458 128,310 105.1 105.4 99.3

 Oklahoma 41,632 39,253 44,045 44,602 107.1 113.6 98.8

 Oregon 28,402 26,732 27,356 27,066 95.3 101.2 101.1

 Pennsylvania 118,470 119,889 118,855 120,902 102.1 100.8 98.3

 Rhode Island 11,103 11,918 12,990 12,891 116.1 108.2 100.8

 

 South Carolina 46,616 45,830 46,429 46,059 98.8 100.5 100.8

 South Dakota 9,370 9,245 10,329 10,233 109.2 110.7 100.9

 Tennessee 58,357 59,584 62,997 62,767 107.6 105.3 100.4

 Texas 282,846 289,481 286,603 285,613 101.0 98.7 100.3

 Utah 22,211 22,147 22,393 21,990 99.0 99.3 101.8

See notes at end of table. 
188 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table 50. Estimated number and percentage of full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers in public 

and BIA-funded schools in 2003–04 SASS compared to the 2001–02 and 2003–04 CCD, 

by state and region: 2001–02 and 2003–04—Continued

Characteristic 

2001–02 

CCD FTE 

public 

school 

teachers1

2003–04 

CCD FTE 

public 

school 

teachers2

2003–04 

SASS FTE 

public 

school 

teachers 

(teacher 

file)3

2003–04 

SASS 

public 

school 

teachers 

(approx. 

FTE) 

(school 

file)4

SASS 

school file 

(approx. 

FTE) as a 

percentage 

of 2001–02 

CCD5

SASS 

school file 

(approx. 

FTE) as a 

percentage 

of 2003–04 

CCD6

SASS 

teacher file 

as a 

percentage 

of SASS 

school

file7

 Vermont 8,554 8,749 9,086 9,232 107.9 105.5 98.4

 Virginia 89,314 90,573 87,639 88,878 99.5 98.1 98.6

 Washington 52,534 52,824 59,022 59,547 113.3 112.7 99.1

 West Virginia 20,139 20,020 21,635 21,832 108.4 109.0 99.1

 Wisconsin 60,918 58,216 69,735 69,579 114.2 119.5 100.2

 Wyoming 7,026 6,567 7,386 7,287 103.7 111.0 101.4

 

Region 

 Northeast 592,999 612,914 670,793 637,357 107 104 105.2

 Midwest 695,939 686,921 729,177 729,457 105 106 100.0

 South 1,119,743 1,158,632 1,181,430 1,184,446 106 102 99.7

 West 589,060 590,082 579,665 582,060 99 99 99.6

 

BIA-funded teachers 

 only — † 3,855 3,962 † † 97.3

— Not available. 

† Not applicable. 

1 Public School Student, Staff, and Graduate Counts, by State: School Year 2001–02 (NCES 2003-358R), Table 2, Column 3 

(Full-time-equivalency Count). 

2 Public Elementary and Secondary School Students, Staff, Schools, and School Districts: School Year 2003–04 (NCES 2006-

307), Table 2, Column 5 (Full-time-equivalency Count). 

3

 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Teacher and BIA School Teacher Data Files,” 2003–04 (Full-timeequivalent Count, Teacher Final Weight). 4

 Sum of full-time teachers in the 2003–04 SASS Public School Data File and half of the part-time teachers reported in 2003–04 

SASS Public School Data File. 

5

 Column 4 / Column 1.

6

 Column 4 / Column 2.

7

 Column 3 / Column 4.

NOTE: CCD refers to the Common Core of Data. BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. BIA teachers are not included in the 

total. 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 Teacher and BIA School Teacher Data Files,” 2003–04; Public School Student, Staff, and Graduate Counts, by State, 

School Year 2001–02, Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education,” 

2001–02; Public Elementary and Secondary Students, Staff, Schools, and School Districts: School Year 2003–04, Common Core 

of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education,” 2003–04, Version 1a. 

The SASS teacher estimate of the number of FTE teachers (table 50) was 4.5 percent higher overall than 

the frame year CCD count of FTE teachers, and 2.8 percent higher overall than the same year CCD count 

of teachers. There could be several reasons for this. One reason is that the approximation of FTE teachers 

from SASS is not as accurate as the reporting of FTE positions in CCD. Another possible reason is that 

the school collapsing operation in SASS may not have completely taken care of the overreporting of 

teachers in combined K–12 schools. 
Chapter 10. Reviewing the Quality of SASS Data 189 

Public Charter School Comparison (Public School File) 

Public charter schools in the 2003–04 SASS were selected to be representative at the national level only, 

since the data on public charter schools would be published only at the national level. The comparisons 

that are shown in table 51 should not be interpreted as a critique of the sampling that was employed to 

draw a national sample. Rather, the comparisons show how closely the sample does or does not fit to 

subnational counts of public charter schools as identified in the CCD frame year. Comparisons are made 

to the frame year from CCD, as opposed to the concurrent data collection year, because the sample as 

drawn from the frame year has no way to include any newly-created schools. This is of particular 

importance for public charter schools, which are counted after the state grants a charter for the school and 

permits the school to begin operation. 
190 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table 51. Estimated number and percentage of public charter schools in 2003–04 SASS 

compared to 2001–02 CCD, by state, region, and community type: 2001–02 and 2003–

04

Characteristic 

2001–02 

CCD 

public 

charter 

schools1

2003–04 SASS 

frame (2001–02 

CCD with 

adjustments)2

2003–04 SASS 

public charter 

schools (CCD 

identified)3

SASS estimate as 

a percentage of 

CCD4

SASS estimate as 

a percentage of 

SASS frame5

 Total 2,348 2,309 2,200 93.7 95.3

 

State 

 Arizona 370 365 367 99.2 100.5

 California 350 343 317 90.6 92.4

 Colorado 86 85 88 102.3 103.5

 Florida 192 182 191 99.5 104.9

 Michigan 204 201 204 100.0 101.5

 North Carolina 93 92 81 87.1 88.0

 Ohio 85 85 67 78.8 78.8

 Pennsylvania 77 75 62 80.5 82.7

 Texas 243 241 218 89.7 90.5

 Wisconsin 109 99 100 91.7 101.0

 All other states 539 541 507 94.1 93.7

 

Region 

 Northeast 237 234 222 93.7 94.9

 Midwest 531 521 494 93.0 94.8

 South 666 652 611 91.7 93.7

 West 914 902 873 95.5 96.8

 

Community type (Census) 

 Central city 1,244 1,226 1,267 101.8 103.3

 Urban fringe 739 724 568 76.2 77.8

 Non-MSA6 365 359 371 101.6 103.3

 

Community type 

 Central city 1,244 1,226 1,267 101.8 103.3

 Urban fringe/large town 763 748 586 76.8 78.3

 Rural/small town 341 335 347 101.8 103.6

1 Overview of Public and Secondary Schools and Districts: School Year 2001–02 (NCES 2003-411), Table 9, Column 7. 2

 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Frame” (CCD 2001–02 with Adjustments—Charter School Indicator), 

2003–04 (Final School Weight). 

3

 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School (Charter Schools Only) and BIA School Documentation Data Files,” 

2003–04. 

4

 Column 3 / Column 1. 

5

 Column 3 / Column 2. 

6

 MSA refers to Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

NOTE: CCD refers to the Common Core of Data. 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 Frame and Public School Documentation Data Files,” 2003–04; Overview of Public and Secondary Schools and Districts: 

School Year 2001–02, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 2001–02. 

The counts shown for the 2003–04 SASS public charter schools were calculated before the final interview 

status was determined, so these counts will not match exactly to published counts of public charter 

schools from the released data files. Adjustments were made by Census to the CCD public charter school 

frame in accordance with procedures described in chapter 4. 
Chapter 10. Reviewing the Quality of SASS Data 191 

Private School Comparison (Private School File) 

Comparisons were made of the number of private schools in SASS to the number of private schools in the 

frame year of the PSS. By construction, the total number of private schools in SASS 2003–04 matches the 

total number of schools in PSS 2003–04, although there is sampling variability in the number of private 

schools for subsets of SASS, such as private schools by affiliation stratum and NCES typology. 

Table 52. Estimated number and percentage of private schools in 2003–04 SASS compared to 

the 2001–02 PSS, by affiliation stratum, NCES typology, and region: 2001–02 and 

2003–04 

Characteristic 

2001–02 PSS 

traditional private 

schools1

2003–04 SASS 

private schools2 

SASS estimate as a 

percentage of PSS3

 Total 29,272 28,384 97.0

Affiliation stratum 

 Catholic—parochial 4,347 4,074 93.7

 Catholic—diocesan 2,933 2,947 100.5

 Catholic—private 927 897 96.8

 Amish 761 736 96.7

 Assembly of God 429 440 102.6

 Baptist 2,548 2,195 86.1

 Episcopal 347 342 98.6

 Jewish 730 811 111.1

 Lutheran, Missouri Synod 1,110 1,100 99.1

 Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod 411 367 89.3

 Mennonite 393 458 116.5

 Pentecostal 582 389 66.8

 Seventh-Day Adventist 961 956 99.5

 All other religious 6,115 5,865 95.9

 Nonsectarian—regular 2,939 2,963 100.8

 Nonsectarian—special emphasis 2,381 2,392 100.5

 Nonsectarian—special education 1,358 1,451 106.8

NCES typology 

 Catholic 8,207 7,919 96.5

 Other religious 14,387 13,659 94.9

 Nonsectarian 6,678 6,806 101.9

Region 

 Northeast 6,556 6,693 102.1

 Midwest 7,455 6,981 93.4

 South 9,171 8,611 93.9

 West 6,092 6,100 100.1

1

 Private School Universe Survey (PSS), “Final File” (Only Traditional Schools), 2001–02 (Final School Weight). 2

 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Private School Data File,” 2003–04 (Final School Weight). 3

 Column 2 / Column 1. 

NOTE: PSS refers to the Private School Universe Survey. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Private School Universe Survey (PSS), “Final 

File,” 2001–02; Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Private School Data File,” 2003–04. 
192 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

The comparisons in table 52 show that the number of private schools measured by SASS in 2003–04 are 

lower than the comparable number of private schools from PSS in 2001–02. However, the number of 

private schools measured in the 2003–04 SASS has been adjusted to match the number of private schools 

in the 2003–04 PSS, and the number of private schools in the PSS did decrease from 2001–02 to 2003–

04. 

The stratification groups for the 2003–04 SASS (termed Affiliation stratum in these tables) are somewhat 

different from what had been used for all previous SASS data collections. The previous 19 groups, plus 

“other,” a rather large category, were streamlined into 17 categories including an “All other religious” 

category that is smaller than the previous “other” category. The new stratification groups do not use the 

association membership responses for forming any of the categories; rather, only the religious orientation 

and religious affiliation items are used. 

Private School Student Comparison (Private School File) 

Comparisons were made of the number of private school students in SASS to the number of private 

school students in the frame year (2001–02) as well as to the concurrent year of PSS. Overall, the SASS 

student count is about 5 percent lower than the PSS count in 2001–02 and about 1.2 percent lower than 

the concurrent year’s student count in PSS (table 53). By affiliation stratum, SASS estimates as a 

percentage of the 2001–02 SASS ranged from 49.8 for the Pentecostal program category to 119.7 for 

Mennonite program category, and the SASS estimates as a percentage of the 2003–04 PSS ranged from 

75.1 for the Pentecostal program category to 117.7 for the Nonsectarian—regular program category. 

However, by NCES typology, the SASS count of private school students was slightly lower for two out of 

the three typology categories when compared to the 2003–04 PSS, with the Nonsectarian category higher 

by about 8 percent. 

The percentage differences between SASS and the concurrent PSS are smaller than the differences 

between SASS and the frame year PSS. While the differences are smaller, sampling variability for some 

of the smaller strata may account for percentage differences greater than 10 percent. 
Chapter 10. Reviewing the Quality of SASS Data 193 

Table 53. Estimated number of private school students in 2003–04 SASS compared to 2001–02 

and 2003–04 PSS, by affiliation stratum, NCES typology, and region: 2001–02 and 

2003–04

Characteristic 

2001–02 

PSS private 

students in 

traditional 

schools1

2003–04 

PSS private 

students in 

traditional 

schools2

2003–04 

SASS 

private 

students3

SASS 

estimate as a 

percentage 

of 2001–02 

PSS4

SASS 

estimate as a 

percentage 

of 2003–04 

PSS5

 Total 5,341,513 5,122,772 5,059,449 94.7 98.8

Affiliation stratum 

 Catholic—parochial 1,221,685 1,097,417 1,091,982 89.4 99.5

 Catholic—diocesan 925,288 908,583 894,102 96.6 98.4

 Catholic—private 368,552 359,220 333,958 90.6 93.0

 Amish 24,538 22,287 20,297 82.7 91.1

 Assembly of God 66,038 62,360 63,246 95.8 101.4

 Baptist 314,684 272,556 246,286 78.3 90.4

 Episcopal 100,403 99,675 89,759 89.4 90.1

 Jewish 198,478 201,901 216,883 109.3 107.4

 Lutheran, Missouri Synod 162,301 148,824 149,973 92.4 100.8

 Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod 35,584 32,477 29,183 82.0 89.9

 Mennonite 23,670 25,977 28,324 119.7 109.0

 Pentecostal 39,300 26,039 19,564 49.8 75.1

 Seventh-Day Adventist 60,681 57,891 52,155 85.9 90.1

 All other religious 899,197 885,571 830,793 92.4 93.8

 Nonsectarian—regular 622,715 603,442 710,240 114.1 117.7

 Nonsectarian—special emphasis 176,987 213,986 192,792 108.9 90.1

 Nonsectarian—special education 101,412 104,566 89,913 88.7 86.0

NCES typology 

 Catholic 2,515,525 2,365,220 2,320,042 92.2 98.1

 Other religious 1,924,874 1,835,559 1,746,463 90.7 95.1

 Nonsectarian 901,114 921,993 992,944 110.2 107.7

Region 

 Northeast 1,336,770 1,273,012 1,283,613 96.0 100.9

 Midwest 1,354,861 1,270,736 1,223,969 90.3 96.3

 South 1,641,474 1,611,775 1,598,467 97.4 99.2

 West 1,008,408 967,249 953,400 94.5 98.6

1

 Private School Universe Survey (PSS), “Final File” (only traditional schools), 2001–02 (Total Student Count, Final School 

Weight). 

2 Characteristics of Private Schools in the United States: Results from the 2003–04 Private School Universe Survey (NCES 2006-

319), Table 7, Column 1, and Table 9, Column 1. 

3

 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Private School Data File,” 2003–04 (Total Student Count, Final School Weight). 4

 Column 3 / Column 1. 

5

 Column 3 /Column 2. 

NOTE: PSS refers to the Private School Universe Survey. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Private School Universe Survey (PSS), “Final 

File,” 2001–02; Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Private School Data File,” 2003–04; Characteristics of Private Schools in 

the United States: Results from the 2003–04 Private School Universe Survey, Private School Universe Survey (PSS), 2003–04. 
194 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Private FTE Teacher Comparison (Private School Teacher File) 

In 2003–04, the number of teachers collected on the SASS Private School Teacher data file was collected 

in part-time and full-time headcounts that were converted to full-time-equivalent (FTE) counts. PSS 

always reports FTE counts of teachers. For ease of comparison, the headcounts of teachers in SASS were 

converted to approximate FTE counts. 

The number of private FTE teachers in SASS (table 54) is 2.1 percent lower overall than the frame year 

count of teachers in PSS and 2 percent lower overall than the concurrent year’s count. However, both the 

frame year and concurrent year’s PSS teacher counts are quite close in absolute numbers. There are much 

larger differences by affiliation strata, ranging from about 14 percent below the concurrent PSS count for 

Nonsectarian special education school teachers to about 17 percent above the PSS count for Mennonite 

teachers. The small sample size of both of these groups (and consequently, relatively larger variance 

estimates) probably contributes to the large percentage differences in FTE teacher counts. 

While the overall number of private schools in SASS is controlled to the concurrent PSS total, this is not 

true of the number of FTE teachers. There are several factors that contribute to differences between SASS 

estimates and PSS estimates. Schools that closed between the sampling year of 2001–02 and 2003–04 

would tend to lower the FTE estimate in SASS relative to the 2003–04 PSS, at least to the extent that 

there are differences in the number of FTE teachers between schools that closed and schools that 

remained open. Similarly, growth in the number of schools would be reflected in the current PSS and to a 

lesser extent in SASS; both used the same frame, but the 2003–04 SASS used the 2001–02 PSS area 

frame instead of the 2003–04 PSS area frame. The difference in area frames could either raise or lower 

the FTE estimates of teachers in SASS. 

A higher estimate of FTE teachers in SASS by NCES typology could result from one or more factors. The 

overall count of private schools in SASS is controlled to the 2003–04 PSS, but not within each type of 

private school, so that the number of schools by NCES typology category may be higher in SASS than in 

PSS. In addition, differences in the area frames between SASS and PSS may contribute to this effect. 
Chapter 10. Reviewing the Quality of SASS Data 195 

Table 54. Estimated number and percentage of full-time-equivalent (FTE) private school 

teachers in 2003–04 SASS compared to 2001–02 and 2003–04 PSS, by affiliation 

stratum, NCES typology, and region: 2001–02 and 2003–04

Characteristic 

2001–02 

PSS FTE 

private 

school 

teachers 

in 

traditional 

schools1

2003–04 

PSS FTE 

private 

teachers in 

traditional 

schools2

2003–04 

SASS

private 

teachers 

(approx. 

FTE) 

(school 

file)3

SASS 

school file 

(approx. 

FTE) 

as a 

percentage 

of 2001–02 

PSS4

SASS 

school file 

(approx. 

FTE) as a 

percentage 

of 2003–04 

PSS5

 Total 425,406 425,238 416,920 97.9 98.0 

Affiliation stratum 

 Catholic—parochial 71,058 66,874 68,275 93.3 102.1

 Catholic—diocesan 56,343 57,330 56,272 99.0 98.1

 Catholic—private 28,113 28,406 25,872 95.0 

 Amish 1,170 1,051 971 81.7 92.4

 Assembly of God 5,196 5,045 5,108 96.3 100.0

 Baptist 26,670 24,037 22,224 81.1 90.7

 Episcopal 11,053 11,137 9,817 87.7 88.1

 Jewish 19,813 20,968 20,919 114.2 99.8

 Lutheran, Missouri Synod 10,914 10,522 10,900 100.0 103.6

 Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod 2,419 2,343 2,074 85.1 88.5

 Mennonite 1,913 2,223 2,605 133.2 117.2

 Pentecostal 3,961 2,677 2,384 58.9 89.1

 Seventh-Day Adventist 4,636 4,550 4,441 93.7 97.6

 All other religious 78,260 78,326 70,155 92.2 90.2

 Nonsectarian—regular 67,326 66,953 74,934 110.3 111.7

 Nonsectarian—special emphasis 20,433 24,794 24,525 115.1 99.2

 Nonsectarian—special education 16,128 18,002 15,444 95.8 86.1 

NCES typology 

 Catholic 155,514 152,611 150,419 95.7 98.4

 Other religious 166,005 162,878 151,622 92.9 93.6

 Nonsectarian 103,887 109,749 114,878 109.0 104.1 

Region 

 Northeast 111,127 111,333 109,073 100.6 98.0

 Midwest 95,501 94,059 95,348 96.4 101.4

 South 142,650 143,222 139,034 97.6 97.1

 West 76,128 76,624 73,465 96.1 95.9

1

 Private School Universe Survey (PSS), “Final File” (only traditional schools), 2001–02 (Full-time-equivalent Count, Final 

School Weight). 

2 Characteristics of Private Schools in the United States: Results of the 2003–04 Private School Universe Survey (NCES 2006-

319), Table 17, Column 1, and Table 18, Column 1. 

3

 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Private School Data File,” 2003–04 (Approximate Full-time-equivalent Count, Final 

Teacher Weight). 

4

 Column 3 / Column 1. 

5

 Column 3 / Column 2. 

NOTE: PSS refers to the Private School Universe Survey. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding or missing values in 

cells with too few sample cases. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Private School Universe Survey (PSS), “Final 

File,” 2001–02; Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Private School Data File,” 2003–04; Characteristics of Private Schools in 

the United States: Results of the 2003–04 Private School Universe Survey, Private School Universe Survey (PSS), 2003–04. 
196 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Non-Charter Public School Library Media Center Comparison (Public School 

Library Media Center and BIA-Funded School Library Media Center Files) 

There are no external frame comparisons that can be made for the school library counts, since no such 

comparable data are collected in CCD. Rather, the only comparisons that can be made are the changes 

between the previous school library counts and the current count. Without any external data for 

verification, it can be difficult to tell how much of the difference between the two counts is due to 

sampling variability or nonresponse rate change and how much to substantive change (i.e., a change in the 

number of schools with library media centers). 

Although public charter schools were included both in 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS, the way that 

charter schools were sampled and the way that the data were collected for library media centers differed 

enough so that public charter schools were excluded from the comparison. 

The counts presented in this section are almost entirely from the Public School Library Media Center data 

file. The last column does use the count of schools both with and without school library media centers 

from the Public School data file. 

Changes in the number of non-charter public schools that lack a library media center are much larger in 

percentage terms than the change in the number of non-charter public schools with a school library media 

center (table 55). While the percentage of non-charter public schools lacking such a center is relatively 

low, some of the percentage difference in the count of these schools, especially by state, can be quite 

large. These changes are large enough that it is unlikely that they are entirely due to sampling variability. 

Given the general historical pattern that the percentage of schools lacking a library media center is 

declining over time, these data seem to suggest that budgetary pressures may be forcing some schools to 

close their library media centers (probably by laying off any paid library staffers). Another factor is that, 

with turnover in library media center staff, there may have been no one in the school who could serve as a 

respondent for the library media center questionnaire items concerning the previous school year. There 

was evidence that the noninterview rate for the library media center questionnaire was higher in 2003–04 

than in 1999–2000. 
Chapter 10. Reviewing the Quality of SASS Data 197 

Table 55. Estimated number and percentage of non-charter public school library media centers 

(LMCs) in 2003–04 SASS compared to 1999–2000 SASS estimates, by state, region, 

and community type: 1999–2000 and 2003–04

Characteristic 

1999–

2000 

SASS 

noncharter 

public 

schools 

with no 

LMC1

2003–04 

SASS 

noncharter 

public 

schools 

with no 

LMC 

(LMC 

file)2

2003–04 

SASS as a 

percentage of 

1999–2000 

SASS3

1999–2000 

SASS 

noncharter 

public 

schools 

with 

LMC4

2003–04 

SASS 

noncharter 

public 

schools 

with 

LMC 

(LMC 

file)5

2003–04 

SASS as a 

percentage of 

1999–2000 

SASS6

2003–04 

SASS noncharter 

public 

schools 

with and 

without an 

LMC 

(school 

file)7

2003–04 

SASS noncharter 

public 

schools 

with and 

without an 

LMC 

(LMC 

file)8

 Total 7,017 8,569 122.1 76,807 77,319 100.7 85,934 85,888

 

State 

 Alabama 30 151 511.3 1,299 1,343 103.3 1,490 1,494

 Alaska 100 60 60.0 366 377 103.0 435 437

 Arizona 184 71 38.5 991 1,260 127.2 1,326 1,331

 Arkansas 9 22 239.9 1,089 1,039 95.4 1,063 1,061

 California 1,720 1,592 92.6 6,340 6,986 110.2 8,564 8,578

 

 Colorado 57 95 167.0 1,355 1,332 98.3 1,429 1,427

 Connecticut 75 58 77.0 934 953 102.1 1,008 1,011

 Delaware 19 7 37.0 136 165 121.3 170 172

 District of Columbia 20 39 193.3 138 118 85.6 158 157

 

 Florida 165 338 204.6 2,436 2,569 105.5 2,912 2,907

 Georgia 25 31 124.9 1,710 1,827 106.8 1,859 1,858

 Hawaii # # † 247 257 104.2 259 257

 Idaho 76 67 88.7 545 568 104.1 645 635

 Illinois 338 732 216.6 3,638 3,417 93.9 4,131 4,149

 

 Indiana 44 167 383.7 1,737 1,735 99.9 1,901 1,902

 Iowa 22 27 123.2 1,463 1,304 89.1 1,326 1,331

 Kansas 27 31 114.5 1,374 1,384 100.7 1,415 1,415

 Kentucky 95 104 110.0 1,222 1,291 105.6 1,397 1,395

 Louisiana 159 164 103.1 1,269 1,295 102.1 1,457 1,459

 

 Maine 87 48 55.5 621 649 104.4 698 697

 Maryland 37 67 182.1 1,226 1,289 105.1 1,362 1,356

 Massachusetts 103 160 155.5 1,609 1,582 98.3 1,737 1,742

 Michigan 471 827 175.7 2,942 2,611 88.7 3,471 3,438

 Minnesota 191 254 133.0 1,483 1,427 96.2 1,683 1,681

 

 Mississippi 75 154 206.3 859 880 102.4 1,035 1,034

 Missouri 82 154 188.0 1,906 1,849 97.0 1,998 2,003

 Montana 135 60 44.5 745 529 71.0 585 589

 Nebraska 183 207 113.2 1,014 940 92.7 1,146 1,147

 Nevada 19 21 111.7 420 462 109.9 483 483

See notes at end of table. 
198 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table 55. Estimated number and percentage of non-charter public school library media centers 

(LMCs) in 2003–04 SASS compared to 1999–2000 SASS estimates, by state, region, 

and community type: 1999–2000 and 2003–04—Continued

Characteristic 

1999–

2000 

SASS 

noncharter 

public 

schools 

with no 

LMC1

2003–04 

SASS 

noncharter 

public 

schools 

with no 

LMC 

(LMC 

file)2

2003–04 

SASS as a 

percentage of 

1999–2000 

SASS3

1999–2000 

SASS 

noncharter 

public 

schools 

with 

LMC4

2003–04 

SASS 

noncharter 

public 

schools 

with 

LMC 

(LMC 

file)5

2003–04 

SASS as a 

percentage of 

1999–2000 

SASS6

2003–04 

SASS noncharter 

public 

schools 

with and 

without an 

LMC 

(school 

file)7

2003–04 

SASS noncharter 

public 

schools 

with and 

without an 

LMC 

(LMC 

file)8

 New Hampshire 21 8 37.4 432 428 99.2 437 436

 New Jersey 161 320 198.4 2,086 2,015 96.6 2,345 2,335

 New Mexico 25 18 70.9 684 684 100.1 703 702

 New York 352 115 32.6 3,738 4,087 109.3 4,216 4,202

 North Carolina 137 52 38.0 1,877 2,072 110.4 2,120 2,124

 

 North Dakota 91 30 32.8 461 373 81.0 400 403

 Ohio 114 381 335.5 3,584 3,391 94.6 3,808 3,772

 Oklahoma 40 38 96.2 1,782 1,521 85.3 1,557 1,559

 Oregon 53 113 211.6 1,118 1,102 98.6 1,215 1,215

 Pennsylvania 180 279 155.0 2,941 2,767 94.1 3,047 3,046

 

 Rhode Island 15 9 61.8 277 298 107.4 303 307

 South Carolina 31 52 165.1 1,035 1,042 100.7 1,096 1,094

 South Dakota 208 100 48.2 571 404 70.7 493 504

 Tennessee 46 48 104.9 1,488 1,586 106.6 1,634 1,634

 Texas 404 580 143.4 6,246 6,615 105.9 7,202 7,195

 

 Utah 47 32 68.6 693 724 104.4 755 756

 Vermont # 22 † 332 301 90.7 329 323

 Virginia 138 100 72.6 1,602 1,905 118.9 2,004 2,005

 Washington 167 229 136.8 1,841 1,844 100.2 2,072 2,073

 West Virginia 188 172 91.3 610 601 98.6 776 773

 Wisconsin 4 114 2878.8 1,948 1,817 93.3 1,927 1,931

 Wyoming 49 50 101.6 346 304 87.9 353 354

 

Region 

 Northeast 995 1,019 102.5 12,969 13,081 100.9 14,121 14,100

 Midwest 1,775 3,024 170.3 22,123 20,651 93.3 23,698 23,675

 South 1,615 2,118 131.1 26,025 27,158 104.4 29,291 29,276

 West 2,632 2,407 91.5 15,690 16,429 104.7 18,824 18,836

 

Community type (Census) 

 Central city 1,714 2,498 145.8 18,038 17,721 98.2 20,164 20,219

 Urban fringe 2,810 3,558 126.6 34,754 35,048 100.8 38,548 38,606

 Non-MSA9

 2,493 2,513 100.8 24,015 24,550 102.2 27,223 27,063

See notes at end of table. 
Chapter 10. Reviewing the Quality of SASS Data 199 

Table 55. Estimated number and percentage of non-charter public school library media centers 

(LMCs) in 2003–04 SASS compared to 1999–2000 SASS estimates, by state, region, 

and community type: 1999–2000 and 2003–04—Continued

Characteristic 

1999–

2000 

SASS 

noncharter 

public 

schools 

with no 

LMC1

2003–04 

SASS 

noncharter 

public 

schools 

with no 

LMC 

(LMC 

file)2

2003–04 

SASS as a 

percentage of 

1999–2000 

SASS3

1999–2000 

SASS 

noncharter 

public 

schools 

with 

LMC4

2003–04 

SASS 

noncharter 

public 

schools 

with 

LMC 

(LMC 

file)5

2003–04 

SASS as a 

percentage of 

1999–2000 

SASS6

2003–04 

SASS noncharter 

public 

schools 

with and 

without an 

LMC 

(school 

file)7

2003–04 

SASS noncharter 

public 

schools 

with and 

without an 

LMC 

(LMC 

file)8

Community type 

 Central city † 2,498 † † 17,721 † 20,164 20,219

 Urban fringe/large 

 town † 3,626 † † 35,963 † 39,560 39,589

 Rural/small town † 2,445 † † 23,635 † 26,210 26,080

 

BIA-funded schools 

 only10 24 14 58.3 153 148 96.7 162 162

† Not applicable. 

# Rounds to zero. 

1

 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Library Media Center Data File,” 1999–2000 (Final Library Weight); The 

Status of Public and Private Library Media Centers in the United States: 1999–2000 (NCES 2004-313), Table 1a, Column 1 

minus Column 2. 

2

 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Library Media Center Data File,” 2003–04 (LMC Indicator, Final Library 

Weight). 

3

 Column 2 / Column 1. 

4

 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Library Media Center Data File,” 1999–2000 (Final Library Weight); 

Status of Public and Private Library Media Centers in the United States: 1999–2000 (NCES 2004-313), Table 1a, Column 2. 5

 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Library Media Center Data File,” 2003–04 (LMC Indicator, Final Library 

Weight). 

6

 Column 5 / Column 4. 

7

 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Data File,” 2003–04 (Final School Weight). 8

 Column 2 + Column 5. 

9

 MSA refers to Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

10 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

NOTE: For the 1999–2000 SASS, public charter schools did not receive a separate school library media center questionnaire, so 

estimates for public charter library media centers are not comparable between the 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS. There is no 

“universe survey” that is used as the frame for school library media centers, so data from the previous SASS are used as the 

comparison. BIA-funded schools are not included in the total. 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 Library Media Center Survey,” 1999–2000; Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Library Media Center 

Survey and Public School Data Files,” 2003–04; The Status of Public and Private Library Media Centers in the United States: 

1999–2000, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public School Library Media Center Questionnaire,” 1999–2000, and “SASS 

1999–2000 Schools Without Libraries Restricted-Use Data File,” September 2003. 

Response Variance 

A reinterview study has been conducted for each SASS administration. Reinterview programs are 

typically designed to evaluate fieldwork and/or estimate error components, such as simple response 

variance and response bias, in a survey model (Forsman and Schreiner, pp. 279–301). The purpose of the 

SASS reinterview programs was to estimate simple response variance; that is, to measure the consistency 

in response between the original survey and the reinterview (reliability of the data) for certain questions 

considered critical to the survey or suspected to be problematic. High response variance (i.e., 
200 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

inconsistency) indicates there is a problem with the design of the question or the nature of the data being 

collected. It also can often indicate the presence of bias in the data. However, while reinterview studies 

allow the detection of problems in the questions, they usually cannot identify causes of response error or 

correct the problems. The 2003–04 SASS reinterview program consisted of administering reinterview 

questionnaires that consisted of a subset of questions from the original questionnaires. There were four 

reinterview questionnaires: the Principal Reinterview Questionnaire (for private and public school 

principals), the School Reinterview Questionnaire (for private and public schools), the Private School 

Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire, and the Public School Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire. 

This section summarizes material from the full report contained in “Appendix S. Response Variance in 

the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey.” 

Content of Reinterview Questionnaires 

There were 17 questions evaluated from the Principal Reinterview Questionnaire for private school 

principals, and 20 questions evaluated from the Principal Reinterview Questionnaire for public school 

principals. The topics included experience, training, and working conditions; teacher and school 

performance; school climate and safety; parent or guardian involvement; and demographic information. 

There were 20 questions evaluated from the School Reinterview Questionnaire for private schools, and 38 

questions evaluated from the School Reinterview Questionnaire for public schools. The topics included 

general information, staffing, and special programs and services. 

There were 24 questions evaluated from the Private School Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire for 

private school teachers, and 26 questions evaluated from the Public School Teacher Reinterview 

Questionnaire for public school teachers. The topics included general information; class organization; 

educational background; certification and training; professional development; resources and assessments 

of students; and working conditions. 

Reinterview Procedures 

The sample included the cases selected for reinterview where Census Bureau clerical staff received a 

completed original questionnaire from the respondent. Then, staff mailed out the appropriate reinterview 

questionnaires with a letter explaining the purpose of the reinterview to the respondents. The respondents 

completed the reinterview questionnaires (self-administered) and then mailed the questionnaires back to 

the Census Bureau in the provided envelopes. 

Reinterview Sample Design 

The reinterview sample for each of the SASS surveys was a random subsample of that survey’s full 

sample. The sample size was designed to obtain a certain number of completed interviews. The cases 

selected for reinterview included 686 cases for private school principals and private schools, 1,951 cases 

for public school principals and public schools, 1,375 cases for private school teachers, and 2,758 for 

public school teachers. 

Reinterview Response Rates 

There were 278 Principal Reinterview Questionnaires completed for private school principals, for a 

reinterview response rate of 61 percent, and 1,055 completed for public school principals, for a 

reinterview response rate of 68 percent (table 56). There were 244 School Reinterview Questionnaires 
Chapter 10. Reviewing the Quality of SASS Data 201 

completed for private schools, for a reinterview response rate of 53 percent, and 667 completed for public 

schools, for a reinterview response rate of 43 percent. There were 304 completed Private Teacher 

Reinterview Questionnaires, for a reinterview response rate of 61 percent, and 763 completed Public 

Teacher Reinterview Questionnaires, for a reinterview response rate of 58 percent. 

Table 56. Reinterview response rates, by school type and respondent: 2003–04 

Respondent School type Number completed Response rate (percent) 

Principal Private 278 61 

Principal Public 1,055 68 

 

School Private 244 53 

School Public 667 43 

Teacher Private 304 61 

Teacher Public 763 58 

SOURCE: Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

Measures 

The response error reinterview model assumed that the reinterview was an independent replication of the 

original interview. The reinterview data was weighted to reflect the sample design and to obtain an 

unbiased estimate. 

The index of inconsistency and the gross difference rate were the principal measures of response variance 

in the categorical data. The index of inconsistency was the principal measure of response variance in 

continuous data. 

The net difference rate (NDR) indicated how well the reinterview met the model assumptions for 

categorical data. The McNemar Test for the Yes/No questions tested whether the NDR is significant. The 

Hui-Walter Method was used to calculate the index for the Yes/No questions if the NDR was found to be 

significant. The Bowker Test is an extension of the McNemar Test and was used for questions that had 

multiple categories. For the quantitative questions the mean difference between the paired responses was 

tested to see if it was significantly different from zero. This test provided information analogous to the 

NDR. 

For the questions with high indexes, logistic regression was used to test a model for inconsistency with 

explanatory variables gender, age, race, and ethnicity for the principals and teachers. The data were not 

distributed properly for logistic regression to be appropriate for the categorical questions. The logistic 

regression was used for the quantitative questions where the t test did not fail. 

In some cases where questions in the 2003–04 SASS were asked in previous administrations of SASS, the 

1999–2000 reinterview results were given for the comparison. 

Major Findings 

Of the 17 questions evaluated from the Principal Reinterview Questionnaire for private school principals, 

41 percent displayed high response variance, suggesting poor reliability. Response variance was moderate 

for 47 percent of the questions analyzed and low for 12 percent. The attitudinal questions (6 of them) had 

high response variance. If attitudinal questions were excluded for private school principals, then 9 percent 
202 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

of the 11 questions had high response variance, 73 percent had moderate variance, and 18 percent had low 

variance. 

Of the 20 questions evaluated from the Principal Reinterview Questionnaire for public school principals, 

65 percent displayed high response variance, suggesting poor reliability. Response variance was moderate 

for 30 percent of the questions analyzed and low for 5 percent. The attitudinal questions (5 of them) had 

high response variance. If attitudinal questions were excluded for public school principals, then 53 

percent of the 15 questions had high response variance, 40 percent had moderate variance, and 7 percent 

had low variance. 

Of the 20 questions evaluated from the School Reinterview Questionnaire for private schools, 5 percent 

displayed high response variance, suggesting poor reliability. Response variance was moderate for 15 

percent of the questions analyzed and low for 80 percent. 

Of the 38 questions evaluated from the School Reinterview Questionnaire for public schools, 18 percent 

displayed high response variance, suggesting poor reliability. Response variance was moderate for 32 

percent of the questions analyzed and low for 50 percent. 

For private school teachers, 25 percent of the 24 questions from the Private Teacher Reinterview 

Questionnaire displayed high response variance, suggesting problems with reliability. There was 

moderate response variance for 29 percent of the questions analyzed and low response variance for 46 

percent. There was one attitudinal question that had high response variance. If attitudinal question was 

excluded for private school teachers, then 22 percent of the 23 questions had high response variance, 30 

percent had moderate variance, and 48 percent had low variance. 

For public school teachers, 19 percent of the 26 questions from the Public Teacher Reinterview 

Questionnaire displayed high response variance, suggesting problems with reliability. There was 

moderate response variance for 46 percent of the questions analyzed and low response variance for 35 

percent. There was one attitudinal question that had high response variance. If attitudinal question was 

excluded for public teachers, then 16 percent of the 25 questions had high response variance, 48 percent 

had moderate variance, and 36 percent had low variance. 
203 

Chapter 11. Information on Data Files and Merging 

Components 

The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) is composed of nine survey questionnaires: the School District 

Questionnaire, School Questionnaire, Private School Questionnaire, Unified School Questionnaire, 

Principal Questionnaire, Private School Principal Questionnaire, Teacher Questionnaire, Private School 

Teacher Questionnaire, and Library Media Center Questionnaire. The Unified School Questionnaire was 

given to schools that function independently from regular school districts or are the only school within a 

regular school district. This included Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools, public charter 

schools that were not operated within a public school district or managing entity, traditional public 

schools that were single-school districts, and state-run schools such as schools for the blind. (See chapter 

5 for details.) These nine questionnaires were transformed into 12 data files that separate each type of 

respondent into three sectors: public, private, and BIA-funded. Private school library media centers were 

not given a questionnaire to complete, due to budget reasons; therefore, there is no private school library 

media center data file. The table below identifies each data file and the questionnaire data used to build 

the file. 

Table 57. Names of data files and the questionnaires from which the data were drawn: 2003–04 

Data file Questionnaire source

Public School District School District Questionnaire, Unified School Questionnaire

Public School School Questionnaire, Unified School Questionnaire

Private School Private School Questionnaire

BIA School1

 Unified School Questionnaire

Public School Principal Principal Questionnaire

Private School Principal Private School Principal Questionnaire

BIA School Principal1

 Principal Questionnaire

Public School Teacher Teacher Questionnaire

Private School Teacher Private School Teacher Questionnaire

BIA School Teacher1

 Teacher Questionnaire

Public School Library Media Center Library Media Center Questionnaire

BIA School Library Media Center1

 Library Media Center Questionnaire 1

 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 2003–

04. 

Availability of Data 

SASS data are available as restricted-use data files in the form of an Electronic Codebook (ECB) and 

through an online Data Analysis System (DAS). Both restricted-use and public-use data include 

confidentiality edits, which add “noise” to the data in order to make the identification of respondents in 

published data less certain. (See the section below on “Confidentiality Edits to the Data.”) Access to the 

restricted-use data files is limited to individuals associated with organizations that have received a license 

to use SASS data, while the DAS is available to the public. How to receive a restricted-use license is 

discussed in the next section. 
204 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Restricted-use data are accessed through an ECB, which is a searchable codebook, or data dictionary, on a 

CD-ROM that produces data files as specified by the user. Data are restricted-use because they contain 

individually identifiable information, which is confidential and protected by law. While direct identifiers, 

such as the respondent’s name, are not included on the data files, the restricted-use data files do feature 

more variables that can indirectly identify a respondent or that can be used to link SASS with Common 

Core of Data (CCD) or other data files, which could provide the name of the school and lead to the 

identification of individual respondents. 

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) uses the term “public-use data” for survey data 

when the individually identifiable variables and data have been removed, recoded to collapse the number 

of categories, or perturbed to protect the confidentiality of survey respondents. The DAS constitutes 

public-use data. The DAS system will be available online and will produce survey results in tables on 

demand for the general public. 

The 2003–04 SASS data are released in accordance with the provisions of the amended National 

Education Statistics Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 9017), as amended, the Privacy Act of 1974, the Computer 

Security Act of 1987, and the U.S. Patriot Act of 2001. Under the provisions of Section 183 of the 

Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Public Law 107–279 (20 U.S.C. 9873), NCES is responsible for 

protecting the confidentiality of individual respondents and releases data (CD-ROMs) for statistical 

purposes only. Record matching or deductive disclosure by any user is prohibited by federal law. 

How to Get Restricted-Use Data Files 

Researchers who can demonstrate a need for more detailed information may request access to the 

restricted-use datasets for statistical research purposes, provided that they follow computer security 

requirements and fill out an Affidavit of Nondisclosure. 

Researchers requesting access to the restricted-use datasets must obtain a license to use those data by 

providing the following information: 

• the title of the survey(s) to which access is desired; 

• a detailed discussion of the statistical research project that necessitates accessing the NCES 

survey; 

• the name of the principal project officer at the institution who will be heading up the research 

effort and who will enforce the legal provisions of the license agreement; 

• the number, name(s), and job title(s) of professional and technical staff, including graduate 

students, who will be accessing the survey dataset; and 

• the estimated loan period necessary for accessing the NCES survey dataset. 

Return all of the above information to 

NCES Data Security Office 

Department of Education/NCES/ODC/SSP 

1990 K Street NW 

Room 9061 

Washington, DC 20006 

All of these procedures are detailed in the NCES Restricted-Use Data Procedures Manual, available for 

download at http://nces.ed.gov/statprog/rudman. 
Chapter 11. Information on Data Files and Merging Components 205 

After the access request has been reviewed, the requestor will be informed whether a license to use the 

restricted data has been approved. 

Requestors and/or institutions that violate the agreement are subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 

(under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3559 and 3571) or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both. 

The confidentiality provisions that NCES must follow by law can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/statprog. 

How to Access Public-Use Data 

The public-use version of the teacher (public and private) and school (public and private) data files will 

be available through an online Data Analysis System (DAS) in early 2007. The DAS permits the user to 

create crosstabulations and standard errors. The user is not able to link datasets. While the user may 

recode variables in the DAS, many continuous variables have been recoded into created variables to 

facilitate the use of the DAS. 

All NCES public-use data files can be accessed at no cost from the NCES website. At the time of 

publication, the DAS for this set of surveys was in development. It will be accessible on the NCES 

website for SASS at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/. 

Understanding the Data Files 

Confidentiality Edits to the Data 

The restricted-use data files, which are also the source for data accessed through the DAS, have been 

altered according to NCES standards. Known as confidentiality edits, “noise” was added to the data in 

order to make the identification of respondents in published data less certain. These edits directly alter 

some data for individual respondents, but preserve the overall distributions and level of detail in all 

variables included on the data file. There are several ways in which the data can be altered, including 

blanking and imputing for randomly selected records; blurring (e.g., combining multiple records through 

some averaging process into a single record); adding random noise; and data swapping or switching (e.g., 

switching the variable for age from a predetermined pair of individuals). All 12 restricted-use data files 

were altered through one or more of these methods. 

Treatment of Public Charter Schools and BIA-Funded Schools 

Public charter schools were first included in the 1999–2000 administration of SASS. At that time, the 

number of public charter schools was small enough that all known to be operational in 1998–99 and still 

operating in 1999–2000 were surveyed. The number of public charter schools has continued to grow, 

making it more feasible to sample public charter schools. A sample of 303 public charter schools was 

selected for SASS. (See chapter 4 for details.) Data from these respondents were included in the public 

sector data files. The variable CHARFLAG, which identifies whether or not the public school is a 

traditional public school or a public charter school, can be used for separately analyzing public charter 

data. 

Public charter schools received either the Unified School Questionnaire or the School Questionnaire, 

depending upon whether or not the school was associated with a regular school district as defined by 

CCD. When a public charter school was selected, the sample file (CCD) had information about whether 

the public charter was part of a regular school district or was under the authority of a chartering agency. 

Public charter schools operating under the jurisdiction of a district followed the procedure for traditional 

public schools. Public charter schools that were their own school district or that were under another type 
206 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

of chartering agency filled out the Unified School Questionnaire, which included district items (e.g., data 

on salary schedules and hiring policies). 

All schools funded by BIA were given the Unified School Questionnaire. The variable BIAFLAG 

identifies whether or not a school is BIA-funded. These schools were placed on separate data files that 

only include BIA-funded school-related components. Public schools with a high American Indian student 

enrollment (defined as at least 19.5 percent of the total enrollment) were oversampled for SASS. (See 

chapter 4 for details.) These cases were included on the public sector data files. 

There were instances when schools did not fit exclusively into the categories of traditional public, public 

charter, or BIA-funded schools. In these instances, the following priority for determining school sector 

was applied: 

• schools included on the BIA Directory of schools were categorized as BIA-funded schools and 

included on the BIA data files; and 

• schools that were on the BIA Directory of schools but also indicated that they were charter 

schools were categorized as BIA-funded schools and included on the BIA data files. 

In addition, how a school was classified on CCD (as public, public charter, or BIA) may not match how 

the school classified itself on the questionnaire. The following decisions were made to assign the school’s 

sector: 

• schools that were classified as public charter schools on CCD but did not claim charter school 

status on the questionnaire were categorized as traditional public schools; 

• schools that were classified as public schools on CCD but claimed to be charter schools on the 

questionnaire were categorized as public charter schools; 

• schools were not asked on the questionnaire whether or not they were funded by BIA; there were 

no inconsistencies with the school’s sector as it was assigned on the sampling frame or on the 

data files. 

Categories of Variables 

Variables on SASS data files were organized into the following five categories on each record layout: 

frame, survey, created, weighting, and imputation flag variables. Each of these categories was further 

separated into subcategories that provide more detail on each variable’s source. The purpose of these 

categories is to help the user better understand what types of variables are included on the data files and 

what the sources were for the variables. 

Variables were classified as frame variables if they were drawn from or based on the SASS sampling 

frame, CCD, or the Private School Universe Survey (PSS). Frame variables may or may not have been 

used for sampling. (See chapter 4 for details on sampling variables.) There are four types of frame 

variables, or subcategories, identifying the source of each frame variable: 2001–02 CCD or PSS, SASS 

frame, 2003–04 CCD or PSS, or CAPI. The CAPI instrument was used in the field by field 

representatives to verify school information and determine whether schools were in-scope or out-ofscope. (See chapter 5 for more details.) Only one variable, the school’s physical address ZIP code 

(SC_ZIP), was used from the CAPI on the private school data file. This is because the private school 

sampling frame did not include the physical address ZIP code for the school. Selected variables from 

these sources were included on the data file if they provided potentially valuable information to the user 

that was not available from the survey itself. Examples of frame variables include the respondent’s 

control, or identification, number (i.e., CNTLNUMS for schools, CNTLNUMT for teachers, 
Chapter 11. Information on Data Files and Merging Components 207 

CNTLNUMD for districts, CNTLNUMP for principals, and CNTLNUML for school library media 

centers) and locale codes (i.e., SLOCP_99, SLOCP_03, and URBANS03 on the school data files). The 

frame variables are listed in “Appendix T. Frame and Created Variables.” 

Survey variables are the actual variables drawn from the questionnaire responses. Each item on a 

questionnaire has a small number printed to the left. This series of numbers is the source code. A single 

letter was added to the beginning of the series to signify which type of respondent (i.e., district, school, 

principal, teacher, or school library media center) is associated with a source code. Consequently, the 

letter “D” was added for district, “S” for school, “A” for principal or administrator, “T” for teacher, and 

“M” was added for school library media center. For example, on the School District Questionnaire, item 

1a has the source code 0035 printed to the left. On the data file, the source code for this item is D0035. 

Created variables are based on survey variables, frame variables, other created variables, or a combination 

of these. These variables are frequently used in NCES publications and have been added to the data files 

to facilitate data analysis. The code used to create these variables can be found in the description of each 

variable in the Codebook Window of the restricted-use Electronic Codebook. There are two subcategories 

for created variables based on whether the data used to create the variable are on the same data file. 

Created variables labeled as being “within” a file are based on data found on the same data file. For 

example, the variable TEALEV on the teacher data files identifies whether a teacher teaches primary, 

middle, or high school grade levels, or a combination of grade levels. It is built from the individual grades 

that the teacher indicated he or she teaches on the Teacher or Private School Teacher Questionnaire; 

consequently, the created variable is located on the same data file from which the source data are drawn. 

A created variable labeled as being “other” is on one data file but based on data from a different data file. 

“Other” created variables are typically based on the school or public school district data files and then 

placed on the teacher, principal, or school library media center data files as a convenience to the user. For 

example, the variable SCHLEVEL, which identifies whether a school is an elementary, secondary, or 

combined school, is considered an “other” created variable on the principal, teacher, and school library 

media center data files. This is because the individual grade levels used to build this variable were 

reported by the school and are located on the school data files. The created variables are listed in 

“Appendix T. Frame and Created Variables.” 

There are two types of weighting variables on each data file. (For more information on weighting and 

standard errors, see chapter 9.) The first is the sampling weight, or final weight for the respondent, and the 

second includes the 88 replicate weights. The final weight adjusts for nonresponse and oversampling and 

is used so that estimates represent the population rather than simply the sample. The replicate weights are 

used as a set to generate standard errors for estimates. On the school data files, the final weight is called 

SFNLWGT and the replicate weights are SREPWT1 through SREPWT88. 

The imputation flags identify whether or not a survey item was imputed for missing data (as discussed in 

more detail in chapter 8) or whether a created variable was imputed because of a nonresponding school or 

district. In addition, there is one frame variable, SLOCP_03, that has a corresponding imputation flag 

(FL_SLC03) on all public sector files, except the public school district data file. This variable and its flag 

were pulled directly from the 2003–04 CCD. No other frame variable has a corresponding imputation 

flag. All survey variables have a corresponding imputation flag that indicates whether a value was 

imputed and, if so, what method was used. All survey imputation flags begin with “F_” and are followed 

by the name of the variable. For example, the imputation flag for T0026 from the teacher data files is 

F_T0026. Certain created variables were also given imputation flags. These created variables were built 

with data from either the public school district or school data files and placed on the teacher, principal, or 

school library media center data files. However, if the public school district or school failed to respond to 

SASS, data would not be available to place on other data files. These data were imputed using data from 

the sampling frame, if available, or imputed by hand. The imputation flag for these created variables 

indicates whether or not the school or public school district failed to respond to SASS and, if so, then 
208 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

what type of imputation was used as the source for the data. All created variable imputation flags begin 

with “FL_” and are followed by at least the beginning of the name of the created variable. For example, 

the variable ENRK12UG comes from the school data file and provides the total K–12 and ungraded 

enrollment in the school. It is placed on each school’s associated principal, teacher, and school library 

media center data files. If the school did not respond to SASS, data are still present for this variable on the 

other data files. The variable’s imputation flag is called FL_ENRK. 

Nonresponding Units 

As described in chapter 4 on sampling selection, the school is the primary sampling unit. For each 

sampled school, the principal, selected teachers, the school library media center, and the public school 

district, if applicable, were included in SASS. Not all of these types of respondents chose to participate in 

SASS. Consequently, it is possible to have several teacher records but no corresponding school record, 

because the school did not complete a school questionnaire. Similarly, the public school district could 

have agreed to participate in SASS but failed to complete the questionnaire, resulting in having completed 

questionnaires for schools and principals but no corresponding public school district data. Table 58 below 

identifies the number of cases that have a corresponding unit that did not respond. This information is 

particularly useful for identifying how many cases are missing when merging data files. 

Table 58. Number of missing cases in combined datasets, by nonresponding component and 

dataset providing unit of analysis: 2003–04 

Nonresponding public component 

Unit of analysis Observations

Public school 

districts Principals Schools 

School library 

media centers

Public school principal 8,143 1,288 † 407 1,249 

Public school 7,991 1,221 255 † 1,213 

Public school teacher 43,244 6,637 2,166 2,965 5,607 

Public school library media center 7,229 1,126 335 451 † 

Nonresponding private component 

Unit of analysis Observations †1 Principals Schools †1

Private school principal 2,376 † † 88 †

Private school 2,456 † 168 † †

Private school teacher 7,979 † 509 475 †

Nonresponding BIA-funded component2

Unit of analysis Observations †3 Principals Schools 

School library 

media centers

BIA-funded school principal2 146 † † 5 24

BIA-funded school2 145 † 4 † 23

BIA-funded school teacher2

 624 † 21 30 81

BIA-funded school library media center2

 124 † 2 2 †

† Not applicable. 

1

 Private schools did not receive the School District Questionnaire or the School Library Media Center Questionnaire. 2

 BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

3

 BIA-funded schools did not receive the School District Questionnaire. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 2003–

04. 
Chapter 11. Information on Data Files and Merging Components 209 

Linking Data Files Within SASS 

When each school was selected for the school sample, its principal or school head was also selected for 

the principal sample, along with a sample of teachers at that school who received teacher questionnaires. 

For public schools, the public school district having jurisdiction over the sampled school was selected for 

the public school district sample. For public and BIA-funded schools, a staff member who was 

responsible for the school library media center, if any, was also included in the sample for the School 

Library Media Center Questionnaire. The School Library Media Center Questionnaire was not given to 

private schools. 

On the restricted-use files, any combination of the school, principal, teacher, and school library media 

center (if applicable) datasets within each SASS school sector can be merged using the school’s control 

number (CNTLNUMS). The school control number is present on all of these data files and will link them 

together. 

The public teacher, school, principal, and school library media center datasets may be merged with the 

public school district dataset. School and public school district datasets can be merged using the district’s 

control number (CNTLNUMD) or by parsing out the first five digits of the school’s control number and 

the district’s control number. 

There are two ways in which data files can be merged. The first involves merging data files by matching 

them using the school’s control number. An example of this is when the user would like to merge a 

school’s record with the records of its teachers. The school and the teachers are linked through the 

school’s control number. Instructions on how to match merge data files in SAS, SPSS, and Stata are 

provided below. The second method of merging is appending, or concatenating, data files. For example, if 

the user would like to analyze public and private school data, these files can be appended together. 

Because these data files do not need to be “matched,” no control number needs to be specified to append 

the data files. This type of merging is not discussed in this chapter. Please see the manual for the 

statistical program being used to determine how to append data files and for additional information on 

how to merge data files. 

Sample SAS Syntax for Merging Data Files and Attaching Variable Labels

Merging Restricted-Use Data Files Using the School Control Number (CNTLNUMS) 

When merging any of the school, principal, teacher, or school library media center data files together for a 

given school, the school’s control number, CNTLNUMS, is used to match data files. In the SAS code 

below, please note that both data files being merged must be sorted by the variable listed in the “by” 

statement prior to performing the merge. Comments to explain lines of code are contained within “/* */” 

Words in italics are meant to be replaced by meaningful file or variable names. 

proc sort data = dataset1; 

by CNTLNUMS; 

run; 

proc sort data = dataset2; 

by CNTLNUMS; 

run; 

data newfilename; /* create new merged file name */ 

merge dataset1 (in=a) dataset2; /* merge the two files and specify dataset1 as 

 unit of analysis */ 
210 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

by CNTLNUMS; 

if a=1; /* keep all dataset1 records and only matching 

 dataset2 records */ 

run; 

Merging the Restricted-use Public School District Data File with Other Public Sector Data Files 

There are two ways to merge the public school district data file with other public sector data files. The 

first is with the district’s control number (CNTLNUMD). This variable is included on the public school 

district data file as well as the public school data file. The sample code provided above is correct, except 

that the merging variable will be CNTLNUMD. 

The second method is by parsing out the first five digits of the district’s and the school’s control number. 

Users will need to use this method if the school did not respond to SASS. The first five digits of 

CNTLNUMS and CNTLNUMD are identical, so users can create a new variable using a substring of 

these control numbers and merge the data files by the new variable name. The SAS syntax provided 

below illustrates how to merge the public school district data file with other data files using a substring. 

Please note that the data files being merged must be sorted by the variable listed in the “by” statement 

prior to performing the merge. 

data workfilename1; 

set school_or_principal_or_teacherdatafile; 

newvariablename = substr (CNTLNUMS,1,5); 

run; 

proc sort; 

by newvariablename; 

run; 

data workfilename2; 

set districtdatafile; 

newvariablename = substr (CNTLNUMD,1, 5); 

run; 

proc sort; 

by newvariablename; 

run; 

data mergedfilename; 

merge workfilename1 workfilename2; /* no unit of analysis file is identified, so all 

 records from both files will remain */ 

by newvariablename; 

run; 

Attaching Value Labels to Variables Extracted from the Electronic Codebook (ECB) 

While the formatting syntax is provided, it is up to the user to call up the labels. There are three primary 

ways to accomplish this. 

First, value labels for each variable can be reviewed within the ECB. When variables are extracted from 

the ECB there is a box on the right-hand side of the pop-up window that requests the creation of a 

codebook. Check this box in order to have the ECB create a text file with the codebook information for all 

extracted variables. Then within this text file use the find function to locate the variable and determine the 

value labels. 
Chapter 11. Information on Data Files and Merging Components 211 

Second, labels may be manually attached using the PROC step in SAS. To do this, review the syntax 

created from the extraction process to determine the value label name associated with each variable. In 

general, the Format name drops the last digit or letter in the variable name and adds the letter “F” at the 

end. There are exceptions to this rule. 

For example, the appropriate SAS syntax for a PROC FREQ is 

proc freq; 

format varname formatname.; 

tables varname; 

run; 

A third method is to create a permanent value label library in SAS. This requires users to manipulate the 

SAS syntax generated from the extraction. To begin, users need to create a permanent library for the 

value formats that includes all of the value formats they would like to keep. The SAS syntax is as follows: 

libname library ‘C:\librarypath’; /* assigns format library, libname must be 

“library” */ 

proc format library=library; /* creates permanent formats in the directory 

specified in library libname statement */ 

[List all of the value formats here] 

VALUE URBANIF 

1 = “Large or mid-size central city” 

2 = “Urban fringe of large or mid-size city” 

3 = “Small town/rural” 

; 

VALUE VIOLPRF 

0 = “School does not have a violence prevention program” 

1 = “School has a violence prevention program but no formal procedure for assessing its 

effectiveness” 

2 = “School has a violence prevention program and a formal procedure for assessing its 

effectiveness”; 

The above syntax is written before the user’s first data step and set statements. Within the data step 

programming that follows, the following format commands must be included: 

FORMAT varname valuename.; 

A complete list of variables and their assigned formats can be found in the ECB under the ECB’s 

Documentation/Supplemental Materials label, in the table, “SASS Format Names for the SAS 

Programming Language.”

Sample SPSS Syntax for Merging Data Files Within SASS 

NOTE: Both data files being merged must be sorted by the variable listed in the “by” statement prior to 

performing the merge. In SPSS, value labels are attached automatically during the extraction process. 

Words in italics are meant to be replaced by meaningful file or variable names. 
212 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Merging Data Files Using the School Control Number (CNTLNUMS) 

When merging any of the school, principal, teacher, or school library media center data files together for a 

given school, the school’s control number, CNTLNUMS, is used to merge data files. The SPSS syntax is 

provided below. 

get file = ‘dataset1.sav’; 

sort cases by CNTLNUMS(A); 

save outfile = ‘dataset1.sav’; 

get file = ‘dataset2.sav’; 

sort cases by CNTLNUMS(A); 

save outfile = ‘dataset2.sav’; 

match files file = ‘dataset1.sav’ 

/table ‘dataset2’ 

/by CNTLNUMS; 

save outfile = ‘mergeddatafile.sav’; 

Merging the Public School District Data File with Other Public Sector Data Files 

There are two ways to merge the public school district data file with other public sector data files. The 

first is with the district’s control number (CNTLNUMD). This variable is included on the public school 

district data file as well as the public school data file. The sample code provided above is correct, except 

that the merging variable will be CNTLNUMD. 

The second method is by parsing out the first five digits of the district’s and the school’s control number. 

Users will need to use this method if the school did not respond to SASS. The first five digits of 

CNTLNUMS and CNTLNUMD are identical, so users can create a new variable using a substring of 

these control numbers and merge the data files by the new variable name. The SPSS syntax provided 

below illustrates how to merge the public school district data file with other data files using a substring. 

Please note that the data files being merged must be sorted by the variable listed in the “by” statement 

prior to performing the merge. In addition, including “(a5)” for the substring specifies the new variable as 

a five-character alphanumeric variable. 

get file = ‘school_or_principal_or_teacher_or_librarydatafile.sav’;

string newvariablename (a5); 

compute newvariablename = substr(CNTLNUMS,1,5); 

sort cases by newvariablename;

save outfile = ‘temporarydatafile.sav’; 

get file = ‘districtdatafile.sav’;

string newvariablename (a5); 

compute newvariablename = substr(CNTLNUMD,1,5); 

sort cases by newvariablename; 

save outfile = ‘temporarydistrictdatafile.sav’; 

match files file = ‘temporarydatafile.sav’ 

/table ‘temporarydistrictdatafile’ 

 /by newvariablename;

save outfile = ‘mergeddatafile.sav’; 
Chapter 11. Information on Data Files and Merging Components 213 

Sample Stata Syntax for Merging Data Files Within SASS 

Merging Restricted-use Data Files Using the School Control Number (CNTLNUMS) 

When merging any of the school, principal, teacher, or school library media center data files together for a 

given school, the school’s control number, CNTLNUMS, is used to merge data files. The Stata syntax is 

provided below. Notice that both data files being merged must be sorted by the school control number 

prior to performing the merge. Words in italics are meant to be replaced by meaningful file or variable 

names. 

use dataset1

sort CNTLNUMS 

save dataset1, replace

use dataset2

sort CNTLNUMS 

save dataset2, replace

merge CNTLNUMS using dataset1

Merging the Restricted-use Public School District Data File with Other Public Sector Data Files 

There are two ways to merge the public school district data file with other public sector data files. The 

first is with the district’s control number (CNTLNUMD). This variable is included on the public school 

district data file as well as the public school data file. The sample code provided above is correct, except 

that the merging variable will be CNTLNUMD. However, since CNTLNUMD is not included on the 

principal, teacher, or school library media center data file, merging the public school district data file with 

these data files requires a different approach. Users will also need to use this method if the school did not 

respond to SASS. 

The second method parses out the first five digits of the district’s and the school’s control number. The 

first five digits of CNTLNUMS and CNTLNUMD are identical, so users can create a new variable using 

a substring of these control numbers and merge the data files by the new variable name. The Stata syntax 

provided below illustrates how to merge the public school district data file with other data files using a 

substring. Please note that the data files being merged must be sorted by the variable listed in the “sort” 

statement prior to performing the merge. Users may need to increase memory before beginning the 

merge. 

use districtfile 

generate newvariablename = substr(CNTLNUMD,1,5) 

sort newvariablename

save tempdistrictfile, replace

use school_or_principal_or_teacher_or_libraryfile 

generate newvariablename = substr(CNTLNUMS,1,5) 

sort newvariablename

save tempschool_or_principal_or_teacher_or_libraryfile, replace

merge newvariablename using tempdistrictfile 

drop if _merge= =2 

save mergedfile, replace

Unless specified, the default name of the merge variable created during the merging of files is _merge. 

The variable _merge identifies the various categories of data in a one-to-one merge. For example, if users 

merge the public school district (“using” data file) file onto the principal file (“master” data file): 
214 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

 _merge= =1 observations from principal data file, no public school district data added 

(occurs with district nonresponse) 

 _merge= =2 observations from only public school district data file (e.g., district 

responded, but there is no principal from that district) 

 _merge= =3 observations from public school district and principal data files 

By dropping the _merge= =2 observations, the merged data file will contain only principals, regardless of 

whether their district responded. No observations will remain when a district responded without a 

principal. 
215 

Chapter 12. User Notes and Cautions 

The following notes cover the created variable for percent minority enrollment (MINENR), Title 1 data in 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools, data anomalies in created variables, the effect of missing 

data across files, the locale codes used on the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 

departmentalized and elementary enrichment teachers with no reported classes, and the existence of 

leading spaces on certain character variables in extracted SPSS files. 

Users may also be interested in examining the crosswalk of variables contained in “Appendix U. 

Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000, and 2003–04 SASS.” This 

appendix has crosswalks for each SASS questionnaire as well as four crosswalks that compare similarities 

and differences across the 2003–04 SASS questionnaires given to each type of respondent (i.e., district, 

principal, school, or teacher). “Appendix V. Main Teaching Assignment Variable” may also be of 

interest. It contains a crosswalk that outlines how the changes in teaching assignment fields from the 

1999–2000 SASS to the 2003–04 SASS were grouped to produce the main teacher assignment variable 

(ASSIGN03). 

Percent Minority Enrollment (MINENR) 

This created variable is based on data from the school questionnaires and is placed on the principal, 

teacher, and school library media center data files. In cases where a sampled school did not respond to the 

SASS school questionnaire (i.e., unit nonresponse), this variable was created based on data from the 

Common Core of Data (CCD—for public and public charter schools only) for 2001–02, which is the 

frame year. For about 400 records, the data that were pulled from the frame dataset onto the SASS 

principal, teacher, or school library media center file resulted in minority enrollment percentages that 

exceeded 100 percent. This occurred because data on total minority enrollment exceeded the data for total 

enrollment on CCD. These data were not edited to the same level of consistency that the SASS 

questionnaire variables received. Consequently, MINENR was edited so as not to exceed 100 percent; 

these cases have a value of 3 for the corresponding imputation flag variable (FL_MINEN). This affects 

351 public school teachers, 73 public school principals, and 65 public school library media centers. 

Title I Data in Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Funded Schools 

Some data checks for reasonableness do not require exact correspondence between the frame year and the 

SASS data collection year. One such case is that for the BIA-funded schools, where the Common Core of 

Data (CCD) data indicated that 100 percent were receiving Title I schoolwide funding in 2002–03. 

Schoolwide funding does not pay for particular teachers or services, but serves the school overall; eligible 

schools must have at least 40 percent of the students’ families fall below the poverty threshold. In the 

2003–04 SASS, only about 14.5 percent of the BIA-funded schools reported receiving Title I funding. 

This could be due to respondent error. Since BIA-funded schools already receive their funding from 

federal programs, at the school level, the respondents may not realize that Title I funds had also been 

received. The CCD information on Title I funding for BIA-funded schools comes directly from the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. Upon reviewing the reported data and noting the inconsistency with the CCD 

data, all of the Title I related variables, S0635 through S0656, were deleted from the BIA school data file. 

These are the only items removed from any of the 2003–04 SASS data files. 
216 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Data Anomalies in Created Variables 

Consistency edits were not always performed on created variables, which may result in some data 

anomalies. As one example, nine private schools reported a higher number of K–12 students participated 

in the free and reduced-price lunch program (S0634) than were enrolled in those grades (S0422). The 

created variable NSLAPP_S, which measures the percentage of K–12 students participating in the 

National School Lunch Program, was truncated to 100 percent for these nine cases. 

Missing Data Can Cause Inconsistencies Across Files 

Consistency edits are applied to survey items for each questionnaire, but there are some cases in which 

the inconsistencies cannot be resolved. For example, on the private school teacher data file, if the school 

did not respond to the 2003–04 SASS, but one or more teachers did respond, the school’s program type 

(PGMTYPE), typology (TYPOLOGY), affiliation (AFF_99), affiliation stratum (STRATA), and 

religious classification (RELIG) may have inconsistent data. When the school questionnaire is not filled 

out, assumptions are made about which type of school it is in order to put that information on the 

principal, teacher, or school library media center data file. It is assumed that the sampling frame 

information is correct. 

Locale Codes Based on 1990 and 2000 Census Geography 

The locale codes that exist on the 2003–04 SASS data files are based upon the geographic concepts used 

in the 1990 and 2000 Decennial Censuses. (SLOCP_99 uses the 1990 Census metropolitan areas, and 

SLOCP_03 and URBANS03 use the 2000 Census metropolitan areas.) That is, while the district 

classifications reported in the locale codes are based on the Census Bureau’s annual update, the specific 

categories reported in the 2003–04 SASS and how these categories are defined are based, respectively, 

upon the 1990 or 2000 set of definitions for central city, urban fringe of large or medium-sized central 

city, large or small town, and rural areas either inside a metropolitan area or outside a metropolitan area. 

Over time, how metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas are defined has evolved. The 1990 Decennial 

Census geographic areas were based upon countywide definitions of metropolitan or nonmetropolitan 

areas. By the 2000 Census, urban and rural classifications were based on a subcounty level. In 2003, the 

Office of Management and Budget changed the terminology, replacing “central city” with “principal city” 

and “Standardized Metropolitan Statistical Area” (SMSA) with “Core-based Statistical Area” (CBSA). 

However, these newer terms and locale codes could not be used in the 2003–04 SASS because the 2003 

geographic classification of schools or school districts had not been completely implemented into the 

Common Core of Data (CCD) or the Private School Universe Survey (PSS), which serve as the sampling 

frames for SASS, by the time the 2003–04 SASS data were being processed. Since then, the 2003–04 

CCD and 2003–04 PSS have incorporated a new set of 12-level locale codes. 

Departmentalized and Elementary Enrichment Teachers With No 

Reported Classes (T0076) 

On the 2003–04 SASS teacher data files (public, private, and BIA), respondents with departmentalized 

and elementary enrichment classes were asked to report the number of separate classes (or sections) they 

currently teach (Q18, T0076). For each class (or section), they were to provide detailed information on 

the subject, grade level, and enrollment of each class (Q19). Of all departmentalized and elementary 

enrichment teachers, a total of 26 teachers reported teaching no classes in question 18. No edit was done 
Chapter 12. User Notes and Cautions 217 

on teachers reporting zero classes and question 18 was not imputed for any of the 26 teachers (F_T0076 = 

0). Since all teachers in the SASS sample should be teaching in some capacity, this is an anomaly of 

which users should be aware. These teachers differ on a variety of characteristics, including sector, 

classroom organization, employment status, main assignment, teacher and school level, and urbanicity. 

For example, of the 26 teachers 

• nineteen are departmentalized and seven are elementary enrichment; and 

• twenty-one come from public schools, four from private schools, and one from a BIA-funded 

school. 

These teachers have been included in analyses done by the National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES). Researchers who choose to exclude them will produce slightly different estimates. 

Leading Spaces on Character Variables 

Several character variables on the 2003–04 SASS data files have been formatted with leading spaces: 

SC_NEID and the teacher grade-level codes (T0078, T0081, T0084, T0087, T0090, T0093, T0096, 

T0099, T0102, and T0105). This occurs only on the extracted SPSS files and not the SAS or Stata files. 

When using these variables to run an analysis in SPSS involving a restriction on the type of cases to 

include (e.g., “select if” or “filter by” statements), users will need to either enter the leading space(s) in 

the syntax or recode the variable(s) to remove the spaces. The following code demonstrates how to recode 

character variables with leading spaces. 

The single character grade-level codes (1–9 and K) contain one leading space. The following sample code 

demonstrates how to recode these variables using T0078 as an example: 

RECODE T0078 (' 1'='1') (' 2'='2') (' 3'='3') (' 4'='4') (' 5'='5') (' 6'='6') (' 7'='7') (' 8'='8') (' 9'='9') 

(' K' = 'K') 

Cases assigned a valid skip on SC_NEID contain 10 leading spaces before the -8 value. Use the following 

code to recode this variable: 

RECODE SC_NEID (' -8'='-8'). 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
219 

References 

Efron, B. (1982). The Jackknife, the Bootstrap, and Other Resampling Plans. Philadelphia: SIAM. 

Forsman, G., and Schreiner, I. (1991). The Design and Analysis of Reinterview: An Overview. In P. 

Biemer, R. Groves, L. Lyberg, N. Mathiewetz, and S. Sudman (Eds.), Measurement Errors in Surveys

(pp. 279–301). New York: John Wiley & Sons. 

Kaufman, S. (1992). Balanced Half-sample Replication with Aggregation Units. 1992 Proceedings of the 

Section on Survey Research Methods (pp. 440–445). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical 

Association. 

Kaufman, S. (1993). A Bootstrap Variance Estimator for the Schools and Staffing Survey. 1993 

Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods (pp. 675–680). Alexandria, VA: American 

Statistical Association. 

Kaufman, S. (1994). Properties of the Schools and Staffing Survey’s Bootstrap Variance Estimator. 1994 

Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods (pp. 1116–1121). Alexandria, VA: American 

Statistical Association. 

Kaufman, S. (1998). A Bootstrap Variance Estimator for Systematic PPS Sampling. 1998 Proceedings of 

the Section on Survey Research Methods (pp. 769–774). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical 

Association. 

Kaufman, S. (2001). A New Model for Estimating the Variance under Systematic Sampling. 2001 

Proceedings of the American Statistical Association. Survey Research Methods Section [CD-ROM]. 

Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. 

Kaufman, S. (2002). Using the Bootstrap in a Two-Stage Nested Complex Sample Design. 2002 

Proceedings of the American Statistical Association (pp. 1776–1781). Survey Research Methods 

Section [CD-ROM]. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. 

Kaufman, S. (2003). The Efficiency of the Bootstrap under a Locally Random Assumption for Systematic 

Samples. 2003 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association (pp. 2097–2102). Survey 

Research Methods Section [CD-ROM]. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. 

Kaufman, S. (2004). Using the Bootstrap in a Two-Stage Sample Design When Some Second-Stage 

Strata Only Have One Unit Allocated. 2004 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association (pp. 

3766–3773). Survey Research Methods Section [CD-ROM]. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical 

Association. 

Research Triangle Institute. (2001). User Manual, Release 8.0. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research 

Triangle Institute. 

Sitter, R.R. (1990). Comparing Three Bootstrap Methods for Survey Data (Tech. Rep. No. 152). Ottawa, 

Canada: Carleton University, Laboratory for Research in Statistics and Probability. 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
A-1 

Appendix A. Key Terms for SASS 

The following terms are defined as they apply to the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). 

Affiliation stratum. SASS uses 17 categories into which all private schools are divided based on 

religious or nonreligious orientation/affiliation. These categories are Catholic—Parochial, Catholic—

Diocesan, Catholic—Private, Amish, Assembly of God, Baptist, Episcopal, Jewish, Lutheran Church—

Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Mennonite, Pentecostal, Seventh-Day 

Adventist, Other Religious, Nonsectarian—Regular, Nonsectarian—Special Emphasis, and 

Nonsectarian—Special Education. 

Base weight. This is the inverse of the probability of selection including all sampling, the inverse of the 

initial probability of selection (termed the initial basic weight), subsampling, or adjustments to the 

probability of selection due to schools determined to be splits or mergers during field operations. These 

adjustments to the initial probability of selection are called the sampling adjustment factor. The base 

weight is defined as the product of the initial basic weight and the sampling adjustment factor. 

Capacity. The SASS questionnaires do not provide a definition for this term. A general definition is the 

number of students a building can accommodate without being considered overcrowded. 

Certification. A license or certificate awarded to teachers either by the state or by another accrediting or 

certifying body to teach in a public or private school. The SASS surveys include five types of certification 

granted by the state: regular or standard state certification or advanced professional certificate; 

probationary certificate—issued after satisfying all requirements except the completion of a probationary 

period; provisional or other type of certificate given to persons who are still participating in what the state 

calls an “alternative certification program”; temporary certification—requires some additional college 

coursework, student teaching, and/or passage of a test before regular certification can be obtained; and 

waiver or emergency certificate—issued to persons with insufficient teacher preparation who must 

complete a regular certification program in order to continue teaching. 

Common Core of Data (CCD). CCD is the Department of Education’s primary database on public 

elementary and secondary education in the United States. CCD is a comprehensive, annual, national 

statistical database of all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts, and contains data 

that are designed to be comparable across all states. The objectives of CCD are twofold: first, to provide 

an official listing of public elementary and secondary schools and school districts in the nation, which can 

be used to select samples for other National Center for Education Statistics surveys; and second, to 

provide basic information and descriptive statistics on public elementary and secondary schools and 

schooling in general. 

Content area. This term is not defined in the SASS questionnaires. A general definition is a division or 

field of organized knowledge, such as English or mathematics. 

Distance learning. The SASS School Library Media Center Questionnaire defines distance learning as 

programs in which lessons are taught via television, satellite, or computer network. 
A-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS). A longitudinal survey commissioned by the National 

Center for Education Statistics that is designed to monitor the transition of a national sample of young 

people as they progress from 10th grade through high school and on to postsecondary education and/or the 

world of work. ELS will follow the progress of a cohort of high school students over time with the goal of 

explaining how their earlier aspirations, achievement, and high school situation affect their postsecondary 

school lives. 

Final weight. This is the product of the initial basic weight, sampling adjustment factor, separate 

adjustments for nonresponse at each stage of selection, and one or more stages of ratio adjustment to the 

frame or to independent sources. The final weight is used to produce weighted estimates from the survey 

data. See chapter 9 for details of the weighting procedure. 

FIPS. FIPS stands for Federal Information Processing Standards and refers to a variety of codes for 

standardized reference. FIPS county and state codes are developed by the National Institute for Standards 

and Technology (NIST) as numeric identifiers for each county and state in the United States; state codes 

are listed in the codebooks, while the county codes may be looked up in NIST publications. (For more 

information go to www.nist.gov.) 

Full-time equivalent (FTE). Full-time equivalent (FTE) quantifies school district and school staff 

positions in proportion to a full-time position. For example, if a full-time teacher works 35 hours per 

week in school district X, then a teacher who works 21 hours would have an FTE of 0.6 in that school 

district. 

Free or reduced-price lunches. A federally funded program to aid schools in providing an adequate 

lunch at school. Schools are reimbursed to provide meals to students, either free or for a reduced price. 

See the description of the National School Lunch Program. 

Individual Education Plan (IEP). An Individual Education Plan (IEP) is required for all students with 

an identified disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Each public school 

child who receives special education and related services must have an IEP. Each IEP must be designed 

for one student and must be a truly individualized document. The IEP creates an opportunity for teachers, 

parents, school administrators, related services personnel, and students (when appropriate) to work 

together to improve educational results for children with disabilities. 

Initial basic weight. This is the inverse of the probability of selection from the initial sampling 

procedure. In contrast, the base weight is the inverse of the probability of selection covering all sampling, 

including any subsampling or adjustments to the probability of selection due to schools determined to be 

splits or mergers during field operations. 

Librarian. A librarian is a school staff member whose main responsibility is taking care of the school’s 

library. 

Library expenditures. Expenditures for information resources are divided into five categories: books, 

video materials, CD-ROM titles, current subscriptions in any format, and electronic databases. The SASS 

School Library Media Center Questionnaire also asks for total expenditures for all information resources, 

which may be greater than the sum of the five categories. Other types of library expenditures may include 

a professional collection, computer hardware and other communications equipment, and other audiovisual equipment. Expenditures may vary greatly from one administration of SASS to the next, due to the 

receipt of grants or gifts by school library media centers. 
Appendix A. Key Terms for SASS A-3

Library media center. A library media center is an organized collection of printed, and/or audio-visual, 

and/or computer resources that (a) is administered as a unit, (b) is located in a designated place or places, 

and (c) makes resources and services available to students, teachers, and administrators. A library media 

center may be called a library, media center, resource center, information center, instructional materials 

center, learning resource center, or some other name. 

Library media specialist. A library media specialist is a school professional staff member who is statecertified in the field of library media. 

Limited-English Proficiency. The SASS school questionnaires define limited-English-proficient (LEP) 

students as students whose native or dominant language is other than English and who have sufficient 

difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language as to deny them the 

opportunity to learn successfully in an English-speaking-only classroom. LEP students can be taught 

subject matter courses in a variety of methods such as using their native language; in English as a Second 

Language (ESL), bilingual, or immersion classes; and in English-only classrooms. 

Local education agency (LEA). An LEA, or public school district, is a government agency that employs 

elementary or secondary teachers and is administratively responsible for providing public elementary or 

secondary instruction and educational support services. To be considered an LEA in SASS, the 

organization must be responsible for hiring and firing teachers and setting teacher salaries. Additionally, 

the organization should have a role in setting teacher and administrator professional development and 

training priorities. 

Major or minor. A field of study in which an individual has taken substantial academic coursework, 

implying that the individual has substantial knowledge of the academic discipline or subject area. 

Missing data. SASS is a fully imputed dataset. Consequently, the only survey items that lack responses 

are either those that are part of a skip pattern and should not have been answered by a particular 

respondent or write-in responses, which include data too specific to reasonably impute from another 

respondent’s data. Data pulled from the frame (i.e., the Common Core of Data or the Private School 

Universe Survey) are not necessarily imputed for missing data. In these instances, a value of -9, indicating 

missing data, is provided for that variable. 

National School Lunch Program. The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally assisted 

meal program operating in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions. It 

provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day. School districts and 

independent schools that choose to take part in the lunch program receive cash subsidies and donated 

commodities from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for each meal they serve. In return, they must serve 

lunches that meet federal requirements, and they must offer free or reduced-price lunches to eligible 

children. School food authorities can also be reimbursed for snacks served to children through age 18 in 

afterschool educational or enrichment programs. 

National School Lunch Program, Approved. To be approved for a free or reduced-price lunch, a 

student must meet the income eligibility requirements and must be enrolled in a school or district that 

participates in the National School Lunch Program. In addition, the student’s family must fill out an 

enrollment form to apply for a free or a reduced-price lunch. 

Private School Universe Survey (PSS). PSS is a biennial survey designed to collect data from all K–12 

private schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is the universe from which the sample for 

the private school component of SASS is selected. 
A-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Salary schedule. The SASS questionnaires do not provide a definition. A general definition is a listing of 

teacher salary levels offered by the school or district on which a teacher’s salary is based. The schedule is 

often based on years of experience and degrees earned. 

Sampling adjustment factor. In the weighting process for each SASS respondent, the sampling 

adjustment factor is applied to the initial basic weight to account for any additional circumstances 

affecting the probability of selection. The product of the initial basic weight and the sampling adjustment 

factor is the base weight. See the definitions for initial basic weight and base weight. 

School. SASS defines a school slightly differently than the Common Core of Data (CCD). Both consider 

a school to be 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 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 administrations (e.g., 

principals). It is with the definition of “administration” that SASS diverges slightly from the CCD 

definition of a school. For the purposes of SASS, the schools are separate if the grade ranges are 

autonomous from one another. For example, in a case of an elementary school where the principal reports 

to the high school principal who is also the district level superintendent, SASS would consider this one 

school, since the elementary school does not operate independently of the high school. CCD would 

consider these two schools since they have separate administrators. 

School, alternative. Alternative schools serve students whose needs cannot be met in a regular, special 

education, or vocational school. They provide nontraditional education and may serve as an adjunct to a 

regular school. They fall outside of the categories of regular, special education, and vocational education, 

although they may provide similar services or curriculum. Some examples of alternative schools are those 

for potential drop-outs, residential treatment centers for substance abuse (if they provide elementary or 

secondary education), and schools for chronic truants. 

School, high American Indian. High American Indian schools are public schools where 19.5 percent or 

more of the students are American Indian or Alaska Native, as reported in the 2001–02 Common Core of 

Data. This classification was used in stratifying the SASS public school sample in order to improve 

estimates of the American Indian and Alaska Native student population. 

School, Bureau of Indian Affairs-funded (BIA). BIA-funded schools meet all school criteria and are 

funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. These schools may be operated by or under contract with the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian nations, or private entities (e.g., Jesuit orders). Schools are reported as a 

BIA-funded school by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and offer services to Indian students. These may 

include day schools, boarding schools, previously private schools, cooperative schools, and contract 

schools. 

School, charter. A public 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 regulations. A public 

charter school may be a newly created school or it may previously have been a public or private school. 

School, combined. A school is classified as combined if it has one or more of grades K–6 and one or 

more of grades 9–12; for example, schools with grades K–12, 6–12, 6–9, or 1–12 were classified as 

having combined grades. Schools in which all students are ungraded (i.e., not classified by standard grade 

levels) are also classified as combined. 
Appendix A. Key Terms for SASS A-5

School, elementary. A school is classified as elementary if it has one or more of grades K–6 and does not 

have any grade higher than grade 8; for example, schools with grades K–6, 1–3, or 6–8 are classified as 

elementary. Schools with only kindergarten or prekindergarten were not included in the survey. 

School, private. A private school is a school that is not supported primarily by public funds (i.e., it is not 

a public school). It must provide instruction for one or more of grades 1 through 12 (or comparable 

ungraded levels) and have one or more teachers. Organizations or institutions that provide support for 

homeschooling but do not offer classroom instruction for students are not included. 

School, public. A public school meets all school criteria; has an assigned principal or acting principal; 

receives public funding as primary support; provides free public elementary and/or secondary schooling 

to eligible students; and is operated by a local education agency or a contracted education program. 

• Also includes domestic Department of Defense schools. 

• Is considered a school by the state (or in the case of California and Pennsylvania by the county 

education office) in which it is located. 

School, secondary. A school is classified as secondary if it has one or more of grades 7–12 and does not 

have any grade lower than grade 7; for example, schools with grades 9–12, 7–9, 10–12, or 7–8 are 

classified as secondary. 

School, special education. Special education schools provide educational services to students with 

special physical or mental needs; that is, students with mental handicaps (e.g., mental retardation or 

autism), physical handicaps (e.g., hearing impairment), or learning disabilities (e.g., dyslexia). 

School, traditional public. Traditional public schools are the subset of all public schools that are not 

public charter schools. They include regular, special education, vocational/technical, and alternative 

schools. They also include schools in juvenile detention centers, domestic schools located on military 

bases and operated by the Department of Defense, and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools 

operated by local public school districts. See also the definitions for public and public charter schools. 

School, vocational. Vocational schools primarily serve students who are being trained for semi-skilled or 

technical occupations. 

Teacher. A teacher is any full-time or part-time school staff member who teaches one or more regularly 

scheduled classes in any of grades K–12 (or comparable ungraded levels).1

 In addition to regular full-time 

teachers, the following types of teachers are also included: 

1. itinerant teachers; 

2. long-term substitutes who fill the role of a regular teacher on a long-term basis; 

3. administrators, counselors, librarians, and other professional or support staff who teach any 

regularly scheduled classes; and 

4. other part-time teachers. 

Short-term substitute teachers and student teachers are not included. 

 

1

 This definition differs from the one used for the 1987–88 and 1990–91 administrations of SASS. In those surveys, 

a teacher was defined as a school staff member whose primary assignment was teaching in any of grades K–12. 

School staff whose primary assignment was something other than teaching were excluded, even if they taught some 

regularly scheduled classes. 
A-6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Teacher, itinerant. An itinerant teacher teaches at more than one school; for example, a music teacher 

who teaches 3 days per week at one school and 2 days per week at another. 

Teachers, newly hired. Newly hired teachers are teachers who were hired by a public school district, 

public charter school, private school, or BIA-funded school for the 2003–04 school year. They included 

teachers returning from an unpaid leave of absence of one school year or more, but not short-term 

substitute teachers. 

Title I. The SASS school questionnaires define Title I as a federally funded program that provides 

educational services, such as remedial reading or remedial mathematics, to children who live in areas with 

high concentrations of low-income families. Title I can be administered as a targeted assistance or schoolwide program. A targeted assistance Title I program provides categorical funding to specific students 

identified as in need of assistance. A schoolwide Title I program refers to schools that use Title I funds to 

improve the effectiveness of the entire school. 

Typology, private school. Private schools were assigned to one of three major categories (i.e., Catholic, 

other religious, and nonsectarian). Within each of these major categories, three additional subcategories 

were assigned. As a result, two typology-based variables exist on the private sector data files; a “3-level 

typology” (RELIG) and a “9-level typology” (TYPOLOGY). The categories and subcategories are 

1. Catholic—parochial, diocesan, and private; 

2. Other religious—conservative Christian, affiliated with a religious school association, and not 

affiliated with a religious school association; and 

3. Nonsectarian—regular, special program emphasis, and special education.2

Ungraded students. Ungraded students are those who are not assigned to a particular grade level 

(kindergarten, 1st grade, 2nd grade, etc.); for example, special education centers and alternative schools 

often classify their students as ungraded. Students in Montessori schools are also considered ungraded if 

the school assigns them to “primary” and “intermediate” levels instead of specific grades. 

Valid skip. An item that was not applicable due to a response to a previous item on the same 

questionnaire and was provided with a value of -8, indicating a valid skip. Certain survey items direct 

respondents to skip subsequent items based on their answers to the original item, or stem. For instance, if 

a respondent answered “No” to item 8a on the School Questionnaire (“Does this school have a 

kindergarten?”), he or she was directed to skip items 8b and 8c (respectively, “How long is the school day 

for a kindergarten student?” and “How many days per week does a kindergarten student attend?”) and to 

“GO TO item 9 below.” Because the respondent answered that the school in question does not have a 

kindergarten, subsequent questions about kindergarten students at that school were not applicable. In 

instances when an item should not have been answered by the respondent, a value of -8, which designates 

a valid skip, is applied to that variable(s). 

 

2

 For more complete information, see NCES 92-082, Diversity of Private Schools, by Marilyn M. McMillen and 

Peter Benson, at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs92/92082.pdf. 
B-1 

Appendix B. Questionnaire Availability 

Online, Downloadable PDF Files 

Questionnaires for every data collection component in every survey cycle since the first 1987–88 Schools 

and Staffing Survey (SASS) and the first 1988–89 Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) are available online 

as downloadable PDF files at 

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/questionnaire.asp

Select the survey year of interest and then proceed to select the specific questionnaire to browse or 

download. The Teacher Listing Form is the form that gathers the data used to select the teacher sample. 

While no data for this form are reported publicly, the questionnaire form is available on the SASS website 

only for those interested in survey methodology. 

In general, as the 4-year survey cycle advances toward the next data collection, the questionnaires will be 

posted online as they are finalized and sent to the printer. That is generally about 2 months prior to the 

data collection phase of the survey cycle. The next survey cycle is planned for the 2007–08 school year. 

The portable document format (PDF) files of the questionnaires are also available on the 2003–04 Schools 

and Staffing Survey (SASS) CD-ROM with Electronic Codebook. All of the 2003–04 SASS questionnaires 

are available on the restricted-use version (NCES 2007-313). No public-use version of the ECB will be 

produced. 

All of the SASS and TFS questionnaires are in the public domain. All survey items may be copied by 

anyone who wishes to use them in another survey, without any restrictions. 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
C-1 

Appendix C. Report on 2001–02 SASS Pretest and 

Recommendations for 2003–04 SASS 

This appendix contains a report prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, and it is organized as follows. 

Purpose of the Pretest ......................................................................................................................... C-2

Overview of Pretest Operations.......................................................................................................... C-2

Detailed Methodology........................................................................................................................ C-3

School Sample ............................................................................................................................. C-4

Materials Developed and Tested.................................................................................................. C-4

Evaluation .................................................................................................................................... C-5

Summary of Results and Recommendations...................................................................................... C-5

Findings: Timing ................................................................................................................................ C-5

Timing of Data Collection ........................................................................................................... C-5

Timing of Work on Processing Specifications ............................................................................ C-6

Findings: Data Quality of Teacher Listing Form ............................................................................... C-6

Investigation of Definitional Problem Schools............................................................................ C-8

Findings: Data Quality of School, Principal, School Library Media Center, and Teacher 

Questionnaires.................................................................................................................................... C-8

School Questionnaires ................................................................................................................. C-8

Principal Questionnaires ............................................................................................................ C-10

School Library Media Center Questionnaires............................................................................ C-11

Teacher Questionnaires.............................................................................................................. C-12

Findings: Pretest Response Rates..................................................................................................... C-14

Findings: Costs................................................................................................................................. C-15

Notes from the Supervisors’ SASS Debriefing ................................................................................ C-16

Staffing....................................................................................................................................... C-16

Controlling Work....................................................................................................................... C-16

Cost ............................................................................................................................................ C-17

Training...................................................................................................................................... C-17

Timing........................................................................................................................................ C-17

Regional Office Correspondence............................................................................................... C-18

Comments from SASS Field Representative Debriefing Conference.............................................. C-18

Scheduling and Principal Visit................................................................................................... C-18

Materials Other Than Forms...................................................................................................... C-19

NCES Badge (I.D.) .................................................................................................................... C-20

Response Rates .......................................................................................................................... C-20

Interviewer Time per School ..................................................................................................... C-20

Training...................................................................................................................................... C-21

Forms ......................................................................................................................................... C-22
C-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Purpose of the Pretest 

The 1999–2000 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) began with sending questionnaires by mail to 

selected schools. Nonrespondents were contacted first by telephone, using the computer-assisted 

telephone interviewing (CATI) instrument for all forms except the Teacher Listing Form, and ultimately 

by Census Bureau field staff. The 2001–02 Pretest featured a new data collection methodology, in which 

the initial contact with the school and all subsequent follow-up were conducted during personal visits by 

Census Bureau field staff. The purpose of the Pretest was to see if this new approach would be more 

timely, yield a higher response rate, improve data quality, and decrease costs. 

Overview of Pretest Operations 

Field operations for the Pretest began on October 1, 2001, and were completed by March 29, 2002. The 

Pretest was conducted with the assumption that personal visits to the schools by Census Bureau field 

representatives from the beginning of the survey would build relationships with schools; this would result 

in similar or better response rates in a more timely manner than the past collection methods of mailout, 

CATI follow-up, and field follow-up. The Pretest had several objectives, as follows: 

• to use all information from the test to decide the best methods for data collection in the next fullscale SASS; 

• to estimate the costs of using field staff in the full-scale SASS, using this new approach; 

• to develop and test field materials and procedures that would be used with this approach; 

• to observe effects on the schools’ willingness to respond; and 

• to test two methods of teacher sampling and data collection. 

o Teacher Listing Forms were sent to the Census Bureau clerical processing staff, where 

sampling took place. The clerical processing staff labeled and mailed forms to respondents at 

schools. Field representatives conducted nonresponse follow-up in the spring. 

o Field representatives selected teachers from the Teacher Listing Form, filled in the cover 

page of questionnaires, and conducted interviews in the fall. 

The Pretest included two phases and two methods of teacher sampling and data collection. The first phase 

involved visiting 357 schools in the areas surrounding the Seattle, Atlanta, and Denver Census Bureau 

Regional Offices to complete the Teacher Listing Form, the appropriate questionnaires for schools and 

principals, and the school library media center questionnaire. In the first method of teacher sampling and 

data collection, the field representatives themselves sampled teachers from the Teacher Listing Form at 

half of the schools and left the appropriate teacher questionnaires for the selected teachers to complete. 

The field representatives either collected all the forms for the school at the end of this initial visit or made 

arrangements to either pick up completed forms at a later time or have them mailed to the Regional 

Office. The schools that did not have their teachers sampled on site received the second method for 

teacher sampling and data collection, and they were instructed to send their Teacher Listing Forms to the 

Census Bureau clerical processing staff for the teacher sample selection. The first phase was scheduled 

for completion on November 21, 2001, but the Regional Offices found that they could not meet this 

deadline with adequate response rates on all forms. Therefore, after consultations at a previously 

scheduled debriefing session, the Regional Offices were given until January 28, 2002, to complete this 

phase of the Pretest. 

The second phase began on November 29, 2001, when the Census Bureau clerical processing staff made 

the initial mailout of the appropriate teacher questionnaires to the sampled teachers at their schools. Field 

follow-up of the nonresponding teachers began on February 5, 2002, and was completed on March 29, 

2002. 
Appendix C. Report on 2001–02 SASS Pretest and Recommendations for 2003–04 SASS C-3 

Detailed Methodology 

In order to determine whether or not the proposed data collection methodology would be beneficial, the 

Pretest needed to be conducted in a sufficient number of schools. A total of 357 schools in three Regional 

Offices were chosen. The characteristics of the schools included in the Pretest were designed to be 

representative of the national SASS sample. For example, an appropriate mix of large and small schools, 

urban and rural schools, and schools from groups or affiliations that were less or more likely to respond to 

SASS were used in this Pretest. In addition, the workloads given to the 21 field representatives were to 

approximate what each field representative would normally receive during a full-scale SASS, which was 

approximately 17 schools each. For half of the schools, field representatives sampled teachers in the field. 

Detailed procedures and training were prepared for field staff to accomplish the work using the new data 

collection procedures. Field representatives’ visits to schools were observed and, in addition, field 

representatives kept detailed logs documenting the time they spent and the activities they accomplished 

during the Pretest. 

Staff followed the procedures outlined below. 

1. Regional Office staff and field representatives were trained using training developed by Census 

Bureau headquarters staff: 

o Three supervisors traveled to headquarters for a 1-day training session. 

o Field representatives completed a 6-hour self-study. 

2. Schools were mailed an advance letter in September 2001. 

3. Field representatives contacted schools and made appointments. They selected a sample of 

teachers in designated schools and distributed questionnaires, logged all time and travel required 

for contact and visits, and documented what worked and what did not. They visited each school to 

o verify status of the school and find out if any actions with the school district or county were 

required before data collection could begin (contacting their supervisor for instructions on 

how to handle split or merged schools); 

o drop off (or complete on-the-spot) the Teacher Listing Form, the appropriate questionnaires 

for principals and schools, and the school library media center questionnaire; 

o present critical school staff with SASS objectives and timetable; 

o go over appropriate grade ranges to report for that school; 

o complete a form that designates the contact name, phone number, e-mail address, and 

location of the staff member responsible for filling out each questionnaire; 

o discuss plan for contacting selected teachers and document details; and 

o meet with each contact and document plan for completing questionnaire (this may include 

getting a listing of teachers from school in lieu of filling out the Teacher Listing Form). 

4. Field representatives attempted to arrange three or four of these visits in a 2-day period. 

Observers from the Census Bureau, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and the 

Education Statistics Services Institute sometimes accompanied field representatives to these 

schools. 

5. Field representatives conducted telephone follow-up to check on the status of forms. Depending 

on circumstances, a field representative may have decided to 

o conduct telephone interviews to complete forms; or 
C-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

o make another visit to the school to pick up completed forms and/or complete remaining forms 

in person. 

6. In general, follow-up efforts continued until the Regional Office achieved response rates greater 

than or equal to the 1999–2000 national response rates. 

7. Again, field representatives logged all time and travel required for contact and visits (if any), and 

documented what worked and what did not. 

8. For schools that had their teachers sampled by Census Bureau clerical processing staff, 

questionnaires were mailed to teachers in November. The Regional Offices mailed second 

questionnaires to nonresponding teachers in January 2002. Field representatives conducted 

nonresponse follow-up beginning in February. Again, field representatives logged all time and 

travel required for contact and visits (if any), and documented what worked and what did not. 

9. Census Bureau clerical processing staff keyed all Teacher Listing Forms. 

School Sample 

The 1999–2000 sampling programs were rerun with a different start, resulting in a new sample of 

approximately 14,000 public and private schools. Using the Regional Office code, schools were extracted 

in the three test Regional Offices. Field staff looked over the lists of schools and selected field 

representatives to work on the test, including experienced field representatives, some of whom had 

worked on SASS (just as in a full-scale SASS). Field staff, along with Census Bureau analysts and 

sampling staff, selected schools by hand so that each field representative had a realistic SASS workload. 

The sampling staff attempted to include schools with the following characteristics: 

• urban and rural; 

• large and small student enrollment; 

• some schools with definitional issues; and 

• private schools with different affiliations (if it is decided to include these schools). 

Within each field representative’s workload, like-kind schools were matched, with one designated for 

field representative sampling and the other for sampling by Census Bureau clerical processing staff. 

Materials Developed and Tested 

• Advance letter to school. This letter included the Regional Office 800-telephone number to call 

with any questions. Regional Office staff referred questions to Census Bureau analysts as 

necessary. 

• Field representative manual. This included sections on overview of procedures, initial visit to 

school, teacher sampling procedures, follow-up procedures, and detailed instructions on 

questionnaires (for each of the principal, school, school library media center, and teacher 

questionnaires). 

• Field supervisor training. This 1-day training consisted of individual presentations, mostly based 

on the field representative manual. 

• Field representative self-study. This self-study training was provided to all field representatives 

and took between 6 and 12 hours to complete. 

• Action flowchart for initial visit. This flowchart provided a list of scenarios and solutions to cover 

out-of-scope schools, school district and county issues, and issues with the school’s grade range. 
Appendix C. Report on 2001–02 SASS Pretest and Recommendations for 2003–04 SASS C-5 

• School contacts form. There was a control form for each questionnaire that the field 

representative used to record contact information about the respondent for that questionnaire. 

• Time and actions log. These logs were for field representatives to record their actions and the 

time spent at each school. 

Evaluation 

The evaluation of the proposed methodology was to be based on debriefing sessions in December, cost 

analysis, observation reports, field representative logs, response rates, and examination of completed 

questionnaires. 

Summary of Results and Recommendations 

After reviewing the Pretest results, the methods used in the Pretest were recommended for adoption for 

the 2003–04 SASS. The results are summarized briefly below. The sections following the summary 

provide a detailed discussion of the results. The final two sections, “Notes from the Supervisors’ SASS 

Debriefing” and “Comments from SASS Field Representative Debriefing Conference,” contain the 

summary of feedback obtained from Regional Office staff and field representatives, respectively, at a 

centralized debriefing session conducted December 3 and 4, 2001, in Colorado Springs, Colorado. 

Timing. The survey products could be completed 6 to 8 months earlier by using the new methods. Data 

collection would begin in October 2003 and be completed by February 2004, that is, 4 months earlier than 

the previous SASS. Staff could begin working on processing specifications 4 months earlier if the work 

involved in preparing the CATI instruments were eliminated. 

Response. The response rates on the Pretest were lower than the rates achieved on the 1999–2000 SASS 

at the school level, but higher at the teacher level. The lower school-level rates occurred because several 

schools that may have participated in a full-scale SASS refused to participate in the Pretest. Field staff 

anticipated that response would at least be maintained at the same level and would probably improve in 

the future when SASS is a full production survey rather than a Pretest. 

Data Quality. As with response rates, the Pretest did not demonstrate a clear improvement in data quality. 

However, there were indications that the Teacher Listing Form data were less problematic and that a few 

items on the other SASS questionnaires may have had better item response rates than previously. 

Findings: Timing 

Timing of Data Collection 

Census Bureau field division staff requested that the three participating regions preselect a group of field 

representatives to participate in the SASS Pretest. Census Bureau sampling staff selected a full sample of 

schools using the 1999–2000 sampling frame, and then used the field representatives’ physical location as 

a basis for selecting the specific sample of schools. (This will not be repeated for the full-scale SASS.) 

The field representative training guide was written during the summer of 2001 and consisted of a selfstudy only (no classroom session). This training package will be used as the basis for the training used for 

the full-scale 2003–04 SASS. 

The fall of 2001 time frame for the SASS Pretest appeared to work well despite heavy survey demands 

that faced the Regional Offices for other one-time projects that occurred concurrently. Originally, data 

collection was planned to start in mid-September, but because of the events of September 11, 2001, this 
C-6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

was delayed roughly by 2 weeks. In addition, the school district portion of SASS was not conducted as 

part of the Pretest, and sometimes when the district participates the schools feel that they have 

“permission” to participate as well. For this reason, some schools chose not to participate but said they 

would have participated if it had been a full-scale SASS. A key timing element for the full-scale SASS 

will be school district contact and approval prior to initial school visits. 

Fieldwork for the questionnaires assigned in the fall was scheduled to be completed by November 21, 

2001. In fact, staff needed additional time to complete the work, because several schools or respondents 

were unwilling to participate in the survey during the first several weeks, and additional follow-up efforts 

were needed. In order to achieve adequate response rates, the Regional Offices were given until January 

28, 2002, to complete this phase of the Pretest. Field staff members were confident that a time frame of 

October through February is achievable. Under the mailout/CATI/field methods used in previous rounds 

of SASS, data collection continued up until schools closed for the summer. 

An element that will improve timing in the future is the conversion to Regional Office Sample Control 

(ROSCO). In the Pretest, staff developed an MS Access database for Regional Office staff to use in 

controlling assignments. While the system contained all of the relevant information, the system did not 

have “real-time” links directly to the field representatives to monitor work. The Regional Offices only 

knew whether a completed questionnaire had been received. Supervisors had to contact field 

representatives to determine the status of work not yet received, making it difficult for the supervisors to 

monitor the progress of field representatives. ROSCO will provide all field staff with the current status of 

all assigned questionnaires, allowing for more proactive supervision. 

Timing of Work on Processing Specifications 

Under the mailout/CATI/field methods used in previous rounds of SASS, Census Bureau analysts first 

worked on preparing all procedures for the mailout activities that began at the start of the school year. 

From September through January 2001, staff prepared the CATI instruments and procedures. Staff began 

working on the SASS processing system in February 2001. By eliminating CATI, staff would be able to 

begin work on processing specifications in the fall months, which was expected to accelerate processing 

activities by approximately 4 months. 

Findings: Data Quality of Teacher Listing Form 

Census Bureau sampling staff reviewed the Teacher Listing Forms that were completed in the Pretest to 

determine if the quality of these forms differed from the quality of the forms completed during the 1999–

2000 SASS. Table C-1 displays the results of this review in terms of the number of errors found. 
Appendix C. Report on 2001–02 SASS Pretest and Recommendations for 2003–04 SASS C-7 

Table C-1. Number of errors found in Teacher Listing Forms, by sampling procedure: 2001–02 

Teaching listing outcome and 

type of error Total

Number sampled by Census 

 Bureau clerical processing staff 

Number sampled 

by field staff

 Total Teacher Listing Forms reviewed 357 180 177

Refusals 38 17 21

Out-of-scope 12 6 6

Types of errors 

 Grade range incomplete 10 6 4

 Grade range missing 2 0 2

 Subject incomplete 3 0 3

 Subject missing 2 1 1

 Subject and grade range inconsistent 3 2 1

 Teaching status incomplete 1 0 1

 Teaching status incorrect 2 0 2

 Teaching status missing 2 1 1

 Ethnicity missing 6 1 5

 Experience incomplete 2 2 0

 Experience incorrect 1 1 0

 ESL incorrect 8 4 4

 Teachers from wrong grade ranges 3 2 1

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 2001–02 Pretest. 

Since some Teacher Listing Forms contained more than one type of error, in general approximately 90 

percent of the forms appeared to be error free. This compared favorably with 1999–2000, when 

approximately 80 percent of all the sample schools’ forms contained no error. 

A few of these errors are worth discussing further. Eight schools reported all or nearly all of their teachers 

as English as a Second Language (ESL)/Bilingual. It is not clear whether or not this situation can 

realistically happen. Further investigation is needed to determine if these ESL/Bilingual teachers 

classified themselves as such on the teacher questionnaire. If there is some confusion, the Census Bureau 

would recommend revising the wording of the form. In addition, only three of the potential definitional 

problem schools reported teachers covering the wrong grade range, which represents approximately 5 

percent of the potential definitional problem schools. The incidence of this is much reduced from the 

1999–2000 SASS, when an approximate minimum of 10 percent of the schools with a potential problem 

with their grade range reported the wrong grade range initially. Consequently, the new procedure of 

having the field representative meet with a school official to discuss the grade range issue resulted in a 

considerable improvement in the quality of the Teacher Listing Form reporting for the definitional 

problem schools. A related problem is found in the two schools that reported teacher status incorrectly. A 

school may have many teachers who are employed full time, but only teach part of the time in the selected 

grade range. This distinction appears to have been made successfully to the affected schools in general, 

with the exception of a few cases. This problem is less severe than reporting teachers who do not teach in 

the selected grade range, since the teacher’s full-time or part-time status does not affect the eligibility of 

teachers for sampling or the probability of selection. 
C-8 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Investigation of Definitional Problem Schools 

Census Bureau sampling staff investigated schools in the Pretest that had potential definitional problems. 

The school questionnaire data were reviewed and compared to the Common Core of Data (CCD) as well 

as to the Teacher Listing Forms. These schools were located in Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and 

South Dakota. Of the 53 schools selected in these states, 2 refused the survey, 3 were out-of-scope, 32 

appear to have reported correctly (i.e., their responses matched the information on CCD), and 16 reported 

incorrectly (enrollment or teacher counts or both). Of the 16 reporting incorrectly, 13 had filled out the 

Teacher Listing Form correctly, and 3 had made the same mistake in filling out the Teacher Listing Form. 

The implication is that about 33 percent of the definitional problem schools are reporting incorrectly on 

the school questionnaire even though most reported correctly on the Teacher Listing Form. This school 

questionnaire error rate is quite high and fairly comparable to the error rate observed for these schools in 

the 1999–2000 SASS. It appears the improvement in the Teacher Listing Form did not extend to the 

school questionnaire. 

One hypothesis was that the field representative initially met with the principal to explain the definitional 

problem, and then another staff member who was unaware of the problem filled out the school 

questionnaire. However, of the 13 schools that reported correctly on the Teacher Listing Form and 

incorrectly on the school questionnaire, at 9 schools the Teacher Listing Form and school questionnaire 

were completed by the same person and only at 3 schools by a different person (for one survey, the 

respondent could not be determined). This compares to the three cases where both forms were completed 

incorrectly, in which two cases were completed by the same respondent and one by a different 

respondent. There appears to be no evidence that the lack of improvement to the school questionnaire was 

due to miscommunication within the responding school. The wording of item 7a—“K–12 enrollment” 

may be problematic for respondents. However, this alone was not entirely the cause, since several 

questionnaires were internally inconsistent; item 3e—“Is the grade range on the cover correct?”—was 

marked “yes” and then item 6—“grades offered”—was marked inconsistently. Additional research needs 

to be undertaken to determine ways to get this particular class of respondents to report the correct grade 

range. 

Findings: Data Quality of School, Principal, School Library Media 

Center, and Teacher Questionnaires 

Staff reviewed most of the completed questionnaires to assess the quality of the data. They first looked at 

how completely the questionnaire was filled out. Next, they tallied item nonresponse and, in most cases, 

compared it to the item nonresponse from the 1999–2000 SASS. For the school and teacher 

questionnaires, they also examined consistency between some of the items on the questionnaire. These 

assessments are presented below for the school, principal, school library media center, and teacher 

questionnaires. 

School Questionnaires 

The majority of the school questionnaires (74 percent) were returned with all of the correct items 

completed (table C-2). Approximately 7 percent of the questionnaires were returned with most of the 

items complete, but with some items left blank because skip patterns were not followed correctly. More 

commonly, there were situations where most of the items were completed but some items were 

intentionally left blank (14 percent). There also existed situations where most of the items were complete, 

while partial sections were left blank (4 percent). Approximately 1 percent of the questionnaires were 

returned partially completed. 
Appendix C. Report on 2001–02 SASS Pretest and Recommendations for 2003–04 SASS C-9 

Table C-2. Number and percentage of school questionnaires, by completeness of questionnaire: 

2001–02 

Completeness of questionnaire Number Percent

 Total 278 100.00

All items complete 207 74.46

Most items complete: blanks due to skip patterns 19 6.83

Most items complete: blank (intentional) 39 14.03

Most items complete: partial (sections) skipped 10 3.60

Partially complete (stopped) 3 1.08

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 2001–02 Pretest. 

In terms of specific item nonresponse, the items that were most commonly left blank were student 

absentee/attendance, race of the students, teacher compensation, student average daily attendance, and 

capacity items (table C-3). Comparing the item nonresponse rates with the 1999–2000 SASS nonresponse 

indicates an increase in the response rate for most of these items (table C-3). For several items a 

comparison was not possible because the response rates for these SASS 1999–2000 items were reduced as 

a result of the imputation process.1

 These item response rates are denoted with a superscript 1. When 

compared to the 1999–2000 SASS response rates, three of the items (graduation, enrollment, and race of 

students) had a lower response rate in the Pretest. 

 

1

 In computing final item response rates, an item is considered “answered” if the imputation flag = 0, meaning no 

changes were made to the item. For some items, respondents had provided an answer, but it was adjusted and given 

an imputation flag. For example, on the school file, enrollment is broken out into categories of race. Many or all of 

these categories may have had an original answer. However, if the sum of these categories did not exactly match 

total enrollment, then many or all of the race categories may have been ratio-adjusted so that the sum would match 

the total. Each of the changed values would receive an imputation flag. No imputation was done to field test data. 
C-10 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table C-3. Item nonresponse (in percent) on school questionnaires in 1999–2000 SASS compared 

with 2001–02 Pretest: 1999–2000 and 2001–02 

Item Frequency

SASS 1999–2000 

response rate

Pretest 2001–02 

response rate Difference

11a Absentee/attendance 14 68.05 1 94.96 26.91

39b Free lunch/reduced lunch 7 82.21 1 97.48 15.27

11b Average daily attendance 10 81.85 1 96.40 14.55

† Teacher compensation 10 82.3 1 96.40 14.10

42 Individual Education Plans (IEPs) 3 85.25 1 98.92 13.67

 

8 Number of male students 1 88.99 99.64 10.65

34 Teachers absent 1 93.04 99.64 6.60

12a Capacity 12 90.76 1 95.68 4.92

37 Number of computers 5 93.56 98.20 4.64

35b Teacher employment questions 1 95.24 99.64 4.40

 

27 Parent involvement 1 95.88 99.64 3.76

18 Special programs 1 96.94 99.64 2.70

33f Number of teachers 3 97.62 98.92 1.30

2 Contact information/name/phone 5 † 98.20 †

33 Race of teachers 7 97.74 1 97.48 -0.26

 

26a Graduation 3 99.21 98.92 -0.29

7a Enrollment 6 99.76 97.84 -1.92

9 Race of students 14 97.99 94.96 -3.03

† Not applicable. 

1

 The response rate for this SASS 1999–2000 item was reduced as a result of the imputation process. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 1999–

2000; U.S. Census Bureau, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 2001–02 Pretest. 

When evaluating the data quality of these forms, the consistency of the responses was also tested. For the 

school enrollment items, item 7a, which asks for the total number of students enrolled, was checked for 

consistency with item 9f, which is the sum of the entries broken down by race. Fifteen of the total 278 

responses were inconsistent. Item 32g, which asks for the total number of full-time and part-time teachers, 

was checked for consistency with item 33f, which sums up the total number of full-time and part-time 

teachers broken down by race. There were 30 inconsistent responses (table C-4). 

Table C-4. Consistency of responses on school questionnaires, by item and method of evaluation: 

2001–02 

Item and method of evaluation 

Frequency of 

inconsistent responses

Percentage of 

consistent responses

School enrollment: Is 7a consistent with sum 9f? 15 94.60

Number of teachers: Is 32g consistent with 33f? 30 89.21

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 2001–02 Pretest. 

Principal Questionnaires 

The majority of the principal questionnaires (88 percent) were returned with all items completed (table 

C-5). Approximately 3 percent of the questionnaires were returned with most of the items completed, but 

with some items left blank because skip patterns were not followed correctly. More commonly, there 

were situations where most of the items were completed but some items were intentionally left blank 

(6 percent). Approximately 1 percent of the questionnaires were returned with most items completed, 
Appendix C. Report on 2001–02 SASS Pretest and Recommendations for 2003–04 SASS C-11 

while partial sections were left blank. Two percent of the questionnaires returned indicated the school had 

no principal. 

Table C-5. Number and percentage of principal questionnaires, by completeness of questionnaire: 

2001–02 

Completeness of questionnaire Number Percent

 Total 278 100.00

All items complete 244 87.77

Most items complete: blanks due to skip patterns 8 2.88

Most items complete: blank (intentional) 17 6.12

Most items complete: partial (sections) skipped 4 1.44

Partially complete (stopped) 0 0.00

No principal 5 1.80

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 2001–02 Pretest. 

In terms of specific item nonresponse, the items that were most commonly left blank were the dismissal 

of teachers and the salary items (table C-6). When compared to the 1999–2000 SASS response rates, 

these two items (dismissal of teachers and salary) had a lower response rate in the Pretest. Comparing the 

item nonresponse rates with the 1999–2000 SASS nonresponse rates indicated an increase in the response 

rate for the other items. 

Table C-6. Item nonresponse (in percent) on principal questionnaires in 1999–2000 SASS 

compared with 2001–02 Pretest: 1999–2000 and 2001–02 

Item Frequency

SASS 1999–2000 

response rate

Pretest 2001–02 

response rate Difference

29 Age 1 97.55 99.64 2.09

27a Race 1 97.71 99.64 1.93

17 Percent teaching at standards 2 97.99 99.28 1.29

18 Dismissal of teachers 3 99.26 98.92 -0.34

25 Salary 12 99.83 95.68 -4.15

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 1999–

2000; U.S. Census Bureau, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 2001–02 Pretest. 

School Library Media Center Questionnaires 

The majority of the school library media center questionnaires (81 percent) were returned with all items 

completed (table C-7). Approximately 1 percent of the questionnaires were returned with most of the 

items completed, but with some items left blank because skip patterns were not followed correctly. More 

commonly, there were situations where most of the items were completed, but some items were 

intentionally left blank (10 percent). Approximately 1 percent of the questionnaires were returned with 

most items completed, while partial sections were left blank. Seven percent of the questionnaires returned 

indicated the school had no library. 
C-12 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table C-7. Number and percentage of school library media center questionnaires, by 

completeness of questionnaire: 2001–02 

Completeness of questionnaire Number Percent

 Total 284 100.00

All items complete 229 80.63

Most items complete: blanks due to skip patterns 3 1.06

Most items complete: blank (intentional) 29 10.21

Most items complete: partial (sections) skipped 3 1.06

Partially complete (stopped) 0 0.00

No library 20 7.04

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 2001–02 Pretest. 

In terms of specific item nonresponse, the items that were most commonly left blank were item 22, which 

covered dollars spent, book totals, etc., and item 36, concerning the number of books checked out (table 

C-8). This item had lower response in the Pretest than in the 1999–2000 SASS. Comparing the 

nonresponse rates for other items listed above with the 1999–2000 SASS nonresponse rates indicated an 

increase in the response rate for most of these items. For one item a comparison was not possible because 

the response rate for the SASS 1999–2000 item was reduced as a result of the imputation process.2

 This 

item response rate is denoted with a superscript 1. 

Table C-8. Item nonresponse (in percent) on school library media center questionnaires in 1999–

2000 SASS compared with 2001–02 Pretest: 1999–2000 and 2001–02 

Item Frequency

SASS 1999–2000 

response rate

Pretest 2001–02 

response rate Difference

25 Dewey Decimal System 1 81.04 99.65 18.61

36 Number of books checked out 8 90.09 97.18 7.09

35 Number of students 2 96.17 99.30 3.13

2 Capacity 3 96.11 98.94 2.83

29a Scheduling 1 97.73 99.65 1.92

10a Volunteers 2 99.74 99.30 -0.44

22 #22 (dollars spent, book totals, etc.) 23 93.941

 91.90 -2.04 1

 The response rate for this SASS 1999–2000 item was reduced as a result of the imputation process. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 1999–

2000; U.S. Census Bureau, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 2001–02 Pretest. 

Teacher Questionnaires 

The majority of the teacher questionnaires (75 percent) were returned with all items completed (table 

C-9). Approximately 2 percent of the questionnaires were returned with most of the items completed, but 

with some items left blank because skip patterns were not followed correctly. More commonly, there 

were situations where most of the items were completed but some items were intentionally left blank (21 

percent). There also existed situations where most of the items were complete, while partial sections were 

left blank (2 percent). Less than 1 percent of the questionnaires were returned partially completed. 

 

2

 In computing final item response rates, an item is considered “answered” if the imputation flag = 0, meaning no 

changes were made to the item. For some items, respondents had provided an answer, but it was adjusted and given 

an imputation flag. For example, on the school file, enrollment is broken out into categories of race. Many or all of 

these categories may have had an original answer. However, if the sum of these categories did not exactly match 

total enrollment, then many or all of the race categories may have been ratio-adjusted so that the sum would match 

the total. Each of the changed values would receive an imputation flag. No imputation was done to field test data. 
Appendix C. Report on 2001–02 SASS Pretest and Recommendations for 2003–04 SASS C-13 

Table C-9. Number and percentage of teacher questionnaires, by completeness of questionnaire: 

2001–02 

Completeness of questionnaire Number Percent

 Total 531 100.00

All items complete 396 74.58

Most items complete: blanks due to skip patterns 11 2.07

Most items complete: blank (intentional) 113 21.28

Most items complete: partial (sections) skipped 8 1.51

Partially complete (stopped) 2 0.38

Only few items complete 1 0.19

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 2001–02 Pretest. 

In terms of specific item nonresponse, the items that were most commonly left blank were salary, contact 

information, and year of birth (table C-10). When compared to the 1999–2000 SASS response rates, field, 

state certification, and year of birth had lower response rates in the Pretest. Comparing the nonresponse 

rates for other items listed above with the 1999–2000 SASS nonresponse rates indicated an increase in the 

response rate for most of these items. A comparison was not possible for two items because the response 

rates for these SASS 1999–2000 items were reduced as a result of the imputation process.3

 These items 

are denoted with a superscript 1. 

Table C-10. Item nonresponse (in percent) on teacher questionnaires in 1999–2000 SASS 

compared with 2001–02 Pretest: 1999–2000 and 2001–02 

Item Frequency

SASS 1999–2000 

response rate

Pretest 2001–02 

response rate Difference

51 Hours spent teaching 1 77.151 99.81 22.66

11 Other degrees 2 94.591 99.62 5.03

65a Race 3 96.57 99.44 2.87

62b Salary 52 90.00 90.21 0.21

19a First year teaching 2 99.56 99.62 0.06

68 Contact information 105 † 80.23 †

12 Field 1 99.86 99.81 -0.05

13a State certification 1 100.00 99.81 -0.19

67 Year of birth 13 99.5 97.55 -1.95

† Not applicable. 

1

 The response rate for this SASS 1999–2000 item was reduced as a result of the imputation process. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 1999–

2000; U.S. Census Bureau, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 2001–02 Pretest. 

In evaluating the data quality of these forms, the consistency of the responses was tested. It was 

determined that responses were inconsistent if in the year the teacher began teaching (item 19a), the 

teacher was younger than 18 years of age (item 67). Seven such responses were inconsistent (table C-11). 

The second set of responses was inconsistent if the year the teacher began teaching at that school (item 5) 

was before the teacher’s first year of teaching (item 19a). There were nine inconsistent responses. The 

 

3

 In computing final item response rates, an item is considered “answered” if the imputation flag = 0, meaning no 

changes were made to the item. For some items, respondents had provided an answer, but it was adjusted and given 

an imputation flag. For example, on the school file, enrollment is broken out into categories of race. Many or all of 

these categories may have had an original answer. However, if the sum of these categories did not exactly match 

total enrollment, then many or all of the race categories may have been ratio-adjusted so that the sum would match 

the total. Each of the changed values would receive an imputation flag. No imputation was done to field test data. 
C-14 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

field the teacher indicated to teach was inconsistent if classes taught in item 38 differed significantly from 

the appropriate teaching field or code in item 12. Seventeen responses were determined to be inconsistent. 

Lastly, consistency in responses was tested by determining if item 1a, the teacher’s main assignment, was 

consistent with assignment status determined by the Teacher Listing Form. Six responses were 

inconsistent. 

Table C-11. Consistency of responses on teacher questionnaires, by item and method of evaluation: 

2001–02 

Item and method of evaluation 

Frequency of 

inconsistent 

responses 

Percentage of 

consistent 

responses

Year teacher began teaching: Inconsistent if year teacher began teaching (item 19a)

 occurred when teacher younger than 18 (item 67) 7 98.68

Year teacher began at that school: Inconsistent if year the teacher began at that 

 school (item 5) is before first year of teaching (item 19a) 9 98.31

Field in which teacher teaches: Inconsistent if classes taught (item 38) differ 

 significantly from indicated teaching field/code (item 12) 17 96.80

Main assignment (Item 1a): Use Teacher Listing Form to determine assignment 

 status 6 98.87

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 2001–02 Pretest. 

Findings: Pretest Response Rates 

Response rates from the SASS 2001–02 Pretest both at the national and the Regional Office level are 

listed below in table C-12. Staff handled 360 cases, 120 at each of the three regional centers (Seattle, 

Atlanta, and Denver). Twenty-nine field representatives were trained: 9 each at the Seattle and Denver 

offices and 11 at the Atlanta office. 

Table C-12. Pretest response rates (in percent), by Regional Office and questionnaire: 2001–02 

Regional Office response rates 

Questionnaire National response rate Seattle Atlanta Denver

Teacher Listing Form 88.1 83.8 91.5 89.2

Principal 84.4 81.2 88.8 83.2

School 83.0 77.8 88.0 83.3

School Library Media Center 84.8 78.9 87.0 88.5

Teacher 86.7 87.4 92.6 80.2

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 2001–02 Pretest. 

The Pretest response rates are compared to the 1999–2000 SASS response rates in table C-13. 
Appendix C. Report on 2001–02 SASS Pretest and Recommendations for 2003–04 SASS C-15 

Table C-13. Comparison of response rates (in percent) in 1999–2000 SASS and in 2001–02 Pretest, 

by questionnaire: 1999–2000 and 2001–02 

Pretest 2001–02 

Questionnaire SASS 1999–2000 All Field Mailout/Field 

Teacher Listing Form 91.0 88.1 †

Principal 88.8 84.4 †

School 86.4 83.0 †

School Library Media Center 93.5 84.8 †

Teacher 82.4 86.7 89.5

† Not applicable. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 1999–

2000; U.S. Census Bureau, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 2001–02 Pretest. 

It appears that the Pretest had lower response rates than the previous SASS at the school level (Teacher 

Listing Form, principal, school, and school library media center) but higher responses among teachers. 

The higher teacher response suggested that the Pretest methods may be more effective at reaching 

teachers. The teacher half-sample that received their questionnaires first by mail, followed by field 

follow-up, had the highest response. However, the length of the data collection time-period was 

significantly longer, which may account for the higher rate when compared to the fall Pretest teacher 

cases. 

The lower school level responses did cause concern, but may also be explained. In the Pretest, 17 of the 

360 schools (nearly 5 percent) refused entirely, but indicated that they might have cooperated in a fullscale survey rather than a test. Seven of these schools were in one school district. 

Field staff members anticipated that response at least would be maintained and probably improved in the 

future when SASS is a full production survey and not a pretest. The involvement of senior field 

representatives was not originally part of the SASS Pretest. Senior field representatives are local firstlevel supervisors who assist the field representatives with difficult cases and provide additional training if 

needed. All three Regional Offices used senior field representatives on refusal conversion during 

December and January to raise response rates. Involving senior field representatives from the beginning 

would enable supervisors to target refusals early and to assist field representatives when needed. 

The general feeling in Field Division was that the cooperation improved because of the personal visit with 

the principal. Field representatives were able to meet directly with school staff and solicit cooperation 

with the support of the principal. At that point they knew whether cases would need some extra followup. With the traditional mail/telephone/field, field representatives never received the support of the 

principal or knew that cooperation would be difficult to gain. This cooperative relationship enabled the 

field representatives to have better access to the schools, which resulted in smoother dissemination of 

forms to the teachers, librarians, and other school personnel. 

The NCES identification badges were helpful in some cases and should continue for production. 

Findings: Costs 

It was estimated that the cost of the 2003–04 SASS using the field-based methods would be somewhat 

higher than using the mail/telephone/field methods. The main differences in cost between the two 

methods were as follows: 
C-16 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

• The field-based data collection method was likely to cost more than the methods used in previous 

administrations of SASS. While the field-based methods would eliminate the costs of postage and 

CATI and would shift the bulk of data collection from early 2004 to late 2003, the personal visits 

to all schools resulted in greater costs overall. 

• Under the field-based method of data collection, staff would likely spend less time on data 

processing. The initial visits to the schools would determine right away if schools were in-scope 

or out-of-scope and resolve any other school definition issues. During prior SASS data 

processing, staff had to do a significant amount of work to resolve data problems that occurred 

because these issues had been discovered later in the process. Also, there was some indication 

that there may be improvement in data quality, which could reduce the amount of time to resolve 

edits and imputations. 

Notes from the Supervisors’ SASS Debriefing 

After the fieldwork was completed, Census Bureau headquarters staff held a meeting with the field 

supervisors to discuss every aspect of the field procedures in order to identify what changes needed to be 

made for the full-scale survey. The following sections document the discussions on staffing, controlling 

the work, cost, staff training, timing of data collection, and correspondence. 

Staffing 

Supervisors had a difficult time staffing for this test due to other program commitments. 

Asking for “experienced” field representatives made staffing more difficult, since many of the other 

programs also were calling for “experienced” field representatives. 

Senior field representative availability was also limited due to other program commitments. 

In looking forward to 2003 the supervisors saw fewer problems. It was their opinion that this year was 

rather unique with regard to work in the field. 

Headquarters needed to allow more flexibility to the program supervisors to run the survey. This should 

not be a problem in 2003 since it would be a regularly run survey. 

Controlling Work 

There was no way that the Regional Office was able to truly control or even know at any particular time 

what the status of the field representative work was. 

The combination of mail back and pick up was good in one respect—it gave flexibility to the Regional 

Office, the field representative, and the schools. However, this combination contributed to the difficulty in 

controlling the work being done by the field representatives. 

One of the suggestions made for 2003 was using time frames (phases) for the return of the various forms. 

The use of ROSCO in 2003 will enable headquarters to develop a more comprehensive control system 

that will enable the Regional Office to better control the forms and also be more user friendly. 
Appendix C. Report on 2001–02 SASS Pretest and Recommendations for 2003–04 SASS C-17 

Cost 

Supervisors did not detect any areas where they thought the field representatives were working 

inefficiently. 

Training 

Field representatives did not understand sampling very well. (Since computer-assisted personal 

interviewing [CAPI] will be used in 2003 this will not be a problem.) However, the field representatives 

and supervisors will need to be able to explain sampling well enough when asked. 

Supervisors suggest that the 2003 supervisor training include the following: 

• ROSCO; 

• response rate expectations; 

• refusal letter use (these need to be developed); and 

• discussion of the paper intensity of this survey. 

Supervisors also did not realize how paper intense the survey is. The point has been reached in Field 

Division where the majority of supervisors have either not worked a paper survey, or it has been so long 

since they have that they are not accustomed to what must be done in a paper survey. 

The field representative training needs to spend more time on clarification of the definition of “teacher.” 

Since this survey will involve a considerable amount of Regional Office control the supervisors 

recommended that the clerical staff be included in any future national training. 

Timing 

Timing was not good; however, the comment was also made that for 2001, “No time was a good time.” 

For school districts the “starts and stops” made the flow of the survey more difficult. 

They believe that in 2003 they could close out the collection process by the end of the year. 

Discussion regarding 2003 close out produced a few different approaches: 

1. Schedule a firm close out with the possibility of an extension for particular schools and/or school 

districts where considerable delays have been encountered that were outside the control of the 

field representative or Regional Office; 

2. Close out the Teacher Listing Forms by the end of October (5 weeks), close out the school, 

principal, and school library media center questionnaires just before winter break. Since there will 

be more teacher forms, extend the teacher questionnaire close out until the end of January. 

3. Set specific goals (percentage) that need to be done by certain predetermined dates. Let the final 

close out go into the next year. 

Another suggestion was that specific time lines by school be set based on the time that forms were 

delivered to the school. Everyone agreed that this certainly would be more equitable with regards to time; 

however, it would be very difficult to accomplish. 
C-18 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Regional Office Correspondence 

In order for Census Bureau headquarters staff to get a better idea of the problems encountered during 

interviewing, the supervisors agreed to send in all memos and other communication used to clarify 

procedures or instructions. 

Comments from SASS Field Representative Debriefing Conference 

After the fieldwork was completed, Census Bureau headquarters staff also held a meeting with the field 

representatives to discuss all aspects of the field procedures from their perspective. The following 

sections document the points that were made. 

Scheduling and Principal Visit 

• The preaddressed introductory letter to the principal should be sent to the field representatives so 

that it can be mailed at the most appropriate time. Many field representatives thought that the 

principal had received the letter but had forgotten about it because of the time differential 

between receipt of the letter and the field representative’s visit. 

• Have a distinctive color of the introductory letter’s envelope, so that way the field representative 

could ask about the “red, white, and blue envelope.” 

• Some field representatives thought that it would be more effective to have the principal’s name 

on the introductory letter. The major problem with that is that there is no way to get a reliable list 

of principals’ names before the letters are prepared. Field representatives were confident that they 

could get names, but then there is a problem with how to get it on to the letter other than writing 

it. Other field representatives did not see a big advantage to the letter being personally addressed. 

• There was a wide variety of persons who ended up as the “best contact.” Many field 

representatives dealt with the principal directly, others with a vice principal, still others with an 

administrative assistant. Instructions need to emphasize the need for this flexibility. 

• There was much discussion regarding the timing of when this survey starts. The discussion 

centered around the first visit, especially as it related to contacting the principal. The bottom line 

was that there probably is no “best” time or, for that matter, any “good” time. These are people 

who are terribly busy the entire time they are at the school. 

• The field representatives pointed out that some of the time it was necessary to make personal 

contact with the person at the school district that has responsibility for surveys and getting their 

approval before getting permission from the principal. 

• There was a variety of ways that the field representatives dealt with the first visit. Most called 

after the letter was received but before making a personal visit. They normally attempted to talk 

to or make an appointment with the principal. There were varying degrees of success expressed. 

• Some schools are only reachable by a personal visit. The field representatives need to stress the 

importance of the school having a listing of teachers available when they arrive for their first 

meeting. Could an example of what is wanted be on the back of the initial letter? 
Appendix C. Report on 2001–02 SASS Pretest and Recommendations for 2003–04 SASS C-19 

• Other suggestions included having the letters sent from the Regional Office, having two different 

letters (one for elementary and one for secondary), and still others thought the discussion of the 

letters was over emphasized. 

• There was also considerable discussion regarding whether it was best to have someone at the 

school send the various forms back to the field representative or Regional Office versus making a 

return trip to pick them up. This also appears to be an area where there are several successful 

methods. Certainly when long distances are involved it would be better to mail the forms. This is 

another area where there is need to emphasize flexibility of methods of returning surveys. 

• For the most part the field representatives agreed that an envelope should be included with the 

teacher form. It should be sealable and marked “confidential.” The general agreement was that 

this method would improve the teacher response rate. This envelope also needs to be marked 

SASS so that when it gets returned to the Regional Office it gets routed to the correct area. 

• Some of the field representatives would like to have the ability to have the envelopes mailed to 

their own homes. Although this would allow the field representatives to monitor what has been 

sent in, it would delay the check-in of the forms in the Regional Office. 

• As far as completing the Teacher Listing Form, 13 of the 16 field representatives had no problem. 

• Some field representatives thought the principal or secretary at some schools did not do a good 

job in seeing that the librarian received the school library media center questionnaire. 

• The field representatives need to ensure that the librarian is at the initial meeting. 

• The field representatives said that most schools had the forms completed by the agreed-on date of 

pickup. 

• The introductory letter should include more graphics and fewer words. 

• Design different kinds of introductory letters for different types of schools in the sample, for 

example, elementary, high school, large, small, urban, rural, etc. 

Materials Other Than Forms 

• The Regional Offices (field representatives and office) need the form that requests results of the 

survey to give to respondents. 

• A number of schools mentioned to the field representative that they liked the Census Map that 

was given to each school. 

• Leave some sort of incentive plan with the school, such as: 

o lesson plan; 

o map; 

o brochure; 

o pen (for all who complete forms); or 

o thank you certificate. 
C-20 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

• Several field representatives said that it would be nice if something could be given to the schools 

for participating. Suggestions included things like a Thank You letter, a pen, a certificate, etc. 

• Most of the field representatives thought a fact sheet high lighting the results of previous surveys 

would be very beneficial. The NCES representative pointed out that such a brochure would be 

part of the survey when it goes to the field. 

• The SASS overview form was well received. 

• A flash card or instruction card showing in outline form who needed to do what would have been 

helpful. 

• The use of the large zip lock bag with all materials for a school in it was universally well 

received. 

NCES Badge (I.D.) 

• Most all of the field representatives said the NCES identification card was helpful, although four 

field representatives did not use it at all and reported they had no real problems. 

• Four field representatives thought it would be helpful if the NCES identification card had the 

field representative’s picture on it. The rest did not think it would make a significant difference. 

(One field representative’s personal note: “I believe we need to be careful in how we present the 

NCES card. We want to make sure we do not lead the field representatives to start using that card 

only. Field representatives need to keep in mind that although NCES pays for the survey, they are 

Census employees, not NCES employees.”) 

Response Rates 

• Several field representatives reported that the fact that it was a test affected the response rate 

negatively. When polled, it affected a total of 17 schools, 7 of which were in the same school 

district. 

• Although there was general agreement that there is no real good time to conduct this survey, 

several field representatives thought later in the year would be better. No consensus was reached 

on this, however. 

• Everyone thought that a refusal letter would be helpful. Where it would originate and who would 

sign it were points of disagreement, however. 

Interviewer Time per School 

• Fourteen of the field representatives reported that it took less than 10 hours to complete all the 

work from one school. This includes organizing, calling a school in advance, travel, and 

interviewing. 

• Three reported that it took between 11 and 20 hours to complete a school. 

• Twelve of the 17 field representatives said that due to the uniqueness of this survey, they were not 

able to combine much of the work with other survey work. 
Appendix C. Report on 2001–02 SASS Pretest and Recommendations for 2003–04 SASS C-21 

Training 

• Generally, the field representatives thought the training was satisfactory. However, there were 

areas, outlined below, where they thought it could be improved. 

• Although the training went over all of the forms they thought more time could have been allotted 

to tying it all together. 

• One practice exercise would have been helpful. 

• Most did not think a classroom session was needed, but several thought a teleconference would 

have helped. 

• The time allowed for the self-study was about 2 hours too short; they wanted 8 hours rather than 6 

hours. 

• Several got the impression from the self-study that they would need to track down each teacher, 

which is not the case. 

• Many thought there was not enough emphasis on the timing of the different operations. For 

example, how soon after the initial visit should they start following up on the various forms? 

• Training on sampling needs to be included so that the field representatives can explain why their 

schools/teachers are selected. 

• The training needs to emphasize the flexibility of methods of returning surveys needed for the 

success of this survey. This survey is considerably different than many of the current surveys. 

• Need to explain what is meant by edit. On some surveys the field representative conducts the 

interview, does a complete review (edit), and then calls back for missing information. Is this what 

is meant or something else? 

• Grade range in some instances was a problem. The solution might be either more explanation in 

training materials or a clear instruction to the field representatives to call their supervisor if 

problems are encountered. 

• The field representative instructions need to be expanded to include more information on how to 

handle part-time teachers and how to handle specialty areas such as audiologist, special education 

teachers, etc. 

• Instructions need to be clear that the field representative will be asking the race/ethnicity item for 

each teacher listed on the Teacher Listing Form. This is very much different that any other 

surveys where race and ethnicity are asked of the household respondent. 

• Training should include recent press releases. A few months prior to the SASS, headquarters staff 

should provide the Regional Offices with SASS press releases to hand to reluctant schools. 

Further, headquarters staff should train to pull or have the Regional Office provide internet 

information on how SASS helps the specific school district. 
C-22 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Forms 

• Forms need to be redesigned to be more field representative friendly. 

• Add the field representative name and expected pick up date to all the forms. 

• On the teacher form add a space for teacher name and teacher line number. 

• Put the information from the Commissioner of NCES on the inside front cover of every 

questionnaire. 

• Put a thank you statement, Census Bureau clerical processing staff address, and e-mail 

information on the inside back cover of every questionnaire. 

• Since it is the field representative’s option to pick up the forms or have the respondents mail 

them, each form should have a check box for the field representative to use to indicate to the 

respondent what they are to do with that particular form. This field representative check box 

could be put on the inside back cover of the form(s) or in some other suitable location. 

• It would be helpful if the 800 number was printed so it’s more easily noticed. Also regarding the 

800 number, it might be helpful to print it on the same page that the web page information is 

printed. 
D-1 

Appendix D. Report of Findings From a Test on the SASS 

Teacher Listing Instrument 

The material in this appendix is organized as follows: 

Overview ............................................................................................................................................D-2

Methods..............................................................................................................................................D-2

Key Findings ......................................................................................................................................D-3

Limitations..........................................................................................................................................D-3

Recommendations ..............................................................................................................................D-4

Field Representative Training Recommendations .......................................................................D-4

Procedural Changes .....................................................................................................................D-5

Instrument Changes .....................................................................................................................D-6
D-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Overview 

In previous administrations of the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), a screening of schools to 

determine if they are in-scope or out-of-scope was embedded in the Teacher Listing Form and the school 

questionnaires. The screening process sometimes yielded inaccurate or inconsistent information about the 

school’s status. For example, a private school might report that it is public because it receives tuition 

money from a public school district on behalf of some students. The methodology itself added significant 

time to the data collection. Although the SASS operation typically began in October, the last teacher 

questionnaires were mailed out in January, leaving little time during the school year for nonresponse 

follow-up. In an attempt to improve the screening process and reduce the time required to conduct the 

survey, a SASS Teacher Listing instrument was developed that could screen schools and select a sample 

of teachers from eligible schools. The instrument was designed to screen schools by phone for inscope/out-of-scope status. Next, the field representative was instructed to set up an appointment with the 

school to collect the Teacher Listing Form. The field representative could then key the Teacher Listing 

Form into the instrument and a sample of teachers would be selected. This allowed the field 

representative to sample teachers and hand questionnaires to the selected teachers all in one visit to the 

school. In order to verify that the SASS Teacher Listing instrument and procedures would work in a field 

setting, a two-part test was conducted prior to the full-scale SASS administration. The test had several 

objectives, including the following: 

• examining issues and problems with the SASS Teacher Listing instrument, including: 

o determining whether respondents understand the intent and wording of the scope and grade 

range questions, 

o determining whether the answer categories for each question are sufficient and verifying that 

paths exist to handle all of the possible scenarios, 

o identifying where help screens may be needed, and 

o testing the questions and procedures for obtaining lists of teachers; 

• identifying how often the questions can be completed by phone; 

• identifying who at the school is able to answer the questions; and 

• observing field representatives administering the instrument to identify any deficiencies in their 

procedures or training. 

Methods 

One hundred and eighty schools in states likely to be problematic1

 (Oklahoma, Montana, South Dakota) 

and the District of Columbia (DC) metropolitan area (Virginia, Pennsylvania, DC, Maryland) were 

selected to participate in this test. In order to ensure a variety of scenarios were encountered (e.g., merged 

or split schools), some of the schools selected had their sample frame information altered (grade ranges or 

enrollment counts were modified to create discrepancies). Following normal SASS procedures, an 

advance letter was sent to schools prior to interviewing. Five field representatives and headquarters staff 

were trained to administer the SASS Teacher Listing instrument and conduct a debriefing with 

respondents about their experience. A standardized debriefing form was used to structure the feedback. 

Twenty cases in the DC area were selected for in-person visits. 

 

1

 In past SASS administrations, it was more common to find a discrepancy between grade ranges on the Common 

Core of Data and actual grade ranges identified in SASS for schools in Oklahoma, Montana, and South Dakota than 

it was for schools in other states. (See sections on school collapsing in chapter 2 and “Appendix K. Details of SASS 

Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures.”) 
Appendix D. Report of Findings From a Test on the SASS Teacher Listing Instrument D-3 

Interviewers were able to conduct 15 of the 20 planned local interviews in the DC area. One school 

refused to participate in the test. The other four schools could not be contacted during the study time 

period. Of the 180 schools selected for telephone interviewing, 32 were contacted by researchers and 

completed the interview. A debriefing of research staff was held daily at the Census Bureau during which 

field representatives shared their observations about all aspects of the test with analysts and made 

suggestions about how the test could be improved. The test was conducted in early January 2003. 

Key Findings 

• The instrument was not able to handle breaks in grade range. For example, a high school that had 

a kindergarten would have needed to be reported as 9–12. It was recommended that grade range 

handling be improved to allow this flexibility. 

• The instrument moved slowly during the keying operation. It was recommended that 

improvements be made to the performance of the Teacher Listing Form portion of the instrument. 

• The instrument was successful at identifying in-scope and out-of-scope schools and collecting 

teacher lists from schools. It was recommended that a modified instrument be used in the fullscale SASS. 

• The test indicated that Regional Offices should conduct a prefield clean-up operation of the 

listing file before field interviewing begins. 

• The test identified many procedural recommendations, which are discussed below. 

o Training for field representatives should be modified to improve their understanding of how 

to use the instrument and contact schools. 

o Field representatives should review every Teacher Listing Form with a knowledgeable person 

at the school before keying the form into the instrument. During the pretest, field 

representatives did not check the quality of the Teacher Listing Form before leaving the 

school, which led to the inclusion of nonteachers in the sample. 

o Greater flexibility should be built into the instrument so that field representatives can change 

demographic fields such as name and address during the interview. 

Limitations 

This test was designed to focus on the SASS Teacher Listing instrument. The methodology of this test 

differed significantly from the full-scale SASS administration. For this reason, the findings of this test 

cannot be extrapolated to the full-scale SASS. 

The test differed from a full-scale SASS in the following ways: 

• The advance letter indicated that this was a pretest. 

• Field representatives received an abbreviated, in-person training. 

• Participants were informed up front about the debriefing. 

• Only schools selected for an in-person visit were asked to complete a Teacher Listing Form. 

The findings of this test should not be used to predict response rates or other outcomes for a full-scale 

SASS. 
D-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Recommendations 

Recommendations from this study fell into three distinct categories: changes to training, changes to 

procedures, and changes to the instrument. The observations and recommended changes are detailed 

below. 

Field Representative Training Recommendations 

Observations Recommendations 

During the middle of the day, interviewers 

received a lot of busy signals or were unable to 

reach the principal. 

 Train field representatives that 7:45–9:00 a.m. or 

after 2:45 p.m. appear to be the best times to reach 

principals. 

When the field representatives were unable to 

get all information about the teachers, they were 

unsure which items on the listing were the most 

important to try to get from the school. 

 Stress at field representative training the relative 

importance of stratification items (experience, 

race, classes, etc.)—it is more important to get 

names than to focus on these items. 

Not all lists originally received at the school 

were complete. 

 Advise field representative to check the list before 

they leave the school to ensure that it is complete. 

Field representatives felt that having background 

information about the school would help them 

gain cooperation before they visited/called the 

school. 

 Many school districts have websites with links to 

individual schools—this is a good place to find 

current information for school contacts. Address 

in field representative training. 

Field representatives had difficulty reaching 

some principals/knowledgeable respondents by 

phone. 

 The initial contact may need to be in person if 

there is difficulty reaching the principal or 

knowledgeable respondent. Address in field 

representative training. 

Field representatives unsure what to bring to the 

school. 

 Inform field representatives to bring all necessary 

school forms, information sheets, Teacher Listing 

Form, laptop, and envelopes addressed to the field 

representative or Regional Office. 

Field representatives did not feel confident in the 

instrument/procedures for handling outlier 

scenarios (for instance, merged or split schools). 

 Have field representatives conduct two or three 

practice cases with various scenarios so that they 

get an opportunity to see most of the screens in 

the laptop. Address in field representative 

training. 

Interviewers expected standard hot 

keys/shortcuts to work in the SASS Teacher 

Listing instrument.

 Include a cheat sheet of working hot keys in 

training.
Appendix D. Report of Findings From a Test on the SASS Teacher Listing Instrument D-5 

Procedural Changes 

Observations Recommendations 

Not all scenarios that occur in the field can be 

handled through the instrument. 

 Regional Office will need a direct connection to 

Census Bureau sampling staff to settle issues with 

outlier cases (e.g., school has moved and changed 

names, school name and phone number do not 

match but each leads to a different school, etc.). 

Respondents wanted a copy of the Teacher 

Listing Form before the field representative 

came to pick up their list. 

 Provide faxable copies of Teacher Listing Form to 

Regional Office. Field representative will contact 

Regional Office and Regional Office will fax to 

school. Provide copy of Teacher Listing Form 

with the advance letter. 

Principals were not always available for their 

scheduled appointment. 

 Make an appointment ahead of time with the 

principal. Call the day of the appointment to 

reconfirm. (Principals’ days change minute by 

minute based on what happens in the school.) 

Some problem schools (related to name, address, 

etc.—e.g., school has “program” in its name) 

were not identified until the call. Prescreening of 

these schools could speed fieldwork. 

 Identify potential problem in field-based edit and 

have Regional Offices conduct a clean up 

operation before sample is given to field 

representatives. 

Schools wanted a way to contact field 

representatives after the visit. 

 Provide business cards for field representatives. 

Field representatives unsure how to handle the 

case where there are two principals with one 

campus (elementary and middle), with the same 

phone line and both listed as one school in 

sample. 

 Field representatives call the Regional Office. 

Census Bureau sampling staff will need to be 

contacted. 

Field representative unsure how to handle the 

case where the school changed location and 

name. 

 Field representatives call the Regional Office. 

Census Bureau sampling staff will need to be 

contacted. 

Need for a packet ready for Regional Office to 

fax to schools that ask for one (including letter, 

Teacher Listing Form, general information). 

 Prepare packet for the Regional Office. 
D-6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Instrument Changes 

Observations Recommendations 

Need to be able to correct school name if field 

representative discovers that it is incorrect any 

time during the interview other than the 

beginning. 

 Create tab that will allow the field representative 

to update the school address, name, and contact 

names. 

Instrument was too slow, especially with larger 

schools. This performance issue appears to be 

tied to duplicate checking functionality. 

 Have the instrument check for duplicate names at 

the end of the listing rather than during the listing. 

Need a way to pass the contact name from the 

case management system into the instrument. 

 Pass principal and other contact name information 

from case management into the instrument. 

Mailing address is automatically changed when 

physical address changes. Flow of address 

screens is awkward. P.O. box appears as 

physical address. 

 Provide option for field representative to change 

or keep both addresses from the same screen. 

Reword screens to make it easier to follow. P.O. 

box should not appear as physical address. 

Field representatives need a way to verify entry 

at the end of keying. 

 Total count by columns (i.e., number of new 

teachers, full time or part time) screen will be 

added to the instrument. 

Field representative unsure of procedures if 

teacher’s name is entered incorrectly in 

instrument and effects this has on follow-up and 

Teacher Follow-Up survey. 

 Name correction will be made by Census Bureau 

clerical processing staff. 

Field representatives unsure of best way to 

categorize nontraditional classes (study habits, 

computer class, learning center, etc.) 

 Help screen should be created. 

Names are not collected/maintained early 

enough in the instrument. Field representatives 

forgot the names of some respondents. 

 1. Ask for respondent/principal name earlier in 

the instrument. 

2. Display name on the instrument. 

3. Adjust instrument to record multiple 

contacts/respondents. 

Screens did not always flow in a logical order, 

especially when there were address or name 

changes. 

 Need to review wording and flow for name and 

address change, split, and merge. The screens will 

be reworded/moved based on this review. 

Interviewers expected standard hot 

keys/shortcuts to work. 

 Enable standard hot keys to work in as many 

places as possible. 
E-1 

Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of 

Teachers in Two Panels 

This appendix contains a February 19, 2003, report that UserWorks prepared on the cognitive interviews 

it conducted to evaluate revisions to the 1999–2000 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) Public School 

Teacher Questionnaire. This report was done for the Demographic Surveys Division of the U.S. Census 

Bureau. The report contains the following material: 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... E-2

Panel A (Versions 1 and 2) .......................................................................................................... E-4

Panel B......................................................................................................................................... E-6

Working Conditions (Panels A and B): Section IV, Items 21–23 (Panel A) and Section V, 

Items 14–16 (Panel B)...................................................................................................... E-10

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... E-12

Methods............................................................................................................................................ E-12

Materials .................................................................................................................................... E-12

Participants................................................................................................................................. E-13

Procedure ................................................................................................................................... E-14

Cognitive Test Results...................................................................................................................... E-15

I. General Information: Panels A and B, Items 1–2 ............................................................ E-16

II. Class Organization: Panel A, Items 3–9........................................................................... E-21

III. Educational Background: Panel A, Items 10–14 ............................................................. E-32

IV. Certification and Training: Panel A, Items 15–20 ........................................................... E-39

V. Working Conditions: Panel A, Items 21–23, and Panel B, Items 14–16 ......................... E-42

VI. Professional Development: Panel B, Items 3–4............................................................... E-54

VII. Resources and Assessment of Students: Panel B, Items 5–13 .......................................... E-64

VIII. Attitudes and Opinions: Panel B, Item 17......................................................................... E-71

IX. School Climate: Panel B, Items 18–20............................................................................. E-75

X. Participants’ Final Observations and Recommendations................................................. E-84

Attachment E-1. Changes in Panel A Version 2 .............................................................................. E-88

Attachment E-2. Consent Form/Non-Disclosure Agreement........................................................... E-89

Attachment E-3. Interview Protocol................................................................................................. E-90

Attachment E-4. Interview Questions for Panel A........................................................................... E-93

Attachment E-5. Interview Questions for Panel B ......................................................................... E-103

Attachment E-6. Screening Questionnaire ..................................................................................... E-113
E-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Executive Summary 

The Demographic Surveys Division of the U.S. Census Bureau hired UserWorks to evaluate revisions to 

the 1999–2000 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) Public School Teacher Questionnaire. UserWorks 

conducted a series of cognitive interviews (think-aloud sessions) to identify problems with 

comprehending the meaning and intent of the questions, the procedures to complete the survey, and 

sensitivity of questionnaire items. 

Utilizing UserWorks’ participant database and personal contacts of both UserWorks and Census Bureau 

analysts, 30 participants of varying characteristics were recruited. All taught in the greater Washington, 

DC-Baltimore metropolitan area. The questionnaire was broken up into two parts, or panels, which 

covered different topics and questionnaire items so that interviewees’ responses could be thoroughly 

investigated and interviews could be kept within a reasonable time limit. Sixteen participants completed 

Panel A and 14 participants Panel B, for a total of 30 participants. Interviews were conducted at the 

participants’ schools, various public places in the DC metropolitan area, and the UserWorks lab in Silver 

Spring, Maryland, between December 2002 and January 2003. 

Participants were asked to think aloud but otherwise to complete the questionnaire as they normally 

would, in whatever order and with whatever degree of attention, thoroughness, and completeness would 

be natural for them, first using themselves and their experiences as a source of information. Concurrently, 

while working on each item and retroactively, after completing an item or related set of items, participants 

were probed regarding their responses to the questionnaire. 

This report lists each question and its corresponding bulleted instructions or examples (“apple points”) 

and answer choices. Problems indicative of confusion with or misunderstanding with questionnaire items 

are presented along with less problematic “observations” of participant comments or behavior. In cases 

where questions in version 1 of Panel A were revised or added in version 2, a note to that effect with the 

altered answer choice or question is provided in context. 

In just a few cases, participants found the wording of some questions confusing. When they did have 

difficulty answering a question, however, it was not because they failed to understand it but because the 

question did not neatly apply to their circumstance. For instance, elementary school teachers who taught 

reading as part of language arts, or who covered language arts issues in social studies, could not easily 

classify—and thus readily apportion—the time they spent on reading or language arts. 

A more common problem was that participants, though certain of the meaning of an item, would differ 

from each other in their interpretations of that item. One teacher would recognize two or more alternative 

interpretations of the same item, or the teachers’ interpretations would differ from what staff suspected 

was the intent of the question. An example of such an item would be the statement “I worry about the 

security of my job because of the performance of my students on state and local tests”; someone may 

disagree with it while still worrying about job security, or agree with it even if the students were 

performing well. Even when there was little debate over how a question should be interpreted, 

participants sometimes answered “yes,” “no,” “agree,” or “disagree” to an item for reasons other than 

those implied in the question. For instance, participants might agree that they use district standards 

because they are forced to, not because they wish to, or might deny that they receive state test scores if 

their students never take state tests to begin with. 

Another common, overall problem was that teachers did not feel they had sufficient knowledge of current 

school practices and student status or memory of past events—such as their past college coursework—to 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-3 

provide accurate answers. While they understood the questions, they would have rated very low their 

confidence in their answers. 

A fourth common problem was that participants read instructions only for the information they felt they 

needed to complete each item. This tendency led them to overlook mandatory apple points, options lower 

in a list that might have been more relevant than those higher in a list, and qualifying information 

appearing at the end of a sentence. Many of our recommendations therefore involve rearranging or 

highlighting information in an existing sentence or dividing a sentence into two or more parts. 

The greatest challenge for participants was calculating hours spent on activities. In part this was because 

they tended to classify their work time and professional development by number of classes taught and 

number of days per week worked, including half-day workshops, rather than by hours. However, the 

difficulty also stemmed from divergent interpretations of certain key phrases used repeatedly throughout 

the questionnaire such as “at this school,” “most recent full week,” “school-related activities,” 

“professional development activities,” “main teaching assignment field,” and “major field of study.” 

Several of our recommendations thus encourage more specific wording or explanation of these recurrent 

terms. 

While participants had concerns with most questions on some level, the remainder of this executive 

summary highlights the most problematic areas and provides selected suggestions to resolve these 

“showstoppers.” 
E-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Panel A (Versions 1 and 2) 

Item # and question Recommendation 

4a Which statement best 

describes the way 

YOUR classes (or 

sections) at this school 

are organized? 

Reword answer options so that, as in option 4 (team teaching), information 

describing students or mapping teachers to students is closer to the beginning of 

the answer choice than is course or subject information: 

• You instruct several classes of different students most or all of the day in 

one or more subjects (such as algebra, geometry, music, history, 

government, and/or biology). [Answer Option 1] 

• You are an elementary school teacher who teaches only one subject (such 

as art OR music OR physical education OR computer skills) [consider 

enrichment or specialist or resource as a key term following “elementary”]. 

[Answer Option 2] 

• You instruct the same group of students all or most of the day in multiple 

subjects. [Answer Option 3] 

• [No change to Answer Option 4.] 

• You provide remediation or special needs services... OR You instruct 

selected students released from their regular classes in specific skills or to 

address specific needs (for instance, gifted and talented, special education, 

reading remediation, English as a Second Language). [Answer Option 5] 

Consider allowing participants to denote “other” category or to describe “main” 

organization and “secondary” organization. 

6a During your most recent 

FULL WEEK of 

teaching, approximately 

how many hours did you 

spend teaching each of 

these subjects at THIS 

school? 

• Divide apple point into separate apple points, rather than having one long, 

complicated sentence. 

• Consider asking about reading activities AND reading instruction, then 

asking how much time spent on other language arts activities outside of 

reading, so users will not have to extract reading time from various 

language arts activities. 

• Give examples as to what is included in English/Reading/Language Arts. 

• For preschool and kindergarten teachers, is prereading considered part of 

English/Language Arts/Reading? Should they count only formal instruction 

in reading? 

6c Go to Section III—

Educational Background 

on page 9. (6c only on 

Version 1; version 2 

gives a skip instruction.) 

• Consider an arrow pointing to skip instruction on same line (aligned with 

the left margin underneath) as 6b. 

• Consider putting the skip instruction within 6b: “Skip to Item 10a [(Section 

III—Educational Background)?] on page 9.” AND/OR include instructions: 

“STOP. Do NOT go to page 7! Please skip to item ... on page ...” 

7 This school year, what is 

your MAIN teaching 

assignment field at this 

school, that is, the field 

in which you teach the 

most classes? 

Clarify if goal is to identify “most subjects taught” (e.g., three earth science 

classes vs. two general science classes vs. being just a 9th grade science teacher, 

2-hour block of reading in a self-contained 2nd grade class where participant 

also teaches math, etc.) or elementary vs. middle vs. high school teacher who 

happens to specialize in some subject. (Also, consider putting this question 

below Question 9.) 

8 During your MOST 

RECENT FULL WEEK 

of teaching, how many 

separate classes (or 

sections) did you teach 

AT THIS SCHOOL? 

• Exclude study hall from apple points. 

• Consider use of “period” to distinguish subject from class. 

• Alternatively, rephrase question to indicate: “In your job assignment, how 

many classes are assigned to you?” AND “Count only once periods that 

meet more than once a week.” 

9 Complete a line of the 

table below for each 

class (or section) that 

you taught during your 

MOST RECENT FULL 

WEEK of teaching at 

this school. 

• Clarify that respondents should list each period taught followed by the 

number of students in each period. 

• Consider updating codes in table 1 that this question refers to. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-5 

Item # and question Recommendation 

10/12c Was this degree awarded 

by a department of 

education, college of 

education, or school of 

education? 

• Consider allowing participants to check off whether and how degree was 

education related. 

• If “no” to 10/12c, point to a subitem that conveys, “If your degree was not 

from a department or school of education within your college (e.g., school 

of music), if your degree was not from a school or college of education 

within your university, did you take education-related courses (e.g., 

methods in teaching music) WITHIN that department, school, or college?” 

[Consider Question 14 here?] 

10/12d What was your major 

field of study? 

• Consider recording minor or area of specialization. 

• Consider adding new education-related codes. 

• Consider adding apple point: “If the field of study name is not listed in 

Table 2, please choose the closest match.” 

• Consider adding a section to table 2 labeled “Combined Degree” with 

codes and field names that include both a specialty field and the word 

“education.” 

13a Have you earned any 

other degrees? 

Of concern to participants: 

• Add “In progress” to column B for earned degree status. 

• Add a new row to record credentialing and/or master’s equivalency. 

• Add a row for National Board certificate. 

(NOTE: Until this point, participants did not know until seeing the table that 

they could record a second bachelor’s or master’s degree.) 

14 Have you ever taken any 

graduate or 

undergraduate courses in 

teaching methods or 

education? 

• Provide a range of hours for participants to select. 

• Target this question more specifically to teachers who might have no 

education degree (perhaps after asking if participants have an education 

degree awarded by a college’s School of Education or a university’s 

College of Education). 

• If kept as is, offer examples (apple points) of the types of classes that count 

as methods or courses in education. 

15–18a Do you have a 

[SECOND, THIRD, 

FOURTH] teaching 

certificate in this state? 

15–18c In what content area is 

this certificate? 

• Focus on area of specialization. (See 15–18c.) 

• Allow teachers to record elementary or secondary teaching certification and 

then area of specialization or endorsement. 

20 How did you earn your 

initial teaching 

certificate? (Version 1) 

 Thinking about all of the 

teaching certificates you 

have earned in any state, 

how did you earn your 

first certificate? (Version 

2) 

Rephrase or add answer choice, “After I obtained Bachelor’s degree, but before 

I began teaching.” 
E-6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Item # and question Recommendation 

Observations on tables • Participants preferred to have tables in easy access to the referring 

questions, with the table on the left and the question(s) on the right; the less 

page flipping, the better. 

• UserWorks staff believes the revised layout of tables 1A and 1B will help 

future participants efficiently locate the codes, but staff did not have 

adequate numbers to test this against. 

• Where possible, UserWorks staff recommends reviewing the currency of 

the codes, and including new subitems. 

• Add new assignment codes or reword existing ones. 

• Replace “ESL/Bilingual” with “ESL or Bilingual.” 

Panel B 

Item # and question Recommendation 

3 In the past 12 MONTHS, 

did you participate in 

any of the following 

professional 

development activities? 

Use larger font for 3 than for subitems; indent subitems so “past 12 months” 

carries down the page. 

3a University course(s) 

taken towards 

recertification or 

advanced certification in 

your MAIN teaching 

assignment field 

• If it matters: “Include/exclude courses you are currently taking” 

• Reverse order of 3a and 3b THEN ask about recertification/advanced 

certification. 

• Include both general education courses and specialty area courses. 

• Define main teaching assignment field or replace with “subject or grade 

range you are primarily teaching now.” 

• If necessary, be more specific for even splits—the one they concentrate on 

more, or a more general category: 

o “subject you are primarily teaching now” 

o If you teach multiple subjects, pick a field that includes all of them. 

o If you teach multiple subjects, pick the one you concentrate on the 

most. 

3b University course(s) in 

your MAIN teaching 

assignment field 

• Suggested wording: University course(s) in your MAIN teaching 

assignment field taken for your initial certification. 

• If you were not initially certified in the last 12 months, your answer may be 

“None.” Exclude courses taken for recertification or advanced certification. 

3b Presenting at workshops, 

conferences or trainings 

Add bullet: Include/exclude “in-service” presentations in your own school 

3e Attending other 

workshops, conferences, 

or trainings 

• Add bullet: Exclude conferences in which you were a presenter 

• Add bullet: Include/exclude “in-service” presentations in your own school 

3f Individual or 

collaborative research on 

a topic of interest to you 

professionally 

If definition of “research” matters, pick and choose how to restrict: 

Include/exclude finding information or articles for students in your classes; 

personal experiences you discuss in class; formal research on educational 

methods mandated by school system or coursework, etc. 

3g Regularly-scheduled 

collaboration with other 

teachers on issues of 

instruction 

• Exclude administrative meetings 

• If “administrative meetings” means faculty meetings, use that term. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-7 

Item # and question Recommendation 

4a In the past 12 months, 

have you participated in 

any professional 

development activities 

that focused on in-depth 

study of the content in 

your MAIN teaching 

assignment field? 

• Replace “professional development activities” with something more 

specific or say “Include/exclude in-service courses, faculty meetings, 

presentations you gave yourself, etc.” 

• Rephrase “In-depth study”; suggested wording: 

o “...focused on your main teaching assignment field and directed at 

teachers with some knowledge and experience” 

o “...specific to and concentrating on the subject(s) you primarily 

teach.” 

4a(1) In the past 12 months, 

how many hours did you 

spend on these 

activities? 

If appropriate: “Include/exclude time spent doing course assignments, trying 

out suggestions in your classroom, etc.” 

4a(2) Overall, how useful were 

these activities to you? 

If appropriate, extend as follows: “... to you in your current teaching situation?” 

or “to you potentially?” 

4b In the past 12 months, 

have you participated in 

any professional 

development activities 

that focused on uses of 

computers for 

instruction? 

• Move “computers” to end of sentence to focus on applications 

• Suggested wording 

o “...that focused on educational software students can use to explore 

concepts on computers” 

o “...that focused on teaching students how to use a computer” 

o “...that focused on using computers to prepare lessons, present 

material, calculate grades, etc.” 

• If appropriate: Do not include courses you listed in 4a. 

4c In the past 12 months, 

have you participated in 

any professional 

development activities 

that focused on reading 

instruction? 

If appropriate: Do not include courses you listed in 4a. 

4e In the past 12 months, 

have you participated in 

any professional 

development activities 

that focused on other 

topics not included in 

4a–4d above? 

If appropriate, move “not included in 4a–4d above” directly after the words 

“professional development activities.” 

5 Are students assigned to 

your classes on the basis 

of achievement or ability 

level? 

• Rephrase as “Does your school use students’ achievement or ability level 

as a basis for assigning them to your classes?” (Yes/No, not Either/Or) 

• Add “in some cases; please specify:___” OR ask “Are most of your 

students...” or “are some of your students...” OR provide answer options 

like “some classes” and “most classes” 

• For rewording above, “Does your school sometimes use...” 

• Add “Do not know” answer option. 

• If appropriate: “Answer ‘no’ if only students and/or their parents decide 

which level class they will take.” 

6 Do you use different 

groupings of students in 

your classroom to teach 

students who learn at 

different rates? 

• If appropriate add “in some situations; please specify:___” OR ask “do you 

ever...” or “do you at least sometimes...” OR provide answer options such 

as “often” and “infrequently.” 

• Rephrase to clarify emphasis, either: 

o “When grouping students, do you select students who can all learn at 

the same rate to be in a particular group?” OR 

o “When grouping students, do you mix students who learn at different 

rates in the same group?” 

• If necessary, distinguish answer choices: “No, I do not group my students 

for this purpose,” from “No, I do not divide my students into groups.” 
E-8 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Item # and question Recommendation 

7a 

9 

Of all the students you 

teach at this school, how 

many have an Individual 

Education Plan (IEP) 

because they have 

disabilities or are special 

education students? 

Of all students you teach 

at this school, how many 

are of limited English 

proficiency? 

For 7a and 9 add option “Information not available” or ask “To the best of your 

knowledge...” 

11 Do you receive your 

students’ scores on state 

or local achievement 

tests? 

• Remove question from private school survey or ask about national tests or 

other tests. 

• Ask first “Do your students take state or local achievement tests?” 

• If appropriate, add bullet: Do not include national standardized tests such 

as the Iowa [specific name], SAT, etc. 

• If yes, rephrase: “Do you have access to your students’ scores on these 

tests?” [not “Do you receive” unless that’s the main issue] 

• Add answer options “sometimes” or “some of my students” 

12 To what extent do you 

use the information from 

your students’ test 

scores: 

12a To group students into 

different instructional 

groups by achievement 

or ability? 

12b To assess areas where 

you need to strengthen 

your content knowledge 

or teaching practice? 

12c To adjust your 

curriculum in areas 

where your students 

encountered problems? 

• Have respondents skip question 12 if students do not take state or local 

tests and only state/local scores are at issue. 

• Specify “state and local test scores” again, or if national tests are included, 

say so; if it is just classroom tests, say so. 

• If Item 12 is intended to measure or may be interpreted as indicating to 

what degree teachers value the tests, remove a source of error in 12b & c 

by asking the questions: 

• “Are these scores presented in a form you can use?” 

• “Are they available when you can use them?” 

• “Is the content of the state and local achievement tests relevant to the 

courses you teach?” 

13 To what extent do you 

use state or district 

standards to guide your 

instructional practice in 

your main teaching 

assignment field? 

• Ask instead “How big of a role do district standards play in guiding your 

instructional practice,” or “To what extent do you cover state or district 

standards in your instructional practice...,” whichever applies. 

• If important for drawing inferences from question 13, ask in addition how 

easy it is to apply state or district standards to one’s instructional practice. 

17e I worry about the 

security of my job 

because of the 

performance of my 

students on state and 

local tests 

Rephrase to clarify intent: “The actual performance on state and local tests of 

the students I have now makes me worry about the security of my job.” OR “If 

my students were to perform poorly on state and local tests I would worry more 

than I do now about my job security.” 

17f State or district content 

standards have had a 

positive influence on my 

satisfaction with 

teaching. 

• If this is really what is being asked, rephrase as, “I am more satisfied with 

teaching (a more satisfied teacher) thanks to (since the adoption of) state or 

district content standards.” Otherwise, rephrase as “I am satisfied with the 

state or district content standards,” or “I feel am a better (more successful) 

teacher owing to the adoption of state and district content standards.” 

• Add “not applicable” option. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-9 

Item # and question Recommendation 

17g I am satisfied with my 

class size(s). 

If the issue is only whether they are too large, rephrase “My class size(s) is/are 

too large.” 

18a The stress and 

disappointments 

involved in teaching at 

this school aren’t really 

worth it. 

• Use a positive statement like “Teaching is worthwhile despite its stresses 

and disappointments” so respondents will be certain of what they are 

saying if they disagree. 

• Identify what “it” is: 

o “the stresses and disappointments are not worth getting stressed out 

over or disappointed about?” 

o “being in teaching is not worth the stresses and disappointments 

involved?” 

o “the stresses and disappointments make me want to leave?” 

o “the stresses and disappointments outweigh the joys of teaching, of 

helping students learn?” 

o “the stresses and disappointments are not worth the money they pay 

me?” 

o “teaching is not worth what they pay me owing to the stresses and 

disappointments?” 

18d If I could get a higher 

paying job I’d leave 

teaching as soon as 

possible. 

Modify: “leave the field of teaching” 

19a 

19b 

19c 

Tardiness 

Absenteeism 

Class cutting 

No changes suggested if the items as currently written are needed as 

benchmarks against which to score other responses; otherwise ask instead about 

“egregious tardiness,” “rampant absenteeism,” “conspicuous class cutting.” 

19f 

19g 

Vandalism 

Use of alcohol 

Rephrase initial question 19 as “To the best of your knowledge, which of the 

following activities do students at your school engage in” if appropriate to all 

lettered items; otherwise specify agent of each item, e.g. , “vandalism by 

students of the school” [not those from the local high school or college] and 

“student use of alcohol” [not by teachers or parents] 

19n Widespread disorder in 

classrooms 

Replace wording with “Teachers not in control of their classes” or “losing the 

attention of the entire class” if that is the intent of the question. 

19o Student acts of 

disrespect for teachers 

Consider “...other than verbal abuse” [exclude 19m] 

 19 overall • Restrict scope: “How often do the following problems occur among the 

students in your own classes?” OR 

• Offer “no basis for judgment” option OR Offer subjective frequency rating 

scale “extremely often, often, occasionally, hardly ever, never” 

20b Pregnancy Ambiguous for middle schools; specify student, teacher (or parent) 

20e Lack of parental 

involvement 

If distinction is significant, divide item into two: “parental interest in student 

achievement” and “parental responsibility and support for student’s learning” 
E-10 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Working Conditions (Panels A and B): Section IV, Items 21–23 (Panel A) and 

Section V, Items 14–16 (Panel B) 

Item # and question Recommendation 

Panel 

A 

Q22 

and 

Panel 

B 

Q15 

During official school 

hours, how much time 

did you spend on the 

following schoolrelated activities during 

your MOST RECENT 

FULL WEEK of 

teaching at this school? 

a. Student instructional 

time 

b. Scheduled school 

time for planning 

c. Other scheduled 

school time 

[The panel A question 

included two 

definitional bullets that 

were not included in the 

panel B question.] 

• Determine whether 22/15b should include ALL time spent planning, in 

which case it should read “b. All school time spent planning”; otherwise, a 

separate category should be added: “d. Additional school time spent 

planning (not scheduled planning periods.)” 

• Determine whether 22/15b should include ONLY time spent actually 

planning, in which case it should read “b. School time spent on planning”; 

otherwise, append the current wording with “...whether actually used for 

planning or not” 

• Include additional examples in 15/22b and 15/22c or create new categories 

showing where to classify other activities: 

o Recess duty and other supervised recreation 

o Lunch (teacher’s own lunch time, which is not the same as lunch duty) 

o Staff, faculty, department, and committee meetings that take place 

during school (contract) hours 

o Creating, preparing, duplicating, and setting up materials 

o Cleaning up the classroom 

o Field trips during the school day 

o Parent conferences during the school day 

o End the list by saying “and other similar activities performed during 

official school hours” to emphasize that it is the time they are 

performed that determines whether they should appear in 15/22 rather 

than 16/23, not the nature of the activity. 

Panel 

A 

Q23 

Panel 

B 

Q16 

Outside of official 

school hours, how 

much time did you 

spend on the following 

school-related activities 

during your MOST 

RECENT FULL 

WEEK of teaching at 

this school? 

a. Activities involving 

students 

b. Scheduled school 

time for planning 

Outside of official 

school hours, how 

much time did you 

spend on the following 

school-related activities 

during your MOST 

RECENT FULL 

WEEK of teaching at 

this school? 

a. Activities involving 

students 

b. Activities NOT 

involving students 

• Use as prime examples of a particular classification only items that are 

typical of that classification. 

o Most field trips occur during the day and would be official 

instructional time; transporting students to day trips would be official 

administrative time. 

o Parent conferences often happen during the day. 

o Most meetings happen during the day; one would not normally come 

before or after school on one’s own time to attend an optional faculty 

meeting. 

o “Preparing an IEP at home” would be better for 16/23a; 

o “Writing a school newsletter at home” or “PTA meetings” would be 

better for 16/23b. 

o Change wording of 23/16a apple point to “Including paid or unpaid 

coaching, acting as a club sponsor, etc.” 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-11 

Item # and question Recommendation 

 Working Conditions 

overall 

• Change “school-related activities” to “work duties” in B15/A22 to signal 

that 15/22 is more restricted than 14/21. 

• Be sure also to change “school-related activities” in B14/A21 to “work 

duties and other school-related activities” so readers will not equate 14/21 

with 16/23 only. [“school-related activities” sounds like “after school.”] 

• Keep “school-related activities” in 16/23; do not replace it with “nonacademic,” since several items in 16/23b are related to academic classroom 

work or student academic performance, and several items in 16/23a 

(tutoring, sponsoring “It’s Academic” team or science fair projects) could 

be considered academic. 

• If the phrase “school-related activities” cannot be expanded in 14/21, 

remove the apple point in 14/21 and add an explanation after the 

instruction: “Consider ‘school-related activities’ to be anything you do in 

your capacity AS A TEACHER to help your students, their parents, your 

school, or other people or organizations, whether during school hours or 

before or after school or on weekends.” 

• Duplicate the apple points defining hours and reiterating what to include in 

items 22 and 23 of Panel A to items 15 and 16 in Panel B. 

• Make 14/21 the main question and indent questions 15/22 and 16/23 as 

subsections (part a, part b, etc.) under it to imply that the hours are related. 

• Word 15/22 and 16/23 as “Of the hours you reported in question 14 [or 21], 

how many were designated for X?” 

• If difference must be accounted for, add a question at the end of the section: 

For any hours you listed in 14/21 that you did not account for in either 

15/22 or 16/23, please describe any additional professional activities and 

the number of hours you spent on them. [Activity / Number of Hours] 

• If the “scheduled school time for planning” category can be altered, change 

it to: School time spent planning, preparing, setting up or cleaning up 

o Include time spent on these activities during scheduled planning 

periods, during lunch, from when you must arrive until the first 

students arrive, and from when students leave until you are free to 

leave. 

• If it can not be altered, add another category under official school time: 

Unscheduled official school time used for planning, preparing, setting up or 

cleaning up 

o Include time spent on these activities during lunch, from when you 

must arrive until the first students arrive, and from when students leave 

until you are free to leave. 

• Do not expect accuracy for activities split across official/unofficial hours. 

• If respondents are not supposed to consider a typical week, add the wording 

“(even if NOT typical)” after “MOST RECENT FULL WEEK.” 

• If desired, include an instruction to round answers to the nearest whole 

hour. 
E-12 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Introduction 

The U.S. Census Bureau is now in the process of developing revisions to the 1999–2000 Schools and 

Staffing Survey (SASS) public school teacher questionnaire. In an effort to develop questionnaire items 

that will accurately capture teachers’ responses to these issues, the Demographic Surveys Division of the 

U.S. Census Bureau hired UserWorks Inc. to evaluate the SASS questionnaire by conducting a series of 

cognitive interviews (think-aloud sessions) to identify problems that can be corrected prior to the survey’s 

official release. 

The objectives of these interviews were 

• to identify items which teachers might fail to comprehend, misinterpret, or interpret in different 

ways; 

• to identify difficulties teachers might have following procedures (for instance, recognizing an 

instruction applied to more than one item, flipping pages to obtain information from tables, or 

skipping questions that do not apply to them); and 

• to determine the sensitivity of the questionnaire items to unanticipated contextual factors such as 

the type of school or the teacher’s background and dialect. 

The interviews were also useful for suggesting where researchers are likely to draw unjustified inference 

from responses to the questionnaire or where variation in respondents’ interpretation of items may be 

great enough to suggest the items’ unreliability as measures of the phenomena they were designed to 

investigate. 

Methods 

Materials 

To permit interviewees’ responses to be thoroughly investigated while keeping sessions to a reasonable 

duration, the questionnaire was divided into two parts, or panels, and half of the interviewees were 

assigned to each panel. 

Coverage of topics was as follows: 

Panel A— 

• General Information (background and work status); 

• Class Organization (type of class and courses taught); 

• Educational Background (academic degrees); 

• Certification and Training (teaching certificates); and 

• Working Conditions (how time is divided among a number of different school-related activities). 

Panel B— 

• General Information (background and work status); 

• Professional Development (self-initiated and departmental learning activities as well as 

continuing education courses and workshops); 

• Resources and Assessment of Students (including class questions pertaining to class assignment, 

student grouping, and teaching special populations); 

• Working Conditions (how time is divided among a number of different school-related activities); 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-13 

• Attitudes and Opinions (on other working conditions such as class size and cooperation in the 

department); and 

• School Climate (additional opinions on quality of life at work issues and identification of 

problems in the school). 

The first part, General Information (consisting of only two introductory questions), was the same on both 

panels; the purpose of this pared-down section helped participants adjust to the think-aloud procedure. A 

section of items labeled “Working Conditions,” regarding the number of hours teachers spend on various 

activities, appeared on both panels but with slight differences in wording on each of the two panels. There 

was no other overlap among actual items on the two panels, though there was significant overlap in 

coverage of topics. For instance, while panel A asked about education institutions and type of 

certification, panel B asked about actual coursework both in advanced degree programs and in subsequent 

professional development for continuing certification. Thus both panels asked questions about education 

and training. Both also asked about type and composition of classes (in the panel A section “Class 

Organization” and in the panel B section “Resources and Assessment of Students”). It was not within the 

scope of the project to investigate how items in panel A that discuss a certain topic might influence 

respondents’ perceptions of and responses to other items in panel B that discuss the same topic. It was 

also not in the scope to recommend how to organize or integrate questions on related topics appearing in 

the two different panels in the final version of the questionnaire. 

Six attachments contain additional information. After a meeting in which UserWorks and Census Bureau 

analysts met to discuss the first 15 of 30 interviews, panel A was slightly altered in an attempt to increase 

comprehension and participants’ likelihood of following the correct sequence of items (attachment E-1). 

Owing to the lag time involved in formatting and printing the revised version of panel A, only two 

participants were given the revised version. Of those, a portion was probed for their opinion of the 

wording in the new panel, but none were asked to compare the new panel to the old panel. 

A consent and nondisclosure form (attachment E-2) was prepared to obtain participant signatures 

assenting to audiotaping for research purposes. In signing this form, participants also agreed not to 

discuss with colleagues problems with the current questionnaire until the Census Bureau had the 

opportunity to make revisions based on participant input. 

An orientation to the project (attachment E-3) was prepared for participants, as well as the probing 

questions to be used for each of the panels (attachments E-4 and E-5). The probes were designed to elicit 

user expectations and points of confusion (if any). Some probes were asked of all test users; others were 

used only if interviewers considered them relevant to participants’ responses or situations. 

A screening questionnaire (attachment E-6) was also created for the participant recruiter to identify 

characteristics of the participant. 

Participants 

Utilizing UserWorks’ participant database and personal contacts of both UserWorks and Census Bureau 

analysts, 30 participants of varying characteristics were recruited. An e-mail was sent to prospective 

participants informing them of the study. To obtain a mix of participant characteristics representative of 

the teaching population for which the survey was designed, those interested were then asked the screening 

questions over the telephone. 

Of those selected, most were public school teachers, though seven who taught at private schools were 

recruited in anticipation of the development of an additional questionnaire directed towards that 

population. Participants varied by gender (33 percent were males, higher than the 26 percent typical of the 
E-14 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

teaching population according to the National Education Association), as well as by grades 

(prekindergarten through 12) and subjects taught, school location, and years of teaching and educational 

attainment. Some were involved with student extracurricular activities, others had special education or 

students with Individual Education Plans (IEPs), one taught students released from their regular classes, 

and a couple were involved in team teaching. 

All participants taught in the greater Washington, DC-Baltimore metropolitan area. Participants were not 

asked to identify the school system in which their school was located; however, systems represented 

include a Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary School at Quantico, the 

District of Columbia, Virginia’s Fairfax and Arlington Counties (including the Falls Church City school 

system), and Maryland’s Montgomery, Prince George’s, Howard, and Carroll Counties. 

Sixteen participants completed panel A and 14 participants panel B, for a total of 30 participants. 

Participants were interviewed by one of two employees of UserWorks. Interviews were scheduled 

between December 13, 2002, and January 10, 2003. Several factors were responsible for this length, such 

as intervening holiday vacations and snow days, the need for interviewers to travel to separate schools 

each day, and the fact that most teachers preferred to be interviewed after school or during their planning 

periods. The interviewers met frequently to discuss the progress of the interviews and their experiences 

with participants and items on the questionnaire, initially after practicing with each panel using two 

additional members of UserWorks staff as mock participants, and subsequently between the actual 

interviews. 

Participants were given the option of holding the interviews either in their schools (the preferred option), 

in a public place convenient for them (such as a library, bookstore, or café), or in the UserWorks research 

lab. Most chose to be interviewed at their schools. 

Interviews were audiotaped with participants’ permission. Each participant was given $30.00 as a thank 

you for offering his or her time. Most sessions lasted about 1.5 hours, though several sessions ran longer 

if participants were motivated, not worried about the time, and continued to volunteer information. None 

lasted more than 2 hours. 

Procedure 

Interviews were conducted at participants’ schools, various public places in the DC metropolitan area, and 

the UserWorks lab in Silver Spring, Maryland, between December 2002 and January 2003. Interviewers 

took handwritten notes during the interviews to supplement the recordings. In several cases, portions of 

the recordings were of inferior quality owing to background noise from external sources. After the first 

few interviews, the interviewers asked for assurances from participants that a quiet place in which to 

conduct the interview would be available. 

Upon arriving at the interview site, the test administrator signed in at the main office if the site was a 

school, met the participant, set up the tape recorder and other materials, read the introduction to testing 

(attachment E-3), obtained the participant’s signed consent form to participate, and answered any 

questions that the participant may have had. If necessary for understanding, the interviewer provided an 

example of the think-aloud process. Participants were asked to think aloud but otherwise to complete the 

questionnaire as they would if they had been asked by an administrator to complete it on their own, in 

whatever order and with whatever degree of attention, thoroughness, and completeness would be natural 

for them, first using themselves and their experiences as a source of information. Participants were also 

asked to consider hypothetical teachers or teaching situations provided in a list of scenarios. In some 

cases participants were asked to read the scenarios aloud before applying the information to the 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-15 

questionnaire item at hand. For simpler scenarios, when short of time, or when the interviewer was trying 

to better understand a specific point raised by a participant, the scenario was simply described by the 

interviewer. 

Concurrently, while working on each item, and retroactively, after completing an item or related set of 

items, participants were probed regarding their responses to the questionnaire. General probes were used 

to encourage participants to think aloud and to understand participants’ interpretations and determine how 

much of an item participants read or noticed on their own: “How did you arrive at your answer?” “Tell 

me about that.” “What is this asking, in your own words?” More specific preplanned probes (in 

attachments E-4 and E-5) were used if participants had little to say about an item or were unable to 

articulate their concerns, as well as to elicit opinions of wording and situations which UserWorks or 

Census Bureau staff anticipated might prove problematic. 

In the course of participating in the interview, most of the participants who initially appeared to be 

reading and completing the questionnaire rather casually and spontaneously began to attend more 

carefully to the language of the questionnaire and took more time before offering responses. Since all 

participants completed the items in the order they appeared in the questionnaire except when they 

followed or failed to follow directions to skip questions, UserWorks staff must assume that responses to 

later sections of the questionnaire are heavily influenced by interviewers’ incessant requests that 

participants reflect on, explain, and elaborate on their responses. 

After answering the final questions and offering their final overall opinion of the questionnaire, 

participants were paid and thanked for their time. 

Cognitive Test Results 

This section provides the results of cognitive testing of SASS panels A (versions 1 and 2) and B. The 

question is provided verbatim, along with bulleted instructions or examples (“apple points”) and answer 

choices. In cases where questions in version 1 of panel A were revised or added, a note to that effect with 

the changed answer choice or question is provided in context of the original question or answer choice. 

Following the text of each item, problems indicative of confusion with or misunderstanding of that item 

are presented along with less problematic “observations” of interesting or insightful participant comments 

or behavior. Where appropriate, counts of participants and their comments are provided to give 

perspective. For those items on the questionnaire that require no change, a remark to that effect is 

recorded. 

For most of the problems that have been identified, however, recommendations are offered. The proposed 

recommendations appear BEFORE the elaboration of the respective problem to facilitate use of this 

document as a guide to potential revisions. The correspondence between a recommendation and its 

associated problem is further highlighted through the assigning to each problem a letter that is unique 

within the set of problems described for each item of the questionnaire. The same letter is used to identify 

the recommendation corresponding to that problem. 

Problems with and recommendations that apply to SETS of lettered subitems or sections of the 

questionnaire AS A WHOLE rather than to individual items are offered at the end of each set or section 

under a heading “Item X Overall” or “Section X Overall.” 
E-16 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

I. General Information: Panels A and B, Items 1–2

This section asks for general information about participants’ teaching and other experiences. (NOTE: It 

combines results from Panels A and B.) 

Question 1: In what year did you begin teaching in THIS school? 

• If your assignment at this school has included a break in service of one 

year or more, please report the year that you returned to this school 

from your most recent break in service. 

• Do not include time spent as a student teacher.

__|__|__|__| Year 

Observations: Participants who had difficulty or erred in answering the question included 

• those who have a long teaching career with breaks in service but with 

salary and retirement credits; and 

• those who had a long teaching career and taught at several schools. 

Some participants wondered if “THIS school” referred to the school system, the 

school they were assigned, or where they happened to be physically located if 

completing the survey at one of several schools where they worked. 

Recommendation a: As discussed at the 12/31/2002 debriefing conference, replace “THIS school” 

with the name of the teacher’s school, or ask: 

“In what year did you begin teaching at the school where you currently 

teach all or most of your classes (receive your paycheck, etc.)?” 

Problem a: Actual respondents may not be completing the survey at their school. 

Participants who currently taught only in one school but had taught in several 

schools in the past and were conducting the interview at UserWorks or in a 

public area did not know which school was “this school.” They suggested the 

question ask about their “current school.” 

Recommendation b: Use an icon other than an apple to denote warnings that, if ignored, will produce 

erroneous data. Save apple icons for examples, helpful hints (e.g., “gifts to the 

teacher”). 

To force respondents with breaks in service to address the issue, separate the 

question into two parts. Ask first for year they began teaching at the school, 

then about returning from breaks. If both parts are completed, treat the upper 

portion as just a worksheet and take the lower number on the page as the data 

point: 

In what year did you first begin teaching at this school? 

__|__|__|__| Year 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-17 

If your experience at this school included any breaks in service of one year or

more [use boldface type], please indicate in what year you returned from your 

most recent break in service: 

__|__|__|__| Year 

[Do not use the phrase “tenure at this school” in place of “experience at this 

school” since teachers interpret it as “job security.”] 

Problem b: Apple points were not always read or read thoroughly by people to whom they 

applied. Some respondents either did not read supplemental instructions 

regarding breaks in service or if they did, they often provided start dates 

following breaks of service of less than a year. 

Recommendation c: To make experienced teachers feel better and obtain more accurate data from 

teachers with breaks in service, ask first for their years of service over their 

entire teaching career. If data are actually being collected on when the teacher 

began teaching at this school, if it is not an introductory practice question, ask 

that question next. 

Problem c: Teachers with a long teaching career feel invalidated if they had only spent a 

short time at their current school. Several teachers expressed surprise that they 

were not asked more demographic background questions. Experienced teachers 

thought the Census Bureau might not give their responses much credence if it 

appeared they had only been teaching at a school a year. They thought their 

extensive amount of experience should count for something. 

Observations c: This problem is mentioned not solely out of concern for the teachers’ opinions 

towards the questionnaire. Concerns about how their teaching experience would 

be perceived led participants to enter erroneous data on purpose. Because three 

of the teachers who had a break in service felt question 1 did not permit them to 

indicate their extensive experience, they opted to enter the first year of their 

teaching career at their current school, knowing full well they could have 

entered a different year. One participant who was out of school for almost 2 

years remarked that, “You would not know I had been teaching at this school 

for 15 years.” 

Recommendation d: Add the instruction “If you teach at more than one school, please consider the 

school where you teach most of your COURSES,” and accompanying bullet 

points: 

• If your instructional time is equally divided among schools, please 

consider your official main school assignment, that is, where you 

receive your paycheck. 

• If your instructional time is equally divided among schools and you 

have no main school assignment, please consider the school where you 

spend most of your planning time. 

Problem d: Teachers who currently taught at multiple schools were not sure which school 

they were being asked to consider. 
E-18 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Recommendation e: Provide advance notification that teachers will be asked to complete 

questionnaire and should determine when they began at the school. 

If accuracy of year is important, consider asking teachers to enter a school year 

(fiscal year covering August/September of one year to July/August of the next) 

instead of a normal calendar year: 

__|__|__|__| to __|__|__|__| School year 

Problem e: Teachers could not recall start year. Two participants were not sure of the exact 

date when they began teaching at THIS school and they estimated the year. 

Both participants specifically stated that if the Census Bureau wanted exact 

dates, then advance warning or instructions to that effect should be provided. 

One participant said it was easier to think of the school year when he started. He 

had started second semester but was not sure if he was hired in December of 

one calendar year or January of the next. 

Recommendation f: If it is important to avoid this source of error, determine and indicate how 

teachers should interpret “school,” using one or more of the following as a 

guide: 

If the school where you are currently teaching has 

• separated from a larger school during your time there, 

then consider your first year there to be when the separation occurred. 

If the school where you are currently teaching has 

• changed its name; 

• merged with another school; and/or 

• moved to another building during your time there; 

then consider your first year there to be when you first began working on the 

same staff as other teachers who have also experienced this transition from start 

to finish in the same physical locations as you. 

[Do not replace “working on the same staff as” with “working with” since 

teachers may have worked with current colleagues at other schools in the past.] 

[Do not shorten to “experienced this transition” since teachers from the other 

merged school also experienced the transition.] 

If the school where you are currently teaching has 

• experienced a nearly complete turnover in staff; or 

• been reassigned students from a different geographical region; 

then consider your first year there to be when you first began teaching in the 

physical location where you currently teach. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-19 

Problem f: Participants did not know start date for a school if its attributes changed. 

Teachers whose schools had moved to a new building, been consolidated with 

other schools, and/or been renamed (in one case, all three at once) did not know 

whether the year in which they came to the original school or the year of the 

school’s alteration or most recent incarnation was more appropriate. 

Recommendation g: If it is important, define break in service more specifically, perhaps as follows: 

Consider a break in service to be any period in which you EITHER 

• temporarily left the field of teaching (maternity leave, travel, etc.); OR 

• left the school where you are currently teaching to teach at another 

school or in another school system. 

Problem g: “Break in service” was unclear to teachers who remained in teaching. 

Participants who left their current school and continued teaching but at a 

different location before returning to their current school did not know if their 

absence constituted a break of service because their retirement benefits were 

unaffected. 

Question 2: How much time do you work as a TEACHER at THIS school? 

• Mark (X) only one box. 

[ ] Full-time 

[ ] 3⁄4 time or more, but less than full-time 

[ ] 1⁄2 time or more, but less than 3⁄4 time 

[ ] 1⁄4 time or more, but less than 1⁄2 time 

[ ] Less than 1⁄4 time 

Recommendation a: Contact various school systems’ personnel departments to determine the most 

common decimal representations for part time work. If there is no common 

representation, use days instead of hours and ask instead of fractional time: 

How many days a week do you usually work as a teacher? (Please round to 

the nearest half day)______ 

• If your schedule varies week by week, please report the average number 

of days per week. 

Problem a: Fractional divisions not used and not appropriate for describing amount of part 

time work. Several participants said they or their colleagues worked or had at 

some time taught part time, but that they had never described their time using 

fractions and would not know how to do so on a questionnaire. 

Part of the problem is that some schools do not make these distinctions. At 

some schools, the only distinction made is full vs. part time, with no distinctions 

made among different levels of part-time work. In the Arlington system, 

apparently, one may only work full time or half time. 
E-20 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

A related issue is the suitability of the representation. Fractions are 

inappropriate because they suggest a number of hours worked, whereas teachers 

are on salary and hours worked often vary by week, even for part-timers. One 

participant trying to make sense of the options wondered if 3⁄4 time meant he had 

taken a quarter of the year off. 

Of the participants who were familiar with any sort of system for calculating 

time for part-time teachers, all claimed their school system used decimals rather 

than fractions, usually to indicate how many days the teacher worked. For 

instance, a “point 4” teacher would work 2 days a week, while a “point 6” 

teacher would work 3 days a week. According to a participant at another public 

school, however, a “3 point 5” teacher worked 31⁄2 days per week at that school, 

suggesting the implementation of decimal notation may vary with the school 

system. 

Recommendation b: It may be necessary at some point to specify whether work status should be 

determined by course load or by hours or days per week worked, since different 

respondents calculate this differently. 

Problem b: Is work status determined by courses or by hours? Some teachers at one 

participant’s school teach fewer courses than the standard number of courses 

but have additional administrative duties and work full days at the school. It was 

not clear to this participant whether working “as a TEACHER” refers to the 

proportion of time spent instructing in the classroom relative to that spent by 

other teachers or to the number of hours worked relative to those of other 

teachers. 

Uncertainty regarding whether status is determined by course load or workdays 

is also reflected in the responses of participants concerned about how the time 

of part timers is apportioned. According to one participant, a “point 2/point 8” 

teacher teaches 20 percent of his courses at one school, the rest at another. 

According to him, the actual number of hours spent at a school is irrelevant. 

According to other participants, however, a “point 2/point 8” teacher would 

teach 1 day a week at one school and 4 days a week at another school. For them, 

courses taught are irrelevant. 

Observations: The problems and recommendations a and b above refer to only the most 

general cases. There is probably a great deal more variation in how part-time 

status is treated; for instance: 

• At one participant’s school, the only part-time staff are substitutes. 

• One participant, as a full-time long-term substitute, is hourly and 

chooses to work 1⁄4 time. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-21 

II. Class Organization: Panel A, Items 3–9 

This section asks about participants’ meetings with other teachers and the organization of classes in 

participants’ schools. 

Question 3: In which grades are the students you currently teach at THIS school? 

• If you teach at more than one school, report only for the grades you 

teach at THIS school. 

• Mark (X) all that apply. 

[ ] Ungraded [ ] 3rd [ ] 8th 

[ ] Prekindergarten [ ] 4th [ ] 9th

[ ] Kindergarten [ ] 5th [ ] 10th

[ ] 1st [ ] 6th [ ] 11th 

[ ] 2nd [ ] 7th [ ] 12th 

Recommendation a: Capitalize “STUDENTS” in question and follow up with a parenthetical “(not 

courses)” to discourage analysis by course. Capitalize “all” in second apple 

point to emphasize that all grades are of interest. To discourage analysis by 

teacher identity, clarify with an apple point: “If you teach a specific grade, such 

as 4th grade, be sure to include any students from other grades who are in your 

classroom.” 

Problem a: Participants omitted grade levels of some students they taught. Some 

participants thought the purpose of the question might be to identify either the 

teachers themselves, by the grade levels they taught, or the courses they taught, 

by their grade level content, so they considered these criteria more than grade 

levels of actual students enrolled. Others listed the grades of only the majority 

of their students. 

Observations: Some elementary school teachers thought of themselves as teaching grade 

levels, not subject areas, so a couple said they would not include students of 

other grades, such as remedial students repeating a class or precocious students 

attending their classes for enrichment. For example, one participant said if she 

had a 1st grader completing 2nd grade work in the 1st grade class, she would not

mark 2nd grade in addition to 1st grade. 

Some high school teachers thought of themselves more as teaching courses 

directed towards various grade levels than as teaching students at various grade 

levels. For instance, one said that if she had an 8th grader in her 9th grade class, 

she would look for an “8th grade AP (advanced placement)” option; if students 

in 12th grade were completing college-level work, she would look for “12th

grade AP.” Another, who taught a course to 10th and 11th graders and marked 

both grades, was then probed for her rationale and revised her response to 

include 9th and 12th graders, since, she said, the course was open to them as well, 

but the classes were generally understood to be for 10th and 11th graders. 

A third set of participants may simply have missed the instruction to include all 

grades taught. They assumed that they just needed to check grades “mostly” 
E-22 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

taught. These included, for example, a participant who teaches mostly 10th grade 

but has one or two 9th graders enrolled. 

Recommendation b: Revised phrasing to encompass concept of “Montessori or other school system 

without student grade-level assignments” in place of “ungraded.” 

Problem b: Participants did not understand “ungraded.” The option to select “ungraded,” if 

it was noticed, confused participants because they did not know what it meant. 

If it was pointed out to participants, it seemed to contribute to their impression 

that they should describe the grades of their classes or their own specialty 

grades rather than the grades of their students. 

The option should be reworded to encourage its use only in very special cases, 

since participants, particularly one who taught in both a middle and a high 

school, appreciated being able to enumerate the entire range or nonconsecutive 

set of grades of their students rather than feeling constrained to select a single 

option for multiple grades. 

Observations: This confusion about the meaning and purpose of “ungraded” is a recurring 

issue, arising elsewhere in the survey. (See item 9.) The ungraded option may 

only apply to students at a school for the extremely disabled, students who 

could never reach grade 1, or to English for Speakers of Other Languages 

(ESOL) students in their first year, or to students in another educational 

program like Montessori. 

It was not as significant in question 3 because participants did not need this 

option. Because the wording of the instruction uses the plural of grade (“in what 

grades...”), no participant appeared to feel restricted to choose one grade 

(despite the fact that several did so voluntarily, as described in problem a). 

Therefore, the issue of how to represent multiple grades with one answer option 

never arose for item 3. 

Question 4a: Which statement best describes the way YOUR classes (or sections) at this 

school are organized? 

• Mark (X) only one box. 

[ ] You teach subject matter courses (e.g., math, history, music, biology) to 

several classes of different students all or most of the day. (Departmentalized 

Instruction) 

[ ] You teach only one subject (e.g., art, music, physical education, computer 

skills) in an elementary school. (Elementary Enrichment Class) 

[ ] You teach multiple subjects to the same group of students all or most of the 

day. (Self-Contained Class) (Version 2 bolds “all or most of the day”) 

[ ] You are one of two or more teachers who teach multiple subjects to the same 

group of students. (Team Teaching) 

[ ] You provide instruction (e.g., special education, reading) to selected students 

who are released from their regular classes. (“Pull-Out” Class)
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-23 

Recommendation a1: Reword answer options so that, as in option 4 above (team teaching), 

information describing students or mapping teachers to students is closer to the 

beginning of the answer choice than is course or subject information: 

• You instruct several classes of different students most or all of the day 

in one or more subjects (such as algebra, geometry, music, history, 

government, and/or biology).... [Answer Option 1] 

• You are an elementary [enrichment? specialist? resource?] school 

teacher who teaches only one subject (such as art OR music OR 

physical education OR computer skills).... [Answer Option 2] 

• You instruct the same group of students all or most of the day in 

multiple subjects.... [Answer Option 3] 

• [No change to Answer Option 4.] 

• You provide remediation or special needs services... OR You instruct 

selected students released from their regular classes in specific skills or 

to address specific needs (for instance, gifted and talented, special 

education, reading remediation, English as a Second Language).... 

[Answer Option 5] 

Problem a: Answer options appear to focus on the courses or subjects taught rather than the 

method of instruction. One participant’s reaction sums up the nature of the 

confusion here: “The question should focus on how the classes are offered, not 

what is being offered.” As was the case throughout the survey, participants 

concentrated attention on the first few words of the answer options, reading 

only until they felt they understood each option. As a result, several participants 

attended to the subjects in the examples in the first two answer options (e.g., art, 

music, physical education, computer skills) and made one or more of the 

following mistaken assumptions: 

• Option 1 or 2 applied to them only if they taught one of those classes 

explicitly listed in the examples provided rather than some other subject 

not listed (like chemistry). 

• They automatically qualified for option 1 or 2 if they saw a subject they 

taught listed in the examples. 

• If they were to qualify for option 1, they needed to teach multiple 

subject matter courses, not just one. 

Those who were under the third assumption, that option 1 stipulated that they 

teach multiple subjects, were uncertain as to whether they could qualify if they 

taught multiple subjects within the same department (e.g., algebra, geometry, 

trigonometry, consumer math), or whether they needed to teach in multiple 

departments of the school to offer “departmentalized instruction.” More varied 

options would give readers a better understanding of the range of situations the 

fall under option 1. 

The examples in option 5 also were not sufficiently varied to convince readers 

that they should base their choice on the mapping of teachers to students, not 

the specific course content. One participant mentioned that her school had a 

pull-out program for gifted and talented students, but the examples in option 5 

seem oriented towards remediation only. 
E-24 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

In addition, there did not seem to be an appropriate category for certain teachers 

of students with special needs. Several participants noted that they taught 

special education or ESOL students exclusively. In those cases, although they 

are mainstreamed, attending regular schools, the students are not “pulled out” 

for part of a class, but attend classes as part of a curriculum designed especially 

for them. These classes are “regular classes” for these students; they are not 

“released,” as in option 5. 

These teachers were also uncomfortable with the other options. Most taught one 

or two subject areas such as reading and science to exclusively IEP or limitedEnglish-proficient (LEP) students. In the sense that they shared these students 

with other special education or ESOL teachers teaching other subjects, such as 

math and social studies, they were team teachers (option 4). In their own 

opinion, they were subject matter teachers (option 1) whose department 

affiliation happened to be determined by the type of students they taught rather 

than the subject they taught. In the opinion of their school, however, they were 

ESOL or special education teachers, not subject matter teachers, who taught a 

“Self-Contained Class” of subjects all day to the same group of students, 

namely various sets of IEP or LEP students who came through their classroom 

(option 3). One participant’s school actually used the term “self-contained” to 

describe classes in which special education students were taught certain subject 

matter courses (e.g., geometry) but then were mainstreamed into regular 

(uncontained) classes. These teachers did not know how to classify themselves. 

Recommendation b: Consider allowing participants to denote another category, to describe “main” 

organization and “secondary” organization. If appropriate for the desired 

definition, change option 4 (Team Teaching) to say “two or more teachers (not 

aides) in the same room simultaneously teaching multiple subjects to the same 

group of students....” 

Problem b: The suggested answer choices and accompanying parenthetical labels did not 

match terms participants understood in their school system or did not match 

situations participants experienced. Several participants described situations 

where, for example, part of their day was self-contained with block times for 

reading/language arts and math, then departmentalized when students (as a 

whole) went to another teacher for science, physical education, and media. The 

same participant might teach science to other teachers’ classes for one or two 

periods. These teachers wanted to choose two options to describe the situation. 

Participants were also confusing an aide with a coteacher or could not find a 

means to adequately note that they had an aide in the classroom when teaching 

students who were mainstreamed. 

Observations: Several participants noted that the phrases at the end of each of the answer 

choices, for example, Self-Contained Class, in parentheses, along with the 

preceding definitions in the answer choices, helped them to confirm the 

selection of a particular response. One participant mentioned that he had jumped 

to scanning those phrases after reading one or two of the longer descriptions 

since they were more concise. Two others read the long descriptions carefully 

as well as the parenthetical descriptions. When asked what they would do if 

provided only one of the elements—just the phrases or just the definitions—

these participants said they would probably not change their answer. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-25 

Finding just one option that covered most situations proved problematic for 

some participants. Participants understood the meaning behind the answer 

choices, but some had some difficulty in limiting their choices to just one of 

those described in the answers. As in the case of the special education teacher 

who teaches in a tailored curriculum (she teaches geometry and career 

exploration), the curriculum is considered self-contained but the classes are 

departmentalized. In other elementary school cases, classes were somewhat 

self-contained but students also had departmentalized instruction for part of the 

day (music, physical education, art, science, media) depending on the day of the 

week; participants wanted to be able to record both situations. 

Question 4b: Which box did you mark in item 4a above? 

[ ] Box 1 or 2 Î Go to item 7 on page 7. 

[ ] Box 3, 4, or 5 Î Continue with item 5 below. 

Recommendation: In the second answer option, point arrow downwards to question 5 (directly 

below) to distinguish it from the pattern in the first answer option. 

Problem: Several participants erred in the skip pattern and incorrectly continued to 

question 5. A couple did not select a box but correctly continued to question 5 

or skipped to question 7. The right-facing arrow in the second option currently 

implies “forward,” suggesting the reader should continue to the next page. 

Fortunately, none who skipped correctly to question 7 returned later to attempt 

to complete 5 and 6. 

Question 5: At THIS school, what is the total number of students enrolled in the class 

(or section) you taught during your most recent FULL WEEK of teaching? 

• If you teach two or more classes (or sections) per day, please enter the 

average number of students in a class (or section). 

__|__| Students

Recommendation: Rephrase stem to include the direction to average in the question. 

Problem: Some participants were unclear what to record until reading the apple point on 

averaging. For example, one kindergarten teacher was unclear how to record her 

response for a.m. and p.m. classes until she read the apple point to average; 

otherwise, she would have combined the total number of students. Another 

participant has several small “classes” (reading groups of 5 students) and one 

large traditional class of 23. In her opinion, the average would not be accurate. 

To counter this situation, a participant suggested asking for low to high range of 

classes taught. One participant misinterpreted the question as asking for how 

many students were physically present. 

Observations: Definition of “class” can vary from a small reading group to a “team” of 6th

graders. 

“Most recent full week” is generally understood to be a particular week with no 

snow days, no delays (in most cases), no early dismissals, no teacher in-service 
E-26 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

days (in most cases), and no holiday parties. In practice, however, most 

participants defaulted to “typical, normal, or average” week, regardless of the 

time of year. Several music teachers, a coach, and a participant who taught 

horticultural science mentioned that, depending on the time of year when they 

filled out the survey, more time would be recorded for extracurricular school 

activities. 

Question 6a: During your most recent FULL WEEK of teaching, approximately how 

many hours did you spend teaching each of these subjects at THIS school? 

• If you taught two or more subjects at the same time, apportion the time 

to each subject as best you can. Report hours to the nearest whole hour; 

do not record fractions or minutes. If you did not teach a particular 

subject during the week, mark (X) the “None” box. 

(1) English/Reading/Language Arts 

__|__| Hours per week Î Of these hours, how many were

__| None designated for reading instruction? (Version 1)

 __|__| Hours per week 

 __| None 

Of these hours, how many were designated for reading instruction 

(Version 2) 

__|__| Hours per week 

__| None 

(2) Arithmetic/Mathematics 

__|__| Hours per week 

__| None 

(3) Social studies/History 

__|__| Hours per week 

__| None 

(4) Science 

__|__| Hours per week 

__| None 

Recommendation a1: Divide apple point into separate apple points, rather than having one long, 

complicated sentence. 

• Apportion the time to each subject as best you can if you taught two or 

more subjects at the same time. 

• Do not record fractions or minutes; report hours to the nearest whole 

hour. 

• Mark (X) the “None” box if you did not teach a particular subject 

during the week. 

Problem a1: Several participants remarked that there was a lot presented on the page. And, 

as explained in problem a2, they were apparently not able to distinguish the 

different instructions (e.g., the instruction to “apportion as best they could”). 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-27 

Recommendation a2: Given that only two participants saw the version 2 copy, and it was not met with 

resistance, UserWorks staff suggests using it to help to break up the page. Staff 

suspects that with version 2, users will not feel they have to do as much work on 

a single subitem. 

Consider asking first about reading activities AND reading instruction (or just 

time spent teaching reading, if more appropriate), then asking how much time 

spent on other language arts activities outside of reading, so users will not have 

to extract reading time from various language arts activities. For example, an 

elementary school participant wondered which parts of reading (e.g., phonics, 

directed book studies, read to aloud) should be included and whether reading 

included free reading time outside of reading. The aligned vertical format in 

version 2 could have an impact on the participant’s understanding of the 

question. 

Problem a2: Some participants remarked that it was difficult to break out the division of time 

because, especially in kindergarten and preschool, lessons were chunked, taught 

less formally and more informally, and lasted only for about 10 or 15 minutes at 

a time, but were greatly integrated with other subject matter. Apparently, they 

did not see the instruction to “apportion as best they could.” 

The elementary teachers had fewer problems with this because they devoted an 

hour or two per day specifically to English/Language Arts and that time would 

also incorporate teaching reading skills; however, one elementary school 

teacher did have problems calculating time in reading because she teaches 

language arts (writing, grammar) as part of reading. In addition, she 

incorporates social studies and science topics into her reading periods. She 

noted that she would have put down the reading periods as reading time, but it 

would have made it appear she spent very little time on language arts that was 

not reading. 

A couple of participants who were middle school or high teachers wondered if 

Drop Everything and Read (DEAR) would count as Reading. One science/math 

teacher recorded .3 (for 20 minutes spent every week in DEAR) in Reading. 

Recommendation b: Give examples as to what included in English/Reading/Language Arts. 

Problem b: For preschool and kindergarten teachers, is prereading considered part of 

English/Language Arts/Reading? Should they count only formal instruction in 

reading? 

Observations: Inconsistent use of “None” box by one participant who wrote in zero for reading 

and checked none for others. Another participant mostly correctly checked 

“None,” but still erred by writing zero for Science, rather than checking 

“None.” 

One participant missed the arrow to the reading breakout question, until 

prompted. This participant wanted the question in two parts, which was 

reflected in version 2 of the panel. 
E-28 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

 Participants had fewer problems completing questions 2–4 because they were 

pretty straightforward. One participant did not include landscaping in science 

(he taught horticultural science) because he considered that a voc-tech course, 

not a science course. 

A couple of participants wondered if, in their kindergarten or preschool classes, 

social skills were the same as social studies. 

Question 6b: This school year, what is your MAIN teaching assignment field at this 

school, that is, the field in which you teach the most classes? 

• Record the teaching assignment field code and name from Table 1 on 

page 6. 

Code Main teaching assignment field 

____| _________________________| 

Recommendation a: Clarify if goal is to identify “most subjects taught” (e.g., three earth science 

classes vs. two general science classes vs. being just a 9th grade science teacher, 

2-hour block of reading in a self-contained 2nd grade class where participant also 

teaches math, etc.) or elementary vs. middle vs. high school teacher who 

happens to specialize in some subject. 

Problem a: Participants were unclear on the purpose of the question. Was it to identify the 

most important subject/class taught or if participant identified self as 6th grade/ 

middle school classroom teacher? Of those participants who had difficulty 

answering the question, several would identify (pre-)reading as the most 

important subject taught, even though they did not consider themselves reading 

teachers. They recorded kindergarten grade/code but then listed reading as the 

main teaching assignment field. 

Recommendation b: See also discussion under Question 7. 

Recommendation c: Revise instruction to refer to table 1 to refer to table 1A instead. 

Observation: “Main teaching assignment field,” to most participants, implied a predominant 

subject taught (most said reading was most important) rather than status as a 

4th grade/elementary school classroom teacher. 

Question 6c: Go to Section III – Educational Background on page 9. (6c only on version 

1; version 2 gives a skip instruction.) 

Recommendation: Consider an arrow pointing to skip instruction on same line (aligned with the 

left margin underneath) as 6b. 

Consider putting the skip instruction within 6b: 

Code Main teaching assignment field 

____| _________________________| Î “Skip to Item 10a (Section 

III—Educational Background) on page 9” AND/OR include instructions: 

STOP! Do NOT go to page 7. Please skip to item ... on page ....” 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-29 

Problem: Half of all the participants at this point overlooked the skip to page 9. One 

participant erred in understanding the skip in 4b and did answer question 7 but 

continued to question 8. (Later, this participant was overly attentive, which 

confused him throughout the remainder of the survey). Two participants caught 

the skip they had missed after realizing that question 7 was the same as question 

6b. 

Observation: For some participants, “go” did not imply “pass over the items”; “skip” was a 

more directive term. 

Question 7: This school year, what is your MAIN teaching assignment field at this 

school, that is, the field in which you teach the most classes? 

• Record the teaching assignment field code and name from Table 1 on 

page 6. 

Code Main teaching assignment field 

____| _________________________| 

Recommendation a: See discussion under 6b. 

Recommendation b: No recommendation. 

Problem b: Several participants missed the instruction to skip from question 4b to question 

7 or to skip questions 7-8-9 after completing 6b. Of those who did, they 

remarked that questions 6b and 7 were the same. Two participants completed 

question 7 but then skipped questions 8 and 9, saying that they did not apply. 

Recommendation c: Add new assignment codes or reword existing ones. Replace “ESL/Bilingual” 

with “ESL or Bilingual.” 

Problem c: An art teacher wanted a code for Photography, rather than using code 141, and 

then she mentioned that Visual Arts is the preferred term for this code (141). A 

music teacher wanted more specific options within Music, (e.g., choral or 

instrumental is the usual division). Another participant, an ESOL teacher, was 

confused by the use of “bilingual” in the ESL codes. She figured it out, but she 

was not sure what the difference was between “general” and “Spanish” or 

“other.” 

Recommendation d: Revise instruction to refer to table 1 to refer to table 1A instead. 

Recommendation e: Consider moving this question after item 9. (See “Observation” in Item 9.) 

Observations: One participant said if (s)he taught at another school, (s)he would want to 

record classes taught at both schools, so (s)he would not seem like (s)he was not 

“working.” 

One participant, after noticing that questions 6b and 7 are the same, wondered if 

the Census Bureau would fill in the codes. Another wondered if (s)he was being 

“tested.” 
E-30 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Several participants noted after seeing questions 6b and 7 (but not necessarily 

remarking that questions were the same and that they erred in catching the skip 

instruction) said that question 7 should ask about secondary teaching 

assignment. 

One participant made a mistake when using the code for kindergarten; (s)he 

used K instead of 101. 

One participant wanted to include all codes for classes he teaches. He created 

new boxes or indicated that new boxes would be needed for this purpose. 

Question 8: During your MOST RECENT FULL WEEK of teaching, how many 

separate classes (or sections) did you teach AT THIS SCHOOL? 

• Do not include homeroom periods or study halls. 

• If you teach 2 classes (or sections) of chemistry 1, a class (or section) of 

physics 1, and a class (or section) of physics II, you would report 4 

classes (or sections). 

• If you teach 3 music classes (or sections) to students at THIS school, 

and 2 music classes (or sections) to students at other schools, you 

would report ONLY 3 classes (or sections). 

__|__| Number of classes or sections 

Recommendation a: Exclude study hall from apple points. 

Problem a: Several participants noted that study hall is no longer used, but some described 

“labs” where students have the opportunity to do homework, such as in an 

ESOL-supported environment. 

Recommendation b: Consider use of “period” to distinguish subject from class. Alternatively, 

rephrase question to indicate “In your job assignment, how many classes are 

assigned to you?” AND “Count only once periods that meet more than once a 

week” (or “Count each time you meet with a class during the week,” if that’s 

the intent.) In the examples under the instruction, show how to treat periods that 

meet several times a week. 

Problem b: A couple of participants remarked that “(or section)” cluttered up the page. 

More importantly, several participants were still unclear how to record classes; 

the use of “in the week” implied that it would be a multiple of five. (Answers 

ranged from 3 or 4 to 25.) At least four said the question was ambiguous. Apple 

points are critical in answering the question correctly; the question otherwise 

would seem to ask how many times your periods meet in a week. 

Observation: One participant was confused about the meaning of “homeroom”; the term in 

his school was “home base.” 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-31 

Question 9: Complete a line of the table below for each class (or section) that you 

taught during your MOST RECENT FULL WEEK of teaching at this 

school. 

• Record the subject name, subject matter code, and the grade level code 

from table 1 on page 6. 

• The number of lines filled should equal the number of classes (or 

sections) reported in item 8. 

• For classes with mixed grades, list the grade with the most number of 

students. (Version 2)

a. Subject name, e.g., English 

b. Subject matter code, e.g., 153 

c. Grade level code, e.g., 11 

d. Number of students, e.g., 33 

Recommendation a: Clarify that respondents should only list each period taught followed by the 

number of students in each period (or else combine periods of the same subject 

on one line and list the total number of students for all such periods). 

Problem a: Periods of the same subject were listed only one time with all students studying 

that subject summed together. One participant confused how many students to 

record for a class on English as 50 (instead of 2 at 25). Another participant 

recorded 75 for the World Studies class instead of 3 at 25. A third participant 

tutored two students in reading separately for 30 minutes each in one period, so 

she recorded two in column D. At least two participants had a double reading 

period and listed both of them twice, one as a language arts period and another 

as a reading period, even though the same students were taught. 

Recommendation b: Consider updating codes in table 1 that this question refers to. 

Problem b: One participant listed subjects first, and then went to the table to locate 

matching codes for those subjects, such as World History. 

One participant suggested adding “career exploration” under voc-tech, as well 

as updating computer-associated voc-tech classes (e.g., omitting “keyboarding” 

and adding “computer technology”). 

Another participant suggested reordering codes from general to specific 

subjects. Also, at this point in the survey, one participant was annoyed that his 

various classes in music (e.g., guitar, concert band), unlike various subjects in 

math, were not accounted for. The participant, who in item 7 had written in a 

specialty field that did not match the field code he selected, did not specify here 

the type of music class in column A because by this point he figured it did not 

matter. 
E-32 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Observation: One participant suggested emphasis should be on leading respondents from all 

the subjects they teach to the question he felt item 7 was really getting at, 

“Where do you feel your concentration lies?”; this participant, therefore, 

suggested moving question 7 under question 9. This reversal of question 9 in 

place of question 7 may help teachers to spotlight what their main teaching 

assignment field is after listing all the subjects they teach, if that is the goal. 

One participant who teaches at two schools wanted additional questions for his 

other school. 

 Six participants were unsure about the term ungraded or wanted to use an “MG” 

code to denote that their classes have multiple or mixed grades in them. 

Ungraded to them meant, “no grades are assigned in this class” so it did not 

seem like an appropriate or even a relevant choice. One participant assumed 

“ungraded” must be the nursery school grade prior to prekindergarten, since it 

appeared first in the list of grades. One participant who saw version 2 wrote in 

“9–12,” another left the column empty for those she did not know how to 

record, and another recorded 11th grade as the “major grade.” UserWorks staff 

did not have a sufficient sample to determine whether the new apple point in 

version 2 would clarify the mixed grades issue. 

III. Educational Background: Panel A, Items 10–14 

This section asks for information about participants’ academic degrees. 

Question 10/12a: Do you have a [Bachelor’s/Master’s] degree? 

__| Yes 

__| No Î Go to item 13a on page 10. 

Recommendation a: Consider adding venue to record double bachelor’s degree. 

Problem a: Several participants remarked that it is not clear until question 13 that they can 

record another bachelor’s, nor is it clear how to record a double major. 

Observation: Participants with a master’s equivalency from a state/local/county Department 

of Education wanted to complete master’s questions with reference to the 

generalized nature of the courses they’ve taken and the certificate they’ve 

earned. 

Question 10/12b: In what year did you receive your [Bachelor’s/Master’s] degree? 

__|__|__|__| Year 

Observation: One participant was annoyed at having to recall year graduated, saying that it 

was so long ago and (s)he wanted to have advance notice of need for transcripts. 

Another participant could not remember the exact year, so (s)he wrote mid1980s instead. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-33 

Question 10/12c: Was this degree awarded by a department of education, college of 

education, or school of education? 

__| Yes 

__| No 

Recommendation a: Consider allowing participants to check off whether and how degree was 

education related. 

Problem a: Several participants had degrees awarded by a non-education academic unit of a 

college or university (e.g., School of Arts and Sciences, or College of 

Agriculture), but the degree did relate to education, for example Art Education 

or Agricultural Education. The wording of the question implied to them that 

their degree did not “count” as an education degree. One participant noted that 

her math degree was from a well-known college that was mostly known for its 

education program, but she had a strictly math Bachelor of Arts (B.A.). 

Recommendation b: Reword question to give context to the academic units within a higher education 

institution, for example, “Did a university’s college of education or a college’s 

school of education award this degree?” 

Problem b: Several participants were confused, calling the wording “ambiguous,” and 

interpreted part of this question as referring to a state/local/county department 

of education, especially among those who had master’s equivalency awarded by 

the state/local/county department of education. In addition, several participants 

remarked that they expected they would have had the option of choosing which 

of the three academic units awarded the degree, noting that “yes” seemed an 

inadequate answer. 

Recommendation c: If “no” to item 10/12c, point to a subitem that conveys, “If your degree was not 

from a department or school of education within your college (e.g., school of 

music), if your degree was not from a school or college of education within 

your university, did you take education-related courses (e.g., methods in 

teaching music) WITHIN that department, school, or college?” 

Problem c: Wording of the question does not cover all situations in which respondents 

receive education degrees. Respondents who answered fully understood the 

question, and those who answered “no” may have received a degree in 

education through taking education courses in their specialty field department 

(history) or school (School of Music). It may not be obvious whether to treat 

this situation as a full-fledged education degree, as issues of accreditation may 

arise. 

Question 10/12d: What was your major field of study? 

• Record the field of study code and the field name from Table 2 on page 

8.

Code Major field 

____| _________| 
E-34 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Recommendation a: Consider recording minor or area of specialization. 

Problem a: Several participants with a master’s in secondary education wanted to record 

area(s) of specialization. For those whose programs crossed elementary/middle 

school boundaries, they wanted codes to reflect 1st through 8th grade 

endorsement, or prekindergarten through 3rd grade endorsement, or kindergarten 

through 12th endorsement. 

Recommendation c: Consider adding new education-related codes. 

Problem c: One participant had a Master of Arts (M.A.) in curriculum and instruction but 

did not like that she had to select “other” (136) from the education column. 

Another participant had an M.A. in Art Education and mentioned that it was 

different from an M.A. in Art. 

Recommendation b: Consider relabeling general education codes by grade ranges. 

Problem b: Grade level ranges in general education codes do not reflect actual certification. 

Currently many education programs train elementary education teachers to 

teach through 8th grade middle school and secondary education teachers to teach 

6th through 12th grade. There is often no degree program for teaching the middle 

grades. The secondary education codes, by distinguishing “middle” from 

“secondary,” imply that the questionnaire designers think of “secondary” as the 

same as “high school.” A middle school teacher certified in “secondary 

education,” or “elementary education” might therefore justifiably feel that by 

listing her true certification as “secondary,” or “elementary” she would be 

implying she was teaching in grades outside of those she was trained in. Indeed, 

those whose programs crossed elementary/middle school boundaries, wanted 

codes to reflect 1st through 8th grade endorsement, or prekindergarten through 

3rd grade endorsement, or kindergarten through 12th endorsement. 

Recommendation c1: Consider adding an apple point for participants who cannot find their exact 

degree name: 

• If the field of study name is not listed in Table 2, please choose the 

closest match. 

Recommendation c2: Also, again assuming the intention of the item is to determine the name of the 

degree, increase the likelihood that respondents will find an exact match in table 

2 by adding a section to table 2 labeled “Combined Degree” with codes and 

field names that include both a specialty field and the word “education.” 

Problem c: If the purpose of item 10/12d is to help determine whether the respondent has an 

education degree, it does not succeed for all cases. Both the wording of the 

question and the set of options provided in table 2 encourage respondents to 

think of unofficial areas of expertise rather than official credentials. The phrase 

“major field of study” connotes concentration area for a bachelor’s degree and 

simply confuses master’s degree recipients, since having a “major” implies one 

has the opportunity to study something other than one’s major, which is not the 

case in most advanced degree programs. The division of table 2 into General 

Education and Subject Matter Specific areas forces respondents to choose 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-35 

whether they studied education or a specialty area, when the focus of their 

program may have been on both equally. 

Question 11a: What is the name of the college or university where you earned this 

degree? 

Name of college or university 

_______________________| 

Question 11b: In what city and state is it located? 

City State 

___| ____| 

__| Located outside the United States 

Recommendation: No change. 

Problem: One participant was confused and thought this question pertained to question 

10; she realized her mistake, erased her original answer, and wrote in the correct 

one. Of the participants asked about a hypothetical degree obtained overseas, all 

correctly noted they would enter the name of the city in which the degree was 

obtained in the space for “City” (and/or cross out State and write in country), 

and mark “Located outside the United States.” 

Observation: One participant observed that her school’s name had changed and was able to 

include that in the name of the college field. 

Question 13a: Have you earned any other degrees? 

__| Yes 

__| No Î Go to item 14 below. 

Table headers: 

• A. Degrees – include: 

o Vocational certificate 

o Associate’s degree 

o SECOND Bachelor’s degree 

o SECOND Master’s degree 

o Educational specialist or professional diploma (at least one year 

beyond Master’s level) 

o Certificate of Advanced Graduate Studies 

o Doctorate or first professional degree (PhD, EdD, MD, LLB, JD, 

DDS) 

• B. Have you earned this degree? 

__| Yes Î (points to C in next column) 

__| No 

• C. What was your major field of study for this degree? 

o Record the field of study code and the field name from Table 2 on 

page 8. 
E-36 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Code Major field of study title 

____| ___________________| 

• D. What year did you receive this degree? 

Year 

____| 

Recommendation a: Add “In progress” to column b for earned degree status. Alternatively, omit 

column d, and reword column b to “In what year was this degree received?” 

Problem a: Three participants with degrees or advanced certificates in progress wanted to 

record that the degree or advanced certificate was in progress or nearly 

completed. 

Recommendation b: Add a new row to record credentialing and/or master’s equivalency. Give 

example of educational specialist degree/certification. 

Problem b: One participant who is a kindergarten/childcare provider has had two intensive 

training sessions lasting 90 and 45 hours, and she was concerned that her 

training credentials could not be recorded anywhere. Several participants in 

Maryland have or are in the process of completing a master’s equivalency that 

entitles them to a substantial raise in pay. The participants were not sure if this 

master’s equivalency (which included college courses as well as collegeequivalency classes) could be classified as educational specialist. (One 

participant had two educational specialists “degrees” but used that and the 

Certificate of Advanced Graduate Studies to record certificates related to music 

instruction.) 

Recommendation c: Add a row for National Board certificate. 

Problem c: One participant had obtained National Board certificate and one participant was 

in the process of creating a portfolio in anticipation of taking National Boards. 

Similar to the master’s equivalency, the National Boards offered participants a 

substantial raise in pay. 

Recommendation d: Modify skip instruction to read, “If no, GO to item ....” 

Problem d: One participant did not realize the arrow and skip instruction after the “No” 

answer choice in question 10a applied only to people who answer “No.” After 

answering question 10a, she went to question 13a and was unable to find a place 

to put her additional degree, her first master’s degree. She had a Master’s of 

Education (M.Ed.), but recorded it under “Doctorate or first professional 

degree” by writing in her degree. 

Observations: Participants had no problems navigating the table itself, but did not know until 

seeing the table that they could record a 2nd bachelor’s or master’s degree. 

One participant had an Associate in Arts awarded but opted not to record it 

because she “considered it part of my BA program.” 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-37 

One participant incorrectly completed questions 10–12 because of confusion 

with the skip pattern. She had an M.Ed., but recorded it under “Doctorate or 

first professional degree” by writing in her degree. 

Question 14: Have you ever taken any graduate or undergraduate courses in teaching 

methods or education? 

• Include courses you are now taking as well as courses taken to earn a 

degree and courses taken outside a degree program. 

__| Yes Î How many? __|__| 

__| No 

Recommendation a: Provide a range of hours for participants to select. 

Problem a: Almost all participants said that it is hard to estimate (or obtain) the number of 

methods or education courses completed and/or that they would either prefer 

advance notice of the need for transcripts or they would have to resort to 

guessing. Several remarked it is difficult to think that far back, especially if they 

have been teaching for 20 or 30 years. One participant asked about the value of 

such a question. 

Recommendation b: Target this question more specifically to teachers who might have no education 

degree (perhaps after asking if participants have an education degree awarded 

by a college’s school of education or a university’s college of education). 

Problem b: Several participants said the question was ambiguous because all teachers with 

education degrees would have taken some methods or education courses. The 

question is very broad because it says, “ever taken,” which includes 

undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate coursework. 

Recommendation c: If the question is kept as is, offer examples of the types of classes that count as 

methods or courses in education. 

Problem c: As mentioned in problem b, at least four participants said the question is 

ambiguous and needed clarification in what should be considered a methods 

course. For example, should it have the words “methods” in the title of the 

course? One participant erred in not including courses taken while obtaining an 

M.A.; this person considered the question ambiguous and was not sure if C&I 

classes counted as methods or education classes. 

Observations: One participant incorrectly skipped the question. 

One participant said yes, but did not record a number, saying it was too many to 

think about. 

Section III overall: 

Problem: The section uses imprecise roundabout methods to get at the issue of whether 

teachers have been educated in what they are teaching. It is not clear why 

teachers are not directly asked if they are or are not teaching one or more 
E-38 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

courses outside the field or fields in which they received their education. 

Perhaps it is assumed that some teachers might feel threatened by the question 

in cases where they are not teaching in the field in which they were trained and 

are not given the opportunity to explain why. To keep the survey quantitative, 

respondents could be asked to choose from explanations presumed likely or 

write in a reason. It may be difficult to avoid write-ins however, since certain 

reasons may have nothing to do with teacher preference or school scheduling 

demands. For instance, a teacher who initiates a class in Latin to encourage 

students to master roots, prefixes, and suffixes as well as ancient history may be 

less likely to have majored in Classics or foreign languages than in English or 

history. 

The following are examples that stand out in the participant pool: 

Categorization of degrees: 

• One participant has an M.A. in Art Education, teacher certification in 

Art Education, and teaches visual arts and photography. Does her 

degree count in education or in art? 

• One participant has a B.A. in Agriculture Education, certification to 

teach Agricultural Science, and teaches horticultural science (a subset 

of agriculture). For the purposes of the survey, does his degree count in 

education or in agriculture? He also has a master’s equivalency 

focusing on education from the state of Maryland; is this integrated into 

the survey? 

• One participant has a bachelor’s and a master’s in music education from 

a School of Music, with additional certifications (educational specialist) 

in performance and opera. For purposes of the survey, do his degrees 

count in education or in music? 

Teaching out of area: 

• A teacher with a business education master’s degree (from screener; on 

the survey she classified it as secondary education), certification almost 

completed in special education, is teaching geometry and career 

exploration in a high school curriculum targeted to students in special 

education. At first glance, what she is teaching may seem out of area 

but “career exploration” is a business topic, and math is a business skill. 

• A “kindergarten” teacher with no B.A., M.A., or teacher certification, is 

employed by a daycare center where she uses a kindergarten curriculum 

to teach 5-year-olds in the morning. (The afternoon session is mostly 

daycare.) She underwent mandatory training to be a lead teacher; the 

training consisted of two sessions, 90 hours and 45 hours. She has no 

way to show this credentialing process, so the survey can not determine 

what her educational area is. 

• A Title I reading teacher is certified as an elementary school teacher. 

Depending on assessment needs, she may teach reading, remedial math, 

etc. At any one time she is not teaching general elementary education, 

but rather, an elementary specialty. Yet over the course of several years, 

she will have taught all general elementary education courses. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-39 

• Some elementary school teachers who teach multiple elementary school 

subjects are thus teaching in their areas of certification, elementary 

education, but the survey may not convey this since they put “reading” 

as their main teaching assignment field, thinking it the most important 

subject for young children. 

IV. Certification and Training: Panel A, Items 15–20 

This section asks for information about participants’ certification. 

Question 15–18a: Do you have a [SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH] teaching certificate in this 

state? 

__| Yes (arrow points to question b) 

__| No Î Go to item 21 on page 15 (for first certificate, in Version 1; 

Version 2 directs participants to item 20) 

Go to item 20 on page 14 (for 2nd, 3rd, 4th certificate) 

Recommendation a: Focus on area of specialization. (See 15–18c.) 

Problem a: Participants were confused for several reasons: 

• Question seemed to emphasize counting number of certificates renewed 

or advanced over teaching career. 

• Several remarked that the questions did not distinguish between current 

or lapsed/expired certificates. 

Question 15–18b: What type of certificate is this? 

• Mark (X) only one box. 

__| Regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional certificate 

__| Probationary certificate (the initial certificate issued after satisfying all 

requirements except the completion of a probationary period) 

__| Provisional or other type given to persons who are still participating in what 

the state calls an “alternative certification program” 

__| Temporary certificate (requires some additional college coursework and/or 

student teaching before regular certification can be obtained) 

__| Emergency certificate or waiver (issued to persons with insufficient teacher 

preparation who must complete a regular certification program in order to 

continue teaching) 

Observation: One participant remarked that her understanding of what the different types of 

certifications were did not match the descriptions. 
E-40 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Question 15–18c: In what content area is this certificate? 

• Record the content area code and the content area name from Table 3 

on page 11. 

Code Content area 

____| __________| 

Recommendation a: Allow teachers to record elementary or secondary teaching certification and 

then area of specialization or endorsement. 

Problem a: A few participants did not like the use of “general” in the tables because they 

did not feel it was accurate. In addition, while they were certified in elementary 

education (rather than “grade”) or secondary education (e.g., considered 

themselves a 6th grade classroom teacher), they wanted to record an area of 

specialization (such as science) or endorsement. The wording of the questions 

confused those teachers who had one certificate (one piece of paper) with 

several areas of specialization, such as math and earth science, and a reading 

endorsement. They could not readily ascertain that “teaching certificate” 

pertained to individual areas of specialization. 

Recommendation b: Ensure that in the final version of the survey that tables are as close as possible 

to the referring questions. 

Problem b: Two participants remarked about the amount of page flipping needed to record 

codes from the tables. It did not prevent them from completing the question 

correctly; however, they did suggest moving the tables closer to the questions, 

possibly on the same page as the question. 

Observations: Two participants wanted a new code to record certification for grades 

prekindergarten through 3rd grade; currently no code covers early childhood 

AND lower elementary grades. Further, some teachers are certified for 

kindergarten or 1st through 8th, but no code covers that range, either. 

One participant thought he already included this information, but he did admit 

to not fully reading questions and instead was just looking for a few key words 

to clue him in. 

Question 19a: Do you currently hold ANY ADDITIONAL regular or standard state 

certificate(s) or advanced professional teaching certificate(s) in this state? 

__| Yes 

__| No Î Go to item 20 below. 

Question 19b: How many? 

__|__| Additional certificates 

Recommendation: Move question 20 to its own page. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-41 

Problem: Most participants correctly skipped this question. One participant erred in 

responding to this, not paying attention that the first question was 19 and not 20. 

(In earlier skips, participants are referenced to item 7, which is the first question 

on page 7 or to item 5 after 4b, which is the first question after 4b.) Another 

participant marked “no” incorrectly followed the skip pattern and continued to 

question 20. 

Question 20: How did you earn your initial teaching certificate? (Version 1) 

Thinking about all of the teaching certificates you have earned in any state, 

how did you earn your first certificate? (Version 2) 

• Mark (X) only one box. 

__| As part of a Bachelor’s degree program 

__| As a supplemental program to a Bachelor’s or a “5th year” program 

__| As part of a Master’s degree program 

__| After I began teaching, as part of an alternative program 

__| Before I began teaching, as part of an alternative program 

__| Through continuing professional development 

__| Other – Please specify 

 ___________| 

__| I do not have any teaching certificates. (Version 2) 

Recommendation a: Rephrase or add answer choice, “After I obtained bachelor’s degree, but before 

I began teaching.” 

Problem a: One participant went back to college after obtaining a B.A. to obtain a teaching 

certificate. This participant was unsure what supplemental or alternative 

program referred to and was looking for interim stage between completion of 

B.A. and before teaching career began. Another participant worked with a state 

agency to determine what courses were needed after the B.A. was awarded in 

order to obtain teaching certificate. (This participant chose “other” as the 

answer, but had no idea how to specify the process.) 

Recommendation b: Provide examples for “alternative program.” 

Problem b: Participants were unclear what alternative program meant. When asked about 

something like Teach for America, some participants would consider it an 

alternative program, while some would not. 

Observation: In considering what “initial certificate” meant, four participants were evenly 

divided in whether they would consider a temporary/emergency/provisional 

certificate as the first certificate. 

One participant commented that the reworked version of the question posed no 

problem to understanding its intent when asked to explain what the question 

meant. 
E-42 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

V. Working Conditions: Panel A, Items 21–23, and Panel B, Items 14–16 

This section asks about the hours spent at participants’ teaching assignment at THIS school. (Note: 

Findings for both panels are combined here to compare and contrast wording and participant behavior.) 

Panel A 

Question 21: 

How many total hours did you spend working on school-related activities 

for this school during your MOST RECENT FULL WEEK of teaching? 

• Include both official school hours and time spent working before 

school, after school, and on weekends. 

__|__|__| Total hours in the week 

Panel B 

Question 14: 

During your MOST RECENT FULL WEEK, how many total hours did 

you spend working on school-related activities for this school? 

• Include time during school hours and time spent working before school, 

after school, and on weekends. 

__|__|__| Total hours in the week 

Recommendation: Add an explanation after the instruction: “Consider ‘school-related activities’ to 

be anything you do in your capacity AS A TEACHER to help your students, 

their parents, your school, or other people or organizations, whether during 

school hours or before or after school or on weekends.” 

Also, to conserve space and save respondents’ time, remove the now redundant 

apple point in question 14. Respondents tend to ignore apple points unless they 

need clarification anyway, and this apple point is not a supplementary 

illustration but a mandatory instruction. 

Problem: Participants were unsure about what types of activities should be considered 

“school-related activities.” Narrow interpretation of “school-related” as merely 

“instruction-related” led a minority of panel B participants to underestimate 

hours in question 14. 

Several participants simply failed to read the apple point in item 14. These 

participants assumed that they should include only official school hours in the 

hours requested. Significantly, however, some interpreted the phrase even more 

narrowly and included only instructional time in question 14. One participant 

initially wondered if “sports” was a “school-related activity.” Because the 

previous section in panel B concentrates on classroom instruction, and because 

examples of activities are not provided in item 14, respondents may not realize 

until they encounter items 15 and 16 that they are supposed to include activities 

unrelated to instruction or management of students. When participants read 

“administrative duties” in item 15c and “coaching, acting as a club sponsor” in 

item 16a, some broadened their understanding of “school-related activities,” but 

they did not automatically return to question 14 to add more hours; they had to 

be led back to item 14 by the interviewer. Even the terms “coaching, acting as a 

club sponsor” do not necessarily clarify the scope of school-related activities, 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-43 

which could include academic, community oriented, and special-interest nonacademic activities. 

Since respondents will always be involved in school-related activities that 

cannot be anticipated (e.g., working lunches; running errands—buying seeds 

and dirt for the school, not the classroom; monitoring nap time, play time, or 

recreational recess instead of lunch or the bus), it is probably best to offer as 

broad a definition of “school-related activities” as possible. Yet the definition 

should not be so broad as to include aspects of the teacher’s personal life that 

may involve school connections (e.g., having dinner with a friend who happens 

also to be a parent of a student in one’s class). 

Observations: Both sets of participants had trouble with the term “Most Recent Full Week,” 

but it did not seem to be affected by where in the sentence the phrase “during 

your most recent full week” appeared, or whether or not the words “of teaching” 

were included. 

One panel A participant having reached this point was less inclined to take care 

in considering responses, so when she recorded hours worked in a week, she 

entered only those above and beyond the average week, later wondering if she 

should go back and change the total hours. 

One Panel A participant erred by writing in 60+ hours after marking that he 

worked less than 1⁄4 time. He mentioned that was the typical number of hours he 

worked when he was a full-time teacher, before he retired and became a 

permanent substitute teacher. He was still involved in teen club activities, 

however. 

Panel A 

Question 22: 

During official school hours, how much time did you spend on the following 

school-related activities during your MOST RECENT FULL WEEK of 

teaching at this school? 

• Official school hours include a minimum number of hours required to 

receive base pay. 

• Official school hours do NOT include hours spent on activities for 

which you receive additional compensation. 

a. Student instructional time 

__|__|__| Total hours in the week 

b. Scheduled school time for planning 

__|__|__| Total hours in the week 

c. Other scheduled school time 

• Including time spent in homeroom, study halls, professional 

development, required meetings, lunch duty, bus duty, etc. 

__|__|__| Total hours in the week 
E-44 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Panel B 

Question 15: 

During official school hours, how much time did you spend on the following 

school-related activities during your MOST RECENT FULL WEEK of 

teaching at this school? 

a. Student instructional time 

__|__|__| Total hours in the week 

b. Scheduled school time for planning 

__|__|__| Total hours in the week 

c. Other scheduled administrative duties 

• Include time spent in homeroom, study halls, professional development, 

required meetings, lunch duty, bus duty, etc. 

__|__|__| Total hours in the week 

Recommendation a: Change “school-related activities” to “work duties” in B15/A22 to signal that 

15/22 is more restricted than 14/21. 

Be sure also to change “school-related activities” in question B14/A21 to “work 

duties and other school-related activities” so readers will not equate item 14/21 

with item 16/23 only. 

Keep “school-related activities” in question 16/23; do not replace it with “nonacademic,” since several items in question 16/23b are related to academic 

classroom work or student academic performance, and several items in question 

16/23a (tutoring, sponsoring an academic team or science fair project) could be 

considered academic. 

Problem a: One panel A participant suggested “school-related activities” may connote after 

school activities only, since “activities” are not as serious as real work. She 

suggested that where the survey is only asking about what happens during the 

workday it should say “work-related.” Other participants may have had similar 

interpretations. For instance, a panel B participant thought “school-related” 

meant “non-academic,” having to do with school but excluding the fine details 

of instruction. 

Recommendation b: Exclude study hall from apple point in 22c. 

Problem b: Several participants noted that study hall is no longer used, but some described 

“labs” where students have the opportunity to do homework, such as in an 

ESOL-supported environment. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-45 

Recommendation c: Include additional examples in questions 15/22b and 15/22c or create new 

categories showing where to classify other activities: 

• recess duty and other supervised recreation; 

• lunch (teacher’s own lunch time, which is not the same as lunch duty); 

• staff, faculty, department, and committee meetings that take place 

during school (contract) hours; 

• creating, preparing, duplicating, and setting up materials; 

• cleaning up the classroom; 

• field trips during the school day; and 

• parent conferences during the school day. 

End the list by saying “and other similar activities performed during official 

school hours” to emphasize that it is the time they are performed that 

determines whether they should appear in question 15/22 rather than question 

16/23, not the nature of the activity. 

Problem c: Participants carefully classified their time according to the examples in italics 

but when attempting to classify activities that were not listed, they had difficulty 

generalizing from the examples to a class of activities with shared properties 

that would belong in a certain category. 

Such unlisted activities included time between when they were required to 

arrive and when students arrived or between when students left school and when 

teachers were required to leave. One participant wondered whether to include 

school-sanctioned holiday parties during part of class time. Kindergarten and 

preschool teachers wondered if and how they should account for the informal 

learning (free play). 

It was not clear to participants whether “required meetings” was the same as 

faculty or staff meetings: one could be required to meet with the principal on 

occasion and one could schedule an extra faculty meeting other than regular 

monthly or weekly ones. 

Participants were not sure whether to treat manual or clerical activities such as 

creation and duplication of materials for students’ use, setting up a room for an 

activity, and cleaning up materials after class as planning or preparation 

activities, which were often conceived as primarily intellectual or professional 

activities. 

One participant wondered where to put daytime field trips, another daytime 

parent conferences, since field trips and parent conferences were listed only in 

question 16/23, not question 15/22. 

Recommendation d: If participants will not yet have completed the professional development 

section, use more specific terms than “professional development” (e.g., “inservice classes”) or clarify whether “professional development” is to be limited 

to college courses and/or in services courses or includes other activities like 

faculty discussions. 
E-46 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Problem d: Several Panel A participants were not sure what professional development 

meant; they thought it meant afterschool (usually weekend) workshops, 

seminars, and other trainings they attended for college or Continuing Education 

Unit credit. If professional development includes in-service days or duringschool trainings (or even presentations during staff or faculty meetings), 

participants wanted to know what would “count.” This was not a problem for 

Panel B participants, since they had just completed a section on professional 

development where the phrase was defined rather broadly. 

Recommendation e: Determine whether item 15b should include ALL time spent planning, in which 

case it should read “b. All school time spent planning.” Otherwise, a separate 

category should be added: “d. Additional school time spent planning (not 

scheduled planning periods).” 

Problem e: Participants were not sure where to put, and thus did not include, time during 

official school hours that they used for planning but which was not officially 

scheduled as planning time. This confusion contributed to participants’ listing 

more hours in item 14 than they were able to account for in items 15 and 16. 

When probed as to whether there were any hours they included in item 14 that 

were not included in items 15 or 16, nearly half the participants mentioned up to 

an hour before and up to an hour after school when they were required to be in 

the building but when students were not so required. Several noted that they 

completed most of their planning at these times, since there were fewer 

distractions than during official planning periods, but they were not sure where 

to include these hours. 

One participant, from a private preschool, said she was not officially assigned 

any planning time whatsoever. Rather than putting zero hours in question 15b, 

however, she listed the same number of hours there as she listed for preparation 

and grading in question 16b, since the planning time she had was what she 

could schedule for herself through carving out a little time from the day here 

and there. 

Recommendation f: Determine whether 15b should include ONLY time spent actually planning, in 

which case it should reads “b. School time spent on planning.” Otherwise, 

append the current wording with “...whether actually used for planning or not.” 

Problem f: Participants were unsure how to classify scheduled planning time if they did not 

have the opportunity to use it for its intended purpose. 

Participants often found themselves using their officially scheduled planning 

periods for purposes other than planning lessons, purposes such as monitoring 

make-up exams for students who were absent, tutoring students who were 

falling behind, taking calls from concerned parents, discussing students’ 

problems with other teachers, or trying to keep order among students in the 

halls. Most listed scheduled planning hours in question 15b but informed the 

interviewer that the question was a poor indication of the amount of time they 

spent planning during official school hours. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-47 

Panel A 

Question 23: 

Outside of official school hours, how much time did you spend on the 

following school-related activities during your MOST RECENT FULL 

WEEK of teaching at this school? 

• Include time spent working before school, after school, and on 

weekends. 

a. Activities involving students 

• Including coaching, acting as a club sponsor, field trips, tutoring, 

transporting students, etc. 

__|__|__| Total hours in the week 

b. Activities NOT involving students 

• Including preparation, grading papers, parent conferences, attending 

meetings, etc. 

__|__|__| Total hours in the week 

Panel B 

Question 16: 

Outside of official school hours, how much time did you spend on the 

following school-related activities during your MOST RECENT FULL 

WEEK of teaching at this school? 

a. Activities involving students 

• Including coaching, acting as a club sponsor, field trips, tutoring, 

transporting student, etc. 

__|__|__| Total hours in the week 

b. Activities NOT involving students 

• Including preparation, grading papers, parent conferences, attending 

meetings, etc. 

__|__|__| Total hours in the week 

Recommendation a: Expand examples in apple points. Working on a school newsletter, for instance, 

could be an example of item 16/23b, while developing individual education 

plans could be an example of item 16/23a. The phrase “acting as a club 

sponsor” could be expanded to “acting as a club or activity sponsor,” as 

suggested by a participant. Expanded examples in question 15/22 as suggested 

above should clarify confusion about official time before students arrive at 

school and after they leave school. 

Use as prime examples of a particular classification only items that are typical 

of that classification. Since the majority of field trips occur during school days, 

not overnight or on weekends, “field trips” and “transporting students” should 
E-48 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

initially appear as an example not in question 16/23a but in question 15/22. 

Question 15/22c should say, “Include time spent transporting students to and 

from field trip sites,” while question 15/22a should say, “Include instruction 

provided both in the school and outside on supervised field trips.” 

Qualify conditions that would justify classification of activities that typically 

occur during school hours as outside of school hours. In 16a, rather than “field 

trips,” say, “portions of certain extended field trips.” Rather than “tutoring,” 

say, “before or after school tutoring,” etc. 

Problem a: As in question 15/22, participants had difficulty categorizing activities that were 

not listed in the examples. They based their classification of activities on the 

italicized sample activities rather than on the boldfaced classification criteria, 

official school hours vs. other hours. 

Some participants who noticed the terms “field trips,” “tutoring,” “preparation,” 

“grading papers,” “parent conferences,” and “attending meetings” in item 16 

listed such activities in items 16a or 16b even if these activities occurred during 

official school hours. Their strategy was to find a match for each activity in one 

of the categories, not to classify the time and type of activity. They may have 

been influenced by the word “including” in the apple points in items 16a and 

16b, which suggested these were the places to INCLUDE all instances of these 

activities, regardless of when they transpired. 

One participant is a case manager for several special education students and 

spends much time in addition to her regular teaching duties catching up on 

students’ progress, counseling students, teachers and parents, and doing 

administrative work related to IEPs. She did not see these activities listed and 

did not know where to put them. 

Participants wanted clarification about whether activities during contract hours 

(before and after students arrive) should be counted in question 23. For 

example, preparation time can take place during the half hour or so teachers 

have between the time they are required to show up to work and when students 

arrive, as well as after students leave and the official end of the teacher’s duty 

day. 

One teacher suggested having checkboxes for other types of miscellaneous 

activities that teachers do, such as preparing and taking down class activities 

(e.g., the horticultural science teacher and the art teacher), doing clerical 

activities such as e-mailing or calling parents, working with other teachers, and 

acting as students’ case managers during unofficial school hours. 

Recommendation b: Clarify what “meetings” in apple points mean, while simultaneously reiterating 

the official/unofficial distinction, for example, “faculty meetings held during 

school” vs. “before or after school faculty or PTA meetings.” 

Problem b: One participant counted as hours spent “attending meetings” in question 23b 

hours she had already recorded as “required meetings” in question 22c. She was 

concentrating more on the examples than on when the meeting had occurred. 

Although the intent of the wording distinction may be to convey indirectly that 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-49 

meetings in question 23b are outside school hours since they are not required, 

the distinction is too subtle to be perceived in a quick reading. 

Observations: While two participants overlooked the apple points, several commented about 

them, saying on the one hand that there was a lot of detail to consider, but also 

that teachers should be alerted to read the question and examples carefully. In 

order to correctly answer the questions, it is important to read the answer points 

too; they are more than just tips. 

Working Conditions overall: 

Recommendation a: Use the apple points defining hours and reiterating what to include in items 22 

and 23 of panel A. (These instructions were missing in items 15 and 16 in panel 

B.) 

Make question 14/21 the main question and indent questions 15/22 and 16/23 as 

subsections (part a, part b, etc.) under it to imply that the hours are related. In 

addition, wording questions 15/22 and 16/23 as “Of the hours you reported in 

question 14 [or 21], how many were designated for X?” will likely prevent 

respondents from including more hours in items 15/22 and 16/23 combined than 

in item 14/21, a situation that would be difficult to interpret. 

At the same time, UserWorks staff does NOT recommend forcing respondents 

to account for all the hours in item 14/21 when categorizing those hours in items 

15/22 and 16/23, since participants felt some of their activities were not 

covered. Instead staff suggests adding a new question 17/24 at the end of the 

working conditions section if the resulting data would not be too cumbersome to 

handle: 

For any hours you listed in question 14/21 that you did not account for in 

either question 15/22 or 16/23, please describe any additional professional 

activities and the number of hours you spent on them. 

Activity Number of hours 

_______ ____ 

_______ ____ 

Regardless of whether this additional item is added, staff proposes eliminating 

the most common source of time unaccounted for by changing question 15/22 b 

from “scheduled school time for planning” to phrasing that includes 

unscheduled time: 

b. School time spent planning, preparing, setting up or cleaning up 

• Include time spent on these activities during scheduled planning 

periods, during lunch, from when you must arrive until the first students 

arrive, and from when students leave until you are free to leave. 

If part b is to remain as is, a bullet point should be added to ensure that 

participants include this time regardless of how it is used: 
E-50 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

b. Scheduled school time for planning 

• Include any such time scheduled for you even you do not actually use it 

for planning purposes 

In that case, item 15/22c should be relabeled as 15/22d and a new item 15/22c 

under item 15/22b added: 

c. unscheduled official school time used for planning, preparing, setting 

up or cleaning up 

• Include time spent on these activities during lunch, from when you must 

arrive until the first students arrive, and from when students leave until 

you are free to leave. 

Problem a: The numerical relationship between sets of hours was unrecognized by panel B 

participants, misused by panel A participants, and unrepresentative of actual 

hours spent for all participants. 

Panel A participants seemed more aware of the relationship between hours in 

item 21 and those in items 22 and 23 than panel B participants were of that 

between those in item 14 and those in items 15 and 16, suggesting that the 

additional apple point clarifications in panel A were helpful. (Only one panel A 

participant seemed confused; this participant thought hours in item 22 should 

equal those in item 21.) 

In panel B, nearly all participants listed more hours in 14 than in 15 and 16 

combined. In panel A, many participants started down the same path, but 

because they more often realized the numbers should balance out, they altered 

numbers in question 23b to make the hours in questions 22 and 23 sum to those 

in question 21, and were reluctant to admit they might have left hours 

unaccounted for. When panel B participants were probed to describe any hours 

listed in item 14 not accounted for in items 15 and 16, they were able to account 

for all such hours as consisting of unscheduled time carved out either during 

lunch, right after their official day began, or right before their official day 

ended. Such time was sometimes used for planning and sometimes for creation, 

duplication, and disposal of materials for students’ use. 

Some panel A participants also mentioned they took unscheduled planning time, 

suggesting that more panel A participants would have recognized the same 

discrepancy if they had not attempted to manipulate the numbers to create the 

impression of consistency. For instance, one panel A participant who taught 

kindergarten/childcare worked full-time but subtracted out hours children were 

engaged in naptime, eating, and playing. She said she had no scheduled 

planning time, though she tried to plan during naptime. If she had been offered 

the option of including unscheduled planning time, she probably would have 

accounted for naptime. 

Recommendation b: If variant schedules should be excluded, append to “MOST RECENT FULL 

WEEK” the phrase “in which all classes were held for their standard duration.” 

If variant schedules should be included, add an apple point for clarification: 

“If school was open all week but regularly scheduled classes were preempted or 

shortened, include that week.” 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-51 

Problem b: Panel B respondents were uncertain whether to classify as “full” weeks in which 

school is open all week but class schedules are altered or certain classes are not 

held. These participants were uncertain how to classify weeks in which certain 

classes were preempted by emergencies (such as a teacher’s funeral) or special 

occasions (such as holiday concerts and assemblies). When presented with a 

situation in which school is delayed two hours owing to icy roads but all classes 

are held for a shorter than normal duration, participants were not in agreement 

regarding whether to consider the week a “full” week. 

Recommendation c: If respondents are not supposed to consider a typical week, add the wording 

“(even if NOT typical)” after “MOST RECENT FULL WEEK.” 

Problem c: Respondents presume they are being asked to provide information on a typical 

week rather than the most recent full week. 

Compounding 

problem: 

Most recent full weeks often ended as much as 4 or 5 weeks prior to the 

interview owing to Thanksgiving or Christmas holidays and snow days, so 

teachers could not recall details of those weeks. 

It seems as though participants did notice the capitalized phrase appearing in 

each item. Participants read “MOST RECENT FULL WEEK” aloud, 

commented on it, and were probed on it. Yet they seemed to presume that the 

test makers were really interested in having them describe a typical week. One 

participant working in a nursery school with a number of part-time teachers 

noted that she had initially considered the word “full” redundant in her 

situation, assuming that since she was a full-time worker, all of her weeks were 

full weeks. She had concentrated instead on her typical week. 

The problem was certainly compounded by the fact that the interviews took 

place after winter holidays and weeks with snow days, so that it was difficult for 

participants to recall the most recent week in which school was open all week. 

Unable to recall a full week, many participants simply fell back on their 

schematization of their typical weeks. Others tried to imagine what the most 

recent week would have been like had it been more complete: “Say I’d had 

classes this Monday; then....” 

However, even participants who had recently experienced a full week and could 

recall the details of their schedule were concerned that the schedule might not 

be sufficiently representative. Some panel A participants asked if they really 

needed to describe an actual week and if they could not just use a typical week 

instead. When probed, panel B participants invariably said “full” meant to them 

“normal,” “typical,” or “usual,” never “complete” or “entire.” The term “full 

week” seemed to suggest that they should not describe an unusual or odd week 

any more than one that was incomplete. In several cases, during the most recent 

week in which the school remained open every day and/or all classes were held 

at their normal times for their full duration, the respondent’s schedule was 

nevertheless not typical, either with regard to student activities (e.g., holiday 

pageants and parties) or noninstructional responsibilities (e.g., no bus duty, 

extra final exams to grade). In such cases, the participant assumed the Census 

Bureau would not be interested in knowing his or her hours that week and 

would prefer the respondent to consider a more typical week. In such cases, 
E-52 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

respondents appeared to interpret the phrase “most recent” as merely words of 

encouragement to make the not insignificant task of categorizing their time 

seem easier: “If this seems hard, just think back to your most recent week.” 

None entertained the notion that the Census Bureau might be interested in 

collecting a statistical sample of recent weeks including both normal weeks and 

outliers. Teachers whose weekly schedule alternated week-by-week or day-byday (“block schedules”) attempted to average the hours of multiple equally 

typical weeks together. Those who did not have a regular schedule at all 

attempted to average the hours per week for each category over the entire school 

year. Though most gravitated toward the mode, the most common week in the 

year, one participant attempted to take a mean. If an activity averaged out to 

less than 1 hour per week over the entire year, that participant omitted such 

activities. A few made an effort to answer the question literally but then 

informed the interviewer that the data they were entering was not representative, 

that it provided a poor picture of their schedules, and that the wording of the 

questions should be changed so they could have the opportunity to enter more 

representative data. 

Only one participant exploring the B panel, a music teacher from a school 

catering exclusively to the needs of severely disabled children, expressed no 

reservations about describing an unusual week, and her willingness to do so 

may have been motivated by an additional agenda. It was not that she felt she 

had no typical week or would have had to combine aspects of various weeks to 

arrive at a typical week. Rather, throughout the interview she had been making 

a point of how different her school, more like a hospital, was from normal 

schools and how certain questions did not apply to her. Having laughed 

repeatedly when responding to questions that seemed odd in the context of her 

school situation, she seemed to believe that the division of hours she could 

provide by describing an unusual week would help illustrate how different her 

school was from the norm. 

Recommendation e: Change wording of 16a apple point to “Including paid or unpaid coaching, 

acting as a club sponsor, etc.” 

Problem e: Participants were confused as to where to put paid time outside school hours. 

A couple of participants were unsure whether they should include paid coaching 

time in 16a, since 16 appeared to describe unofficial activities and time spent 

voluntarily. One participant left this time out of both 15 and 16 since he 

considered it a kind of officially scheduled, compensated overtime but not a 

“scheduled administrative duty” as described in 15c. 

Recommendation f: While there may be no way to remedy this problem short of adopting a different 

classification system for the hours, be aware that participants simply estimated 

hours for these tasks based on what seemed reasonable and sometimes had little 

confidence in their answers. If this is a real concern, one might want to add an 

item 15d asking respondents how many of the hours they listed in 15, if any 

other than lesson planning, were spent on activities that were continued outside 

of official school hours. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-53 

A place to put unscheduled planning during official school hours would also be 

helpful. 15c is not appropriate, since planning lessons is a professional task, not 

an “administrative” one, since unscheduled planning is not a “scheduled duty,” 

and since professional tasks are more akin to responsibilities than “duties.” 

Recommendation g: Participants had difficulty estimating and assigning hours spent on certain 

activities which extended across official school hours into part of the day or 

evening outside those hours; it was not an important distinction in their lives. 

When asked how they would classify hours in hypothetical Friday afternoons 

entirely devoted to planning, participants were unanimous in deciding the 

answer hinged on “when they were allowed to go home.” However, 

understanding a theoretical distinction is not all that is required to attend to that 

distinction in one’s own life. 

As salaried, overtime-exempt professionals who were hired expecting to work 

greater than 40-hour weeks, participants had little incentive to track their hours. 

They therefore had difficulty judging how many hours were spent on activities 

such as faculty meetings, parent conferences, and field trips that straddled the 

boundary between official school hours and other hours. Unaccustomed as they 

were to tracking their hours, they did not stop in the middle of an activity to 

note that they had just gone “off the clock.” It seemed to them ridiculous that 

they should be asked to recall when during a meeting the school bell rang. 

All participants experienced difficulty estimating hours if they engaged in 

activities that straddled the official/unofficial time boundary, but one participant 

counted the same hours in two categories to indicate that the distinction was 

meaningless. She did not receive any scheduled planning time, so she carved 

out official time during student naptime for some of her planning and stayed 

after school for additional planning. Not seeing a place for unscheduled 

planning during official hours, she did not attempt to divide her 5 planning 

hours between 15b (scheduled planning in official hours) and 16b (unscheduled 

planning during unofficial hours) but wrote the same 5 hours in both 15b and 

16b to indicate that for her the only time that was scheduled for planning was 

her own discretionary time, that in her mind they were essentially equivalent. 

Recommendation g: Including an instruction to round answers to the nearest whole hour. 

Problem g: Participants wrote in partial hours using fractions or decimals. 

Observations: One participant wondered how to record field trips that take place during school 

hours. 

One participant asked, “If parent conferences occur during school hours, where 

is that time recorded?” 

Several participants remarked that their time at school they consider schoolrelated activities, even if they stay well into the evening. Is there a need to 

clarify activities on school grounds outside of contract hours versus all other 

activities regardless of location? One participant suggested that where teachers 

spend their time is also important to ask. 
E-54 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

While two participants overlooked the apple points, several commented about 

them, saying on the one hand, there was a lot of detail to consider, but also that 

teachers should be alerted to read the question and examples carefully. In order 

to correctly answer the questions, it is important to read the answer points, too; 

they are more than just tips. 

VI. Professional Development: Panel B, Items 3–4 

This section asks about various professional development activities and their impact. 

Question 3: In the past 12 MONTHS, did you participate in any of the following 

professional development activities? 

Question 3a: University course(s) taken towards recertification or advanced certification 

in your MAIN teaching assignment field 

Exclude courses taken for your initial certification in your main teaching 

assignment field or other teaching field(s). 

__| Yes Î How many? __|__| 

__| No 

Recommendation a1: Clarify what to do with courses currently in progress. 

Problem a1: Must classes be completed? A participant had registered for and begun a course 

and wanted to know if she could include it. 

Recommendation a2: Specify whether to include general education courses: 

• “Include both general education courses and specialty area courses” 

Problem a2: Main teaching assignment field unclear regarding inclusion of educational 

methods courses. Participants with a specialization who taught one or more 

subjects in a middle school or high school could not tell if general education 

courses should be considered in their main teaching assignment field. 

Regardless of their major, they did not view their subject areas as simply 

“math” or “history” but as “math education” or “history education,” since what 

they were assigned to do was not to know, write about, or expound upon math 

or history but to teach it well. The issue may become more pronounced when 

questions from panel A are introduced, since teachers who describe themselves 

as education majors may tend to assume they need to include courses in 

education while those who have majored in subject areas may assume they 

should not. 

Recommendations a3: Define the cumbersome phrase main teaching assignment field, but retain it. 

Most participants’ suggestions for alternative nomenclature such as “discipline” 

or “area of specialization” might be confused with educational or certification 

specialty rather than teaching specialty. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-55 

Alternatively, for clarity, adopt a participant’s suggestion to ask instead: 

“In the last 12 months what courses have you taken for recertification or 

advanced certification in the subject or subjects that you are primarily 

teaching now?” 

unless the item is to include courses for recertification or advanced certification 

in subjects they are NOT currently teaching. 

Regardless, provide guidance on how to determine main teaching assignment 

field for teachers who divide their course time equally among subjects or teach 

all subjects. 

Problem a3: Certain populations had trouble determining the main teaching assignment field. 

Preschool teachers, elementary school teachers, and others who taught multiple 

subjects were not sure what their main teaching assignment field was, and 

unlike panel A, panel B did not offer a definition such as “the field in which you 

teach the most courses.” Even had they been given such a definition, teachers in 

this group would have had difficulty deciding which courses were relevant, 

since many taught all subjects, dividing their time equally among them, and thus 

felt that any course related to education could be considered to be in their main 

teaching assignment field. This was also the case for a special education teacher 

without a specialty area, and even for a high school English teacher, who felt 

almost anything can be related to English or taught in English class through 

literature. 

Recommendation a4: Consider rephrasing as “university or college course(s)” or “graduate courses,” 

whichever is appropriate. 

Problem a4: One participant was not sure if university courses included courses taken at a 

small college. Another suggested “graduate” courses to distinguish them from 

undergraduate courses. However, most participants probed on the issue assumed 

that college and online courses should be included. 

Question 3b: University course(s) in your MAIN teaching assignment field 

• Exclude courses taken for recertification or advanced certification. 

__| Yes Î How many? __|__| 

__| No 

Recommendation b: Reverse the order of items 3a and 3b, but promote the apple point in 3b into the 

main instruction so it is not overlooked as supplemental: 

“University course(s) in your MAIN teaching assignment field that were 

NOT taken for recertification or advanced certification.” 

Add an apple point saying: 

• “If you are a new teacher, include courses taken towards your initial 

certification.” 
E-56 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Alternatively, keep the existing apple point but make the item emphasize initial 

certification: 

“University course(s) in your MAIN teaching assignment field taken for 

your initial certification.” 

Add an apple point: 

• “If you were not initially certified in the last 12 months, your answer 

may be ‘No.’” 

Problem b: Question order is confusing. The current ordering is admirably consistent with 

usability principles. Since the number of first-year teachers is a small proportion 

of the teaching population, teachers are more likely to have taken courses for 

recertification or advanced certification than for initial certification in the last 12 

months, and teachers who have taken courses for more than one certification in 

the last 12 months will be rare indeed. It thus makes sense to put respondents at 

ease by asking first about the more common situation and follow with a 

question about the less common situation. 

However, the ordering of the questions conflicts with the chronological ordering 

in respondents’ mental models of their educational experience. Some 

participants were confused by the fact that they were being asked first in “a” 

about continuing education and then in “b” about their initial or basic education. 

They thought that questions about initial education should come first and that 

therefore they may have misread something. 

Another participant thought it odd that the first item, 3a, should only be 

concerned about something so specific as advanced certification when some 

teachers, himself included, just like to take courses to improve their knowledge, 

not because they are required. 

Question 3c: Observational visits to other schools 

__| Yes Î How many? __|__| 

__| No 

Question 3d: Presenting at workshops, conferences, or trainings 

__| Yes Î How many? __|__| 

__| No 

Question 3e: Attending other workshops, conferences, or trainings 

Exclude conferences in which you were a presenter 

__| Yes Î How many? __|__| 

__| No 

Recommendation e1: Reword apple point as “exclude entirely...” or “exclude entire conferences....” 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-57 

Problem e1: Overlap between d and e is still possible. A participant said he would have 

counted a conference in both d and e if he presented on only 1 day of the event 

and attended on the remaining days. 

Recommendation e2: Specify in an apple point whether to include informal training during meetings, 

in-service courses, etc.: 

• “Include/exclude “in-service” presentations at your own school.” 

Problem e2: Confusion exists over whether to include workshops in their own school (inservice days) or trainings conducted at faculty meetings. Several participants 

initially assumed a narrow definition of professional development as courses or 

workshops, but when they got down to items 3f through 3j and realized that 

simply talking to a colleague could be considered professional development, 

they wondered if less formal training conducted as part of an administrative 

meeting would count in item 3d or 3e. 

Question 3f: Individual or collaborative research on a topic of interest to you 

professionally 

__| Yes 

__| No 

Recommendation f: If the definition of “research” matters, pick and choose how to restrict: 

• “Include/exclude finding information or articles for students in your 

classes; personal experiences you discuss in class; formal research on 

educational methods mandated by school system or coursework, etc.” 

Observation f: Definitions of “research” and “topic of interest to you professionally” differ 

widely. Research might be anything from looking up students’ test scores to 

browsing the Internet in order to find an article for students to read to 

conducting library research to prepare a paper for presentation at a teachers’ 

conference. When probed, some indicated they did several types of research but 

had initially thought only one type should be included. Others thought the only 

type of research they performed should not be included. 

For some, a topic of professional interest would have to be a topic in education 

such as how to improve scores on a certain skill or how to help students with a 

certain disorder. For others, a topic of professional interest could be one’s own 

trip to Europe, since it could motivate class discussion. 

Question 3g: Regularly-scheduled collaboration with other teachers on issues of 

instruction 

• Exclude administrative meetings 

__| Yes 

__| No 
E-58 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Recommendation g: Define “administrative meetings” or replace it with a clearer term like “faculty 

meetings” if appropriate. 

Problem g: Response may depend on interpretation of “administrative meetings.” A 

participant who interpreted “administrative meetings” as meetings that dealt 

with clerical or bureaucratic matters, issues other than curriculum and 

instruction (for instance, software for taking attendance), answered “Yes” since 

such collaboration often happened at faculty meetings. 

Participants who interpreted “administrative meetings” as meetings with the 

administration of one’s department, hence faculty meetings, answered “No,” 

since it would be unusual to regularly schedule meetings that would exclude the 

department chair or team leader. 

Both participants collaborated with other teachers on the same types of issues, 

but each offered a different answer. Other teachers also wondered what types of 

meetings were to be excluded, but were able to decide on an answer based on 

other contacts with colleagues. 

Question 3h: Diagnosing individual students with other teachers (e.g., discussing specific 

students and arranging appropriate help) 

__| Yes 

__| No 

Observations h: Several participants noted that though they tried to identify problems, not just 

discuss them, they were technically unqualified to offer medical diagnoses and 

that to do so might anger parents and get the teacher in trouble. They 

nevertheless marked “yes” since they did “discuss students and arrange for 

help.” Most were comfortable with the wording “diagnosing individual 

students,” interpreting it as restricted to the activities suggested in the 

parentheses. 

One participant suggested “diagnosing” implied there is something wrong with 

the student and suggested more neutral terms such as “discussing individual 

students’ problems with other teachers or colleagues.” “Evaluating” is not 

recommended, since it has misleading connotations of assessment. 

Question 3i: Observing or being observed by other teachers in your classroom (for at 

least 10 or 15 minutes at a time) 

__| Yes 

__| No 

Recommendation i: Reword to force readers to read about the time stipulation before the sentence 

ends: 

“Observing or being observed for at least 10 or 15 minutes at a time by the 

other teachers in your classroom” 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-59 

Problem i: Parenthetical instructions are overlooked. Participants failed to read the 10- to 

15-minute minimum and asked if they should include other teachers “popping 

in and out” of the classroom. 

Observation i: One participant’s answer should not be taken as representing the policies for 

other teachers at his school or department because department heads are 

sometimes required to observe and mentor, while others at the school are not. 

Question 3j: Acting as a coach or mentor to other teachers or staff in your school, or 

receiving coaching or mentoring 

__| Yes 

__| No 

Observation j: Participants appreciated the distinction between item 3i and 3j, since 

observing or being observed by other teachers did not necessarily mean they 

offered each other advice afterwards. Teachers are apparently protective of their 

own autonomy in the classroom and reluctant to be perceived as telling each 

other how to teach. The distinction is particularly relevant for teachers who 

share a room and cannot help observing each other. 

Recommendation j: Add an apple point instructing readers on whether to include or exclude student 

teachers or say “teachers or teachers to be” if they are to be included. 

Problem j: There is uncertainty regarding student teachers. In several cases, inclusion of 

student teachers would change “no” answers to “yes” answers in this item and 

in 3i. However, teachers were hesitant to apply the item to student teachers, 

particularly for item 3j, since student teachers are not staff. 

Question 4a: In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional 

development activities that focused on in-depth study of the content in your 

MAIN teaching assignment field? 

__| Yes 

__| No Î Go to item 4b below. 

Question 4a(1): In the past 12 months, how many hours did you spend on these activities? 

• Mark (X) only one box. 

__| 8 hours or less 

__| 8–16 hours 

__| 17–32 hours 

__| 33 hours or more 

Question 4a(2): Overall, how useful were these activities to you? 

Not useful Somewhat useful Useful Very useful 

__| __| __| __| 
E-60 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Recommendation a1: Consider restating “focused on in-depth study of your main teaching assignment 

field” as “...focused on your main teaching assignment field and directed at 

teachers with some knowledge and experience” if that is what “in-depth study” 

is intended to mean. Or, if the issue is not to include general training applicable 

to multiple fields, it might be appropriate to say “...specific to and 

concentrating on the subject(s) you primarily teach.” 

Problem a1: There was disagreement over hours that qualify as “in-depth study.” 

Participants generally gathered that the phrase “in-depth” was meant to exclude 

casual overviews of material they had already learned in their initial courses in 

their fields, but this was by no means the unanimous view. 

One participant said he would not consider attending a useful conference on the 

latest teaching methodologies in his field to be “in-depth” unless it had forced 

him to do some work (e.g., to memorize statistics supporting the method or to 

study the classroom materials used). 

Another participant could not see how a course of 8 hours or less could be “indepth,” since such a course probably would not require research and writing a 

paper. Another was even more vehement, saying one would have to take a 

sabbatical to do any “in depth study,” that in-service courses never go into much 

depth. However, this opinion was balanced by that of another who believed the 

typical half-day (4-hour) in-service courses are generally intensive and “cover a 

lot of ground.” 

An additional participant, thinking of faculty meetings as professional 

development, said “in-depth study” would be impossible in her English 

department because they would all have to read the same work of literature and 

discuss it together at school, and no one would have time for this. 

Recommendation a2: When panel A and panel B are combined, participants hopefully will recall the 

definition of main teaching assignment field from panel A and apply it here. 

However, as described in item 3a, the definition could be expanded to address 

teachers with multiple assignments of equal emphasis. 

Problem a2: Participants had difficulty identifying “MAIN teaching assignment field.” Some 

participants found the term main teaching assignment field confusing and would 

have preferred something simpler like “your specific area of teaching,” but this 

wording would not have gotten at the issues of primary field or the field 

assigned regardless of what they like to teach, so UserWorks staff cannot 

support the proposed change. 

Others were pulled in different directions by the term. A special education 

music teacher considered herself primarily a music teacher because everyone 

else in her school also taught special education, as this was a school for severely 

learning disabled and physically disabled students. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-61 

Question 4b: In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional 

development activities that focused on uses of computers for instruction? 

__| Yes 

__| No Æ Go to item 4c on page 6. 

Question 4b(1): In the past 12 months, how many hours did you spend on these activities? 

• Mark (X) only one box. 

__| 8 hours or less 

__| 8–16 hours 

__| 17–32 hours 

__| 33 hours or more 

Question 4b(2): Overall, how useful were these activities to you? 

Not useful Somewhat useful Useful Very useful 

__| __| __| __| 

Recommendation b: Move “computers” to end of sentence to focus on applications. 

Change wording to one of the following: 

• “...that focused on educational software students can use to explore 

concepts on computers”;

• “...that focused on teaching students how to use a computer”; or

• “...that focused on preparing lessons, presenting material, calculating 

grades, etc. using computers.” 

Problem b: Participants focus on “computers” and stop reading. Some participants miss the 

final phrase “for instruction” and include instruction in computers for their own 

use, for instance, to write lesson plans or calculate students’ grades. 

Observation: Many have been trained in using computers several years ago, but the 

presumption now is that teachers are computer literate, and many school 

systems do not have the funds to purchase new software or connect classroom 

computers to the Internet. As a result, some teachers have little opportunity or 

incentive to take these courses. 

Question 4c: In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional 

development activities that focused on reading instruction? 

__| Yes 

__| No Î Go to item 4d below.
E-62 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Question 4c(1): In the past 12 months, how many hours did you spend on these activities? 

• Mark (X) only one box. 

__| 8 hours or less 

__| 8–16 hours 

__| 17–32 hours 

__| 33 hours or more 

Question 4c(2): Overall, how useful were these activities to you? 

Not useful Somewhat useful Useful Very useful 

__| __| __| __| 

Observation: Several school systems are now requiring courses in reading instruction of all 

teachers. Some teachers of subjects other than English in the higher grades think 

the courses themselves are useful for teaching reading but not for themselves: 

they are resentful of being asked to “make room for reading” in the classes they 

teach. 

Question 4d: In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional 

development activities that focused on student discipline and management 

in the classroom? 

__| Yes 

__| No Î Go to item 4e below.

Question 4d(1): In the past 12 months, how many hours did you spend on these activities? 

• Mark (X) only one box. 

__| 8 hours or less 

__| 8–16 hours 

__| 17–32 hours 

__| 33 hours or more 

Question 4d(2): Overall, how useful were these activities to you? 

Not useful Somewhat useful Useful Very useful 

__| __| __| __| 

Recommendation: No problems detected. 

Question 4e: In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional 

development activities that focused on other topics not included in 4a–4d 

above? 

__| Yes Î Please specify 

 ____________ 

__| No 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-63 

Recommendation e: Move “not included in 4a–4d above” directly after the words “professional 

development activities.” 

Problem e: Confusion regarding “other topics” vs. “other courses” leads to overlap with 

courses listed in item 4a. Participants who taught lower grades and had taken 

general education or subject matter courses which they considered part of their 

main teaching assignment field but with a different emphasis listed the putative 

topics of these courses in item 4e. For instance, a kindergarten teacher whose 

specialty was general education specified “science” in item 4e for a science 

education course she had listed in item 4a. An elementary school teacher 

specified “assessment” for a course in evaluation and testing she had also listed 

in item 4a. 

Question 4 overall: 

Recommendation f: Specify what activities should or should not be included or be more specific 

(say “in-service courses” in place of “professional development activities”). If 

faculty meetings are a separate issue but also of interest, add a separate question 

such as “Has your staff gotten together to discuss....” 

Alternatively, under the first reference to “professional development activities,” 

specify with an apple point: 

• “Include/exclude in-service courses, faculty meetings, presentations 

you gave yourself....” 

Problem f: There was uncertainty as to what activities are included in “professional 

development activities.” Since the preceding question 3 suggested a pretty 

broad definition of professional development, participants were not sure 

whether to include hours spent in university rather than in-service courses, in 

faculty meetings during which the issues mentioned in items 4a–4d arose 

spontaneously, in informal private meetings discussing these issues with other 

teachers, or even reading about these issues on their own. 

Recommendation g: Since UserWorks staff did not probe participants on this issue, staff is not sure 

how important it is, but it might be helpful to provide examples of activities that 

should or should not be included in calculating hours. 

Problem g: There is some uncertainty regarding whether to include supplemental 

enrichment and applications of training. Two participants mentioned they were 

unclear on whether the range of hours they selected for a given professional 

development activity should include time spent outside of the class on 

homework or trying out the course’s teaching suggestions on their own students. 

Recommendation h: If they should not have double listed their training, participants need to be 

informed of this, or main teaching assignment field needs to be described in 

more detail. 

Problem h: Overlap exists in course listings among item 4a and 4b or 4c. Participants whose 

main field involved computers or special education included the same hours 

twice in 4a and 4b or 4c. This was more common for teachers of the lower 

grades, who considered anything education-related to belong in item 4a. 
E-64 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Recommendation i: Indicate if training sessions, which the participant herself taught, are to be 

excluded. 

Problem i: Should “participated in” include “taught”? One participant had taught courses 

on computers and wondered if she should include them in her hours of 

professional development. 

Observation a: This section was one of several areas where it would have been helpful if 

participants had been asked to have their records or transcripts available in 

advance. 

Observation b: Interpretation of “how many hours did you spend on” varied. Participants 

seemed to interpret hours as clock hours, not course credit hours. For instance, a 

participant said she would put the number of hours she attended classes, not the 

number of hours listed in a course catalog. If that question is also an issue, it 

might be better put “how many course hours did you take of....” 

Observation c: Hours as a unit of measurement varied. Most in-service courses are half-day or 

day courses, so participants thought more in terms of days of development than 

in hours. 

Recommendation d: Extend “Overall, how useful were these activities to you?” with “...in your 

current situation” or “potentially.” 

Observations d: There was variation in the definition of potential vs. actual “usefulness.” Most 

participants determined the degree of “usefulness” based largely on how much 

of the activity could be successfully applied to their own classroom. However, 

one participant mentioned that she could see the value in some development 

courses (on behavior problems) but could not apply them to her own students 

(who were high-achieving and well behaved). She seemed to want to separate 

usefulness to the teaching profession from applicability to her class. Another 

respondent said she had taken a course that was potentially useful but had rated 

it “not useful” because it was too short and she had not followed up on 

obtaining more training in that area. 

VII. Resources and Assessment of Students: Panel B, Items 5–13 

This set of questions asks about different types of students, the resources provided for teaching them, and 

participants’ use of student assessment scores. 

Question 5: Are students assigned to your classes on the basis of achievement or ability 

level? 

__| Yes 

__| No 

Recommendation a: Add “in some cases, specify:___” OR 

Ask “are most of your students...” or “are some of your students...” OR 

Provide answer options like “some classes” and “most classes” 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-65 

Problem a: No intermediate answer options. Participants who taught advanced placement or 

remedial classes as well as classes of mixed abilities did not know whether to 

answer yes or no. 

Recommendation b: Rephrase as “Is either achievement or ability level a basis for how students are 

assigned to your classes?” 

Problem b: Several participants insisted that this was an either/or question, so they could 

not understand why the answer options were “yes/no” rather than 

“achievement/ability.” 

Recommendation c: Add “Do not know” option. 

Problem c: Some participants did not know on what basis students were assigned to them. 

Recommendation d: Indicate assignment “by teachers” and/or “guidance counselors” or 

“administrators” if important. 

Problem d: Passive voice does not clarify who must do the assigning. In one school, 

students assign themselves to harder or easier classes based on how hard they 

want to work and what they think they can handle. The participant decided they 

were technically grouped as described in question 5 but was not certain. 

Question 6: Do you use different groupings of students in your classroom to teach 

students who learn at different rates? 

__| Yes 

__| No 

Recommendation a: Add “in some situations, specify:___” OR 

ask “do you ever...” or “do you at least sometimes...” OR 

provide answer options such as “often” and “infrequently.” 

Problem a: No intermediate answer options. Some participants grouped students by ability 

for special activities but normally did not group students or grouped them on 

some other criteria such as age in preschool. 

Recommendation b: Rephrase to clarify emphasis, either: 

“When grouping students, do you select students who can all learn at the same 

rate to be in a particular group?” 

OR 

“When grouping students, do you mix students who learn at different rates in 

the same group?” 

Problem b: Homogeneous or heterogeneous rates are not specified. Some participants 

grouped students into high, middle, and low groups by reading ability; others 

mixed students of various ability levels in the same group to help each other 

learn; it was not clear which of these options was being asked about. 
E-66 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Recommendation c: Add “N/A” option or distinguish possible “no” responses; that is, “No, I do not 

group my students for this purpose” from “No, I do not divide my students into 

groups.” 

Problem c: Those who do not use grouping may prefer answering “N/A.” Group instruction 

is not appropriate for certain curricula. A “no” answer presupposes teachers 

group students in other ways or for purposes other than instructing learners at 

different learning rates. 

Question 7a: Of all the students you teach at this school, how many have an Individual 

Education Plan (IEP) because they have disabilities or are special 

education students? 

__|__|__| Students 

__| None Î Go to item 8 below.

Recommendation a1: If accuracy is important, request a percentage to the best of their knowledge 

rather than relying on an exact number or permit them to opt out by checking 

“Information not available.” 

Problem a1: Information is not available to all teachers. Some teachers did not know the 

number of students but could estimate a percentage based on the likelihood that 

certain students would have an IEP. Some could obtain this information through 

a colleague. Others would have had to conduct name-by-name research in a 

lengthy database or did not know where to start. Since most teachers had only a 

few IEP students, a difference of one student may be statistically significant. 

Observation: At least one participant entered single zeroes in the two leftmost boxes before a 

single digit response here and in question 9a. 

Recommendation a2: Insert the word “currently” between “you” and “teach.” 

Problem a2: A participant considered more than her current year’s students in answering this 

question. 

Question 7b: Do you or these students receive the following types of support in your 

classroom? 

Question 7b(1): Special aide or personal assistant 

__| Yes 

__| No 

Recommendation b1: Redundantly append “either for you, your classroom, or for individual students” 

to the current wording. 

Problem b1: A couple participants were not sure if the aide was for the teacher or for an 

individual disabled student. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-67 

Recommendation b2: Revise wording to read, “support at various times in your classroom.” Do not 

remove “in your classroom,” since it is necessary to distinguish this type of 

support from external support. 

Problem b2: Two participants could not relate students’ personal aides or assistants to the 

phrase “in your classroom.” They thought they might have the wrong concept of 

aide or assistant since a student aide would presumably follow the student 

around the school and not stay in the teacher’s classroom longer than one 

period. 

Question 7b(2): Consulting/itinerant teacher 

__| Yes 

__| No 

Recommendation b3: Use a term more familiar to teachers, perhaps “special education resource 

teacher” if that title corresponds to the job function intended here. 

Problem b3: Some participants were not sure what sort of teacher this was. There was 

general agreement that this person would have more special education training 

than an aide and would advise the teacher on individual students but not work 

directly with individual students. However, some did not know what “itinerant” 

meant and those that did thought the teacher referred to here might be an outside 

expert consultant who would not necessarily be physically present “in the 

classroom.” 

One participant wondered if he should count himself, since he only had himself 

with which to consult. A special education teacher thought the question might 

not apply to her because she was already special education teacher, though not 

necessarily the official “resource” teacher (department head), and hence would 

never have another such teacher assigned to her. 

Question 7b(3): Accommodations such as more time on tests or a behavioral management 

plan 

__| Yes 

__| No 

Observation a: “IEP” is not a term that can be used to describe all special education students. A 

participant had Section 504 students who required special accommodations but 

did not have individual education plans. 

Observation b: A participant noted that (1) through (3) do not seem to include counseling 

services for emotionally disturbed students. 

Question 8: In the last 3 years, have you had 8 hours or more of training or professional 

development on how to teach special education students? 

__| Yes 

__| No 
E-68 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Observation: Teachers who have not had this training recently or are highly experienced and 

have not had training in a long time feel this question and question 10 suggest 

their knowledge is out-of-date and that they are less qualified than someone 

with more recent training. They do not believe training changes that much in 3 

years. 

Question 9: Of all students you teach at this school, how many are of limited English 

proficiency? 

(Students of limited English proficiency are those whose native or dominant 

language is other than English, and who have sufficient difficulty speaking, 

reading, writing, or understanding the English language as to deny them the 

opportunity to learn successfully in an English-speaking-only classroom.) 

__|__|__| Students 

__| None Î Go to item 11 below. 

Recommendation: (Same problem/recommendation as for item 7.) If accuracy is important, request 

a percentage to the best of their knowledge rather than relying on an exact 

number. 

Problem: Information is not available to all teachers. Some teachers did not know the 

number of students but could estimate a percentage based on the likelihood that 

certain students would have be of limited English proficiency. Some could 

obtain this information through a colleague. Others would have had to conduct 

name-by-name research in a lengthy database or did not know where to start. 

Since most teachers had only a few LEP students, a difference of one student 

may be statistically significant. 

Observations: One participant missed the phrase “native or dominant” and did not know 

whether to include her students born in the U.S.A. who spoke another language 

at home. It may be worth making “native or dominant” appear more prominent. 

Two participants mentioned having non-native students with reading or writing 

problems in English (foreign sounding syntax or idioms) who had no trouble 

learning or communicating in her English-only class. They seemed to treat 

verbal and written skills as separate issues and may not have read the 

parenthetical description closely. One wanted separate questions for each. 

Question 10: In the last 3 years, have you had 8 hours or more of training or professional 

development on how to teach students with limited English proficiency? 

__| Yes 

__| No 

Question 11: Do you receive your students’ scores on state or local achievement tests? 

__| Yes 

__| No Î Go to item 13 below. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-69 

Recommendation a: Rephrase: “Do you have access to your students’ scores on state or local 

achievement tests?” Add answer options “sometimes” or “when possible.” 

Problem a: This presupposes that scores are available to be received. Some teachers do not 

receive the scores but can look them up should they wish to review them. Some 

receive last year’s scores for the current year’s students, particularly if there is 

no test in their students’ current grade level. If a student was not in that school 

the previous year, their scores may not be available. This is apparently a 

problem in an inner-city neighborhood school but might be true of affluent 

transients as well. An ESOL teacher who does not have her own classroom and 

who works with students throughout the school wondered to which students and 

scores the question was referring. If she had access to the scores, she certainly 

would not receive them together in a single package. 

Recommendation b: Rephrase: “If your students take state or local achievement tests, do you receive 

(have access to) their scores?” Add “Not Applicable” to answer choices. 

Remove the question from the private school survey or ask about standardized 

national tests. 

Problem b: This presupposes of existence of tests. Certain teachers (e.g., special education 

or kindergarten) cannot receive their students’ scores because their students do 

not take them. 

Recommendation c: Append “, NOT national standardized tests” to the question if this is an issue. 

Alternatively, first ask “Do your students take state or local achievement tests?” 

and add an apple point: 

• “Do not include national standardized tests such as....” 

Problem c: Mistaking national private standardized tests for state or local achievement 

tests. Certain state and local achievement tests are sent to the county for internal 

verification that students are meeting standards but are not published to any 

statistical abstract or made available to teachers. Particularly if teachers did not 

have access to these tests, or if their district offered no such tests, they often 

mentioned national achievement tests by name and answered the question with 

regard to those. 

Question 12: To what extent do you use the information from your students’ test scores: 

Question 12a: To group students into different instructional groups by achievement or 

ability? 

• Mark (X) one box on each line. 

(For each question, participant could select:) 

Not at all To a small extent To a moderate extent To a great extent 

__| __| __| __| 

Question 12b: To assess areas where you need to strengthen your content knowledge or 

teaching practice? 
E-70 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Question 12c: To adjust your curriculum in areas where your students encountered 

problems? 

Recommendation c1: If item 12 is intended to measure or may be interpreted as indicating to what 

degree teachers value the tests, remove a source of error in 12b and c by asking 

the questions: 

“If you have access to students’ state or district achievement test scores, are 

these scores presented in a form you can use?” 

“Are they available when you can use them?” 

(answer choices: Yes/No/not applicable) 

Place the questions between items 11 and 12. 

Problem c1: This presupposes a usable and timely format. Participants thought marking “not 

at all” or “to a small extent” suggested they did not respect the test content, 

when in fact the scores may not have been in a form they could use. If they 

receive aggregate scores, either for the class or the grade level as a whole, they 

cannot determine needs of individual students. If the scores summarize 

performance on general areas of the exam like “verbal” and “math,” they do not 

know what skill areas they need to improve. If they receive item-by-item or 

skill-by-skill results but do not receive the actual test forms, they may have 

difficulty identifying students’ deficiencies. One participant said teachers in his 

school receive scores at the end of the school year when there is no longer an 

opportunity to make use of them. 

Recommendation c3: Reiterate that it is state and local test scores that are at issue in item 12. 

Problem c2: It was not obvious that only state and local achievement tests are being 

discussed in this question. 

Recommendation c3: If the question must be separated out ask, “Is the content of students’ state and 

local achievement tests relevant to the courses you teach?” and offer a “do not 

know” answer option. 

Problem c3: There is a presupposition of usable content in standardized tests. Standardized 

tests are often in basic skills like reading and arithmetic and may not relate to 

the curriculum of a specialist in a field like history or biology. Even a literature 

teacher may have little use for reading scores, since her classes may involve 

interpretation, not just comprehension. 

Question 13: To what extent do you use state or district standards to guide your 

instructional practice in your main teaching assignment field? 

Recommendation a: Ask instead, “How big of a role do district standards play in guiding your 

instructional practice,” or “To what extent do you cover state or district 

standards in your instructional practice...,” whichever applies. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-71 

Problem a: Does “extent” of “guid[ance]” refer to completeness of coverage of standards or 

to significance of standards relative to teacher’s entire curriculum? A participant 

said she was able to cover all the standards without giving them a central place 

in her teaching. She checked “to a moderate extent” since she emphasized other 

things. 

Recommendation b: If important for drawing inferences from question 13, additionally ask how easy 

it is to apply state or district standards to one’s instructional practice. 

Problem b: There is a presupposition of usable standards. An ESOL teacher had 

encountered different district standards for each student depending on their 

English proficiency, so it was not easy for her to use them as a general guide to 

teaching ESOL. Another teacher also said each student’s IEP was the standard 

for that student. 

A science teacher wanted to comply with standards but could not do so owing to 

factors beyond his control like funding for materials. 

Observations: Participants had reasons for using standards as a guide that did not necessarily 

reflect a positive opinion of the standards. Some participants were required to 

comply. One said she complied primarily in order to have externally generated 

objective benchmarks for performance regardless of their quality. 

Unlike state achievement tests, state or at least multiple state (“Middle States”) 

standards may indeed apply to private schools, since, according to one private 

school teacher, compliance with such standards is required for accreditation and 

for compatibility with public university entrance requirements. 

VIII. Attitudes and Opinions: Panel B, Item 17 

This section asks about participants’ influence on staffing, budgeting and instructional policies, and their 

perceptions of various issues about teaching. 

Question 17: Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? 

• Mark (X) one box on each line. 

(For each question, participant could select:) 

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree 

__| __| __| __| 

Observation: Although participants sometimes wished they had the opportunity to display 

neutrality, most recognized the survey’s need to obtain an opinion on every 

point. Several who felt neutral about an item said that if a “neutral” option were 

actually offered they might be tempted to overuse it on items with which they 

had no strong feelings. 
E-72 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Question 17a: Most of my colleagues share my beliefs and values about what the central 

mission of the school should be. 

Observation: A participant said many of her colleagues have not been there long enough to 

get a sense of the mission, so her disagreement has nothing to do with 

differences of opinion (beliefs and values), though it might have to do with poor 

communication of the mission by administrators and staff. 

Question 17b: The principal knows what kind of school he/she wants and has 

communicated it to the staff. 

Question 17c: There is a great deal of cooperative effort among the staff members. 

Question 17d: In this school, staff members are recognized for a job well done. 

Observation: Basis for judgment varied because if expectations for recognition are low, a 

small sign can count as significant recognition. Extra pay is rare. The only case 

of it a participant mentioned was recognition for extra time spent coaching a 

successful sports team. Appreciation in a faculty meeting or an occasional pat 

on the back from a principal is all most can expect. A nursery school teacher in 

an unsupportive environment said the only recognition she received was 

Christmas cards from a few parents. 

Question 17e: I worry about the security of my job because of the performance of my 

students on state and local tests. 

Recommendation e1: Rephrase to clarify intent: 

“The actual performance on state and local tests of the students I have now 

makes me worry about the security of my job.” 

OR 

“If my students were to perform poorly on state and local tests I would worry 

more than I do now about my job security.” 

Problem e1: Multiple interpretations of agreement are available: 

• “I worry because if they were to perform poorly my job would be 

threatened.” 

• “I worry because my students actually do perform poorly.” 

No evidence of which interpretation might be more common is available 

because 

• participants generally did not agree; and 

• if they did agree, they were not probed for their interpretation since the 

interviewers did not wish to imply the teacher was incompetent. 

Recommendation e2: Rephrase as suggested in the previous recommendation. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-73 

Problem e2: Multiple interpretations of disagreement are available: 

• “My job is safe because my students perform well.” 

o by chance—“I got lucky this year” 

o by willful design—“I prepare students well for tests” or 

o by obligatory design—“I have to teach to the tests.” 

• “My job is relatively safe because poor performance is not an issue.” 

(“Most of our students here are naturally high-achievers.”) 

• “My job is safe despite my students’ low scores.” (“Who else could 

they find to teach here [in the inner city]?”) 

• “My job is in danger for other reasons.” (“Funding for electives like 

music and art is being cut.”) 

The first couple of interpretations come to mind most easily for the 

interviewers, yet participants tended to represent all of these interpretations 

EXCEPT the first. The “by chance” and “by willful design’ interpretations were 

not represented, and only one participant, by way of complaining about a testoriented curriculum, suggested he had adopted the “by obligatory design” 

interpretation. 

Question 17f: State or district content standards have had a positive influence on my 

satisfaction with teaching. 

Recommendation: If this is really what is being asked, rephrase as “I am more satisfied with 

teaching (a more satisfied teacher) thanks to (since the adoption of) state or 

district content standards.” Otherwise, rephrase as “I am satisfied with the state 

or district content standards,” or “I feel I am a better (more successful) teacher 

owing to the adoption of state and district content standards.” 

Problem: Confusing wording: Some participants seemed to think they were being asked 

whether they were satisfied with the standards or with their effectiveness in the 

classroom (their ability to teach effectively) rather than with their own work 

situation as a result of the standards’ having been implemented. 

Observation f1: Influence is indirect, through state-sponsored teaching materials. Several 

participants seemed to be thinking about the materials packets the state or 

district sends them to use in bringing students up to standards, not the standards 

themselves. One teacher who disagreed said she finds the materials 

cumbersome or difficult to explain to students, even if the standards themselves 

are admirable. 

Observation f2: Potentially not applicable: Some students, like the learning disabled, and some 

fields, like music, appear not to have any state or district standards to abide by, 

so participants felt the question was not applicable to them. An N/A option 

might be helpful. 

Question 17g: I am satisfied with my class size(s). 

Observation g1: Potentially not applicable: A special education teacher who was at the moment 

working as a personal assistant for a single student was satisfied working with 
E-74 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

only one student. However, she suspected the question did not apply to her 

since as a personal assistant she would never have had more than that one 

student. An N/A option might be helpful. 

Recommendation g2: Rephrase as “My class size(s) is/are too large” if that is really the issue. 

Observation g2: Several participants mentioned independently or agreed when probed, that class 

size could be too small if there are not enough students to generate discussion 

without one or two students dominating. 

Observation g3: Answers may differ for different class compositions—a participant said more 

boys or LEP kids may make a small class more difficult to handle. 

Question 17h: I am given the support I need to teach students with special needs. 

Observation h1: Definition of “support” often included a special education or ESL resource 

specialist but varied widely, including emotional support from other teachers or 

parents in the classroom, volunteer tutors from outside the school, new 

technologies, large print books or books on tape, translation services for nonSpanish LEP students, research information sources on students’ disabilities. 

Observation h2: Potentially not applicable: None of the answer choices were appropriate for 

teachers who did not have any special education students. 

Question 17i: I make a conscious effort to coordinate the content of my courses with that 

of other teachers. 

Observation: Teachers value cooperation but also autonomy. In some schools it is important 

that all teachers teaching a certain grade or course be teaching the same thing, 

but where it is not, teachers do not like to tell each other how to teach. Different 

approaches or content emphases are considered creative and innovative, not 

necessarily indicative of poor coordination. 

Question 17j: The amount of student tardiness and class cutting in this school interferes 

with my teaching. 

Observation j1: Teachers can have opinions about how circumstances affect people in the 

system other than themselves. A participant who thought the question was 

phrased as a criticism of students remarked that these questions are all about 

her, that the Census Bureau did not seem to care whether she thought these 

problems also hurt her students, and if so, how much. This feeling was 

consistent with another participant’s frustration that nothing was asked about his 

opinion of the effect of district and school board politics on his students. 

Recommendation j1: Be wary of drawing any inferences from this question. Add a question about the 

amount of tardiness and absence in the teacher’s own classroom, not the school 

as a whole. Compare responses to the two questions. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-75 

Problem j1: Greater tardiness and class cutting can actually result in less interference: Some 

teachers who disagreed experience a lot of tardiness and class cutting but have 

adjusted to the interruptions and to dealing with students who are frequently 

absent. 

Recommendation j2: If appropriate, ask instead about absences, late arrivals, and early departures. 

Problem j2: Some respondents may not count late arrivals and absences that result in the 

greatest interference as tardiness or class cutting: One participant said the 

source of the greatest interference are problems beyond students’ control: late 

arrival, early departure, and absence owing to work responsibilities and 

commuting, leaving class for a school sports team meet, the need to visit 

colleges, or to take care of younger siblings or their own children. 

Observation j2: Potentially not applicable: In a private nursery school/kindergarten, parents 

bring their kids to school, so any tardiness is the parent’s fault and does not 

count. Students are supervised all day so they cannot cut class. The participant 

put “strongly disagree” but meant “does not apply” since the situation presumed 

to occur could not occur. 

Question 17k: I sometimes feel it is a waste of time to try to do my best as a teacher. 

Observation: Sometimes it is fatigue, the demands on teachers’ time, or parents’ lack of 

support that makes it difficult to do one’s best, not apathetic students or 

indifferent administration. 

Question 17l: I plan with the library media specialist/librarian for the integration of 

library media services into my teaching. 

Observation: Potentially not applicable: Some small private schools do not have a media 

specialist/librarian. 

Question 17m: I am generally satisfied with being a teacher at this school. 

Recommendation: No changes. 

IX. School Climate: Panel B, Items 18–20 

These questions ask participants about the factors that contribute to the educational climate in their 

schools. 

Question 18: Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the 

following statements. 

• Mark (X) one box on each line. 

(For each question, participant could select:) 

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree 

__| __ __| __| 
E-76 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Question 18a: The stress and disappointments involved in teaching at this school aren’t 

really worth it. 

Recommendation a1: Rephrase as one of the interpretations listed below, or create a more appropriate 

one. 

Problem a1: Ambiguous reference; participants did not know what “it” was, so 

interpretations were wildly different and participants ended up confusing 

themselves when paraphrasing. 

• “The stresses and disappointments are not worth getting stressed out 

over or disappointed about?” 

• “Being in teaching is not worth the stresses and disappointments 

involved?” 

• “The stresses and disappointments make me want to leave?” 

• “The stresses and disappointments outweigh the joys of teaching, of 

helping students learn?” 

• “The stresses and disappointments are not worth the money they pay 

me?” 

• “Teaching is not worth what they pay me owing to the stresses and 

disappointments?” 

Recommendation a2: Use a positive statement like “Teaching is worthwhile despite its stresses and 

disappointments” so respondents will be certain of what they are saying if they 

disagree. 

Problem a2: The stress involved in understanding what one is agreeing to when disagreeing 

with a negated proposition is not worth it. Participants had trouble 

understanding that in saying they disagreed that something was NOT 

worthwhile, they were conveying that they agreed that WAS worthwhile.

Question 18b: The teachers at this school like being here; I would describe us as a 

satisfied group. 

Observation b1: Two dimensions of satisfaction are possibly combined. A participant suggested 

the teachers could like being at the school without necessarily liking the group 

dynamics of being with each other. She suggested separating the two clauses 

into two separate subitems. 

Observation b2: Satisfied can mean complacent. A participant suggested teachers who are doing 

nothing to help students may be happy to be left alone, collect their paychecks, 

and go home to their families instead of grading papers. 

Question 18c: I like the way things are run at this school. 

Observation c1: For whose benefit? A participant wondered if she should be considering the 

effect of how things are run on the teachers, the students, or the parents, since 

what is good for one group may not be good for another. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-77 

Observation c2: Participants had different ideas of who was running things: some considered 

only the principal, others the “resource teachers,” “teach leaders,” or department 

chairpersons, others the public school system, others were thinking of how the 

school ran itself as a self-organizing system. 

Question 18d: If I could get a higher paying job I’d leave teaching as soon as possible. 

Recommendation d1: Rephrase “leave teaching” as “leave the field of teaching.” 

Observation d1: When probed, a few participants thought the higher paying job could include 

teaching jobs. “Leave teaching” may have meant “leave this particular teaching 

job” to them, or they many not have read closely. 

Observation d2: One participant was not sure what “somewhat agree” or “somewhat disagree” 

would mean here. Would the respondent want to leave after giving generous 

notice? Would the respondent be debating pros and cons? Would it depend on 

the salary? 

Question 18e: I think about transferring to another school. 

Observation e1: Some teachers had a specific school or district in mind; others who agreed had 

thought about transferring hypothetically or with an ideal school in mind. 

Observation e2: Question seemed designed to elicit negative response: A participant would have 

preferred to have been asked how often she thinks this, because, she said 

everyone thinks of leaving their current position on occasion. 

Observation e3: Answer depends on pros and cons of alternatives, which vary with age and 

experience level, not just satisfaction with teaching: Older teachers have a 

pension to look forward to; it seems they lose some contributions if they leave; 

younger teachers have more job options outside of teaching. 

Question 18f: I do not seem to have as much enthusiasm now as I did when I began 

teaching. 

Observation: Potentially not applicable: The question presupposes some amount of teaching 

experience. A new teacher said he had not been teaching long enough to either 

maintain or lose enthusiasm. 

Question 18g: I think about staying home from school because I’m just too tired to go. 

Observation: Question seemed designed to sabotage whatever good will teachers have 

established with the general public or make schools look like terrible places. 

Because participants said, everyone in every profession sometimes thinks about 

not going into work, it is impossible to answer honestly (“somewhat agree”) 

without suggesting teachers do not care about their jobs. 
E-78 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Question 19: To the best of your knowledge how often do the following types of problems 

occur at your school? 

• Mark (X) one box on each line. 

(For each question, participant could select:) 

Happens Happens at least Happens at least Happens on Never 

daily once a week once a month occasion happens 

__| __| __| __| __| 

Question 19a: Tardiness 

Recommendation: Range of options for response to 19a and 19c might be partitioned more finely 

than “happens daily” to include “happens hourly,” but the change might still not 

pick up any differences and would not be applicable to 19b. Ask instead about 

“egregious tardiness,” “rampant absenteeism,” “conspicuous class cutting.” 

No changes suggested if the items as currently written are needed as 

benchmarks against which to score other responses. 

Problem: Question appears designed to elicit negative response. Most participants 

assumed tardiness, absenteeism, and in the higher grades, class cutting must 

happen daily in their schools even if not in their own classes, since these 

problems are part of life, just as they are in all large corporations, government, 

factories, etc. They assumed that if one person in a school of 3,000 was tardy, 

absent, or cut class each day, they had to put “happens daily.” To participants, 

putting these problems in a teachers’ survey seemed designed to exaggerate the 

problems in schools. 

Question 19b: Absenteeism 

Problem: See 19a above. 

Question 19c: Class cutting 

Problem: See 19a above. 

Observation: Potentially not applicable: Elementary schools supervise students at all times, 

and the students cannot hide in such small buildings. Students in schools for the 

severely disabled cannot move around to cut class. 

Question 19d: Physical conflicts among students 

Question 19e: Robbery or theft 

Question 19f: Vandalism 

Recommendation: If appropriate say “vandalism by students of the school.” 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-79 

Problem: Agent of the action not identified. In elementary schools, apparently, most 

vandalism is perpetrated by outsiders, older youths who return to the school 

after school hours, not by the school’s students. Teachers did not know whether 

to consider this type of vandalism. The same might be asked of “robbery or 

theft,” but since these problems were more rare than vandalism to begin with, 

participants did not mention them. 

Question 19g: Use of alcohol 

Observation: Some participants could smell alcohol on students’ breath. Others said they 

could not tell and had to assume. 

Recommendation: Say “student use of alcohol” if that is all that is intended. 

Problem: Use by whom? At certain schools, this item made teachers think of their 

colleagues or students’ parents, not the students. Such schools include not only 

those with low morale or severe student behavior problems, but all elementary 

schools. 

Question 19h: Use of illegal drugs 

Observation: Some participants knew how to recognize signs of illegal drug use. Others did 

not and thus they had no basis for judgment. 

Question 19i: Possession of weapons 

Question 19j: Physical abuse of teachers 

Question 19k: Student racial tensions 

Recommendation: Rephrase initial question as “To the best of your knowledge, which of the 

following activities do students at your school engage in” if appropriate to all 

lettered items; otherwise specify agent of each item, for example, “student use 

of alcohol.” 

Problem: Use of the word “student” in 19k through m but not in previous items suggests 

students are NOT the parties engaged in the actions described in 19a through j. 

Observation: Potentially not applicable to schools where all students are the same race or to 

schools where students are considered by teachers to be too young to understand 

the concept of race (preschool, kindergarten). 

Question 19l: Student bullying 

Observation: For participants that were probed about this, this includes d, physical conflicts 

among students, as well as verbal intimidation and physical actions that are not 

conflicts, like shoving. For elementary school students, it might include smaller 

offensives like taking a pencil away from another student or ignoring the 

student. 
E-80 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Question 19m: Student verbal abuse of teachers 

Recommendation: If the objective of having both questions is to determine indirectly the degree of 

disrespect for teachers that is not verbal abuse, better data might be obtained by 

asking directly for the frequency of “acts of disrespect for teachers OTHER 

THAN verbal abuse.” 

Problem: Overlap with 19o: some thought m and o the same; others thought verbal abuse 

was only one form of disrespect, which might include ignoring the teacher, 

tearing up one’s exam in front of her, etc. One thought of name calling as verbal 

abuse but talking back to the teacher as an act of disrespect. 

Question 19n: Widespread disorder in classrooms 

Recommendation: Replace wording with “Teachers not in control of their classes” or “losing the 

attention of the entire class” if that is the intent of the question. 

Problem: “Widespread disorder” connoted utter chaos and reckless behavior. Participants 

thought this question might have been intended to ask about “losing control of 

the classroom,” that is, deterioration of discipline, as opposed to general 

disorder, for instance, having students with messy desks. However to most it 

connoted dangerous acts in which students could hurt themselves and others: 

throwing objects or weapons, setting the room on fire, etc. 

Question 19o: Student acts of disrespect for teachers 

Problem: Overlap with 19m. 

Question 19p: Gang activities 

Observation: Interpretations differed, and included wearing provocative badges, gathering 

together to threaten or intimidate, and group violence or aggression on another 

group of students. 

Question 19 overall: 

Recommendation: (NOTE: It had been discussed at the December 31, 2002, meeting that this 

question is more suited for the Principals’ Survey. UserWorks staff agrees that 

these questions should be moved.) 

If obtaining respondents’ impressions of the school’s reputation or guesses 

based on what they hear from other teachers is sufficient, the instructions for 19 

need not be modified, but note that teachers in affluent areas may have an 

unrealistically favorable impression of their students (not knowing their honor 

students smoke marijuana) while those in poorer districts may overestimate the 

problems based on salient incidents (an isolated shooting by an outsider or 

disgruntled student). The effect of guessing cannot be easily discounted as 

“error” because there is no reason to assume in advance the distribution of 

responses will be unimodal, nor that the response frequencies in each of the five 

categories will approach anything like an ordinal normal distribution, since each 

of the categories describe different time ranges. Asking respondents to rate the 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-81 

confidence of their answers, however, might help determine which answers are 

the more reliable, and obvious guesses could be excluded from the analysis. 

Alternatively, offering respondents the chance to say they do not know could 

discourage guessing. While an answer option “do not know” might be overused 

in cases of minor uncertainty, the answer option “no basis for judgment” should 

discourage uninformed guessing. 

Staff suspects asking for subjective frequency ratings (“extremely often, often, 

occasionally, hardly ever, never”) might be easier for respondents, but the 

responses might not be comparable: one teacher may think a rare problem 

happens too often while another may think the same frequency of occurrence 

perfectly acceptable. 

More accurate responses could be obtained by asking only about the teacher’s 

own students (“in your own classroom” might be too restrictive, since many 

problems may occur in the halls or lunchroom but manifest themselves in the 

classroom.) While some teachers will have only well behaved or badly behaved 

classes, student behavior patterns may still be more randomly distributed across 

respondents than their impressions of what happens to other teacher’s students 

and outside their own classrooms. 

Problem: Teachers simply do not know the answers. While a few participants seemed to 

be answering based only on their own classrooms, most recognized the question 

was asking about the school in general. Unfortunately, the “best of [their] 

knowledge” of what goes on at their school outside their own classrooms is 

often minimal and, according to them, not to be relied on. For instance, if drugs, 

weapons, gang activities, etc. are forbidden in the school, students hide them, 

and teachers do not have much opportunity to see if they are actually present. 

One participant said he could not be expected to know what happens daily at a 

school of several thousand, nor know for certain that seemingly rare events 

never happen. 

Observation: Some feared that because they had to base most of their frequency judgments on 

what happened in their own classrooms, the Census Bureau might infer that 

EVERY problem that they marked as happening frequently at their school was 

actually occurring in their own classrooms. 

Observation: Participants suggested adding the following subitems to 19: 

• parent disrespect for teachers; 

• parent abuse or neglect of students; 

• student or teacher sexual harassment or abuse of students; and 

• subversive activities (by outsiders or students) such as calling in bomb 

threats. 
E-82 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Question 20: To what extent is each of the following a problem in this school? Indicate 

whether it is a serious problem, a moderate problem, a minor problem, or 

not a problem in this school. 

• Mark (X) one box on each line. 

(For each question, participant could select:) 

Serious problem Moderate problem Minor problem Not a problem 

__| __| __| __| 

Question 20a: Teacher absenteeism 

Observation a1: This may be a serious problem not because morale or motivation among 

teachers is low but because there may be a teacher shortage, making it difficult 

to replace teachers on sick or maternity leave, recovering from an accident, etc. 

Observation a2: Teachers do not interact much with colleagues outside their own department, so 

their answers may not reflect the true situation. One participant said he based 

his judgment on reports of teacher absences from students who seemed to be 

cutting class. 

Question 20b: Pregnancy 

Recommendation: Specify whether teacher or student pregnancy is meant. 

Problem: Interpretation of who was pregnant varied depending on the age level of the 

teacher’s students. Middle school teachers thus had the most difficulty deciding 

how to interpret the item. Some participants inferred students were being 

referred to since item 20a mentioned teachers and item b did not, but the 

mention of teachers in 20a also alerted some participants to an ambiguity they 

might not otherwise have noticed. 

One participant suggested parent pregnancy might also be a problem in that it 

meant they would soon have less time to spend with the child in school. 

Observation: Teacher pregnancy did not seem to be as much of a problem as postdelivery 

teacher absenteeism owing to maternity leave. High school teachers suggested 

parental responsibilities of students, male or female, might be more of a 

problem for the teacher than pregnancy, though pregnancy and poor parenting 

might be more of a problem for students or their parents. 

Question 20c: Students dropping out 

Observation: Teachers cannot always tell if students have dropped out, particularly if a parent 

tells them the truant is going off to school every day. 

Question 20d: Student apathy 

Observation: One participant guessed that “apathy” meant “enthusiasm,” with the result that 

the answer choice she marked was the opposite of what she intended. “Student 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-83 

indifference to learning” or “students’ lack of motivation” might have been 

clearer to her. 

Question 20e: Lack of parental involvement 

Recommendation: If distinction is significant, divide item into two: “parental interest in student 

achievement” and “parental responsibility and support for student’s learning.” 

Problem: Two sources of parental involvement make item difficult to evaluate. 

Participants suggest parents may be very interested in knowing how their 

children are doing and in taking responsibility for their behavior and attendance, 

but these same parents may not be interested in, capable of, or free enough in 

the evenings to help their students learn, either through helping them with 

homework or providing an intellectually stimulating environment at home. 

Observation: Three participants suggested parents can be overly involved, requesting special 

attention to their child even if it is not necessary, worrying about their children’s 

safety since September 11, 2001, even going so far as to accompany their kids 

throughout field trips or coming to school to monitor the halls for snipers. 

Question 20f: Poverty 

Observation: Participants differed as to whether they considered poverty a problem in itself (a 

financial drain on the school, a source of sensitivity and emotional trouble for 

students) or a potential cause for some other problems in item 20 (apathy, lack 

of parental involvement, unpreparedness, poor health). 

Question 20g: Students come to school unprepared to learn 

Observation: Participants differed as to how they interpreted “unprepared to learn.” 

Contributing factors included poor nourishment, low maturity level, poor prior 

academic preparation, unsupportive home environment, and no effort to bring 

supplies to class. A couple also mentioned overprivileged students. 

“Unprepared to learn” thus overlaps with poverty, lack of parent involvement, 

and student apathy. 

Question 20h: Poor student health 

Observation: This was a minor problem for a participant not because poor health prevented a 

student from learning but because students with common colds came to school 

and got other students and teachers sick. This type of problem is probably not 

within the intended scope of the question. 

Overall observation: Participants were not probed as to what considerations go into determining 

whether a problem is serious, moderate, minor, or nonexistent. Participants 

suggested something could be a problem for the teacher, for the student, for the 

theory of what education should be ideally, or for the reputation of the teaching 

profession once the survey is published. A teacher in a school for severely 

disabled students said that because certain problems are expected to be serious 

in her school, she might not think they are as serious as people outside might. 
E-84 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

The same could be true of teachers who choose to work in schools with 

discipline problems. Seriousness may be relative to initial expectations. 

X. Participants’ Final Observations and Recommendations 

This section contains an overall discussion of the tables within the SASS public school teacher 

questionnaire. 

 Throughout this section of the participants’ reactions to the panel(s), UserWorks 

staff has highlighted specific instances where participants commented on the 

placement of tables, the layout of the tables, and the codes listed on the tables. 

Regarding the location of the tables, two participants mentioned that they 

preferred to have questions and tables colocated; that is, the table being 

referenced (e.g., table 2) and the question(s) (e.g., questions 10, 12) should be 

“next” to each other on facing pages. Several participants remarked that they 

liked seeing the tables before the question (e.g., table 3 appears before questions 

15–18) because it alerted them that the tables would be needed; a couple of 

participants actually perused the tables for a moment. In some cases, tables were 

“behind” the questions, as opposed to being placed on the left. One participant 

suggested putting the codes (into answer 6b) and questions on the same page, 

while two more suggested that the tables be placed at the end of survey, with 

one negating her comment by saying that would cause even more page turning. 

Staff does not think these latter two suggestions would be helpful because it 

would require truncating codes for the teaching assignment in 6b and 

participants would have to do even more page turning to locate the correct 

page/table. 

Regarding the layout of the table, one participant volunteered that (s)he found 

the tables generally overwhelming. In a couple of cases, incorrect grade codes 

(e.g., K) were used in place of field codes (e.g., 101). When most participants 

were filling out grades taught (Question 9), they intuitively selected the correct 

grade without having to refer to the table. One participant, after being prompted, 

mentioned that (s)he did not even notice the table. Staff believes the revised 

layout of tables 1A and 1B will help future participants efficiently locate the 

codes, but there were not adequate numbers to test this against. 

With regard to the codes, most complaints centered on the generalities 

participants felt when they were looking for a specific code (Choral 

Conducting) as opposed to a more general one (Music). Where possible, staff 

recommends reviewing the currency of the codes, and including new subitems. 

Also, this will help to alleviate participants’ perceptions of “missing codes” as 

well as “mislabeled codes.” In addition, one participant had a concern about 

recording her training (she worked in a kindergarten/daycare program) and there 

was no way to show that training. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-85 

Participants’ final observations and recommendations, Panel A: 

Observation: Three remarked about question 14 (the number of the courses taken), saying the 

question is too broad because it seems to ask about ALL general education 

classes; plus, for teachers who have had long careers, this number will be very 

large. (One participant suggested doing away with “how many?” and another 

suggested asking how many hours, rather than number of classes.) 

Observation: One participant remarked that his time in items 21–23 was hard to figure out 

because his time was so varied (indicates thinking of “average, typical” week). 

Observation: When asked about what topics or questions should be included, participants 

offered these suggestions: 

• teacher aide, full- or part-time, to find out whether having an aide 

impacts extra time on teacher’s part before and after school; 

• special needs, for example, speech, remediation, 

emotional/social/health/ educational needs; 

• teaching career, not just the current situation; 

• facilities and conditions; 

• questions in the special education section that ask about alternative 

testing (e.g., SAT-9); 

• team teaching; 

• pay, monitoring staff, and the way teachers are treated; 

• issues related to working conditions (e.g., personal relationships, 

administration, working climate, rate of pay, benefits), materials (school 

supplies, books, manipulatives), physical condition of the school 

building (leaks, deterioration, Heating, Ventilation, and Air 

Conditioning [HVAC]); 

• more questions about salary and level of satisfaction; 

• in asking about how many hours are spent on a topic, physical 

education, foreign languages, and technical education were missing; 

and 

• satisfaction with teaching, incentives for getting into teaching, 

perceptions before and after teaching experience. 

One participant remarked that, in general, (s)he liked that the survey asked for 

opinions. 

Observation: Three participants remarked on the questions about certification, with regard to 

those who do not have certification or who have had certification problems; for 

example, one participant wanted to make sure that information about her 

education and certification would not be personally identifiable. 

Observation: At least two participants consistently folded the survey in half, so they could not 

take full advantage of tables appearing on pages across from those containing 

questions. 
E-86 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Observation: With regard to having a survey overview: 

• Two participants mentioned explaining the purpose of the survey in the 

introduction. 

• Three participants agreed (after the question was raised) that 

instructions should be included at the beginning regarding suggestions 

for materials to have on hand, (e.g., transcripts and student records). 

However, one participant remarked that teachers would be less likely to 

fill out the sections survey if that were the case. 

Observation: With regard to background information to complete the survey: 

• Two participants remarked that they liked the bolded main questions, 

with the answer choices in plain font underneath. 

• Four participants (two of them older teachers) noted that they do not 

like the gray background with the light gray apple points because it 

strains the eyes. 

Observation: With regard to instructions in the survey: 

• One participant disliked the arrows and wanted to know if they were 

examples or instructions. 

• One participant remarked that the skip instructions should be more 

obvious and directed. 

• Participant wanted more “direction” with tables... hard to find 

information, especially when their vocabulary differs (e.g., prereading 

is not included in the list). 

Participants’ final observations and recommendations, Panel B: 

Recommendation: Indent lettered items under numbered items; use a larger or different shaped font 

for numbered items. 

Problem: Minimal visual differentiation of hierarchical structure of question. Some 

participants noted that since main and subordinate questions are in the same size 

font and at the same margin, it is not immediately obvious that general 

instructions at the top of a section may apply to questions on an entire page and 

into the next page. 

Observation: Several participants mentioned liking the option of writing comments in the 

white space at the bottom of some pages. One participant, however, said the 

empty space made the survey look too long and would have discouraged him 

from finishing it. 

Observation: Participants said it would help to refer to records for recalling courses they had 

taken, hours they had worked, and which students have which problems, but 

many do not keep such records. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-87 

Observation: Participants considered sensitive several items that might not be considered 

particularly personal: 

• Questions that if answered honestly reflect poorly on every school (19a 

through c); 

• Questions that seem designed to create the impression that the 

respondent is either lying or has a poor attitude (17k and 18e–g); 

• Questions about alcohol, weapons, and drugs if the teacher is a user 

herself. 

Observation: Participants offered the following as examples of the most difficult items: 

• figuring division of work hours; 

• conceiving of a typical or average week if you do not believe you have 

one; 

• recalling courses from 3 years ago; and 

• deciding whether they agreed or disagreed when they did not have a 

strong opinion either way. 

Observation: Certain participants felt questions on the following topics should have been 

included: 

• satisfaction with pay; 

• the need to pay for their own continuing education; 

• difficulties in obtaining certifications; 

• support from administrators for problems with regular students and 

parents, not just special education or LEP support; 

• support from administration on financial matters—pay, budget for new 

materials, availability of materials and response to requests, etc.; 

• satisfaction with educational preparation for teaching, not just 

usefulness of in-service courses; 

• satisfaction with amount of planning time; 

• opinion of school board, school system; 

• opinion about the level of discipline in school specifically, not just 

overall “kind of school”; 

• more background demographics to let the Census Bureau know who is 

answering the questions; 

• challenges of motivating students to learn; and 

• why people responded as they did to questions in 17 and 18. 

They would also have liked to know the purpose of the survey, how it would be 

used, and have received assurances of confidentiality with regard to parents and 

colleagues as well as administrators. 
E-88 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Attachment E-1. Changes in Panel A Version 2

The following items are included in version 2 of Panel A or are revised from version 1. 

• Revised version number on cover page 

• Question 4a, option 3, “all or most of the day” in bold 

• Question 6a1 “of these hours for reading” moved underneath instead of on the side 

• Prompt to page 9 (previous Question 6c) reformatted (6c no longer exists) 

• Table 1 reformatted and relabeled to tables 1A and 1B 

• Question 9 now refers to tables 1A and 1B 

• Question 9 included new apple point about mixed grades 

• Question 15a now points participants to question 20 if answer is “no” 

• Question 20 is reworded 

• Question 20 answer choice 8 is added 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-89 

Attachment E-2. Consent Form/Non-Disclosure Agreement 

UserWorks, Inc. is conducting this research study on behalf of the Census Bureau. The purpose of the 

study is to evaluate the proposed teacher questionnaire, which is part of the Schools and Staffing Survey 

(SASS). 

We would like your opinion about its user-friendliness and related issues. Any problems or confusion that 

you encounter during this study may be the result of the questionnaire’s shortcomings. We would like 

your feedback and suggestions to improve the questionnaire. 

Informed Consent 

I, ____________________, freely and voluntarily give my consent to participate in this research study 

under the direction of UserWorks, Inc. 

I understand that my participation is completely voluntary and that I may withdraw my consent and 

discontinue my participation at any time. 

I authorize UserWorks, Inc. to draw on the findings from this study, with the provision that my name will 

not be associated with any of the results, or released to anyone for any purpose. I have been given the 

right to ask questions concerning the procedures to be employed during this study and to have these 

procedures explained to my satisfaction. 

The Census Bureau will conduct this field test for NCES as authorized by law (20 United States Code 

9003, 9004, Section 405(b), and 9007, Section 408 of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994); the 

OMB control number for this study is 0607-0725. This valid approval number legally certifies this 

information collection. 

Nondisclosure 

I understand that the questionnaire being tested is still preliminary and is not yet ready to be released to 

the public. I understand that I may not publicize, critique, or otherwise discuss or characterize the project 

until the Census Bureau officially releases the final questionnaire. 

Audio Recording Release 

Audio recordings made during this study will be used for research and evaluation of the SASS. Therefore, 

I understand that my work and opinions expressed during this evaluation will be audio recorded and 

listened to by the staff of UserWorks and Census. I further understand that UserWorks and Census may 

wish to use segments of these recordings to illustrate presentations offered to professional audiences. 

I give my consent to UserWorks, Inc. to use my recorded voice for these purposes provided that my name 

will not be associated with the recording, that these recordings will not be released to any broadcast or 

publication media, and that these recordings will not be used for promotional purposes. 

I have read and understood the consent form. If I wish, I may ask for and receive a copy of this 

form on the day of the study. 

Participant’s Name: Date: 

Witness Signature: Date: 
E-90 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Attachment E-3. Interview Protocol 

Thank you for your time today. We will be evaluating the proposed teacher questionnaire, which is part of 

the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), by having you complete and comment on the questionnaire. We 

are going to use your comments to give feedback to the developers of the survey. Your comments and 

thoughts will help make changes to improve it. UserWorks did not develop the survey, so please do not 

feel like you have to hold back on your thoughts to be polite. Tell us both your positive and negative 

reactions. And remember, there are no right or wrong answers. We are not evaluating you but rather how 

well the questionnaire works. 

Before we get started, I would like to tape this interview so I will not have to rely on my memory later. If 

that’s all right with you, please sign this consent form. It also tells you about the confidentiality of the 

interview. 

>> Give consent form. 

We use the tapes for purposes of analysis and to remind us of what occurred during a session. Any 

information you provide is confidential. Your name will not be associated with it. Only persons connected 

with the development project will have access to the tapes or other data that we collect. Clips from the 

tapes may be used in professional presentations about this work. 

>> Thank participant and remind them they can stop the session at any time for any reason. 

Purpose of the testing 

Say, “We will be evaluating a part of the SASS questionnaire that is under development.” 

Say, “We are going to use your comments to give feedback to the developers of the survey. Your 

comments and thoughts will help make changes to improve it.” 

Questions teachers may ask 

• The cover page is blank; what goes there? Assume there will be a printed bar code, school 

name, and school address on the cover. This questionnaire is usually mailed with other 

questionnaires to the school. 

• What information should I use? Teachers should use their own information. The responses will 

not be used for survey purposes but provide an opportunity to help us think about what 

circumstances might come up so we can make sure the questions are appropriate. 

• Is there a specific private school teacher questionnaire? Why am I being asked to fill out a 

public school survey? The SASS is very similar to the PSS and Census thinks feedback from 

private school teachers on the public school questionnaire can directly apply to the private school 

one. 

>> Ask what words do not apply to a private school teacher during the course of the survey. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-91 

Procedure 

• Hand the survey to the participant (be sure to have date and time written on cover page, as well as 

Participant #). 

• Make sure participant has pen or pencil to work with. 

• Have vignettes handy. 

• Start audiotape. 

Say, “This is NOT a test of your skills because we are evaluating the questionnaire. If you have problems 

do not feel bad; they do not reflect on you. Others are likely to have the same problems. Our goal is to try 

to identify and hopefully correct these problems. The questionnaire is not quite finished; it is a prototype.” 

Say, “Please think aloud as you are completing the form—tell us what you are doing, why you are making 

selections, things that are confusing, and suggestions for improvement.” 

Say, “In some cases I will ask you to role play some situations. Please respond as best you can, given the 

information and your experience.” 

Say, “In some cases I will ask you to complete a question or a series of questions before asking your 

comments. Please try to work through the questions as if I were not here, and please only ask for help if 

you are stuck.” 

>> Give think-aloud demo, if needed. 

Think-aloud demo: Suppose you are an interviewer and you’ve been asked to evaluate a questionnaire 

about your occupation. One of the questions is “Which occupational group do you interview most 

frequently?” You have these three options: 

 White Collar Executive or Clerical 

 Blue Collar/Factory Workers 

 Agricultural/Farm Workers 

So you might think to yourself, “Gee I mostly interview people in retail stores and bars and restaurants, 

but I do not know if I’d call them blue collar/factory workers. Maybe agricultural for the grocery stores. 

I’m thinking maybe they want me to leave those out. Now I’ve interviewed quite a few plumbers, 

carpenters, and electricians, but those are professional skilled contractors; they are blue collar but I do not 

know that I’d call them factory workers. Now like today, I’m interviewing teachers; they are white collar 

I guess, but they are not executive or clerical. They would probably want me to include them. I guess 

that’s the only group that really fits so I’d have to check white collar. I’ve interviewed farm managers, 

too; I guess they are executives, not farm workers, so when you put it together that’s a lot of white collar 

people, but I think some people might just skip this question....” 

Say, “Any questions before we start?” 

Probing Questions 

Process overview 

Participants will complete the form in sections (based on admin direction) using their own information. 

Observe what they do. Remind them to think aloud. After they have completed a question or section, ask 
E-92 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

appropriate probes (listed below). In some cases it may be necessary or appropriate to ask a question 

during the process. 

General probes to ask to keep participants from falling silent or if there is obvious confusion: 

• What are you thinking? 

• What are you looking at? 

• What are you reading/writing? 

• Can you tell me more about that? 

When ready to begin first task 

As the participant begins to work on his or her answer to the question, remind them to think out loud. 

Say, “Once you have found the information you are looking for please state your answer aloud, for the 

benefit of the audiotape. For example, say, ‘My answer is ---’ or ‘This is my final answer.’” 

Note if the participant reads the question or part of it aloud. What are they reading? Do they seem 

confused about the wording? Are they using the apple hints? 

Introductory questions to ask participants 

Tell me about your teaching experience. How long have you taught? What do you teach? 

Have you seen this questionnaire or one similar to it before? [If yes:] How does it normally come to you 

(e.g., interoffice mail, hand delivered, in your inbox)? In what form (e.g., with other school surveys)? 

Does it usually have your name on it? Do you return it to the office or mail it in yourself? 

NOTE: Do not tell the participant which question to continue with, just say, “Now, let’s continue” 

because we do not want to tell them a skip pattern or influence the ordering of the questions they answer 

in case they prefer not to answer in order. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-93 

Attachment E-4. Interview Questions for Panel A 

Question 1, “In what year did you begin teaching in THIS school?”: 

Observe: Any confusion if they took a sabbatical, if there was a hiatus, etc. 

Question 3, “In which grades are the students you currently teach at THIS school?”: 

Probe: What does this question mean in your own words?

Probe (If not rushed for time, ask high school teachers): If you had advanced middle school students from 

other schools taking your classes here, would you include them? 

Question 4a, “Which statement best describes the way our classes (or sections) at this school are 

organized?”: 

Remind Participant: Remind them to tell you what they are thinking. 

Observe: Do they even notice words in parenthesis after answer choices? How do they describe their own 

situation? 

Postpone Questions: Wait until they have read and followed the skip instructions in 4b before asking 

follow-up questions on 4a. 

Question 4b, “Which box did you mark in item 4a above?”: 

Observe: Determine (and confirm orally on tape) where they go after reading question 4b, probe for 

reasoning ONLY IF they did NOT appear to follow instructions correctly: How did you decide to go to 

item 7/5 rather than item 5/7? 

Say: Thanks. I wanted to see where you would go next; I see you went to..., but before we continue, I 

want to go back and ask you some things about this question (4a). 

Follow-up Probe (if they do not describe themselves): How did you arrive at your answer for 4a? 

Follow-up Probe (if not sure about parentheses): 

Describe in your own words what the terms in the parenthesis at the end of each answer choice for 4a 

mean. Let’s start with Departmentalized Instruction... 

Observe: Does their interpretation of the parenthetical labels correspond to the way the descriptions 

preceding them? 

Follow-up Probe: Are you familiar with other teaching arrangements that are not listed here? 

Vignette 4b (HAND THEM A WRITTEN VERSION; use only if not pressed for time and they have not 

provided much insight into how their or other teacher’s situations mesh with the answer categories): 

Suppose you and the other teachers in your elementary school have several learning stations in each 

classroom where a group of students can work together in groups and with a teacher’s aide on a 

particular subject. Students are rotated among the learning stations every hour within one classroom 

throughout the day. The learning stations are roughly equivalent in every teacher’s room. But because 
E-94 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

each teacher has a specialty area of expertise, students are rotated between teachers every 4 weeks so 

they get the benefit of each teacher’s knowledge. How would you answer 4a? 

Question 5, “At THIS school, what is the total number of students enrolled in the class (or section) 

you taught during your most recent FULL WEEK of teaching?”: 

Probe: How did you arrive at your answer? 

Observe: Try to identify how many classes or sections they’ve included in their answer. If they put down 

more than 40 students, they may have added classes together to get the total. 

Probe (particularly if answer appears totaled from multiple classes, not averaged): 

What does this question mean in your own words? What does “Most recent full week” mean? What do 

the words “class” and “section” mean? 

Question 6a, “During your most recent FULL WEEK of teaching, approximately how many hours 

did you spend teaching each of these subjects at THIS school?”: 

Observe: For language arts teachers, attend to how they separate out reading instruction. 

See if they put zero hours in the numbers box instead of or in addition to checking “none.” See if they just 

leave blank what they do not teach instead of marking “none.” 

See if they put fractions or decimals points down. 

See if they have trouble with interpreting “most recent full week.” Wait till they complete the question 

before probing. 

Follow-up Probe: What did the question mean in your own words? (If needed:) What does the question 

mean by “most recent full week?”

Follow-up Probe: How did you arrive at your answer? Describe any difficulties you encountered.

Follow-up Probe: Are there any missing categories? 

Follow-up Probe: Where would you put computers classes? 

Follow-up Probes: Do you ever use material on one topic to teach skills in another area? Was there any 

overlap among the hours you put down for each of the subject areas? (If so:) Where did this occur?

Example: (Only if needed:) For instance, schools that teach “Applications of Math” might combine 

“arithmetic/mathematics” and “science.” Some elementary teachers may use history books to teach 

reading. 

Vignette 6a-1: Your 5th and 6th grade students all know how to read, but you are encouraging them to 

read more and to read more challenging material by assigning writing assignments and book reports on 

books for teenagers and adults. It takes your students time to read these books, so you’ve set aside a half 

hour a day when they can get started on their reading homework. Would you include any hours for 

reading or only for English/Language Arts?
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-95 

Vignette 6a-2: (Low priority; only if session is running ahead of schedule, ask ONE of the following 

vignettes, HAND OUT WRITTEN COPY): You are an elementary school teacher. The county cannot 

afford specialty teachers for special subjects. You spend 2 hours a week teaching art and 2 hours a week 

teaching music in addition to teaching a period each of language arts, reading, math, social studies, and 

science. How would you complete this section? 

Question 6b, “This school year, what is your MAIN teaching assignment field at this school, that is, 

the field in which you teach the most classes?”: 

Observe: See if they have trouble finding the table, and if they write their teaching assignment field in 

before checking the table to see what categories are available. If they write one that’s not available in the 

table, see if they change their answer once they see the table. 

See if they are less likely to write in something before checking the table than are teachers who answer 

question 8, where the blank to write out the subject appears before the code rather than after the code. 

This should help us determine in which order to place the fields. 

See if they find it redundant or annoying to have to write both the code and the name of the field that the 

code corresponds to on the table. 

Probe: Did you think what you wrote in the “main teaching assignment field” needed to correspond 

exactly to one of the fields listed on the table?

Question 6c, “Go to Section III – Educational Background on Page 9”: 

Observe: See if they look on page 9 for the rest of question 6c and if they return to work on page 7, 

questions 7 through 9, after completing a portion of page 9. 

Probe: What is this question asking or telling you?

Question 7, “This school year, what is your MAIN teaching assignment field at this school, that is, 

the field in which you teach the most classes?”: 

Remind Participant: Please tell me what you are thinking while you are working on these questions. 

Postpone Questions: Wait until after question 9 has been completed before probing about questions 7 

through 9. 

(Choose one of the following vignettes, A or B:) 

Vignette 7-a: Suppose many of your students work or apprentice some mornings or afternoons so they 

can not take classes every day. You teach five classes of auto mechanics at this school twice a week 

(Tuesdays and Thursdays). What would your “MOST RECENT FULL WEEK” be? What would your 

number of classes be? What subject name and code would you use in question 7?

Vignette 7-b: Suppose you teach one junior band class every morning at Bonnacre Middle School. You 

then leave immediately for Fielin High, where you teach one section each of jazz band, concert band, 

madrigals, and chorus. Your principal at Bonnacre, knowing you are always in a rush to get to Fielin, 

has used interoffice mail to send a copy of this questionnaire to your office at Fielin, where you are now 

trying to complete it. What is meant by the phrase “AT THIS SCHOOL?” What number of classes (or 

sections) would you put down for question 8? 
E-96 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Observe: How do they determine “this school?” Would they use the label on the outside of the booklet? 

(B continued:) Suppose that instead of completing it at your Fielin office, you’ve taken the questionnaire 

home and are now at home filling it out. What is meant by the phrase “AT THIS SCHOOL?” What 

number of classes (or sections) would you put down for question 7? 

Question 8, “During Your MOST RECENT FULL WEEK of teaching, how many separate classes 

(or sections) did you teach AT THIS SCHOOL?”: 

Probe: In your own words, what is this question asking?

Observe: Try to determine if they think question 8 applies only to the main field they listed in question 7 

(if they do not read the examples). 

Question 9, “Complete a line of the table below for each class (or section) that you taught during 

your MOST RECENT FULL WEEK of teaching at this school.”: 

Observe: DO THEY START WITHOUT THE TABLE? The order of the subject names and codes is 

designed to encourage users to write down the subject before looking for the code in the table. See if users 

write down a name that turns out not to have a code (e.g., Literature instead of English or Language Arts), 

or a name for which they can not find a code. See if they erase and change the name. See if they are 

confused when they find the presentation order of names and codes in question 8 does not match the order 

in the table. 

Observe: WHICH TABLE DO THEY USE? Note whether the reader folds the booklet in half or lays it 

flat with both left and right side facing up. Watch which table they go to first, table 1, which will probably 

appear on the left page facing the questions, or table 2, which will probably appear on the page after 

question 8 in the booklet. If they go to the wrong table, probe to understand what they were thinking that 

led them there. 

Follow-up Probe: Did you think what you wrote for subject names under “9a” needed to correspond 

exactly to one of the fields listed on the table?

Observe: HOW DO THEY USE THE TABLE? How smoothly can one refer to the table while writing on 

a different page? IMPORTANT: How easily can they find information in the table? Where do they get 

stuck? 

Probe: Are there any subject areas missing from the table that you think should be included?

Probe: How did you arrive at your answers for the number of students? 

Observe: Do elementary enrichment or pullout teachers need more rows for their answers? 

(Choose one of the following vignettes, A or B:) 

Vignette 9-a: Suppose you teach two sections of 19th Century British Novel to 11th graders, with 20 

students in each class, and two sections of Contemporary American Literature to 12th graders with 15 and 

18 students in each class respectively. How would you complete 

question 9?
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-97 

Vignette 9-b (which would not be influenced by the example “English”): Suppose you teach two sections 

of American History 1900 to the Present to 11th graders with 25 and 30 students, respectively, and one 

section of American Revolution to the Civil War to 10th graders with 18 students in the class. How would 

you complete question 9?

(Postpone: Use this vignette ONLY if we do not get enough data from teachers of preschool, 

kindergarten, and grades 1–9 on whether they find and enter the proper grade code—PK, K, 01, etc. 

Otherwise use Vignette D instead:) 

Vignette 9-c: You are an elementary school general science teacher and teach two first grade classes of 

20 students each, two kindergarten classes with 15 and 18 students respectively and one nursery school 

class of 12 students. How would you complete questions 8 and 9? 

Vignette 9-d: You teach five classes of 11th grade history. Owing to a recent wave of immigration, your 

school is overenrolled so all your classes have the maximum number of students allowed in your district, 

which is 38. How would you complete question 9?

Follow-up Probe for D: Do you yourself teach the same course to the same grade level more than once a 

day? (If so observe whether they listed the same course more than once.) 

Question 10a, 12a, 13a, “Do you have a ___ degree?”: 

Observe: Do they correctly skip questions when they answer “no?” on 10a, 12a, 13a? 

Question 10b, “In what year did you receive your Bachelor’s degree?”: 

Optional Vignette 10b (if time): Suppose you have a B.A. in elementary education from a large state 

university. You received your diploma in 2000 but did not want to sit through what you felt were tedious 

graduation ceremonies. Later your grandparents wanted to see you graduate, so you attended the next 

semester’s graduation in 2001. Since there were too many graduates to hand out diplomas, all the 

graduates stood and were applauded. How would you answer question 10b?

Question 10c, 12c, “Was this degree awarded by a department of education, college of education, or 

school of education?”: 

Probe: What does this question mean in your own words? 

Probe: What interdisciplinary programs that award education degrees might not be covered here? 

Question 10d, “What was your major field of study?”: 

Observe: Do they put down “education” as major field for degrees granted by education programs or do 

they put the content specialization part of the degree or both? (The goal is for them to put content area so 

analysts can determine if they are “qualified” to teach what they are teaching.) 

Contingent Probe [if interviewer is uncertain]: Is that an education degree? 

[If yes:] Do you also have a Bachelor’s degree in a specialty field? 

 [If yes again:] Why did you list the education degree rather than the specialty?

If you had not read question 10c, would you have put down the specialty field degree instead? 
E-98 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

[If no:] Do you also have a Bachelor’s in education? 

[If yes again:] Why did you list the subject area degree rather than the education major? 

Question 11a, “What is the name of the college or university where you earned this degree?”: 

Optional Vignette 11a (if time): You graduated from the India Institute of Technology in New Delhi, 

India. Later you got a second bachelor’s degree from The University of Maryland in College Park, 

Maryland. How would you complete question 11a?

Question 11b, “In what city and state is it located?”: 

Optional Vignette 11b (if time): Suppose you did decide to go with the India Institute of Technology in 

New Delhi, India for 11a. How would you complete question 11b?

Question 13 Overall: 

Observe: Do they do 13a, fill out the chart, and get to question 14 and wonder where 13b is (since it is a 

column header rather than a row header like 13a)? 

Probe if they select “no” for column “b” but still complete columns “c” and “d” or just “c:” Is this a 

degree you are working on now? [If they fill in column d for this degree with a future or current year:] Is 

that the year you expect to receive the degree? [If yes to either or both questions:] Is there a better way to 

suggest column c should only be completed for “yes” answers in column b? Do you think you would have 

completed column c for a “No” answer in column b if “No” were changed to “Not Applicable?”

Observe: See if they list education under major field for vocational certificate. 

Probe: Describe to me the vocational certificates you’ve received.

Optional Vignette 13 (if time): You have received two certificates, one in 1993 that licenses you to do 

paralegal research and administrative work in a law office, the other in 1995 that allows you to do 

actuarial work (predicting survival rates) for an insurance company. You’ve also received a teaching 

certificate in 1999, long after you completed college. How would you complete question 13? And please 

explain your thought process. 

Optional Probe (if time): Would it help if you were provided examples of vocational certificates? Should 

the instructions say not to include your teaching certificate if it should not be included?

Question 13b: 

Observe: Do they feel they’ve already answered question b in question a? Is it clear to them that “b” is 

actually asking whether each row describes the degree or one of the degrees that they said they completed 

in “a”? 

Probe: Would you include degrees received through courses taken online or through the mail? Are there 

any other degrees not listed here?

Question 14: 

Probe: How did you arrive at your answer? Have you taken courses at various times in various 

programs? Were they taken to satisfy different goals? What were they?
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-99 

Probe: Would you include courses taken online or through the mail? Are you currently taking any courses 

in these areas, and did you include those in your total? Did you include courses you took for the degrees 

you listed in questions 10, 12, or 13? [If not:] Why not? Were none offered in your education program? 

Did you think the question referred only to courses taken outside of a degree or certification program?

Section III Overall: 

Vignette 14-a: You spent 5 years as an undergraduate and graduated with a double major in chemistry 

and environmental studies from the same university in the same year, 1988. Your education degree was at 

the master’s level and was received in 1995. How would you complete question 10d? 

Probe (if they do not list both on the line): Why did you put this major and not the other? Would you put 

the other major under question 13?

(Choose Vignette B or C): 

Vignette 14-b: You took math courses at Snewty College, a very challenging and expensive liberal arts 

college in Bunk Haven, Rhode Island, but did not believe you could complete a math degree within 4 

years. Your parents could not afford to pay tuition at Snewty beyond 4 years. So you graduated with a 

Bachelor’s in English in 1986. The next year (1987), you returned home and completed a Bachelor’s in 

math education at University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, where the math courses were easier 

and cheaper, crediting many of the courses you took at the liberal arts college towards this other degree. 

How would you complete questions 10 and 13?

Vignette 14-c: As a junior majoring in math, you left Snewty College in Bunk Haven, Rhode Island, in 

1995 without completing your bachelor’s degree to use your extensive technical and math skills to create 

the company Dotcom.com. Eventually you got bored creating computer programs and wanted to work 

with youngsters, but you felt you’d learned more on the job than you could get finishing your bachelor’s. 

So you returned to school and obtained a master’s degree in secondary math education in 2002 at 

University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, and are now teaching without a bachelor’s degree. 

How would you complete questions 10 through 13?

Question 15b, “What type of certificate is this?”: 

Probe: Do the parenthetical descriptions correspond to the meanings you would assign to “probationary 

certificate,” “temporary certificate,” and “emergency certificate or waiver?” [If not]: How do they differ 

from what you understand these terms to mean?

Probe: Are there types of teaching certificates that do not appear among answer choices 1 through 5?

Question 15c, “In what content area is this certificate?”: 

Observe: Do they use the correct table? 

Probe (when looking at the table): What are you thinking? What are you looking for?

Probe (after answering): How did you determine what answer to choose?
E-100 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Questions 15–18 overall: 

Observe: Adherence to skip pattern 

Question 19: 

Observe: Does anyone who has listed fewer than four certificates in questions 15 through 18 say “yes” to 

19a? If so, this indicates the question is misunderstood. 

Probe after they’ve completed 19a and b: How did you arrive at your answer? What does the question 

mean in your own words? [And if necessary:] What does “ANY ADDITIONAL” mean in this question?

Follow-up Probe (reality check for anyone who really claims to have more than 4 certificates): What kind 

of additional certificate(s) do you have? Do they fit the categories in the “b” section of questions 15 

through 18? 

Question 20, “How did you earn your initial teaching certificate?”: 

Probe: What does “your initial” mean in this question? Which certificate are you thinking about in 

answering this question? Is the certificate you listed in 15b the one you obtained first? [If not]: Which 

certificate did you obtain first? 

Observe: Do they think a temporary or provisional certificate is an initial certificate, or only a “real” one? 

Probe (Probably difficult to answer; ask only if they are confused about “initial”): If the questionnaire 

writers are actually asking about the certificate listed in 15b, would this question make more SENSE if 

placed right after 15b? Would it be EASIER to answer if placed there? What do you think you would have 

considered your initial certificate if you had not been asked to list all of them in questions 15 through 18 

first?

Section IV Overall: 

Probe: Did you see the title for this section, “Certification and Training?” What do you suppose they 

mean by “training?” [If they do not know:] Is it nonacademic professional development? Would you 

consider the education you received for your certification to be “training?” All of it or some of it? What 

other learning opportunities have you had that did not contribute to the certificates you listed? 

Probe: If you had brought a teaching certificate from another state to this state, would you include it in 

questions 15 through 18?

Vignette 20: You have a standard state teaching certificate from West Virginia but you no longer live 

there. West Virginia has a reciprocal agreement with your state of residence that allows you to teach in 

your state without getting recertified. You have not yet completed the formal paperwork to get a 

certificate from the state you live in. How would you answer question 15?

Question 21, “How many total hours did you spend working on school-related activities for this 

school during your MOST RECENT FULL WEEK of teaching?”: 

Probe: Please tell me what you are thinking as you work through this page. 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-101 

Probe (ask only after questions 21–23 have ALL been completed): How did you arrive at your answer? 

What does “most recent full week” mean in this question?

Vignette 21 (present only after questions 21–23 have ALL been completed; ask as many subcases as you 

have time for; alternate subcases for different respondents): What would be your “most recent full week” 

if you normally work 5-day weeks and 

a) it was Friday afternoon when you were answering this question? 

b) it was Friday morning when you were answering this question? 

c) it is Tuesday, and last week students had Thanksgiving off. The week before that was a 5-day 

week. 

d) it is Tuesday, and one day last week classes were delayed 2 hours owing to icy roads. All classes 

were held but all periods were shortened accordingly. The week before that was a 5-day week. 

e) it is Tuesday, and one day last week school closed an hour early. The last period of the day had 

started to meet but was canceled. The week before that was a 5-day week. 

Question 22, “During official school hours, how much time did you spend on the following schoolrelated activities during your MOST RECENT FULL WEEK of teaching at this school?”: 

Probe (ask after question 21 probes and only after questions 21–23 have been completed): What does 

official school hours mean in your own words? Do you work the same schedule every week and every day 

of the week? [If not:] What varies? Is your schedule for your most recent full week typical of most weeks?

Question 23, “Outside of official school hours, how much time did you spend on the following 

school-related activities during your MOST RECENT FULL WEEK of teaching at this school?”: 

Probe (ask after question 22 probes and after questions 21–23 have been completed): What does this 

question mean in your own words? 

Vignette 23: Your school has added an hour to every student’s day Monday through Thursday to permit 

school to close at noon every Friday, thereby giving teachers more planning time during the day and a 

chance to spend more time with their families. You generally use these Friday afternoons between noon 

and 4 p.m. to grade the week’s papers and plan the next week’s lessons. Would you include this Friday 

afternoon time in 23b or in 22b? 

Section IV/V Overall: 

Probe: Does the phrase “total hours in the week” used in questions 21–23 mean something different to 

you than “hours per week” in question 6a?

Observe: Do the hours for 22 and 23 add up to those listed for 21? Did they make use of the hints and 

examples to distinguish official and nonofficial hours? 

Probe: Are any of the hours you listed in question 21 not accounted for in questions 22 and 23? [If so:] 

What were your activities during those additional hours?

Probe (If hours for 21 are fewer than for 22 plus 23): Which hours did you not think to include in 21? Why 

was it difficult to think of these?

Probe: What if anything was confusing on this page? Would this page have been easier to complete if 

questions 22 and 23 had referred back to question 21? [If unclear:) For instance, “How many of the 
E-102 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

hours you listed in question 21 were spent during/outside of official school hours on the following 

activities?”

Probe: Is it clear where to put club sponsorships and coaching for which you do not receive additional 

compensation?

General Questions for the Questionnaire as a Whole: 

What was helpful and unhelpful about the way the questions were laid out on the page? What suggestions 

do you have for presenting the questions better? 

(Observe if they mention the apple icon as being inappropriate for instructions and directives.) 

Were there questions that were hard to answer without referring to your records? If at the beginning of 

this booklet we were to advise teachers on the materials it would be helpful to have on hand before 

starting the questionnaire, what materials should be included? 

What questions were most difficult to answer? Why? 

What questions might some people feel uncomfortable answering? Why? Are some questions of a 

sensitive or personal nature? What questions do you think teachers might refuse to answer, or do you 

think would discourage teachers from mentioning their concerns? What questions might they answer in a 

way that does not reflect their true beliefs? Why? (If any:) What could we do to help them feel more 

comfortable with the questions? 

What other questions do you wish we had asked about? 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-103 

Attachment E-5. Interview Questions for Panel B 

Question 3, “In the last 12 MONTHS, did you participate in any of the following professional 

development activities?” 

Question 3a, “University course(s) taken towards recertification or advanced certification in your 

MAIN teaching assignment field” and 3b, “University course(s) in your MAIN teaching assignment 

field”: 

Probe (after they finish answering 3b): How did you arrive at your answer for 3b? How about for 3a?

Probe: Would you include courses taken in a small college with no graduate program among university 

courses? Why or why not? 

Probe: Would you include university-sponsored online courses? What about courses from unaccredited 

institutions?

Probe: How do you interpret main teaching assignment field in this question? Is there another term your 

school uses to refer to something like a main teaching assignment field?

Vignette 3-A (HAND OUT WRITTEN VERSION): Suppose you received certification and began 

teaching for the first time 6 months ago. During the 6 months before that, you took the following courses 

at the University of Maryland:

• a general 3-credit course in methods of secondary education: “Theory of Curriculum and 

Instruction”; 

• a 3-credit senior seminar on superconductivity; and 

• a 6-credit student teaching internship/practicum in another physics teacher’s classroom. 

All three you used towards getting certified to teach physics. The semester before that you took two 3-

credit physics courses, Electricity & Magnetism and Optics & Waves. You’d never been certified before. 

Since you received your certification, you’ve been taking an evening course at the local community 

college on diversity in the classroom as well as a 4-credit chemistry lab course so you can eventually get 

certified to teach chemistry as well. How would you answer section 3b? What about 3a? 

Vignettes (Choose two of the following three vignettes and alternate among participants): 

Vignette 3-B1: If you teach half of your courses in Spanish, half in French, and are certified to teach 

both, which would you consider your main teaching assignment field?

Vignette 3-B2: If you were certified in secondary school geography and were originally hired to teach 

geography, but you actually teach most of your courses in earth science (geology, biology, environment), 

which would you consider your main teaching assignment field?

Vignette 3-B3: If you were hired to teach civics and government and you teach four civics sections, but 

you prefer to teach history, teach history whenever you get the chance, and pride yourself on and have 

received praise for the ancient history and advanced placement American history classes you started at 

this school, what would you consider your main teaching assignment field? Do you think your colleagues 

and/or your principal would agree with you?
E-104 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Question 3c, “Observational visits to other schools”: 

Probe (after they finish answering 3c): How did you arrive at your answer for 3c?

Questions 3d, “Presenting at workshops, conferences, or trainings” and 3e, “Attending other 

workshops, conferences, or trainings”: 

Probe (after they finish answering 3e): How did you arrive at your answer for 3d? How about for 3e?

Probe: What is the difference between presenting and attending in these two questions?

Probe: Would you include training sessions, workshops, or conferences held at your own school? What if 

the training was something routine that did not involve any outside speakers, something that all 

principals, guidance counselors, or librarians at all schools in the county were required to provide for all 

the teachers in their school, for instance, something dealing with drugs in the classroom?

Probe: Would you include a training session conducted at a university or college? [If not:] Would you 

consider that coursework or education instead?

Question 3f, “Individual or collaborative research on a topic of interest to you professionally”: 

Probe: What counts as research? [If needed:] Does filling in gaps in knowledge to prepare for mandatory 

lesson plans count? Studying other teachers’ or schools’ curriculum? Writing research papers? Writing 

articles? Finding something for the students to read? What else?

Probe: What counts as collaborative? [If needed:] Work done with other teachers? What about work 

you’ve done with a non-teacher friend? With a family member? With a student? The principal?

Question 3g, “Regularly-scheduled collaboration with other teachers on issues of instruction”: 

Probe: What counts as an issue of instruction? Does choosing the curriculum to cover count, or only 

methods for conveying knowledge? Does classroom management count, for instance, how to instruct two 

groups in the same room?

Question 3h, “Diagnosing individual students with other teachers”: 

Probe: What sorts of things are being diagnosed in this question? [If needed:] Learning disabilities? 

Behavior problems? Learning styles and how best to explain or demonstrate something to a student who 

is not disabled? Problems students are having at home? Would identifying gifted and talented students be 

included?

Question 3j, “Acting as a coach or mentor to other teachers or staff in your school, or receiving 

coaching or mentoring,”: 

Probe: Does mentoring and coaching a student teacher count?

Question 3 Overall: 

Probe: If you taught at more than one school, would these questions apply to all schools you taught at?
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-105 

Question 4, “In the past 12 months have you participated in...etc.”—all portions: 

Observe: Do respondents have trouble moving to the next question, suggesting they may be confused by 

the complex numbering scheme 4a(1) and 4a(2), etc.? 

Probe (every time they reach a section with (1) in the left margin questions): How did you arrive at that 

answer? 

Observe (probe further as appropriate during a section (1) at least once): How confident are they that 

they’ve chosen a range of hours that accurately reflects their experiences? Did they count the time spent 

commuting to and from or registering for professional development events or seminars? 

Question 4b, “In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional development 

activities that focused on uses of computers for instruction?”: 

Probe (after the yes/no question, before (1) and (2)): You answer yes/no because... [If needed:] What are 

uses of computers for instructions in this question? Does this include training to help you use computers 

in your classroom or to help the students use them, or both?

Probe: Would you consider computers that students use to tutor themselves or practice with computers for 

instruction?

Question 4c, “In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional development 

activities that focused on reading instruction?”: 

Probe (immediately following the yes/no question): You answer yes/no because...[If needed:] What do 

you think “reading instruction” as it’s used here involves? Does it include basic reading skills or things 

like improving comprehension and speed of reading for more advanced students? 

Question 4d, “In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional development 

activities that focused on student discipline and management in the classroom?”: 

Probe: “You answer yes/no because...” 

Observe: Note if they think the question seem strange given that the last three questions were about an 

area of study but do not probe for this. 

Question 4e, “In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional development 

activities that focused on other topics not included in 4a–4d above?”: 

Probe (if answered Yes): If you participated in development in more than one additional area, how many 

hours did you spend on each of them?

Vignette 4e: If you participated in more areas than fit comfortably on the line below the instruction 

“Please specify” what would you do?

Question 4, “In the past 12 months have you participated in any professional development activities 

that focused on...”—Overall Follow-up: 

Probe: For the questions labeled (2), how do you conceive of the differences between the descriptions 

“not useful,” “somewhat useful,” “useful,” and “very useful” in characterizing the training sessions? 
E-106 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

[Ask only if they have trouble explaining their decisions:] Do you determine usefulness of a training 

session by comparing it to the average session in your experience or to your expectations for training? Is 

something useful something that leads to measurable improvement in student performance? To a better 

atmosphere in the classroom? To your confidence and comfort with the material? What sorts of benefits 

or detriments resulted from “in-depth study” of your content field? From professional development in 

computer instruction? From any training you may have received in reading instruction? What sorts of 

benefits did you derive or problems did you experience through gaining training in student discipline and 

management of the classroom? How did you arrive at a usefulness rating for each of these areas of 

professional development? 

Probe: What do you feel counts as “professional development activities”? [Ask only if respondents 

unable to express themselves:] Instruction by outsiders? Peer teaching through in-service courses? In 

answering questions 4a through 4d, did you include professional development activities undertaken both 

individually and collaboratively. Why [or] why not?

Questions 5, “Are students assigned to your classes on the basis of achievement or ability level?” 

and Question 6, “Do you use different groupings of students in your classroom to teach students 

who learn at different rates?”: 

Observe: Do some suggest skipping question 6 if they answer no to question 5? Do other teachers treat 

them as separate situations, interpreting question 5 as referring to tracking, where each class constitutes 

an achievement or ability group? 

Probe (after questions 5 and 6 have both been answered): What does question 5 mean in your own words? 

How about question 6? Would other phrasing better convey what you think question 5 means? [If 

needed:] Is this question just about tracking or about something else?

Vignette 5: Suppose that your school makes every effort to group students by ability level. You are a 

foreign language teacher who teaches one class each of French I, French II, Spanish I, Spanish II, 

German I, and German II. Since there are only enough students interested in each language to offer one 

class in each level of each language, and since people who stick with a language tend to be better 

students, your first year language students range from low to high ability and achievement, but your 

continuing second year language students are very able and consistently high achievers. Based on this 

information, how would you answer question 5?

Question 7a, “Of all the students you teach at this school, how many have an Individual Education 

Plan (IEP) because they have disabilities or are special education students?”: 

Probe (after they answer 7a, before 7b): How did you arrive at your answer? What does the question 

mean in your own words? What types of students with disabilities were you considering? [If needed:]

Were you considering students with physical disabilities and learning disabilities? Why or why not? 

Question 7b, “Do you or these students receive the following types of support in your classroom?”: 

Probe (after they complete 7b(1) through 7b(3)): Where would you put other resources like parent 

volunteers? Should there be additional categories? 

Vignette 7b: If a “special aide” travels to different schools, is that person also an “itinerant teacher?” 

Would you say “yes” to both 7b(1) and 7b(2)?

Probe: What do they mean by behavioral management plan in 7b(3)?
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-107 

Question 8, “In the last 3 years, have you had 8 hours or more of training or professional 

development on how to teach special education students”: 

Probe: You answer Yes/No because...? 

Observe: Do they have difficulty recalling education from 3 years ago and estimating hours? 

Vignette 8 (for some participants wait to present this until after question 10; could be sensitive): Suppose 

within the last 3 years you attended two 4-hour training sessions on this topic but you could not stay until 

the end of one of them. You feel you still got what you needed out of the course and have the notes on the 

portion you missed. Would you answer yes or no?

Question 10, “In the last 3 years, have you had 8 hours or more of training or professional 

development on how to teach students with limited English proficiency?”: 

Probe: You answer Yes/No because...? 

Observe: Do they have difficulty recalling education from 3 years ago and estimating hours? 

Vignette 10 (present only if not asked after question 8): Suppose within the last 3 years you attended two 

4-hour training sessions on this topic but you could not stay until the end of one of them. You feel you still 

got what you needed out of the course and have the notes on the portion you missed. Would you answer 

yes or no?

Question 11, “Do you receive your students’ scores on state or local achievement tests?”: 

Probe: What students were you thinking about when you answered this question? 

Observe: Are they only considering the students with limited English? 

Question 12a, “To what extent do you use the information from your students’ test scores to group 

students into different instructional groups by achievement or ability?”: 

Probe: Are there privacy or confidentiality concerns or restrictions that might prevent teachers from 

using students’ scores for assigning ability groups even though some might want to do so? 

Observe: Do they mention if they do not have the decision-making authority to assign ability groups? 

This might affect their answer for “Not at all” which could be “Not within my scope/not my 

responsibility/not within my power.” 

Question 12, “To what extent do you use the information from your students’ test scores to...”—

Overall Follow-up: 

Probe: Do a, b, and/or c include using test scores to determine what remedial instruction needs to be 

offered? Is a separate category needed for that?

Probe: Do test scores help you identify language proficiency deficits? Would that go under a, b, and/or c, 

or would that be a separate issue?

Probe: How do you distinguish teaching practice in b from curriculum in c? Is there an overlap?
E-108 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Question 13, “To what extent do you use state or district standards to guide your instructional 

practice in your main teaching field?”: 

Probe: Are you happy with the state or district standards? Why [or] why not?

Question 14, “During your MOST RECENT FULL WEEK, how many total hours did you spend 

working on school-related activities for this school?”: 

Probe: Please tell me what you are thinking as you work through this page.

Probe (ask only after questions 14–16 have ALL been completed): How did you arrive at your answer? 

What does “most recent full week” mean in this question?

Vignette 14 (present only after questions 14–16 have ALL been completed; ask as many subcases as you 

have time for; alternate subcases for different respondents): What would be your “most recent full week” 

if you normally work 5-day weeks and, 

a) it were Friday afternoon when you were answering this question? 

b) it were Friday afternoon when you were answering this question? 

c) it is Tuesday, and last week students had Thanksgiving off. The week before that was a 5-day 

week. 

d) it is Tuesday, and one day last week classes were delayed 2 hours owing to icy roads. All classes 

were held but all periods were shortened accordingly. The week before that was a 5-day week. 

e) it is Tuesday, and one day last week school closed an hour early. The last period of the day had 

started to meet but was canceled. The week before that was a 5-day week. 

Question 15, “During official school hours, how much time did you spend on the following schoolrelated activities during your MOST RECENT FULL WEEK of teaching at this school?”: 

Probe (ask after question 14 probes and only after questions 14–16 have been completed): What does 

official school hours mean in your own words? Do you work the same schedule every week and every day 

of the week? [If not:] What varies? Is your schedule for your most recent full week typical of most weeks?

Question 16, “Outside of official school hours, how much time did you spend on the following 

school-related activities during your MOST RECENT FULL WEEK of teaching at this school?”: 

Probe (ask after question 15 probes and after questions 14–16 have been completed): What does this 

question mean in your own words? 

Vignette 16: Your school has added an hour to every student’s day Monday through Thursday to permit 

school to close at noon every Friday, thereby giving teachers more planning time during the day and a 

chance to spend more time with their families. You generally use these Friday afternoons between noon 

and 4 p.m. to grade the week’s papers and plan the next week’s lessons. Where would you include this 

Friday afternoon time? 

Section IV Overall: 

Observe: Do the hours for 15 and 16 add up to those listed for 14? Did they make use of the hints and 

examples to distinguish official and nonofficial hours? 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-109 

Probe: Are any of the hours you listed in question 14 not accounted for in questions 15 and 16? [If so:] 

What were your activities during those additional hours?

Probe (If hours for 14 are fewer than for 25 plus 16): Which hours did you not think to include in 21? Why 

was it difficult to think of these?

Probe: What if anything was confusing on this page? Would this page have been easier to complete if 

questions 15 and 16 had referred back to question 15? [If unclear:) For instance, “How many of the 

hours you listed in question 14 were spent during/outside of official school hours on the following 

activities?”

Probe: Where to put club sponsorships and coaching for which you do not receive additional 

compensation?

Question 17, “Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?”: 

a. Probe: What is meant by what kind of school?

b. Probe: What is meant by cooperative effort?

c. Probe: What does recognized mean in this context? [If needed:] Praise? Merit pay? Some other sort of 

one-time monetary bonus?

d. Probe (if they somewhat or strongly disagree): Are other issues such as state funding more relevant to 

job security than test performance? 

e. Probe (may be sensitive): In your own words, what is this question asking? [If necessary:] Is it asking 

whether you are worried about the potential for students’ low scores to affect your job security, or is it 

asking whether you are worried that your own students’ actual performance on tests may affect your job 

security? Is it asking about potential or actual scores?

f. Probe: What does positive influence mean? Can a positive influence be a significant detrimental effect 

or only an increase in the level of your satisfaction? [If needed:] Are the standards a major factor?

g. Probe: Could you ever have a class size that was too SMALL (rather than too large) and be 

dissatisfied with that? [If so:] How?

Vignette 17: Your school is overenrolled, and the administration permits 45 students per class. Many of 

the classes in the school are this large, including all of your classes last year. You got lucky this year and 

none of your classes are over 15 students. What would you put for question g? Would it help if the 

question said what time period to consider?

h. Probe: What is meant by support in this question? (Does the teacher have special needs students in 

class?) [If needed:] Does it include emotional support of colleagues, the principal? Staff support like 

teachers’ aides, special ed teachers, librarians, guidance counselors, secretaries? Resources like copy 

machines, textbooks, library books, AV equipment? The general environment?

i. Probe: What is meant by coordinate the content in this question? [If needed:] Does it include team 

teaching? Having a common curriculum? Would it include balancing strengths and weaknesses by having 

each teacher teach their specialty and handing students off to another teacher the next year? 
E-110 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

j. Probe: Suppose you have some students who must come to your class late because of jobs or from 

taking care of siblings. If this is your situation, you may have adjusted your lesson plans to take account 

of these problems, so they may not be as disturbing for you as for other teachers. How would you answer 

question j?

k. Probe: Is doing your best as a teacher even an issue in your school? If teachers have low morale, get 

little support from parents, and have a low opinion of the students, they may be more concerned about 

keeping control of the classroom than about doing their best as a teacher. For such teachers, doing your 

best as a teacher might be considered not a waste of time but a stupid thing to be concerned about, even 

irresponsible. Is that your situation?

l. Probe: Is there a librarian or media specialist in your school? What is the difference between librarian 

and media specialist?

m. Probe: Is your answer determined relative to what you know about other schools you could be 

teaching at or relative to what you would like teaching to be like?

Question 17 overall, “Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?”: 

Empathy Probe: This is a list of issues we or the teachers we’ve interviewed consider important, but you 

should feel free to mention any important issue not on the list. 

Question 18, “Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following 

statements”: 

Observe: Do they mention redundancy among items in 17 and those in 18? 

(Before probing on this page, allow respondent to complete the entire page (a through g)) 

a. Probe: What does “aren’t really worth it” mean to you?

b. Probe: What does “b” mean in your own words? Are these two ways of asking the same question, 

or are they two different questions separated by a semicolon? [If 2 questions]: What is the 

difference between the two questions?

c. Probe: What does “the way things are run” mean to you? [If needed:] Is it policy set by the 

principal? How things evolve in the organization of the school?

d. Probe: What is meant by a higher paying job in this question? [If needed:] Did you interpret the 

question as meaning a higher paying job in your subject area but not in teaching, or as meaning 

a higher paying job in school administration (principal, superintendent, school board worker)? 

Would your answer differ depending on your interpretation of the question?

e. Probe: Would your answer depend on whether you could go to a completely different school 

district?

Question 19, “To the best of your knowledge how often do the following types of problems occur at 

your school?”: 

(Before probing on this page, allow respondent to complete the entire page (a through p).) 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-111 

a–b. Probe: Who does this refer to? (Students, teachers, or both?)

f. Probe: What sort of property does this include? [If needed:] Students? Teachers? The schools?

g–h. Probe: Is this on or off school grounds?

k, l, o. Probe: How would you describe things like racial tensions and bullying? What are “student acts 

of disrespect”? Do these seem to overlap with any other categories listed here?

Follow-up Probe: Are there any hostile, violent, or potentially illegal activities that are not covered here?

[If needed:] What about parent harassment of coaches during games or of teachers during parent-teacher 

conferences? What about teacher misconduct toward students? 

Question 20, “To what extent is each of the following a problem in this school?”: 

(Before probing on this page, allow respondent to complete the entire page (a through h)) 

b. Probe: Who were you thinking about when you answered this item? 

f. Probe: What or who does the term “poverty” refer to? 

g. Probe: What does unprepared to learn mean here? [Only if needed:] That parents do not help 

with homework? That last year’s teachers or schools were no good? That students are illdisposed towards learning? That students are distracted from learning by concerns about home 

life? That they are not fed breakfast? Would you rate each question differently? Should these all 

be separate questions or should they be combined? 

Sections V and VI Follow-up Probes: 

Were there situations where you really did not have a strong opinion either way, for instance in 20, 

neither agreeing nor disagreeing? How did you decide what answer to give in these situations? Did you 

have other favorable or unfavorable reactions to the rating scales used in this questionnaire? 

General Questions for the Questionnaire as a Whole: 

What was helpful and unhelpful about the way the questions were laid out on the page? What suggestions 

do you have for presenting the questions better? 

(Observe if they mention the apple icon as being inappropriate for instructions and directives.) 

Were there questions that were hard to answer without referring to your records? If at the beginning of 

this booklet we were to advise teachers on the materials it would be helpful to have on hand before 

starting the questionnaire, what materials should be included? 

What questions were most difficult to answer? Why? 

What questions might some people feel uncomfortable answering? Why? Are some questions of a 

sensitive or personal nature? What questions do you think teachers might refuse to answer, or do you 

think would discourage teachers from mentioning their concerns? What questions might they answer in a 

way that does not reflect their true beliefs? Why? [If any:] What could we do to help them feel more 
E-112 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

comfortable with the questions? [If none mentioned or not recalled, show them questions 13, 17, and 20 

and see if they recall them.] 

What other questions do you wish we had asked about? 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-113 

Attachment E-6. Screening Questionnaire 

Appt. Date & Time: __,________@________ 

Directions Sent: ___________ Recruiter: _ Reminder Call: _ 

Bureau of the Census/Teacher Questionnaire Cognitive Interviews 

B. Archibald, C. Steinberg – Test Administrators 

Wednesday, December 11 – Wednesday, December 18, 2002 

Thirty (30) Participants Needed 

Various Locations; 1.5 hours; $30.00 

Name: _____ 

Male (Try to recruit 5–6) Female 

Daytime Phone # _______ 

Evening Phone # _______ 

E-mail Address ________ 

1. Which of the following describes your occupation? 

 Public School Teacher 

 Private School Teacher (Recruit no more than 5) 

 College or University Teacher (Terminate) 

 Student Teacher (e.g., teacher-in-training) (Terminate) 

 Substitute Teacher (no regular classes or classroom) (Terminate) 

 Home Educator (Terminate) 

 None of the above (Terminate) 

2. What grade or grades do you teach? (Recruit a mix, including preschool and kindergarten) 

3. What is the name of the school or schools you teach at? 

NOTE: Recruit no more than 4 from the same school; try to recruit at least 2 who teach at more 

than 1 school) 

4. Where is the school or schools located? (Recruit a few in Northwest DC—Columbia 

Heights, Mt. Pleasant, Arlington, or Wheaton.) 

5. What subject or subjects do you teach? (Terminate if same subject as another recruit from 

the same school.) 

6. How long have you been a teacher? (Recruit 4–6 with less than 3 years.) 
E-114 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

7. Are you involved in any activities involving students outside of school hours, such as club 

sponsorship, school plays, team coaching, tutoring, etc.? 

 Yes (Recruit at least 6.) 

 No (Go to question 9.) 

8. What activities do you participate in? 

9. Does your job include teaching selected students when they are released from their regular 

classes? 

 Yes (Recruit 1–2.) 

 No 

10. Are both of the following statements true? 

A) You teach more than one subject to the same group of students 

AND 

B_ At least one other teacher in your school teaches that SAME GROUP more than one subject. 

 Yes (Recruit 1–2.) 

 No 

11. Do you teach special education or IEP students? 

 Yes (Recruit 1–2.) 

 No 

12. What degree or degrees do you have and what subject or subjects did your major in? (Recruit a 

mix.) 

 Degree _____ Subject _____ 

 Degree _____ Subject _____ 

 Degree _____ Subject _____ 

 Degree _____ Subject _____ 

NOTE: Try to include at least one who has a double major and at least one who majored in a 

subject they are not teaching. 

13. Have you participated in a usability study, focus group or market research survey within the past 

6 months? 

 Yes (Terminate) 

 No 

14. Where will you be able to participate? 

 Your school 

 UserWorks facilities in Silver Spring 

 A public location such as a library 

 The Census Bureau in Suitland 
Appendix E. Report on SASS Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels E-115 

15. The interview will be audiotaped. Only the team working on this project will use the tape and 

your name will not be associated with the tape or other data in any way. You will be asked to sign 

an informed consent form. Would you be willing to be audiotaped? 

 Yes 

 No (Terminate) 

16. How would you like the directions to our office or to the Census Bureau sent to you? 

 E-mail Address 

 Fax Number 

 Over Phone 

 Not Needed 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
F-1 

Appendix F. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to the 

2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire 

This appendix contains a report by the Census Bureau on follow-up research to the study described in 

appendix E. The following material is included here: 

Background ........................................................................................................................................ F-2

Key Findings ...................................................................................................................................... F-2

Methods.............................................................................................................................................. F-2

Detailed Findings and Recommendations .......................................................................................... F-3

Item 1c: Who Issued Degree........................................................................................................ F-3

Item 1d: Codes for Major Field of Study..................................................................................... F-3

Item 3a: Additional Degrees ........................................................................................................ F-3

Item 4: Tests................................................................................................................................. F-3

Item 6: Coursework for Initial Certification ................................................................................ F-4

Form 1 Certification..................................................................................................................... F-4

Form 2 Certification..................................................................................................................... F-4

Attachment F-1. Form 1 Protocol....................................................................................................... F-6

Attachment F-2. Certification Items from Form 2 Protocol............................................................. F-16
F-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Background 

A thorough study of critical items and proposed content for the teacher questionnaires was conducted 

between December 2002 and January 2003. (The study is described in “Appendix E. Report on SASS 

Cognitive Interviews of Teachers in Two Panels,” of the Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and 

Staffing Survey.) The study recommended significant revisions to the certification and preparation for 

teaching items. In order to test these revisions, a small-scale cognitive test was conducted in March 2003. 

This report documents the methodology and findings from the test on the revised items that were 

proposed for inclusion in the teacher questionnaires. 

Key Findings 

Testing identified the following cognitive issues with the proposed certification items: 

• Some respondents misunderstood the item on source of degree (i.e., “Was this degree awarded by 

a university’s College of Education or a college’s School of Education?”). 

• Table 1 did not contain adequate codes for respondents who earned an associate’s degree in a 

general subject area. 

• Testing questions (“Have you taken any of the following tests?”) suffered from recall issues for 

older teachers and redundancy issues for other teachers (i.e., the same test was reported in 

multiple items). 

• The initial series on certification artificially distinguished between number of physical teaching 

certificates and number of areas in which a teacher is certified to teach. Additionally, the use of 

“endorsements” in this section confused many respondents. 

Methods 

Census Bureau analysts conducted this research from March 21 to 26, 2003, following a calling 

procedure. Schools were contacted by phone and asked to nominate a teacher to participate in the study. 

A questionnaire was then faxed to the school and an appointment was set for the researcher to call the 

teacher directly. A concurrent interview was conducted by phone following a structured protocol 

(attachment F-1). The probing questions used by the interviewer are listed on this protocol but were not 

included on the fax that was sent to the school. The interviewer was free to deviate from the protocol as 

required. The initial proposed certification questions were administered to three respondents. Form 1 was 

revised based on these interviews and an additional six interviews were conducted with Form 2 

(attachment F-2). Interviews lasted 15 to 25 minutes. Characteristics of the participants can be found in 

table F-1. Teachers were offered a copy of Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999–2000: Overview of the 

Data for Public, Private, Public Charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs Elementary and Secondary 

Schools (NCES 2002-313) as an incentive for participating in the study. 

Table F-1. Characteristics of respondents in cognitive test on teacher questionnaire items: 2003 

Respondent State Form Respondent State Form 

1 Pennsylvania 1 4 Kansas 2 

2 Idaho 1 5 Washington 2 

3 Louisiana 1 6 Utah 2 

 7 Montana 2 

 8 Wyoming 2 

 9 West Virginia 2 

SOURCE: Follow-up Cognitive Testing to the 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire, U.S. Census Bureau, 2003. 
Appendix F. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to the 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire F-3 

Detailed Findings and Recommendations 

Item 1c: Who Issued Degree 

The majority of respondents understood this item. The most common explanation was “did I get my 

degree in education?” 

Respondent 1 was confused by “university’s college of education”—does this mean the department? She 

indicated that at the bachelor’s level the degree comes from the college, not the department. 

Respondent 3 understood item “did I study in the college of education?” However, respondent 5 said “no” 

but she had taken education methods classes as part of her bachelor’s degree. 

Respondent 9 had some confusion about this item. Partially due to the “or” statement—she thought it was 

asking if she got her degree from a college OR university in education. Despite this confusion she did 

answer correctly. 

Recommendation: Add department of education to question stem. 

Item 1d: Codes for Major Field of Study 

Respondent 4 did not find general social science on list, and ended up choosing political science since that 

was the subject matter of many of his classes. 

Item 3a: Additional Degrees 

For three respondents (4, 6, and 9) the list did not have good matches for associate’s degree (general 

education and (2) associate of arts). 

Recommendation: Add more general or other options for social science degrees. 

Item 4: Tests 

The testing section was problematic for many respondents. In some cases the same test was reported 

twice. The older respondents had difficulty recalling the name or nature of tests that they have taken. 

Respondent 1 marked yes to state test (options a/b) because the Praxis was required by the state. 

Respondent 2 almost marked yes because he took some tests (to teach Advanced Placement classes and 

basic technology skills), then he thought the question was interested in a test new teachers are now 

required to take in his state. 

Respondent 3 took national teacher exam—once to become a teacher and once to become a principal. Did 

not see this option listed. (This may have been Praxis.) 

Respondent 4 took a preprofessional basic skills test and a state subject matter test. Could not remember 

the names. 

Respondent 5 took a test in 1991 in college before graduating that was required of people who wanted to 

become teachers. Did not know name of test. 
F-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Respondent 6 counted SAT as a test of basic skills in the state she is teaching in. She also had to take an 

aptitude test to continue in education program. 

Respondent 7 took a test developed by the university and Office of Public Instruction (Department of 

Education). Initially, she was going to count this test but then decided not to, because it said “state” and 

the test was actually given by the university. She remembered taking the Praxis while in university and 

did not count this as the earlier test. 

Respondent 8 marked yes to “a” because she had to take a test in college to pass. She thinks this was the 

CAT test (sounded like a department requirement). 

Respondent 9 took a test senior year in college that she had to pass to go on to student teaching. The test 

was given by the university, but she thinks it was a state test. 

Recommendation: Move Praxis test first. 

Consider filtering out experienced teachers. 

Revise state test options to be clearer (developed by state or required by state). 

Item 6: Coursework for Initial Certification 

Only one respondent had difficulty with this item. 

Respondent 3 initially marked “-” through enrollment in individual courses. He realized it was part of a 

degree program and changed his response. 

Form 1 Certification 

Respondents 1 and 2 both had one physical certificate that covers two areas. They each handled reporting 

differently. One listed each as a separate certificate, while the other listed it as one certificate with an 

endorsement. Respondent 3 also had one certificate with three certification areas. He wanted to list all 

three in item c and then count his college minor (driver’s ed) as an endorsement. Both respondents who 

had a minor wanted to count that as an endorsement. 

Recommendation: Revise to include more lines for certification areas and fewer certifications. 

Form 2 Certification 

Respondent 4—This form seemed to work well for this teacher. He has one certificate with many 

certifications. He mentioned that they have endorsements in Kansas but was not sure how they differ from 

certifications. He referred to his additional certifications as endorsements but listed them as certifications 

and said they were different from the endorsements we describe. 

Respondent 5 had similar issues with certification and endorsement—at first she said that she would 

count English as an endorsement (it was her minor in college) but then as she thought about it, she 

considered the two equivalent. Essentially read question as—“what does it say on my certificate that I can 

teach?” 

Respondent 7 thought that endorsement section was redundant—she had already told us about her 

certification. In her mind (and other respondents) they are similar to certification. 
Appendix F. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to the 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire F-5 

Respondent 8 had similar issues with endorsement. 

Respondent 9 said she recently ran into problems because her endorsement did not enable her to teach 

certain levels because it was not the same as certification. However, she was unable to explain the 

difference. 

Recommendation: Many certificates are endorsed with the teaching areas. In some states the endorsement 

is required for a minor area (for example, special education or elementary on top of any early childhood 

certification). Continue to ask the initial question as worded in Form 2, but change follow up to ask “in 

what content areas does this certificate enable you to teach.” Remove the endorsement item and add entry 

boxes for reporting additional areas of certification. Ask for one additional physical certificate to handle 

situations where someone has a waiver or other type of certificate, in addition to their first certificate. 

This will also allow for states where more than one certificate is issued to the same teacher. 
F-6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

1 

Attachment F-1. Form 1 Protocol 

Table 1. Major fields of study codes for questions 1, 2, and 3 

General Education 

Elementary Education 

101 Early childhood/Pre-K, general 

102 Elementary grades, general 

Secondary Education 

103 Middle grades, general 

104 Secondary grades, general 

Special Education 

110 Special education, any 

Other Education 

131 Administration 

132 Counseling and guidance 

133 Educational psychology 

134 Policy studies 

135 School psychology 

136 Other non-subject matter specific education 

Subject Matter Specific 

Arts & Music 

141 Art/Arts or crafts 

142 Art history 

143 Dance 

144 Drama/Theater 

145 Music 

English and Language Arts 

151 Communications 

152 Composition 

153 English 

154 Journalism 

155 Language arts 

156 Linguistics 

157 Literature/Literary criticism 

158 Reading 

159 Speech 

English as a Second Language 

160 ESL/Bilingual education: General 

161 ESL/Bilingual education: Spanish 

162 ESL/Bilingual education: Other languages 

Foreign Languages 

171 French 

172 German 

173 Latin 

174 Spanish 

175 Other foreign language 

Health Education 

181 Health education 

182 Physical education 

Mathematics and Computer Science 

190 Mathematics 

197 Computer science 

Natural Sciences 

211 Biology/Life sciences 

212 Chemistry 

213 Earth sciences 

214 Engineering 

217 Physics 

Social Sciences 

221 Anthropology 

222 Area/Ethnic studies (excluding Native American 

Studies) 

223 Criminal justice 

224 Cultural studies 

225 Economics 

226 Geography 

227 Government/Civics 

228 History 

229 International studies 

230 Law 

231 Native American studies 

232 Political science 

233 Psychology 

234 Sociology 

Vocational/Technical Education 

241 Agriculture and natural resources 

242 Business/Office 

243 Keyboarding 

244 Marketing and distribution 

245 Health occupations 

246 Construction trades 

247 Mechanics and repair 

248 Drafting/Graphics/Printing 

249 Metals/Woods/Plastics, and other precision production 

(electronics, leatherwork, meat cutting, etc.) 

250 Communications and other technologies (not including 

computer science) 

251 Culinary arts/Hospitality 

252 Child care and education 

253 Personal and other services (including cosmetology, 

custodial services, clothing and textiles, and interior 

design) 

254 Family and consumer sciences education 

255 Industrial arts/Technology education 

256 Other vocational/Technical education 

Miscellaneous 

261 Architecture 

263 Humanities/Liberal studies 

264 Library/Information science 

265 Military science/ROTC 

266 Philosophy 

267 Religious studies/Theology/Divinity 

Other 

268 Other 
Appendix F. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to the 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire F-7 

2 

I. Educational Background Section: Items 1–7 

This section asks about your academic degrees, preparation, and other formal training. 

1a. Do you have a bachelor’s degree? If you have more than one bachelor’s degree, information about 

additional degrees will be asked in item 3. 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO Item 2 

1b. In what year did you receive your bachelor’s degree? 

/__/__/__/__/ Year 

1c. Was this degree awarded by a university’s College of Education or a college’s School of Education? 

__ Yes 

__ No 

What does this item mean in your own words? What degree did you 

receive? 

1d. What was your major field of study? Record the field of study code and the field name from Table 1 

on page 1. 

Code /__/__/ Major______________________________________ 

Is the code on the list? 

1e. What is the name of the college or university where you earned this degree? 

 a. Name of college or university 

 __________________________________________ 

 b. In what city and state is it located? 

 City _________________________ 

 State_________________________ 

 __ Located outside the United States? 

2a. Do you have a master’s degree? If you have more than one master’s degree, information about 

additional degree’s will be asked in item 3. 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO Item 3 on page 3 

 1. In what year did you receive your master’s degree? 

 /__/__/__/__/ Year 
F-8 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

3 

 2. Was this degree awarded by a university’s College of Education or a college’s School of 

Education? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

 3. What was your major field of study? 

 Record the field of study code and the field name from Table 1 on page 1. 

 Code /__/__/ Major___________________________________ 

3a. Have you earned any of the degrees listed below? 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO Item 4 

a. Degree b. What was your major field of study 

for each degree? 

*Record the field of study code and the 

field name from table 1 on page 1 

c. Was this degree 

awarded by a 

university’s College 

of Education or a 

college’s School of 

Education? 

d. In 

what 

year? 

(1) Vocational 

Certificate 

Code Major field of study title 

/_/_/_/ _________________________ 

 Year 

______ 

(2) Associate’s degree Code Major field of study title 

/_/_/_/ _________________________ 

 Year 

______ 

(3) SECOND 

Bachelor’s degree 

Code Major field of study title 

/_/_/_/ _________________________ 

__ Yes 

__ No 

Year 

______ 

(4) SECOND Master’s 

degree 

Code Major field of study title 

/_/_/_/ _________________________ 

__ Yes 

__ No 

Year 

______ 

(5) Educational 

specialist or 

professional diploma (at 

least one year beyond a 

master’s level) 

Code Major field of study title 

/_/_/_/ _________________________ 

 

Year 

______ 

(6) Certificate of 

Advanced Graduate 

Studies 

Code Major field of study title 

/_/_/_/ _________________________ 

 Year 

______ 

(7) Doctorate or first 

professional degree 

(Ph.D, Ed.D., M.D., 

L.L.B, J.D., D.D.S.) 

Code Major field of study title 

/_/_/_/ _________________________ 

__ Yes 

__ No 

Year 

______ 

Anything missing here? 

4. Have you taken any of the following tests? Mark (X) one box. 

 a. A state test of basic skills in the state you are currently teaching in? 

 __ Taken and passed 

 __ Taken and have not yet passed 

 __ Not taken 
Appendix F. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to the 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire F-9 

4 

 b. A state test of subject knowledge in the state you are currently teaching in? 

 __ Taken and passed 

 __ Taken and have not yet passed 

 __ Not taken 

 c. A local district test of basic skills or subject knowledge in the district you are currently teaching 

in? 

 __ Taken and passed 

 __ Taken and have not yet passed 

 __ Not taken 

 d. The Praxis Series Core Battery Test of Professional Knowledge? 

 __ Taken and passed 

 __ Taken and have not yet passed 

 __ Not taken 

 e. The Praxis II: Subject Assessment? 

 __ Taken and passed 

 __ Taken and have not yet passed 

 __ Not taken 

 f. An exam for National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification? 

 __ Taken and passed 

 __ Taken and have not yet passed 

 __ Not taken 

5. Have you ever taken any graduate or undergraduate courses that focused on teaching methods or 

teaching strategies? Include courses you are now taking as well as courses taken to earn a degree 

and courses taken outside a degree program. Do not include student teaching. 

__Yes Æ How many courses? 

__ 1 or 2 courses 

__ 3 or 4 courses 

__ 5 or more courses 

__No 

Tell me how you came up with your answer. Were there any classes you 

were not sure whether or not to include? 
F-10 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

5 

6. Which of the following describes how you obtained (or how you are obtaining) the teaching methods 

or teaching strategies COURSEWORK needed for your INITIAL certification? 

1__ Through an “alternative” program designed to expedite the transition of non-teachers to a teaching 

career (e.g., Teach for America, state or district alternative programs, or university alternative programs). 

2__ Through enrollment in a bachelor’s degree granting program (B.A. or B.S.). 

3__ Through enrollment in a master’s degree granting program (M.A., M.S., M.Ed., M.A.T.). 

4__ Through enrollment in individual courses (not part of a program leading to a degree). 

5__ No coursework in teaching methods or teaching strategies needed for my initial certification. 

6__ Not currently certified or working towards certification. Æ GO TO item 8 on page 7 

7__ Other, please specify: _____________________________________ 

In your own words what is this item asking? Tell me about the different 

response options. 

7. Did you have ALL of the coursework needed for your INITIAL certification BEFORE you started 

teaching? 

1 __ Yes 

2 __ No 

If a person received certification in a couple of states which would they 

report here? 
Appendix F. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to the 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire F-11 

6 

Table 2. Certification content area codes for questions 8 through 11 

General Education 

Elementary Education 

101 Early childhood/Pre-K, general 

102 Elementary grades, general 

Secondary Education 

103 Middle grades, general 

104 Secondary grades, general 

Special Education 

111 Special education, general 

112 Autism 

113 Deaf and hard-of-hearing 

114 Developmentally delayed 

115 Early childhood special education 

116 Emotionally disturbed or behavior disorders 

117 Learning disabilities 

118 Mentally retarded 

119 Mildly/moderately disabled 

120 Orthopedically impaired 

121 Severely/profoundly disabled 

122 Speech/language impaired 

123 Traumatically brain-injured 

124 Visually impaired 

125 Other special education 

 Subject Matter Specific 

Arts & Music 

141 Art/Arts or crafts 

143 Dance 

144 Drama/Theater 

145 Music 

English and Language Arts 

151 Communications 

152 Composition 

153 English 

154 Journalism 

155 Language arts 

158 Reading 

159 Speech 

English as a Second Language 

160 ESL/Bilingual education: General 

161 ESL/Bilingual education: Spanish 

162 ESL/Bilingual education: Other languages 

Foreign Languages 

171 French 

172 German 

173 Latin 

174 Spanish 

175 Other foreign language 

Health Education 

181 Health education 

182 Physical education 

Mathematics and Computer Science 

190 Mathematics 

197 Computer science 

Natural Sciences 

210 Science, general 

211 Biology/Life sciences 

212 Chemistry 

213 Earth sciences 

216 Physical science 

217 Physics 

Social Sciences 

220 Social studies, general 

221 Anthropology 

225 Economics 

226 Geography 

227 Government/Civics 

228 History 

231 Native American studies 

233 Psychology 

234 Sociology 

Vocational/Technical Education 

241 Agriculture and natural resources 

242 Business/Office 

243 Keyboarding 

244 Marketing and distribution 

245 Health occupations 

246 Construction trades 

247 Mechanics and repair 

248 Drafting/Graphics/Printing 

249 Metals/Woods/Plastics, and other precision production 

(electronics, leatherwork, meat cutting, etc.) 

250 Communications and other technologies (not including 

computer science) 

251 Culinary arts/Hospitality 

252 Child care and education 

253 Personal and other services (including cosmetology, 

custodial services, clothing and textiles, and interior 

design) 

254 Family and consumer sciences education 

255 Industrial arts/Technology education 

256 Other vocational/Technical education 

Miscellaneous 

262 Driver education 

263 Humanities/Liberal studies 

264 Library/Information science 

265 Military science/ROTC 

266 Philosophy 

267 Religious studies/Theology/Divinity 

Other 

268 Other 
F-12 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

7 

II. Certification and Training: Items 8–12 

This section asks you for information about your certification. 

8a. Which of the following describes the teaching certificate you currently hold in this state? Mark (X) 

only one box 

__ Regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional certificate 

__ Probationary certificate (the initial certificate issued after satisfying all requirements except the 

completion of a probationary period) 

__ Provisional or other type of certificate given to persons who are still participating in what the state 

calls an “alternative certification program” 

__ Temporary certificate (requires some additional college coursework, student teaching, and/or passage 

of a test before regular certification can be obtained) 

__ Waiver or Emergency certificate (issued to persons with insufficient teacher preparation who must 

complete a regular certification program in order to continue teaching) 

__ I do not have any of the above certifications in THIS state. Æ GO to end 

8b. Which of the following grade ranges does this certificate apply to? 

__ Elementary grades (Including early childhood, preschool, and kindergarten) 

__ Secondary grades (Including middle school) 

__ Ungraded 

__ Not applicable Æ Please explain: 

 ________________________________________________ 

8c. In what content area(s) is this certificate? 

• For some teachers the content area may be the grade level (e.g., elementary general, secondary 

general, etc). 

• Please record the content area code from Table 2 on page 6. 

Code _____ Content Area________________________________________________ 

8d. In some states, a certificate may highlight separate endorsements that reflect coursework in specific 

content areas. Do you have any such endorsements attached to this specific certificate referred to in 

items 8a through c? 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO item 9 

8e. What content areas have you earned endorsements? 

 Please record the content area code from Table 2 on page 6. 

Code _____ Endorsement Content Area____________________________________________ 

Code _____ Endorsement Content Area____________________________________________ 

Code _____ Endorsement Content Area____________________________________________ 

9a. Do you currently have a second teaching certificate in this state? 

 __Yes 

 __No Æ Go to end 
Appendix F. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to the 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire F-13 

8 

9b. Which of the following describes the teaching certificate you currently hold in this state? Mark 

(X) only one box 

__ Regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional certificate 

__ Probationary certificate (the initial certificate issued after satisfying all requirements except the 

completion of a probationary period) 

__ Provisional or other type of certificate given to persons who are still participating in what the state 

calls an “alternative certification program” 

__ Temporary certificate (requires some additional college coursework, student teaching, and/or passage 

of a test before regular certification can be obtained) 

__ Waiver or Emergency certificate (issued to persons with insufficient teacher preparation who must 

complete a regular certification program in order to continue teaching) 

__ I do not have any of the above certifications in THIS state. Æ GO to end 

9c. Which of the following grade ranges does this certificate apply to? 

__ Elementary grades (Including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

__ Secondary grades (Including middle school) 

__ Ungraded 

__ Not applicable Æ Please explain: 

 ________________________________________________ 

9d. In what content area(s) is this certificate? 

• For some teachers the content area may be the grade level (e.g., elementary general, secondary 

general, etc). 

• Please record the content area code from Table 2 on page 6. 

Code _____ Content Area________________________________________________ 

9e. In some states, a certificate may highlight separate endorsements that reflect coursework in specific 

content areas. Do you have any such endorsements attached to this specific certificate referred to in 

items 9a through c? 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO item 10 

9f. What content areas have you earned endorsements? 

Please record the content area code from Table 2 on page 6. 

Code _____ Endorsement Content Area____________________________________________ 

Code _____ Endorsement Content Area____________________________________________ 

Code _____ Endorsement Content Area____________________________________________ 

10a. Do you currently have a third teaching certificate in this state? 

 __Yes 

 __No Æ Go to end 
F-14 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

9 

10b. Which of the following describes the teaching certificate you currently hold in this state? Mark (X) 

only one box. 

__ Regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional certificate 

__ Probationary certificate (the initial certificate issued after satisfying all requirements except the 

completion of a probationary period) 

__ Provisional or other type of certificate given to persons who are still participating in what the state 

calls an “alternative certification program” 

__ Temporary certificate (requires some additional college coursework, student teaching, and/or passage 

of a test before regular certification can be obtained) 

__ Waiver or Emergency certificate (issued to persons with insufficient teacher preparation who must 

complete a regular certification program in order to continue teaching) 

__ I do not have any of the above certifications in THIS state. Æ GO to end 

10c. Which of the following grade ranges does this certificate apply to? 

__ Elementary grades (Including early childhood, preschool, and kindergarten) 

__ Secondary grades (Including middle school) 

__ Ungraded 

__ Not applicable Æ Please explain: 

 ________________________________________________ 

10d. In what content area(s) is this certificate? 

• For some teachers the content area may be the grade level (e.g., elementary general, secondary 

general, etc). 

• Please record the content area code from Table 2 on page 6. 

Code _____ Content Area________________________________________________ 

10e. In some states, a certificate may highlight separate endorsements that reflect coursework in specific 

content areas. Do you have any such endorsements attached to this specific certificate referred to in 

items 10a through c? 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO item 11 

10f. What content areas have you earned endorsements? 

Please record the content area code from Table 2 on page 6. 

Code _____ Endorsement Content Area____________________________________________ 

Code _____ Endorsement Content Area____________________________________________ 

Code _____ Endorsement Content Area____________________________________________ 

11a. Do you currently have a fourth teaching certificate in this state? 

 __Yes 

 __No Æ Go to end 
Appendix F. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to the 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire F-15 

10 

11b. Which of the following describes the teaching certificate you currently hold in this state? Mark (X) 

only one box. 

__ Regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional certificate 

__ Probationary certificate (the initial certificate issued after satisfying all requirements except the 

completion of a probationary period) 

__ Provisional or other type of certificate given to persons who are still participating in what the state 

calls an “alternative certification program” 

__ Temporary certificate (requires some additional college coursework, student teaching, and/or passage 

of a test before regular certification can be obtained) 

__ Waiver or Emergency certificate (issued to persons with insufficient teacher preparation who must 

complete a regular certification program in order to continue teaching) 

__ I do not have any of the above certifications in THIS state. Æ GO to end 

11c. Which of the following grade ranges does this certificate apply to? 

__ Elementary grades (Including early childhood, preschool, and kindergarten) 

__ Secondary grades (Including middle school) 

__ Ungraded 

__ Not applicable Æ Please explain: 

 ________________________________________________ 

11d. In what content area(s) is this certificate? 

• For some teachers the content area may be the grade level (e.g., elementary general, secondary 

general, etc). 

• Please record the content area code from Table 2 on page 6. 

Code _____ Content Area________________________________________________ 

11e. In some states, a certificate may highlight separate endorsements that reflect coursework in specific 

content areas. Do you have any such endorsements attached to this specific certificate referred to in 

items 11a through c? 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO end 

11f. What content areas have you earned endorsements? 

Please record the content area code from Table 2 on page 6. 

Code _____ Endorsement Content Area____________________________________________ 

Code _____ Endorsement Content Area____________________________________________ 

Code _____ Endorsement Content Area____________________________________________ 

12. Do you currently hold ANY ADDITIONAL regular or standard teaching state certificate(s) or 

advanced professional teaching certificate(s) in this state? 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO end 

 b. How many? 

 /__/__/ additional certificates
F-16 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

7 

Attachment F-2. Certification Items from Form 2 Protocol 

(This section contains only the revised certification items used on Form 2. All other items remained the 

same.) 

This section asks you for information about your certification. 

8a. Which of the following describes the teaching certificate you currently hold in this state? Mark (X) 

only one box. 

__ Regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional certificate 

__ Probationary certificate (the initial certificate issued after satisfying all requirements except the 

completion of a probationary period) 

__ Provisional or other type of certificate given to persons who are still 

participating in what the state calls an “alternative certification program” 

__ Temporary certificate (requires some additional college coursework, student teaching, and/or passage 

of a test before regular certification can be obtained) 

__ Waiver or Emergency certificate (issued to persons with insufficient teacher preparation who must 

complete a regular certification program in order to continue teaching) 

__ I do not have any of the above certifications in THIS state. Æ GO TO end

8b. In what content area(s) is this certificate? 

• For some teachers the content area may be the grade level (e.g., elementary general, secondary 

general, etc.). 

• Please record the content area code from Table 2 on page 6. 

• Report each content area for which you have full certification on the same certificate. 

• Please report endorsements in item 12. 

 Code _____ Content Area________________________________________________ 

1. Which of the following grade ranges does this certificate apply to? 

__ Elementary grades (Including early childhood, preschool, and kindergarten) 

__ Secondary grades (Including middle school) 

__ K–12 or Ungraded 

 Code _____ Content Area________________________________________________ 

2. Which of the following grade ranges does this certificate apply to? 

__ Elementary grades (Including early childhood, preschool, and kindergarten) 

__ Secondary grades (Including middle school) 

__ K–12 or Ungraded 

 Code _____ Content Area________________________________________________ 
Appendix F. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to the 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire F-17 

8 

3. Which of the following grade ranges does this certificate apply to? 

__ Elementary grades (Including early childhood, preschool, and kindergarten) 

__ Secondary grades (Including middle school) 

__ K–12 or Ungraded 

 Code _____ Content Area________________________________________________ 

4. Which of the following grade ranges does this certificate apply to? 

__ Elementary grades (Including early childhood, preschool, and kindergarten) 

__ Secondary grades (Including middle school) 

__ K–12 or Ungraded 

Are you familiar with the term endorsements? 

Do the content areas on the table match with r’s area of study? 

Does content area item make sense? 

9a. Do you currently have a SECOND teaching certificate in this state? 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO end 

9b. Which of the following describes the teaching certificate you currently hold in this state? Mark (X) 

only one box 

__ Regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional certificate 

__ Probationary certificate (the initial certificate issued after satisfying all requirements except the 

completion of a probationary period) 

__ Provisional or other type of certificate given to persons who are still 

participating in what the state calls an “alternative certification program” 

__ Temporary certificate (requires some additional college coursework, student teaching, and/or passage 

of a test before regular 

certification can be obtained) 

__ Waiver or Emergency certificate (issued to persons with insufficient teacher preparation who must 

complete a regular certification program in order to continue teaching) 

9c. In what content area(s) is this certificate? 

 

• For some teachers the content area may be the grade level (e.g., elementary general, secondary 

general, etc). 

• Please record the content area code from Table 2 on page 6. 

• Report each content area for which you have full certification on the same certificate. 

• Please report endorsements in item 12. 

 Code _____ Content Area________________________________________________ 
F-18 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

9 

1. Which of the following grade ranges does this certificate apply to? 

__ Elementary grades (Including early childhood, preschool, and kindergarten) 

__ Secondary grades (Including middle school) 

__ K–12 or Ungraded 

 Code _____ Content Area________________________________________________ 

2. Which of the following grade ranges does this certificate apply to? 

__ Elementary grades (Including early childhood, preschool, and kindergarten) 

__ Secondary grades (Including middle school) 

__ K–12 or Ungraded 

 Code _____ Content Area________________________________________________ 

3. Which of the following grade ranges does this certificate apply to? 

__ Elementary grades (Including early childhood, preschool, and kindergarten) 

__ Secondary grades (Including middle school) 

__ K–12 or Ungraded 

 Code _____ Content Area________________________________________________ 

4. Which of the following grade ranges does this certificate apply to? 

__ Elementary grades (Including early childhood, preschool, and kindergarten) 

__ Secondary grades (Including middle school) 

__ K–12 or Ungraded 

10a. Do you currently have a THIRD teaching certificate in this state? 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO end 

10b. Which of the following describes the teaching certificate you currently hold in this state? Mark (X) 

only one box 

__ Regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional certificate 

__ Probationary certificate (the initial certificate issued after satisfying all requirements except the 

completion of a probationary period) 

__ Provisional or other type of certificate given to persons who are still participating in what the state 

calls an “alternative certification program” 

__ Temporary certificate (requires some additional college coursework, student teaching, and/or passage 

of a test before regular certification can be obtained) 

__ Waiver or Emergency certificate (issued to persons with insufficient teacher preparation who must 

complete a regular certification program in order to continue teaching) 
Appendix F. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to the 2003–04 SASS Teacher Questionnaire F-19 

10 

10c. In what content area(s) is this certificate? 

• For some teachers the content area may be the grade level (e.g., elementary general, secondary 

general, etc). 

• Please record the content area code from Table 2 on page 6. 

• Report each content area for which you have full certification on the same certificate. 

• Please report endorsements in item 12. 

 Code _____ Content Area________________________________________________ 

1. Which of the following grade ranges does this certificate apply to? 

__ Elementary grades (Including early childhood, preschool, and kindergarten) 

__ Secondary grades (Including middle school) 

__ K–12 or Ungraded 

 Code _____ Content Area________________________________________________ 

2. Which of the following grade ranges does this certificate apply to? 

__ Elementary grades (Including early childhood, preschool, and kindergarten) 

__ Secondary grades (Including middle school) 

__ K–12 or Ungraded 

 Code _____ Content Area________________________________________________ 

3. Which of the following grade ranges does this certificate apply to? 

__ Elementary grades (Including early childhood, preschool, and kindergarten) 

__ Secondary grades (Including middle school) 

__ K–12 or Ungraded 

 Code _____ Content Area________________________________________________ 

4. Which of the following grade ranges does this certificate apply to? 

__ Elementary grades (Including early childhood, preschool, and kindergarten) 

__ Secondary grades (Including middle school) 

__ K–12 or Ungraded 

11a. Do you currently hold ANY ADDITIONAL regular or standard teaching state certificate(s) or 

advanced professional teaching certificate(s) in this state? 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO end 

 How many? 

 /__/__/ additional certificates 
F-20 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

11 

12a. In some states, a certificate may highlight separate endorsements that reflect coursework in specific 

content areas. Do you have any such endorsements attached to any of your current certificate(s) in 

this state? 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO end 

12b. In what content areas have you earned endorsements? Please record the content area code from 

Table 2 on page 6. 

Code _____ Endorsement Content Area____________________________________________ 

Code _____ Endorsement Content Area____________________________________________ 

Code _____ Endorsement Content Area____________________________________________ 
G-1 

Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups 

This appendix contains a report by ORC Macro concerning focus groups it held with public school 

principals and other knowledgeable respondents on Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) issues and 

question wording. The material is organized as follows. 

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................G-2

Recruitment ........................................................................................................................................G-2

Development of the Discussion Guides .............................................................................................G-2

Composition of the Focus Groups......................................................................................................G-3

Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative Research ............................................................................G-3

Findings..............................................................................................................................................G-3

Gaining Participation in the Survey.............................................................................................G-3

Terminology.................................................................................................................................G-4

Overcrowding ..............................................................................................................................G-5

Teacher Staffing...........................................................................................................................G-6

Principal Time Use ......................................................................................................................G-8

National School Lunch Program and Title I ................................................................................G-9

Testing .........................................................................................................................................G-9

Attachment G-1. Participant Screener for Focus Group Recruitment..............................................G-11

Attachment G-2. Recruiting Results for Census Bureau Focus Groups...........................................G-19

Attachment G-3. Moderator’s Guides ..............................................................................................G-20

Attachment G-4. Schools and Staffing Survey Pre-Focus Group Questionnaire [Principals] .........G-33

Attachment G-5. Hand-out Sheets Distributed During Focus Groups .............................................G-34
G-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Introduction 

ORC Macro contracted with the Census Bureau to conduct focus groups with public school principals and 

other knowledgeable respondents (primarily school secretaries). The purpose of the focus groups was to 

get respondent feedback on issues and the wording of questions that would be included in the Schools and 

Staffing Survey. 

The specific tasks performed by ORC Macro under this contract with the Census Bureau included the 

following: 

• assisted Census Bureau in development of a screener; 

• recruited 48 respondents who met the requirements set out in the screener and were willing to 

participate in the groups (24 principals for two groups, majority from public schools, and 24 

school employees who were knowledgeable about the school) for a “show rate” of 8 to 10 

participants per group; 

• assisted Census Bureau in development of a discussion guide; 

• provided an experienced moderator to run the groups; 

• conducted two groups at a focus group facility in Calverton, Maryland, and two groups at a 

facility in Towson, Maryland; 

• paid principals $150 and other knowledgeable respondents $100 for participation in the groups; 

and 

• provided an oral report and a top-line report that summarized the respondents’ recommendations 

for revisions to the questionnaire. 

Following discussions between Census Bureau staff and ORC Macro project personnel, screeners were 

developed for both the Washington- and Baltimore-area groups to identify appropriate respondents. 

Participation was limited to public school principals and staff, and a mix of participants from different 

school districts was obtained. Copies of the screeners used for this project are provided in attachment G-1. 

Recruitment 

The initial contract suggested that respondents be recruited by offering incentives of $50 per person. After 

a solid week of recruiting for both the Calverton and Towson sites, it was clear that full groups could not 

be recruited with such a low incentive. Thus, the incentive level needed be raised to the levels cited 

above. With the new incentive levels four groups were successfully recruited. (See attachment G-2.) 

Unfortunately, the greater Washington/Baltimore area was hit by one of the largest snowstorms in history 

February 16 and 17, 2003, requiring the groups that originally had been scheduled for February 18 and 20 

to be postponed. The rescheduled Baltimore group fell victim to yet another snowstorm, so the groups 

were eventually held on March 4 and 5. 

Development of the Discussion Guides 

The discussion guides were developed by the moderator Michael Long with the input and assistance of 

the Census Bureau client Andy Zukerberg. Copies of the discussion guides are included with this report in 

attachment G-3. 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-3 

Composition of the Focus Groups 

The focus groups were held in the Washington, DC metropolitan area and the Baltimore metropolitan 

area. Participants in the focus groups included principals and other knowledgeable respondents 

(secretaries, administrative assistants, and one assistant to the principal) from the following school 

districts: 

Washington area 

• District of Columbia 

• Howard County 

• Montgomery County 

• Prince Georges County 

Baltimore area 

• Anne Arundel County 

• Baltimore City 

• Baltimore County 

• Carroll County 

Ten principals participated in the focus groups in each city, for a total of 20 principal respondents. Eleven 

people participated in the other knowledgeable respondent group in the Washington area, while 6 

participated in the Baltimore area group for that population, for a total of 17 other knowledgeable 

respondents. Thus, the total number of persons involved in the focus groups was 37. 

Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative Research 

Focus groups are a qualitative research method useful for gaining individual perceptions and ideas which 

are difficult to obtain through quantitative research. Focus groups generate discussion that can lead to the 

expression of ideas and opinions which might not be expressed using other research methods. The 

selection of focus group participants is not based upon randomization or other population representative 

methods. Focus groups are not intended to provide quantifiable data, nor can data from focus groups be 

generalized to the entire population. The findings only reflect the ideas and beliefs of the focus group 

participants. 

Within this context, an important point to consider is that in Maryland more power lies at the district level 

than it does in many other states. Therefore, some of the findings that come out of these focus groups 

regarding the relationship between schools and their districts may not be completely generalizable to the 

country as a whole. For example, principals in these focus groups reported that they have little control 

over the incentives that are used to recruit teachers to their school. This might be less true in other states 

where less power is centralized at the school district level. 

Findings 

Gaining Participation in the Survey 

Participants in the “other knowledgeable respondent” sessions indicated that the most important 

information that they would consider in deciding whether to participate in the survey was the length of 

time it would require. Their second answer, which they said was nearly as important, was that they would 

want to know whether or not they were being required to do so by their district. Several participants were 
G-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

confident that if their district did not require participation, their principals would not participate in the 

survey. 

One participant indicated that she was more likely to participate in surveys in which some sort of 

incentive was provided. When asked how large the incentive would have to be, she commented that even 

a very small incentive would make her more likely to participate. Several other respondents agreed that 

even a small incentive would be an important gesture that showed that their time was valued. 

Participants indicated that Mondays and Fridays were the days on which they and their principals would 

be least likely to be able to meet with a Census Bureau employee. Most also said, however, that their 

schedule was difficult to predict and that whether or not their principals would be available for a meeting 

depended on the events of that particular day. 

Most participants suggested that the best time for a Census Bureau employee to come to their school 

would be in the late morning between 10:00 and 11:30 a.m. Again, however, most indicated that this was 

only a general pattern and that their principal’s availability was difficult to predict. 

Recommendations 

If possible, try to garner support for the Schools and Staffing Survey at the district level; in many cases 

principals will be more likely to participate in the survey if they know that they are expected to do so by 

the district. 

Try to schedule meetings with school personnel on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays in the late 

morning. However, be prepared for principals to occasionally be unavailable for these meetings because 

of unforeseen events. 

Provide some sort of incentive (even one as small as a pen or pencil) for survey participants. 

Terminology 

When asked to define the word “paraprofessional” as it applies to a school setting, over half of 

respondents referred to someone who provides “support” or “assistance” for teaching personnel. The 

second most common answer was that a paraprofessional was someone who lacks the necessary 

certification, training, or college degree to be considered a professional. 

Table G-1 shows participants’ responses to a question that asked them to identify which school personnel 

were “paraprofessionals.” The personnel that principals identified as paraprofessionals most often were 

teachers’ assistants (18 of 19 respondents), special education aides (18), lunch aides (15), and 

administrative assistants (9). Very few principals identified guidance counselors, teachers, nurses, or 

librarians as paraprofessionals. 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-5 

Table G-1. Are the following school personnel “paraprofessionals”? 

Staff who answered “yes” 

School personnel Principals (n = 19) Other knowledgeable respondents (n = 17)

Guidance counselors 0 2

Administrative assistants 9 8

Teachers’ assistants 18 16

Teachers 0 1

Special education aides 18 16

School nurses 2 4

Lunch aides 15 8

Librarians 0 2

SOURCE: Report on SASS Focus Groups, ORC Macro, 2003. 

In the “other knowledgeable respondent” sessions, 16 of 17 participants identified teachers’ assistants and 

special education aides as paraprofessionals. Eight identified administrative assistants and lunch aides as 

paraprofessionals, while four or fewer said the same of nurses (4), guidance counselors (2), librarians (2), 

or teachers (1). 

All participants indicated that the Average Daily Attendance of their school is a figure that is readily 

available to them. Most indicated that they could easily access this information on a computer, and that it 

could be calculated by week, month, quarter, or year. 

Recommendations 

Do not use the term “paraprofessionals” in the school or principal questionnaires without clarifying what 

is meant by the term. 

Continue to ask about Average Daily Attendance in the school or principal questionnaires; participants 

will have little difficulty providing this information. 

Overcrowding 

When asked to brainstorm ways of measuring overcrowding in schools, the first method that was 

mentioned in all sessions was comparing school enrollment to building capacity. Some participants, 

however, warned that state and district officials have different methods of calculating building capacity. 

Other measures of overcrowding that were brainstormed by participants were the number of teachers 

without their own classroom (“floating teachers”), the number of noninstructional areas that were used for 

instruction, the number of instructional areas that were used for instruction of a type other than what was 

intended (e.g., an art room used for a math class), the number of lunch periods in a day, student to teacher 

ratio, and average class size. 

Many participants, particularly principals, did not feel that it was appropriate to use a school’s lunch 

schedule as a measure of overcrowding because too many other factors might dictate how the lunch 

schedule was structured. Principals disliked a proposed question that asked for an opinion as to whether a 

school was overcrowded; they felt that respondents to this question would be likely to overestimate 

overcrowding in the hope of securing more resources for their school. 

After brainstorming their own measures of overcrowding, participants were given a list of proposed items 

from the survey and asked how well these items would measure overcrowding in schools. Participants felt 

that the best questions were those that asked about the number of nonacademic areas that were used for 
G-6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

instruction and the number of classroom spaces that were in portable facilities. They indicated that they 

would have no difficulty providing quantitative answers to these two questions. 

Principals in the second session were given a question that asked how many teachers in the school did not 

have their own classrooms. Most felt that this would be a good measure of overcrowding, but felt that a 

better phrasing of the question would be to ask, “In this school, how many floating teachers are there who 

would otherwise have a classroom?” Principals indicated that “floating teacher” was a common term that 

everyone who worked in schools would understand. However, in the group of “other knowledgeable 

respondents” there was confusion among secretaries over the definition of a “floating teacher”; some 

thought that it referred to a substitute teacher that filled in for teachers who were sick. 

Recommendations 

When asking about overcrowding in schools, focus on questions that ask how many nonacademic areas 

are used for instruction, how many classroom spaces are in portable facilities, or how many teachers do 

not have their own classrooms. 

When asking for the number of nonacademic areas that are used for instruction, also give participants the 

chance to report academic areas that are used for a type of instruction other than what is intended (e.g., an 

art room that is used for a math class.) 

Do not attempt to infer information about overcrowding from data about the structure of lunch periods in 

a school. 

Use the phrase “floating teacher” to refer to teachers that move from room to room. However, because 

this term is not understood by all school personnel, define it for respondents (e.g., “a teacher with a fulltime course schedule who would normally have his or her own classroom but does not due to space 

limitations”). 

Teacher Staffing 

Principals were shown question 21 from the principal survey and asked whether they felt that the 

available six choices covered all of the possible barriers to dismissing a teacher. Overwhelmingly, 

principals felt that the biggest barriers to dismissal were the time that it takes to go through the dismissal 

process (which several indicated is over a year long) and the effort necessary to gather the necessary 

documentation about teacher performance. They did not feel that these barriers were clearly reflected in 

the six available choices. 

A few principals felt that choice F (“dismissal is too stressful and uncomfortable for those involved”) was 

not a valid barrier to dismissal, since they believed that this stress and discomfort should never affect 

principals’ decisions. More, however, believed that this choice could indeed pose a barrier in some cases. 

Principals interpreted choice F in two ways. Some focused on the discomfort that might arise when they 

were forced to tell a hard-working teacher that he or she was incompetent. Others, however, referred to 

the stress that the dismissal of a teacher might place on the relationship between an administrator and the 

rest of the faculty. These two interpretations were sufficiently different that option F could probably be 

split into two choices. 

Principals indicated that there were other factors that could constitute barriers to teacher dismissal that 

were not available as choices on question 21. One commented that a teacher shortage at a school might 

make it difficult to dismiss a teacher, while another suggested that teachers might have “political 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-7 

connections” (e.g., with district officials) that would make them difficult to dismiss. Other principals 

mentioned that a teacher’s popularity among the student or parent body could be a barrier to dismissal. 

When asked whether they would be able to answer questions about the incentives that were used to recruit 

teachers to their school, principals were divided. About half felt that because teacher contracts were 

handled at the district level, the district might use incentives of which they were unaware. Other 

principals were confident that they could identify all incentives that were being used by their district. 

Principals were also shown question 42b from the school questionnaire, which asked which methods their 

school had used to cover teaching vacancies for the present school year. Most principals felt that the eight 

available choices covered all of the possible ways of covering vacancies. One pointed out that teachers 

could voluntarily opt to teach classes in another subject, which is not an available option on this item. 

Another mentioned that an increasingly common practice was hiring previously retired teachers; she 

agreed, however, that this practice could fall under choice A (“hiring a fully-qualified teacher”). 

When asked whether they could answer a question about how difficult or easy it was to fill vacancies in 

different fields, principals overwhelmingly agreed that they could answer the question as it applied to 

their own school. 

Secretaries who participated in the “other knowledgeable respondent” sessions were not able to answer 

very many questions about teacher staffing; for the most part they indicated that this was a part of school 

operations about which they did not know a great deal. 

Recommendations 

In question 21 on the principal questionnaire add another option: “Time and effort required to obtain 

necessary teacher assessment documentation.” Remove option C, as this will be covered under this new 

choice. 

Also in question 21, divide option F into two choices: “Personal discomfort with dismissing a teacher” 

and “Resulting tension between principal and rest of faculty.” 

Also in question 21, add two more options: “Shortage of teachers at school” and “Opposition from 

student and/or parent bodies.” 

Ask questions about incentives used to recruit teachers on the district questionnaire, not the principal or 

school questionnaires. 

Do not ask questions about teacher staffing on the school questionnaire; some of the personnel who are 

completing these questionnaires will not fully understand staffing issues. 

Reword the stem for question 42b on the school questionnaire. The current stem defines a teaching 

vacancy as a position for which candidates are recruited or interviewed. However, principals in these 

groups indicated that their vacancies are often filled by teachers who are reassigned to them by the 

district. Since these teachers are neither recruited nor interviewed, none of these vacancies would be 

covered under the current wording of 42b. 

Remove option F from question 42b. This option is out-of-place here, because having teachers teach 

classes in another subject would not necessarily “fill” a vacancy (unless these teachers’ courseloads were 

increased, which would be covered under option E.) The reason that option F is currently included, it 

seems, is to measure how often teachers are asked to teach outside of their specialty or area of 
G-8 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

certification. However, this could be better measured in a different series of questions that did not relate 

to teacher hiring. 

Principal Time Use 

When principals were shown question 11 from the principal survey, they indicated that they found it very 

difficult to break the time they spent performing their job into different categories using percentages. The 

reason for this, they felt, was that so many of their activities could fall into more than one category; for 

example, walking around the halls could be considered both interacting with students and maintaining 

school safety. Some suggested that the question would be more informative if principals were asked to 

indicate both how their time was currently spent and how they would ideally like to spend their time. 

Because principals in the first session had so much difficulty answering question 11 from the principal 

survey, in the second session principals were asked to evaluate different items relating to time use. When 

asked how many hours they spent on all school-related activities in the last full week of school, principals 

indicated that this question needed more clarification. For example, principals were unsure whether time 

at school should be counted if teachers or students were not present, or if time spent at school functions 

on weekends should be included. Principals agreed, however, that if the question were more explicit they 

would be able to answer it accurately. 

Most principals were not able to answer a question that asked how many hours they were required to 

work to receive base pay; many indicated that no such figure was stipulated on their contract. Those 

principals that did answer the question calculated an answer by multiplying by five the number of benefit 

hours they receive for a sick or personal day. In general, however, principals indicated that this figure had 

no meaning for them. 

When shown questions that asked them to give data from the “last full week of school,” principals in both 

sessions commented that at many points during the school year they could go a month or more without 

having a full week of school. Most indicated that their answers to these questions would likely be based 

on a “typical” week of school, rather than the last full week. 

Principals found it very difficult to estimate the number of hours that they spent interacting with students 

because they were unsure what types of interaction to include. The biggest source of confusion was 

whether “informal” interaction, such as conversations that took place during lunch duty or in the halls, 

should be counted. Others remarked that because so many of their interactions with students last only one 

or two minutes (e.g., conversations in the halls) they found it difficult to aggregate these into a number of 

hours per week. However, principals agreed that it was important to include some measure of student 

interaction in the survey, and felt that if the question were clarified they would be able to answer fairly 

accurately. 

Recommendations 

Do not ask principals to estimate the percentage of their time they spend on different categories of 

activities, as was asked in the original question 11. 

In order to get an estimate of the percentage of their work time that principals spend interacting with 

students, ask them (a) how many hours per week they spend on all school-related activities and (b) how 

many hours per week they spend interacting with students. However, provide further elaboration for both 

questions: 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-9 

• In question (a) indicate that respondents should “include time spent outside of the school 

building, as well as time spent outside of school hours and on weekends.” 

• In question (b) indicate that respondents should “include informal interactions with students, such 

as those that occur in the halls, during lunch periods, or at functions outside of normal school 

hours.” 

Do not ask principals for the number of hours that they are required to work by contract; this figure seems 

to be meaningless to most principals. 

National School Lunch Program and Title I 

Participants in the other knowledgeable respondent sessions reported that the person who tracked the 

number of students who participated in the National School Lunch Program at their school was a cafeteria 

manager, an assistant principal, or a secretary. (In some cases, they reported that they kept these records 

themselves.) A large majority indicated that they could access this information easily, either from their 

computer system, a log, or by speaking to another person in the school. 

Almost all participants reported that they would not be able to answer questions about how many students 

were eligible for free and reduced-price lunches. Most indicated that students’ eligibility was determined 

at the district level, so school personnel would have no way of knowing the students that were eligible but 

had not applied. As a result, some secretaries in these sessions did not even understand what was meant 

by “eligibility” for the lunch program; some suggested that all were eligible, since they could all fill out 

an application form. 

Most participants who worked in Title I schools indicated that the person who tracked Title I information 

was a school administrator, such as an assistant principal. Most reported that if they needed Title I 

information to fill out a survey, they would be able to get it without difficulty. Because they could not 

access it directly by themselves, however, some secretaries commented that getting this information 

would be more difficult and would take more time than getting information about free and reduced-price 

lunches. Less than half of participants who worked in Title I schools understood the difference between 

targeted assistance and schoolwide Title I assistance. 

Recommendations 

Include on the school questionnaire questions about students who receive free or reduced-price lunches; 

the school personnel who will complete these questionnaires will have ready access to this information. 

Do not use the school questionnaire to ask questions about the number of students that are eligible for free 

or reduced-price lunches; because student eligibility is often determined at the district level, school 

personnel will be unable to answer these questions. 

Ask questions about Title I on the principal questionnaire rather than the school questionnaire; some 

personnel who fill out school questionnaires might not be knowledgeable about the program. In particular, 

at schools that receive schoolwide Title I services, administrative personnel who are not involved in 

school finances may not realize that the school is involved in the Title I program at all. 

Testing 

Participants in all sessions were very confident that their district knew about every assessment that takes 

place in their school (aside from assessments associated with an individual teacher’s class). In fact, most 

indicated that they received directions for how and when to conduct all assessments directly from their 
G-10 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

district offices. However, several principals in the second group commented that while district officials 

would know which kinds of testing were taking place, they would not be knowledgeable about how these 

assessments were impacting the school program; questions about this impact would best be directed to the 

school or the principal. 

Recommendations 

Ask questions about the types of testing that take place either on the school questionnaire or on the district 

questionnaire; both groups will be able to provide the same information. 

Ask questions about the effect of testing on school operations on the school questionnaire, rather than the 

district questionnaire. 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-11 

Attachment G-1. Participant Screener for Focus Group Recruitment 

The four screeners included here are those used in the original attempt to recruit participants. 

Recruiting Goals—Office Staff (Washington area) 

• The participant shall be a Secretary or Office Manager from a public school. 

• Group shall be a mixture of age, gender, and ethnicity. 

• Group shall be recruited from schools of various enrollment numbers. 

• Group shall be recruited from various school districts. 

• Group shall include office staff from elementary, middle, and high schools. 

Scheduling 

The schedule for the groups is as follows: 

Date Time Participants Location Facility Incentive 

Wed., 2/12/03 6:00 p.m. Secretaries Calverton, Maryland ORC Macro $50 

Thurs., 2/13/03 8:00 p.m. Secretaries Towson, Maryland AIM $50 

• Participants will receive an incentive according to the chart above for their participation. 

• Focus groups will last approximately 90 minutes each. 

• Refreshments will be offered to participants in each group. 

• The identity of the participants will remain confidential. 

Hello Mr./Ms.__________, my name is _________, and I’m calling from ORC Macro, a research and 

consulting firm. We are presently working with the Census Bureau on a research project regarding 

schools. Could I ask you a few short questions for this survey? 

1. (Record gender)

Male 

Female 

2. Are you currently the Secretary or Office Manager at school? (If not, ask to speak to the Secretary 

or Office Manager)

Yes --- continue 

No --- terminate

3. Do you have a working knowledge of the various programs in your school such as the lunch 

program, Title I, attendance, content standards? 

Yes --- continue

No --- terminate
G-12 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

4. (Record estimated enrollment of school) Would you say the enrollment of your school is: 

Less than 500 students 

500–1,000 students 

1,000–1,500 students 

1,500–2,000 students 

More than 2,000 students 

5. (Record school district) Is the school located in: 

Montgomery County 

Prince Georges County 

Howard County 

DC 

The Census Bureau has asked us to get together with a select group of secretaries/office managers from 

schools in the greater Baltimore/Washington Metropolitan area to help them improve a survey instrument 

that they plan to use nationwide. We would like to invite you to participate in this select group if you are 

interested. The discussion will take place on Thursday, February 13, at 8:00 p.m. The discussion will last 

approximately 90 minutes and you will receive a $50 incentive for your participation. Would you like to 

participate? 

Yes --- continue

No --- terminate

I would like to send you a confirmation letter and directions to the facility. In order to do so, could you 

please tell me your mailing address and give me a phone number where you can be reached: 

NAME: ______________________________________________________________ 

ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________________ 

CITY: _____________________________ STATE: ____________ ZIP: __________ 

Phone: ____________________________ 

We are inviting only a few people, so it is very important that you notify us as soon as possible if for 

some reason you are unable to attend. Please call me at __________ if this should happen. We look 

forward to seeing you on Thursday, February 13, at 6:00 p.m. 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-13 

Recruiting Goals—Office Staff (Baltimore area) 

• The participant shall be a Secretary or Office Manager from a public school. 

• Group shall be a mixture of age, gender, and ethnicity. 

• Group shall be recruited from schools of various enrollment numbers. 

• Group shall be recruited from various school districts. 

• Group shall include office staff from elementary, middle, and high schools. 

Scheduling 

The schedule for the groups is as follows: 

Date Time Participants Location Facility Incentive 

Wed., 2/12/03 6:00 p.m. Secretaries Calverton, Maryland ORC Macro $50 

Thurs., 2/13/03 8:00 p.m. Secretaries Towson, Maryland AIM $50 

• Participants will receive an incentive according to the chart above for their participation. 

• Focus groups will last approximately 90 minutes each. 

• Refreshments will be offered to participants in each group. 

• The identity of the participants will remain confidential. 

Hello Mr./Ms. _____________, my name is______________, and I’m calling from ORC Macro, a 

research and consulting firm. We are presently working with the Census Bureau on a research project 

regarding schools. Could I ask you a few short questions for this survey? 

1. (Record gender)

Male 

Female 

2. Are you currently the Secretary or Office Manager at school? (If not, ask to speak to the Secretary 

or Office Manager)

Yes --- continue

No --- terminate

3. Do you have a working knowledge of the various programs in your school such as the lunch 

program, Title I, attendance, content standards? 

Yes --- continue

No --- terminate

4. (Record estimated enrollment of school) Would you say the enrollment of your school is: 

Less than 500 students 

500–1,000 students 

1,000–1,500 students 

1,500–2,000 students 

More than 2,000 students 
G-14 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

5. (Record school district) Is the school located in: 

Baltimore County 

Carroll County 

Anne Arundel County 

Baltimore City 

The Census Bureau has asked us to get together with a select group of secretaries/office managers from 

schools in the greater Baltimore/Washington Metropolitan area to help them improve a survey instrument 

that they plan to use nationwide. We would like to invite you to participate in this select group if you are 

interested. The discussion will take place on Thursday, February 13, at 8:00 p.m. The discussion will last 

approximately 90 minutes and you receive a $50 incentive for your participation. Would you like to 

participate? 

Yes --- continue

No --- terminate

I would like to send you a confirmation letter and directions to the facility. In order to do so, could you 

please tell me your mailing address and give me a phone number where you can be reached: 

NAME: ______________________________________________________________ 

ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________________ 

CITY: _____________________________ STATE: ____________ ZIP: __________ 

Phone: ____________________________ 

We are inviting only a few people, so it is very important that you notify us as soon as possible if for 

some reason you are unable to attend. Please call me at __________ if this should happen. We look 

forward to seeing you on Thursday, February 13, at 8:00 p.m. 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-15 

Recruiting Goals—Principals (Washington area) 

• The participant shall be a Principal from a public school. 

• Group shall be a mixture of age, gender, and ethnicity. 

• Group shall be recruited from schools of various enrollment numbers. Group shall be recruited 

from various school districts. 

• Group shall include office staff from elementary, middle, and high schools. 

Scheduling 

The schedule for the groups is as follows: 

Date Time Participants Location Facility Incentive 

Wed., 2/12/03 8:00 p.m. Principals Calverton, Maryland ORC Macro $50 

Thurs., 2/13/03 6:00 p.m. Principals Towson, Maryland AIM $50 

• Participants will receive an incentive according to the chart above for their participation. 

• Focus groups will last approximately 90 minutes each. 

• Refreshments will be offered to participants in each group. 

• The identity of the participants will remain confidential. 

Hello Mr./Ms._________, my name is _______ and I’m calling from ORC Macro, a research and 

consulting firm. We are presently working with the Census Bureau on a research project regarding 

schools. Could I ask you a few short questions for this survey? 

1. (Record gender)

Male 

Female 

2. Are you currently the principal at school? (If not, ask to speak to the Principal)

Yes --- continue

No --- terminate

3. (Record estimated enrollment of school) Would you say the enrollment of your school is: 

Less than 500 students 

500–1,000 students 

1,000–1,500 students 

1,500–2,000 students 

More than 2,000 students 

4. (Record school district) Is the school located in: 

Montgomery County 

Prince Georges County 

Howard County 

DC 
G-16 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

We would like you to participate in a group discussion on schools. The discussion will take place on 

Wednesday, February 12, at 8:00 p.m. The discussion will last approximately 90 minutes and you will 

receive $50 incentive for your participation. Would you like to participate? 

Yes --- continue

No --- terminate

I would like to send you a confirmation letter and directions to the facility. In order to do so, could you 

please tell me your mailing address and give me a phone number where you can be reached: 

NAME: ______________________________________________________________ 

ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________________ 

CITY: _____________________________ STATE: ____________ ZIP: __________ 

Phone: ____________________________ 

We are inviting only a few people, so it is very important that you notify us as soon as possible if for 

some reason you are unable to attend. Please call me at _________ if this should happen. We look 

forward to seeing you on Wednesday, February 12, at 8:00 p.m. 

 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-17 

Recruiting Goals—Principals (Baltimore area) 

• The participant shall be a Principal from a public school. 

• Group shall be a mixture of age, gender, and ethnicity. 

• Group shall be recruited from schools of various enrollment numbers. Group shall be recruited 

from various school districts. 

• Group shall include office staff from elementary, middle, and high schools. 

Scheduling 

The schedule for the groups is as follows: 

Date Time Participants Location Facility Incentive 

Wed., 2/12/03 8:00 p.m. Principals Calverton, Maryland ORC Macro $50 

Thurs., 2/13/03 6:00 p.m. Principals Towson, Maryland AIM $50 

• Participants will receive an incentive according to the chart above for their participation. 

• Focus groups will last approximately 90 minutes each. 

• Refreshments will be offered to participants in each group. 

• The identity of the participants will remain confidential. 

Hello Mr./Ms., ___________, my name is ___________, and I’m calling from ORC Macro, a research 

and consulting firm. We are presently working with the Census Bureau on a research project regarding 

schools. Could I ask you a few short questions for this survey? 

1. (Record gender)

Male 

Female 

2. Are you currently the principal at school? (If not, ask to speak to the Principal)

Yes --- continue

No --- terminate

3. (Record estimated enrollment of school) Would you say the enrollment of your school is: 

Less than 500 students 

500–1,000 students 

1,000–1,500 students 

1,500–2,000 students 

More than 2000 students 

4. (Record school district) Is the school located in: 

Baltimore County 

Carroll County 

Anne Arundel County 

Baltimore City 
G-18 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

We would like you to participate in a group discussion on schools. The discussion will take place on 

Thursday, February 13, at 6:00 p.m. The discussion will last approximately 90 minutes and you will 

receive a $50 incentive for your participation. Would you like to participate? 

Yes --- continue

No --- terminate

I would like to send you a confirmation letter and directions to the facility. In order to do so, could you 

please tell me your mailing address and give me a phone number where you can be reached: 

NAME: ______________________________________________________________ 

ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________________ 

CITY: _____________________________ STATE: ____________ ZIP: __________ 

Phone: ____________________________ 

We are inviting only a few people, so it is very important that you notify us as soon as possible if for 

some reason you are unable to attend. Please call me at _________ if this should happen. We look 

forward to seeing you on Thursday, February 13, at 8:00 p.m. 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-19 

Attachment G-2. Recruiting Results for Census Bureau Focus Groups 

Round 1 Recruiting: $50 Incentive 

Schools called 104 

Principals recruited 2 

Secretaries recruited 1 

Round 2 Recruiting: $100 Incentive for Secretaries 

$150 Incentive for Principals 

Schools called 65 

Principals recruited 11 

Secretaries recruited 9 

Once the incentive was changed, recruiting became much easier. The difficulty then became the date 

changes, making it necessary to call additional schools to fill the slots of those who could not make the 

new dates. 
G-20 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Attachment G-3. Moderator’s Guides 

Moderator’s Guide: Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 

Focus Group of Other Knowledgeable Respondents (2/20/03) 

[NOTE: Before the focus groups begin, participants will fill out the Pre-Focus Group Questionnaire, 

which will ask them about the terms “paraprofessional” and “Average Daily Attendance.”] 

1. Introduction of Moderator 

• Independent consultant hired to moderate these discussions 

• No vested interest in receiving any particular point of view 

2. Ground Rules 

• You have been asked here to offer your views and opinions; everyone’s participation is important 

• No right or wrong answers 

• It’s OK to be critical; if you dislike something or disagree with something that is said, want to 

hear about it 

• Audio and videotaping/observers 

• All answers are confidential, so feel free to speak your mind 

• Speak one at a time 

• No side conversations 

• Location of bathrooms 

3. Introduction of Topic 

“The purpose of this focus group is for you to provide information that will be used to fine-tune questions 

on a national survey of schools called the Schools and Staffing Survey. This survey is conducted every 

4 years by the Census Bureau and the National Center for Education Statistics. The survey gathers 

national data on teacher demand and shortages, teacher and administrator characteristics, school 

programs, and general conditions in schools. 

Each year that the survey is conducted, the questions it asks are reviewed and adjusted to make sure that 

they are relevant and appropriate. The information you give tonight will help the test designers as they go 

through that process. 

There are several types of questionnaires that will be delivered to schools as part of the Schools and 

Staffing Survey. One of these is designed to be filled out by someone at the school who knows a great 

deal about the operations of the school. Often this person ends up being an administrative employee in the 

front office. For that reason, we’re excited to get your perspective on these topics related to the survey.” 

4. Participant Introductions 

“Before beginning our discussion, I’d like to have you go around the table and introduce yourselves. 

Please give your first name only, and the school and district where you work.” 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-21 

5. Title I/School Lunch Program 

“The survey asks several questions about students that participate in the National School Lunch Program, 

which is the program through which students can get free and reduced price lunches.” 

• Who at your school tracks data on how many students participate in this program? 

• How easily available to you is this data? 

“The survey also asks questions about students that receive Title I services. Title I is a federally funded 

program that provides educational services to children who live in areas with high concentrations of lowincome families.” 

• Who at your school tracks data on how many students receive Title I services? 

• How easily available to you is this data? 

[Hand out Sheet 1: Questions on Free and Reduced-Price Lunches and Title I. This sheet would contain 

questions 55a–d, 56, 57a–b, 58a–b from the school survey.] 

“These are the proposed questions for the survey that apply to these two programs.” 

• How easily would you be able to answer these questions? 

• Are any of these questions unclear or confusing? 

• How clear to you is the distinction between students who are eligible for free or reduced-price 

lunches and those that are approved for these lunches? 

6. Overcrowding 

“One of the topics that this survey addresses is how crowded schools are.” 

• How do you know if your school is overcrowded? 

• If you were trying to convince someone that your school was overcrowded, what evidence would 

you use? 

Probe: How easy or difficult would it be for you to collect this evidence? 

[At this point, moderator will hand out Sheet 2: Proposed Questions about Overcrowding. This sheet will 

have on it questions 10a, 12, 13a–c, and 14 from the school survey.] 

“The survey designers have been experimenting with different methods of measuring crowding in 

schools. Do you think that these questions would be good measures of overcrowding?” 

Probe: Which of these methods do you think would work best? 

Would this information be easily available to you? 

How easy or difficult would these questions be for you to answer? 

7. Terminology: Average Daily Attendance 

[NOTE: Depending on the responses of participants to the pregroup questionnaire, this section possibly 

could be omitted.] 
G-22 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“Before this focus group began you all filled out a questionnaire. One of the questions asked you how you 

would measure the ‘average daily attendance’ of your school.” 

• Is this figure readily available to you? 

• If not, how you would you calculate this figure? 

8. Hiring/Firing (if time is short, possibly skip to Section 9) 

“The Schools and Staffing Survey asks a number of questions about teacher staffing. Because of this, the 

sponsors of the survey are interested in learning in more detail about the process through which teachers 

are hired and fired.” 

“Let’s begin by walking through the process of hiring a teacher.” 

• At what point in the year are openings for the next year identified? 

• How are candidates recruited? 

• On what criteria are candidates judged? Who determines these criteria? 

• Who is responsible for making hiring decisions? What role does the district have in these 

decisions? 

“Now I’d like to walk through the process of dismissing a teacher. We are not interested in teachers who 

are dismissed because of budget cuts or declining enrollment, but those that are dismissed due to poor 

performance.” 

• Who makes the first determination that a teacher should be dismissed? 

• On what information is this decision based? 

• After this decision is made, what steps must take place before the dismissal is finalized? 

9. Gaining Participation in the Survey 

“Finally, I’d like to ask you about the factors that would make you more or less likely to participate in the 

survey.” 

• What information would you want to know before deciding to complete the survey and send it in? 

“The survey process will work in the following way: A Census Bureau employee will first call your 

school to make an appointment to come in. At the appointed time, the Census Bureau employee will then 

come to your school, meet with school personnel including the principal, and distribute the 

questionnaires.” 

• On which days of the week would it be easiest for you to meet with the Census employee when 

he or she came in to collect the form and discuss the survey? 

• At what times in the day would it be easiest for you to meet with the Census employee when he 

or she came in to collect the form and discuss the survey? 

• On which days of the week would it be best for the Census employee to meet with the principal 

about the survey? 

• At what times in the day would it be best for the Census employee to meet with the principal 

about the survey? 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-23 

Moderator’s Guide: Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 

Focus Group of Other Knowledgeable Respondents (3/5/03) 

[NOTE: Before the focus groups begin, participants will fill out the Pre-Focus Group Questionnaire, 

which will ask them about the terms “paraprofessional” and “Average Daily Attendance.”] 

1. Introduction of Moderator 

• Independent consultant hired to moderate these discussions 

• No vested interest in receiving any particular point of view 

2. Ground Rules 

• You have been asked here to offer your views and opinions; everyone’s participation is important 

• No right or wrong answers 

• It’s OK to be critical; if you dislike something or disagree with something that is said, I want to 

hear about it 

• Audio and videotaping/observers 

• All answers are confidential, so feel free to speak your mind 

• Speak one at a time 

• No side conversations 

• Location of bathrooms 

3. Introduction of Topic 

“The purpose of this focus group is for you to provide information that will be used to fine-tune questions 

on a national survey of schools called the Schools and Staffing Survey. This survey is conducted every 

4 years by the Census Bureau and the National Center for Education Statistics. The survey gathers 

national data on teacher demand and shortages, teacher and administrator characteristics, school 

programs, and general conditions in schools. 

Each year that the survey is conducted, the questions it asks are reviewed and adjusted to make sure that 

they are relevant and appropriate. The information you give tonight will help the test designers as they go 

through that process. 

There are several types of questionnaires that will be delivered to schools as part of the Schools and 

Staffing Survey. One of these is designed to be filled out by someone at the school who knows a great 

deal about the operations of the school. Often this person ends up being an administrative employee in the 

front office. For that reason, we’re excited to get your perspective on these topics related to the survey.” 

4. Participant Introductions 

“Before beginning our discussion, I’d like to have you go around the table and introduce yourselves. 

Please give your first name only, and district where you work.” 

5. Title I/School Lunch Program 

“The survey asks several questions about students that participate in the National School Lunch Program, 

which is the program through which students can get free and reduced price lunches.” 
G-24 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

• Who at your school tracks data on how many students participate in this program? 

• How easily available to you is this data? 

“The survey also asks questions about students that receive Title I services. Title I is a federally funded 

program that provides educational services to children who live in areas with high concentrations of lowincome families.” 

• Who at your school tracks data on how many students receive Title I services? 

• How easily available to you is this data? 

[Hand out Sheet 1: Questions on Free and Reduced-Price Lunches and Title I. This sheet would contain 

questions 55a–d, 56, 57a–b, 58a–b from the school survey.] 

“These are the proposed questions for the survey that apply to these two programs.” 

• How easily would you be able to answer these questions? 

• Are any of these questions unclear or confusing? 

• How clear to you is the distinction between students who are eligible for free or reduced-price 

lunches and those that are approved for these lunches? 

6. Overcrowding 

“One of the topics that this survey addresses is how crowded schools are.” 

• How do you know if your school is overcrowded? 

• If you were trying to convince someone that your school was overcrowded, what evidence would 

you use? 

Probe: How easy or difficult would it be for you to collect this evidence? 

[At this point, moderator will hand out Sheet 2: Proposed Questions about Overcrowding. This sheet will 

have on it newly drafted questions about overcrowding.] 

• The survey designers have been experimenting with different methods of measuring crowding in 

schools. Do you think that these questions would be good measures of overcrowding? 

7. Testing 

“The next topic that I would like to discuss with you tonight is testing that takes place in your school.” 

• Aside from tests and grades given by individual teachers to their own classes, what assessments 

are given in your school? 

• What is the role of the district in administering state and national tests? 

• Are there any assessments that take place in your school that the district does not know about? 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-25 

8. Gaining Participation in the Survey 

“Finally, I’d like to ask you about the factors that would make you more or less likely to participate in the 

survey.” 

• What information would you want to know before deciding to complete the survey and send it in? 

“The survey process will work in the following way: A Census Bureau employee will first call your 

school to make an appointment to come in. At the appointed time, the Census Bureau employee will then 

come to your school, meet briefly with school personnel including the principal, and distribute the 

questionnaires to be filled out at a later time...” 

• On which days of the week would it be easiest for you to meet with the Census employee when 

he or she came in to collect the form and discuss the survey? 

• At what times in the day would it be easiest for you to meet with the Census employee when he 

or she came in to collect the form and discuss the survey? 

• On which days of the week would it be best for the Census employee to meet with the principal 

about the survey? 

• At what times in the day would it be best for the Census employee to meet with the principal 

about the survey? 

9. Terminology: Average Daily Attendance (if time allows)

“Before this focus group began you all filled out a questionnaire. One of the questions asked you how you 

would measure the ‘average daily attendance’ of your school.” 

• Is this figure readily available to you? 

• How you would you calculate this figure? 
G-26 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Moderator’s Guide: Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 

Focus Group of Principals (3/4/03) 

[NOTE: Before the focus groups begin, participants will fill out the Pre-Focus Group Questionnaire, 

which will ask them about the terms “paraprofessional” and “Average Daily Attendance.”] 

1. Introduction of Moderator 

• Independent consultant hired to moderate these discussions 

• No vested interest in receiving any particular point of view 

2. Ground Rules 

• You have been asked here to offer your views and opinions; everyone’s participation is important 

• No right or wrong answers 

• It’s OK to be critical; if you dislike something or disagree with something that is said, I want to 

hear about it 

• Audio and videotaping/observers 

• All answers are confidential, so feel free to speak your mind 

• Speak one at a time 

• No side conversations 

• Location of bathrooms 

3. Introduction of Topic 

“The purpose of this focus group is for you to provide information that will be used to fine-tune questions 

on a national survey of schools called the Schools and Staffing Survey. This survey is conducted every 

four years by the Census Bureau and the National Center for Education Statistics. The survey gathers 

national data on teacher demand and shortages, teacher and administrator characteristics, school 

programs, and general conditions in schools. 

Each year that the survey is conducted, the questions it asks are reviewed and adjusted to make sure that 

they are relevant and appropriate. The information you give tonight will help the test designers as they go 

through that process.” 

4. Participant Introductions 

“Before beginning our discussion, I’d like to have you go around the table and introduce yourselves. 

Please give your first name only, and the school and district where you work.” 

5. Overcrowding 

“One of the topics that the survey measures is how crowded schools are.” 

• How do you know if your school is overcrowded? 

• If you were trying to convince someone on the district or state level that your school was 

overcrowded, what data would you use? 

Probe: How easily available would this data be for you? Who else in the school would be able to 

access it? 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-27 

[At this point, moderator will hand out Sheet 1: Proposed Questions about Overcrowding. This sheet will 

have on it questions 10a, 12, 13a–c, and 14 from the school survey.] 

• The survey designers have been experimenting with different methods of measuring crowding in 

schools. Do you think that these questions would be good measures of overcrowding? 

Probe: Which of these methods do you think would work best? 

 Would this information be easily available to you? How easy or difficult would these 

 questions be for you to answer? 

6. Time Use 

[Hand out Sheet 2: Proposed Question on Principal Time Use. This sheet will have on it question 11 from 

the principals’ survey.] 

“On this sheet is a proposed version of an survey item. I’d like you to take a couple of minutes to 

complete the question right now.” 

• How easy or difficult was it for you to break your time up in this way? 

• Did you answer this question based on what you did in the last week specifically, or on what you 

do in an average week? 

• How would your answer to this question depend on the time of year? 

• There are five different categories offered (a through e) plus an “other” category. What additional 

categories should be offered that are not? 

• Are any of these categories irrelevant or unnecessary? 

• Are any of these categories unclear or poorly phrased? 

7. Testing 

“The next topic that I would like to discuss with you tonight is testing that takes place in your school.” 

• Aside from tests and grades given by individual teachers to their own classes, what assessments 

are given in your school? 

• What is the role of the district in administering state and national tests? 

• Are there any assessments that take place in your school that the district does not know about? 

8. Hiring/Firing 

“The Schools and Staffing Survey asks a number of questions about teacher staffing. Because of this, the 

sponsors of the survey are interested in learning in more detail about the process through which teachers 

are hired and fired.” 

“Let’s begin by walking through the process of hiring a teacher.” 

• At what point in the year are openings for the next year identified? 

• How are candidates recruited? 

• On what criteria are candidates judged? Who determines these criteria? 

• Who is responsible for making hiring decisions? What role does the district have in these 

decisions? 
G-28 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“Now I’d like to walk through the process of dismissing a teacher. We are not interested in teachers who 

are dismissed because of budget cuts or declining enrollment, but those that are dismissed due to poor 

performance.” 

• Who makes the first determination that a teacher should be dismissed? 

• On what information is this decision based? 

• After this decision is made, what steps must take place before the dismissal is finalized? 

[Hand out Sheet 3: Proposed Questions on Teacher Hiring and Firing. This front of this sheet will contain 

question 21 from the principals’ survey.] 

“This question would ask principals whether or not each of the options is a barrier to dismissing poor or 

incompetent teachers.” 

• What barriers are missing from this list? 

• Are any of these options unclear or poorly phrased? 

• Are any of these options irrelevant or unnecessary? 

[On back of Sheet 3 will be question 23 from the district survey.] 

“If you look at the back of this sheet, you will see another proposed question for the survey. This question 

asks which types of pay incentives, if any, a district uses to recruit or retain teachers.” 

• What types of pay incentives are missing from this list? 

• Are these incentives given at the school or district level? Are there incentives given by the district 

that you might not know about? 

• Are any of these options unclear or poorly phrased? 

• Are any of these options irrelevant or unnecessary? 

9. Gaining Participation in the Survey (if time permits)

“Finally, I’d like to ask you about the factors that would make you more or less likely to participate in the 

survey.” 

• What information would you want to know before deciding to complete the survey and send it in? 

“The survey process will work in the following way: A Census Bureau employee will first call your 

school to make an appointment to come in. At the appointed time, the Census Bureau employee will then 

come to your school, meet with school personnel including the principal, and distribute the 

questionnaires.” 

• On which days of the week would it be easiest for you to meet with the Census employee and 

receive your form? 

• At what times during the day would it be easiest for you to meet with the Census employee and 

receive your form? 

• At your school, who would be the most appropriate person to contact to set up this appointment? 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-29 

Moderator’s Guide: Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 

Focus Group of Principals (3/5/03) 

[NOTE: Before the focus groups begin, participants will fill out the Pre-Focus Group Questionnaire, 

which will ask them about the terms “paraprofessional” and “Average Daily Attendance.”] 

1. Introduction of Moderator 

• Independent consultant hired to moderate these discussions 

• No vested interest in receiving any particular point of view 

2. Ground Rules 

• You have been asked here to offer your views and opinions; everyone’s participation is important 

• No right or wrong answers 

• It’s OK to be critical; if you dislike something or disagree with something that is said, I want to 

hear about it 

• Audio and videotaping/observers 

• All answers are confidential, so feel free to speak your mind 

• Speak one at a time 

• No side conversations 

• Location of bathrooms 

3. Introduction of Topic 

“The purpose of this focus group is for you to provide information that will be used to fine-tune questions 

on a national survey of schools called the Schools and Staffing Survey. This survey is conducted every 

4 years by the Census Bureau and the National Center for Education Statistics. The survey gathers 

national data on teacher demand and shortages, teacher and administrator characteristics, school 

programs, and general conditions in schools. 

Each year that the survey is conducted, the questions it asks are reviewed and adjusted to make sure that 

they are relevant and appropriate. The information you give tonight will help the test designers as they go 

through that process.” 

4. Participant Introductions 

“Before beginning our discussion, I’d like to have you go around the table and introduce yourselves. 

Please give your first name only, and the school and district where you work.” 

5. Overcrowding 

“One of the topics that the survey measures is overcrowding in schools.” 

• How do you know if your school is overcrowded? 

• If you were trying to convince someone on the district or state level that your school was 

overcrowded, what data would you use? 

Probe: How easily available would this data be for you? Who else in the school would be able to 

access it? 
G-30 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

[At this point, moderator will hand out Sheet 1: Proposed Questions about Overcrowding. This sheet will 

have on it newly drafted questions about overcrowding.] 

• The survey designers have been experimenting with different methods of measuring crowding in 

schools. Do you think that these questions would be good measures of overcrowding? 

Probe: Would this information be easily available to you? How easy or difficult would these 

questions be for you to answer? 

6. Time Use 

[Hand out Sheet 2: Proposed Question on Principal Time Use. This sheet will have on it a newly drafted 

questions about the amount of time principals spend working per week, and the amount of time that they 

spend interacting with students.] 

“On this sheet is a proposed version of an survey item. I’d like you to take a couple of minutes to 

complete the question right now.” 

• How easy or difficult was it for you to answer this question? 

• How would your answer to this question depend on the time of year? 

• This question currently asks you how much time you spend interacting with students in any way. 

Do you think the question would be more informative if you reported separate amounts of time 

for different types of interaction with students? 

7. Hiring/Firing 

“The Schools and Staffing Survey asks a number of questions about teacher staffing. Because of this, the 

sponsors of the survey are interested in learning in more detail about the process through which teachers 

are hired and fired.” 

[Hand out Sheet 3: Proposed Questions on Teacher Hiring and Firing. This front of this sheet will contain 

question 21 from the principals’ survey.] 

“This question would ask principals whether or not each of the options is a barrier to dismissing poor or 

incompetent teachers.” 

• What barriers are missing from this list? 

• Are any of these options unclear or poorly phrased? 

• Are any of these options irrelevant or unnecessary? 

[On back of Sheet 3 will be question 23 from the district survey.] 

“If you look at the back of this sheet, you will see another proposed question for the survey. This question 

asks which types of pay incentives, if any, a district uses to recruit or retain teachers.” 

• Are these types of incentives given at the school or district level? Are there incentives given by 

the district that you might not know about? 

[Hand out Sheet 4: More Proposed Questions on Teacher Staffing. This sheet will have on it a question 

about how open positions are filled.] 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-31 

“This question asks principals to identify all the ways that teaching vacancies were filled at their school 

for the current school year.” 

• Are there any methods of filling vacancies that should be included on this list but are not? 

• Are any of these choices unclear or difficult to understand? 

[On back of Sheet 4 will be a question about how difficult or easy it was to fill vacancies in different 

fields.] 

“This question asks principals to identify how difficult or easy it was to fill vacancies in different fields 

for the current school year.” 

• Would you be able to answer this question? 

• Would your central district office be better able to answer this question than you? 

“Now I’d like you to walk through with me the process of begin by walking through the process of 

dismissing a teacher. We are not interested in teachers who are dismissed because of budget cuts or 

declining enrollment, but those that are dismissed due to poor performance.” 

• Who makes the first determination that a teacher should be dismissed? 

• On what information is this decision based? 

• After this decision is made, what steps must take place before the dismissal is finalized? 

“Now let’s walk through the process of hiring a teacher.” 

• At what point in the year are openings for the next year identified? 

• How are candidates recruited? 

• On what criteria are candidates judged? Who determines these criteria? 

• Who is responsible for making hiring decisions? What role does the district have in these 

decisions? 

8. Testing 

“The next topic that I would like to discuss with you tonight is testing that takes place in your school.” 

• Aside from tests and grades given by individual teachers to their own classes, what assessments 

are given in your school? 

• What is the role of the district in administering state and national tests? 

• Are there any assessments that take place in your school that the district does not know about? 

9. Gaining Participation in the Survey 

“Finally, I’d like to ask you about the factors that would make you more or less likely to participate in the 

survey.” 

• What information would you want to know before deciding to complete the survey and send it in? 

“The survey process will work in the following way: A Census Bureau employee will first call your 

school to make an appointment to come in. At the appointed time, the Census Bureau employee will come 
G-32 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

to your school, have a brief meeting with school personnel including the principal, and distribute the 

questionnaires to be filled out at a later time.” 

• On which days of the week would it be easiest for you to meet with the Census employee and 

receive your form? 

• At what times during the day would it be easiest for you to meet with the Census employee and 

receive your form? 

• At your school, who would be the most appropriate person to contact to set up this appointment? 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-33 

Attachment G-4. Schools and Staffing Survey Pre-Focus Group 

Questionnaire [Principals] 

The Schools and Staffing Survey is conducted every 4 years by the Census Bureau and the National 

Center for Education Statistics. Its purpose is to gather data on teacher and administrator characteristics, 

school programs, and general conditions in schools. The following questions relate to proposed changes 

in the wording of items on the next survey. 

1. Some questions on the survey may refer to paraprofessional staff at your school. What does the 

word “paraprofessional” mean to you? 

2. Which of the following school personnel would you consider to be “paraprofessionals”? 

 Yes No

Guidance counselors 

Administrative assistants 

Teachers’ assistants 

Teachers 

Special education aides 

School nurses 

Lunch aides 

Librarians 

3. One of the proposed questions on the Schools and Staffing Survey is the following: 

“For this school year, what is the Average Daily Attendance at this school?” 

a) Is your school’s Average Daily Attendance a piece of information that is available to you? 

□ Yes □ No 

b) If not, how would you calculate it? 

c) What time period would you use for determining the Average Daily Attendance? 

□ One week □ One year 

□ One month □ Other (please describe) 

□ One semester 
G-34 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Attachment G-5. Hand-out Sheets Distributed During Focus Groups 

The sheets included here are as follows: 

• Sheet 1: Questions on Free and Reduced-Price Lunches and Title I—This sheet was used in the 

other knowledgeable staff focus groups. 

• Sheet 1: Proposed Questions about Overcrowding—This was sheet 2 in the other knowledgeable 

staff focus groups and sheet 1 in the first principal focus group. (The sheet used in the second 

principal focus group contained another question.) 

• Sheet 2: Proposed Question on Principal Time Use—This sheet was used in the first principal 

focus group. 

• Sheet 3: Proposed Questions on Teacher Hiring and Firing—This sheet was used in the principal 

focus groups. 

• Sheet 4: More Proposed Questions on Teacher Staffing—This sheet was used in the second 

principal focus group. 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-35 

Sheet 1: Questions on Free and Reduced-Price Lunches and Title I 

Question 1: Regardless of whether this school participates in the National School Lunch Program, 

around the first of October, were any students in this school ELIGIBLE for free or 

reduced-price lunches? 

Question 2: Around the first of October, about how many students in this school were ELIGIBLE for 

free or reduced-price lunches? 

Question 3: Does this school participate in the National School Lunch Program? 

Question 4: Around the first of October, how many applicants at this school were APPROVED for free 

or reduced-price lunches? 

Question 5: Around the first of October, did any students enrolled in this school receive Title I services 

at this school, or any other location? (Title I is a federally funded program that provides 

educational services, such as remedial reading or remedial math, to children who live in 

areas with high concentrations of low-income families.) 

Question 6: Is this school operating a Title I targeted assistance or schoolwide program? 

□ Targeted assistance program 

□ Schoolwide program 

Question 7: How many students participate in the Title I program? 

Question 8: At which grade levels are students receiving Title I services? Check all that apply. 

□ Prekindergarten 

□ Kindergarten 

□ 1st

 

□ 2nd 

etc. 

Question 9: Are students receiving Title I services in... 

 a. Reading/Language Arts? 

b. Mathematics? 

etc. 
G-36 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Sheet 1: Proposed Questions about Overcrowding 

Question 1: When this school was built (and if applicable, most recently renovated) for how many 

students was it designed? (Do not count temporary buildings.) 

________________ students 

Question 2: Does this school use common areas such as the cafeteria, gymnasium, or other 

nonacademic areas for instructional purposes to accommodate for an overflow of 

students? 

□ Yes 

□ No 

Question 3: a. At what time is the cafeteria open to serve lunch to the FIRST group of students? 

b. At what time does the cafeteria stop serving lunch to the LAST group of students? 

c. How long is each lunch period? 

Question 4: Do teachers have planning time in their own classrooms? 

□ Yes 

□ No 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-37 

Sheet 2: Proposed Question on Principal Time Use 

Question 1: During the last full week of school, approximately what percent of your work hours did 

you spend on the following activities? 

 a. Administrative activities (e.g., managing school budget and calendar, monitoring teacher and 

student absences, reporting school progress to district officials) 

__________________ percent of my work hours 

b. Interacting with students (e.g., discussing personal and/or academic issues, discipline) 

__________________ percent of my work hours 

c. Activities related to teacher assessment and curriculum development (e.g., observing 

classrooms, implementing curriculum guides, recommending professional training for 

teachers and staff) 

__________________ percent of my work hours 

d. Maintaining school safety and supervising facility management (e.g., reporting dangerous 

activities to the police, conducting fire drills, supervising student drop-off and pick-up, 

ensuring proper use and operation of school equipment and supplies, communicating with 

maintenance staff) 

__________________ percent of my work hours 

e. Maintaining relationships with parents and the larger community (e.g., building relationships 

with local businesses and organizations, parents, and community leaders) 

__________________ percent of my work hours 

f. Other 

__________________ percent of my work hours 
G-38 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Sheet 3: Proposed Questions on Teacher Hiring and Firing 

Question 1: Are the following considerations barriers to the dismissal of poor or incompetent teachers 

in this school? 

a. Personnel policies 

□ Yes 

□ No 

b. Termination decisions not upheld by third-party adjudicators 

□ Yes 

□ No 

c. Inadequate teacher assessment documentation 

□ Yes 

□ No 

d. Tenure 

□ Yes 

□ No 

e. Teacher associations and organizations 

□ Yes 

□ No 

f. Dismissal is too stressful and uncomfortable for those involved 

□ Yes 

□ No 

Question 2: Does this district use the following pay incentives to recruit or retain teachers? 

a. Signing bonus 

□ Yes 

□ No 

b. Bonus for teaching in the same school for multiple years 

□ Yes 

□ No 

c. Tuition reimbursement 

□ Yes 

□ No 

d. Student loan forgiveness 

□ Yes 

□ No 

e. Relocation assistance 

□ Yes 

□ No 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-39 

f. Housing subsidies or rent assistance 

□ Yes 

□ No 

g. Finder’s fee for new teacher referrals 

□ Yes 

□ No 

h. Subsidized meals 

□ Yes 

□ No 

i. Subsidized transportation 

□ Yes 

□ No 
G-40 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Sheet 4: More Proposed Questions on Teacher Staffing 

Question 1: For this school year (2002–03), were there teaching vacancies in this school; that is, 

teaching positions for which teachers were recruited and interviewed? 

Question 2: Did this school use the following methods to cover the vacancies? 

a. Hired a fully qualified teacher 

□ Yes 

□ No 

b. Hired a less-than-fully qualified teacher 

□ Yes 

□ No 

c. Cancelled planned course offerings 

□ Yes 

□ No 

d. Expanded some class sizes 

□ Yes 

□ No 

e. Added sections to other teachers’ normal teaching loads 

□ Yes 

□ No 

f. Assigned a teacher of another subject or grade level to teach those classes 

□ Yes 

□ No 

g. Assigned an administrator or counselor to teach those classes 

□ Yes 

□ No 

h. Used long-term or short-term substitutes 

□ Yes 

□ No 
Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups G-41 

Question 3: How difficult or easy was it to fill the vacancies for this school year in each of the 

following fields? 

Not

applicable

at this

school

No

vacancy in

that field Easy 

 

Somewhat 

difficult 

Very

difficult 

Could not

fill the

vacancy

General elementary 

 

Special education 

 

English/Language arts 

 

Social studies 

 

Computer science 

 

Mathematics 

 

Physical sciences 

 

Biology or life sciences 

 

English as a Second Language (ESL), 

English for Speakers of Other 

Languages (ESOL), or bilingual 

education 

 

 

 

 

Foreign languages 

 

Music or art 

 

Vocational or technical education 

 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
H-1 

Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on 

SASS Public School Questions 

This appendix contains a report by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Center for Survey Methods Research on 

cognitive interviews held with respondents on questions from the Public School Questionnaire. The 

material is organized as follows. 

Background ........................................................................................................................................H-2 

Research Methods ..............................................................................................................................H-2 

Respondent Characteristics ................................................................................................................H-3 

General Findings ................................................................................................................................H-3 

Question-by-Question Findings..........................................................................................................H-3 

I. General Information About This School.............................................................................H-3 

II. Admissions, Programs, and Performance ...........................................................................H-8 

III. Students and Class Organization.......................................................................................H-17 

IV. Staffing..............................................................................................................................H-24 

V. Technology........................................................................................................................H-27 

VI. Special Programs and Services .........................................................................................H-29 

VII. Charter School Information...............................................................................................H-37 
H-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Background 

This report reflects the evaluation by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Center for Survey Methods Research 

(CSMR) of the 2003–04 Public School Questionnaire from the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). The 

purpose of this evaluation was to examine respondents’ reactions to both the new and revised questions, 

their ability to follow skip patterns in the self-administered form, and their knowledge of the requested 

information. 

This evaluation followed a series of focus groups that were conducted by a contractor and are reported 

separately. (See “Appendix G. Report on SASS Focus Groups,” of the Documentation for the 2003–04 

Schools and Staffing Survey.) Several changes to the questions were incorporated based on results from 

the focus group. These and further changes were investigated through cognitive testing. The following 

key concepts were examined through questions in the structured protocol: 

• familiarity with the concept of Average Daily Attendance and ability to calculate; 

• understanding and clarity of definitions for transitional kindergarten, transitional first grade, and 

library media center; 

• quality of data gathered by new overcrowding questions; 

• familiarity with special programs (e.g., International Baccalaureate and Specialized Career 

Academy) and understanding of American Indian and Alaska Native coursework; 

• counts of substitute teachers as an indicator of teacher absenteeism; 

• clarity of questions on technology; 

• familiarity with the term Limited-English Proficiency; 

• clarity of Title I and free and reduced-price lunch counts; and 

• charter school identification. 

In the next section, the methodology used to conduct the interviews is described. Following that, the 

results of the interviews are documented. The questions are presented in the order of their appearance in 

the questionnaire as it was tested. 

Research Methods 

In March and April of 2003, CSMR staff conducted cognitive interviews with 12 respondents in 

Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and West Virginia. An incentive of $35 was provided. 

Interviews ranged in duration from 45 minutes to an hour and a half and were audiotaped after gaining 

respondents’ consent. Since the form is self-administered, respondents were instructed to read aloud as 

well as think aloud while completing the questions. After each section, respondents were asked to stop 

and revisit earlier questions with the interviewer. Structured, as well as unstructured, probes were 

administered retrospectively, after each section. There were five sections, which ranged from 5 to 17 

questions each. The interview was conducted in this manner to minimize disrupting the flow of the selfadministered form while still gathering information on respondents’ answering techniques soon after the 

questions were answered. 

A few questions were omitted from the cognitive test due to the fact that time was limited and these items 

were time-consuming and gathered administrative data. These were the counts of students and teachers by 

race and Hispanic origin and staffing counts. These questions have been used in the past and were not 

changed substantially (only formatting and the order of the questions had been changed at the time of the 

cognitive test) for the 2003–04 SASS. Respondents were simply told to skip these items during the 
Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions H-3 

cognitive test. In the question-by-question review, the omitted questions are noted as missing items where 

they would have appeared. 

A few questions in the survey were skipped by most respondents, thus were not tested as rigorously as the 

other items. These cases are noted. After discussing the concerns and recommendations with sponsors, 

some items were moved within the questionnaire or changed based on concerns that were out-of-scope for 

the cognitive test. These changes are not documented in this report because they were not a result of the 

cognitive testing. 

Respondent Characteristics 

Respondents from public schools in Maryland, the District of Columbia, Virginia, and West Virginia 

were interviewed. Six of the schools were elementary schools, four were middle schools, and two were 

high schools. One school was a public charter school; another was a magnet school. There was wide 

variety among the schools in terms of the student population, socioeconomic status, extent of English 

language fluency, number of students with Individual Education Plans (IEPs), and level of participation in 

the free or reduced-price lunch program. 

Recruiting was conducted through school board offices and by contacting schools directly, and the 

interviews were conducted in the school offices. Ten of the respondents were school principals. Two were 

assistant principals. 

General Findings 

Both principals and assistant principals had no problems completing the items due to lack of access to 

information requested in the questionnaire. None of the respondents reported thinking that any of the 

questions were too difficult or sensitive. 

One notable general problem was that respondents had difficulty with the skip patterns in the form. One 

respondent always took the skip, whether or not her answer corresponded to the skip pattern (e.g., 

whenever she saw the indication that a skip was available, she read it and skipped to that question). Other 

respondents answered questions that they were instructed to skip. Many respondents went back and read 

the instruction to skip only after they came to a question that did not logically follow their answer to the 

previous question. For this reason, it was recommended that careful attention be paid to any edits to the 

data. In all cases, respondents answered the first question in the series correctly; when they went on to 

answer questions that they should not have, these answers sometimes provided misleading data. 

Question-by-Question Findings 

I. General Information About This School 

1. Which of the following grades are offered in this school? Mark (X) all that apply. (Response options 

Kindergarten through 12th and ungraded) 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 
H-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

2a. Around the first of October, how many students in grades K–12 and comparable ungraded levels 

were enrolled in this school (e.g., in the grades checked above in item 1)? Do NOT include 

prekindergarten, postsecondary, or adult education students 

__ Students 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

2b. How many of these students were migrant students? 

(Migrant students are those who move from school to school because they are children of migrant 

agricultural workers, including migratory dairy workers and migratory fishers.) 

___ Migrant Students 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: Changed to make consistent with Items 1, 3, and 4. Added note not to include 

prekindergarten, postsecondary, or adult education. This question was reworded as follows: 

Around the first of October, how many migrant students attended this school? 

* Do NOT include prekindergarten, postsecondary, or adult education students. 

* Migrant students are those who move from school to school because they are children of 

migrant agricultural workers, including migratory dairy workers and migratory fishers. 

 __ None OR /__/__/__/__/ Migrant students 

3. Around the first of October, how many MALE students attended this school? * Do NOT include 

prekindergarten, postsecondary, or adult education students. 

____ Male Students 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

Item 4 was not tested. 

5. For this school year (2003–2004), what is the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) at this school? 

_____ Students 

Concern: Most respondents had these data available as a percentage. They had to convert them back into 

number of students. Some respondents did this, but others simply reported the percentage in the response 
Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions H-5 

boxes (e.g., 94, 94.6). This resulted in extremely low ADAs in some cases, and a higher number of 

students attending than enrolled in others (because one of these schools had 600 students and the other 

had only 88). 

Recommendation: For this school year (2003–04), what is the percentage of Average Daily Attendance 

(ADA) at this school? 

Resolution: The question was changed as follows to request percentages rather than numbers: 

For this school year (2003–2004), what is the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) at this school? 

(expressed to the nearest whole percent)? 

_ _ % Students 

6. How long is the school day for students in this school?* Report BOTH hours and minutes, e.g., 6 

hours and 0 minutes, 5 hours and 45 minutes, etc. If the length of day varies by grade level, record 

the longest day. 

__ Hours AND __Minutes 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

7a. Does this school have a kindergarten, transitional kindergarten, or transitional first grade? 

*Transitional (or readiness) kindergarten is an extra year of school for kindergarten-age children 

who are judged not ready for kindergarten. * Transitional first (or prefirst) grade is an extra year of 

school for children who have attended kindergarten but have been judged not ready for first grade. 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO Item 8. 

Concern: There is concern that kindergarten is being underreported, since the emphasis on transitional 

grades is very heavy. Several elementary school respondents, after reading the descriptions of transitional 

kindergarten and first grade marked “no,” even though they have kindergarten. They had forgotten that 

regular kindergarten is also included in the question. 

Recommendation: These questions should be separated. 

Resolution: This question was reworded as follows: 

Does this school have a kindergarten? 

*Include regular kindergarten as well as transitional kindergarten and transitional first grade. 
H-6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

7b. How long is the school day for a kindergarten, transitional kindergarten, or transitional first grade 

student? * Mark (X) only one box. 

__ Full day (4 hours or more per day) 

__ Half day (less than 4 hours per day) 

__ Both offered 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: Make consistent with 7a. 

Resolution: The question was revised to be consistent with 7a as follows: 

How long is the school day for a kindergarten student? 

7c. How many days per week does a kindergarten, transitional kindergarten, or transitional first grade 

student attend? * If the number of days per week varies (e.g., some students attend 3 days per week 

and some attend 5 days per week), record the most days that a student would attend in a week. 

__Days per week 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: Make consistent with 7a. 

Resolution: The question was revised to be consistent with 7a as follows: 

How many days per week does a kindergarten student attend? 

8. When this school was built (and, if applicable, most recently renovated) for how many students was 

it designed? * Do not count temporary buildings. 

__Students 

Concern: This question asks for the building capacity when the school was built. Several respondents 

noted that the capacity had changed over time, even though the building itself had not changed. They 

reported receiving information from the facilities’ manager, the board office, or other staff. Sometimes it 

was based on square footage, student/teacher ratios, or other factors. There are guidelines for determining 

building capacity that are subject to change. 

Recommendation: Since this question invokes a possibly different aspect of capacity (e.g., historical 

capacity), this question should be revised. Given that there is a number for capacity that respondents can 

look up, it was decided to ask for the current capacity with the understanding that it may change from 

year to year. 

Resolution: The question was revised to ask for current capacity as follows: 

What is the current capacity of this school? * Do not count capacity of temporary buildings. 
Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions H-7 

9a. Does this school have one or more temporary buildings? 

__ No Æ GO TO Item 10. 

__ Yes 

Concern: This seems to be a good measure of overcrowding; however, it does not ask if the temporary 

buildings are currently being used for students. One school which had been overcrowded prior to 

redistricting still had a temporary building that was used for storage. The respondent reported this and 

gave a capacity for item 9b even though no students are housed there, and he stated that he is under 

capacity. 

Recommendation: Does this school have one or more temporary buildings that are used as classrooms or 

office space? 

Resolution: No change. This question does provide an indication of capacity. Temporary buildings, 

despite how they may be used, provide additional capacity for the school. 

9b. For how many students (was this/were these) temporary building(s) designed? 

__ Students 

Concern: Respondents almost always reported a typical class size (or the number of desks in the 

classroom) as the capacity for the temporary buildings. One respondent could not give an answer at all 

because one of the buildings is used for offices, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, gifted, tech 

support, art and music, so students come and go but no students are housed there. 

Recommendation: How many classrooms are located in the temporary buildings? 

Resolution: Made the current question consistent with question 8. It is of interest how many students 

could be housed in the temporary buildings, not how many are currently housed there. This deals with 

giving an estimate of possible capacity to compare to enrollment. Revised question as follows: 

What is the current capacity of the temporary building(s)? 

10. Does this school use common areas such as the cafeteria, gymnasium, or other nonacademic areas 

for instructional purposes to accommodate for an overflow of students? 

__ Yes 

__ No 

Concerns: None. This new question performed well. Respondents were able to discriminate between areas 

that were used intentionally and those that were used due to lack of space. 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

11. Do you have any teachers who do not have their own classrooms due to a lack of space? 

__ Yes 

__ No 
H-8 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Concern: This seemed to work pretty well. There was some disagreement among respondents as to 

whether special teachers and part-time teachers counted. However, it did work well to discriminate those 

schools with no overcrowding versus those schools with substantial overcrowding. 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

12. Does this school have a library or library media center? (A library media center is an organized 

collection of printed and/or audiovisual and/or computer resources which is administered as a unit, 

is located in a designated place or places, and makes resources and services available to students, 

teachers, and administrators.) (A library media center may be called a library, media center, 

resource center, information center, instructional materials center, learning resource center, or 

some other name.) 

__ Yes 

__ No 

Concern: Very few of the respondents read the notes, because they felt comfortable answering without 

reading them. The one person who did read it thought that some of the terms (e.g., resource center, 

learning resource center) were specific to special education, rather than regular education. 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

II. Admissions, Programs, and Performance 

13. What type of school is this? * Mark (X) the box that best describes this school. 

__ REGULAR elementary or secondary 

 

__ Elementary or secondary with a SPECIAL PROGRAM EMPHASIS (such as a science/math school, 

performing arts school, talented/gifted school, foreign language immersion school, etc.) 

__ SPECIAL EDUCATION - primarily serves students with disabilities 

__ VOCATIONAL/TECHNICAL - primarily serves students being trained for occupations 

__ ALTERNATIVE - offers a curriculum designed to provide alternative or nontraditional education; 

does not specifically fall into the categories of regular, special program, special education, or vocational 

school - Please describe. 

Concern: The one charter school respondent did not know there were later questions about charter 

schools, and he wanted to note here that he was a charter school. He answered “alternative” and wrote in 

“public charter.” 

Recommendation: Either add an alternative for charter schools or instruct respondent how to answer (e.g., 

give an example where it is intended). 
Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions H-9 

Resolution: Schools can be charter schools and vary along these dimensions. The screener question for 

charter schools (62) will be inserted after this question to allow charter schools to express their 

uniqueness. It will still be asked again as a screener prior to the other charter school items. 

In an effort to make the question more specific, the question was reworded as follows: 

Which of the following best describes this school’s major program emphasis? *Mark (X) one 

box. 

14. Is this ENTIRE SCHOOL specifically for students who have been suspended or expelled, who have 

dropped out, or who have been referred for behavioral or adjustment problems? 

__ Yes 

__ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

15a. Does this school have a magnet program? (A magnet program offers enhancements such as special 

curricular themes or methods of instruction to attract students from outside their normal attendance 

area.) 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO item 16 on page --. 

Concern: One respondent thought that, by nature, charter schools offer special programs and should be 

included. 

Recommendation: Instruct charter schools how to answer. 

Resolution: See resolution to item 13. Charter schools are given the opportunity prior to this question to 

express their special programs. 

15b. Is this a school-wide magnet program in which all students in this school participate in the 

program? 

__ Yes 

__ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 
H-10 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

15c. Is this magnet program intended to encourage students of different racial or ethnic backgrounds to 

enroll in this school for the purposes of creating racial balance or reducing racial isolation? 

__ Yes 

__ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

16. Does this school have any special requirements for admission other than proof of immunization, age, 

or residence? 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO item 18 on page --. 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

17. Does this school use the following requirements for admission? 

 a. Admission test 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

 b. Standardized achievement test 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

 c. Academic record 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

 d. Special student needs (e.g., students “at risk” or with disabilities) 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

 e. Special student aptitudes, skills, or talents 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 
Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions H-11 

 f. Personal interview 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

 g. Recommendations 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concern: Not all respondents skipped correctly after item 16. Some consequently had difficulty with this 

item. For example, schools without admissions requirements had difficulty answering questions about 

using academic records and personal interviews—which they do use as part of the admissions procedure, 

just not as a criterion. Do edits correct for the wrongly answered items? 

Recommendation: Ensure that edits erase data for item 17 if item 16 is marked “no.” 

Resolution: The National Center for Education Statistics is going to evaluate this. 

18. Does this school receive performance reports from the district that cover such things as students’ 

scores on achievement tests or graduation rates? 

__ Yes Æ GO TO item 20. 

__ No Æ GO TO item 19. 

Concerns: All respondents marked yes to this item. They receive performance reports from the district, 

region, and/or state. 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

19. Regardless of source, does your school have performance reports? 

__ Yes Æ GO TO item 20. 

__ No Æ GO TO item 21. 

Concern: Almost everyone in the test skipped this item. 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

20. Does this school use these performance reports to - 

 a. Evaluate the progress of students in this school? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 
H-12 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Concern: A few respondents mentioned that they were not sure how to interpret this question. One 

indicated that performance reports do not determine the child’s progression to or retention in a grade 

level, but he still answered affirmatively. Another respondent said no because teachers, not the school, 

evaluate the progress of the students. 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

 b. Determine the next year’s instructional focus? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

 c. Realign the curriculum, such as with content standards and/or other indicator criteria? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

 d. Inform parents and the community of the school’s progress? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: None

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

 e. Prompt school-level initiatives for improvement? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concern: Several respondents mentioned that they thought this was a repeat of a previously asked item (b 

or c). 

Recommendation: Evaluate meaning and whether other questions gather the same data. 
Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions H-13 

Resolution: No change 

21. Does this school offer the following programs? 

 a. Programs with special instructional approaches (e.g., Montessori, self-paced instruction, open 

education, ungraded classrooms, etc.) 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concern: This question was interpreted very broadly by respondents. There were “yes” answers for a 

multi-age (1st and 2nd grade) classroom, reading recovery, special education (use self-paced instruction). 

Recommendation: Evaluate meaning of this question. “Special instructional approaches” is very broad. 

Resolution: No change. It was determined that respondents could use their own judgment in how to 

interpret this. 

 b. Talented/gifted program (Designed for students with specifically identified talents or exceptional 

academic achievement) 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concern: For high school, respondents wanted to know if honors or advanced placement (AP) classes 

counted, because that is their alternative for talented and gifted. Respondents were unsure whether a 

gifted resource teacher was sufficient to answer affirmatively. 

Recommendation: Specify whether honors courses are included. 

Resolution: These classes should be included. Revised wording to the following: 

Talented/gifted program or honors courses 

 c. Immersion in a foreign language program (Curriculum is offered in a foreign language instead of 

English or in addition to English) 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concern: Respondents from high schools counted their regular foreign language program as immersion 

(Spanish I–IV, etc.). An elementary school respondent marked “yes” because they use a video program 

that is in Spanish and teaches students a few words of Spanish. This is not immersion! 

Recommendation: Program in which curriculum is taught in a foreign language. 

Resolution: Changed wording to be more specific about what is intended, as follows: 

Program in which at least half of the core subjects is taught in a foreign language 
H-14 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

 d. Advanced placement (AP) courses for college credit 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

 e. International Baccalaureate (IB) (An international curriculum certified by the International 

Baccalaureate Organization) 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

 f. Specialized career academy (Curriculum that integrates academic and vocational courses, 

organized around broad career areas) 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concern: This may also over count. Schools with career programs sometimes marked yes, even though 

they did not have this type of academy. 

Recommendation: In note, specify minimum requirements for a “program,” for example, how many 

courses or semesters, etc. 

Resolution: This question was revised to be more specific about the fact that specialized career academies 

last over a period of years: 

Specialized career academy (Multi-year curriculum that integrates academic and vocational 

courses, organized around broad career areas) 

22a. Does this school offer any course(s) on American Indian or Alaska Native topics? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No Æ GO TO item 23. 

Concern: This item performed as intended. Respondents focused on entire courses offered in these topics. 

No one responded affirmatively, which is what was expected in the area under review. 

Recommendation: None 
Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions H-15 

Resolution: No change 

22b. Which of the following courses are offered at this school? 

 a. American Indian or Alaska Native history 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

 b. American Indian or Alaska Native language 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

 c. American Indian or Alaska Native culture 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

 d. American Indian or Alaska Native arts and crafts 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

 e. American Indian tribal government or Alaska Native village government 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concern: All respondents skipped this item. 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

23. Are the following programs or services currently available AT THIS SCHOOL for students in any of 

grades K–12 or comparable ungraded levels, regardless of funding source? 

 a. A program for students with discipline or adjustment problems 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concern: Respondents interpreted the term “program” with different levels of formality. Some states have 

a special education program for students with behavior and/or emotional disorders. Some respondents 

reported these programs here, and one did not (but mentioned it here). Other respondents were unsure 

whether a regular discipline program should be included. 

Recommendation: Specify wording to reflect intended meaning. 

Resolution: Changed wording to indicate that a very formal program is intended by the question: 
H-16 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

A separate, self-contained program for students with discipline problems 

 b. Medical health care services (Services provided by trained professionals to diagnose and treat 

health problems of students) 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concern: This question was interpreted very differently by respondents, especially with respect to 

whether or not a school nurse counts. Seven respondents explicitly included school nurses and four 

explicitly excluded them. Several respondents noted that nurses do not really diagnose. 

Recommendation: Add a note as to whether school nurses should be included or excluded (or criteria for 

inclusion). 

Resolution: Changed the wording to reflect that only services beyond what is provided by a school nurse 

should be reported: 

Medical health care services beyond those provided by a school nurse (Services to diagnose 

and/or treat health problems of students) 

 c. Extended day or before-school or after-school day care programs 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concern: This seems to ask about two different programs. Extended day was interpreted by respondents 

as instructional time beyond the normal school day, presumably for students who are falling behind or are 

at risk. After or before school day care is for child care and not instruction. 

Recommendation: Separate this into two questions. 

Resolution: Separated into two questions as follows: 

c. Extended day program providing instruction beyond the normal school day for students 

needing academic assistance 

d. Before or after school day care programs. 

24a. Does this school currently have a drug, alcohol, or tobacco use prevention program? 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO Item 25a. 

Concern: The term “program” in this question seems to have a different meaning than in previous 

questions. It can include much more informal activities. Respondents were inconsistent in whether or not 

they included guidance counselors or health classes that deal with drug abuse. 

Recommendation: Specify what type of program is desired. 
Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions H-17 

Resolution: Moved to the principal questionnaire, near the school crime section. No change to question. 

Allowed respondents to use their own judgment. 

24b. Is there a formal procedure in place to assess the effectiveness of this prevention program? 

__ Yes 

__ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: Moved to the principal questionnaire, near the school crime section. No change to question. 

25a. Does this school currently have a violence prevention program? 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO Section III on page --. 

Concerns: The same issues occurred here as with question 24a. Respondents were inconsistent as to 

whether they should include guidance counselors that deal with violence prevention. Similarly they did 

not know whether to include peer mediation or bullying programs for violence prevention. 

Recommendation: Specify what type of program is desired. 

Resolution: Moved to the principal questionnaire, near the school crime section. No change to question. 

Allow respondents to use their own judgment. 

25b. Is there a formal procedure in place to assess the effectiveness of this prevention program? 

__ Yes 

__ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: Moved to the principal questionnaire, near the school crime section. No change to question. 

III. Students and Class Organization 

26. Does this school use the following methods to organize classes or student groups? 

Concern: Respondents did not know what the reference period was for this question. Whether they were 

to report if these methods had ever been used or if they were current practices would sometimes make a 

difference in their answers. 

Recommendation: Add a reference period. 

Resolution: Revised the question to add a reference period as follows: 
H-18 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

This school year (2003–2004), does this school use the following methods to organize classes or 

student groups? 

 a. Traditional grades or academic discipline-based departments 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

 b. Grades subdivided into small groups such as “houses” or “families” 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concern: Several people mentioned teams, and answered affirmatively. Teams were used in middle and 

high schools for the core teachers of a grade and their students. For example, in one school the sixth grade 

is comprised two teams. Each team consists of four core teachers (English, Math, Social Studies, and 

Science) and the half of the sixth grade students. 

Recommendation: Specify whether teams should be included, or, if not, be clearer about what houses and 

families mean and why teams would not fit here. 

Resolution: Teams are appropriately included, and need not be mentioned in the item. No change. 

 c. Student groups that remain two or more years with the same teacher (e.g., looping) 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

 d. Interdisciplinary teaching (e.g., two or more teachers with different academic specializations 

collaborate to teach an interdisciplinary program to the same group of students) 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 
Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions H-19 

 e. Paired or team teaching (e.g., two or more teachers are jointly responsible for teaching a single 

group of students) 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concern: This was sometimes misunderstood as the same thing as interdisciplinary teaching. 

Recommendation: Revise wording to increase differentiation from interdisciplinary teaching. 

Resolution: Revised wording as follows: 

Paired or team teaching (e.g., two or more teachers in the same class at the same time are jointly 

responsible for teaching a single group of students) 

27a. Are academic intersessions or summer school activities provided at this school for students who 

need extra assistance to meet academic expectations? 

__ Yes Æ GO TO item 28a. 

__ No 

Concerns/Recommendation/Resolution: See next item. 

27b. Are these programs offered for students enrolled in this school at another public school location? 

__ Yes 

__ No 

Concern: Many of the schools that were contacted have summer school at a central location for the school 

district each summer. The location rotates and is sometimes at the respondent’s school and sometimes 

not, regardless of how many of their students will be attending. So, answers to items a and b will depend 

on the year they are asked and not on anything about the school itself. Respondents had a hard time with 

the skips here and many skipped b although they should have answered it and would, indeed, have 

answered it affirmatively. 

One respondent got confused about the meaning of academic intersessions and interpreted it as including 

any instruction provided beyond the normal school day. 

Recommendation: By combining the two questions and concentrating on the existence of these activities 

rather than their location, more accurate data should be gathered. Respondents all knew whether or not 

their students could attend summer school, and this was not always conveyed in the questionnaire due to 

inadvertently skipping item b (or generalizing item a to include other locations). 

Because summer school is the more common of the two, the order should be switched. 

Resolution: Revised the question wording to specify a reference period. Listed summer school activities 

first, and deleted reference to the location of the activities. Replaced the second question in the series with 

one that asks about the location of the activities. Moved this question and question 28a and b at the end of 

Section II near other questions about school programs. The series is as follows: 
H-20 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

27a. For the last school year and last summer (2002–2003), were summer school activities or 

academic intersessions provided for students enrolled in this school needing academic assistance? 

27b. (IF YES) Are these activities provided . . . 

 1) At this school 

 2) At another school 

 3) At both this school and another school 

28a. Are academic intersessions or summer school activities provided at this school for students who seek 

academic advancement or acceleration? 

__ Yes Æ GO TO item 29. 

__ No 

Concerns/Recommendation/Resolution: See next item. 

28b. Are these programs offered for students enrolled in this school at another public school location? 

__ Yes 

__ No 

Concern: This question had similar issues to item 27a, and the form should be consistent. 

Another issue here was that by academic advancement or acceleration it was sometimes understood that a 

student could earn course credits or skip a grade by taking summer school. It was not clear to all 

respondents that activities for enrichment should be included. 

Recommendation: Make this item consistent with item 27 and replace “acceleration” with “enrichment.” 

Resolution: Revised questions to be consistent with revisions to item 27. Also, replaced “acceleration” 

with “enrichment.” The series is as follows: 

28a. For the last school year and last summer (2002–2003), were summer school activities or 

academic intersessions provided for students enrolled in this school seeking academic 

advancement or enrichment? 

28b. (IF YES) Are these activities provided . . . 

 1) At this school 

 2) At another school 

 3) At both this school and another school 

29. Are class periods scheduled to create extended instructional blocks of time at this school? (e.g., 

block scheduling) 

__ Yes 

__ No 

Concern: This seems to be only for middle and high schools; however, an elementary principal marked 

yes. It is unclear what this would mean in an elementary setting, although some respondents mentioned a 

90-minute block for reading, which is not the intent of the question. 
Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions H-21 

Recommendation: Use edit for elementary schools that disregards these data. 

Resolution: No change 

30. Does this school use a calendar where number of days for students exceeds mandatory days per 

year? 

__ Yes 

__ No 

Concern: Respondents differed on how they answered this question pertaining to built in days for snow. 

When a school system, like DC, schedules a few extra days just in case there are snow days, respondents 

were unsure how to answer. Most respondents in this situation answered affirmatively. 

Recommendation: Make this item clearer. 

Resolution: Since the intent of the question is to identify schools with longer school calendars not 

counting snow days, added a note as follows: 

 *Do not consider days built in for weather-related closings. 

31a. Does this school use a year-round calendar to distribute school days across twelve months? 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO Item 32. 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

31b. Do all students attend on the same cycle? 

__ Yes 

__ No 

Concerns: None. All respondents skipped this item. 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

32. Are the following opportunities available for students in this school? 

Concern: Items a–d are of primary interest in the high school setting, but other respondents tried to 

interpret them in ways relevant to their own setting. 

Resolution: Added a filter prior to items 32 and 33 asking if the school offers grades 9, 10, 11, or 12. 

Moved item e, revised the question wording, and allowed everyone to answer it. 
H-22 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

 a. College credits offered through community colleges, colleges, or distance learning providers 

__ Yes 

__ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

 b. Work-based learning or internships, in which students earn COURSE CREDITS for supervised 

learning activities that occur in paid or unpaid workplace assignments 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

 c. Career learning, as a course or part of a course in which students learn about possible careers 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concern: Respondents were inconsistent in whether they included providing a career day as career 

learning. 

Recommendation: Specify how detailed the program should be. Rather than using the term course (which 

is usually for middle or high school), use the term curriculum (as a course or part of the curriculum). 

Resolution: This is only of interest in schools that offer 9th–12th grades. The filter will eliminate the 

problem in elementary schools. 

 d. Job shadowing, in which students learn about a job by following the schedule of a person who 

holds that job 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: There is some concern about respondents reporting “yes” to this item if they have one day per 

year where students do job shadowing. 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change. This is less likely in a high school setting. 
Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions H-23 

 e. Distance learning, in which a course is taught primarily via television, satellite, Internet, or e-mail 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concern: This item could apply to any age group. 

Resolution: This item will be moved to Section II and reworded as follows: 

Does this school offer any distance learning course(s), in which a course is primarily taught via 

television, satellite, Internet, or e-mail? 

33a. LAST SCHOOL YEAR (2002–2003), were any students enrolled in 12th grade? 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO Section IV on page --. 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

33b. What percentage graduated with a diploma? * Do not include certificates of completion or 

attendance. 

/__/__/__/ % 

Concerns: The one respondent who got this item could not answer, but thought the guidance counselor 

would have this information. 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

33c. Of those who graduated last year, approximately what percentage went to: 

/__/__/__/ % Four-year colleges? 

/__/__/__/ % Two-year colleges? 

Concerns: The one respondent who got this item could not answer, but thought the guidance counselor 

would have these data. 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 
H-24 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

IV. Staffing 

Items 34–36 were not cognitively tested. 

37. On the most recent school day, how many SHORT-TERM substitute teachers were teaching at this 

school? 

Full-time Part-time 

/__/__/ /_/_/ 

__ None __ None 

Concern: The number of substitutes reported most often corresponded to number of teachers absent. 

Some respondents thought about the current school day in answering this question, and others referred to 

the last school day; however, no problems were anticipated. Most respondents indicated that a full-time 

substitute would be a substitute for a full-time teacher and a part-time substitute would substitute for a 

part-time teacher. 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

38a. For this school year (2003–2004) were there teaching vacancies in this school—that is, teaching 

positions for which teachers were recruited and interviewed? 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO item 40 on page --. 

Concerns: None. Both principals and assistant principals felt comfortable answering this question. 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

38b. Did this school use the following methods to cover vacancies? 

 (1) Hired a fully qualified teacher 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

 (2) Hired a less-than-fully qualified teacher 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 
Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions H-25 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

 (3) Canceled planned course offerings 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

 (4) Expanded some class sizes 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

 (5) Added sections to other teachers’ normal teaching loads 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

 (6) Assigned a teacher of another subject or grade level to teach those classes 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 
H-26 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

 (7) Assigned an administrator or counselor to teach the class 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

 (8) Used long-term or short-term substitutes 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concern: At this point, there may be some overreporting of use of long-term substitutes to include 

positions for which posting and recruitment had not occurred. 

Recommendation: Add note: (Only include permanent teaching vacancies that were covered by a 

substitute.) 

Resolution: This item was moved up to item 3 so the stem of the question would be more salient when 

answering. It is also a more likely solution than some of the other options. 

39. How difficult or easy was it to fill the vacancies for this school year in each of the following fields? 

Mark (X) one box on each line. 

 

Not 

applicable 

in this 

school 

No vacancy 

in that field Easy 

Somewhat 

difficult 

Very 

difficult 

Could not 

fill the 

vacancy 

a. General elementary 

b. Special education 

c. English/Language arts 

d. Social studies 

e. Computer science 

f. Mathematics 

g. Biology or life sciences 

h. Physical sciences 

i. English as a Second Language 

(ESL), English for Speakers of 

Other Languages (ESOL), or 

bilingual education 

j. Foreign Languages 

k. Music or art 

l. Vocational or technical education 

Concern: Most respondents did not discriminate correctly between “Not applicable” and “No vacancy.” 

Many used “Not applicable” for all positions they did not fill this year, even when they had those 

positions. 
Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions H-27 

ESL teachers are not always hired at the school level. Sometimes the ESL teacher serves several schools 

in the district. 

Recommendation: Combine “Not applicable” and “No vacancy.” 

Resolution: Reordered questions 38 and 39 to cue respondents to think of all possible vacancies prior to 

asking how they were filled. Revised the wording of the question stem to be consistent with the response 

categories, as follows: 

How easy or difficult was it to fill the vacancies for this school year in each of the following 

fields? 

Revised the “Not applicable at this school” heading as follows: 

No positions at this school. 

V. Technology 

40. What is the total number of computers in this school? 

/_/_/_/_/ Number of computers 

 None Æ GO TO item 45 on page --. 

Concern: Many respondents did not initially consider office computers. Some changed the total when 

they remembered, others just voiced that they had forgotten them. 

Recommendation: Add a note to include office computers in the total: Please include all computers in the 

school, including those in the offices. 

Resolution: Added note as follows: 

*Include computers used for both instructional and administrative purposes. 

41. How many of these computers currently have access to the Internet? 

/_/_/_/_/ Number of computers 

None Æ GO TO item 43 below. 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

42. Do most students have access to the Internet through computers located at this school? 

__ Yes 

__ No 

Concerns: None 
H-28 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

43. Of the total number of computers in this school (e.g., those in question 40), how many are used for 

instructional purposes? * Do not include computers that are used exclusively for administrative 

purposes such as record keeping or communication. 

/_/_/_/_/ Number of computers 

None Æ GO TO Section VI on page --. 

Concern: Respondents were inconsistent in their handling of computers used only by teachers. Some 

people explicitly included them; others explicitly excluded them. 

Recommendation: Evaluate whether this is an important aspect. Add note if deemed necessary. 

Resolution: No change 

44. Which of the following statements best describes the person at this school who helps TEACHERS use 

technology for teaching students? 

 __ A district-level coordinator 

 __ A principal or another school administrator 

 __ A school-level coordinator who has no other responsibilities 

 __ A full-time teacher 

 __ A part-time teacher 

 __ A library media specialist 

 __ A parent, student, or other volunteer 

 __ No one serves this function 

 __ Another person, please describe 

Concern: Some respondents marked more than one despite the instruction. One respondent mentioned that 

a contractor had this position and was not sure how to indicate this. 

Resolution: One response category was altered and one was added. “A parent, student, or other volunteer” 

was changed to “A volunteer (parent, student, or other)” and “A contractor” was added. The wording was 

revised as follows to help emphasize that one answer is requested: 

Which of the following best describes the ONE person who spends the most time helping 

teachers at this school use technology for teaching? *Mark (X) the one best description for that 

person. 

 __ A district-level coordinator 

 __ A principal or another school administrator 

 __ A school-level coordinator who has no other responsibilities 

 __ A full-time teacher 

 __ A part-time teacher 

 __ A library media specialist 

 __ A volunteer (parent, student, or other) 

 __ A contractor 

 __ No one serves this function 

 __ Another person, please describe 
Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions H-29 

VI. Special Programs and Services 

45. Of students enrolled in this school, how many have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) because they 

have disabilities or are special education students? *Do not include prekindergarten, postsecondary, 

or adult education students. 

/_/_/_/_/ Students 

None Æ GO TO item 47a. 

Concern: Some respondents included students with IEPs for speech, while others did not. One explicitly 

stated that he needed to know whether they should be included, but did not include them in the end 

because, although they have IEPs, they are not considered special ed students. 

Recommendation: Add a note: Include (or Do not include) students with IEPs for speech. 

Resolution: Took the focus away from special education. Reworded the question as follows: 

Of students enrolled in this school, how many have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) because 

they have special needs? 

46a. Does this school primarily serve students with disabilities? * If you marked “SPECIAL 

EDUCATION school - primarily serves students with disabilities” for item 15, then please mark 

“Yes” below. 

__ Yes Æ GO TO item 47a. 

__ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

46b. How many of these IEP students are in each of the following instructional settings? *The sum of 

entries in item 46b should equal the entry in item 45 above. 

/_/_/_/_/ All day in a regular classroom 

/_/_/_/_/ Most of the day in a regular classroom (1–20 percent of the school day receiving special 

education and related services outside the regular classroom) 

/_/_/_/_/ Some of the day in a regular classroom (21–60 percent of the school day receiving special 

education and related services outside the regular classroom) 

/_/_/_/_/ Little or none of the day in a regular classroom (61–100 percent of the school day receiving 

special education and related services outside the regular classroom) 

Concern: Respondents did not think in terms of the amount of time children spend in a regular classroom. 

This was a difficult question for most respondents. It was especially difficult to make this calculation 

because the percentages contained in the definitions are opposite of the wording contained in the 

categories. The percentages reflect time spent outside the regular classroom; the category wording reflects 

time spent inside the regular classroom. Students seem to spend all day in the class, spend most of the day 

but are taken out for 1–2 hours per week, are in the regular class for only a few subjects, are in the regular 
H-30 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

class only for specialty classes (art, music, etc.) or spend no time in the regular class. Respondents used 

the categories differently as well. 

Recommendation: Invert the example percentages to correspond with time in the regular class. 

Resolution: Revised percentages as follows: 

/_/_/_/_/ All day in a regular classroom (100 percent of the school day) 

/_/_/_/_/ Most of the day in a regular classroom (80–99 percent of the school day) 

/_/_/_/_/ Some of the day in a regular classroom (40–79 percent of the school day) 

/_/_/_/_/ Little or none of the day in a regular classroom (0–39 percent of the school day) 

47a. Of the students enrolled in this school as of October 1, have any been identified as limited-English 

proficient? (Limited-English proficient (LEP) refers to students whose native or dominant language 

is other than English and who have sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding 

the English language as to deny them the opportunity to learn successfully in an English-speakingonly classroom.) 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO the NOTE preceding item 55 on page --. 

Concerns: None. All respondents were comfortable with the term LEP. 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

47b. How many limited-English proficient students are enrolled in this school? 

/_/_/_/_/ Students 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

48. Are the following used to determine whether a student is limited-English proficient? 

 a. Information provided by parent 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

 b. Teacher observation or referral 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 
Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions H-31 

 c. Home language survey 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

 d. Student interview 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

 e. Student records 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

 f. Achievement test 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

 g. Language proficiency test 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concern: Although placement is not always done at the school level, respondents generally had a good 

idea of what testing was done, or thought that the ESL teacher would have this information if they asked. 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

49. Does this school have instruction specifically designed to address the needs of limited-Englishproficient students? 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO the NOTE before 55 on page --. 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation : None 

Resolution: No change 

50. Are limited-English-proficient students provided with the following types of language instruction? 

Concern: Due to issues with item B and in an attempt to make the item simpler and parallel to item 51, 

this series was reworded. 

Resolution: Changed wording of the question as follows: 
H-32 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

How are limited-English-proficient students taught English? 

a. Instruction in English language using approaches such as ESL, structured immersion, or 

bilingual education 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: See above. 

Resolution: Changed wording of the question as follows: 

Using approaches such as ESL, structured immersion, or bilingual education 

 b. Instruction to maintain the students’ fluency in his/her native language, such as Spanish lessons 

for Spanish speakers 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concern: There is concern about overreporting in this question. Several respondents who have five or 

fewer limited-English-proficient students reported “yes” to instruction to maintain fluency, although this 

seems unlikely. Other respondents reported that Spanish students could take the regular Spanish courses 

in high school. 

Recommendation: Make the item clearer. 

Resolution: This item was deleted. 

 c. Instruction in regular English/language arts classrooms 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: See above. 

Resolution: No change 

51. How are limited-English-proficient students taught subject matter courses such as mathematics, 

science, and social studies? Are they taught- 

 a. In their native language? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 
Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions H-33 

 b. Using ESL, bilingual, or immersion techniques? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concern: There are distinct differences among the terms ESL, bilingual, and immersion. The difference 

between immersion and item c is not clear. 

Recommendation: Clarify what it means to mark item b for immersion rather than item c. 

Resolution: No change 

 c. In regular English-speaking classrooms? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

52. Does this school require limited-English-proficient students to pass a test of English language 

proficiency to complete its limited-English-proficient program? 

__ Yes 

__ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

53. Does this school provide the following services for parents with limited-English skills? 

 a. Interpreters for meetings or parent-teacher conferences 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

 b. Translations of printed materials, such as newsletters, school notices, or school signs 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

 c. Outreach or referral services for limited-English-proficient parents 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 
H-34 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Concern: In some cases these services would be provided if necessary, but the need has never arisen. 

Since there is no reference period in the question, this caused confusion for several respondents. Some 

respondents thought they should respond affirmatively if the district provided these services, others did 

not think this counted. 

There is a possibility that schools without LEP students could offer these services to LEP parents. This 

question is not in the path of a respondent who does not have LEP students. 

Recommendation: Does this school have the resources to provide the following services for parents with 

limited English skills? OR Does this school currently provide . . . 

Ask this question of all respondents. 

Resolution: No change in question wording. Respondents should use their own judgment. However, this 

question will be moved to follow question 54 and asked of all respondents. In the question stem, 

PARENTS will be capped to stress that this question is not asking about services provided to students. 

54. Are limited-English-proficient students in this school administered assessments once or more per 

year to determine their level of English language proficiency? 

__ Yes 

__ No 

 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

NOTE: Item 55 asks for the number of students enrolled in prekindergarten in this school. Previous items 

asking for student counts requested that prekindergarten students be excluded. Prekindergarten students 

are included here because they often receive National School Lunch Program and Title I services asked 

about in items 56–61. 

55a. Do you have any prekindergarten students? 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO Item 56. 

55b. How many prekindergarten students are enrolled in this school? 

/__/__/__/ 

Concern: Several respondents read the note, then skipped the item without answering “no” because it did 

not apply to them. 

Recommendation: Place note after question in item 55, so that those to which it applies can read it, and it 

does not distract others. 

Resolution: Revised the questions as follows, including the addition of a reference period to item b: 

55a. Do you have any prekindergarten students? (Previous items asking for student counts 
Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions H-35 

requested that prekindergarten students be excluded. Prekindergarten students are included 

here because they often receive National School Lunch Program and Title I services asked 

about in items 56–61.) 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO Item 56. 

55b. Around the first of October, how many prekindergarten students were enrolled in this 

school? 

56. Does this school participate in the National School Lunch Program? 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO Item 58. 

Concern: One respondent misinterpreted this as a nutritional lunch program. There is concern that this 

could be an incorrect interpretation for those respondents who do not participate. 

Recommendation: Add note: (e.g., the federal free and reduced-price lunch program) 

Resolution: Revised question wording as follows: 

Does this school participate in the National School Lunch Program (e.g., the federal free and 

reduced-price lunch program)? 

57. Around the first of October, how many applicants at this school were APPROVED for free or 

reduced-price lunches? *Report a separate count for prekindergarten students 

/__/__/__/ Prekindergarten students approved 

__ None 

/__/__/__/__/ Other students approved (Kindergarten and higher) 

__ None 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

58. Around the first of October, did any students enrolled in this school receive Title I services at this 

school, or any other location? (Title I is a federally funded program that provides educational 

services, such as remedial reading or remedial math, to children who live in areas with high 

concentrations of low-income families) 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO Item 62. 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 
H-36 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Resolution: No change 

59. How many students participate in the Title I program? 

/__/__/__/ Prekindergarten students participating 

__ None 

/__/__/__/__/ Other students participating (Kindergarten and higher) 

__ None 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

60. At which grade levels are students receiving Title I services? *Mark (X) all that apply. (Response 

options are from prekindergarten through 12th and ungraded) 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

61. Are students receiving Title I services in- 

 (1) Reading/Language Arts? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

 (2) Mathematics? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

 (3) English as a Second Language (ESL)? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 
Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions H-37 

VII. Charter School Information 

62. Is this school a public CHARTER school? (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 regulations. A charter school may be a newly created school or it may previously have 

been a public or private school.) 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO item 68 on page X. 

Concern: Only one charter school was interviewed for this test. There were no problems with the other 

respondents answering “no” to this item. 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

63a. When was this school’s charter granted? * Report month as a number, e.g., 01 for January, 02 for 

February, etc. 

_ _ Month _ _ _ _ Year 

Concern: The one respondent from a charter school was not sure when the charter was signed. He gave an 

estimate. 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: Item was deemed unnecessary and deleted. 

63b. Who granted the charter? *Mark (X) only one box. 

 __ A school district 

 __ The state board of education 

 __ Postsecondary institution 

 __ A state charter-granting agency 

 __ Other - What is the name of the chartering agency? 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

64. Is this charter school a newly created school or was it a pre-existing school? (Pre-existing means the 

charter school was originally a public or private school, or part of a public or private school.) 

*Mark (X) only one box. 

 __ A newly created school 

 __ A pre-existing public school 

 __ A pre-existing private school 

 __ Don’t know 
H-38 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

65. When did this school start providing instruction as a public charter school? * Report month as a 

number, e.g., 01 for January, 02 for February, etc. 

_ _ Month _ _ _ _ Year 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

66a. Does this charter school provide support for home-based learning (homeschooling)? (Homebased learning or homeschooling is when parents or family choose to exercise the day-to-day 

monitoring of their children’s education, which replaces full-time attendance at a campus school 

and is used to satisfy state compulsory education requirements.) 

__ Yes 

__ No Æ GO TO item 67a. 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

66b. Approximately what percentage of students enrolled in this school are home-based learning 

(homeschooled) students? 

_ _ _ Percent 

Concern: This question was not tested on any respondents because it did not apply to anyone in our test. 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: No change 

66c. At which location(s) are home-based learning students instructed? *Mark (X) only one box. 

 __ At students’ homes only 

 __ Both at students’ homes and at school site 

 __ Other- Describe - 

Concern: This question was not tested on any respondents because it did not apply to anyone in our test. 

Recommendation: None 
Appendix H. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Public School Questions H-39 

Resolution: No change 

67a. Is this public charter school operated by an organization or company, other than a public school 

district, that also manages other schools? 

 __ Yes - What is the name of the organization or company? 

 __ No 

Concerns: None 

Recommendation: None 

Resolution: It was determined that regular public schools could be operated by an outside organization, so 

this question should be asked of all public schools, not just charter schools. It was reworded as follows 

and placed in Section II: 

Is this school operated by an organization or company, other than a public school district, that 

also manages other schools? 

__ Yes - What is the name of the organization or company? 

__ No 

67c. Is this public charter school part of another public school district or local education agency (LEA)? 

__ Yes - What is the name of the district or LEA? 

__ No 

Concerns: This question does not make much sense without item 67b, which was deleted previously. 

Recommendation/Resolution: This item was deleted. 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
I-1 

Appendix I. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to 

Select 2003–04 SASS Principal Items 

This appendix contains the following material: 

Background ......................................................................................................................................... I-2

Key Findings ....................................................................................................................................... I-2

Methods............................................................................................................................................... I-2

Detailed Findings ................................................................................................................................ I-2

Items on Time Use........................................................................................................................ I-2

Items on Professional Development ............................................................................................. I-4

Items on Barriers to Dismissal...................................................................................................... I-4

Items on Teacher and School Performance................................................................................... I-4

Attachment. Principal Questionnaire Items Tested ............................................................................. I-7
I-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Background 

This research was conducted in order to test modifications to items on the Principal Questionnaire that 

were made based on previous research. The research included items on time use, professional 

development, and state and district performance standards. 

Key Findings 

• Instruction to include time away from school in calculation of hours worked needs to be more 

apparent. 

• Respondents are including nonprofessional development activities when answering about 

methods for providing time for professional development. 

• Respondents were able to understand and answer the items on state/district standards. 

Methods 

Researchers from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Demographic Surveys Division conducted this study on 

March 31, 2003, and April 1, 2003. Low and high performing schools were identified through state and 

district internet sites. The definition of low and high performing varied by state. Principals were contacted 

by phone and asked if they would be willing to participate in a brief telephone interview. Four principals 

participated in this study and made arrangements to speak with an interviewer. Information about the 

respondents can be found in table I-1. The study questions were faxed to the principals in advance of the 

interview. At the scheduled times, the interviewer contacted the principals and asked them to read aloud 

and think aloud as they answered each question. The interviewer probed following a protocol. A copy of 

the items can be found in the Attachment. Principals were sent a copy of the 1999–2000 SASS overview 

as an incentive for participating in the study. This is a small-scale qualitative study and caution should be 

used in interpreting the findings. 

Table I-1. Characteristics of respondents in cognitive test on principal questionnaire items: 2003 

Respondent State School type Performance Form 

1 Ohio Middle/High Low 1 

2 Missouri Elementary Low 1 

3 Arizona Elementary High 1 

4 Missouri High High 1 

SOURCE: Report on a Follow-Up Cognitive Testing to Select 2003–04 SASS Principal Items, U.S. Census Bureau, 2003. 

Detailed Findings 

Items on Time Use 

Hours per Week 

Respondents tended to focus only on time spent at school, rather than including all time spent on schoolrelated activities. 

Respondent 1 included only time she is physically at the school. When probed she added in additional 

time. 
Appendix I. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to Select 2003–04 SASS Principal Items I-3 

Respondent 2 did not include work (contract) hours. She missed the note to include this time in the 

instruction. The note should be emphasized or incorporated into the item. She also included only time 

spent at work (although she indicated that she tries to avoid working from home). 

Respondent 3 estimated her usual day, which is 11 hours, and then multiplied by 5 days a week and added 

time for the weekends to give her answer. 

Respondent 4 underreported because he did not include time spent working at home. 

Recommendation: Add instruction that respondents should include both time spent at school and time 

away from school. 

Interacting with Students 

This item captured formal and informal interactions with students as well as positive and negative 

(discipline) interactions. No changes are required for this item. 

Respondent 1 included formal and informal time. 

Respondent 2 included discipline problems, walking the hallways, lunch, and dismissal. 

Respondent 3 included formal and informal: walking hallways, lunch duty, time in/out of classrooms, and 

discipline. 

Respondent 4 included formal and informal: lunchroom, hallway, activities, running into kids, having 

kids come down to his office. 

Recommendation: Use item as tested. 

Contract Year 

Respondents reported a variety of contract years. However, in a couple of cases this contract did not fully 

represent the number of months a principal works at a school. 

Respondent 1 reported an 11-month contract, but when probed, reported working a full 12-month year. 

Respondent 2 reported 101⁄2 months for this item, but included a contract for summer school in the 

calculation which should not be counted here. 

Respondent 3 reported a 101⁄2 month contract but said that since this is her first year as a principal at this 

school, she expected to work a full 12 months getting ready for the upcoming year. 

Respondent 4 reported working 12 months. 

Recommendation: Clarify objective of this item—will it be used to calculate salary or time spent working 

at the school? 
I-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Items on Professional Development 

Does Your School Have Its Own Budget... 

Respondent 2 included funding from Title I and the district, which did not appear to be a specific 

professional development budget. 

Are the Following Used to Provide Teachers in This School.... 

Common planning time for teachers? 

Respondent 1 answered for school policies in general, not specifically thinking about time for 

professional development. 

Respondent 2 included professional development activities here (long-term planning, vertical planning, 

etc.). 

Reduced teacher workload 

Respondent 1 was not thinking specifically about professional development. She answered for coaching 

and department head, not for general professional development activities. 

Recommendation: Emphasize that each item needs to be directly related to professional development. 

Items on Barriers to Dismissal 

Respondent 1 seemed to understand this item well. She indicated that some items (a/f; c/d) sounded 

familiar, however, was still able to understand that each item was approaching the issue from a different 

angle. 

Respondent 4 thought about these as considerations but not barriers. The respondent indicated that the 

only barrier is having enough paperwork that will stand up in court. 

Personnel Policies 

Respondent 3 initially indicated that she was not sure what this item was asking. When probed further she 

said “district policies.” 

Recommendation: Use item as tested. 

Items on Teacher and School Performance 

Are These Standards Aligned With State Content Standards? 

Respondent 1 answered “yes” because her district originally developed the standards, and then the state 

copied them for use statewide. It was not clear that there was a connection between content standards and 

the performance standards. 

Respondent 2 asked if state and district performance standards are the same. She was not sure of the 

difference in her state. 
Appendix I. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to Select 2003–04 SASS Principal Items I-5 

Respondent 3 indicated that state academic standards and the test that assessesthe standards are aligned. 

Three tests are used to satisfy the requirements: State, District, and Stanford 9 (national). 

Respondent 4 interpreted the question as “Do we have a strategic plan for the district and then an 

individual plan for the school, and they all align with the state?” and indicated that this was the case. 

Recommendation: Use item as tested. 

Which of the Following Best Describes This School’s Performance Last School Year? 

Respondent 2 chose b (passed most district and state performance standards) because the math 

requirement was not reached for certain minority groups. However, because this is the first year they are 

required to follow the standards, they have not been penalized or rewarded yet. 

Respondent 4 indicated that in his state there are 12 standards. The score on the standards falls into three 

levels: accredited with distinction (11–12 standards met), accredited (7–10 met), and unacceptable (less 

than 7 met). 

Recommendation: Use item as tested. 

As a Result of Meeting These Goals Last School Year... 

a. Receive cash bonus 

Respondent 3’s school received cash for meeting the standards. Monies come from the state but are 

distributed by the school based on goals set by a school-site council. 

As a Result of Not Meeting Standards Were You... 

a. Required to write a school improvement plan 

Respondent 2 answered “yes” but indicated that a written plan is required of the school for reasons 

unrelated to performance. 

b. Put on an evaluation cycle 

Respondent 1 indicated that all schools in her school’s city are required to be audited every 2 years. Even 

though this is not performance related, she answered “yes.” 

c. Provided with additional resources... 

Respondent 2 answered “yes,” but these resources came from Title I and federal grant administered 

through the state—21st century grant. 

Recommendation: Use item as tested. 
I-6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Do You Use Any of the Following to Assess the School’s Progress on This Plan? 

a. Student portfolios 

Respondent 2 answered “yes” because her school uses a quarterly assessment of writing, math skills, 

comprehension, etc.; however, it is not referred to as a “portfolio.” 

Recommendation: Use item as tested. 
Appendix I. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to Select 2003–04 SASS Principal Items I-7 

Attachment. Principal Questionnaire Items Tested 

I. Time Use 

These next items ask about the organization of your time at this school. 

1. How many total hours do you spend on ALL school-related activities during a typical FULL WEEK 

at this school? 

• Include time during school hours and time spent working before school, after school, and on 

weekends. 

Total weekly hours /__/__/__/ 

2. How many total hours do you spend interacting with students during a typical FULL WEEK at this 

school? *Include both formal and informal interactions. 

 Total weekly hours /__/__/__/ 

3. How many months is your contract year? Mark only one box. 

 Less than 9 months 

 9 months 

 91⁄2 months 

 10 months 

 101⁄2 months 

 11 months 

 111⁄2 months 

 12 months 

II. Teacher and Principal Professional Development 

Items 4–6: This section asks about professional development opportunities and activities for teachers. 

4. Does your school have its own budget for professional development, that is, an amount of money that 

YOU control? 

(0172)  Yes 

  No 

5. Does this school provide INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES with time for professional development during 

regular contract hours? 

*Instructional aides are sometimes called paraprofessionals. 

(New)  Yes 

  No 
I-8 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

6a. Does this school provide TEACHERS with time for professional development during regular 

contract hours? 

(0164)  Yes 

  No Æ GO TO item 7. 

6b. Are the following used to provide teachers in this school with time for professional development 

during regular contract hours? 

 1) Substitute teachers to cover teachers’ classes

 (0165)  Yes 

  No 

2) Early dismissal or late start for students 

 (0166)  Yes 

  No 

3) Professional days built in before the beginning of the students’ school year 

 (0167)  Yes 

  No 

4) Professional days built in during the students’ school year 

 (0168)  Yes 

  No 

5) Professional days built in after the students’ school year 

 (0169)  Yes 

  No 

 6) Common planning time for teachers 

 (0170)  Yes 

  No 

 7) Reduced teacher work loads (less time in the classroom with students or less time on assigned 

non-instructional duties) 

 (0171)  Yes 

 No 
Appendix I. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to Select 2003–04 SASS Principal Items I-9 

III. Teacher and School Performance 

Items 7–12: This section asks about teacher performance, school performance, and district or state 

performance goals. 

7. Are the following considerations barriers to the dismissal of poor or incompetent teachers in this 

school? 

a. Personnel policies 

(0174)  Yes 

  No 

b. Termination decisions not upheld 

 (0175)  Yes 

  No 

c. Length of time required for termination process 

 (New)  Yes 

  No

d. Effort required for documentation 

 (New)  Yes 

  No 

e. Tenure 

 (0177)  Yes 

  No 

f. Teacher associations or unions 

 (0178)  Yes 

  No 

g. Dismissal is too stressful and/or uncomfortable for you 

 (0179)  Yes 

  No

h. Difficulty in obtaining suitable replacements 

 (New)  Yes 

 No

i. Resistance from parents 

 (New)  Yes 

 No
I-10 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

8a. Has either your district or state established school performance standards? 

(0207)  Yes 

  No Æ GO TO Item 12. 

8b. Are these performance standards aligned with state content standards? 

(New)  Yes 

  No 

8c. LAST SCHOOL YEAR (2001–02) was your school required to meet district or state performance 

standards? 

(New)  Yes 

  No Æ GO TO Item 12 below. 

9. Which of the following best describes this school’s performance last year-- 

 a. Passed all district and state performance standards.Æ GO TO Item 10. 

 b. Passed most district and state performance standards.Æ GO TO Item 11. 

 c. Passed some district and state performance standards.Æ GO TO Item 11. 

 d. Passed no district and state performance standards.Æ GO TO Item 11. 

10. As a result of meeting these goals LAST SCHOOL YEAR (2001–02) did your school -- 

 a. Receive cash bonuses or additional resources that support schoolwide activities? 

(0210)  Yes 

  No 

 b. Receive cash bonuses or additional resources to distribute to teachers? 

(0211)  Yes 

  No 

c. Receive non-monetary forms of recognition? 

(0212)  Yes-- Please specify Æ 5212_____________________ 

  No 

STOP Æ GO TO END 
Appendix I. Report on a Follow-up Cognitive Testing to Select 2003–04 SASS Principal Items I-11 

11. As a result of not meeting some or all of your state performance standards LAST SCHOOL YEAR 

(2001–02), was this school -- 

a. Required to write a school or program improvement plan? 

 (0214) 1  Yes 

 2  No 

b. Put on an evaluation cycle with required targeted improvement dates? 

 (0215) 1  Yes 

 2  No 

c. Provided with additional resources to support instructional improvement? 

 (0217) 1  Yes 

 2  No 

d. Penalized by a reduction in resources? 

 (0220) 1  Yes 

 2  No 

e. Required to replace the principal with a new principal, an administrative director, or a 

manager?

 (0218) 1  Yes 

 2  No 

f. Subject to reconstitution or takeover regulations? 

 (0219) 1  Yes 

 2  No 

g. Required to provide supplemental educational services (e.g., extra classes or tutoring by an 

outside provider) to students at no cost to themselves or their families?

 (New) 1  Yes 

 2  No 

h. Required to provide a school “choice” program in which students can attend other schools 

within the district, schools in other districts, or private schools at no tuition cost to themselves or 

 their families?

 (New) 1  Yes 

 2 No 
I-12 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

12a. Does this school have a formal school improvement plan? 

 (0221) 1  Yes 

 2  No Æ GO TO end. 

12b. Do you use any of the following to assess this school’s progress on this plan? 

1) State or national tests 

 (0222) 1  Yes 

 2  No 

2) Parent or student surveys 

 (0223) 1  Yes 

 2  No 

3) Student portfolios 

 (0224) 1  Yes 

 2  No 
J-1 

Appendix J. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on 

SASS School Library Media Center Questions 

This appendix contains a report prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, and it is organized as follows. 

Background ......................................................................................................................................... J-2

Key Findings ....................................................................................................................................... J-2

Methods............................................................................................................................................... J-2

Detailed Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................... J-3

Item 1a–c: Full- and Part-Time Paid Positions ............................................................................. J-3

Item 2: Skip Instruction ................................................................................................................ J-3

Item 3: Education Level................................................................................................................ J-3

Item 4: Earned a Master’s Degree in Library-Related Field......................................................... J-3

Item 5a&b: Computer Workstations............................................................................................. J-4

Item 6a: Computer Hardware Budget ........................................................................................... J-4

Item 7a&b: Audio-Visual Budget.................................................................................................J-4

Items 8a–f: Scheduling ................................................................................................................. J-4

Item 9: Formal Literacy Training to Librarians ............................................................................ J-5

Item 10: Formal Literacy Training to Teachers............................................................................ J-5

Item 11: Content Standards in Information Literacy .................................................................... J-5

Item 12: Information Literacy Curriculum ................................................................................... J-5

Item 13: Information Literacy in Standardized Testing................................................................ J-5

Item 14: Feedback on Information Literacy in Standardized Testing........................................... J-6

Item 15: Library/Teacher Collaboration ....................................................................................... J-6

Information Literacy Definitions .................................................................................................. J-6

Attachment. Protocol........................................................................................................................... J-7
J-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Background 

In order to test proposed changes to the School Library Media Center Questionnaire, researchers 

conducted a small qualitative research study in March 2003. The test covered some items from the 1999–

2000 School Library Media Center questionnaire as well as new items. 

Key Findings 

Testing identified the following cognitive issues with the proposed items:

• Some respondents misunderstood the term “information literacy.” 

• All respondents had trouble answering budget questions for computer hardware and audio-visual 

equipment. 

• Most respondents confused specific questions about information literacy in standardized testing 

with general standardized testing. 

• Some items in the scheduling table were either not applicable or needed clarification. 

Methods 

Researchers from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Demographic Surveys Division conducted this research from 

March 20 to March 25, 2003. Schools were contacted by phone and asked if their librarian would 

participate in the study. When contact was established with the school librarians, they were asked the 

following questions: 

• Are you familiar with the term information literacy? 

• What does information literacy mean to you? 

A questionnaire was then faxed to the school and an appointment was set for the researcher to call the 

librarian directly. A concurrent interview was conducted by phone following a structured protocol. (See 

attachment.) The interviewer was free to deviate from the protocol as required. Interviews lasted 25 to 98 

minutes. Librarians were offered a copy of the 1999–2000 Overview of the Schools and Staffing Survey as 

an incentive for participation. 

Table J-1. Characteristics of respondents in cognitive test on school library media center 

questionnaire items: 2003 

Respondent State 

1 South Carolina 

2 Montana 

3 Georgia 

4 West Virginia 

5 Maine 

6 North Dakota 

7 Washington 

SOURCE: Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS School Library Media Center Questions, U.S. Census Bureau, 2003. 
Appendix J. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Library Media Center Questions J-3 

Detailed Findings and Recommendations 

Item 1a–c: Full- and Part-Time Paid Positions 

In three states (West Virginia, Washington, North Dakota), the respondents reported that the state does 

not certify Library Media Specialists. Instead the librarians reported that they have a teaching certificate 

and an endorsement from the American Library Association. These respondents marked “yes” to being 

full time. Respondent 6 stated that there is not a college that grants a degree in library science or a related 

field. The colleges do offer classes in library science and it is possible to obtain a minor in library science. 

(This respondent has a minor in library science.) 

Recommendation: Clarify “state certified in library media” or question if the state has a certification 

process specific to library media. 

Item 2: Skip Instruction 

Respondents 1 and 7 both had trouble interpreting the skip instruction. They were unsure if both 1a and 

1b had to be marked in order to skip. 

Recommendation: Capitalize and bold “AND.” 

Item 3: Education Level 

Respondent 6 marked associate’s degree as his highest degree even though he actually had a bachelor of 

arts degree in English because he thought the question wanted to know about degrees in a library related 

field. His minor was library science, and he felt that the credits he had accumulated in library studies were 

the equivalent of an associate’s degree. He also commented that the word “particular” in the instructions 

was a bad wording choice that led him to believe that the question referred to library specific degrees. 

Respondent 4 commented that there should be a category for a master’s + degree. Respondent 5 kept 

emphasizing that she almost had a master’s degree as her highest degree, but she did check bachelor’s as 

her highest degree. She seemed very concerned that we know that she was close to achieving the master’s 

degree. 

Recommendation: Eliminate the bullet “If no paid professional staff have a particular degree as their 

highest degree mark the ‘None’ box for that degree.” It is confusing and it seems that a respondent would 

not fill out an item that did not apply to them. Consider adding categories that account for degrees plus 

credits such as masters + 30. 

Item 4: Earned a Master’s Degree in Library-Related Field 

Respondents 3 and 1 thought this item was redundant and commented that they had already answered this 

in item 3. Respondents 4 and 7 answered that they had one paid professional staff member with a master’s 

in a library-related field even though they had master’s degrees in communications and English, 

respectively. In some states this degree does not exist (North Dakota and possibly others). 

Recommendation: Change wording to, “Now thinking about all of the paid professional library media 

staff, how many have earned a master’s degree in a library-related education field?” or clarify example 

list. 
J-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Item 5a&b: Computer Workstations 

All respondents reported computer workstations in the physical library with Internet access. Item seems to 

be reliable. 

Item 6a: Computer Hardware Budget 

All seven respondents reported that the school library media center did not have a budget for computer 

hardware. Many received a budget per pupil but this money generally went toward books. They all said 

the school or the school district has a technology budget in which they can put in requests for more 

computer equipment but that it is no guarantee of receiving the equipment. 

Recommendation: Review the last Private School Universe Survey for reporting of this item. Consider 

changing the wording and adding a screener question such as: Does this library media center have a 

budget? What is included in this budget? A. Audio-visual, yes/no, how much? B. Computer hardware, 

yes/no, how much?, etc. 

The current question may not result in responses that adequately reflect the expenditure on computer 

hardware. It may make sense to delete the question entirely. 

Item 7a&b: Audio-Visual Budget 

All seven respondents had the same comments for this question as they did for item 6a above. In all cases 

the library has a budget that could be used for whatever the librarian deemed necessary. Much of the 

audio-visual equipment received came from the technology budget for the school or school district. 

Respondent 5 commented that she was on the technology committee and is able to have more influence in 

getting audio-visual equipment for the library. 

Recommendation: See comments for item 6a above. 

Items 8a–f: Scheduling 

Respondents 5, 2, and 4 were unsure if the question had to do with hours the library is open, daily 

schedule (lunch, etc.), or the usage of library space. Respondent 4 suggested trimming the wording in 

item f to “classroom teacher.” There were questions among all of the respondents as to what was meant 

by item f, was it teachers scheduling classes in the library, librarians teaching a class to a specific 

teacher’s class, or teachers letting children use the library for projects? Respondents 1, 5, and 4 did not 

understand what was meant by a site-based management team (item 8c). 

Recommendations: Clarify stem to read, “How much influence do you think each group or person has on 

scheduling space in the library media center?” Change item f to “classroom teachers.” 

We have removed school site council from some of the principal questions and probably should remove 

school site council from this questionnaire. 

Many schools do not have unions. Consider substituting teacher union or association (as we have on other 

surveys). Also, respondent 6 recommends changing it to teacher union. 

Add a “Not Applicable” column because respondents were hesitant to check off any of the categories if 

the item did not apply. 
Appendix J. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Library Media Center Questions J-5 

Respondents suggested adding parents, guidance staff, and public. 

Item 9: Formal Literacy Training to Librarians 

Six of the respondents said that formal literacy training was not supplied by the school, state, or district. 

Respondent 3 said that in-techs (training classes) are supplied, but he had not attended any in the last 12 

months. Respondent 7 received some formal training sponsored by an association. Respondent 6 said that 

he is required to get formal training for his certification but must find it on his own. 

Recommendation: Consider adding “library association” to the stem. 

Item 10: Formal Literacy Training to Teachers 

Six of the respondents answered “no” to this question. Respondent 1 commented that she gives her own 

informal version of information literacy training to teachers. Respondent 4 answered “yes” to this 

question. Respondent 4 seems to have misinterpreted what was meant by information literacy because she 

said that she helps kids in poverty with their vocabulary and showed the teachers how to use a digital 

camera. 

Recommendation: Consider adding “library association” to the stem. 

Item 11: Content Standards in Information Literacy 

Respondents 5 and 7 were not sure if the school follows content standards. Respondent 3 follows state 

standards, one American Library Association information power, respondent 1 follows the Southern 

Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) standards. 

Recommendations: None. The question seems reliable. 

Item 12: Information Literacy Curriculum 

Respondents 1 and 3 said that information literacy is part of the curriculum as a whole. Respondent 1 

commented that the schools in his state teach to the test because they are evaluated on the results of 

standardized tests. Respondent 3 had a similar comment to respondent 1 about the state tests, and he 

further said that the curriculum is developed to create lifelong learners. Respondent 6 was not sure what 

information literacy meant but said that the school does follow a library curriculum that teaches the 

students how to use the systems and look information up on the computer. Respondent 2 checked “no” 

and said that there is no formal curriculum, rather teachers and librarians collaborate. 

Recommendation: Question seems to work; however, it may be better to phrase it in the following way: Is 

information literacy part of this school’s curriculum? 

Item 13: Information Literacy in Standardized Testing 

Six of the seven respondents answered “yes” and all that answered yes seemed to focus on standardized 

testing in general and commented that there may be a few questions on the test pertaining to library 

reference. 
J-6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Recommendation: Since most of the respondents focused specifically on standardized testing it may be 

better to break the question into two parts: 1. Are students required to take standardized tests? 2. Do these 

standardized tests include questions or a section on information literacy skills? 

Item 14: Feedback on Information Literacy in Standardized Testing 

Five of the seven respondents answered “yes.” They all had the same general comments that they did not 

specifically get feedback but that anyone had access to this information if they wanted it. Respondent 3 

answered “no” and said that he received verbal feedback from teachers. Respondent 5 said as the librarian 

she received very little feedback on anything. 

Recommendations: None. The question seems reliable. 

Item 15: Library/Teacher Collaboration 

Respondent 5 answered 10 percent and said that last year she taught library skills classes but all were cut 

out of this year’s budget. Respondent 1 answered typically 50 percent, respondent 6 answered none, and 

respondent 2 answered 95 percent. Respondent 7 answered 25 percent and commented that library media 

skills are considered adjunct at best. Respondent 4 answered 75 percent and commented that all teachers 

bring classes to her to teach library skills. Respondent 3 answered 50 percent and commented that he 

usually goes to the teachers to see if he can help. 

Recommendations: None. Question seems to work. 

Respondents were asked to define information literacy before taking the survey. 

Respondents 4 and 6 said they were not familiar with the term. 

Information Literacy Definitions 

The respondents defined “information literacy” in the following ways: 

• “Access to databases, print, online materials, being able to access whatever resources you can” 

(respondent 5). 

• “Being able to access information quickly and easily” (respondent 2). 

• “Knowing how to access, comprehend, use, and understand what you read. Being literate about 

information” (respondent 1). 

• “Being able to gather information, knowing where, when, and how to gather information” 

(respondent 3). 

• “Everything I do all day long” (respondent 7). 
Appendix J. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Library Media Center Questions J-7 

Attachment. Protocol 

School Name: _____________________ 

Phone Number: ____________________ 

City: ___________ State: _____________________________ 

Hello. My name is (state name). I am calling from the U.S. Census Bureau in regards to a study we 

are conducting. Does this school have a library media center? 

If no library, recruit for teacher. 

May I please speak with librarian? What is their name? 

________________________ 

(when speaking with librarian) 

Hello. My name is (state name). I am calling from the U.S. Census Bureau in regards to a short 

study that we are conducting on behalf of the National Center for Education Statistics (part of the 

Department of Education). Every 4 years the Census Bureau conducts the Schools and Staffing 

Survey for NCES. One of the surveys in SASS is aimed at Library Media Centers, and we would 

like your help in improving this questionnaire. This should only require around 15 minutes of your 

time, and I will be sending you booklet of results from the last SASS as a thank you for your time. 

If respondent agrees: 

I would like to fax you some of the questions that we are interested in studying and then arrange a 

time that is convenient for you to have a researcher to call you to go over the questions. 

Could I have your fax number? ________________________ 

What time would be best to call you back? _______________ 

What number should I reach you on? ___________________ 

So that I can send you the booklet, could I please have your mailing address? 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

(Verify spelling of name) ________________________________ 

I’d like to ask you one quick question as well. 

Are you familiar with the term information literacy? 

yes 

no 
J-8 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

What does information literacy mean to you? 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Thank you for your time today, (a representative) _____ will be calling you at _________ 

(appointment time) to go through the questionnaire that I am faxing to you. Please wait until he/she 

calls you to answer the questions. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 1.800.221.1204. 
Appendix J. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Library Media Center Questions J-9 

As we go through this questionnaire I would like for you to read the questions aloud. I 

would also like you to use a method called “thinking aloud.” What I mean by this is, as you 

go through the questions, please tell me what you are thinking about the question and what 

the question or specific words and/or phrases mean to you. I may interrupt periodically to 

ask questions or to remind you to “think aloud.” 

I. Staffing 

These questions ask about the number of professional, clerical, and volunteer staff in your library and the 

degrees held by the professional staff members. 

1. Around the first of October, did any staff members hold FULL-TIME or PART-TIME paid positions 

or assignments in this library media center in each of the following categories: 

 a. Paid state-certified library media specialists 

__ Yes Æ How many? ------------- 

FULL-TIME PART-TIME

/__/__/ /__/__/ 

__ No 

What is the process for state certification for library media specialists in your state? For 

this question, did you include library media specialists who were certified in other states 

but not this state?__________________ 

 b. Paid professional staff who are NOT certified as library media specialists? 

__ Yes Æ How many? ------------- /__/__/ /__/__/ 

__ No 

 c. Paid library aides or clerical staff 

__ Yes Æ How many? ------------- /__/__/ /__/__/ 

__ No 

What is the minimum amount of hours a staff member has to work to be considered full 

time? 
J-10 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

2. If you mark “NO” to items 1a and 1b then check here [ ] and go to item (5) on page 2. 

3. For this item: 

• Count each paid professional staff member only ONCE. Report each person by his/her highest 

degree earned. If no paid professional staff have a particular degree as their highest degree, mark 

the “None” box for that degree. 

• If this library media center does not have any paid professional staff, skip to item 5 on page 2. 

• Do not include library aides or clerical staff. 

How many of the paid professional library media center staff have earned the following as their highest 

degree: 

 a. A doctoral degree as their highest degree? 

 /__/__/ paid professional staff members 

 __ None 

 b. A master’s degree as their highest degree? 

 /__/__/ paid professional staff members 

 __ None 

 c. A bachelor’s degree as their highest degree? 

 /__/__/ paid professional staff members 

 __ None 

 d. An associate’s degree as their highest degree? 

 /__/__/ paid professional staff members 

 __ None 

If the respondent has listed more staff members in question “3” than they have listed in 

question “1” be sure to ask if they counted staff members for more than one category. For 

example: If a staff member has a master’s degree, did they list that same staff member in 

items 3a–c? 

4. How many of the paid professional library media staff have earned a master’s degree in a libraryrelated education field such as librarianship, educational media, instructional design, instructional 

technology, library science, or information science? 

 /__/__/ paid professional staff members 

 __ None 

What kind of library education related degree has this staff member earned? 
Appendix J. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Library Media Center Questions J-11 

II. Technology 

These items ask about technology resources in your school library media center. 

5a. How many computer workstations does the library media center have for student and staff use? 

 /__/__/__/__/ Computer workstations 

 __ None Æ GO TO item 6a 

Are these computer workstations located in the library facility? If they are located outside 

the library facility where are they located? 

 b. Of the computer workstations listed above, how many have access to the Internet? 

 /__/__/__/__/ Computer workstations 

 __ None 

6a. During the 2002–2003 school year, did this library media center have a budget for computer 

hardware? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No Æ GO TO Item 7a 

 b. What was the total expenditure for computer hardware for this library media center? 

Include expenditures for purchase, rental, and/or lease. 

 Report the amount in whole dollars. 

 $ /__/__/__/__/__/.00 

7a. During the 2002–2003 school year, did this library media center have a budget for OTHER audiovisual equipment? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No Æ GO TO Item 8 

b. What was the total expenditure for OTHER audio-visual equipment for this library media center? 

 Include expenditures for purchase, rental, repair, and/or lease. 

 Report the amount in whole dollars. 

$ /__/__/__/__/__/.00 

What types of items are included in the budget? 

Did you separate budget items according to computer hardware and other audio-visual 

equipment? 
J-12 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

What do you consider as computer hardware? 

What types of items are considered audio-visual equipment? 

Who determines the budget? 

How much control do you have over the budget? 

Is there a specific budget allocated for the library or is it included with the school’s overall 

budget? 

III. Scheduling 

We are interested in learning about the use of this library media center. 

8. How much influence do you think each group or person has on making library media center 

scheduling decisions? 

 *Mark (X) for each line. 

 No 

influence 

Minor 

influence 

Moderate 

influence 

Major 

influence 

a. Principal 

b. Library media center staff 

c. Site-based management team 

d. Union (through contract negotiations) 

e. School district 

f. Library media center staff collaborating with 

classroom teachers 

 

Are there any other groups or persons who are not listed above that have influence on 

making library media center scheduling decisions? If so, who are they? 
Appendix J. Results of the Cognitive Pretest on SASS Library Media Center Questions J-13 

IV. Information Literacy and Collaboration 

The items in this section ask about information literacy skills. Information Literacy is the ability to 

recognize when information is needed, and the ability to locate, evaluate, and effectively use the needed 

information. 

9. In the past TWELVE months, has the state, district, or school provided formal training on information 

literacy instruction to library media center staff? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

What do you consider formal training? 

10. In the past TWELVE months, has the state, district, or school provided formal training on information 

literacy instruction to teachers? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

If yes: what type of training was supplied? 

Was the training required? 

11. Does this school follow state, district, or school content standards in information literacy? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

If yes: which standards does your school follow? 

If no: is there a state, district, or school content standards in information literacy? 

12. Does this school follow an information literacy curriculum? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

If answer is yes: who developed the curriculum? 
J-14 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

13. Are students required to take standardized tests that include assessments on information literacy 

skills? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

14. Does the library media center receive formal feedback on students’ information literacy skills? 

 __ Yes 

 __ No 

If yes: what type of feedback do you receive? 

15. During the 2002–2003 school year, what percent of teachers in this school collaborated with the 

library media center staff to plan and deliver instruction? 

 /__/__/__/ percent of teachers in this school 

 __ None 
K-1 

Appendix K. Details of SASS Frame Creation and Sample 

Selection Procedures 

The details in this appendix support on the discussion in chapter 4. 

Using a Physical Location Definition for Schools .............................................................................K-2

The Problem: Physical Reality vs. Administrative Reality..........................................................K-2

Differences between SASS and CCD Numbers ..........................................................................K-3

Differences between SASS and the Adjusted CCD Frame..........................................................K-4

Respondent Error .........................................................................................................................K-5

Processing/Editing Burden...........................................................................................................K-6

Results of Using a Physical Location Definition for Schools in 2003–04 SASS...............................K-8

Collapsing Rules ..........................................................................................................................K-9

Address Matching ........................................................................................................................K-9

Criteria Application to CCD Collapsing......................................................................................K-9

Collapsing the Records ................................................................................................................K-9

Collapsing Results from the 2003–04 Sampling Frame ............................................................K-13

2003–04 SASS School Allocation Procedure ..................................................................................K-15

Public Schools............................................................................................................................K-15

Private Schools ..........................................................................................................................K-16

Documentation of the Sort Selection for the 2003–04 SASS Public and Private School 

Sampling...........................................................................................................................................K-16

Methodology..............................................................................................................................K-16

Results........................................................................................................................................K-17

Controlling the School Overlap with ELS........................................................................................K-18

Terminology...............................................................................................................................K-18

Conditional Selection Probabilities............................................................................................K-18

Investigation of School District Variances for 2003–04 SASS........................................................K-19

Methodology..............................................................................................................................K-19

Results........................................................................................................................................K-19

References ........................................................................................................................................K-19
K-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

This appendix contains the documentation for a number of topics related to the Schools and Staffing 

Survey (SASS) frame creation and sample selection procedures as discussed in chapter 4. The first topic 

discussed below is the decision to change from using the administrative definition of a public school to 

one based on the school’s physical location. The second issue involves the school sample allocation 

methodology for public and private schools. The third presents the research done to determine the sample 

sort order implemented to select public and private schools for the SASS sample. Fourth, a discussion of 

the methodology for controlling the overlap between SASS and the Education Longitudinal Study of 

2002 (ELS:2002) is presented. Finally, research into the school district variances is discussed that 

investigates whether all districts should be sampled from particular states. 

Using a Physical Location Definition for Schools 

In an effort to maximize the quality of SASS data a new step was added to the public school frame 

building process that was intended to more accurately reflect the public schools’ physical realities as 

defined by SASS. SASS has used the Common Core of Data (CCD) definition of a public school since 

1990–91 (the administrative reality as reported by the state) and specified this in the collection process. In 

most states, the physical reality of the school—the students, teachers, and administrators operating within 

a building as a single school—matched the administrative reality, but there were schools in a number of 

states where the data were inconsistent. Where this mismatch existed, there was a growing disparity 

between the respondents’ reported teacher and student counts and the CCD numbers because respondents 

often reported for more grades than were listed on CCD. The difference between the physical and 

administrative realities in the problematic states1

 significantly and negatively impacted the collection, 

processing, and measurement of SASS items. Changing the SASS frame to a physical reality would not 

negatively impact teacher and student counts in the states where there was little difference between the 

two, but would dramatically improve the quality of the data in the problem states. 

This section of the appendix describes the problems resulting from using the CCD definition of schools as 

the basis for collecting SASS data from a number of perspectives, explains the approach used to collapse 

schools, and then discusses how this new approach impacted the 2003–04 SASS sample. 

The Problem: Physical Reality vs. Administrative Reality 

The problem can be understood most readily by highlighting the different definitions of “public school.” 

Schools are the primary sampling unit for SASS. In SASS, a public school is defined as having at least 

one teacher and serving at least one grade between 1 and 12. Schools that only teach kindergarten, 

prekindergarten, or adult education are not included in the sample. The SASS principal and teacher 

surveys administered in conjunction with the school survey ask principals and teachers a number of 

important questions that relate to the school environment. Responses from the school surveys provide 

important student and teacher counts, measures of programs and services, as well as a number of other 

measures of the school’s environment. These questions focus on the school—the building, students, and 

staff—as the respondents understand and experience its physical reality. 

Since the 1990–91 administration, SASS has used CCD as the sampling frame. CCD is the Department of 

Education’s primary database on public elementary and secondary schools in the United States. CCD 

defines a public school as one that “provides educational services to students, has an assigned 

administrator, receives public funds as its primary support, and is operated by an educational agency” 

(Hoffman 2002, p. 24). Information is gathered annually on public schools through surveys sent to state 

 

1

 The list of “problematic states” varies with each administration as the operational definition of “problematic state” 

has varied. There were 10 problem states in the 1990–91 administration, 6 in the 1993–94, and 16 in the 1999–2000 

administration. Many of the same states are included on all three lists. 
Appendix K. Details of SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures K-3 

education departments. This information is largely based on administrative records maintained by state 

education agencies and reflects the school’s administrative reality. 

In most states, a school’s physical reality matches its administrative reality. Some states, however, assign 

multiple administrative units to one physical location or have two principals operating within a single 

building. For example, a state may classify schools by elementary and secondary levels and report 

Smalltown High School and Smalltown Elementary School. In fact, the school that operates in Smalltown 

may be Smalltown K–12. Because CCD defines schools according to their administrative unit, the cover 

of the survey will say either Smalltown High School or Smalltown Elementary School. It is this mismatch 

between the administrative reality and physical reality that is responsible for a number of problems in the 

data collected from the school survey. 

The three primary consequences of the mismatch between the physical and administrative definition of a 

school were visible in student enrollment and teacher overcounts, respondent error, and extensive data 

processing/editing of the raw data. The overcounting of students and teachers was identified as a problem 

when SASS estimates were compared to CCD estimates. Even after editing was completed, SASS 

estimates varied significantly from CCD numbers in several states. A more telling indicator, though, is 

the discrepancy between SASS estimates and CCD after it was adjusted to include only those schools 

meeting the SASS definition of school. SASS estimates should closely track those of its sampling frame. 

Diverging estimates point to recurring errors that can be addressed, at least in part, by better aligning the 

physical and administrative realities of schools. 

Differences between SASS and CCD Numbers 

For all administrations of the survey the SASS estimates have differed from CCD. Differences at the 

national level suggest that student counts were measured most accurately by SASS in 1987–88. The 

differences at the national level masked more dramatic variation occurring at the state level. For the most 

recent three administrations of SASS, the SASS estimates have been compared to the CCD numbers at 

the state level. As can be seen below, there are recurring problems in a number of states. The differences 

noted below remained after extensive editing of the responses. 

1999–2000 SASS 

• For four states, the SASS final estimate for teachers was more than 105 percent of the CCD 

number: Alabama, Massachusetts, Montana, and Pennsylvania. There were no states with 

estimates larger than 110 percent of CCD. 

• For two states, the enrollment count exceeded the CCD number by more than 105 percent: 

Pennsylvania and South Dakota. 

1993–94 SASS 

• For 17 states, the CCD number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers exceeded one standard 

error of the SASS estimate. Two of those states, Montana and Wyoming, were identified as 

problem states for that administration. A total of eight states appeared on the list of the problem 

states in the 1999–2000 SASS: Arkansas, Colorado, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Rhode Island, 

Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

• For eight states, the enrollment number on CCD was not within one standard error of the SASS 

estimate. These states included California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Nevada, and Rhode Island. 
K-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

1990–91 SASS 

• For 16 states, the number of FTE teachers on CCD was not within one standard error of the SASS 

estimate. Three of these states, Montana, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, were considered problem 

states during this administration of SASS. A total of eight states were problem states again in the 

1999–2000 SASS: Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Wisconsin, 

and Wyoming. 

• For four states, the student enrollment number on CCD was not within one standard error of the 

SASS estimate: New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota. 

Differences between SASS and the Adjusted CCD Frame 

In most states, benchmarking SASS estimates with CCD counts does make sense and is a useful way to 

evaluate the data. However, it is worth noting that there are reasons to expect SASS estimates to diverge 

from CCD estimates and for this reason SASS is not poststratified to match CCD. While SASS uses CCD 

as a sampling frame, the CCD frame is changed in a number of ways before drawing the SASS sample. 

Schools on the CCD frame that are excluded from SASS because they do not meet the SASS definition 

include: schools that are closed (they stay on CCD for a year after closing), schools not offering at least 

1st grade, and homeschools. In addition, there are frame building activities in California and Pennsylvania 

where previous administrations have identified a number of administrative units that are operating as 

schools according to the SASS definition but are not included on the CCD frame. Consequently, the 

classification of specialized districts followed in CCD is disaggregated for SASS. Finally, the purpose of 

SASS also distinguishes it from CCD. SASS is designed to provide data about the school’s functional 

reality, or its environment, while CCD focuses on administrative units and imposes this uniform 

definition of school from state to state. The notion that SASS should match CCD fails to acknowledge 

these differences. 

The differences between the enrollment and teacher counts from CCD and from the adjusted CCD, as 

illustrated in table K-1, are the result of changes in the definition of public school as used for CCD. 

However, the final SASS estimates still deviated significantly from the adjusted frame in several states. In 

the 1999–2000 SASS, the extensive editing process to which the data were subjected did bring student 

counts much closer to the adjusted CCD counts—only one state had an enrollment count that was more 

than 10 percent of the adjusted CCD. However, the gap between the adjusted CCD and final SASS 

estimates for the number of teachers increased. In 10 states the final SASS weighted estimates of teachers 

exceeded the adjusted CCD counts by more than 15 percent. These states were: District of Columbia, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and 

Virginia. An additional 16 states had edited weighted estimates of teachers that exceeded the adjusted 

CCD counts by more than 10 percent. 

Notably, the SASS estimates were closer to CCD than they were to the sampling frame. It is expected that 

the CCD numbers and SASS estimates would differ because of the changes that were made to the CCD 

before schools were sampled from it. It is reasonable to expect, though, that the SASS estimates should be 

close to the sampling frame’s counts. For several states, this expectation was not met. One cause of this 

error was the continuing mismatch in definition of a public school used by SASS and the sampling frame. 
Appendix K. Details of SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures K-5 

Table K-1. National teacher and student enrollment totals based on Schools and Staffing Survey 

(SASS), Common Core of Data (CCD), and adjusted CCD frame numbers, by survey 

administration: 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 

Survey 

administration 

Edited SASS 

final estimates CCD

SASS as a 

percentage of CCD

Adjusted 

CCD frame 

SASS as a percentage

 of adjusted CCD frame

1999–2000 

 Teachers 2,889,275 1 2,906,554 2 99.41 2,612,307 3 110.60

 Enrollment 45,099,507 1 46,857,321 2 96.25 45,417,830 3 99.30

 

1993–94 

 Teachers 2,501,112 4 2,505,074 5 99.84 — —

 Enrollment 41,621,660 6 43,476,268 5 95.73 — —

 

1990–917

 Teachers 2,255,331 2,397,351 94.08 — —

 Enrollment 40,092,448 41,223,804 97.26 — —

 

1987–888 

 Teachers — — — — —

 Enrollment 39,911,968 40,068,780 99.61 — —

— Not available. 

1

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

Questionnaire” and “Teacher Questionnaire,” 1999–2000. 2

 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey 

of Public Elementary/Secondary Education,” 1999–2000. 3

 Analysis run by the Census Bureau for National Center for Education Statistics. 4

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

Demand and Shortage Questionnaire,” 1993–94. 

5

 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1995, May). Statistics in Brief: Public School Student, 

Staff, and Graduate Counts by State, School Year 1993–94 (NCES 95–213). 6

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

Questionnaire,” 1993–94. 

7

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

Demand and Shortage Questionnaire,” 1990–91. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 

Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Education Agency Universe,” 1990–91. 8

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

Questionnaire,” 1987–88. 

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

School Questionnaire,” 1993–94; “School Questionnaire,” 1987–88, 1999–2000; “Teacher Demand and Shortage 

Questionnaire,” 1990–91, 1993–94; “Teacher Questionnaire, “ 1999–2000; Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public Education 

Agency Universe,” 1990–91; “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education,” 1999–2000; Statistics in 

Brief: Public School Student, Staff, and Graduate Counts by State, School Year 1993–94, Common Core of Data (CCD), “State 

Nonfiscal Survey,” 1993–94. 

Respondent Error 

The most serious problem attributable to the mismatch between the sampling frame and the physical 

reality of the schools was respondent error. Typically, teachers and students were overcounted because 

the schools reported on all grades served, rather than the specific range of grades assigned to them by the 

sampling frame. Consider the example of Smalltown School, a school operating as a K–12 school in a 

problem state. CCD would list Smalltown Elementary and Smalltown High School as separate schools on 

the sampling frame. In many instances such as this, one of these two administrative units is sampled. 

When Smalltown K–12 receives the SASS school survey, the respondent might fill out the school survey 

reporting on Smalltown K–12 regardless of whether the survey is addressed to Smalltown Elementary or 
K-6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Smalltown High School. The respondent error is identified when the student and teacher counts for a 

school differ significantly from the expected enrollment and teacher counts as reported on the frame. 

In the 1999–2000 administration, there were nine states with unedited weighted teacher counts that were 

more than 115 percent of the adjusted CCD count for the state. These estimates ranged from 117.8 

percent in Arkansas to 202.9 percent in Virginia.2

 An additional nine states had counts that were between 

110 and 115 percent of the adjusted frame. Three states had unedited weighted student counts that were 

greater than 115 percent of the adjusted CCD counts and an additional five states had enrollment counts 

that were between 107 and 115 percent of the adjusted CCD. Census Bureau staff indicated that the 

evidence suggested that schools were reporting for the physical reality of the school rather than the 

administrative reality of the school or, in some instances, reporting the district counts rather than the 

school counts. 

There is less detailed documentation of the pre-edit counts of teachers and students by state from earlier 

administrations, but there is documentation of similar problems. 

1993–94 SASS 

• Six hundred and sixty-two public school records, or 7.3 percent of the sample, were rejected 

because the number of teachers reported was at least 25 percent greater than expected. 

• Three hundred and ninety-eight public school records, or 4.4 percent of the sample, were rejected 

because the number of students reported was at least 20 percent greater than expected. 

• Five states and the District of Columbia had high edit rejection rates (the percentage of records 

rejected within each state is in parentheses): Montana (20.6 percent of records); New Jersey (8.2 

percent of records); North Dakota (29.2 percent of records); South Dakota (25.7 percent of 

records); Wyoming (32.4 percent of records); District of Columbia (35.6 percent of records). 

1990–91 SASS 

• Nine states had full-time-equivalent teacher counts that were at least 15 percent greater than those 

reported on CCD: Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 

South Dakota, and Wisconsin. 

• Three hundred schools from 10 states were edited for consistency with CCD, including the nine 

states listed above plus Arizona. Thus, 16.2 percent of the sample from these 10 states were 

edited to match CCD. 

1987–88 SASS 

• There were significant overcounts for students and teachers. 

• Respondents erroneously reported for physical reality of school rather than administrative reality 

and for districts rather than schools. 

• Recollection of some data and significant editing resulted in processing delays. 

Processing/Editing Burden 

The failure of respondents to provide answers consistent with the CCD’s definition of the school resulted 

in a lengthy editing process. These edits included some that were relatively straightforward and made 

corrections based upon frame information, which identified respondent “mistakes.” These corrections, 

however, required consistency edits to variables when reasonable assumptions could be made and, finally, 

 

2

 The discrepancy in Virginia was also attributable to the fact that the population count of teachers was based on an 

imputed count from CCD. (Virginia did not reported its teacher counts to CCD for many years.) However, the next 

highest discrepancies were 141.7 percent in South Dakota and 140.5 in Montana. 
Appendix K. Details of SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures K-7 

edits to variables when the evidence was vague or ambiguous. Each SASS administration has required 

significant editing efforts to address problems related to this issue. The details of the 1999–2000 SASS 

processing operation are outlined below. 

Schools that reported grade ranges inconsistent with CCD and that had teacher or student counts that 

varied by more than 30 percent from the frame were sent through a pre-editing process. Each of these 

cases was evaluated individually. The grade range of these schools was compared to the frame. If a school 

reported grade levels inconsistent with CCD, then those “extra” grade levels were deleted from the SASS 

file. Subsequently, teachers in those grades that were no longer considered a part of the school were 

reclassified as out-of-scope. The number of students and teachers was reduced proportionally based upon 

the appropriate grades listed on the frame. These two counts were the variables for which Census had 

accurate frame information. 

The problem with the teacher count was magnified when there was a physical/administrative reality 

mismatch because of the way teachers were counted in SASS. If the actual school contained more grades 

than the sampled school, respondents to the Teacher Listing Form were asked to count teachers teaching 

part time within the expected grade range and part time outside the expected grade range as part-time 

teachers. Respondents often reported these full-time teachers at the physical school as full-time teachers 

at the administrative school. This process inflated the number of full-time teachers, especially in small 

schools. 

After resolving the student and teacher counts on these first two items, Census staff then evaluated every 

other variable on the school file that included a teacher or student count and adjusted them as necessary. 

For teacher or student ethnicity, for example, the total would be altered to match the appropriate total and 

the entry for each category would be adjusted to the initial proportion for the new total. Other variables 

with counts required corrections that were not as transparent. The counts for limited-English-proficient 

students and the National Student Lunch Program did not have references to the grades served. If the 

reported numbers exceeded the adjusted enrollment, the counts were reduced proportionally based upon 

the proportion of students in the sampled school compared to the reported enrollment. If the reported 

numbers were less than the enrollment, a judgment needed to be made with respect to whether the count 

required a proportional reduction. Moving beyond the teacher and student count variables, attempts were 

made to make consistency edits when possible. For example, if the sampled school was an elementary 

school that erroneously reported for K–12, edits were made to make program offerings consistent with the 

appropriate grade range—an elementary school was not likely to offer Advanced Placement. These edits 

became somewhat subjective and called into question the validity of the remaining responses for these 

schools. 

Once this pre-editing was complete, all surveys were processed through the edits, final interview status 

recode (ISR), imputation, final edits, and weighting. Consequently, the discrepancy between the school 

unit sampled from the frame and the actual school as experienced by respondents led to significant data 

problems in a number of states. After the pre-edit processing was complete, 17 states in the 1999–2000 

SASS had an edit rejection rate3

 of at least 25 percent—amounting to 1,083 cases, or schools. These 

states included Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin, and 

Wyoming. In addition, 17 states had at least 6 percent of their sampled public schools, totaling 476 cases, 

 

3

 The edit rejection rate is the proportion of public schools failing one or more of the criteria outlined in the edit 

specifications and is specific to the grade range problem. 
K-8 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

edited for corrections.4 These states included Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South 

Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. (See table K-2 for details on editing.) 

Table K-2. Indicators of grade range error for public school questionnaire, by selected states: 

1999–2000 

Edit rejections Edit corrections 

State 

Rate 

(%) 

Number 

of cases 

Rate 

(%)

Number 

of cases

Pre-edit 

enrollment as 

percentage

 of CCD

Post-edit 

enrollment as 

percentage 

of CCD 

Pre-edit 

number of 

teachers as 

percentage 

of CCD 

Post-edit 

number of 

teachers as 

percentage 

of CCD

 Total † † † † 108 99 117 112

 

South Dakota 55 118 30 65 134 102 142 123

North Dakota 51 92 23 42 108 97 121 113

Montana 48 88 27 50 115 97 141 116

Nebraska 40 65 25 41 109 98 119 111

Iowa 38 65 22 37 117 99 120 109

Arkansas 38 61 16 26 106 97 118 113

Oklahoma 35 127 16 58 107 98 111 108

Wisconsin 33 57 16 28 106 99 115 114

Missouri 28 51 14 25 104 98 112 110

New Hampshire 28 33 11 13 105 101 113 110

Wyoming 41 54 14 18 100 96 119 112

Vermont 33 39 6 7 99 98 109 111

Kansas 32 52 8 13 101 98 104 109

Rhode Island 26 26 9 9 103 101 103 109

Minnesota 20 — 10 18 108 102 114 116

Colorado 24 — 7 12 107 102 108 110

— Not available. 

† Not applicable. 

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

“Processing Public School Data File,” 1999–2000. 

This was a lengthy process that required significant changes to the data at the pre-edit and edit processing 

stages. Some of these changes were based upon strong empirical evidence as to what the appropriate 

response should have been, while others required or made assumptions for which the evidence was sparse 

or nonexistent. The complexity, burden, and imprecision of this process argued for changing the sampling 

frame to better reflect the physical reality of the school. 

Results of Using a Physical Location Definition for Schools 

in 2003–04 SASS 

In implementing the collapsing of CCD records to reflect the physical reality, a replicable standard was 

implemented to the collapsing process. This collapsing process relied on software currently used for 

updating the Private School Universe Survey (PSS) list frame, modified to adhere to the standards 

described below. In general, this software matched records on certain criteria, including address, and 

 

4

 The edit correction rate is the proportion of public schools where data were corrected as a result of the edit process 

due to the grade range problem. This rate is substantially lower than the edit rejection rate because many records fail 

initially, but further inspection reveals that the records cannot be classified as definite misreporting. 
Appendix K. Details of SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures K-9 

resulted in a list of records matching on the defined criteria. This list of matches was reviewed clerically 

to verify the match status of the identified cases. 

Collapsing Rules 

Restricted Rules. Potential candidates for collapsing had to match on ZIP code, school type, public 

charter school flag, address, and phone number. Candidates had contiguous nonoverlapping grade ranges, 

meaning that there was no more than one grade overlapping or missing from the resulting grade range. 

Relaxed Rules. Potential candidates for collapsing had to match on ZIP code, school type, public charter 

school flag, and two of the following three: phone number, address, and name of school. Candidates had 

contiguous nonoverlapping grade ranges, meaning there was no more than one grade overlapping or 

missing from the resulting grade range. 

Address Matching 

The software standardized addresses, parsing address fields into component parts such as street number, 

street name, directional suffix, street type, and ZIP code. Abbreviations were standardized and spacing 

was set consistently. The components were subsequently matched one by one. If all of the address 

components matched, the address was considered a match. 

In collapsing CCD records, Census Bureau staff matched on standardized location address if the location 

address was available. In a few states, it was observed that physical address was not provided on CCD 

records, so matching on a standardized mailing address was used as an alternative. 

Criteria Application to CCD Collapsing 

The matching program used by Census Bureau staff was designed to identify collapsing records on 

standardized address, telephone number, school type, and public charter school status. Records matching 

on all of these criteria were output, with the output sorted on ZIP code for ease of review. The output was 

clerically reviewed to verify that grade ranges (rather than enrollment by grade) were either 

nonoverlapping or overlapping by no more than one grade and were consecutive. For example, K–6 could 

collapse with 6–8, however K–6 could not collapse with 9–12, and K–6 could not collapse with 4–8. 

Schools matching on all criteria were collapsed. 

In certain states (e.g., Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma), it was known from past experience that these 

criteria failed to identify all schools that viewed themselves as one physical entity. This was due to 

variations in address and telephone number reporting. In these states, an alternative standard was applied, 

whereby schools had to match on at least two of the following three: standardized address, telephone 

number, or keyword in the school’s name. Keyword was defined as whatever remained after stripping off 

the word “school,” “academy,” etc. and any school grade level descriptors (e.g., elementary, high, senior, 

junior, middle, primary, upper, lower, intermediate). In the interest of time, this keyword standard was 

applied clerically. The school type, public charter school status, and grade range criteria also applied to 

the schools collapsed via the alternative standard. 

Collapsing the Records 

Once it was determined which records to collapse, the SASS sampling frame had one record per collapsed 

set of CCD records. Teacher counts, enrollment, and grade range were summed from the collapsed set of 

CCD records. The address and phone number of the first record in the set were arbitrarily chosen. Names 
K-10 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

were generalized to avoid grade range descriptors. For example, “Spring Valley Elementary” and “Spring 

Valley Jr/Sr High” were collapsed to “Spring Valley School.” As a first step after sampling, field 

representatives contacted sampled schools to verify name and address, so if incorrect assumptions were 

made, they were corrected as a first step in the field data collection. 

Application of Collapsing Rules to States 

The relaxed collapsing rules were applied in nine states: 

1. Nebraska; 

2. Montana; 

3. Oklahoma; 

4. North Dakota; 

5. South Dakota; 

6. Arkansas; 

7. Iowa; 

8. Missouri; and 

9. Minnesota. 

Three states were excluded from the collapsing process: 

1. New York; 

2. Pennsylvania; and 

3. New Jersey. 

Census Bureau staff made the determination that the collapsing rules did not work well in these three 

states. It appeared the schools in these states did not need to collapse. The details of how this 

determination was made are provided in the following section. 

The restricted rules were applied in all other states. 

Justification 

In determining what collapsing rules were optimum for a particular state, three pieces of information were 

considered: 1) results of calling some of the larger collapsed schools; 2) the amount of collapsing that 

would occur under the restricted and relaxed rules and the size distribution of these resulting schools; and 

3) the results from the 1999–2000 SASS pre-edit review regarding schools that reported for the wrong 

grade range. 

First, the Census Bureau called a total of 21 schools: 10 in New York, 5 in Pennsylvania, and 6 in 

Wisconsin. Of the 21 schools, 17 had a final collapsed enrollment of greater than 1,000 and 4 had a final 

collapsed enrollment of 750 to 999. Of the 21 collapsed schools, 20 had grade levels with separate 

administrators and thus should not have been collapsed, and one school was legitimately collapsed. Of the 

15 schools in New York and Pennsylvania, all had appeared to collapse under the restricted rules (i.e., 

phone and address). In all cases the schools resided on one campus but were in separate buildings or 

separate wings. Phone numbers given on CCD were for either an automated menu system or for the 

district office. In Wisconsin, the six schools had been collapsed under the relaxed but not the restricted 

rules. 

Second, the conclusion from the calling operation was that schools with a larger enrollment generally 

should not be collapsed. However, since the amount of calling was limited, it could not be determined 
Appendix K. Details of SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures K-11 

what the appropriate cut-off value would be for using enrollment as a collapsing criterion. It was decided 

that the size distribution of the schools that resulted from application of the collapsing rules within each 

state would be considered. 

Third, for the 10 traditional problem states, the collapsing results were matched to the list of edit 

corrections from the 1999–2000 SASS that were supplied by Census Bureau processing staff. Table K-3 

provides those results by state and by which criteria would cause the school to collapse. 

Table K-3. SASS edit corrections for traditional problem states, by number of schools meeting 

collapsing criteria (weighted number of schools in parentheses): 1999–2000 

Results when applying collapsing rules 

State 

Total edit corrections 

(self-identified as 

combined school) Address and phone Address and name Phone and name 

Schools not 

collapsed

Oklahoma 51 16 15 1 19

Montana 49 37 6 6 0

Nebraska 40 15 4 1 20

North Dakota 39 29 4 (10.0) 0 6

South Dakota 48 36 2 (8.7) 2 (17.2) 8

Arkansas 26 7 13 (81.8) 0 6

Iowa 37 9 6 (37.3) 2 (19.0) 20

Missouri 27 12 8 (88.5) 1 (11.9) 6

Minnesota 18 5 6 (53.1) 0 7

Wisconsin 27 14 1 (3.1) 0 12

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

“Processing Public School Data File,” 1999–2000. 

The collapsing results for the 10 traditional problem states are listed in table K-4. Results are presented 

for the restricted as well as the relaxed criteria, along with the number of larger schools (enrollment 750–

999 and 1,000 or more) that collapsed. 

Table K-4. Collapsing results for traditional problem states, by matching criteria and enrollment: 

2003–04 

Schools collapsing by criteria: 

Restricted option Relaxed option 

Large schools collapsing 

by enrollment 

State 

Total schools 

eligible for 

SASS Address and phone Address and name Phone and name 750–999 1,000 or more

Montana 870 215 56 18 10 4

Oklahoma 1,807 109 192 21 11 16

Nebraska 1,281 110 50 11 2 4

South Dakota 756 193 42 7 5 0

North Dakota 562 97 28 3 1 1

Iowa 1,499 82 86 8 10 5

Arkansas 1,144 48 137 11 18 25

Missouri 2,326 91 195 9 24 33

Minnesota 2,317 91 83 11 19 27

Wisconsin 2,157 113 88 23 32 21

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

School Sampling Frame and Adjusted Sampling Frame,” 2003–04. 

Collapsing results for the remaining 41 states are presented in table K-5. Results are presented only for 

the restricted criteria along with a size distribution of the schools that collapsed. 
K-12 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table K-5. Collapsing results using restricted criteria for nonproblem states, by enrollment 

distribution: 2003–04 

Large schools collapsing, by enrollment 

Nonproblem state Total schools

Schools lost due 

to collapsing 750–999 1,000 or more

Alabama 1,527 8 2 2

Alaska 522 9 0 0

Arizona 1,863 25 0 3

California 8,907 32 6 2

Colorado 1,667 79 0 1

Connecticut 1,080 3 0 0

Delaware 199 1 0 1

Dist of Columbia 198 0 0 0

Florida 3,418 9 1 0

Georgia 1,979 6 3 1

Hawaii 279 0 0 0

Idaho 690 10 0 0

Illinois 4,348 123 3 4

Indiana 1,979 8 0 4

Kansas 1,432 41 1 0

Kentucky 1,475 22 1 2

Louisiana 1,541 3 2 0

Maine 714 2 0 0

Maryland 1,383 1 0 0

Massachusetts 1,908 6 2 2

Michigan 3,982 46 4 6

Mississippi 1,046 2 0 0

Nevada 530 12 0 0

New Hampshire 472 25 3 2

New Jersey 2,430 13 0 9

New Mexico 835 42 1 0

New York 4,353 114 25 40

North Carolina 2,253 3 0 0

Ohio 3,912 37 8 7

Oregon 1,301 7 0 1

Pennsylvania 3,251 60 11 21

Rhode Island 333 0 0 0

South Carolina 1,150 1 0 0

Tennessee 1,646 0 0 0

Texas 7,747 115 4 10

Utah 793 2 0 0

Vermont 392 1 1 0

Virginia 2,095 2 0 0

Washington 2,218 27 2 1

West Virginia 822 1 0 0

Wisconsin 2,157 113 4 2

Wyoming 389 31 0 0

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

School Sampling Frame and Adjusted Sampling Frame,” 2003–04. 
Appendix K. Details of SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures K-13 

Weighted estimates of schools from table K-3 provide an estimate of the expected amount of collapsing. 

This was compared to table K-4 to determine which set of rules most closely reflected the expected 

amount of collapsing. Generally, it was determined that the relaxed rules provided a more accurate 

prediction of which schools were likely to need collapsing. 

For the states in table K-5, no comparison to 1999–2000 SASS edit rejects was produced. Census Bureau 

staff simply compared the amount of collapsing with the size distribution to judge whether collapsing was 

likely to improve CCD as a sampling frame. 

A comparison of tables K-3 and K-4 shows that application of the relaxed collapsing rules had a clear 

benefit in Montana, Oklahoma, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas, Iowa, and Missouri. 

Additionally, in Minnesota, the expected “improvement” based on 1999–2000 SASS results was greater 

than the expected deterioration (i.e., the number of larger schools collapsing). Consequently, it was 

recommended to apply the relaxed rules to Minnesota as well. In Wisconsin, the expected deterioration 

was substantial and the expected improvement was minimal, so it was recommended to apply the 

restricted rules. 

A review of table K-5 shows that more than half of the collapsed records in New York, New Jersey, and 

Pennsylvania had a student enrollment of 750 or more, so it was believed that they should not legitimately 

be collapsed. Since more than half were large schools, the expected amount of deterioration exceeded the 

expected amount of improvement, so no collapsing was implemented in these states. In several other 

states, the collapsing appeared to have been of dubious value, but the volume of collapsing was so small 

that the potential deterioration was minimal. As a result, it was recommended to apply the restricted rules 

to these states. 

Collapsing Results from the 2003–04 Sampling Frame 

Of the 2,344 collapsed schools remaining on the sampling frame, 576 were selected for sample. All 

sampled schools were asked about the grade range they provided. Using the check on grade range as a 

measure of whether the collapsing succeeded in correctly creating a school entity for which the 

respondent would recognize and report, it appeared the collapsing succeeded in 460 sampled schools and 

failed in 116 (79.9 percent success rate). In addition, there appeared to be 28 sampled schools that should 

have been collapsed but were not. 

Schools where the collapsing was applied incorrectly were split into their component schools, as they 

appeared on CCD originally, and one component school was selected randomly to be the sampled school. 

The inverse of the probability of selection (base weight) was adjusted appropriately to reflect this 

subsampling. Schools that should have been collapsed but were not were allowed to report as they 

perceived themselves and their weights were adjusted for their multiple chances of selection. 

A preliminary analysis of the 116 schools that should not have been collapsed revealed no clear pattern or 

cause for the collapsing failure. In some states where the relaxed rules for collapsing were applied, it 

appeared that the more restricted rules should have been applied. In most cases it appeared that the phone 

number match should have been a requirement. A detailed breakdown of the collapsing results by state is 

presented in table K-6. 
K-14 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table K-6. Collapsing results, by state: 2003–04 

State 

Number of 

collapsed schools 

in sample 

Number of schools 

erroneously collapsed 

in sample

Percentage 

failure

Number of 

collapsed 

schools missed 

Number missed 

as a percentage

of proper collapsing

 Total 576 116 20.1 28 5.7

 

Alabama 1 1 100.0 1 100.0

Alaska 3 0 0.0 0 0.0

Arizona 7 5 71.4 2 50.0

Arkansas 36 21 58.3 0 0.0

California 5 1 20.0 0 0.0

 

Colorado 10 2 20.0 2 20.0

Connecticut 3 0 0.0 0 0.0

Delaware 1 0 0.0 0 0.0

Florida 1 0 0.0 0 0.0

Georgia 3 1 33.3 0 0.0

 

Idaho 6 0 0.0 1 14.3

Illinois 12 2 16.7 1 9.1

Indiana 2 1 50.0 0 0.0

Iowa 26 4 15.4 0 0.0

Kansas 17 1 5.9 1 5.9

 

Kentucky 8 0 0.0 0 0.0

Maine 2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Michigan 2 0 0.0 1 33.3

Minnesota 34 12 35.3 2 8.3

Missouri 29 12 41.4 0 0.0

 

Montana 57 5 8.8 1 1.9

Nebraska 35 5 14.3 3 9.1

Nevada 2 0 0.0 0 0.0

New Hampshire 13 2 15.4 0 0.0

New Mexico 22 3 13.6 2 9.5

 

New York 0 0 † 1 100.0

North Carolina 1 0 0.0 0 0.0

North Dakota 39 0 0.0 0 0.0

Ohio 4 2 50.0 1 33.3

Oklahoma 79 19 24.1 0 0.0

 

Oregon 3 0 0.0 0 0.0

Pennsylvania 0 0 † 3 100.0

South Carolina 1 0 0.0 0 0.0

South Dakota 61 4 6.6 2 3.4

Texas 12 7 58.3 1 16.7

 

Utah 1 0 0.0 0 0.0

Vermont 1 0 0.0 0 0.0

Washington 4 1 25.0 1 25.0

Wisconsin 18 3 16.7 2 11.8

Wyoming 15 2 13.3 0 0.0

† Not applicable. 

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 Sampling Frame and Adjusted Sampling Frame,” 2003–04. 
Appendix K. Details of SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures K-15 

2003–04 SASS School Allocation Procedure 

This section discusses how the school sample was allocated to public and private school strata in SASS. 

Generally the allocation is done in a way that provides reasonable precision for all components of SASS 

while meeting a variety of estimation goals for each component. The estimation goals are described in 

chapter 1. 

Public Schools 

The public school allocation was done according to the following priorities: 

1. The total public school sample size in the 2003–04 SASS contained 9,374 regular schools, 166 

Bureau of Indian Affairs-funded schools, 450 high American Indian or Alaska Native enrollment 

schools, and 300 public charter schools. 

2. There were 450 sampled schools allocated to the high American Indian or Alaska Native 

enrollment schools and 300 sample schools allocated to public charter schools proportional to the 

sum of the square root of the number of teachers per strata. Additional requirements of 150 

elementary and secondary schools with high American Indian or Alaska Native enrollment and at 

least 80 public charter schools per grade level were imposed. 

3. The remaining 9,374 schools were allocated to the regular schools in two different ways. This 

was done because of the increased number of combined schools in the sampling frame due to the 

collapsing procedure outlined in the section on defining public schools by their physical location 

in this appendix. The two methods used are listed below: 

• Proportional to the 1999–2000 SASS unit standard error for the number of schools in each 

stratum by state. This allocation method would achieve optimum results for national 

estimates. 

• Proportional to the sum of the square root of the number of teachers per strata. This 

allocation method allowed for an increase in the number of sampled combined schools to 

match the increase in the number of combined schools in the frame. 

4. The following adjustments were made to the results of both allocation methods: 

• increased the combined school sample size in Alaska to approximate the sampling rate for 

schools with high American Indian or Alaska Native enrollment; 

• increased the combined sample size to approximate the overall state sampling rate; 

• compared the adjusted sample sizes against the minimums of 80 sampled schools for 

elementary and secondary and 20 for combined, and replaced the sample size with the 

minimum if necessary; and 

• compared the adjusted sample sizes against the total number of schools per strata. If the 

sample was more than 60 percent of the total, then it was adjusted down to 60 percent of the 

total. 

5. Many of the original sample sizes were adjusted in the above steps; the ones that were not 

adjusted were reallocated according to the original allocation method. 

6. The final results of the allocation methods were then compared and if there were major 

discrepancies between the two in a specific stratum, the average was determined and assigned as 

the final sample size. 
K-16 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Private Schools 

The private school sample size selected from the list frame was 3,443 schools. The goal was to select an 

overall sample of 3,420 private sample schools from the list frame. The allocation process consisted of the 

steps below: 

1. First, the sample was allocated at the affiliation level. The overall sample of 3,420 schools was 

allocated among 17 private school affiliations, proportional to the measure of size equal to the 

square root of the total number of teachers as the initial sample sizes. (NOTE: The 2003–04 

SASS included 17 groups rather than the 20 used in the 1999–2000 administration, as described 

in chapter 4.) 

2. Next, a sample size of 100 was assigned to all affiliations that were assigned an initial sample size 

less than 100, and the remaining sample was redistributed proportionally among the remaining 

affiliations. 

3. Next, the sample was allocated at the stratum level. Within affiliation, the sample size was 

allocated at the stratum level proportional to the measure of size. 

4. Finally, a sample size of two was assigned to all strata with initial sample sizes less than two, and 

the remaining sample was redistributed proportionally among the remaining strata. 

Documentation of the Sort Selection for the 

2003–04 SASS Public and Private School Sampling 

As part of the 2003–04 SASS sample design process, it was determined that the current sample sort order 

for both public and private schools should be evaluated and possibly improved. 

Methodology 

Bootstrap variance programs developed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

(discussed in greater detail in chapter 9) were used to generate the total covariance and finite population 

correction (FPC) factors of a particular sample using a specified sort order. The 1999–2000 SASS sample 

sort (sort #1) was used as a standard in both the public and private results. The 1999–2000 SASS sample 

sort with a serpentine sort in the enrollment portion for both the public and private schools (sort #2) was 

also tried. In theory, this serpentine sort should reduce the number of extreme covariances as well as the 

maximum FPC, since it should provide better control over the size distribution of the schools selected for 

the sample. The locally random FPC, which is the FPC computed across small increments of the sample, 

can be larger than one. As a result, it is important to design a survey in which this is not a problem with 

respect to the variance estimates, since this condition could result in the computation of negative 

variances. The following sample sort orders were tried: 

For public schools— 

1. stratum, state, urbanicity, ZIP code, LEA ID, descending high grade, percent minority, and 

descending enrollment; 

2. stratum, state, urbanicity, ZIP code, LEA ID, descending high grade, percent minority, and 

enrollment in serpentine sort; 

3. stratum, urbanicity, LEA ID, descending high grade, percent minority, and descending 

enrollment; 
Appendix K. Details of SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures K-17 

4. stratum, ZIP code, urbanicity, descending high grade, and descending enrollment; and 

5. stratum, descending high grade, urbanicity, enrollment in serpentine sort, school ID. 

For private schools— 

1. stratum, state, descending high grade, urbanicity, ZIP code, descending enrollment, and school 

ID. 

2. stratum, state, descending high grade, urbanicity, ZIP code, serpentine enrollment, and school ID. 

3. stratum, typology, state, descending high grade, urbanicity, ZIP code, descending enrollment, and 

school ID. and 

4. stratum, religious orientation, state, descending high grade, urbanicity, ZIP code, descending 

enrollment, and school ID. 

Results 

The various sorts were evaluated by determining a sample sort order that produced the smallest number of 

extreme positive and negative covariances and the lowest maximum FPC. Since the variance estimator for 

SASS assumes that the relative covariance is zero, a large positive covariance will considerably 

underestimate the variance, while a large negative covariance will overestimate it. These extremes also 

result in more unreliable estimates. The results shown in tables K-7 and K-8 were used in the 

determination of the 2003–04 SASS sample sort. 

Table K-7. Results for sort research in SASS public school sampling: 2003–04 

Sort 

Maximum 

FPC 

Number of negative extreme covariances 

(less than -20 percent)

Number of positive extreme covariances 

(greater than 20 percent)

#1 1.3333 45 3

#2 1.4444 45 3

#3 1.8125 50 2

#4 2.0555 53 2

#5 1.5714 54 3

NOTE: FPC refers to finite population correction. 

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

School Sampling Frame,” 2003–04. 

It is not immediately clear from the results above which sort order is the best. For example, public school 

sorts #1 and #2 seemed to be almost identical, but there were certain states (Delaware and Hawaii) that 

had very large positive covariances using the first sort. The second sort reduced these covariances slightly 

without changing the overall effect. The last three public school sorts clearly produced much worse 

results than sort #2. The slightly larger maximum FPC produced by sort #2 was accepted in return for 

smaller covariances in Delaware and Hawaii. 

Table K-8. Results for sort research in SASS private school sampling: 2003–04 

Sort 

Maximum 

FPC 

Number of negative extreme covariances 

(less than -20 percent)

Number of positive extreme covariances 

(greater than 20 percent)

#1 1.1818 7 0

#2 1.3333 17 0

#3 1.3333 9 0

#4 1.2750 10 0

NOTE: FPC refers to finite population correction. 

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

“Private School Sampling Frame,” 2003–04. 
K-18 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

From the results above, the first sort produced the best results. The third sort also generated reasonable 

results but since it used an outdated definition of typology as one of the sort keys, it was discarded. 

Controlling the School Overlap with ELS 

This section of the appendix describes how the original 2003–04 SASS selection probabilities were 

adjusted so that the expected number of schools overlapping between the 2003–04 SASS and the 2003–04 

follow-up of ELS:2002 was minimized without changing a school’s overall selection probability for the 

2003–04 SASS. To do this required knowledge of the 2003–04 SASS and ELS selection probabilities for 

all schools in the frame. The 2003–04 SASS school sampling selection was dependent upon ELS. 

The details of this process are described below. The required terminology and sets of schools are defined 

first. Next, the various conditional selection probabilities are presented. Selecting the 2003–04 SASS 

sample with these conditional probabilities maintained the original 2003–04 SASS school selection 

probabilities, while controlling the expected overlap. 

Terminology 

EN: the ELS sample 

S2: 2003–04 SASS sample 

i: school 

Phi(EN): probability of selecting school i from stratum h in ELS. 

Phi(S2): probability of selecting school i from stratum h in the 2003–04 SASS. 

Phi(S2 ⏐ EN): probability of selecting school i from stratum h in 2003–04 SASS given that this 

school was selected for ELS. 

Phi(NEN): probability of not selecting school i from stratum h in ELS. 

Phi(S2 ⏐NEN): probability of selecting school i from stratum h in the 2003–04 SASS given that 

this school was not selected for ELS. 

Conditional Selection Probabilities 

Since the goal was to minimize the overlap with ELS, conditional probabilities of selection for 2003–04 

SASS could be defined according to the following formulae: 

 ( | EN) 0 ( ) ( ) 1 Phi S2 = if Phi EN + Phi S2 ≤

 , ( ) ( ) 1

( )

( ) ( ) 1 ( | ) 2

2

2 + >

+ − = if P EN P S

P EN

P EN P S P S EN hi hi

hi

hi hi

hi

 , ( ) ( ) 1

1 ( )

( ) ( | ) 2

2

2 + ≤ − = if P EN P S

P EN

P S P S NEN hi hi

hi

hi

hi

 Phi(S2 | NEN) =1 if Phi(EN) + Phi(S2 ) > 1
Appendix K. Details of SASS Frame Creation and Sample Selection Procedures K-19 

It can be verified that these conditional selection probabilities preserved the original 2003–04 SASS 

selection probabilities, Phi(S2), while the expected overlap between 2003–04 SASS schools and ELS was 

minimized. 

Investigation of School District Variances for 2003–04 SASS 

As part of the 1987–88 SASS, it was determined that the school district variances were unreasonably high 

for a few states where the sampling rate was close to, but just short of, one. Upon investigation, it was 

decided that in three states the school sampling procedure should be altered to force all districts in the 

state to fall into sample. These three states were Delaware, Nevada, and West Virginia. Based on the 

results of the 1999–2000 SASS, the school district variance investigation was repeated. 

Methodology 

The bootstrap variance estimation software as developed by NCES (as discussed in more detail in chapter 

9) was used to generate variance estimates for a select group of states assuming the current school district 

sampling methodology as applied to all states excluding the three states mentioned above. Comparisons 

of these variances to simple random sample variances were made to try to determine how well each state 

performed as compared to the other states. From this, design effects could be calculated and comparisons 

of coefficients of variation (unadjusted for the finite population correction) were made. 

The states examined were Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Utah, and 

Wyoming. 

Delaware, Nevada, West Virginia, Illinois, and Vermont were used as benchmark states. Delaware, 

Nevada, and West Virginia were already part of the special sampling operation, and their results helped to 

identify other states with high district sampling variances. Illinois and Vermont were chosen as 

benchmark states because they had many school districts and reasonable variances. 

Variances were generated for estimates of the total number of districts in the state and the total enrollment 

in the state. 

Results 

West Virginia had the highest sampling variances for the examined estimates, with Delaware and Nevada 

a distant second and third. Maryland and Florida had only slightly lower variances than these three states. 

One of the benchmark states, Illinois, performed only slightly better than these five states. The other 

states of interest performed better than Illinois. 

As a result, it was decided to continue the special sampling operation for Delaware, Nevada, and West 

Virginia and to add Florida and Maryland to the special sampling operation. 

References 

Hoffman, L.M. (2002). Overview of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools and Districts: School 

Year 2000–01 (NCES 2002–356). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
L-1 

Appendix L. Report on Results of Special Contact Districts 

Background 

School districts can approve or reject the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) on behalf of the schools 

that they control. Therefore, securing the approval of these districts is essential to the success of SASS. In 

past years, many districts indicated that formal approval from the district was required before they would 

allow schools to participate in SASS. Often this approval process required months to complete, making it 

difficult to obtain approval during the SASS data collection period. 

For the 2003–04 administration of SASS, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and 

Education Statistics Services Institute (ESSI) attempted to identify and contact districts with a formal 

approval process well ahead of data collection in order to secure this approval. NCES and ESSI identified 

77 sampled districts that required prior approval to conduct surveys with schools in their district based on 

past administrations of SASS and other NCES sponsored surveys. The districts were referred to as 

“special contact districts” for this administration of SASS. Thirty-one special contact districts were also 

deemed “critical” districts because they had a disproportionate impact on state-level estimates. Without 

participation from schools in these districts, state-level estimates would be in jeopardy. The 77 districts 

included a total of 850 schools that were considered in-scope for SASS. 

Methods 

NCES and ESSI began contacting districts in February 2003. The purpose of the initial contact was to 

identify a contact person at the district and to determine what requirements needed to be satisfied before 

the district would approve administration of SASS. Generally, districts required either research 

applications or research proposals. Often these applications requested background on the study, 

information on the sampling plan, instruments to be administered, school resources required, and a plan 

for protecting the confidentiality of data. For districts that had research requirements, applications and 

proposals were prepared by NCES and ESSI staff based on information obtained during the initial contact 

with the district. The applications were submitted directly to the district by NCES and ESSI. 

NCES and ESSI staff developed a tracking sheet that listed each of the special contact districts and 

provided a description of their research requirements, contact names, and the initial and final outcome of 

contact with the district. This spreadsheet was updated and sent regularly to the Census Bureau to inform 

the field-based operation. When the SASS data collection began, field representatives did not attempt to 

contact schools within those special contact districts that had not yet agreed to participate in SASS. On 

October 16, 2003, NCES turned responsibility for gaining approval of the remaining 41 special contact 

districts to Census Bureau Regional Office staff. Since Regional Office staff members are physically 

closer to the districts, it was felt that they could attempt to meet with district staff in person and gain 

participation in SASS. For nonresponding districts, field representatives attempted to contact schools 

directly. 

Findings 

Forty-three of the special contact districts required a formal application in order to approve research at 

their schools. Among the remaining districts that did not have a formal application, most required a 

written proposal to the superintendent. These proposals generally needed to include the same information 

as the formal applications. 
L-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

By October 16, 2003, some 29 districts approved their participation in SASS, 7 districts did not grant 

permission to conduct the survey, and the remaining 41 districts neither approved nor denied 

participation. Census Bureau Regional Office staff and field representatives began contacting the districts 

after this date. Staff utilized various resources including a Partnership Specialist (Regional Office staff 

trained to work with community leaders and researchers), letters from the Regional Census Director, and 

personal contacts to obtain permission for SASS in the special contact districts. By the end of the field 

period, only two special contact districts had no complete Teacher Listing Forms or complete public 

school questionnaires from sampled schools in their district. Neither of the refusal districts were critical 

districts, meaning that their nonresponse would not have a disproportionate impact on state estimates. Out 

of the 850 schools in special contact districts, 673 completed Teacher Listing Forms and 588 completed 

school questionnaires. 

The response rate of schools in the special contact districts was lower than the overall public school 

response rate for the Teacher Listing Form and school questionnaire. This may be attributed to two 

factors: 

• Field work on these cases began in late October rather than early October as it did for regular 

cases. 

• Many of these districts were difficult responders during previous SASS administrations. 

The response rate comparison in shown in table L-1. 

Table L-1. Response rate comparison between in-scope schools in special contact districts and all 

in-scope public schools, by selected questionnaires: 2003–04 

Questionnaire Special contact response rate (percent) Overall public school response rate (percent)1

Teacher Listing Form 79 89

School Questionnaire 69 82

1

 Overall response rate includes schools in special contact districts. 

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

School Documentation Data Files,” 2003–04; Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, Schools and Staffing 

Survey (SASS), 2003–04. 

Recommendations 

The special contact methodology was highly successful at gaining cooperation from districts that required 

formal permission to conduct surveys with their schools. Regional Office staff were able to obtain 

permission from the majority of districts to conduct SASS and should be brought into the process once 

the survey sample is selected. 
M-1 

Appendix M. School District Experiment Findings 

An earlier version of the paper contained in this appendix was presented at the American Association for 

Public Opinion Research Conference on May 13, 2005. It provides details on a test embedded in this 

administration of SASS to better understand how districts respond to precontact operations and what 

implications this has on the cost and timing of the SASS. It is organized as follows. 

Too Much of a Good Thing? Working Through Establishment Gatekeepers................................... M-2 

Abstract....................................................................................................................................... M-2 

Background................................................................................................................................. M-2 

Methods ...................................................................................................................................... M-3 

Findings ...................................................................................................................................... M-5 

Discussion................................................................................................................................... M-8 

Attachment M-1. Telephone Scripts for Treatment Group Calls to Public School Districts .......... M-10 

Attachment M-2. Telephone Script for Control Group Calls to Public School Districts ................ M-12 

Attachment M-3. Prenotice Letter to Test Districts ........................................................................ M-13 

Attachment M-4. Prenotice Letter to Control Districts ................................................................... M-14 

Attachment M-5. Prenotice Letter to Schools ................................................................................. M-15 

Attachment M-6. Contact Log......................................................................................................... M-16 
M-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Too Much of a Good Thing? 

Working Through Establishment Gatekeepers 

Authors: Andy Zukerberg, Randy Parmer, Andrew Soderborg, Toni Warner, Steven Tourkin1

U.S. Bureau of the Census 

Abstract 

In establishment surveys, gatekeepers often prevent interviewers from reaching the sampled person. Many 

surveys have developed methods to get around gatekeepers or enlist them as agents in the survey process. 

Often these efforts target an individual. For the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), school districts 

function as gatekeepers for the schools under them. Three scenarios were anticipated for the 2003–04 

SASS: (1) if a district was contacted before the school and gave permission to conduct SASS, it could 

increase overall response rates; (2) if a district was contacted before the school and refused to participate, 

it could lower overall response rates; and (3) if districts were not contacted before the school, schools 

could request district permission to participate, delaying completion of the survey and increasing costs. In 

order to determine the best way to handle district contacts, an experiment was conducted in three Census 

Bureau Regional Offices. Approximately half of the school districts in each office were contacted by 

phone several months before the survey was conducted to discuss the survey and any information they 

would need before approving the survey. If information or formal application was required, it was 

prepared and sent to the district shortly after the call. In the other half of districts, a standard prenotice 

letter was sent to the district at the start of data collection. This paper reports on the impact on school 

response under those scenarios and makes recommendations for handling establishment gatekeepers. 

Background 

The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) is the nation’s largest sample survey of K–12 schools. It is 

sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and conducted by the U.S. Census 

Bureau. SASS is unique in that it collects data from public and private schools, principals, and teachers as 

well as public school districts and libraries. SASS links these units, allowing researchers to gain a 

complete picture of K–12 education in the United States. Previous SASS surveys were conducted during 

the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, and 1999–2000 school years. In each of these years, SASS followed a 

relatively traditional mixed mode approach. Sampled schools and districts were sent a prenotice letter, 

followed by questionnaires. Nonresponders received reminder postcards and a second questionnaire. Next 

Census Bureau staff attempted to interview nonrespondents by telephone. Finally, field representatives 

were sent to interview any remaining nonresponders. The 2003–04 SASS consisted of nine selfadministered questionnaires (School District Questionnaire, School Library Media Center Questionnaire, 

Principal Questionnaire, Private School Principal Questionnaire, School Questionnaire, Private School 

Questionnaire, Unified School Questionnaire, Teacher Questionnaire, and Private School Teacher 

Questionnaire) and one interviewer-administered questionnaire (Combined School Screener/Teacher 

Listing instrument). 

 

1

 The authors wish to thank Kerry Gruber and Lynn Zhao at the National Center for Education Statistics and Deanna 

Lyter and Greg Strizek at the Education Statistics Services Institute for their assistance in this research. 

Additionally, the authors thank Zoe Dowling at the U.S. Census Bureau for reviewing drafts of the paper and 

providing insightful comments. 

DISCLAIMER: This report is released to inform interested parties of ongoing research and to encourage discussion 

of work in progress. The views expressed are the authors’ and not necessarily those of the U.S. Census Bureau. 
Appendix M. School District Experiment Findings M-3

School districts (Local Education Agencies) are critical to conducting SASS in public schools. Since 

districts typically have more than one school in SASS, a refusal at the district level can affect multiple 

school, principal, teacher, and library media center questionnaires as well as the district questionnaire 

response rate. In past SASS administrations, the district was informed about SASS by mail at the same 

time the schools were asked to participate. This had the unintended consequence of allowing schools to 

participate before the district refused or schools refusing before the district had a chance to support 

administration of the survey. In order to reduce the time required to collect and process SASS data, it was 

decided to pursue a field-based methodology for the 2003–04 collection of the school-level 

questionnaires. This methodology utilized field representatives to drop off and pick up the selfadministered questionnaires rather than relying on a postal mailout. In addition, the Teacher Listing Form 

(used to collect the sample frame of teachers) was converted from a paper self-administered questionnaire 

to an interviewer-administered instrument. The district questionnaire remained a mailout/mailback 

questionnaire with in-person nonresponse follow-up. In switching to a field-based methodology, there 

were two concerns for district participation in SASS: 

• impact on school participation; and 

• response rate to the district questionnaire. 

Three potential outcomes were anticipated as a result of switching to a field-based methodology: 

• If a district was contacted before the school and gave permission to conduct SASS, it could 

increase overall response rates. 

• If a district was contacted before the school and refused to participate, it could lower overall 

response rates. 

• If districts were not contacted before the school, schools could request district permission to 

participate, delaying completion of the survey and increasing costs. 

The primary goal of switching to a field-based methodology was to shorten the time required to conduct 

SASS. Given this goal, there was concern about the impact of districts giving schools approval to 

participate in SASS on the schedule and response rate. In order to understand the impact of precontacting 

districts on response rates, an experiment was conducted with a subsample of schools and districts during 

the 2003–04 SASS. 

Methods 

Three Census Bureau Regional Offices (Seattle, Chicago, and Boston) were selected to participate in this 

experiment. All of the districts in these offices, except those with known processes for survey approval, 

were assigned to either the test or control group. Table M-1 shows the number of districts and schools in 

each of the groups. Those in the test group were referred to as “Test Group Districts.” These districts were 

called during July 2003 from the Census Bureau’s Hagerstown Telephone Center. The telephone 

interviewers were provided background information on SASS but were not told the nature of the 

experiment. Telephone interviewers called the districts and followed a script (attachment M-1) to 

determine if they had any research requirements or paperwork that had to be completed before a field 

representative visited their schools. If the districts indicated that they had research requirements, they 

were asked for specific information regarding the type of requirement. NCES and its contractor, the 

Education Statistics Services Institute, prepared a package to address the requirements. Generally, this 

package contained blank SASS questionnaires, detailed information on the survey including sample 

design, methodology, and sample reports. At the end of the call, districts were asked for the name of a 

contact person to whom the district questionnaire should be addressed. The districts assigned to the 

control group were called by the Hagerstown Telephone Center during August 2003. These districts were 
M-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

asked only for the name of a contact person for the district questionnaire. (Attachment M-2 is a sample 

interview script.) 

Table M-1. Unweighted counts of schools and districts, by group: 2003–04 

Group District sample size School sample size

Control 665 1,164

Treatment 667 1,122

SOURCE: School District Experiment Findings, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

In October 2003, districts were sent a prenotice letter regarding SASS. Test districts received a letter 

letting them know that data collection was starting. (See attachment M-3.) Districts in the control group 

(as well as those not in the experiment) received a prenotice letter informing them about SASS. (See 

attachment M-4.) At the same time, each of the sample schools received a standard prenotice letter. (See 

attachment M-5.) 

All field representatives were told that the districts had been notified about SASS and in cases where the 

districts explicitly approved SASS, they were provided with the letter of approval from the district. Field 

representatives from Regional Offices participating in the study were instructed to keep a log (attachment 

M-6) of each contact with a sampled school related to the Teacher Listing instrument, School 

Questionnaire, and Private School Questionnaire. Even though the research questions related only to 

public schools, the field representatives were instructed to keep logs for public and private schools in 

order to keep the study “blind.” Field representatives were told that these logs would be used to look at 

the number and type of contacts required to complete SASS and that individual performance would not be 

evaluated based on the logs. 

The 2003–04 SASS used a mixed mode approach to obtain information from schools. First, field 

representatives contacted schools by telephone and, utilizing a computerized instrument, administered a 

series of screening questions to verify that they had reached the correct institution and that the institution 

met the SASS criteria for a school. Once this information was verified, the interviewer followed a script 

to identify a contact person at the school and set up an appointment to visit the school. At this 

appointment, the field representative used the computerized instrument to enter a list of all teachers at the 

school. The instrument then selected a sample of teachers to complete the teacher questionnaire. At this 

time, the field representative distributed the remaining SASS questionnaires (school, teacher, and 

principal). The field representative’s log was used to monitor all contact with the school needed to 

complete both the computerized Teacher Listing instrument and the school questionnaire. 

The final total weighted response rates for the treatment and control groups were calculated at the end of 

data collection. The formula used to calculate the weighted response rates (r) was: 

∑ interviews * basic weight 

∑ total number of respondents eligible for interview * basic weight 

. 

The variance associated with these response rates was calculated using the following formula: 

2

1

( ) 1

∑=

−

n

i

ir r

n

, where ri is the replicate weighted response rate. 

The replicates were formed using a bootstrap variance methodology. Also, two more estimates were 

computed for the treatment and control groups, as well as the interviews and noninterviews: the weighted 
Appendix M. School District Experiment Findings M-5

average number of visits and the weighted average time spent with each school. The variances associated 

with these estimates were calculated using the same basic formula as for the response rate variance with 

the appropriate averages and replicates used. The response rates, the average number of visits, and 

average time estimates for the treatment and control groups were compared against each other and tested 

at the 5 percent significance level. 

Findings 

Of the 667 districts in the treatment group, 3 refused any contact with the Census Bureau representative 

during the calling operation, and 2 districts could not be contacted. (These 2 were likely closed for the 

summer.) Four hundred fifty-six districts requested some type of follow-up prior to granting permission to 

conduct SASS in their schools. Of these, more than half (255) requested a formal proposal or detailed 

overview of the research. A smaller number (110) requested a brief description of the research. The 

remaining districts indicated that a representative from the Census Bureau need only contact them a 

couple of days before an interviewer visited schools in their district. NCES and Education Statistics 

Services Institute staff followed up with those districts requesting more information by sending a proposal 

to 255 districts, and a long letter describing SASS to 110 districts. The remaining districts received a 

standard prenotice letter that thanked them for agreeing to participate in SASS and provided a brief 

overview of the survey. After receiving the follow-up materials, eight districts responded to Census with a 

formal approval to conduct SASS in their schools. (This approval came in the form of a fax, letter, or email.) Thirty-three districts did not approve SASS, and 415 districts did not respond to the materials that 

were sent. 

Does Precontacting the District Impact Response to the District Questionnaire? 

Table M-2 shows that efforts to precontact the district had no impact on the final response rate for the 

district questionnaire. 

Table M-2. Comparison of weighted response rates for district questionnaire, by group: 2003–04 

District questionnaire response rate

Group Percent Variance P value

Control 79.3 0.001

Treatment 76.1 0.001 .534

SOURCE: School District Experiment Findings, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

Table M-3 shows that the type of information requested by the district did not impact its response rate to 

the district questionnaire. So providing more information to the district did not improve the likelihood 

that it would respond to the district questionnaire. 

Table M-3. Comparison of weighted response rates for district questionnaire, by type of follow-up 

required: 2003–04 

District questionnaire response rate

Type of follow-up required Percent Variance Comparison P value 

Proposal (1) 69.7 0.003

Full letter (2) 81.6 0.004

Prenotice letter (3) 78.2 0.006

No follow-up required (4) 75.8 0.002

1 vs. 2 

1 vs. 3 

1 vs. 4 

2 vs. 3 

2 vs. 4 

3 vs. 4 

.182 

.400 

.240 

.739 

.699 

.966 

SOURCE: School District Experiment Findings, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
M-6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table M-4 shows that some response rate differences emerge within the treatment group. Not 

surprisingly, districts that approved schools under them participating in SASS were more likely to 

complete the district questionnaire than the districts that denied the request to conduct SASS. The 

response rates of the districts that approved SASS participation (80.2 percent) and those that did not 

respond to the request (76.9 percent) were significantly higher than those of the districts that denied 

participation (36.6 percent). NOTE: Districts that did not formally respond were treated as having 

approved participation in the follow-up materials. 

Table M-4. Comparison of weighted response rates for district questionnaire, by outcome of 

request for permission to conduct SASS at district schools: 2003–04 

District questionnaire response rate 

Outcome of request Percent Variance Comparison P value

Approved SASS (1) 80.2 0.001 1 vs. 2 <.001

Denied SASS (2) 36.6 0.009 2 vs. 3 <.001

No response (3) 76.9 0.001 3 vs. 1 .581

1

1

1

 Significant at the 95 percent confidence interval. 

SOURCE: School District Experiment Findings, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

Does Precontacting the District Impact Response Rates for Schools? 

As mentioned before, response was tracked for two school-level forms: the initial Teacher Listing Form 

and the subsequent school questionnaire. Overall, the response rate was higher for the intervieweradministered Teacher Listing Form than the self-administered school questionnaire. However, table M-5 

shows that there was no significant difference between the treatment and control groups on initial 

response rate. 

Table M-5. Comparison of weighted response rates for Teacher Listing Form and school 

questionnaire, by group: 2003–04 

Teacher Listing Form 

response rate 

School questionnaire 

response rate 

Group Percent Variance P value Percent Variance P value 

Control 87.2 <0.001 81.4 <0.001 

Treatment 88.6 <0.001 .460 80.6 <0.001 .690

SOURCE: School District Experiment Findings, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

Table M-6 shows that the impact of the different types of follow-up (letter, proposal, etc.) from NCES on 

the school-level response rate was minimal. Districts that required no follow-up had a significantly higher 

response rate on the Teacher Listing Form than those requiring a proposal or a prenotice letter. The school 

response rate was only significantly lower for schools in districts that requested a proposal compared to 

those that had no follow-up required. 
Appendix M. School District Experiment Findings M-7

Table M-6. Comparison of weighted response rates for Teacher Listing Form and school 

questionnaire, by type of follow-up required: 2003–04 

Teacher Listing Form 

response rate

School questionnaire 

Type of follow-up response rate

required Percent Variance Comparison P value Percent Variance Comparison P value 

Proposal (1) 86.9 <0.001 1 vs. 2 .745 78.5 <0.001 1 vs. 2 .939

Full letter (2) 85.1 0.002 1 vs. 3 .694 78.1 0.003 1 vs. 3 .713

Prenotice letter (3) 88.2 <0.001 1 vs. 4 .0021 80.2 0.001 1 vs. 4 .0201

No follow-up 

 required (4) 94.6 <0.001

2 vs. 3 

2 vs. 4

3 vs. 4 

.584

.072

.0271

86.4 <0.001 

2 vs. 3 

2 vs. 4

3 vs. 4 

.749

.167

.160 1

 Significant at the 95 percent confidence interval. 

SOURCE: School District Experiment Findings, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

Table M-7 shows that within the treatment group, the response from the district had minimal impact on 

the schools’ decision to respond. In fact, the only significant difference in response occurs on the Teacher 

Listing Form when comparing schools in districts that approved SASS with schools in districts that did 

not respond to the follow-up materials. 

Table M-7. Comparison of weighted response rates of treatment group cases for Teacher Listing 

Form and school questionnaire, by outcome of district precontact: 2003–04 

Teacher Listing Form 

response rate 

School questionnaire 

Outcome of district response rate

precontact Percent Variance Comparison P value Percent Variance Comparison P value

Approved (1) 94.5 <0.001 1 vs. 2 .206 86.2 <0.001 1 vs. 2 .664

Denied (2) 89.1 0.001 1 vs. 3 <.0011 83.2 0.004 1 vs. 3 .0091

No response (3) 86.5 <0.001 2 vs. 3 .976 78.3 <0.001 2 vs. 3 .956

1

 Significant at the 95 percent confidence interval. 

SOURCE: School District Experiment Findings, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

Interestingly, the district’s decision to complete the district questionnaire seemed to have a greater impact 

on the school’s response rate. Table M-8 shows the response rate for the school questionnaire by the 

district’s response to the district questionnaire. 

Table M-8. Comparison of weighted school response rates, by district response to district 

questionnaire: 2003–04 

School response rate 

Status of district questionnaire Percent Variance P value 

Completed 84.1 <0.001

Refused 71.2 <0.001 <.0011

1

 Significant at the 95 percent confidence interval. 

SOURCE: School District Experiment Findings, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

Does Precontacting the District Reduce Time or Number of Contacts Required to Complete the 

School Questionnaire? 

Interviewers in the three Regional Offices participating in the study were asked to keep a log of all 

contact they had with sampled schools and districts related to completing the Teacher Listing Form and 

school questionnaire. Compliance with this procedure was generally low. For schools in the experiment, 

69.9 percent had logs. Many of the logs contained missing data on time and type of contact (phone vs. in 
M-8 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

person). Analysis reported below is based on the schools from which contact logs were received. Where 

contact time data were missing (12 percent of contacts), it was imputed with the average for the type of 

contact (phone vs. in person). Where both contact type and time were missing (4 percent of cases), 

average contact time across both contact types was imputed. 

Table M-9 shows that the number of contacts required to complete the two school-level forms was not 

impacted by precontacting an individual school’s district office. 

Table M-9. Comparison of weighted average number of field representative contacts with a 

school, by group: 2003–04 

Contacts with a school

Group Average number Variance P value

Control 7.11 0.177

Treatment 6.91 0.153 .728

SOURCE: School District Experiment Findings, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

Table M-10 shows that the average amount of time spent by field representatives to complete the two 

school-level forms was equivalent for the treatment and control groups. 

Table M-10. Comparison of weighted average minutes spent by field representatives contacting 

schools, by group: 2003–04 

Minutes spent contacting schools

Group Average number Variance P value 

Control 273.74 263.57

Treatment 293.02 398.13 .453

SOURCE: School District Experiment Findings, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

Discussion 

Prior experience conducting SASS heightened our concern about the impact of the school district’s 

decision on the school’s response rate. Schools often cite district policies and research procedures as a 

reason not to participate in SASS. In this study we looked at the relative impact of providing more 

information to districts prior to the start of the survey. Our hope was that this would facilitate data 

collection by allowing field representatives to allay school respondent’s concerns on their first contact. At 

the same time, we were concerned that increasing our contact with the districts would increase their 

opportunities to refuse the survey on behalf of their schools. Results of the study indicate that additional 

contacts had no impact on the overall response rates of schools or districts to the survey. At the same 

time, precontacting the districts and providing the additional information they requested required 

significant resources in time and money. A number of factors may explain the inability of this contact to 

change response patterns. During the call to district offices, the telephone interviewer asked to speak with 

someone who was knowledgeable about the district’s research policies. It is possible that the person they 

spoke with was not the decisionmaker. This is supported by the fact that some districts that refused on the 

telephone completed the SASS questionnaire when it was mailed to the district office. Additionally, in 

many of the districts that reported having formal research requirements, the request had to be approved by 

a committee rather than an individual. 

There were indications from the research that schools function somewhat autonomously from their 

districts. Schools will still make their own decision about participating even when the district refuses. 

Forty-nine schools in districts that denied our request to participate in SASS completed the questionnaire. 
Appendix M. School District Experiment Findings M-9

A total of 415 schools completed SASS in districts that refused to complete the district questionnaire. In 

past SASS surveys, the requirements for district approval were often given over the telephone. It is 

possible that this was a delaying tactic used by the school-level gatekeeper. However, it may be possible 

that when the interviewer was present at the school, this reason was no longer viable. Out of the entire 

SASS survey (across all Regional Offices) only 60 Teacher Listing Form cases were coded out as a 

district refusal. Of these, just over half (33) occurred in Regional Offices that were not part of the 

experiment. Only 18 of the district refusals came from the three regions involved in the study. This would 

seem to indicate that a school-level gatekeeper exerts more influence on the decision to participate than 

the school district. To more fully understand the role of the school gatekeeper, we will be conducting a 

study that focuses efforts on them. During the fall of 2005, Census Bureau staff will test the effectiveness 

of procedures to convert school-level gatekeepers into survey coordinators using incentives and other 

conversion techniques. 
M-10 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Attachment M-1. Telephone Scripts for Treatment Group Calls to 

Public School Districts 

Hello, my name is ____________________ (interviewer name). I am calling from the U.S. Census 

Bureau. 

Have I reached ____________________ 

During the upcoming school year we will be conducting the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) for the 

U.S. Department of Education. (if necessary: SASS is a series of integrated questionnaires that provide 

data on education to federal, state, and local policymakers as well as education researchers. The topics 

covered include teacher preparation and certification, professional development for administrators, and 

district-level policies and procedures). 

As part of SASS we will be sending a questionnaire to your office. The questionnaire covers topics 

including student enrollment, staff professional development, and teacher hiring. Can you tell me the 

name of the best person in your district to address the questionnaire to? (if necessary: this is often the 

superintendent or head of the research office) 

____________________________ (contact 1 name) 

____________________________ (contact 1 title) 

And could I have their direct phone line? 

 (____)- ________ - __________ (contact 1 direct phone) 

___________________________ (contact 1 email address) 

I would also like to verify the mailing address: Corrections to Address:

 ___________________________ 

 ___________________________ 

 ___________________________ 

 ___________________________ 

In addition to the district questionnaire that we will be sending to you, a Census Bureau representative 

will be contacting schools in your district to conduct part of the Schools and Staffing Survey. 

Is there a research application or other paperwork that would need to be completed before visiting the 

school? (If respondent is unsure - ask to be connected with someone who would know) 

[ ] YES [ ] NO 

If no - thank and end call. 

If Yes: 

Who would be the contact person for these forms? 

______________________ (contact 2 name) 

______________________ (contact 2 phone number) 

______________________ (contact 2 fax) 
Appendix M. School District Experiment Findings M-11

Ask to speak with the contact person, explain upcoming research and ask for their district requirements. 

What requirements are these? 

______________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________ 

If paperwork is involved: 

fax to 202-502-7475 

mail to: Lynn Zhao 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

If available on a website collect address ______________________________ 
M-12 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Attachment M-2. Telephone Script for Control Group Calls to 

Public School Districts 

Hello, my name is ____________________ (interviewer name). I am calling from the U.S. Census 

Bureau. 

Have I reached ____________________ 

During the upcoming school year we will be conducting the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) for the 

U.S. Department of Education. (if necessary: SASS is a series of integrated questionnaires that provide 

data on education to federal, state, and local policymakers as well as education researchers. The topics 

covered include teacher preparation and certification, professional development for administrators, and 

district-level policies and procedures). 

As part of SASS we will be sending a questionnaire to your office. The questionnaire covers topics 

including student enrollment, staff professional development, and teacher hiring. Can you tell me the 

name of the best person in your district to address the questionnaire to? (if necessary: this is often the 

superintendent or head of the research office) 

____________________________ (contact 1 name) 

____________________________ (contact 1 title) 

And could I have their direct phone line? 

 (____)- ________ - __________ (contact 1 direct phone) 

___________________________ (contact 1 email address) 

I would also like to verify the mailing address: Corrections to Address: 

 ___________________________ 

 ___________________________ 

 ___________________________ 

 ___________________________ 
Appendix M. School District Experiment Findings M-13

Attachment M-3. Prenotice Letter to Test Districts 
M-14 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Attachment M-4. Prenotice Letter to Control Districts 
Appendix M. School District Experiment Findings M-15

Attachment M-5. Prenotice Letter to Schools 
M-16 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Attachment M-6. Contact Log 
N-1 

Appendix N. Results From the Quality Control Reinterview 

of the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

This appendix contains the following material. 

Summary ............................................................................................................................................N-2

Quality Assurance Design ..................................................................................................................N-2

Out-of-Scope Cases .....................................................................................................................N-3

Teacher Listing Forms Versus Roster Keyed ..............................................................................N-3

Completed Questionnaires...........................................................................................................N-3

Field Representatives Not in the QC Reinterview .......................................................................N-3

Detailed Findings ...............................................................................................................................N-4

Out-of-Scope Cases .....................................................................................................................N-4

Teacher Listing Form Versus Roster Keyed................................................................................N-4

Completed Questionnaires...........................................................................................................N-4

Non-QC Field Representatives.............................................................................................................N-4

Problems in Original Survey That Impacted Reinterview ...........................................................N-5

Recommendations and Suggestions for Future Quality Control Reinterviews...........................N-5

Attachment N-1. Sample Weekly Quality Control (QC) Summary Report ....................................N-6

Attachment N-2. Out-of-Scope Telephone Scripts..........................................................................N-7

Attachment N-3. Definitions of Out-of-Scope Situations..............................................................N-17

Attachment N-4. Completed Questionnaire Telephone Script ......................................................N-18

Attachment N-5. Comparison Between the Number of Teachers Listed on the Teacher 

Listing Form and the Number of Teachers Keyed in the CAPI Instrument ......N-20

Attachment N-6. Quality Control Results, by Regional Office .....................................................N-22
N-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Summary 

The primary objective of the quality control (QC) reinterview was to detect and deter falsification by field 

representatives. The long-term goals of the QC reinterview were to identify the causes of falsification, to 

determine its impact on data quality, and to prevent it in the future. The QC reinterview sought to identify 

instances when 

• the field representative purposefully misclassified a valid case as out-of-scope to avoid doing 

work; 

• the field representative knowingly keyed fewer teachers into the computer-assisted personal 

interviewing (CAPI) instrument than were listed on the paper Teacher Listing Form in order to 

reduce keying workload; and 

• the field representative completed a form that he/she never dropped off at the school or returned 

to pick up to avoid a low response rate (falsification). 

A total of 150 field representatives, 94 experienced and 56 inexperienced, were checked in the QC 

reinterview. There were no cases of confirmed falsification. 

Quality Assurance Design 

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and Census Bureau staff decided that 10 percent of 

experienced field representatives (1 or more years employment) and all inexperienced field 

representatives (less than 1 year of employment) would be selected for the QC reinterview. The Regional 

Offices trained 1,030 experienced and 109 inexperienced field representatives for the Schools and 

Staffing Survey (SASS). The plan was designed such that if eight cases were checked for a field 

representative, there was a 58.8 percent chance of detecting falsification if the field representative 

falsified at a 10 percent rate. If the field representative falsified at a higher rate, there was a greater chance 

of detection. If the field representative falsified at a lower rate, there was a lesser chance of detection. 

NCES wanted each selected field representative’s work monitored throughout the interview period. 

Therefore, the QC reinterview was done in two distinct phases. The first phase started on September 25, 

2003, and ended on December 1, 2003. The second phase started on December 1, 2003, and finished May 

28, 2004. Selected field representatives were to be checked in both Phase I and II. 

There were four different strategies to check for field representative falsification, one to meet each of the 

following areas of potential falsification: 

• validation of out-of-scope original cases; 

• comparison of the number of teachers listed on the paper Teacher Listing Form to the number of 

teachers the field representative keyed into the CAPI instrument (Teacher Listing Form versus 

roster keyed); 

• validation of completed teacher, school, principal, and school library media center questionnaires; 

and 

• monitoring of field representatives not in the QC reinterview. 

The Regional Offices prepared a Weekly QC Summary Report for the field representatives in reinterview 

and e-mailed a copy of that report to Census Bureau headquarters staff every Tuesday beginning on 

October 1, 2003. An example of the Weekly QC Summary Report is included as attachment N-1. 
Appendix N. Results From the Quality Control Reinterview of the 2003–04 SASS N-3 

Out-of-Scope Cases 

All out-of-scope cases for all field representatives were sent for Regional Office supervisory review. 

Using the appropriate out-of-scope telephone script (included in attachment N-2), the supervisor was to 

contact the respondent to verify that the school, principal, library, or teacher was out-of-scope. Valid outof-scope situations were possible for all four types of respondents—schools, principals, school library 

media centers, and teachers. Definitions for out-of-scope situations can be found in attachment N-3. If the 

supervisor determined that the respondent was in-scope, the case was restarted. A field representative who 

had a case that was incorrectly classified as out-of-scope would be suspected of falsification. 

Teacher Listing Forms Versus Roster Keyed 

During each phase of the reinterview, the roster and corresponding Teacher Listing Form for one school 

with 20 or more teachers was to be checked for field representatives selected for the QC reinterview. The 

number of teachers keyed into the CAPI instrument was compared to the number of teachers on the 

Teacher Listing Form. If less than 80 percent of the number of teachers listed on the paper Teacher 

Listing Form were keyed into the CAPI instrument, then falsification was suspected. 

Completed Questionnaires 

During each phase of reinterview, one completed school, principal, teacher, and school library media 

center questionnaire was to be checked from each of the field representatives selected for the QC 

reinterview. Using the completed questionnaire telephone script (Form SASS FRCQ-5, included as 

attachment N-4), the respondent was called to verify (s)he had completed the questionnaire. 

Field Representatives Not in the QC Reinterview 

Field representatives not selected for the QC Reinterview were also monitored for suspicious behavior. A 

field representative’s behavior was considered suspicious if 

• the field representative did not send any Teacher Listing Forms back to the Regional Office; or 

• the field representative keyed less than 65 percent of the expected number of teachers at a school 

for more than 50 percent of the schools that he or she was assigned. Only schools with 20 or more 

teachers were included. For most schools, the expected number of teachers was obtained from 

administrative data. However, for some schools the expected number of teachers was estimated. 

The 35 percent tolerance level here is the same level that was used in the original CAPI instrument. When 

fewer teachers than the tolerance limit were keyed in the original CAPI instrument, the field 

representatives were prompted to explain why there were fewer teachers entered than expected. 

If either of the above conditions were true, then falsification was suspected. 
N-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Detailed Findings 

A total of 150 field representatives were checked for the QC reinterview. None were found to have 

falsified. 

Out-of-Scope Cases 

This report only includes the out-of-scope cases for field representatives selected for the QC reinterview. 

There were 88 occurrences of out-of-scope cases. None of the cases were confirmed of falsification. The 

Boston Regional Office did not report any cases as being out-of-scope for their selected field 

representatives. The majority of the out-of-scope cases came from two Regional Offices. Denver had 41 

percent (36 cases) and Detroit had 25 percent (22 cases) of the out-of-scope cases. 

Teacher Listing Form Versus Roster Keyed 

In the QC reinterview, counts obtained from 302 Teacher Listing Forms were compared to counts from 

the CAPI instrument. Fourteen cases were found to have less than 80 percent of the names listed on the 

Teacher Listing Form keyed into the CAPI instrument. These cases were examined by their respective 

Regional Office and each was confirmed legitimate. 

Attachment N-5 contains a comparison by Regional Office of the number of teachers listed on the 

Teacher Listing Form to the number keyed in the CAPI instrument. 

Completed Questionnaires 

In the QC reinterview, the Regional Offices attempted to contact 705 respondents nationally to ensure that 

the respondent completed the questionnaire. The Regional Offices contacted 678 respondents. The 

number of questionnaires checked by each type included 

• 148 school library media center questionnaires; 

• 183 principal questionnaires; 

• 179 school questionnaires; and 

• 168 teacher questionnaires. 

There were no cases of confirmed falsification. However, it should be noted that the number of 

questionnaires checked was much lower than what the QC plan specified. Three hundred forms of each 

questionnaire type should have been checked. However, the volume of the workflow (discussed in the 

next section, “Problems in Original Survey That Impacted Reinterview”) and unclear procedures caused 

the low counts. The Charlotte Regional Office did not check any school library media center or school 

questionnaires. The Los Angeles Regional Office did not check any teacher questionnaires. 

Non-QC Field Representatives 

One field representative from the Boston Regional Office was flagged for possible falsification. Of that 

field representative’s eligible cases, all five had less than 65 percent of the expected number of teachers 

keyed. Further investigation showed these were probably cases where the field representative re-opened 

the roster to add new names. What was believed to be an updated roster only included the new names. 

Thus the differences were attributable to a glitch in the software. (See the next section, “Problems in 

Original Survey That Impacted Reinterview.”) 
Appendix N. Results From the Quality Control Reinterview of the 2003–04 SASS N-5 

Attachment N-6 contains detailed QC results by Regional Office for each of the above items. 

Problems in Original Survey That Impacted Reinterview 

• The Regional Offices were supposed to check eight questionnaires from each selected field 

representative [four questionnaires (one of each type) during each phase]. However, this did not 

happen during production. Some field representatives did not have some types of questionnaires 

returned during Phase I and therefore did not have certain questionnaire types eligible for Phase I. 

Conversely, some field representatives did not have some types of questionnaires returned during 

Phase II and therefore did not have certain questionnaire types eligible for Phase II. This 

decreased the chances of detecting falsification. 

• Completion of the paper Teacher Listing Form for each school was not required. Comparison of 

the Teacher Listing Form count to the CAPI instrument count could not be made if a paper 

Teacher Listing Form or school printout of teachers was not available. Of the schools with more 

than 20 teachers, 14 cases were excluded from the analysis for this reason. 

• A problem with the CAPI instrument was identified and corrected during production. If a field 

representative re-opened the teacher roster to add or correct names, the CAPI instrument 

overwrote the original roster with only the new or corrected names. 

Recommendations and Suggestions for 

Future Quality Control Reinterviews 

• The QC reinterview for completed questionnaires could be incorporated into the response error 

questionnaire. The three questions in the Form SASS FRCQ-5 script can be added to the front of 

the response error questionnaire. This would also make the monitoring easier and lessen the 

burden on the Regional Offices. The sampling method would have to be changed if the response 

error and QC questionnaires were combined. 

• Another option for future evaluations would be to use a focused reinterview approach. This 

approach targets cases for reinterview based on certain characteristics and not a preselected 

random sample of field representatives. This may be the preferred option since there was not one 

case of confirmed falsification using random reinterview. 

• Modify the summary reports. The Weekly QC Summary report should be simplified by splitting 

it into two distinct reports. One report would be for the roster check, and the second report would 

for the completed questionnaires. A summary report for out-of-scope cases should also be used to 

monitor progress. 

• Investigate whether or not the Teacher Listing Form and roster counts can be evaluated at Census 

Bureau headquarters. 

• The responses on the four out-of-scope scripts should be keyed at the Regional Offices or the 

National Processing Center in Jeffersonville, Indiana. For the 2003–04 SASS, these scripts were 

keyed at Census Bureau headquarters. 
N-6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Attachment N-1. Sample Weekly Quality Control (QC) Summary 

Report 

The form below constitutes the Weekly QC Summary Report. It contains a number of acronyms which 

are explained here: RO refers to Regional Office; ROSCO refers to the Regional Office Systems Control 

system; TLF refers to the Teacher Listing Form; and LMC refers to Library Media Center. 

Weekly QC Summary Checks for Field Representatives (FRs) in 

Reinterview 

 

 RO: Date Prepared: 

 

 

Number of 

Teachers Shown

Enter an “X” for the FIRST 

Completed questionnaire 

Was falsification 

suspected for 

second completed 

questionnaire? (Y= 

Yes; N=No; CD = 

Can’t Determine) 

FR 

CODE 

EXP 

LVL 

FR’s Last 

Name (3) 

Control 

Number 

(4) 

ROSCO 

(5) 

TLF 

(6) Sch (7)

Prin. 

(8) 

Teach 

(9) 

LMC 

(10) 

For Y and CD fill 

out 11-163 (11) 

Reinterviewer 

Code 

(12) 

Date QC 

Conducted 

(13) 

 

 
Appendix N. Results From the Quality Control Reinterview of the 2003–04 SASS N-7 

Attachment N-2. Out-of-Scope Telephone Scripts 

Four scripts are included in this attachment: 

• Form SASS OOSS-1, Out-of-Scope Teacher Listing Instrument (School); 

• Form SASS OOSP-2, Out-of-Scope Principal; 

• Form SASS OOSL-3, Out-of-Scope Library Media Center; and 

• Form SASS OOST-4, Out-of-Scope Teacher. 

Form SASS OOSS-1 

SCRIPT # 1, Out-of-Scope Teacher Listing Instrument (School): 

Fill in the information requested below before calling: 

RO Code: _________ 

FR Code: _______ FR Name: _____________________ 

Control Number:______________________ 

School name: _________________________ 

School address: ______________________ 

______________________ 

______________________ 

School Type: (circle one) Public Private Charter Indian 

Telephone number: ( ) - 

Notes on case: __________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

School Respondent’s Name: _________________________ 

IMPORTANT: Before calling the school verify if this school has been classified as out-of-scope by 

headquarters. If the HQ has classified the case as out-of-scope. DO NOT CALL.

Use the script below when calling: 

Hello. I’m [FILL: Caller’s name], from the U.S. Census Bureau. May I speak to [FILL: school 

respondent’s name]. 

Our records show that one of our interviewers recently contacted your school in regard to the 2003–2004 

Schools and Staffing Survey. We’re doing a short quality control check to make sure that our interviewers 

are following correct procedures. 

I only need to ask you a few questions to do this. 

Record callback attempts: 

 Callback #1: _______________ (date & time) 

 Callback #2: _______________ (date & time) 

 Callback #3: _______________ (date & time) 
N-8 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Form SASS OOSS-1 

SCRIPT # 1, Out-of-Scope Teacher Listing Instrument (School)—Continued 

Continue with the questions below: (Circle the response given.) 

1. Did one of our interviewers recently visit your school to obtain a list of your current teachers and 

to leave questionnaires for staff members to fill? 

Yes No 

2. Does this institution provide classroom instructions to students in any of the grades (1st through 

12th) or the ungraded equivalent? 

Yes No 

3. Is [FILL: school name] the correct name for your school? 

Yes No 

4. Is the address of the school [FILL: school address]? 

Yes No 

5. Is this a Public or Private school? 

 Public Private 

That’s all the information I need at this time. Thanks for your assistance. 

------------------------THE SECTION BELOW IS RESERVED FOR THE CALLER--------------------- 

Caller’s Name: ________________________ 

Caller’s (S)FR code: ______________ 

Based on the information attainted above, is this school in-scope for SASS? 

 Yes No 

(if yes restart the case) 

Based on the factual information you have about this case, do you think the FR is guilty of falsification? 

(Circle one) 

Yes No Can’t determine 
Appendix N. Results From the Quality Control Reinterview of the 2003–04 SASS N-9 

Form SASS OOSS-1 

SCRIPT # 1, Out-of-Scope Teacher Listing Instrument (School)—Continued 

If Yes or Can’t determine, fill a Form 11-163. 

If No, please explain below: 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________ 

Write additional comments below: 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________ 

Mail this form when completed to: 

U.S. Census Bureau 

4700 Silver Hill Road 

Suite 3725-3, Mailstop 8700 

Washington, D.C. 20233 

Attn: Geoffrey I. Jackson 
N-10 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Form SASS OOSP-2 

SCRIPT # 2, Out-of-Scope Principal: 

Fill in the information requested below before calling: 

RO Code: _________ 

FR Code: _______ FR Name: _____________________ 

Control Number:______________________ 

School name: _________________________ 

School address: ______________________ 

______________________ 

______________________ 

School Type: (circle one) Public Private Charter 

Telephone number: ( ) - 

Notes on case: __________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

School Respondent’s or Principal’s Name: _________________________ 

Use the script below when calling: 

Hello. I’m [FILL: Caller’s name], from the U.S. Census Bureau. May I speak to [FILL: school 

respondent’s or principal’s name]. 

Our records show that one of our interviewers recently contacted your school in regard to the 2003–2004 

Schools and Staffing Survey. We’re doing a short quality check to make sure that our interviewers are 

following correct procedures. 

I only need to ask you one or two questions to do this. 

Record callback attempts: 

 Callback #1: _______________ (date & time) 

 Callback #2: _______________ (date & time) 

 Callback #3: _______________ (date & time) 

Continue with the question below: (Circle the answer given) 

1. According to our interviewer, your school does NOT have a principal. Is this correct? 

Yes No 

(If yes). Is there another person at the school who performs the role of the principal, but is called 

by some other name such as school head, director, headmaster, or headmistress? 

[DO NOT INCLUDE A PERSON WHO IS TEMPORARILY THE “ACTING PRINCIPAL.”] 

Yes No 

That’s all the information I need at this time. Thanks for your assistance. 
Appendix N. Results From the Quality Control Reinterview of the 2003–04 SASS N-11 

Form SASS OOSP-2 

SCRIPT # 2, Out-of-Scope Principal—Continued 

------------------------THE SECTION BELOW IS RESERVED FOR THE CALLER---------------------- 

Caller’s Name: ________________________ 

Caller’s (S)FR code: ______________ 

Based on the factual information you have about the case, do you think the FR is guilty of falsification? 

(Circle one) 

Yes No Can’t determine 

If Yes or Can’t determine, fill a Form 11-163. 

If No, please explain below: 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________ 

Write additional comments below: 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Mail this form when completed to: 

U.S. Census Bureau 

4700 Silver Hill Road 

Suite 3725-3, Mailstop 8700 

Washington, D.C. 20233 

Attn: Geoffrey I. Jackson 
N-12 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Form SASS OOSL-3 

SCRIPT # 3, Out-of-Scope Library Media Center: 

Fill in the information requested below before calling: 

RO Code: _________ 

FR Code: _______ FR Name: _____________________ 

Control Number:______________________ 

School name: _________________________ 

School address: ______________________ 

______________________ 

______________________ 

School Type: (circle one) Public Private Charter Indian 

Telephone number: ( ) - 

Notes on case: __________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

School Respondent’s Name: _________________________ 

Use the script below when calling: 

Hello. I’m [FILL: Caller’s name], from the U.S. Census Bureau. May I speak to [FILL: school 

respondent’s name]. 

Our records show that one of our interviewers recently contacted your school regarding the 2003–2004 

Schools and Staffing Survey. We’re doing a short quality control check to make sure that our interviewers 

are following the correct procedures. 

I only need to ask you one question to do this. 

Record callback attempts: 

 Callback #1: _______________ (date & time) 

 Callback #2: _______________ (date & time) 

 Callback #3: _______________ (date & time) 

Continue with the question below: (Circle the answer given) 

According to our interviewer, your school does NOT have a Library Media Center. A Library Media 

Center is an organized collection of printed and/or audiovisual and/or computer resources which is 

administered as a unit, is located in a designated place or places, and makes resources and services 

available to students, teachers, and administrators. 

A Library Media Center may be called a library, media center, resource center, information center, 

instructional materials center, learning resource center, or some other name. 
Appendix N. Results From the Quality Control Reinterview of the 2003–04 SASS N-13 

Form SASS OOSL-3 

SCRIPT # 3, Out-of-Scope Library Media Center—Continued 

Does your school have a Library Media Center? 

Yes No 

That’s all the information I need at this time. Thanks for your assistance. 

------------------------THE SECTION BELOW IS RESERVED FOR THE CALLER---------------------- 

Caller’s Name: ________________________ 

Caller’s (S)FR code: ______________ 

Based on the factual information you have about the case, do you think the FR is guilty of falsification? 

(Circle one) 

Yes No Can’t determine 

If Yes or Can’t determine, fill a Form 11-163. 

If No, please explain below: 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Write additional comments below: 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Mail this form when completed to: 

U.S. Census Bureau 

4700 Silver Hill Road 

Suite 3725-3, Mailstop 8700 

Washington, D.C. 20233 

Attn: Geoffrey I. Jackson 
N-14 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Form SASS OOST-4 

SCRIPT # 4, Out-of-Scope Teacher: 

Fill in the information requested below before calling: 

RO Code: _________ 

FR Code: _______ FR Name: _____________________ 

Control Number:______________________ 

School name: _________________________ 

School address: ______________________ 

______________________ 

______________________ 

School Type: (circle one) Public Private Charter 

Telephone number: ( ) - 

Notes on case: __________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Name of teacher: _____________________ 

Use the script below when calling: 

Hello. I’m [FILL: Caller’s name], from the U.S. Census Bureau. May I speak to [FILL: Name of teacher]. 

(If the teacher is not available at the school, ask the following question) 

May I then speak to someone who is knowledgeable of [FILL: Name of teacher]’s activities? 

Our records show that one of our interviewers recently contacted your school regarding the 2003–2004 

Schools and Staffing Survey. We’re doing a short quality control check to make sure that our interviewers 

are following correct procedures. 

I only need to ask you one or two questions to do this. 

Record callback attempts: 

 Callback #1: _______________ (date & time) 

 Callback #2: _______________ (date & time) 

 Callback #3: _______________ (date & time) 

Continue with the questions below: (Circle the answer given) 

(I. If the respondent is [FILL: Name of teacher] then read them the following. If the respondent is 

not [FILL: Name of teacher] then skip to II) 

Recently one of our interviewers visited your school to obtain a list of the current teachers. Even though 

you were listed on the teacher listing form/roster and selected for sample, our interviewer excluded you 

from the survey. 
Appendix N. Results From the Quality Control Reinterview of the 2003–04 SASS N-15 

Form SASS OOST-4 

SCRIPT # 4, Out-of-Scope Teacher—Continued 

We want to make sure that our interviewer did not exclude you from the survey by mistake. As I read the 

reasons why we exclude certain teachers, let me know if one or more applies to you. 

Do you teach regularly scheduled classes at [FILL: Name of school]? 

 Yes No 

 -Skip to closing 

(II. If the respondent is NOT [FILL: Name of teacher] then read the following) 

Recently one of our interviewers visited your school to obtain a list of the current teachers. Even though 

[FILL: Name of teacher] was listed on the teacher listing form/roster and selected for sample, our 

interviewer excluded [FILL: Name of teacher] from the survey. 

We want to make sure that our interviewer did not exclude [FILL: Name of teacher] from the survey by 

mistake. As I read the reasons why we exclude certain teachers, let me know if one or more applies to 

him/her. 

1. He/she was not there when our interviewer attempted to deliver the Teacher Questionnaire (e.g., 

on sabbatical, on maternity leave) 

2. He/she transferred to another school 

3. He/she retired 

4. He/she was never employed as a teacher at this school 

5. He/she did not teach a class 

6. He/she teaches only prekindergarten, adult students, or postsecondary students 

7. He/she is a short-term substitute only 

8. None of the reasons above applies 

Closing

That’s all the information I need at this time. Thanks for your assistance. 
N-16 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Form SASS OOST-4 

SCRIPT # 4, Out-of-Scope Teacher—Continued 

-----------------------THE SECTION BELOW IS RESERVED FOR THE CALLER----------------------- 

Caller’s Name: ________________________ 

Caller’s (S)FR code: ______________ 

Based on the factual information you have about the case, do you think the FR is guilty of falsification? 

(Circle one) 

Yes No Can’t determine 

If Yes or Can’t determine, fill a Form 11-163. 

If No, please explain below: 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Write additional comments below: 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Mail this form when completed to: 

U.S. Census Bureau 

4700 Silver Hill Road 

Suite 3725-3, Mailstop 8700 

Washington, D.C. 20233 
Appendix N. Results From the Quality Control Reinterview of the 2003–04 SASS N-17 

Attachment N-3. Definitions of Out-of-Scope Situations 

School 

A school is out-of-scope if it 

1. is not operational (i.e., the school no longer exists or at least does not have any students, was 

supposed to open but didn’t, or was closed during the school year); 

2. does not have students in at least one grade between 1st and 12th; 

3. is misclassified (e.g., a public school found at the address for a private school or a charter school 

found at the address for a private school, and vice versa); 

4. is a duplicate school (more than one entry, such as variations in street address or name); 

5. is not a school (e.g., an afterschool tutoring service for a public school or a preschool daycare 

program that is privately-operated at a public elementary school or an afterschool program in 

catechism or Hebrew study that is not part of the regular school day). 

Principal or Head of School 

A principal is out-of-scope if the school respondent states that there is no one filling that position in the 

current school year (an acting principal is not eligible). 

Library Media Center 

A library media center is out-of-scope if it does not have an organized collection of printed and/or 

audio/visual and/or computer resources which is administered as a unit, is not located in a designated 

place or places, and does not make resources available to students, teachers, and administrators. (This 

definition can be found in the library media center questionnaire as well as the public school 

questionnaire.) 

Teacher 

A teacher is out-of-scope if (s)he does not teach any of grades 1 through 12. This includes someone who 

is a therapist/counselor, student teacher, or tutor, or is out on indefinite leave, or is only a short-term 

substitute, or quit teaching after being sampled, or is deceased. 
N-18 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Attachment N-4. Completed Questionnaire Telephone Script 

Form SASS FRCQ-5 

SCRIPT # 5, Completed Questionnaires Returned by FR: 

Circle questionnaire type: Principal School Teacher

Library Media Center 

RO Code: _________ 

FR Code: _______ FR Name: _____________________ 

Control Number:______________________ 

School name: _________________________ 

School address: ______________________ 

______________________ 

______________________ 

School Type: (circle one) Public Private Charter Indian 

Telephone number: ( ) - 

Notes on case: __________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

School Respondent’s Name: _________________________ 

Use the script below when calling: 

Hello. I’m [FILL: Caller’s name], from the U.S. Census Bureau. May I speak to [FILL: school 

respondent’s name]. 

Our records show that one of our interviewers recently contacted your school. We’re doing a short quality 

check to make sure that our interviewers are following correct procedures. 

I need only to ask you one or two questions to do this. 

Record callback attempts: 

 Callback #1: _______________ (date & time) 

 Callback #2: _______________ (date & time) 

 Callback #3: _______________ (date & time) 

Continue with the questions below: (Circle the answer given) 

1. Were you recently given a questionnaire to complete that asked questions about you and/or your 

school? 

Yes No 
Appendix N. Results From the Quality Control Reinterview of the 2003–04 SASS N-19 

Form SASS FRCQ-5 

SCRIPT # 5, Completed Questionnaires Returned by FR—Continued 

2. Did you complete and return your questionnaire to the interviewer or mail it back to the Census 

Bureau? 

Yes No 

 (SKIP 3 Go to closing) (GO TO 3) 

3. If you did not complete the form could someone else have? 

 Yes No 

That’s all the information I need at this time. Thanks for your assistance. 

-----------------------THE SECTION BELOW IS RESERVED FOR THE CALLER----------------------- 

Caller’s Name: ________________________ 

Caller’s (S)FR code: ______________ 

Based on the information you have, do you think the FR is guilty of falsification? (Circle one) 

Yes No Can’t determine 

If Yes or Can’t determine, fill a Form 11-163. 

If No, please explain below: 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________ 

Write additional comments below: 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________ 

Mail this form when completed to: 

U.S. Census Bureau 

4700 Silver Hill Road 

Suite 3725-3, Mailstop 8700 

Washington, D.C. 20233 

Attn: Geoffrey I. Jackson 
N-20 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Attachment N-5. Comparison Between the Number of Teachers Listed 

on the Teacher Listing Form and the Number of Teachers Keyed in 

the CAPI Instrument 

The SAS procedure for a paired t test was used to determine the level of significant difference between 

the Teacher Listing Form and computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) teacher listing counts. 

Using alpha of .05 the paired t test showed no statistically significant difference between the counts on the 

Teacher Listing Form and what was keyed into the CAPI instrument, except for Regional Office 27, as 

shown in table N-1. 

The following formulas were used to test for significant difference: 

s n

d

t

d / =

TLFcounti CAPIcounti d = −

n is the number of cases within the RO. 

Table N-1. Analysis of discrepancy between number of teachers listed on the Teacher Listing 

Form and number of teachers keyed into CAPI instrument: 2003–04 

Regional office Number of cases 

Mean difference between 

Teacher Listing Form 

and CAPI Standard error t value Pr > |t|

21 (Boston) 43 -0.721 1.276 -0.56 0.575

22 (New York) 10 -5.200 5.099 -1.02 0.334

23 (Philadelphia) 25 6.720 3.650 1.84 0.078

24 (Detroit) 7 -0.143 0.261 -0.55 0.604

25 (Chicago) 24 0.042 0.042 1.00 0.328

26 (Kansas City) 107 0.495 0.370 1.34 0.184

27 (Seattle) 10 2.100 0.836 2.51 0.033

28 (Charlotte) 17 -1.118 1.721 -0.65 0.525

29 (Atlanta) 8 0.875 0.611 1.43 0.195

30 (Dallas) 4 -11.000 8.134 -1.35 0.269

31 (Denver) 35 2.143 1.307 1.64 0.110

32 (Los Angeles) 12 -4.417 2.398 -1.84 0.093

SOURCE: Results from the Quality Control Reinterview of the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

The mean number of teachers listed on the Teacher Listing Form is compared to the mean number of 

teachers keyed in CAPI instrument in exhibit N-1. 
Appendix N. Results From the Quality Control Reinterview of the 2003–04 SASS N-21 

Exhibit N-1. Mean number of teachers listed on the Teacher Listing Form vs. mean number of 

teachers keyed in CAPI instrument: 2003–04 

51

61

57

40

49 49

36

46

62

71

41

48

50

55

64

40

49 50

38

45

62

60

43 43

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Regional Office

Mean number

Mean TLF Mean Keyed

NOTE: TLF refers to the Teacher Listing Form. CAPI refers to computer-assisted personal interviewing. 

SOURCE: Results from the Quality Control Reinterview of the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
N-22 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Attachment N-6. Quality Control Results, by Regional Office 

SASS Reinterview Report for Boston 

Results of quality assurance check 

 Regional Office 21 National 

 Number/Total Percent Number/Total Percent

Teacher Listing Form/Roster keyed 

 Roster count where teachers keyed in CAPI 

 instrument was less than 80 percent of the Teacher 

 Listing Form count 2/43 4.7 14/302 4.6

Out-of-scope 

 Confirmed falsification 0/0 0.0 0/88 0.0

Completed questionnaires 

 Total confirmed falsification 0/179 0.0 0/678 0.0

 Library media center forms 0/45 0.0 0/148 0.0

 Principal forms 0/45 0.0 0/183 0.0

 School forms 0/43 0.0 0/179 0.0

 Teacher forms 0/46 0.0 0/168 0.0

(S)FR information 

Number of (S)FRs checked 46 150 

 Experienced field representatives 10 94 

 Inexperienced field representatives 36 56 

Confirmed falsification rate 0/46 0.0 0/150 0.0

SASS Reinterview Report for New York 

Results of quality assurance check 

 Regional Office 22 National 

 Number/Total Percent Number/Total Percent

Teacher Listing Form/Roster keyed 

 Roster count where teachers keyed in CAPI 

 instrument was less than 80 percent of the Teacher 

 Listing Form count 0/10 0.0 14/302 4.6

Out-of-scope 

 Confirmed falsification 0/5 0.0 0/88 0.0

Completed questionnaires 

 Total confirmed falsification 0/22 0.0 0/678 0.0

 Library media center forms 0/3 0.0 0/148 0.0

 Principal forms 0/5 0.0 0/183 0.0

 School forms 0/7 0.0 0/179 0.0

 Teacher forms 0/7 0.0 0/168 0.0

(S)FR information 

Number of (S)FRs checked 5 150 

 Experienced field representatives 2 94 

 Inexperienced field representatives 3 56 

Confirmed falsification rate 0/5 0.0 0/150 0.0
Appendix N. Results From the Quality Control Reinterview of the 2003–04 SASS N-23 

SASS Reinterview Report for Philadelphia 

Results of quality assurance check 

 Regional Office 23 National 

 Number/Total Percent Number/Total Percent

Teacher Listing Form/Roster keyed 

 Roster count where teachers keyed in CAPI 

 instrument was less than 80 percent of the Teacher 

 Listing Form count 5/25 20.0 14/302 4.6

Out-of-scope 

 Confirmed falsification 0/6 0.0 0/88 0.0

Completed questionnaires 

 Total confirmed falsification 0/55 0.0 0/678 0.0

 Library media center forms 0/11 0.0 0/148 0.0

 Principal forms 0/15 0.0 0/183 0.0

 School forms 0/15 0.0 0/179 0.0

 Teacher forms 0/14 0.0 0/168 0.0

(S)FR information 

Number of (S)FRs checked 11 150 

 Experienced field representatives 8 94 

 Inexperienced field representatives 3 56 

Confirmed falsification rate 0/11 0.0 0/150 0.0

SASS Reinterview Report for Detroit 

Results of quality assurance check 

Regional Office 24 National 

 Number/Total Percent Number/Total Percent

Teacher Listing Form/Roster keyed 

 Roster count where teachers keyed in CAPI 

 instrument was less than 80 percent of the Teacher 

 Listing Form count 0/7 0.0 14/302 4.6

Out-of-scope 

 Confirmed falsification 0/22 0.0 0/88 0.0

Completed questionnaires 

 Total confirmed falsification 0/24 0.0 0/678 0.0

 Library media center forms 0/4 0.0 0/148 0.0

 Principal forms 0/6 0.0 0/183 0.0

 School forms 0/7 0.0 0/179 0.0

 Teacher forms 0/7 0.0 0/168 0.0

(S)FR information 

Number of (S)FRs checked 6 150 

 Experienced field representatives 6 94 

 Inexperienced field representatives 0 56 

Confirmed falsification rate 0/6 0.0 0/150 0.0
N-24 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Reinterview Report for Chicago 

Results of quality assurance check 

Regional Office 25 National 

 Number/Total Percent Number/Total Percent

Teacher Listing Form/Roster keyed 

 Roster count where teachers keyed in CAPI 

 instrument was less than 80 percent of the Teacher 

 Listing Form count 0/24 0.0 14/302 4.6

Out-of-scope 

 Confirmed falsification 0/4 0.0 0/88 0.0

Completed questionnaires 

 Total confirmed falsification 0/37 0.0 0/678 0.0

 Library media center forms 0/9 0.0 0/148 0.0

 Principal forms 0/10 0.0 0/183 0.0

 School forms 0/10 0.0 0/179 0.0

 Teacher forms 0/8 0.0 0/168 0.0

(S)FR information 

Number of (S)FRs checked 8 150 

 Experienced field representatives 7 94 

 Inexperienced field representatives 1 56 

Confirmed falsification rate 0/8 0.0 0/150 0.0

SASS Reinterview Report for Kansas City 

Results of quality assurance check 

Regional Office 26 National 

 Number/Total Percent Number/Total Percent

Teacher Listing Form/Roster keyed 

 Roster count where teachers keyed in CAPI 

 instrument was less than 80 percent of the Teacher 

 Listing Form count 2/107 1.9 14/302 4.6

Out-of-scope 

 Confirmed falsification 0/3 0.0 0/88 0.0

Completed questionnaires 

 Total confirmed falsification 0/116 0.0 0/678 0.0

 Library media center forms 0/25 0.0 0/148 0.0

 Principal forms 0/31 0.0 0/183 0.0

 School forms 0/35 0.0 0/179 0.0

 Teacher forms 0/25 0.0 0/168 0.0

(S)FR information 

Number of (S)FRs checked 20 150 

 Experienced field representatives 9 94 

 Inexperienced field representatives 11 56 

Confirmed falsification rate 0/20 0.0 0/150 0.0
Appendix N. Results From the Quality Control Reinterview of the 2003–04 SASS N-25 

SASS Reinterview Report for Seattle 

Results of quality assurance check 

Regional Office 27 National 

 Number/Total Percent Number/Total Percent

Teacher Listing Form/Roster keyed 

 Roster count where teachers keyed in CAPI 

 instrument was less than 80 percent of the Teacher 

 Listing Form count 1/10 10.0 14/302 4.6

Out-of-scope 

 Confirmed falsification 0/7 0.0 0/88 0.0

Completed questionnaires 

 Total confirmed falsification 0/67 0.0 0/678 0.0

 Library media center forms 0/15 0.0 0/148 0.0

 Principal forms 0/13 0.0 0/183 0.0

 School forms 0/19 0.0 0/179 0.0

 Teacher forms 0/20 0.0 0/168 0.0

(S)FR information 

Number of (S)FRs checked 11 150 

 Experienced field representatives 9 94 

 Inexperienced field representatives 2 56 

Confirmed falsification rate 0/11 0.0 0/150 0.0

SASS Reinterview Report for Charlotte 

Results of quality assurance check 

Regional Office 28 National 

 Number/Total Percent Number/Total Percent

Teacher Listing Form/Roster keyed 

 Roster count where teachers keyed in CAPI 

 instrument was less than 80 percent of the Teacher 

 Listing Form count 1/17 5.9 14/302 4.6

Out-of-scope 

 Confirmed falsification 0/1 0.0 0/88 0.0

Completed questionnaires 

 Total confirmed falsification 0/17 0.0 0/678 0.0

 Library media center forms 0/0 0.0 0/148 0.0

 Principal forms 0/15 0.0 0/183 0.0

 School forms 0/0 0.0 0/179 0.0

 Teacher forms 0/2 0.0 0/168 0.0

(S)FR information 

Number of (S)FRs checked 7 150 

 Experienced field representatives 7 94 

 Inexperienced field representatives 0 56 

Confirmed falsification rate 0/7 0.0 0/150 0.0
N-26 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Reinterview Report for Atlanta 

Results of quality assurance check 

Regional Office 29 National 

 Number/Total Percent Number/Total Percent

Teacher Listing Form/Roster keyed 

 Roster count where teachers keyed in CAPI 

 instrument was less than 80 percent of the Teacher 

 Listing Form count 0/8 0.0 14/302 4.6

Out-of-scope 

 Confirmed falsification 0/1 0.0 0/88 0.0

Completed questionnaires 

 Total confirmed falsification 0/40 0.0 0/678 0.0

 Library media center forms 0/8 0.0 0/148 0.0

 Principal forms 0/10 0.0 0/183 0.0

 School forms 0/10 0.0 0/179 0.0

 Teacher forms 0/12 0.0 0/168 0.0

(S)FR information 

Number of (S)FRs checked 11 150 

 Experienced field representatives 11 94 

 Inexperienced field representatives 0 56 

Confirmed falsification rate 0/11 0.0 0/150 0.0

SASS Reinterview Report for Dallas 

Results of quality assurance check 

Regional Office 30 National 

 Number/Total Percent Number/Total Percent

Teacher Listing Form/Roster keyed 

 Roster count where teachers keyed in CAPI 

 instrument was less than 80 percent of the Teacher 

 Listing Form count 0/4 0.0 14/302 4.6

Out-of-scope 

 Confirmed falsification 0/2 0.0 0/88 0.0

Completed questionnaires 

 Total confirmed falsification 0/16 0.0 0/678 0.0

 Library media center forms 0/4 0.0 0/148 0.0

 Principal forms 0/4 0.0 0/183 0.0

 School forms 0/4 0.0 0/179 0.0

 Teacher forms 0/4 0.0 0/168 0.0

(S)FR information 

Number of (S)FRs checked 4 150 

 Experienced field representatives 4 94 

 Inexperienced field representatives 0 56 

Confirmed falsification rate 0/4 0.0 0/150 0.0
Appendix N. Results From the Quality Control Reinterview of the 2003–04 SASS N-27 

SASS Reinterview Report for Denver 

Results of quality assurance check 

Regional Office 31 National 

 Number/Total Percent Number/Total Percent

Teacher Listing Form/Roster keyed 

 Roster count where teachers keyed in CAPI 

 instrument was less than 80 percent of the Teacher 

 Listing Form count 3/35 8.6 14/302 4.6

Out-of-scope 

 Confirmed falsification 0/36 0.0 0/88 0.0

Completed questionnaires 

 Total confirmed falsification 0/92 0.0 0/678 0.0

 Library media center forms 0/21 0.0 0/148 0.0

 Principal forms 0/24 0.0 0/183 0.0

 School forms 0/24 0.0 0/179 0.0

 Teacher forms 0/23 0.0 0/168 0.0

(S)FR information 

Number of (S)FRs checked 16 150 

 Experienced field representatives 16 94 

 Inexperienced field representatives 0 56 

Confirmed falsification rate 0/16 0.0 0/150 0.0

SASS Reinterview Report for Los Angeles 

Results of quality assurance check 

Regional Office 32 National 

 Number/Total Percent Number/Total Percent

Teacher Listing Form/Roster keyed 

 Roster count where teachers keyed in CAPI 

 instrument was less than 80 percent of the Teacher 

 Listing Form count 0/12 0.0 14/302 4.6

Out-of-scope 

 Confirmed falsification 0/1 0.0 0/88 0.0

Completed questionnaires 

 Total confirmed falsification 0/13 0.0 0/678 0.0

 Library media center forms 0/3 0.0 0/148 0.0

 Principal forms 0/5 0.0 0/183 0.0

 School forms 0/5 0.0 0/179 0.0

 Teacher forms 0/0 0.0 0/168 0.0

(S)FR information 

Number of (S)FRs checked 5 150 

 Experienced field representatives 5 94 

 Inexperienced field representatives 0 56 

Confirmed falsification rate 0/5 0.0 0/150 0.0
This page is intentionally left blank. 
O-1 

Appendix O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout 

Operations 

The contents of this appendix are as follows: 

Data Capture Operations ....................................................................................................................O-2 

Quality Assurance and Verification Procedures for the Data Capture Operations.............................O-3 

General Information on Quality Assurance Procedures...............................................................O-3 

Definitions ...................................................................................................................................O-4 

Verification ..................................................................................................................................O-6 

Quality Assurance Adjudication ..................................................................................................O-6 

Keyer Control ..............................................................................................................................O-6 

Batch Control...............................................................................................................................O-7 

Feedback ......................................................................................................................................O-7 

Rejected Batches..........................................................................................................................O-7 

Quality Assurance Responsibilities .............................................................................................O-7 

Error Codes (Fields Only)............................................................................................................O-8 

Data Entry Quality Assurance Decision Table for Batch Decisions............................................O-9 

Cumulative Data Keying Verification Reports ................................................................................O-10 

Mailout Operations Quality Assurance Summary............................................................................O-16 

Reinterview Mailout Operations and Quality Assurance Summary.................................................O-23 
O-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

This appendix details the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) quality assurance (QA) for both 

data keying and mailout operations. An overview of the data keying operations is provided in chapter 7, 

and the mailout procedures are covered in chapter 5. “Data keying” is the method by which the SASS 

data are captured and converted from paper to electronic format. The “mailout operations” include all 

procedures necessary for preparing SASS packages for distribution to respondents, including printing of 

all forms (such as letters, questionnaires, postcards, etc.), label imaging, assembly of packages for 

schools, training kits for the field representatives, and assembly of questionnaire packets and booklets. 

The first section of this appendix describes the data capture operation procedures used by keying staff, 

and explains why different data capture procedures were used for the SASS teacher questionnaires. The 

second section describes the detailed procedures used for quality assurance and verification of the SASS 

questionnaire data capture. The third section provides results of the verification of the SASS 

questionnaire data capture. The fourth section describes the detailed procedures for quality assurance of 

the mailout operations (except for SASS reinterview questionnaires) and provides the results. The final 

section describes the detailed procedures for the quality assurance of the reinterview questionnaire 

mailout operations and provides the results. 

Data Capture Operations 

The 2003–04 SASS data were captured (converted from paper to electronic format) using a combination 

of manual data keying and imaging technology. Manual data keying, used for most of the SASS 

questionnaires, was accomplished using a Key from Paper (KFP) data capture system. The KFP system is 

programmed to present screens of questionnaire items to data keying staff, who page through each 

questionnaire and key any entries into the appropriate fields on the screens. The KFP system performs 

various edits as the data are keyed. Imaging technology differs from KFP by first capturing an electronic 

image of each questionnaire page. Along with the image capture, data can be captured using Optical Mark 

Recognition (OMR), which recognizes the marked box (next to precoded items) or the written 

alphanumerical entry, and enters the appropriate data into the OMR database for that questionnaire. 

Alternatively, the images can be presented to data keying staff, who capture the data by keying any 

entries into the appropriate fields on the screens (similar to the KFP process). 

All of the SASS questionnaires except for the public and private teacher questionnaires (including all 

SASS reinterview questionnaires) were captured utilizing the KFP system.1

 Prior to keying, KFP 

programs were developed for each questionnaire. Images of these forms were captured after data entry 

was completed. The image files were used during subsequent steps of data processing to view the actual 

questionnaires online. All KFP entries were 100 percent verified by the keying staff, meaning that each 

field was keyed twice, and the results were compared automatically for discrepancies, and subsequently 

verified. The verification during this operation allowed up to a 1 percent error on a field-to-field basis. 

Unacceptable batches of questionnaires (where there was more than a 1 percent error) were 100 percent 

verified a second time by keying staff. 

The data from SASS teacher questionnaires were captured using imaging technology and a combination 

of OMR and Key from Image (KFI). The precoded items (all items where the respondent answered by 

marking a box) on the SASS public and private teacher questionnaires (SASS-4A and -4B) were captured 

using OMR. All write-in fields (e.g., open-ended, numeric, and character fields) for these questionnaires 

were captured by the KFI process. OMR and KFI are both methods used by the Workflow and Image 

Processing System, an automated data capture system. 

 

1

 Teacher Listing Form data were captured using the SASS Teacher Listing instrument. 
Appendix O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations O-3 

The first step of data capture for the SASS public and private teacher questionnaires was for members of 

keying staff to disassemble and scan each duplex booklet page. Electronic images of each duplex page 

were created along with a data response file. The data response file was processed through imaging 

recognition software at a 99 percent confidence level. If the recognition software was 99 percent certain 

that the response field contained a valid mark, the entry was copied to an output file. If the response fell 

outside the confidence level, the imaged response was presented to a keying operator to interpret and key 

from the image. All of the open-ended items also were presented to a member of the keying staff. All 

nonblank write-in KFI entries were 100 percent verified, meaning that each field was keyed twice, and the 

results were compared automatically for discrepancies and subsequently verified. The fields that were 

read as blank by the KFI system were verified at a 5 percent rate. That is, of the total number of write-in 

fields that were read as blanks for each item, 5 percent were examined a second time to verify that they 

were blank. The sample verification during this operation allowed a 1 percent error on a field-to-field 

basis. Unacceptable batches of questionnaires where there was more than a 1 percent error were 100 

percent reverified by keying staff by referring back to the original survey. 

Once data capture verification was complete for all batches of SASS teacher questionnaires, it was time 

for the final step in this process—to identify any possible discrepancies within the data. This 

“adjudication” process was performed by a member of the Census Bureau QA staff. It entailed comparing 

the original dataset and the verification dataset to the dataset that was recorded by the data capture 

system. In cases where any of the fields did not match one another, QA staff looked at the data and 

determined what kind of error was occurring. If only one of the fields was incorrect, the error code 

assigned by the QA staff determined which piece of data to keep for that item. If both were incorrect, they 

were corrected in a separate module. Once this process was complete, the teacher dataset was ready to be 

released to Census analysts to begin the next step of data processing. 

The automated OMR and KFI data capture methods were chosen for the teacher forms because of the 

large quantity of questionnaires, as compared to the other SASS forms. Generally, it takes more time to 

program the automated OMR and KFI programs than it takes to program the KFP method. But OMR 

captures data much faster than keying from paper, so the time savings from a large quantity of OMR data 

capture can offset the additional programming time for the operation. 

Quality Assurance and Verification Procedures 

for the Data Capture Operations 

This section provides details on the quality assurance and verification procedures that were performed in 

conjunction with the SASS questionnaire data capture. The first subsection, “General Information on 

Quality Assurance Procedures,” provides an overview of the procedures. The second subsection, 

“Definitions,” provides definitions of terms. The next seven subsections provide the detailed procedures 

that were used. Following the procedures are a list of the error codes that were used (exhibit O-1) and, in 

the final subsection, a QA decision table (exhibit O-2). 

General Information on Quality Assurance Procedures 

1. This QA plan provided a method of assuring the quality of the data capture operations for the 

2003–04 SASS utilizing the Workflow and Image Processing System (WIPS) Optical Mark 

Recognition (OMR) and the Key From Paper (KFP) system (documentary purposes only). The 

method of data capture and the surveys and form types that were used with each method are as 

follows: 

a. OMR and KFI. Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4A) and Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

(SASS-4B); and 
O-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

b. KFP. School District Questionnaire (SASS-1A), Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2A), Private 

School Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2B), Principal Reinterview Questionnaire (SASS2(R)), School Questionnaire (SASS-3A), Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B), School 

Reinterview Questionnaire (SASS-3(R)), Unified School Questionnaire (SASS-3Y), Public 

Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire (SASS-4A(R)), Private Teacher Reinterview 

Questionnaire (SASS-4B(R)), and School Library Media Center Questionnaire (LS-1A). 

2. For the teacher questionnaires, data were captured utilizing the OMR data capture system to 

perform the automated data capture for the checkboxes and the KFI process for all other fields. 

Batches normally consisted of 10 documents. All nonblank data fields were 100 percent KFI 

verified. Batches were subject to having fields designated by the system as blank sample verified 

at a 5 percent rate. The sample verification during this operation had an acceptable quality level 

of a 1 percent on a field basis. Unacceptable (sample verified) batches were reverified on a 100 

percent basis. 

For all other SASS form types, data were captured utilizing the KFP Data Capture System. 

Batches were 100 percent verified (no QA plan required). 

3. Upon completion of data capture for OMR batches, copies of the images were sent for 

independent KFI verification. 

4. Upon completion of the independent verification for each batch, the original dataset and the 

verification dataset were matched. Any discrepancies were identified and adjudicated by the 

Quality Assurance Data Analysis Unit. 

5. Once adjudication was complete, accepted batches were released for subsequent transmission. 

Rejected batches underwent 100 percent reverification, were matched against the original dataset, 

adjudicated, and released. 

6. Keying staff in Jeffersonville, Indiana, completed keyboarding and procedural training prior to 

commencing production keying. 

7. Batch statistics were maintained by the system and utilized by the QA staff to generate summary 

reports. Reports were provided to the sponsor and data capture management regarding project 

quality and for feedback to data capture operators. 

8. Error codes for error classification are provided in the subsection, “Error Codes (Fields Only),” of 

this QA plan. 

Definitions 

1. A batch consisted of 10 SASS teacher questionnaire forms with a cover sheet for scanning and 

data capture purposes. All other form types were batched in convenient lots to be determined 

jointly by clerical staff. The size of the batch was the number of forms in the batch. 

2. A zone is synonymous with field and is the smallest denomination of defined captured data. 

3. An error is defined as any incorrectly captured or omitted data field. 

4. An error is assigned during the adjudication operation. 
Appendix O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations O-5 

a. Charged errors are errors determined to be the fault of the keyer and were used to determine 

the keyer’s error rate. 

b. Noncharged errors are keying errors that were not charged against the keyer. 

c. Some discrepancies were considered noncountable. These were classified as verifier errors 

(VE) and verifier adjustments (VA). They did not affect the keyer or batch status and were 

not counted against either the keyer or the batch. 

5. Eligible sampling unit is a field that was eligible to be selected for verification. 

6. A field is the smallest denomination of keyed data, as defined in the keying procedures. 

7. A blank field is a field where no data were detected by the system and a keyer did not see the 

field. 

8. Census Batch Number is a unique number created during the batching process. 

9. WIPS Batch Number is a unique eight-digit number created by the Workflow and Image 

Processing System (WIPS) during scanning. 

10. A field was considered to be defective if it contained one or more errors. This is synonymous 

with field in error. 

11. A discrepancy occurred when the verifier’s entry for any field differed from its corresponding 

field in the original data capture process. 

12. Adjudication refers to the process of comparing the discrepancies to the data source to determine 

which entry was correct. 

13. Flagged fields are fields that were presented to the operator during the original data capture 

process. 

14. Unflagged fields are fields that were captured by the system and not presented to an operator 

during the original data capture process. 

15. Key From Image (KFI) is the process where an operator was NOT presented with the OMR 

interpretation of the captured data, and the operator entered the data using the snippet and/or fullpage image. 

16. A snippet is the image of a zone that was presented to the operator during the data capture 

process. 

17. The verifier is the operator who independently keyed the data for the match to the original data to 

subsequently determine the quality of the batch. 

18. Reverification is the term used for performing 100 percent verification of rejected batches. 

19. Excluded fields are fields that were captured but not eligible for verification. These surveys have 

no such fields. 
O-6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Verification 

1. KFI verification 

a. Upon completion of the initial data capture, independent KFI verification was performed. 

Eligible fields on the images were presented to a KFI operator for verification. 

b. For batches subjected to sample verification for blank fields, a 5 percent systematic sample 

utilizing a random start was drawn from the universe of fields where the system did not detect 

presence of data and the fields were not seen by a keyer. 

c. The verification was performed in the following manner: 

(1) independently keying all fields presented by the system using the snippet and full-page 

image; and 

(2) using the same keying rules as used in the initial data capture. 

d. All errors detected in the verification process were corrected. 

e. If, during data capture, an image was determined to be illegible due to scanning problems, the 

batch was suspended and subsequently deleted and re-scanned. 

2. KFP verification 

a. Upon completion of the initial data capture, independent KFP verification was performed. 

The verifier keyed all fields on the documents except for those designated as “scan verify” in 

the keying procedures. 

b. The same keying rules were used as in the initial data capture. 

c. All errors detected in the verification process were corrected. 

Quality Assurance Adjudication 

1. Upon completion of the verification, the original dataset and the verification dataset for each 

batch were matched by the data capture system. Any discrepancies were identified and 

adjudicated by the Quality Assurance Data Analysis Unit staff. 

2. If any fields within the batch did not match, the QA adjudicator determined if the productioncaptured data were in error. Assigned error codes determined the data field to be retained in the 

final dataset. If both fields were in error (error code 11), that field was routed to an OMR module 

for correction and returned to adjudication. 

3. Once adjudication was completed, accepted batches were released for subsequent transmission. 

Rejected batches underwent 100 percent KFI, were matched against the original dataset, 

adjudicated, and released. 

Keyer Control 

1. All keyers were placed in the qualified status. Each keyer became familiar with the format of the 

forms to be keyed. 

2. Keyers in the qualified stage did not make decisions. Batch decisions on blank fields only were 

made in this stage. 

3. Keyers were only removed based on an administrative decision (restricted stage—keyer status = 

R). Restricted keyers were not eligible to perform verification. 
Appendix O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations O-7 

Batch Control 

1. Batch decisions for blank fields were sample verified and made. 

2. All rejected batches were 100 percent reverified (KFI), matched against the original dataset, 

adjudicated, and released. 

3. No batch decisions were made for nonblank data fields or KFP batches. 

4. The system checked the keyer status of each verifier before allowing the verifier to verify a batch. 

Feedback 

Discrepancy listings were provided for all batches. Keyers were given feedback for all errors and all cases 

in which they had shown improvement. 

Rejected Batches 

1. All rejected batches were set by the system to be reverified. 

2. Reverification of rejected batches occurred as soon as possible. This was considered part of the 

feedback to the keyer of the keying problems encountered. 

3. Reverification required the verifier to independently reverify the batch on a 100 percent basis. 

Quality Assurance Responsibilities 

1. The Quality Assurance Data Analysis Unit performed QA adjudication on all batches processed 

through the OMR and KFP operations. 

2. The Visual Basic system generated a discrepancy listing for each batch for feedback to the 

operators. 

3. The QA staff audited all discrepancies using the discrepancy listing and the source data. 

4. Batch statistics were maintained by the system and utilized to generate summary reports. The 

Quality Assurance Data Analysis Unit provided weekly summary reports of the results of the QA 

process. 
O-8 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Error Codes (Fields Only) 

Exhibit O-1 provides a list of error codes and definitions. 

Exhibit O-1. Error codes and definitions 

Error code Definition 

1 Other—chargeable (explain in remarks) 

2 Data omission 

3 Data duplication 

4 Auto/manual dupe error 

51

 Respondent error—data outside recognition zone 

 

61

 Recognition misread 

71

 Recognition omission 

8 Finger error 

9 Procedure error 

102

 Indeterminable data error (nonchargeable) 

 

11 Both capture and verifier data wrong (chargeable) 

121

 Code error 

131

 Machine error—keyer not at fault (supervisor initials) 

141

 Supervisor error—(supervisor initials) 

151

 Other—nonchargeable (explain in remarks) 

 

161

 Procedure modification/clarification 

VA3

 Verifier adjustment 

VE3

 Verifier error 1

 Nonchargeable errors. 

2

 Error code 10 is for Quality Assurance use only. 

3

 Do not charge as errors—chargeable or nonchargeable. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
Appendix O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations O-9 

Data Entry Quality Assurance Decision Table for Batch Decisions 

Exhibit O-2 contains the quality assurance decision table that was used for batch decisions during data 

entry. 

Exhibit O-2. Quality assurance decision rules: 2003–04 

Number of fields verified 

The decision is accept if the number of 

defective fields is equal to or less than:

The decision is reject if the number of 

defective fields is equal to or greater than:

Less than 10 0 1

10–36 1 2

37–82 2 3

83–138 3 4

139–199 4 5

200–263 5 6

264–331 6 7

332–401 7 8

402–473 8 9

474–545 9 10

546–619 10 11

620–695 11 12

696–771 12 13

772–848 13 14

849–927 14 15

928–1007 15 16

1,008–1,087 16 17

1,088–1,167 17 18

1,168–1,247 18 19

1,248–1,327 19 20

1,328–1,410 20 21

1,411–1,493 21 22

1,494–1,575 22 23

1,576–1,658 23 24

1,659–1,741 24 25

1,742–1,825 25 26

1,826–1,909 26 27

1,910–1,993 27 28

1,994–2,078 28 29

2,079–2,163 29 30

2,164–2,248 30 31

2,249–2,334 31 32

2,335–2,419 32 33

2,420–2,505 33 34

2,506 or more 34 (1)

1

 The number of defective fields required to reject a data entry batch increases as the number of fields being verified increases 

above the levels shown in this decision table. 

NOTE: This decision table is to be used for sample verification only (not 100 percent). This decision table is based on probability 

of acceptance > .95 with an acceptable quality level of 1.0 percent on a field basis. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
O-10 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Cumulative Data Keying Verification Reports 

This section details the results of verification of the data keying. Exhibits O-3 and O-4 provide results and 

distribution of error types for the key from paper (KFP) data capture used for all SASS questionnaires 

except the teacher questionnaires. Exhibits O-5 and O-6 provide results and distribution of error types for 

the key from image (KFI) data capture used for the SASS teacher questionnaires. 

Exhibit O-3. Cumulative key from paper (KFP) data keying verification report, by form: 2003–04 

KFP data keying verification Total 

SASS-1A 

100 percent verified1

SASS-2, -2(R), 

-3, -3R, LS-1A 

100 percent verified2

SASS-4(R) 

100 percent verified3

Unit count (batches) 2,299 320 1,938 41

 Accepted 0 0 0 0

 Rejected 0 0 0 0

 

Keyed documents 37,295 4,474 31,769 1,052

Verified documents 37,295 4,474 31,769 1,052

Keyed records 642,633 85,876 547,315 9,442

Verified records 642,700 85,687 547,500 9,513

Keyed fields 11,104,547 1,607,572 9,422,039 74,936

Verified fields 11,099,044 1,606,335 9,417,725 74,984

Charge field errors 22,732 3,220 19,089 423

Charge error rate 0.20% 0.20% 0.20% 0.56%

Total errors 24,280 3,409 20,431 440

Total error rate 0.22% 0.21% 0.22% 0.59%

1

 SASS-1A refers to the School District Questionnaire. 

2

 SASS-2 refers to the principal questionnaires and SASS-2(R) to the principal reinterview questionnaire, SASS-3 refers to the 

school questionnaires and SASS-3(R) to the school reinterview questionnaire, and LS-1A refers to the School Library Media 

Center Questionnaire. 

3

 SASS-4(R) to the teacher reinterview questionnaires. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
Appendix O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations O-11 

Exhibit O-4. Distribution of key from paper (KFP) errors, by form and error: 2003–04 

SASS-1A 

100 percent verified1

SASS-2, -2(R), 

-3, -3(R), LS-1A 

100 percent verified2

SASS-4(R) 

100 percent verified3

Error code and definition 

Number of 

errors Percent

Number of 

errors Percent 

Number of 

errors Percent

 Total 3,409 100.00 20,431 100.00 440 100.00

 

1. Screening error 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

2. Data omission 1,735 50.89 11,957 58.52 231 52.50

3. Duplicate data 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

4. Did not hold down numeric shift 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

5. Did not hold down alpha shift 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

 

6. Manual duplication error 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

7. Auto duplication error 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

8. Finger error 625 18.33 3,466 16.96 30 6.82

9. Procedure error 860 25.23 3,666 17.94 162 36.82

10. Undeterminable data 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

 

11. Keyer/verifier in error 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

12. Code error 189 5.54 1,304 6.38 17 3.86

13. Machine error 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

14. Supervisor error 0 0.00 32 0.16 0 0.00

15. Explain in remarks 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

16. Procedure modification 0 0.00 6 0.03 0 0.00

1

 SASS-1A refers to the School District Questionnaire. 

2

 SASS-2 refers to the principal questionnaires and SASS-2(R) to the principal reinterview questionnaire, SASS-3 refers to the 

school questionnaires and SASS-3(R) to the school reinterview questionnaire, and LS-1A refers to the School Library Media 

Center Questionnaire. 

3

 SASS-4(R) to the teacher reinterview questionnaires. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
O-12 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Exhibit O-5. Cumulative key from image (KFI) data keying verification report, by form: 2003–04 

Teacher Questionnaire 

(SASS-4A) 

Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

(SASS-4B) 

KFI data keying verification Total

100 percent 

verified

5 percent 

verified Total 

100 percent 

verified 

5 percent 

verified

Unit count (batches) 4,556 4,556 846 846 

 Accepted 4,544 4,544 845 845 

 Rejected 12 12 1 1 

 

ALL FIELDS 

Total fields 18,302,431 15,733,045 2,569,386 3,554,084 2,993,039 561045

Total fields verified 15,861,894 15,733,045 128,849 3,021,099 2,993,039 28060

Total fields error 51,302 51,038 264 12,403 12,375 28

Total fields error rate 0.32% 0.32% 0.20% 0.41% 0.41% 0.10%

 

Detail Summary 

Nonblank fields 15,733,045 15,733,045 0 2,993,039 2,993,039 0

Nonblank fields verified 15,733,045 15,733,045 0 2,993,039 2,993,039 0

Fields in error 51,038 51,038 0 12,375 12,375 0

Fields error rate 0.32% 0.32% 0.00% 0.41% 0.41% 0.00%

 

 Keyed fields 8,588,529 8,588,529 0 1,681,615 1,681,615 0

 Keyed fields verified 8,588,529 8,588,529 0 1,681,615 1,681,615 0

 Fields in error 49,799 49,799 0 12,168 12,168 0

 Charge key fields error 44,400 44,400 0 10,425 10,425 0

 Fields error rate 0.58% 0.58% 0.00% 0.72% 0.72% 0.00%

 

 System fields 7,144,516 7,144,516 0 1,311,424 1,311,424 0

 System fields verified 7,144,516 7,144,516 0 1,311,424 1,311,424 0

 Fields in error 1,239 1,239 0 207 207 0

 Fields error rate 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00%

 

Blank fields 2,569,386 0 2,569,386 561,045 0 561045

Blank fields verified 128,849 0 128,849 28,060 0 28060

Fields in error 264 0 264 28 0 28

Fields error rate 0.20% 0.00% 0.20% 0.10% 0.00% 0.10%

 

TOTALS 

Nonblank field error rate 0.32% 0.32% 0.00% 0.41% 0.41% 0.00%

 Key field error rate 0.32% 0.32% 0.00% 0.41% 0.41% 0.00%

 Key only field error rate 0.58% 0.58% 0.00% 0.72% 0.72% 0.00%

 Charge key field error rate 0.52% 0.52% 0.00% 0.62% 0.62% 0.00%

 System field error rate 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00%

 System only field error rate 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00%

Blank field error rate 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.10%

See notes at end of exhibit. 
Appendix O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations O-13 

Exhibit O-5. Cumulative key from image (KFI) data keying verification report, by form: 2003–

04—Continued 

Teacher Questionnaire 

(SASS-4A) 

Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

(SASS-4B) 

KFI data keying verification Total

100 percent

verified

5 percent 

verified Total

100 percent

verified

5 percent

verified

BARCODE (control number) 

Nonblank fields 45,266 45,266 0 8,422 8,422 0

Nonblank fields verified 45,266 45,266 0 8,422 8,422 0

Fields in error 39 39 0 14 14 0

 

 Keyed fields 1,200 1,200 0 384 384 0

 Keyed fields verified 1,200 1,200 0 384 384 0

 Fields in error 22 22 0 7 7 0

 Charge key fields error 19 19 0 7 7 0

 

 System fields 44,066 44,066 0 8,038 8,038 0

 System fields verified 44,066 44,066 0 8,038 8,038 0

 Fields in error 17 17 0 7 7 0

 

 Captured field error rate 0.09% 0.09% 0.00% 0.17% 0.17% 0.00%

 Key field error rate 0.05% 0.05% 0.00% 0.08% 0.08% 0.00%

 Key only field error rate 1.83% 1.83% 0.00% 1.82% 1.82% 0.00%

 Charge key field error rate 1.58% 1.58% 0.00% 1.82% 1.82% 0.00%

 System field error rate 0.04% 0.04% 0.00% 0.08% 0.08% 0.00%

 System only field error rate 0.04% 0.04% 0.00% 0.09% 0.09% 0.00%

 

OPTICAL MARK 

 RECOGNITION (OMR) 

Nonblank fields 7,127,796 7,127,796 0 1,308,639 1,308,639 0

Nonblank fields verified 7,127,796 7,127,796 0 1,308,639 1,308,639 0

Fields in error 2,879 2,879 0 685 685 0

 

 Keyed fields 27,346 27,346 0 5,253 5,253 0

 Keyed fields verified 27,346 27,346 0 5,253 5,253 0

 Fields in error 1,657 1,657 0 485 485 0

 Charge key fields error 1,574 1,574 0 456 456 0

 

 System fields 7,100,450 7,100,450 0 1,303,386 1,303,386 0

 System fields verified 7,100,450 7,100,450 0 1,303,386 1,303,386 0

 Fields in error 1,222 1,222 0 200 200 0

 

 Captured field error rate 0.04% 0.04% 0.00% 0.05% 0.05% 0.00%

 Key field error rate 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.04% 0.04% 0.00%

 Key only field error rate 6.06% 6.06% 0.00% 9.23% 9.23% 0.00%

 Charge key field error rate 5.76% 5.76% 0.00% 8.68% 8.68% 0.00%

 System field error rate 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00%

 System only field error rate 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00%

See notes at end of exhibit. 
O-14 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Exhibit O-5. Cumulative key from image (KFI) data keying verification report, by form: 2003–

04—Continued 

Teacher Questionnaire 

(SASS-4A) 

Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

(SASS-4B) 

KFI data keying verification Total

100 percent

verified

5 percent 

verified Total

100 percent

verified

5 percent

verified

INTELLIGENT/OPTICAL 

 CHARACTER RECOGNITION 

 (ICR/OCR) 

Nonblank fields 8,559,983 8,559,983 0 1,675,978 1,675,978 0

Nonblank fields verified 8,559,983 8,559,983 0 1,675,978 1,675,978 0

Fields in error 48,121 48,121 0 11,676 11,676 0

 

 Keyed fields 8,559,983 8,559,983 0 1,675,978 1,675,978 0

 Keyed fields verified 8,559,983 8,559,983 0 1,675,978 1,675,978 0

 Fields in error 48,119 48,119 0 11,676 11,676 0

 Charge key fields error 42,806 42,806 0 9,964 9,964 0

 

 System fields 0 0 0 0 0 0

 System fields verified 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Fields in error 0 0 0 0 0 0

 

 Captured field error rate 0.56% 0.56% 0.00% 0.70% 0.70% 0.00%

 Key field error rate 0.56% 0.56% 0.00% 0.70% 0.70% 0.00%

 Key only field error rate 0.56% 0.56% 0.00% 0.70% 0.70% 0.00%

 Charge key field error rate 0.50% 0.50% 0.00% 0.59% 0.59% 0.00%

 System field error rate 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

 System only field error rate 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

 

Keyed documents 45,292 45,292 0 8,422 8,422 0

Verified documents 45,292 45,292 0 8,422 8,422 0

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
Appendix O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations O-15 

Exhibit O-6. Distribution of key from image (KFI) errors, by form and error: 2003–04 

Teacher Questionnaire 

(SASS-4A) 

Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

(SASS-4B) 

100 percent verified 5 percent verified 100 percent verified 5 percent verified 

Error code and definition 

Number 

of errors Percent

Number 

of errors Percent

Number 

of errors Percent 

Number 

of errors Percent

 Total 51,038 100.00 264 100.00 12,375 100.00 28 100.00

 

1. Other—chargeable 4 0.01 2 0.76 8 0.06 0 0.00

2. Data omission 13,547 26.54 0 0.00 3,766 30.43 0 0.00

3. Duplicate data 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

4. Auto/manual dupe error 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

5. Respondent error—data 

outside recognition 6 0.01 1 0.38 1 0.01 2 7.14

 

6. Recognition misread 1,212 2.37 0 0.00 193 1.56 0 0.00

7. Recognition omission 1 0.00 261 98.86 0 0.00 26 92.86

8. Finger error 18,393 36.04 0 0.00 3,960 32.00 0 0.00

9. Procedure error 12,460 24.41 0 0.00 2,699 21.81 0 0.00

10. Undeterminable data 4 0.01 0 0.00 2 0.02 0 0.00

 

11. Keyer/verifier in error 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

12. Code error 5,395 10.57 0 0.00 1,740 14.06 0 0.00

13. Machine error 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

14. Supervisor error 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

15. Explain in remarks 0 0.03 0 0.00 6 0.05 0 0.00

16. Procedure modification 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
O-16 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Mailout Operations Quality Assurance Summary 

This section details the QA plan for the mailout operations for the 2003–04 SASS. All packages that were 

mailed to respondents and field representatives were mailed from Jeffersonville, Indiana, by the Census 

Bureau clerical processing staff. 

Forms and questionnaires were printed by commercial vendors or custom produced on docuprint 

equipment. Commercial vendors produced blank questionnaires that subsequently went through a separate 

labeling process, or docuprinting, in Jeffersonville. All of the SASS questionnaires except the Private 

School Questionnaire, the Unified School Questionnaire, and the reinterview questionnaires were printed 

commercially. 

The docuprint equipment allowed for printing labeled questionnaires in one operation. The system was 

loaded with images of each questionnaire page, and a file of variable data for each respondent. The 

system can be programmed to print variable data that is specific to that respondent on any page of the 

questionnaire. For the 2003–04 SASS, docuprint was used to print variable data—the name and address 

of the school, the school’s control number and associated barcode—on the cover page of the Private 

School Questionnaire, the Unified School Questionnaire, and reinterview questionnaires. It also printed 

identification barcodes on each questionnaire page. All blank questionnaires, peel-off labels (used along 

with blank questionnaires by field representatives as replacement questionnaires), letters, postcards, and 

other custom forms, such as District Contact Sheets, also were produced using the docuprint equipment. 

For questionnaire booklets, the docuprint equipment loaded one 17-inch by 11-inch sheet at a time. Four 

questionnaire pages (8.5 x 11, front and back) were printed onto this sheet. Once all sheets for a 

questionnaire booklet were completed, a sample of the work was examined to ensure that no errors 

occurred. When an error was found, an expanded inspection examined the questionnaires that were 

produced before and after the detected questionnaire to determine if a systematic error had taken place. 

Once the quality assurance of the printing was completed, the sheets went through a binding operation 

using Duplo Booklet Maker equipment. The Booklet Maker read the barcode to determine when the 

designated number of sheets for a particular questionnaire were loaded into the machine, and then folded 

and stapled it twice in the spine, and trimmed the right-side vertical edge of the booklet. Booklets were 

subjected to sample inspections and, when defects were detected, to expanded inspections. The 

docuprinting of all letters, questionnaires, postcards, labels, etc. and label imaging also were inspected for 

damage and incorrect presentation. 

Commercially printed blank questionnaires were loaded into an Ektajet high-speed printer for labeling. 

The variable data for each respondent was programmed into the machine, and printer heads labeled the 

front page of each questionnaire as it passed through the machine. Labeled questionnaires were subjected 

to sample inspections and, when defects were detected, to expanded inspections. 

The assembly of packages for schools, training kits for field representatives, and questionnaire packets 

were all inspected to assure that nothing was damaged, missing, contained undisclosed information, or 

was incorrectly presented. The results of the mailout QA, including error remarks, for all initial mailout 

operations can be found in exhibits O-7 through O-12. The results of the mailout QA, including error 

remarks and operations for all reinterview mailout operations, can be found in the following section. 
Appendix O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations O-17 

Exhibit O-7. Printing (Docuprint) quality assurance, by type of inspection and form: 2003–04 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form1 Mailout 

Number 

printed 

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent 

defects

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective 

Percent

defects Date

 Printing total 275,705 5,335 7 0.13 15 12 80.00

 

SASS-14(L)X Advance letter 180 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/07/03

SASS-14(L)X Advance letter 70 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/24/03

SASS-91(L)X Follow-up 61 15 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/24/03

SASS-92(L)X Follow-up 66 15 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/24/03

SASS form A Telephone form 736 20 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 06/05/03

 

SASS form B Telephone form 137 5 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 06/05/03

SASS form C Telephone form 146 5 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 06/05/03

LEA contact Telephone script 151 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 07/17/03

LEA control Control list 2,001 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 07/17/03

Labels Label 55 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 07/29/03

 

LS-1A Questionnaire 55 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 07/29/03

SASS-2A Questionnaire 55 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 07/29/03

SASS-3A Questionnaire 55 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 07/29/03

SASS-4A Questionnaire 55 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 07/29/03

SASS-11(L) LEA letter 1,400 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/04/03

 

SASS-14(L) School letter 1,400 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/04/03

SASS-11(L) LEA letter 9,458 360 1 2 0.28 0 0 0.00 08/15/03

SASS-14(L) School letter 9,458 360 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/15/03

Labels Label 1,124 27 2 3 7.41 12 12 3 100.00 08/13/03

SASS-11(L) LEA letter 5,200 360 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/25/03

 

SASS-14(L) School letter 7,050 360 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/26/03

SASS-11(L) LEA letter 910 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/26/03

SASS-14(L) School letter 910 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/26/03

SASS-14(L) School letter 3,622 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/26/03

Labels-Y Label 24,716 364 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/26/03

 

Labels-A Label 10,056 428 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/02/03

Labels-A Label 23 2 1 4 50.00 0 0 0.00 09/02/03

Labels-B Label 160,336 1,006 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/11/03

SASS-14(L) School letter 14,200 90 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/12/03

SASS-3B Questionnaire 3,637 366 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/11/03

 

SASS-3B Blank questionnaire 1,900 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/15/03

SASS-20 Field representative 

 manual 1,275 18 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/16/03

SASS-13(L) LEA letter 34 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/18/03

SASS-11(L) LEA letter 4,725 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/18/03

Labels-Y Label 23 2 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/25/03

See notes at end of exhibit. 
O-18 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Exhibit O-7. Printing (Docuprint) quality assurance, by type of inspection and form: 2003–04—

Continued 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form1 Mailout 

Number 

printed 

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent 

defects

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective 

Percent

defects Date

SASS-10 Postcard—code 1 34 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/26/03

SASS-10 Postcard—code 3 56 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/26/03

SASS-10 Postcard—code 4 4,582 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/26/03

SASS-3Y Questionnaire 915 302 2 5 0.66 3 0 0.00 09/29/03

SASS-3Y Blank questionnaire 457 120 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/29/03

 

SASS-3B Blank questionnaire 535 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 10/07/03

SASS-3Y Blank questionnaire 515 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 10/06/03

SASS-2(R) Blank questionnaire 15 15 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 10/15/03

SASS-3(R) Blank questionnaire 15 15 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 10/15/03

SASS-4A(R) Blank questionnaire 15 15 1 6 6.67 0 0 0.00 10/15/03

 

SASS-4B(R) Blank questionnaire 15 15 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 10/15/03

SASS-3B Blank questionnaire 3,136 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 11/07/03

SASS-3B Blank questionnaire 100 330 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/03/04

SASS-3Y Denver distribution 35 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/01/04 1

 LEA refers to local education agency, or school district. LS-1A refers to the School Library Media Center Questionnaire. 

SASS-2A refers to the Principal Questionnaire, and SASS-2(R) refers to the Principal Reinterview Questionnaire. SASS-3A 

refers to the School Questionnaire, SASS-3B to the Private School Questionnaire, SASS-3Y to the Unified School Questionnaire, 

and SASS-3(R) to the School Reinterview Questionnaire. SASS-4A refers to the Teacher Questionnaire, SASS-4A(R) to the 

Public Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire, and SASS-4B(R) to the Private Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire. SASS-10 refers 

to a postcard. SASS-11(L), SASS-13(L), and SASS-14(L) were used in the school district experiment that is described in 

“Appendix M. School District Experiment Findings.” SASS-11(L) refers to the prenotice letter sent to control districts. SASS13(L) refers to the prenotice letter sent to test districts, and SASS-14(L) refers to the prenotice letter sent to schools. SASS-20 

refers to the field representative manual. SASS-14(L)X refers to an advance letter, and SASS-91(L)X and SASS-92(L)X refer to 

follow-up letters. 

2

 One form with extraneous marks. 

3

 Fourteen errors due to labels printed on wrong paper—rejected/reprinted. 4

 One loss of information—Regional Office 25 file rejected due to sequence number obliterated. 5

 One extraneous mark, one damaged/torn. 

6

 One extraneous mark. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
Appendix O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations O-19 

Exhibit O-8. Package assembly quality assurance, by type of inspection and form: 2003 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form1 Mailout 

Number

received

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent

defects

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective 

Percent

defects Date

 Package 

 assembly 

 total 22,105 22,105 5 0.02 0 0 0.00

 

SASS-14(L)X Advance letter 180 180 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/02/03

SASS-91(L)X Follow-up 61 61 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/25/03

SASS-92(L)X Follow-up 66 66 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/25/03

SASS-14(L)X Advance (A-public) 9,458 9,458 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/17/03

SASS-14(L)X Advance (B-private) 3,622 3,622 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/17/03

 

SASS-14(L)X Advance (Y-unified) 910 910 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/17/03

SASS-1A Initial code 4 4,582 4,582 2 2 0.04 0 0 0.00 09/19/03

SASS-13(L) LEA letter3 34 34 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/22/03

SASS-11(L) LEA letter3 56 56 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/19/03

SASS-1A 1st follow-up 3,136 3,136 3 4 0.10 0 0 0.00 11/07/03 1

 SASS-1A refers to the School District Questionnaire. SASS-11(L), SASS-13(L), and SASS-14(L) were used in the school 

district experiment that is described in “Appendix M. School District Experiment Findings.” SASS-11(L) refers to the prenotice 

letter sent to control districts. SASS-13(L) refers to the prenotice letter sent to test districts, and SASS-14(L) refers to the 

prenotice letter sent to schools. SASS-14(L)X refers to an advance letter, and SASS-91(L)X and SASS-92(L)X refer to follow-up 

letters. 

2

 Regional office 29 missing sequence # 238 and 239. 

3

 LEA refers to Local Education Agency. 

4

 Two extra return envelopes, one sealed/unsealed. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

Exhibit O-9. Kit assembly quality assurance, by type of inspection and form: 2003 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form Mailout 

Number

received

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent

defects

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective 

Percent

defects Date

Field 

 representative 

 training 

Regional Office 

 distribution and 

 stock 210 38 1 1 2.63 0 0 0.00 09/04/03 1

 One extra questionnaire/form. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
O-20 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Exhibit O-10. Label imaging quality assurance, by type of inspection and form: 2003 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection

Form1 Mailout 

Number

 printed

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent

defects

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective 

Percent

defects Date

 Label 

 imaging 

 total 166,068 5,214 1 0.02 0 0 0.00

 

LS-1A Library questionnaire 1,384 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/07/03

SASS-2A Principal questionnaire 1,384 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/07/03

SASS-3A School questionnaire 1,384 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/07/03

SASS-4A Teacher questionnaire 2,768 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/07/03

LS-1A Library questionnaire 9,458 360 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/12/03

 

SASS-2A Principal questionnaire 9,458 360 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/12/03

SASS-3A School questionnaire 9,458 380 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/12/03

SASS-4A Teacher questionnaire 82,303 1,090 1 2 0.09 0 0 0.00 08/12/03

SASS-4A Teacher questionnaire 8,718 420 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/22/03

LS-1A Library questionnaire 910 297 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/22/03

 

SASS-2A Principal questionnaire 910 297 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/25/03

SASS-4B Teacher questionnaire 23,367 360 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 08/27/03

SASS-2B Principal questionnaire 3,622 360 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/04/03

SASS-1A Initial code 1 34 34 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/22/03

SASS-1A Initial code 3 56 56 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/22/03

 

SASS-1A Initial code 4 4,582 360 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/19/03

SASS-1A 1st follow-up 3,136 360 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 11/07/03

SASS-1A 1st follow-up 3,136 360 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 11/07/03 1

 LS-1A refers to the School Library Media Center Questionnaire. SASS-1A refers to the School District Questionnaire SASS-2A 

refers to the Principal Questionnaire, and SASS-2B refers to the Private School Principal Questionnaire. SASS-3A refers to the 

School Questionnaire. SASS-4A refers to the Teacher Questionnaire and SASS-4B to the Private School Teacher Questionnaire. 2

 One form with extraneous marks. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
Appendix O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations O-21 

Exhibit O-11. Packet assembly quality assurance, by type of inspection and form: 2003 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form Mailout 

Number 

received

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent

defects

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective 

Percent

defects Date

 Public “A” 

 total 9,458 9,458 164 1.73 0 0 0.00

 

Public “A” Regional Office 21 983 983 36 1 3.66 0 0 0.00 08/22/03

Public “A” Regional Office 22 211 211 4 2 1.90 0 0 0.00 09/02/03

Public “A” Regional Office 23 676 676 20 3 2.96 0 0 0.00 08/22/03

Public “A” Regional Office 24 578 578 2 4 0.35 0 0 0.00 09/02/03

Public “A” Regional Office 25 546 546 4 5 0.73 0 0 0.00 09/02/03

 

Public “A” Regional Office 26 1,320 1,320 11 6 0.83 0 0 0.00 09/02/03

Public “A” Regional Office 27 879 879 20 7 2.28 0 0 0.00 08/22/03

Public “A” Regional Office 28 966 966 7 8 0.72 0 0 0.00 09/02/03

Public “A” Regional Office 29 606 606 4 9 0.66 0 0 0.00 09/02/03

Public “A” Regional Office 30 663 663 20 10 3.02 0 0 0.00 09/02/03

 

Public “A” Regional Office 31 1,649 1,649 24 11 1.46 0 0 0.00 09/02/03

Public “A” Regional Office 32 381 381 12 12 3.15 0 0 0.00 09/02/03

 

 Private “B” 

 total 3,622 3,622 72 1.99 0 0 0.00

 

Private “B” Regional Office 21 287 287 3 13 1.05 0 0 0.00 09/11/03

Private “B” Regional Office 22 272 272 3 14 1.10 0 0 0.00 09/11/03

Private “B” Regional Office 23 448 448 13 15 2.90 0 0 0.00 09/11/03

Private “B” Regional Office 24 258 258 9 16 3.49 0 0 0.00 09/11/03

Private “B” Regional Office 25 403 403 3 17 0.74 0 0 0.00 09/11/03

 

Private “B” Regional Office 26 267 267 2 18 0.75 0 0 0.00 09/11/03

Private “B” Regional Office 27 285 285 9 19 3.16 0 0 0.00 09/11/03

Private “B” Regional Office 28 289 289 2 20 0.69 0 0 0.00 09/11/03

Private “B” Regional Office 29 358 358 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/11/03

Private “B” Regional Office 30 274 274 5 21 1.82 0 0 0.00 09/11/03

 

Private “B” Regional Office 31 204 204 2 22 0.98 0 0 0.00 09/11/03

Private “B” Regional Office 32 277 277 21 23 7.58 0 0 0.00 09/11/03

 

 Unified “Y” 

 total 910 910 30 3.30 0 0 0.00

 

Unified “Y” Regional Office 21 75 75 2 24 2.67 0 0 0.00 09/29/03

Unified “Y” Regional Office 22 14 14 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/29/03

Unified “Y” Regional Office 23 37 37 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/29/03

Unified “Y” Regional Office 24 59 59 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/29/03

Unified “Y” Regional Office 25 35 35 3 25 8.57 0 0 0.00 09/29/03

See notes at end of exhibit. 
O-22 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Exhibit O-11. Packet assembly quality assurance, by type of inspection and form: 2003—Continued 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form Mailout 

Number 

received

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent

defects

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective 

Percent

defects Date

Unified “Y” Regional Office 26 161 161 12 26 7.45 0 0 0.00 09/29/03

Unified “Y” Regional Office 27 41 41 1 27 2.44 0 0 0.00 09/29/03

Unified “Y” Regional Office 28 27 27 6 28 22.22 0 0 0.00 09/29/03

Unified “Y” Regional Office 29 12 12 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/29/03

Unified “Y” Regional Office 30 63 63 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/29/03

 

Unified “Y” Regional Office 31 382 382 6 29 1.57 0 0 0.00 09/29/03

Unified “Y” Regional Office 32 4 4 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/29/03 1

 One extra questionnaire/form, 46 extra brochures/booklets, one omitted seq#/form seq, 18 omitted brochures/booklets, two 

disclosures, one incorrectly assemble, one blank envelope. 2

 One extra cover letter/flyer, three extra brochures/booklets, four omitted brochures/booklets. 3

 One extra questionnaire/form, six extra brochures/booklets, eight omitted brochures/booklets, five disclosures, three omitted 

label sheets, three extra label sheets. 

4

 One extra cover letter/flyer, three omitted brochures/booklets. 5

 One extra cover letter/flyer, one omitted cover letter/flyer, three omitted brochures/booklets, one omitted postcard. 6

 Two extra questionnaires/forms, three extra brochures/booklets, four omitted brochures/booklets, three disclosures, two extra 

label sheets, two omitted label sheets, one omitted postcard. 

7

 Two extra cover letters/flyers, nine extra brochures/booklets, 12 omitted brochures/booklets, one extra postcard, one out of 

sequence, three brochures not stapled. 

8

 One extra seq#/form seq, four extra brochures/booklets, eight omitted brochures/booklets. 

9

 Four extra brochures/booklets, three omitted brochures/booklets, one disclosure, and one extra label sheet. 10 Two extra cover letters/flyers, nine extra brochures/booklets, 12 omitted brochures/booklets, three brochures not stapled, one

extra postcard, one out of sequence. 

11 Four extra cover letters/flyers, 18 extra brochures/booklets, one omitted questionnaire/form, 11 omitted brochures/booklets. 12 One extra questionnaire/form, three extra brochures/booklets, eight omitted brochures/booklets, one disclosure, one omitted 

postcard, one extra postcard. 

13 One extra brochure/booklet, two extra postcards. 

14 One extra postcard, two omitted postcard. 15 Two extra questionnaires/forms, two extra brochures/booklets, seven omitted brochures/booklets, four extra postcards, one 

omitted postcard. 

16 Two extra cover letters/flyers, five extra brochures/booklets, one omitted brochure/booklet, one omitted postcard. 17 One extra brochure/booklet, two omitted cover letters/flyers. 

18 One extra brochure/booklet, one omitted cover letter/flyer. 19 Six extra brochures/booklets, one omitted brochure/booklet, five extra postcards, and one omitted postcard. 20 Three omitted brochures/booklets. 21 One extra brochure/booklet, one omitted questionnaire/form, one extra postcard, and two omitted postcards. 22 Two extra brochures/booklets. 

23 Fifteen extra questionnaires/forms, five extra brochures/booklets, one omitted brochure/booklet, two extra postcards. 24 Two omitted brochures/booklets. 25 Two omitted cover letters/flyers, one omitted brochure/booklet. 

26 One extra seq#/form seq, 10 omitted brochures/booklets, one omitted label sheet. 

27 One omitted brochure/booklet. 

28 Seven omitted cover letters/flyers, three omitted brochures/booklets. 29 Three extra questionnaires/forms, one extra cover letter/flyer, two extra brochures/booklets, one omitted questionnaire/form, 

two omitted brochures/booklets. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
Appendix O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations O-23 

Exhibit O-12. Duplo booklet maker inspection quality assurance, by type of inspection and form: 

2003–04 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form1 Mailout 

Number 

received

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent

defects

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective 

Percent

defects Date

 Duplo total 8,133 859 3 0.35 0 0 0.00

 

SASS-3B Regional Office 

 distribution 3,636 365 1 2 0.27 0 0 0.00 09/11/03

SASS-3B Blank questionnaire 1,900 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/16/03

SASS-3Y School questionnaire 912 299 2 3 0.67 0 0 0.00 09/29/03

SASS-3Y Blank questionnaire 559 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 09/30/03

SASS-3Y Blank questionnaire 512 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 10/08/03

 

SASS-3B Blank questionnaire 534 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 10/08/03

SASS-3(R) Blank questionnaire 15 15 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 10/15/03

SASS-4A(R) Blank questionnaire 15 15 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 10/15/03

SASS-4B(R) Blank questionnaire 15 15 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 10/15/03

SASS-3Y Denver distribution 35 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/01/04 1

 SASS-3B refers to the Private School Questionnaire, SASS-3Y to the Unified School Questionnaire, and SASS-3(R) to the 

School Reinterview Questionnaire. SASS-4A(R) refers to the Public Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire, and SASS-4B(R) to the 

Private Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire. 

2

 One damaged/torn. 

3

 Two sequence numbers out of order. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

Reinterview Mailout Operations and Quality Assurance Summary 

This section details the QA plan for the reinterview mailout operations for the 2003–04 SASS. All 

packages that were mailed to respondents and field representatives were mailed from Jeffersonville, 

Indiana, by Census Bureau clerical processing staff. There were a number of details that were inspected 

for defects during the reinterview mailout phase of SASS. The printing of all forms (including letters, 

questionnaires, postcards, labels, etc.) was inspected for damage and incorrect presentation. The 

reinterview packages for schools were inspected to assure that nothing was damaged, missing, contained 

undisclosed information, or was incorrectly presented. Finally, the questionnaire booklets were inspected 

to assure that they were assembled and bound properly and were not damaged. 

The results of the mailout quality assurance, including error remarks, for all reinterview mailout 

operations can be found in exhibits O-13 through O-15. 
O-24 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Exhibit O-13. Printing (Docuprint) quality assurance for reinterview questionnaires, by type of 

inspection and form: 2003–04 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form1 Mailout

Number 

printed

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent

defects

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective 

Percent

defects Date

Printing total 20,993 3,909 0 0.00 0 0 0.00

 

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 272 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/05/03

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 285 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/05/03

SASS-17(L)R Reinterview 285 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/05/03

SASS-18(L)R Reinterview 25 25 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/05/03

SASS-19(L)R Reinterview 272 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/05/03

 

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 124 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/09/03

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 85 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/09/03

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 23 23 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/09/03

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 2 2 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/09/03

SASS-17(L)R Reinterview 85 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/10/03

 

SASS-19(L)R Reinterview 124 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/10/03

SASS-17(L)R Reinterview 214 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/12/03

SASS-18(L)R Reinterview 578 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/12/03

SASS-19(L)R Reinterview 573 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/12/03

SASS-10 Reminder 272 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/15/03

 

SASS-10 Reminder 285 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/15/03

SASS-10 Reminder 238 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/16/03

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 573 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/19/03

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 214 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/19/03

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 328 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/19/03

 

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 251 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/19/03

SASS-17(L)R Reinterview 266 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/06/04

SASS-18(L)R Reinterview 539 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/06/04

SASS-19(L)R Reinterview 349 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/06/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 349 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/08/04

 

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 266 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/08/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 465 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/08/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 75 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/08/04

SASS-10 Reminder 1,365 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/08/04

SASS-17(L)R Reinterview 30 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/08/04

 

SASS-18(L)R Reinterview 53 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/08/04

SASS-19(L)R Reinterview 40 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/08/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 40 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/12/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 30 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/12/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 43 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/12/04

See notes at end of exhibit. 
Appendix O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations O-25 

Exhibit O-13. Printing (Docuprint) quality assurance for reinterview questionnaires, by type of 

inspection and form: 2003–04—Continued 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form1 Mailout

Number 

printed

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent

defects

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective 

Percent

defects Date

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 10 10 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/12/04

SASS-17(L)R Reinterview 95 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/12/04

SASS-18(L)R Reinterview 86 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/12/04

SASS-19(L)R Reinterview 98 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/12/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 98 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/13/04

 

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 95 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/13/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 60 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/13/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 26 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/13/04

SASS-10 Reminder 1,154 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/13/04

SASS-10 Reminder 123 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/14/04

 

SASS-17(L)R Reinterview 81 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/22/04

SASS-18(L)R Reinterview 86 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/22/04

SASS-19(L)R Reinterview 90 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/22/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 90 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/22/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 81 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/22/04

 

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 64 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/22/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 22 22 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/22/04

SASS-10 Reminder 279 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/22/04

SASS-17(L)R Reinterview 70 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/27/04

SASS-18(L)R Reinterview 53 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/27/04

 

SASS-19(L)R Reinterview 78 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/27/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 78 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/27/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 70 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/27/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 34 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/27/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 19 19 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/27/04

 

SASS-10 Reminder 257 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/29/04

SASS-10 Reminder 201 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/03/04

SASS-17(L)R Reinterview 69 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/03/04

SASS-18(L)R Reinterview 38 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/03/04

SASS-19(L)R Reinterview 80 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/03/04

 

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 80 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/04/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 69 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/04/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 31 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/04/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 7 7 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/04/04

SASS-17(L)R Reinterview 75 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/09/04

See notes at end of exhibit. 
O-26 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Exhibit O-13. Printing (Docuprint) quality assurance for reinterview questionnaires, by type of 

inspection and form: 2003–04—Continued 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form1 Mailout

Number 

printed

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent

defects

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective 

Percent

defects Date

SASS-18(L)R Reinterview 94 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/09/04

SASS-19(L)R Reinterview 69 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/09/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 70 31 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/10/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 76 31 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/10/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 58 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/10/04

 

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 36 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/10/04

SASS-10 Reminder 187 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/11/04

SASS-10 Reminder 238 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/19/04

SASS-17(L)R Reinterview 390 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/19/04

SASS-18(L)R Reinterview 84 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/19/04

 

SASS-19(L)R Reinterview 115 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/19/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 115 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/22/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 390 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/22/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 64 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/22/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 20 20 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/22/04

 

SASS-17(L)R Reinterview 43 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/25/04

SASS-18(L)R Reinterview 41 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/25/04

SASS-19(L)R Reinterview 43 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/25/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 43 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/25/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 43 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/25/04

 

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 28 28 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/25/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 13 13 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/25/04

SASS-17(L)R Reinterview 37 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/27/04

SASS-18(L)R Reinterview 31 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/27/04

SASS-19(L)R Reinterview 34 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/27/04

 

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 34 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/01/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 37 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/01/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 17 17 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/01/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 14 14 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/01/04

SASS-17(L)R Reinterview 678 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/02/04

 

SASS-18(L)R Reinterview 704 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/02/04

SASS-19(L)R Reinterview 750 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/02/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 752 32 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/03/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 678 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/03/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 498 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/03/04

See notes at end of exhibit. 
Appendix O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations O-27 

Exhibit O-13. Printing (Docuprint) quality assurance for reinterview questionnaires, by type of 

inspection and form: 2003–04—Continued 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form1 Mailout

Number 

printed

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent

defects

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective 

Percent

defects Date

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 210 34 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/03/04

SASS-10 Reminder 589 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/03/04

SASS-10 Reminder 127 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/04/04

SASS-10 Reminder 102 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/08/04

SASS-17(L)R Reinterview 20 20 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/08/04

 

SASS-18(L)R Reinterview 20 20 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/08/04

SASS-19(L)R Reinterview 25 25 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/08/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 25 25 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/08/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 20 20 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/08/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 20 20 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/08/04

 

SASS-17(L)R Reinterview 27 27 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/16/04

SASS-18(L)R Reinterview 16 16 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/16/04

SASS-19(L)R Reinterview 20 20 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/16/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 20 20 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/16/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 27 27 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/16/04

 

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 7 7 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/16/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 9 9 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/16/04

SASS-10 Reminder 65 50 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/16/04

SASS-17(L)R Reinterview 3 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/22/04

SASS-18(L)R Reinterview 1 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/22/04

 

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 1 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/23/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 1 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/23/04

SASS-10 Reminder 63 63 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/23/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 5 5 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/31/04

SASS-17(L)R Reinterview 1 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/31/04

 

SASS-18(L)R Reinterview 6 6 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/31/04

SASS-19(L)R Reinterview 14 14 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/31/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 9 9 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/31/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 1 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/31/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 4 4 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/31/04

 

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 2 2 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/31/04

SASS-10 Reminder 4 4 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/31/04

SASS-18(L)R Reinterview 1 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/06/04

SASS-10 Reminder 16 16 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/07/04

SASS-10 Reminder 5 5 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/07/04

See notes at end of exhibit. 
O-28 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Exhibit O-13. Printing (Docuprint) quality assurance for reinterview questionnaires, by type of 

inspection and form: 2003–04—Continued 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form1 Mailout

Number 

printed

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent

defects

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective 

Percent

defects Date

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 1 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/07/04

SASS-17(L)R Reinterview 3 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/09/04

SASS-18(L)R Reinterview 1 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/09/04

SASS-19(L)R Reinterview 4 4 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/09/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 4 4 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/13/04

 

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 3 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/13/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 1 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/13/04

SASS-10 Reminder 1 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/16/04

1

 SASS-2(R) refers to the Principal Reinterview Questionnaire. SASS-3(R) refers to the School Reinterview Questionnaire. 

SASS-4A(R) refers to the Public Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire and SASS-4B(R) to the Private Teacher Reinterview 

Questionnaire. SASS-10 refers to a postcard. SASS-17(L)R, SASS-18(L)R, and SASS-19(L)R refer to letters. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
Appendix O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations O-29 

Exhibit O-14. Duplo booklet maker inspection quality assurance for reinterview questionnaires, by 

type of inspection and form: 2003–04 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection

Form1 Mailout

Number 

received 

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent

defects

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective 

Percent

defects Date

 Duplo total 8,000 1,720 5 0.29 0 0 0.00

 

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 272 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/08/03

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 285 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/08/03

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 124 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/09/03

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 85 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/09/03

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 124 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/09/03

 

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 85 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/09/03

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 23 23 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/09/03

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 2 2 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/09/03

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 573 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/17/03

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 214 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/17/03

 

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 327 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/17/03

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 251 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/17/03

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 75 5 5 2 100.00 0 0 0.00 01/07/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 349 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/09/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 266 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/09/04

 

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 465 31 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/09/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 75 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/09/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 40 40 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/12/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 30 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/12/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 43 43 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/12/04

 

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 10 10 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/12/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 98 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/13/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 95 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/13/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 60 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/13/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 26 26 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/13/04

 

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 90 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/26/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 81 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/26/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 64 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/26/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 22 22 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/26/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 78 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/27/04

 

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 70 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/27/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 34 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/27/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 19 19 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/27/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 80 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/04/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 69 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/04/04

See notes at end of exhibit. 
O-30 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Exhibit O-14. Duplo booklet maker inspection quality assurance for reinterview questionnaires, by 

type of inspection and form: 2003–04—Continued 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection

Form1 Mailout

Number 

received 

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent

defects

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective 

Percent

defects Date

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 31 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/04/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 7 7 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/04/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 70 31 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/10/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 76 31 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/10/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 58 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/10/04

 

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 36 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/10/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 115 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/23/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 390 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/23/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 64 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/23/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 20 20 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/23/04

 

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 43 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/26/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 43 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/26/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 28 28 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/26/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 13 13 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/26/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 34 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/01/04

 

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 37 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/01/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 17 17 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/01/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 14 14 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/01/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 752 32 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/04/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 678 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/04/04

 

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 498 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/04/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 210 34 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/04/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 25 25 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/09/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 20 20 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/09/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 20 20 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/09/04

 

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 20 20 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/17/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 27 27 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/17/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 7 7 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/17/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 9 9 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/17/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 3 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/23/04

 

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 1 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/23/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 5 5 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/01/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 9 9 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/01/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 1 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/01/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 4 4 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/01/04

See notes at end of exhibit. 
Appendix O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations O-31 

Exhibit O-14. Duplo booklet maker inspection quality assurance for reinterview questionnaires, by 

type of inspection and form: 2003–04—Continued 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection

Form1 Mailout

Number 

received 

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent

defects

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective 

Percent

defects Date

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 2 2 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/01/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 1 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/08/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 4 4 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/14/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 3 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/14/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 1 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/14/04

1

 SASS-2(R) refers to the Principal Reinterview Questionnaire. SASS-3(R) refers to the School Reinterview Questionnaire. 

SASS-4A(R) refers to the Public Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire and SASS-4B(R) to the Private Teacher Reinterview 

Questionnaire. 

2

 Rejected—Five inadequately/incorrectly bound pages (50 booklets had only one staple). 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
O-32 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Exhibit O-15. Package assembly quality assurance for reinterview questionnaires, by type of 

inspection and form: 2003–04 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form1 Mailout 

Number 

received 

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent

defects

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective 

Percent

defects Date

 Package 

 assembly 

 total 7,707 7,707 13 0.17 0 0 0.00

 

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 272 272 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/09/03

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 285 285 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/09/03

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 23 23 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/09/03

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 2 2 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/09/03

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 124 124 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/11/03

 

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 85 85 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/11/03

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 573 573 5 2 0.87 0 0 0.00 12/19/03

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 214 214 6 3 2.80 0 0 0.00 12/19/03

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 327 327 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 12/19/03

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 251 251 2 4 0.80 0 0 0.00 12/19/03

 

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 349 349 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/08/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 266 266 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/08/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 464 464 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/08/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 75 75 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/08/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 40 40 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/13/04

 

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 30 30 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/13/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 43 43 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/13/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 10 10 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/13/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 98 98 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/14/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 95 95 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/14/04

 

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 60 60 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/14/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 26 26 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/14/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 90 90 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/26/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 81 81 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/26/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 64 64 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/26/04

 

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 22 22 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/26/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 78 78 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/28/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 70 70 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/28/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 34 34 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/28/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 19 19 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 01/28/04

 

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 80 80 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/05/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 69 69 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/05/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 31 31 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/05/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 7 7 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/05/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 69 69 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/10/04

See notes at end of exhibit. 
Appendix O. Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations O-33 

Exhibit O-15. Package assembly quality assurance for reinterview questionnaires, by type of 

inspection and form: 2003–04—Continued 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form1 Mailout 

Number 

received 

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent

defects

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective 

Percent

defects Date

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 75 75 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/10/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 58 58 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/10/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 36 36 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/10/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 115 115 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/24/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 390 390 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/24/04

 

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 64 64 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/24/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 20 20 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/24/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 43 43 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/27/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 43 43 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/27/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 28 28 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/27/04

 

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 13 13 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 02/27/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 34 34 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/02/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 37 37 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/02/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 17 17 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/02/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 14 14 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/02/04

 

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 750 750 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/03/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 678 678 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/03/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 498 498 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/03/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 206 206 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/03/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 25 25 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/09/04

 

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 20 20 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/09/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 20 20 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/09/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 20 20 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/17/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 27 27 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/17/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 7 7 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/17/04

 

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 9 9 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/17/04

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 3 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/23/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 1 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 03/23/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 5 5 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/01/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 9 9 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/01/04

 

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 1 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/01/04

SASS-4A(R) Reinterview 4 4 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/01/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 2 2 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/01/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 1 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/08/04

SASS-2(R) Reinterview 4 4 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/14/04

See notes at end of exhibit. 
O-34 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Exhibit O-15. Package assembly quality assurance for reinterview questionnaires, by type of 

inspection and form: 2003–04—Continued 

Sample inspection Expanded inspection 

Form1 Mailout 

Number 

received 

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective

Percent

defects

Number 

inspected

Number 

defective 

Percent

defects Date

SASS-3(R) Reinterview 3 3 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/14/04

SASS-4B(R) Reinterview 1 1 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 04/14/04

1

 SASS-2(R) refers to the Principal Reinterview Questionnaire. SASS-3(R) refers to the School Reinterview Questionnaire. 

SASS-4A(R) refers to the Public Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire and SASS-4B(R) to the Private Teacher Reinterview 

Questionnaire. 

2

 Nine extra cover letter/flyer. 

3

 Six extra cover letter/flyer. 

4

 Six extra cover letter/flyer. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Quality Assurance for Keying and Mailout Operations, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
P-1 

Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the 

Computer Edit, by Data File 

The tables in this appendix show the number of edit changes made to responses for each of the variables 

within each data file during the computer edits. (See chapter 7 for more details about the computer edits.) 

The tables are as follows: 

Table Page 

P-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school district data file, by variable: 2003–04.............................................................P-2 

P-2. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04..........................................................P-6 

P-3. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

private school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04 ........................................................P-9 

P-4. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the BIA 

school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04 ..................................................................P-12 

P-5. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school data file, by variable: 2003–04.......................................................................P-15 

P-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

private school data file, by variable: 2003–04......................................................................P-18 

P-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the BIA 

school data file, by variable: 2003–04..................................................................................P-23 

P-8. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04 ..........................................................P-29 

P-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04 .........................................................P-34 

P-10. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the BIA 

school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04 .....................................................................P-39 

P-11. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school library media center data file, by variable: 2003–04......................................P-44 

P-12. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the BIA 

school library media center data file, by variable: 2003–04.................................................P-46 
P-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school district data file, by variable: 2003–04

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

D0025 39 0.88 D0070 106 2.40 

D0026 99 2.24 D0071 45 1.02 

D0027 109 2.47 D0072 60 1.36 

D0028 124 2.80 D0077 298 6.74 

D0029 3,026 68.45 D0078 120 2.71 

 

D0035 52 1.18 D0079 190 4.30 

D0036 1,235 27.93 D0080 182 4.12 

D0037 1,237 27.98 D0081 181 4.09 

D0038 1,237 27.98 D0082 192 4.34 

D0039 1,237 27.98 D0083 195 4.41 

 

D0040 1,237 27.98 D0084 160 3.62 

D0041 1,237 27.98 D0085 197 4.46 

D0042 1,237 27.98 D0086 214 4.84 

D0043 1,237 27.98 D0087 100 2.26 

D0044 1,237 27.98 D0088 109 2.47 

 

D0045 1,237 27.98 D0089 106 2.40 

D0046 1,237 27.98 D0090 104 2.35 

D0047 1,237 27.98 D0091 206 4.66 

D0048 1,237 27.98 D0092 376 8.50 

D0049 297 6.72 D0093 208 4.70 

 

D0050 61 1.38 D0094 137 3.10 

D0051 120 2.71 D0095 119 2.69 

D0052 303 6.85 D0096 81 1.83 

D0053 341 7.71 D0097 149 3.37 

D0054 323 7.31 D0098 191 4.32 

 

D0055 352 7.96 D0099 187 4.23 

D0056 391 8.84 D0100 192 4.34 

D0057 336 7.60 D0101 215 4.86 

D0058 100 2.26 D0102 70 1.58 

D0059 263 5.95 D0103 137 3.10 

 

D0060 145 3.28 D0104 248 5.61 

D0061 1,049 23.73 D0105 273 6.18 

D0062 578 13.07 D0106 282 6.38 

D0063 96 2.17 D0107 283 6.40 

D0064 2 0.05 D0113 152 3.44 

 

D0065 410 9.27 D0114 150 3.39 

D0066 426 9.64 D0115 178 4.03 

D0067 459 10.38 D0116 5 0.11 

D0068 487 11.02 D0117 185 4.18 

D0069 487 11.02 D0118 1 0.02 

See notes at end of table. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-3

Table P-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school district data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

D0119 182 4.12 D0164 262 5.93 

D0120 3 0.07 D0165 263 5.95 

D0121 187 4.23 D0166 257 5.81 

D0122 1,441 32.59 D0167 282 6.38 

D0123 1,437 32.50 D0168 207 4.68 

 

D0124 85 1.92 D0169 173 3.91 

D0125 93 2.10 D0170 248 5.61 

D0126 118 2.67 D0171 249 5.63 

D0127 101 2.28 D0172 251 5.68 

D0128 119 2.69 D0173 257 5.81 

 

D0129 100 2.26 D0174 258 5.84 

D0130 102 2.31 D0175 264 5.97 

D0131 107 2.42 D0176 260 5.88 

D0137 38 0.86 D0177 260 5.88 

D0138 46 1.04 D0178 265 5.99 

 

D0139 49 1.11 D0179 258 5.84 

D0140 49 1.11 D0180 259 5.86 

D0141 141 3.19 D0181 258 5.84 

D0142 73 1.65 D0182 251 5.68 

D0143 113 2.56 D0183 293 6.63 

 

D0144 121 2.74 D0184 209 4.73 

D0145 89 2.01 D0185 221 5.00 

D0146 93 2.10 D0186 255 5.77 

D0147 87 1.97 D0187 255 5.77 

D0148 100 2.26 D0188 258 5.84 

 

D0149 108 2.44 D0189 262 5.93 

D0150 91 2.06 D0190 262 5.93 

D0151 115 2.60 D0191 270 6.11 

D0152 134 3.03 D0192 264 5.97 

D0153 155 3.51 D0193 266 6.02 

 

D0154 253 5.72 D0194 274 6.20 

D0155 254 5.75 D0195 262 5.93 

D0156 255 5.77 D0196 265 5.99 

D0157 258 5.84 D0197 266 6.02 

D0158 256 5.79 D0198 259 5.86 

 

D0159 263 5.95 D0199 279 6.31 

D0160 260 5.88 D0200 250 5.65 

D0161 260 5.88 D0201 212 4.80 

D0162 265 5.99 D0202 272 6.15 

D0163 257 5.81 D0203 272 6.15 

See notes at end of table. 
P-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school district data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

D0204 273 6.18 D0249 160 3.62 

D0205 279 6.31 D0255 123 2.78 

D0206 277 6.27 D0256 690 15.61 

D0207 284 6.42 D0257 280 6.33 

D0208 280 6.33 D0258 275 6.22 

 

D0209 280 6.33 D0259 277 6.27 

D0210 289 6.54 D0260 284 6.42 

D0211 277 6.27 D0261 280 6.33 

D0212 280 6.33 D0262 295 6.67 

D0213 283 6.40 D0263 290 6.56 

 

D0214 278 6.29 D0264 265 5.99 

D0215 292 6.60 D0265 344 7.78 

D0216 263 5.95 D0266 389 8.80 

D0217 247 5.59 D0267 363 8.21 

D0218 986 22.30 D0268 355 8.03 

 

D0219 489 11.06 D0269 385 8.71 

D0220 1,035 23.41 D0270 412 9.32 

D0221 1,039 23.50 D0276 100 2.26 

D0222 1,020 23.07 D0277 537 12.15 

D0223 227 5.13 D0278 544 12.30 

 

D0224 986 22.30 D0279 1,683 38.07 

D0225 734 16.60 D0280 557 12.60 

D0226 1,287 29.11 D0281 567 12.83 

D0227 1,284 29.04 D0282 2,173 49.15 

D0228 1,277 28.88 D0283 205 4.64 

 

D0229 1,283 29.02 D0284 1,677 37.93 

D0230 1,284 29.04 D0285 231 5.23 

D0231 1,282 29.00 D0286 210 4.75 

D0232 1,274 28.82 D0292 117 2.65 

D0233 1,277 28.88 D0293 127 2.87 

 

D0239 43 0.97 D0294 140 3.17 

D0240 115 2.60 D0295 119 2.69 

D0241 93 2.10 D0296 126 2.85 

D0242 95 2.15 D0297 128 2.90 

D0243 118 2.67 D0298 136 3.08

 

D0244 111 2.51 D0299 116 2.62 

D0245 549 12.42 D0300 132 2.99 

D0246 81 1.83 D0301 131 2.96 

D0247 236 5.34 D0302 128 2.90 

D0248 200 4.52 D0303 123 2.78 

See notes at end of table. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-5

Table P-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school district data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

D0304 176 3.98 D0334 357 8.08 

D0305 183 4.14 D0335 365 8.26 

D0306 193 4.37 D0336 368 8.32 

D0307 128 2.90 D0337 368 8.32 

D0308 234 5.29 D0338 364 8.23 

 

D0309 231 5.23 D0339 365 8.26 

D0310 253 5.72 D0340 372 8.41 

D0311 270 6.11 D0341 359 8.12 

D0312 219 4.95 D0342 366 8.28 

D0313 252 5.70 D0343 369 8.35 

 

D0314 313 7.08 D0344 368 8.32 

D0315 184 4.16 D0350 147 3.33 

D0316 205 4.64 D0351 319 7.22 

D0317 207 4.68 D0352 520 11.76 

D0318 141 3.19 D0353 497 11.24 

 

D0319 278 6.29 D0354 475 10.74 

D0320 926 20.95 D0355 475 10.74 

D0321 908 20.54 D0356 189 4.28 

D0322 904 20.45 D0357 360 8.14 

D0323 905 20.47 D0358 518 11.72 

 

D0324 1,031 23.32 D0359 585 13.23 

D0325 1,018 23.03 D0360 292 6.60 

D0326 1,037 23.46 D0361 352 7.96 

D0327 1,031 23.32 D0362 536 12.12 

D0328 1,032 23.34 

 

D0329 1,029 23.28 

D0330 1,032 23.34 

D0331 1,033 23.37 

D0332 272 6.15 

D0333 390 8.82 

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

School District Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 
P-6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-2. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

A0025 184 2.3 A0071 62 0.8 

A0026 15 0.2 A0072 57 0.7 

A0027 51 0.6 A0073 112 1.4 

A0028 1,201 14.7 A0074 85 1.0 

A0029 2,019 24.8 A0075 90 1.1 

 

A0030 114 1.4 A0076 77 0.9 

A0031 225 2.8 A0077 77 0.9 

A0032 91 1.1 A0078 88 1.1 

A0033 251 3.1 A0079 81 1.0 

A0034 295 3.6 A0080 86 1.1 

 

A0035 178 2.2 A0081 151 1.9 

A0036 152 1.9 A0082 95 1.2 

A0037 67 0.8 A0083 116 1.4 

A0038 70 0.9 A0084 77 0.9 

A0039 10 0.1 A0085 134 1.6 

 

A0040 139 1.7 A0086 92 1.1 

A0041 155 1.9 A0087 85 1.0 

A0042 60 0.7 A0088 139 1.7 

A0043 35 0.4 A0089 91 1.1 

A0044 26 0.3 A0090 97 1.2 

 

A0045 39 0.5 A0091 68 0.8 

A0046 42 0.5 A0092 91 1.1 

A0047 32 0.4 A0093 88 1.1 

A0048 32 0.4 A0094 74 0.9 

A0049 28 0.3 A0095 118 1.4 

 

A0056 58 0.7 A0096 70 0.9 

A0057 63 0.8 A0097 90 1.1 

A0058 74 0.9 A0098 69 0.8 

A0059 56 0.7 A0099 71 0.9 

A0060 56 0.7 A0100 88 1.1 

 

A0061 70 0.9 A0101 74 0.9 

A0062 47 0.6 A0102 114 1.4 

A0063 39 0.5 A0103 89 1.1 

A0064 49 0.6 A0104 109 1.3 

A0065 37 0.5 A0105 74 0.9 

 

A0066 121 1.5 A0106 81 1.0 

A0067 60 0.7 A0107 90 1.1 

A0068 76 0.9 A0108 85 1.0 

A0069 53 0.7 A0115 77 0.9 

A0070 57 0.7 A0116 75 0.9 

See notes at end of table. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-7

Table P-2. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

A0117 133 1.6 A0163 410 5.0 

A0118 306 3.8 A0164 248 3.0 

A0119 315 3.9 A0165 377 4.6 

A0120 287 3.5 A0166 738 9.1 

A0121 293 3.6 A0167 1,838 22.6 

 

A0122 323 4.0 A0168 1,830 22.5 

A0123 299 3.7 A0169 1,830 22.5 

A0124 340 4.2 A0170 1,357 16.7 

A0125 89 1.1 A0171 1,325 16.3 

A0126 101 1.2 A0172 1,298 15.9 

 

A0127 128 1.6 A0173 1,292 15.9 

A0128 96 1.2 A0174 1,278 15.7 

A0129 97 1.2 A0175 1,282 15.7 

A0130 101 1.2 A0176 1,273 15.6 

A0131 94 1.2 A0177 1,277 15.7 

 

A0132 90 1.1 A0185 92 1.1 

A0133 104 1.3 A0186 451 5.5 

A0134 87 1.1 A0187 122 1.5 

A0135 87 1.1 A0188 530 6.5 

A0136 84 1.0 A0189 310 3.8 

 

A0137 91 1.1 A0190 846 10.4 

A0138 91 1.1 A0191 81 1.0 

A0139 88 1.1 A0192 87 1.1 

A0140 92 1.1 A0193 74 0.9 

A0141 81 1.0 A0194 75 0.9 

 

A0142 174 2.1 A0195 82 1.0 

A0149 216 2.7 A0196 85 1.0 

A0150 116 1.4 A0197 92 1.1 

A0151 139 1.7 A0198 76 0.9 

A0152 124 1.5 A0199 92 1.1 

 

A0153 114 1.4 A0200 89 1.1 

A0154 120 1.5 A0201 81 1.0 

A0155 111 1.4 A0202 82 1.0 

A0156 112 1.4 A0203 86 1.1 

A0157 129 1.6 A0204 116 1.4 

 

A0158 111 1.4 A0205 106 1.3 

A0159 129 1.6 A0206 105 1.3 

A0160 117 1.4 A0207 100 1.2 

A0161 407 5.0 A0208 112 1.4 

A0162 411 5.0 A0209 107 1.3 

See notes at end of table. 
P-8 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-2. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

A0210 99 1.2 A0241 113 1.4 

A0211 93 1.1 A0242 95 1.2 

A0212 107 1.3 A0243 109 1.3 

A0213 92 1.1 A0244 101 1.2 

A0214 103 1.3 A0245 102 1.3 

 

A0215 101 1.2 A0246 96 1.2 

A0216 105 1.3 A0247 103 1.3 

A0217 85 1.0 A0254 2 0.0 

A0218 93 1.1 A0255 23 0.3 

A0219 97 1.2 A0256 142 1.7 

 

A0220 106 1.3 A0257 142 1.7 

A0221 93 1.1 A0258 142 1.7 

A0222 89 1.1 A0259 142 1.7 

A0223 102 1.3 A0260 142 1.7 

A0224 94 1.2 A0261 2,363 29.0 

 

A0225 96 1.2 A0262 105 1.3 

A0226 91 1.1 A0263 421 5.2 

A0227 92 1.1 

A0234 156 1.9 

A0235 167 2.1 

 

A0236 177 2.2 

A0237 140 1.7 

A0238 147 1.8 

A0239 134 1.6 

A0240 105 1.3 

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

School Principal Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-9

Table P-3. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

private school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

A0025 117 4.9 A0079 45 1.9 

A0026 8 0.3 A0080 45 1.9 

A0027 27 1.1 A0082 47 2.0 

A0028 384 16.2 A0084 37 1.6 

A0029 375 15.8 A0085 67 2.8 

 

A0030 23 1.0 A0086 57 2.4 

A0031 55 2.3 A0087 46 1.9 

A0032 31 1.3 A0089 44 1.9 

A0033 67 2.8 A0091 30 1.3 

A0034 76 3.2 A0092 52 2.2 

 

A0035 58 2.4 A0093 49 2.1 

A0036 47 2.0 A0094 50 2.1 

A0037 20 0.8 A0096 52 2.2 

A0039 10 0.4 A0098 34 1.4 

A0040 56 2.4 A0099 36 1.5 

 

A0041 53 2.2 A0100 50 2.1 

A0042 48 2.0 A0101 45 1.9 

A0043 24 1.0 A0103 46 1.9 

A0044 17 0.7 A0105 34 1.4 

A0046 26 1.1 A0106 50 2.1 

 

A0047 20 0.8 A0107 52 2.2 

A0048 20 0.8 A0108 44 1.9 

A0049 21 0.9 A0115 29 1.2 

A0056 32 1.3 A0116 41 1.7 

A0057 39 1.6 A0117 51 2.1 

 

A0058 41 1.7 A0118 77 3.2 

A0060 34 1.4 A0119 85 3.6 

A0062 24 1.0 A0120 69 2.9 

A0063 20 0.8 A0121 74 3.1 

A0064 46 1.9 A0122 81 3.4 

 

A0065 27 1.1 A0123 81 3.4 

A0067 42 1.8 A0124 85 3.6 

A0069 27 1.1 A0125 45 1.9 

A0070 29 1.2 A0127 50 2.1 

A0071 49 2.1 A0128 49 2.1 

 

A0072 35 1.5 A0129 48 2.0 

A0074 48 2.0 A0130 48 2.0 

A0076 38 1.6 A0131 48 2.0 

A0077 45 1.9 A0132 46 1.9 

A0078 57 2.4 A0133 49 2.1 

See notes at end of table. 
P-10 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-3. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

private school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

A0134 17 0.7 A0205 28 1.2 

A0135 17 0.7 A0206 26 1.1 

A0136 26 1.1 A0207 21 0.9 

A0137 25 1.1 A0208 21 0.9 

A0138 24 1.0 A0209 21 0.9 

 

A0139 20 0.8 A0210 19 0.8 

A0140 20 0.8 A0211 19 0.8 

A0141 24 1.0 A0212 21 0.9 

A0142 34 1.4 A0213 19 0.8 

A0149 70 2.9 A0214 22 0.9 

 

A0150 43 1.8 A0215 24 1.0 

A0151 53 2.2 A0216 19 0.8 

A0152 48 2.0 A0217 18 0.8 

A0153 42 1.8 A0218 22 0.9 

A0154 45 1.9 A0219 21 0.9 

 

A0155 49 2.1 A0220 23 1.0 

A0156 46 1.9 A0221 18 0.8 

A0157 51 2.1 A0222 18 0.8 

A0158 43 1.8 A0223 21 0.9 

A0159 48 2.0 A0224 18 0.8 

 

A0185 19 0.8 A0225 24 1.0 

A0186 137 5.8 A0226 19 0.8 

A0187 49 2.1 A0227 18 0.8 

A0188 165 6.9 A0234 36 1.5 

A0189 41 1.7 A0235 41 1.7 

 

A0190 74 3.1 A0236 43 1.8 

A0191 13 0.5 A0237 39 1.6 

A0192 20 0.8 A0238 43 1.8 

A0193 15 0.6 A0239 36 1.5 

A0194 15 0.6 A0240 39 1.6 

 

A0195 19 0.8 A0241 36 1.5 

A0196 14 0.6 A0242 31 1.3 

A0197 17 0.7 A0243 33 1.4 

A0198 18 0.8 A0244 33 1.4 

A0199 19 0.8 A0245 36 1.5 

 

A0200 18 0.8 A0246 35 1.5 

A0201 20 0.8 A0247 34 1.4 

A0202 19 0.8 A0254 0 0.0 

A0203 20 0.8 A0255 6 0.3 

A0204 30 1.3 A0256 33 1.4 

See notes at end of table. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-11

Table P-3. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

private school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

A0257 33 1.4 A0262 38 1.6 

A0258 33 1.4 A0263 292 12.3 

A0259 33 1.4 

A0260 33 1.4 

A0261 544 22.9 

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

“Private School Principal Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 
P-12 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-4. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

BIA school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

A0025 7 4.8 A0071 1 0.7 

A0026 1 0.7 A0072 0 0.0 

A0027 2 1.4 A0073 2 1.4 

A0028 30 20.5 A0074 1 0.7 

A0029 35 24.0 A0075 1 0.7 

 

A0030 4 2.7 A0076 1 0.7 

A0031 2 1.4 A0077 1 0.7 

A0032 1 0.7 A0078 2 1.4 

A0033 4 2.7 A0079 1 0.7 

A0034 3 2.1 A0080 1 0.7 

 

A0035 3 2.1 A0081 1 0.7 

A0036 5 3.4 A0082 1 0.7 

A0037 8 5.5 A0083 1 0.7 

A0038 10 6.8 A0084 1 0.7 

A0039 1 0.7 A0085 1 0.7 

 

A0040 1 0.7 A0086 2 1.4 

A0041 4 2.7 A0087 1 0.7 

A0042 4 2.7 A0088 1 0.7 

A0043 0 0.0 A0089 1 0.7 

A0044 0 0.0 A0090 3 2.1 

 

A0045 0 0.0 A0091 1 0.7 

A0046 0 0.0 A0092 1 0.7 

A0047 0 0.0 A0093 1 0.7 

A0048 0 0.0 A0094 1 0.7 

A0049 0 0.0 A0095 1 0.7 

 

A0056 4 2.7 A0096 1 0.7 

A0057 4 2.7 A0097 3 2.1 

A0058 4 2.7 A0098 1 0.7 

A0059 1 0.7 A0099 1 0.7 

A0060 0 0.0 A0100 3 2.1 

 

A0061 2 1.4 A0101 1 0.7 

A0062 0 0.0 A0102 1 0.7 

A0063 0 0.0 A0103 1 0.7 

A0064 1 0.7 A0104 2 1.4 

A0065 0 0.0 A0105 0 0.0 

 

A0066 0 0.0 A0106 0 0.0 

A0067 0 0.0 A0107 1 0.7 

A0068 1 0.7 A0108 0 0.0 

A0069 0 0.0 A0115 11 7.5 

A0070 1 0.7 A0116 10 6.8 

See notes at end of table. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-13

Table P-4. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

BIA school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

A0117 12 8.2 A0163 18 12.3 

A0118 15 10.3 A0164 16 11.0 

A0119 15 10.3 A0165 18 12.3 

A0120 15 10.3 A0166 28 19.2 

A0121 14 9.6 A0167 54 37.0 

 

A0122 16 11.0 A0168 54 37.0 

A0123 15 10.3 A0169 54 37.0 

A0124 17 11.6 A0170 47 32.2 

A0125 11 7.5 A0171 46 31.5 

A0126 12 8.2 A0172 46 31.5 

 

A0127 11 7.5 A0173 46 31.5 

A0128 11 7.5 A0174 46 31.5 

A0129 11 7.5 A0175 46 31.5 

A0130 12 8.2 A0176 46 31.5 

A0131 11 7.5 A0177 45 30.8 

 

A0132 11 7.5 A0185 9 6.2 

A0133 11 7.5 A0186 21 14.4 

A0134 12 8.2 A0187 10 6.8 

A0135 12 8.2 A0188 25 17.1 

A0136 12 8.2 A0189 16 11.0 

 

A0137 12 8.2 A0190 30 20.5 

A0138 12 8.2 A0191 11 7.5 

A0139 13 8.9 A0192 11 7.5 

A0140 12 8.2 A0193 11 7.5 

A0141 13 8.9 A0194 11 7.5 

 

A0142 17 11.6 A0195 11 7.5 

A0149 12 8.2 A0196 12 8.2 

A0150 12 8.2 A0197 11 7.5 

A0151 12 8.2 A0198 11 7.5 

A0152 12 8.2 A0199 11 7.5 

 

A0153 12 8.2 A0200 11 7.5 

A0154 12 8.2 A0201 11 7.5 

A0155 12 8.2 A0202 11 7.5 

A0156 12 8.2 A0203 11 7.5 

A0157 13 8.9 A0204 11 7.5 

 

A0158 12 8.2 A0205 11 7.5 

A0159 12 8.2 A0206 12 8.2 

A0160 12 8.2 A0207 12 8.2 

A0161 18 12.3 A0208 11 7.5 

A0162 18 12.3 A0209 11 7.5 

See notes at end of table. 
P-14 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-4. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

BIA school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

A0210 11 7.5 A0241 10 6.8 

A0211 11 7.5 A0242 10 6.8 

A0212 11 7.5 A0243 10 6.8 

A0213 11 7.5 A0244 10 6.8 

A0214 12 8.2 A0245 10 6.8 

 

A0215 11 7.5 A0246 10 6.8 

A0216 11 7.5 A0247 10 6.8 

A0217 11 7.5 A0254 0 0.0 

A0218 11 7.5 A0255 0 0.0 

A0219 11 7.5 A0256 7 4.8 

 

A0220 13 8.9 A0257 7 4.8 

A0221 11 7.5 A0258 7 4.8 

A0222 12 8.2 A0259 7 4.8 

A0223 12 8.2 A0260 7 4.8 

A0224 11 7.5 A0261 34 23.3 

 

A0225 11 7.5 A0262 1 0.7 

A0226 11 7.5 A0263 9 6.2 

A0227 11 7.5 

A0234 13 8.9 

A0235 13 8.9 

 

A0236 13 8.9 

A0237 16 11.0 

A0238 15 10.3 

A0239 15 10.3 

A0240 10 6.8 

NOTE: BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

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

School Principal Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-15

Table P-5. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school data file, by variable: 2003–04 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

S0400 4 0.1 S0446 360 4.5 

S0401 4 0.1 S0447 345 4.3 

S0402 4 0.1 S0448 793 9.9 

S0403 4 0.1 S0449 726 9.1 

S0404 4 0.1 S0450 675 8.4 

 

S0405 4 0.1 S0451 674 8.4 

S0406 4 0.1 S0452 690 8.6 

S0407 4 0.1 S0453 681 8.5 

S0408 4 0.1 S0454 678 8.5 

S0409 4 0.1 S0455 161 2.0 

 

S0410 4 0.1 S0456 1,299 16.3 

S0411 4 0.1 S0457 246 3.1 

S0412 4 0.1 S0458 281 3.5 

S0413 4 0.1 S0459 335 4.2 

S0414 656 8.2 S0460 269 3.4 

 

S0415 382 4.8 S0461 318 4.0 

S0416 709 8.9 S0462 186 2.3 

S0417 680 8.5 S0463 159 2.0 

S0418 760 9.5 S0464 145 1.8 

S0419 747 9.3 S0465 163 2.0 

 

S0420 753 9.4 S0466 158 2.0 

S0421 801 10.0 S0467 203 2.5 

S0422 1,359 17.0 S0468 172 2.2 

S0423 1,116 14.0 S0469 219 2.7 

S0424 169 2.1 S0470 793 9.9 

 

S0425 879 11.0 S0471 761 9.5 

S0426 186 2.3 S0472 725 9.1 

S0427 240 3.0 S0473 725 9.1 

S0428 245 3.1 S0474 725 9.1 

S0429 1,207 15.1 S0475 219 2.7 

 

S0430 249 3.1 S0476 182 2.3 

S0431 445 5.6 S0477 208 2.6 

S0432 156 2.0 S0478 182 2.3 

S0433 153 1.9 S0479 176 2.2 

S0434 78 1.0 S0480 348 4.4 

 

S0441 37 0.5 S0481 263 3.3 

S0442 92 1.2 S0482 253 3.2 

S0443 55 0.7 S0489 218 2.7 

S0444 68 0.9 S0490 248 3.1 

S0445 486 6.1 S0491 202 2.5 

See notes at end of table. 
P-16 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-5. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

S0492 237 3.0 S0538 2,002 25.1 

S0493 221 2.8 S0539 1,692 21.2 

S0494 172 2.2 S0540 2,773 34.7 

S0495 218 2.7 S0541 701 8.8 

S0496 130 1.6 S0542 2,459 30.8 

 

S0497 1,037 13.0 S0543 709 8.9 

S0498 618 7.7 S0544 2,272 28.4 

S0499 683 8.5 S0545 603 7.5 

S0500 658 8.2 S0546 2,563 32.1 

S0501 650 8.1 S0547 717 9.0 

 

S0502 647 8.1 S0548 2,535 31.7 

S0503 1,094 13.7 S0549 579 7.2 

S0504 619 7.7 S0550 2,401 30.0 

S0505 776 9.7 S0551 580 7.3 

S0506 798 10.0 S0552 2,429 30.4 

 

S0513 100 1.3 S0553 668 8.4 

S0514 544 6.8 S0554 2,481 31.0 

S0515 478 6.0 S0555 728 9.1 

S0516 533 6.7 S0556 2,500 31.3 

S0517 582 7.3 S0557 316 4.0 

 

S0518 668 8.4 S0558 2,567 32.1 

S0519 707 8.8 S0559 723 9.0 

S0520 660 8.3 S0560 2,441 30.5 

S0521 247 3.1 S0561 411 5.1 

S0522 3,036 38.0 S0562 2,534 31.7 

 

S0523 342 4.3 S0563 1,427 17.9 

S0524 2,786 34.9 S0564 2,906 36.4 

S0525 683 8.5 S0565 362 4.5 

S0526 2,743 34.3 S0566 632 7.9 

S0527 463 5.8 S0567 857 10.7 

 

S0528 2,777 34.8 S0568 709 8.9 

S0529 490 6.1 S0569 781 9.8 

S0530 2,646 33.1 S0570 817 10.2 

S0531 947 11.9 S0571 865 10.8 

S0532 2,330 29.2 S0572 762 9.5 

 

S0533 861 10.8 S0573 813 10.2 

S0534 2,417 30.2 S0574 845 10.6 

S0535 1,255 15.7 S0575 864 10.8 

S0536 2,070 25.9 S0576 821 10.3 

S0537 1,359 17.0 S0577 774 9.7 

See notes at end of table. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-17

Table P-5. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

S0578 823 10.3 S0630 190 2.4 

S0579 327 4.1 S0631 446 5.6 

S0580 512 6.4 S0632 332 4.2 

S0581 490 6.1 S0633 2,716 34.0 

S0582 504 6.3 S0634 1,298 16.2 

 

S0583 493 6.2 S0635 957 12.0 

S0584 500 6.3 S0636 2,337 29.2 

S0585 508 6.4 S0637 1,751 21.9 

S0586 498 6.2 S0638 471 5.9 

S0593 612 7.7 S0639 706 8.8 

 

S0594 636 8.0 S0640 789 9.9 

S0595 358 4.5 S0641 795 9.9 

S0596 673 8.4 S0642 791 9.9 

S0597 332 4.2 S0643 793 9.9 

S0604 662 8.3 S0644 785 9.8 

 

S0605 394 4.9 S0645 742 9.3 

S0606 2,744 34.3 S0646 645 8.1 

S0607 2,370 29.7 S0647 633 7.9 

S0608 2,846 35.6 S0648 574 7.2 

S0609 3,029 37.9 S0649 572 7.2 

 

S0610 776 9.7 S0650 558 7.0 

S0611 822 10.3 S0651 553 6.9 

S0612 1,022 12.8 S0652 465 5.8

S0613 1,030 12.9 S0653 1,219 15.3 

S0614 1,041 13.0 S0654 1,247 15.6 

 

S0615 1,050 13.1 S0655 1,306 16.3 

S0616 1,027 12.9 S0656 1,366 17.1 

S0617 1,093 13.7 S0661 278 3.5 

S0618 1,034 12.9 S0662 289 3.6 

S0619 1,336 16.7 S0663 297 3.7 

 

S0620 666 8.3 S0664 296 3.7 

S0621 741 9.3 S0665 532 6.7 

S0622 671 8.4 S0666 533 6.7 

S0623 684 8.6 S0667 499 6.2 

S0624 680 8.5 S0668 769 9.6 

 

S0625 733 9.2 S0669 432 5.4 

S0626 1,156 14.5 S0670 481 6.0 

S0627 547 6.8 S0671 884 11.1 

S0628 599 7.5 S0950 49 0.6 

S0629 661 8.3 

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

School Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 
P-18 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

private school data file, by variable: 2003–04 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

S0700 237 9.6 S0420 1,745 71.1 

S0701 118 4.8 S0421 1,741 70.9 

S0702 172 7.0 S0422 530 21.6 

S0703 47 1.9 S0423 336 13.7 

S0704 188 7.7 S0424 101 4.1 

 

S0705 49 2.0 S0425 343 14.0 

S0706 215 8.8 S0063 181 7.4 

S0707 94 3.8 S0426 173 7.0 

S0708 248 10.1 S0427 149 6.1 

S0709 120 4.9 S0428 159 6.5 

 

S0710 163 6.6 S0429 197 8.0 

S0711 68 2.8 S0430 67 2.7 

S0712 195 7.9 S0431 109 4.4 

S0713 71 2.9 S0432 66 2.7 

S0714 201 8.2 S0433 65 2.6 

 

S0715 70 2.9 S0434 51 2.1 

S0716 214 8.7 S0441 164 6.7 

S0717 66 2.7 S0736 53 2.2 

S0718 218 8.9 S0737 55 2.2 

S0719 62 2.5 S0738 67 2.7 

 

S0720 234 9.5 S0739 244 9.9 

S0721 76 3.1 S0740 137 5.6 

S0722 255 10.4 S0741 196 8.0 

S0723 75 3.1 S0742 339 13.8 

S0724 263 10.7 S0743 105 4.3 

 

S0725 72 2.9 S0744 105 4.3 

S0726 370 15.1 S0745 106 4.3 

S0727 97 3.9 S0746 105 4.3 

S0728 383 15.6 S0747 106 4.3 

S0729 96 3.9 S0748 105 4.3 

 

S0730 397 16.2 S0749 105 4.3 

S0731 101 4.1 S0750 105 4.3 

S0732 407 16.6 S0751 105 4.3 

S0733 101 4.1 S0752 105 4.3 

S0734 682 27.8 S0753 105 4.3 

 

S0735 48 2.0 S0754 105 4.3 

S0416 383 15.6 S0755 105 4.3 

S0417 323 13.2 S0756 105 4.3 

S0418 393 16.0 S0757 105 4.3 

S0419 350 14.3 S0758 105 4.3 

See notes at end of table. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-19

Table P-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

private school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

S0759 105 4.3 S0517 228 9.3 

S0760 105 4.3 S0518 257 10.5 

S0761 113 4.6 S0519 287 11.7 

S0762 105 4.3 S0520 375 15.3 

S0763 105 4.3 S0521 197 8.0 

 

S0764 105 4.3 S0522 701 28.5 

S0765 105 4.3 S0523 211 8.6 

S0766 105 4.3 S0524 628 25.6 

S0767 105 4.3 S0796 250 10.2 

S0768 105 4.3 S0797 658 26.8 

 

S0769 105 4.3 S0525 239 9.7 

S0770 105 4.3 S0526 638 26.0 

S0771 105 4.3 S0527 234 9.5 

S0772 105 4.3 S0528 601 24.5 

S0773 105 4.3 S0529 233 9.5 

 

S0774 105 4.3 S0530 579 23.6 

S0775 105 4.3 S0531 245 10.0 

S0776 105 4.3 S0532 570 23.2 

S0777 105 4.3 S0533 209 8.5 

S0778 105 4.3 S0534 611 24.9 

 

S0779 105 4.3 S0535 219 8.9 

S0780 111 4.5 S0536 592 24.1 

S0781 105 4.3 S0537 234 9.5 

S0782 105 4.3 S0538 587 23.9 

S0783 105 4.3 S0539 317 12.9 

 

S0784 106 4.3 S0540 656 26.7 

S0785 146 5.9 S0541 217 8.8 

S0786 350 14.3 S0542 559 22.8 

S0787 385 15.7 S0543 203 8.3 

S0788 334 13.6 S0544 568 23.1 

 

S0789 467 19.0 S0545 195 7.9 

S0790 749 30.5 S0546 563 22.9 

S0513 24 1.0 S0547 202 8.2 

S0791 316 12.9 S0548 567 23.1 

S0792 230 9.4 S0549 210 8.6 

 

S0793 293 11.9 S0550 558 22.7 

S0794 321 13.1 S0551 218 8.9 

S0795 82 3.3 S0552 566 23.0 

S0515 177 7.2 S0553 232 9.4 

S0516 172 7.0 S0554 542 22.1 

See notes at end of table. 
P-20 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

private school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

S0555 239 9.7 S0453 176 7.2 

S0556 589 24.0 S0454 199 8.1 

S0557 179 7.3 S0807 191 7.8 

S0558 586 23.9 S0489 107 4.4 

S0559 247 10.1 S0490 145 5.9 

 

S0560 546 22.2 S0491 132 5.4 

S0561 216 8.8 S0492 136 5.5 

S0562 589 24.0 S0493 132 5.4 

S0563 364 14.8 S0494 120 4.9 

S0564 691 28.1 S0496 96 3.9 

 

S0565 100 4.1 S0497 302 12.3 

S0276 114 4.6 S0498 204 8.3 

S0277 274 11.2 S0499 178 7.2 

S0278 271 11.0 S0500 172 7.0 

S0279 444 18.1 S0501 170 6.9 

 

S0280 271 11.0 S0502 170 6.9 

S0281 275 11.2 S0462 93 3.8 

S0282 385 15.7 S0463 96 3.9 

S0283 132 5.4 S0464 93 3.8 

S0284 279 11.4 S0465 100 4.1 

 

S0285 103 4.2 S0466 104 4.2 

S0503 198 8.1 S0467 103 4.2 

S0798 135 5.5 S0468 96 3.9 

S0799 220 9.0 S0475 89 3.6 

S0505 147 6.0 S0476 89 3.6 

 

S0506 269 11.0 S0477 100 4.1 

S0800 62 2.5 S0478 89 3.6 

S0801 7 0.3 S0479 94 3.8 

S0802 125 5.1 S0481 91 3.7 

S0803 77 3.1 S0077 129 5.3 

 

S0804 136 5.5 S0078 123 5.0 

S0805 391 15.9 S0808 138 5.6 

S0806 194 7.9 S0079 145 5.9 

S0443 84 3.4 S0080 138 5.6 

S0447 230 9.4 S0081 135 5.5 

 

S0448 205 8.3 S0082 146 5.9 

S0449 217 8.8 S0083 142 5.8 

S0450 192 7.8 S0084 142 5.8 

S0451 230 9.4 S0085 144 5.9 

S0452 232 9.4 S0086 146 5.9 

See notes at end of table. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-21

Table P-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

private school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

S0566 347 14.1 S0123 819 33.3 

S0567 216 8.8 S0124 108 4.4 

S0568 279 11.4 S0125 116 4.7 

S0569 266 10.8 S0126 126 5.1 

S0570 274 11.2 S0127 115 4.7 

 

S0571 281 11.4 S0128 127 5.2 

S0572 265 10.8 S0129 114 4.6 

S0573 273 11.1 S0130 117 4.8 

S0574 288 11.7 S0131 114 4.6 

S0575 292 11.9 S0315 135 5.5 

 

S0576 269 11.0 S0316 142 5.8 

S0577 262 10.7 S0317 143 5.8 

S0578 286 11.6 S0319 166 6.8 

S0579 133 5.4 S0320 519 21.1 

S0580 163 6.6 S0321 507 20.6 

 

S0581 163 6.6 S0322 492 20.0 

S0582 165 6.7 S0323 488 19.9 

S0583 166 6.8 S0324 487 19.8 

S0584 166 6.8 S0325 486 19.8 

S0585 163 6.6 S0326 512 20.8 

 

S0586 163 6.6 S0327 511 20.8 

S0091 131 5.3 S0328 513 20.9 

S0092 216 8.8 S0329 509 20.7 

S0093 146 5.9 S0330 508 20.7 

S0095 135 5.5 S0331 510 20.8 

 

S0103 122 5.0 S0292 126 5.1 

S0104 215 8.8 S0293 117 4.8 

S0105 213 8.7 S0294 122 5.0 

S0106 210 8.6 S0295 123 5.0 

S0107 211 8.6 S0296 125 5.1 

 

S0113 237 9.6 S0297 124 5.0 

S0114 354 14.4 S0298 126 5.1 

S0115 338 13.8 S0299 123 5.0 

S0116 27 1.1 S0300 121 4.9 

S0117 337 13.7 S0301 124 5.0 

 

S0118 29 1.2 S0302 126 5.1 

S0119 336 13.7 S0303 122 5.0 

S0120 29 1.2 S0304 143 5.8 

S0121 427 17.4 S0305 147 6.0 

S0122 808 32.9 S0306 151 6.1 

See notes at end of table. 
P-22 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

private school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of

records affected

S0308 141 5.7 S0621 177 7.2 

S0310 177 7.2 S0622 176 7.2 

S0311 182 7.4 S0623 176 7.2 

S0312 185 7.5 S0624 175 7.1 

S0313 173 7.0 S0625 173 7.0 

 

S0314 170 6.9 S0626 407 16.6 

S0332 188 7.7 S0627 174 7.1 

S0333 217 8.8 S0628 181 7.4 

S0334 220 9.0 S0629 193 7.9 

S0335 214 8.7 S0632 133 5.4 

 

S0336 212 8.6 S0633 513 20.9 

S0337 212 8.6 S0634 330 13.4 

S0338 208 8.5 S0635 128 5.2 

S0339 210 8.6 S0636 500 20.4 

S0340 210 8.6 S0637 321 13.1 

 

S0341 210 8.6 S0638 122 5.0 

S0342 207 8.4 S0639 128 5.2 

S0343 207 8.4 S0640 130 5.3 

S0344 209 8.5 S0641 130 5.3 

S0593 155 6.3 S0642 132 5.4 

 

S0594 146 5.9 S0643 130 5.3 

S0595 203 8.3 S0644 129 5.3 

S0596 161 6.6 S0645 128 5.2 

S0597 147 6.0 S0646 125 5.1 

S0604 132 5.4 S0647 124 5.0 

 

S0605 610 24.8 S0648 123 5.0 

S0606 530 21.6 S0649 123 5.0 

S0607 702 28.6 S0650 123 5.0 

S0608 900 36.6 S0651 123 5.0 

S0609 949 38.6 S0652 133 5.4 

 

S0610 157 6.4 S0653 249 10.1 

S0611 194 7.9 S0654 255 10.4 

S0612 352 14.3 S0655 283 11.5 

S0613 343 14.0 S0657 128 5.2 

S0614 348 14.2 S0658 120 4.9 

 

S0615 345 14.0 S0659 121 4.9 

S0616 345 14.0 S0660 123 5.0 

S0617 345 14.0 S0668 182 7.4 

S0618 346 14.1 S0669 98 4.0 

S0619 469 19.1 S0670 103 4.2 

S0620 174 7.1 S0671 310 12.6 

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

“Private School Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-23

Table P-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

BIA school data file, by variable: 2003–04 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

S0400 0 0.0 S0445 9 6.2 

S0401 0 0.0 S0446 9 6.2 

S0402 0 0.0 S0447 7 4.8 

S0403 0 0.0 S0448 9 6.2 

S0404 0 0.0 S0449 11 7.6 

 

S0405 0 0.0 S0450 8 5.5 

S0406 0 0.0 S0451 9 6.2 

S0407 0 0.0 S0452 9 6.2 

S0408 0 0.0 S0453 8 5.5 

S0409 0 0.0 S0454 9 6.2 

 

S0410 0 0.0 S0950 5 3.4 

S0411 0 0.0 S0455 15 10.3 

S0412 0 0.0 S0457 14 9.7 

S0413 0 0.0 S0458 14 9.7 

S0414 5 3.4 S0459 14 9.7 

 

S0415 12 8.3 S0460 14 9.7 

S0416 48 33.1 S0461 14 9.7 

S0417 31 21.4 S0152 23 15.9 

S0418 25 17.2 S0153 23 15.9 

S0419 27 18.6 S0154 20 13.8 

 

S0420 26 17.9 S0155 20 13.8 

S0421 23 15.9 S0156 21 14.5 

S0422 23 15.9 S0157 22 15.2 

S0423 20 13.8 S0158 22 15.2 

S0424 8 5.5 S0159 22 15.2 

 

S0425 27 18.6 S0160 22 15.2 

S0063 5 3.4 S0161 21 14.5 

S0426 5 3.4 S0162 21 14.5 

S0427 11 7.6 S0163 21 14.5 

S0428 11 7.6 S0164 21 14.5 

 

S0429 16 11.0 S0165 21 14.5 

S0430 7 4.8 S0166 21 14.5 

S0431 13 9.0 S0167 20 13.8 

S0432 8 5.5 S0168 23 15.9 

S0433 8 5.5 S0169 25 17.2 

 

S0434 2 1.4 S0170 22 15.2 

S0441 1 0.7 S0171 22 15.2 

S0442 12 8.3 S0172 22 15.2 

S0443 0 0.0 S0173 23 15.9 

S0444 3 2.1 S0174 23 15.9 

See notes at end of table. 
P-24 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

BIA school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

S0175 23 15.9 S0215 23 15.9 

S0176 22 15.2 S0216 21 14.5 

S0177 22 15.2 S0217 22 15.2 

S0178 22 15.2 S0218 52 35.9 

S0179 24 16.6 S0219 21 14.5 

 

S0180 24 16.6 S0220 42 29.0 

S0181 24 16.6 S0221 41 28.3 

S0182 23 15.9 S0222 41 28.3 

S0183 25 17.2 S0223 22 15.2 

S0184 21 14.5 S0224 47 32.4 

 

S0185 25 17.2 S0225 31 21.4 

S0186 22 15.2 S0226 48 33.1 

S0187 22 15.2 S0227 48 33.1 

S0188 22 15.2 S0228 49 33.8 

S0189 23 15.9 S0229 49 33.8 

 

S0190 23 15.9 S0230 49 33.8 

S0191 23 15.9 S0231 49 33.8 

S0192 22 15.2 S0232 49 33.8 

S0193 22 15.2 S0233 50 34.5 

S0194 22 15.2 S0462 17 11.7 

 

S0195 22 15.2 S0463 15 10.3 

S0196 22 15.2 S0464 17 11.7 

S0197 22 15.2 S0465 16 11.0 

S0198 22 15.2 S0466 16 11.0 

S0199 23 15.9 S0467 17 11.7 

 

S0200 21 14.5 S0468 15 10.3 

S0201 26 17.9 S0469 18 12.4 

S0202 22 15.2 S0470 22 15.2 

S0203 22 15.2 S0471 22 15.2 

S0204 22 15.2 S0472 20 13.8 

 

S0205 23 15.9 S0473 20 13.8 

S0206 23 15.9 S0474 22 15.2 

S0207 23 15.9 S0475 16 11.0 

S0208 22 15.2 S0476 16 11.0 

S0209 22 15.2 S0477 16 11.0 

 

S0210 22 15.2 S0478 17 11.7 

S0211 23 15.9 S0479 18 12.4 

S0212 22 15.2 S0480 21 14.5 

S0213 22 15.2 S0481 22 15.2 

S0214 22 15.2 S0482 22 15.2 

See notes at end of table. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-25

Table P-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

BIA school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

S0489 12 8.3 S0523 4 2.8 

S0490 13 9.0 S0524 49 33.8 

S0491 14 9.7 S0525 7 4.8 

S0492 13 9.0 S0526 50 34.5 

S0493 13 9.0 S0527 8 5.5 

 

S0494 15 10.3 S0528 46 31.7 

S0495 12 8.3 S0529 5 3.4 

S0496 11 7.6 S0530 50 34.5 

S0497 27 18.6 S0531 10 6.9 

S0498 18 12.4 S0532 46 31.7 

 

S0499 17 11.7 S0533 8 5.5 

S0500 14 9.7 S0534 48 33.1 

S0501 14 9.7 S0535 15 10.3 

S0502 14 9.7 S0536 42 29.0 

S0248 21 14.5 S0537 17 11.7 

 

S0276 5 3.4 S0538 41 28.3 

S0277 11 7.6 S0539 25 17.2 

S0278 11 7.6 S0540 57 39.3 

S0279 17 11.7 S0541 12 8.3 

S0280 11 7.6 S0542 49 33.8 

 

S0281 11 7.6 S0543 11 7.6 

S0282 17 11.7 S0544 49 33.8 

S0283 8 5.5 S0545 4 2.8 

S0284 28 19.3 S0546 52 35.9 

S0285 3 2.1 S0547 9 6.2 

 

S0286 7 4.8 S0548 50 34.5 

S0503 17 11.7 S0549 6 4.1 

S0504 25 17.2 S0550 48 33.1 

S0505 25 17.2 S0551 7 4.8 

S0506 28 19.3 S0552 51 35.2 

 

S0513 4 2.8 S0553 10 6.9 

S0514 11 7.6 S0554 52 35.9 

S0515 15 10.3 S0555 11 7.6 

S0516 18 12.4 S0556 50 34.5 

S0517 20 13.8 S0557 4 2.8 

 

S0518 24 16.6 S0558 50 34.5 

S0519 17 11.7 S0559 7 4.8 

S0520 17 11.7 S0560 54 37.2 

S0521 7 4.8 S0561 5 3.4 

S0522 53 36.6 S0562 49 33.8 

See notes at end of table. 
P-26 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

BIA school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

S0563 21 14.5 S0093 23 15.9 

S0564 58 40.0 S0094 22 15.2 

S0565 16 11.0 S0095 25 17.2 

S0566 31 21.4 S0097 22 15.2 

S0567 24 16.6 S0098 23 15.9 

 

S0568 21 14.5 S0099 23 15.9 

S0569 25 17.2 S0100 23 15.9 

S0570 28 19.3 S0101 23 15.9 

S0571 27 18.6 S0103 26 17.9 

S0572 27 18.6 S0104 28 19.3 

 

S0573 28 19.3 S0105 26 17.9 

S0574 28 19.3 S0106 27 18.6 

S0575 29 20.0 S0107 28 19.3 

S0576 28 19.3 S0113 8 5.5 

S0577 27 18.6 S0114 17 11.7 

 

S0578 27 18.6 S0115 25 17.2 

S0579 17 11.7 S0116 0 0.0 

S0580 20 13.8 S0117 25 17.2 

S0581 21 14.5 S0118 0 0.0 

S0582 21 14.5 S0119 25 17.2 

 

S0583 22 15.2 S0120 0 0.0 

S0584 23 15.9 S0121 24 16.6 

S0585 21 14.5 S0122 49 33.8 

S0586 21 14.5 S0123 49 33.8 

S0077 27 18.6 S0124 20 13.8 

 

S0078 21 14.5 S0125 20 13.8 

S0079 25 17.2 S0126 20 13.8 

S0080 25 17.2 S0127 21 14.5 

S0081 24 16.6 S0128 20 13.8 

S0082 26 17.9 S0129 20 13.8 

 

S0083 26 17.9 S0130 20 13.8 

S0084 25 17.2 S0131 20 13.8 

S0085 24 16.6 S0315 21 14.5 

S0086 25 17.2 S0316 22 15.2 

S0087 22 15.2 S0317 22 15.2 

 

S0088 23 15.9 S0319 27 18.6 

S0089 23 15.9 S0320 38 26.2 

S0090 22 15.2 S0321 37 25.5 

S0091 23 15.9 S0322 37 25.5 

S0092 29 20.0 S0323 37 25.5 

See notes at end of table. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-27

Table P-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

BIA school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

S0324 37 25.5 S0608 69 47.6 

S0325 37 25.5 S0609 68 46.9 

S0326 41 28.3 S0610 20 13.8 

S0327 41 28.3 S0611 24 16.6 

S0328 41 28.3 S0612 25 17.2 

 

S0329 40 27.6 S0613 25 17.2 

S0330 40 27.6 S0614 23 15.9 

S0331 40 27.6 S0615 25 17.2 

S0304 20 13.8 S0616 25 17.2 

S0305 20 13.8 S0617 26 17.9 

 

S0306 20 13.8 S0618 23 15.9 

S0308 27 18.6 S0619 32 22.1 

S0309 28 19.3 S0620 27 18.6 

S0310 28 19.3 S0621 25 17.2 

S0311 30 20.7 S0622 26 17.9 

 

S0312 28 19.3 S0623 28 19.3 

S0313 29 20.0 S0624 26 17.9 

S0314 28 19.3 S0625 25 17.2 

S0332 29 20.0 S0626 25 17.2 

S0333 35 24.1 S0627 22 15.2 

 

S0334 31 21.4 S0628 23 15.9 

S0335 31 21.4 S0629 25 17.2 

S0336 31 21.4 S0630 3 2.1 

S0337 31 21.4 S0631 6 4.1 

S0338 31 21.4 S0632 16 11.0 

 

S0339 32 22.1 S0633 60 41.4 

S0340 32 22.1 S0634 37 25.5 

S0341 31 21.4 S0635 101 69.7 

S0342 31 21.4 S0636 71 49.0 

S0343 31 21.4 S0637 86 59.3 

 

S0344 31 21.4 S0638 10 6.9 

S0593 27 18.6 S0639 65 44.8 

S0594 29 20.0 S0640 68 46.9 

S0595 20 13.8 S0641 68 46.9 

S0596 30 20.7 S0642 70 48.3 

 

S0597 20 13.8 S0643 68 46.9 

S0604 13 9.0 S0644 66 45.5 

S0605 4 2.8 S0645 65 44.8 

S0606 62 42.8 S0646 59 40.7 

S0607 46 31.7 S0647 58 40.0 

See notes at end of table. 
P-28 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

BIA school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

S0648 30 20.7 S0261 12 8.3 

S0649 29 20.0 S0262 13 9.0 

S0650 29 20.0 S0263 12 8.3 

S0651 29 20.0 S0264 12 8.3 

S0652 14 9.7 S0265 14 9.7 

 

S0653 88 60.7 S0266 10 6.9 

S0654 86 59.3 S0267 15 10.3 

S0655 81 55.9 S0268 12 8.3 

S0656 82 56.6 S0269 20 13.8 

S0661 2 1.4 S0270 11 7.6 

 

S0662 3 2.1 S0668 25 17.2 

S0663 1 0.7 S0669 16 11.0 

S0664 1 0.7 S0670 16 11.0 

S0665 9 6.2 S0671 32 22.1 

S0666 13 9.0 

 

S0667 9 6.2 

S0257 11 7.6 

S0258 11 7.6 

S0259 11 7.6 

S0260 12 8.3 

NOTE: BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

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

School Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-29

Table P-8. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

T0026 139 0 T0076 3,140 7 

T0027 6,020 14 T0077 1,988 5 

T0028 1,078 2 T0079 2,740 6 

T0029 1,978 5 T0080 2,435 6 

T0030 66 0 T0082 3,080 7 

 

T0031 4,567 11 T0083 2,904 7 

T0032 730 2 T0085 3,459 8 

T0033 5,073 12 T0086 3,175 7 

T0034 574 1 T0088 3,667 8 

T0035 458 1 T0089 2,951 7 

 

T0036 4,116 10 T0091 3,388 8 

T0037 7,219 17 T0092 2,050 5 

T0038 323 1 T0094 2,333 5 

T0039 3,633 8 T0095 1,139 3 

T0040 3,348 8 T0097 1,226 3 

 

T0051 0 0 T0098 978 2 

T0052 0 0 T0100 1,028 2 

T0053 0 0 T0101 874 2 

T0054 0 0 T0103 930 2 

T0055 0 0 T0104 834 2 

 

T0056 0 0 T0106 883 2 

T0057 0 0 T0116 184 0 

T0058 0 0 T0117 723 2 

T0059 0 0 T0118 666 2 

T0060 0 0 T0119 628 1 

 

T0061 0 0 T0120 2,675 6 

T0062 0 0 T0121 2,438 6 

T0063 0 0 T0122 1 0 

T0064 0 0 T0123 679 2 

T0065 0 0 T0124 850 2 

 

T0066 407 1 T0125 731 2 

T0067 4,277 10 T0126 750 2 

T0068 855 2 T0127 4,051 9 

T0069 810 2 T0128 1,537 4 

T0070 1,530 4 T0129 1,677 4 

 

T0071 1,685 4 T0130 1,675 4 

T0072 1,243 3 T0131 1,793 4 

T0073 1,380 3 T0132 2,595 6 

T0074 1,377 3 T0133 2,531 6 

T0075 1,991 5 T0134 2,716 6 

See notes at end of table. 
P-30 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-8. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

T0135 1,942 4 T0181 743 2 

T0136 1,834 4 T0182 547 1 

T0137 1,994 5 T0183 151 0 

T0138 1,535 4 T0184 181 0 

T0139 1,670 4 T0185 217 1 

 

T0140 1,531 4 T0186 148 0 

T0141 1,600 4 T0187 1,621 4 

T0142 1,632 4 T0188 2,629 6 

T0143 1,542 4 T0189 2,385 6 

T0144 1,647 4 T0190 2,305 5 

 

T0145 5,128 12 T0191 2,374 5 

T0146 6,077 14 T0192 2,008 5 

T0147 6,161 14 T0193 174 0 

T0148 5,306 12 T0194 151 0 

T0149 7,404 17 T0195 189 0 

 

T0150 5,713 13 T0196 87 0 

T0151 646 1 T0197 495 1 

T0152 657 2 T0198 278 1 

T0153 610 1 T0199 352 1 

T0154 816 2 T0200 91 0 

 

T0155 640 1 T0201 85 0 

T0156 1,786 4 T0202 65 0 

T0157 823 2 T0203 84 0 

T0158 805 2 T0204 38 0 

T0159 958 2 T0205 35 0 

 

T0166 371 1 T0206 31 0 

T0167 1,787 4 T0207 34 0 

T0168 2,090 5 T0208 13 0 

T0169 2,090 5 T0209 2,178 5 

T0170 2,087 5 T0210 5,244 12 

 

T0171 556 1 T0211 5,229 12 

T0172 677 2 T0212 5,207 12 

T0173 679 2 T0213 5,144 12 

T0174 678 2 T0214 5,203 12 

T0175 2,453 6 T0215 5,208 12 

 

T0176 1,849 4 T0216 5,348 12 

T0177 1,975 5 T0217 5,293 12 

T0178 739 2 T0218 5,293 12 

T0179 397 1 T0219 5,287 12 

T0180 649 2 T0220 5,281 12 

See notes at end of table. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-31

Table P-8. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

T0221 5,293 12 T0267 808 2 

T0222 5,272 12 T0268 856 2 

T0223 5,290 12 T0269 924 2 

T0224 5,273 12 T0270 1,130 3 

T0225 5,297 12 T0271 1,403 3 

 

T0226 5,347 12 T0279 1,653 4 

T0227 2,431 6 T0280 1,298 3 

T0228 2,484 6 T0281 1,713 4 

T0235 1,932 4 T0282 1,363 3 

T0236 2,274 5 T0283 831 2 

 

T0237 2,725 6 T0284 1,347 3 

T0238 3,011 7 T0285 5,944 14 

T0239 2,576 6 T0286 1,383 3 

T0240 2,889 7 T0287 2,500 6 

T0241 1,813 4 T0288 2,385 6 

 

T0242 2,775 6 T0289 2,337 5 

T0243 1,351 3 T0290 1,183 3 

T0244 1,419 3 T0297 2,313 5 

T0245 1,377 3 T0298 3,019 7 

T0246 951 2 T0299 7,800 18 

 

T0247 861 2 T0300 548 1 

T0248 921 2 T0301 664 2 

T0249 902 2 T0302 716 2 

T0250 801 2 T0303 835 2 

T0251 837 2 T0304 675 2 

 

T0252 842 2 T0311 864 2 

T0253 721 2 T0312 830 2 

T0254 807 2 T0313 978 2 

T0255 2,656 6 T0314 923 2 

T0256 1,249 3 T0315 867 2 

 

T0257 1,385 3 T0316 884 2 

T0258 1,591 4 T0317 842 2 

T0259 2,163 5 T0318 721 2 

T0260 1,748 4 T0319 702 2 

T0261 1,768 4 T0320 754 2 

 

T0262 1,126 3 T0321 756 2 

T0263 1,282 3 T0322 698 2 

T0264 1,421 3 T0323 778 2 

T0265 810 2 T0330 499 1 

T0266 805 2 T0331 539 1 

See notes at end of table. 
P-32 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-8. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

T0332 511 1 T0372 916 2 

T0333 514 1 T0373 847 2 

T0334 525 1 T0374 940 2 

T0335 488 1 T0375 967 2 

T0336 529 1 T0376 851 2 

 

T0337 544 1 T0377 961 2 

T0338 511 1 T0378 936 2 

T0339 585 1 T0379 889 2 

T0340 514 1 T0380 796 2 

T0341 500 1 T0381 794 2 

 

T0342 550 1 T0382 690 2 

T0343 621 1 T0383 643 1 

T0344 842 2 T0384 496 1 

T0345 529 1 T0385 5,857 14 

T0346 657 2 T0386 1,044 2 

 

T0347 614 1 T0387 565 1 

T0348 587 1 T0388 5,990 14 

T0349 602 1 T0389 683 2 

T0350 602 1 T0393 1,255 3 

T0351 768 2 T0394 1,419 3 

 

T0352 832 2 T0395 2,696 6 

T0353 820 2 T0396 2,871 7

T0354 1,021 2 T0397 3,173 7 

T0355 1,015 2 T0398 3,455 8 

T0356 1,065 2 T0399 3,215 7 

 

T0357 893 2 T0400 1,794 4 

T0358 887 2 T0401 1,631 4 

T0359 834 2 T0402 1,647 4 

T0360 804 2 T0403 1,666 4 

T0361 908 2 T0404 1,306 3 

 

T0362 750 2 T0405 1,931 4 

T0363 1,067 2 T0406 1,698 4 

T0364 800 2 T0407 759 2 

T0365 838 2 T0408 570 1 

T0366 878 2 T0409 832 2 

 

T0367 958 2 T0410 1,428 3 

T0368 936 2 T0411 1,428 3 

T0369 961 2 T0412 1,428 3 

T0370 1,158 3 T0413 1,428 3 

T0371 819 2 T0414 1,509 3 

See notes at end of table. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-33

Table P-8. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

T0415 11,024 25 T0420 2,989 7 

T0416 879 2 

T0417 2,045 5 

T0418 1,694 4 

T0419 1,761 4 

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

School Teacher Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 
P-34 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

T0026 54 1 T0076 613 8 

T0027 1,151 14 T0077 369 5 

T0028 228 3 T0079 484 6 

T0029 395 5 T0080 393 5 

T0030 26 0 T0082 490 6 

 

T0031 861 11 T0083 434 5 

T0032 197 2 T0085 520 7 

T0033 1,033 13 T0086 471 6 

T0034 148 2 T0088 558 7 

T0035 171 2 T0089 477 6 

 

T0036 807 10 T0091 549 7 

T0037 1,093 14 T0092 382 5 

T0038 94 1 T0094 432 5 

T0039 531 7 T0095 254 3 

T0040 603 8 T0097 285 4 

 

T0051 0 0 T0098 217 3 

T0052 0 0 T0100 252 3 

T0053 0 0 T0101 179 2 

T0054 0 0 T0103 219 3 

T0055 0 0 T0104 181 2 

 

T0056 0 0 T0106 221 3 

T0057 0 0 T0116 37 0 

T0058 0 0 T0117 100 1 

T0059 0 0 T0118 118 1 

T0060 0 0 T0119 97 1 

 

T0061 0 0 T0120 469 6 

T0062 0 0 T0121 378 5 

T0063 0 0 T0122 4 0 

T0064 0 0 T0123 266 3 

T0065 0 0 T0124 115 1 

 

T0066 132 2 T0125 134 2 

T0067 806 10 T0126 114 1 

T0068 133 2 T0127 673 8 

T0069 142 2 T0128 263 3 

T0070 312 4 T0129 278 3 

 

T0071 364 5 T0130 276 3 

T0072 230 3 T0131 298 4 

T0073 257 3 T0132 432 5 

T0074 256 3 T0133 422 5 

T0075 469 6 T0134 453 6 

See notes at end of table. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-35

Table P-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

T0135 314 4 T0436 12 0 

T0136 298 4 T0437 13 0 

T0137 319 4 T0438 3 0 

T0138 257 3 T0439 4 0 

T0139 268 3 T0440 4 0 

 

T0140 258 3 T0441 5 0 

T0141 265 3 T0442 117 1 

T0142 274 3 T0443 208 3 

T0143 261 3 T0444 399 5 

T0144 277 3 T0445 427 5 

 

T0145 919 12 T0446 419 5 

T0146 1,045 13 T0447 411 5 

T0147 1,042 13 T0448 43 1 

T0148 969 12 T0449 65 1 

T0149 1,125 14 T0450 67 1 

 

T0150 1,022 13 T0451 66 1 

T0151 192 2 T0452 34 0 

T0152 197 2 T0453 45 1 

T0153 167 2 T0454 46 1 

T0154 220 3 T0455 35 0 

 

T0155 183 2 T0456 11 0 

T0156 285 4 T0457 27 0 

T0157 221 3 T0458 29 0 

T0158 267 3 T0459 24 0 

T0159 279 3 T0460 3 0 

 

T0421 174 2 T0461 5 0 

T0422 467 6 T0462 5 0 

T0423 416 5 T0463 6 0 

T0424 339 4 T0187 416 5 

T0425 232 3 T0188 266 3 

 

T0426 117 1 T0189 261 3 

T0427 82 1 T0190 269 3 

T0428 89 1 T0191 265 3 

T0429 35 0 T0192 258 3 

T0430 43 1 T0193 7 0 

 

T0431 40 1 T0194 8 0 

T0432 33 0 T0195 9 0 

T0433 17 0 T0196 6 0 

T0434 16 0 T0197 4 0 

T0435 16 0 T0198 5 0 

See notes at end of table. 
P-36 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

T0199 4 0 T0245 204 3 

T0200 3 0 T0246 177 2 

T0201 2 0 T0247 125 2 

T0202 2 0 T0248 135 2 

T0203 2 0 T0249 145 2 

 

T0204 2 0 T0250 130 2 

T0205 1 0 T0251 136 2 

T0206 1 0 T0252 141 2 

T0207 1 0 T0253 113 1 

T0208 2 0 T0254 134 2 

 

T0209 484 6 T0255 442 6 

T0210 977 12 T0256 536 7 

T0211 984 12 T0257 568 7 

T0212 982 12 T0258 628 8 

T0213 1,014 13 T0259 713 9 

 

T0214 985 12 T0260 606 8 

T0215 980 12 T0261 605 8 

T0216 997 12 T0262 520 7 

T0217 974 12 T0263 535 7 

T0218 979 12 T0264 575 7 

 

T0219 982 12 T0265 188 2 

T0220 979 12 T0266 190 2 

T0221 982 12 T0267 177 2 

T0222 980 12 T0268 200 3 

T0223 980 12 T0269 225 3 

 

T0224 981 12 T0270 259 3 

T0225 981 12 T0271 331 4 

T0226 989 12 T0279 283 4 

T0227 560 7 T0280 382 5 

T0228 550 7 T0281 399 5 

 

T0235 331 4 T0282 380 5 

T0236 365 5 T0283 213 3 

T0237 398 5 T0284 197 2 

T0238 474 6 T0285 1,378 17 

T0239 441 6 T0286 188 2 

 

T0240 489 6 T0287 424 5 

T0241 278 3 T0288 387 5 

T0242 397 5 T0289 387 5 

T0243 260 3 T0290 227 3 

T0244 200 3 T0297 320 4 

See notes at end of table. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-37

Table P-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

T0298 968 12 T0350 117 1 

T0299 1,645 21 T0351 145 2 

T0300 77 1 T0352 141 2 

T0301 96 1 T0353 139 2 

T0302 108 1 T0354 146 2 

 

T0303 134 2 T0355 154 2 

T0304 105 1 T0356 134 2 

T0311 177 2 T0357 118 1 

T0312 164 2 T0358 133 2 

T0313 220 3 T0359 127 2 

 

T0314 209 3 T0360 132 2 

T0315 187 2 T0361 150 2 

T0316 176 2 T0362 134 2 

T0317 176 2 T0363 136 2 

T0318 116 1 T0364 129 2 

 

T0319 108 1 T0365 145 2 

T0320 110 1 T0366 143 2 

T0321 114 1 T0367 148 2 

T0322 106 1 T0368 134 2 

T0323 164 2 T0369 134 2 

 

T0330 119 1 T0370 186 2 

T0331 112 1 T0371 128 2 

T0332 133 2 T0372 145 2 

T0333 104 1 T0373 140 2 

T0334 94 1 T0374 148 2 

 

T0335 83 1 T0375 164 2 

T0336 91 1 T0376 125 2 

T0337 119 1 T0377 148 2 

T0338 92 1 T0378 151 2 

T0339 102 1 T0379 141 2 

 

T0340 127 2 T0380 132 2 

T0341 93 1 T0381 128 2 

T0342 111 1 T0382 182 2 

T0343 141 2 T0383 120 2 

T0344 318 4 T0384 88 1 

 

T0345 81 1 T0385 979 12 

T0346 316 4 T0386 116 1 

T0347 170 2 T0387 111 1 

T0348 133 2 T0388 887 11 

T0349 130 2 T0389 123 2 

See notes at end of table. 
P-38 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

T0393 306 4 T0407 133 2 

T0394 338 4 T0408 79 1 

T0395 560 7 T0409 129 2 

T0396 608 8 T0410 254 3 

T0397 663 8 T0411 254 3 

 

T0398 742 9 T0412 254 3 

T0399 805 10 T0413 254 3 

T0400 326 4 T0414 262 3 

T0401 313 4 T0415 1,907 24 

T0402 278 3 T0416 257 3 

 

T0403 287 4 T0417 408 5 

T0404 259 3 T0418 361 5 

T0405 404 5 T0419 380 5 

T0406 305 4 T0420 575 7 

T0464 193 2 

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

“Private School Teacher Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-39

Table P-10. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

BIA school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

T0026 1 0 T0076 61 10 

T0027 82 13 T0077 57 9 

T0028 12 2 T0079 63 10 

T0029 35 6 T0080 51 8 

T0030 2 0 T0082 58 9 

 

T0031 65 10 T0083 54 9 

T0032 12 2 T0085 61 10 

T0033 97 16 T0086 51 8 

T0034 8 1 T0088 55 9 

T0035 7 1 T0089 49 8 

 

T0036 78 13 T0091 52 8 

T0037 101 16 T0092 41 7 

T0038 9 1 T0094 45 7 

T0039 67 11 T0095 25 4 

T0040 51 8 T0097 24 4 

 

T0051 0 0 T0098 21 3 

T0052 0 0 T0100 20 3 

T0053 0 0 T0101 18 3 

T0054 0 0 T0103 18 3 

T0055 0 0 T0104 16 3 

 

T0056 0 0 T0106 16 3 

T0057 0 0 T0116 2 0 

T0058 0 0 T0117 19 3 

T0059 0 0 T0118 15 2 

T0060 0 0 T0119 13 2 

 

T0061 0 0 T0120 52 8 

T0062 0 0 T0121 47 8 

T0063 0 0 T0122 0 0 

T0064 0 0 T0123 16 3 

T0065 0 0 T0124 12 2 

 

T0066 5 1 T0125 12 2 

T0067 50 8 T0126 12 2 

T0068 19 3 T0127 65 10 

T0069 18 3 T0128 29 5 

T0070 36 6 T0129 31 5 

 

T0071 29 5 T0130 30 5 

T0072 21 3 T0131 35 6 

T0073 22 4 T0132 54 9 

T0074 22 4 T0133 48 8 

T0075 38 6 T0134 57 9 

See notes at end of table. 
P-40 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-10. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

BIA school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

T0135 40 6 T0181 10 2 

T0136 34 5 T0182 4 1 

T0137 40 6 T0183 4 1 

T0138 28 4 T0184 3 0 

T0139 33 5 T0185 4 1 

 

T0140 28 4 T0186 3 0 

T0141 30 5 T0187 50 8 

T0142 34 5 T0188 81 13 

T0143 30 5 T0189 67 11 

T0144 34 5 T0190 66 11 

 

T0145 101 16 T0191 60 10 

T0146 111 18 T0192 55 9 

T0147 113 18 T0193 6 1 

T0148 118 19 T0194 3 0 

T0149 134 21 T0195 5 1 

 

T0150 107 17 T0196 1 0 

T0151 47 8 T0197 13 2 

T0152 49 8 T0198 7 1 

T0153 48 8 T0199 8 1 

T0154 51 8 T0200 2 0 

 

T0155 48 8 T0201 3 0 

T0156 66 11 T0202 3 0 

T0157 53 8 T0203 1 0 

T0158 55 9 T0204 1 0 

T0159 59 9 T0205 2 0 

 

T0166 7 1 T0206 1 0 

T0167 38 6 T0207 0 0 

T0168 39 6 T0208 0 0 

T0169 39 6 T0209 75 12 

T0170 39 6 T0210 93 15 

 

T0171 14 2 T0211 93 15 

T0172 10 2 T0212 92 15 

T0173 10 2 T0213 92 15 

T0174 10 2 T0214 94 15 

T0175 37 6 T0215 94 15 

 

T0176 28 4 T0216 94 15 

T0177 27 4 T0217 95 15 

T0178 6 1 T0218 95 15 

T0179 11 2 T0219 96 15 

T0180 8 1 T0220 94 15 

See notes at end of table. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-41

Table P-10. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

BIA school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

T0221 93 15 T0267 71 11 

T0222 92 15 T0268 71 11 

T0223 93 15 T0269 78 13 

T0224 93 15 T0270 80 13 

T0225 93 15 T0271 85 14 

 

T0226 95 15 T0279 75 12 

T0227 48 8 T0280 73 12 

T0228 51 8 T0281 77 12 

T0235 75 12 T0282 74 12 

T0236 87 14 T0283 71 11 

 

T0237 87 14 T0284 90 14 

T0238 92 15 T0285 137 22 

T0239 86 14 T0286 88 14 

T0240 92 15 T0287 88 14 

T0241 80 13 T0288 89 14 

 

T0242 93 15 T0289 89 14 

T0243 76 12 T0290 78 13 

T0244 75 12 T0297 35 6 

T0245 73 12 T0298 31 5 

T0246 69 11 T0299 88 14 

 

T0247 67 11 T0300 21 3 

T0248 69 11 T0301 24 4 

T0249 64 10 T0302 20 3 

T0250 69 11 T0303 22 4 

T0251 67 11 T0304 21 3 

 

T0252 69 11 T0311 49 8 

T0253 63 10 T0312 51 8 

T0254 66 11 T0313 47 8 

T0255 87 14 T0314 47 8 

T0256 75 12 T0315 50 8 

 

T0257 74 12 T0316 51 8 

T0258 76 12 T0317 48 8

T0259 84 13 T0318 44 7 

T0260 81 13 T0319 45 7 

T0261 82 13 T0320 45 7 

 

T0262 76 12 T0321 45 7 

T0263 78 13 T0322 46 7 

T0264 87 14 T0323 45 7 

T0265 70 11 T0330 11 2 

T0266 70 11 T0331 14 2 

See notes at end of table. 
P-42 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-10. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

BIA school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

T0332 9 1 T0372 45 7 

T0333 10 2 T0373 45 7 

T0334 9 1 T0374 45 7 

T0335 11 2 T0375 50 8 

T0336 12 2 T0376 51 8 

 

T0337 10 2 T0377 53 8 

T0338 10 2 T0378 52 8 

T0339 11 2 T0379 52 8 

T0340 11 2 T0380 54 9 

T0341 10 2 T0381 52 8 

 

T0342 13 2 T0382 28 4 

T0343 14 2 T0383 25 4 

T0344 12 2 T0384 10 2 

T0345 10 2 T0385 86 14 

T0346 12 2 T0386 21 3 

 

T0347 12 2 T0387 12 2 

T0348 14 2 T0388 117 19 

T0349 11 2 T0389 15 2 

T0350 13 2 T0393 24 4 

T0351 8 1 T0394 30 5 

 

T0352 9 1 T0395 53 8 

T0353 9 1 T0396 56 9 

T0354 12 2 T0397 71 11 

T0355 11 2 T0398 64 10 

T0356 11 2 T0399 53 8 

 

T0357 12 2 T0400 31 5 

T0358 13 2 T0401 34 5 

T0359 9 1 T0402 33 5 

T0360 12 2 T0403 32 5 

T0361 10 2 T0404 37 6 

 

T0362 9 1 T0405 39 6 

T0363 11 2 T0406 50 8 

T0364 46 7 T0407 13 2 

T0365 44 7 T0408 6 1 

T0366 44 7 T0409 14 2 

 

T0367 44 7 T0410 19 3 

T0368 46 7 T0411 19 3 

T0369 46 7 T0412 19 3 

T0370 49 8 T0413 19 3 

T0371 45 7 T0414 28 4 

See notes at end of table. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-43

Table P-10. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

BIA school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

T0415 139 22 T0420 90 14 

T0416 12 2 

T0417 83 13 

T0418 72 12 

T0419 72 12 

NOTE: BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

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

School Teacher Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 
P-44 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-11. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school library media center data file, by variable: 2003–04 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

M0025 83 1.1 M0077 113 1.6 

M0026 30 0.4 M0084 3 0.0 

M0027 34 0.5 M0085 139 1.9 

M0028 33 0.5 M0086 3 0.0 

M0029 36 0.5 M0087 190 2.6 

 

M0030 26 0.4 M0088 0 0.0 

M0031 38 0.5 M0089 64 0.9 

M0032 28 0.4 M0090 531 7.3 

M0033 18 0.2 M0091 359 5.0 

M0040 97 1.3 M0092 506 7.0 

 

M0041 727 10.1 M0093 718 9.9 

M0042 3,569 49.4 M0094 649 9.0 

M0043 528 7.3 M0095 596 8.2 

M0044 323 4.5 M0096 950 13.1 

M0045 843 11.7 M0097 940 13.0 

 

M0046 1,163 16.1 M0098 117 1.6 

M0047 884 12.2 M0099 272 3.8 

M0048 181 2.5 M0100 356 4.9 

M0049 1,353 18.7 M0101 175 2.4 

M0050 2,388 33.0 M0102 234 3.2 

 

M0051 565 7.8 M0103 677 9.4 

M0052 380 5.3 M0104 4,157 57.5 

M0053 798 11.0 M0105 303 4.2 

M0054 544 7.5 M0106 585 8.1 

M0055 1,702 23.5 M0107 304 4.2 

 

M0056 1,894 26.2 M0108 449 6.2 

M0057 518 7.2 M0113 113 1.6 

M0058 604 8.4 M0114 935 12.9 

M0059 1,138 15.7 M0115 153 2.1 

M0060 1,037 14.3 M0116 149 2.1 

 

M0061 130 1.8 M0117 168 2.3 

M0068 74 1.0 M0118 212 2.9 

M0069 89 1.2 M0119 136 1.9 

M0070 77 1.1 M0120 123 1.7 

M0071 80 1.1 M0121 117 1.6 

 

M0072 83 1.1 M0122 105 1.5 

M0073 76 1.1 M0123 95 1.3 

M0074 105 1.5 M0124 300 4.1 

M0075 33 0.5 M0125 111 1.5 

M0076 230 3.2 M0126 55 0.8 

See notes at end of table. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-45

Table P-11. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

public school library media center data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

M0127 63 0.9 M0137 194 2.7 

M0128 70 1.0 M0138 143 2.0 

M0129 66 0.9 M0145 264 3.7 

M0130 82 1.1 M0146 298 4.1 

M0131 66 0.9 M0147 1,613 22.3 

 

M0132 101 1.4 M0148 358 5.0 

M0133 99 1.4 M0149 1,438 19.9 

M0134 110 1.5 M0150 209 2.9 

M0135 112 1.5 M0151 233 3.2 

M0136 166 2.3 

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

School Library Media Center Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 
P-46 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Table P-12. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

BIA school library media center data file, by variable: 2003–04 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

M0025 3 2.4 M0077 6 4.8 

M0026 2 1.6 M0084 0 0.0 

M0027 1 0.8 M0085 10 8.1 

M0028 1 0.8 M0086 0 0.0 

M0029 2 1.6 M0087 11 8.9 

 

M0030 1 0.8 M0088 0 0.0 

M0031 2 1.6 M0089 0 0.0 

M0032 1 0.8 M0090 19 15.3 

M0033 2 1.6 M0091 11 8.9 

M0040 2 1.6 M0092 16 12.9 

 

M0041 11 8.9 M0093 21 16.9 

M0042 48 38.7 M0094 18 14.5 

M0043 10 8.1 M0095 14 11.3 

M0044 4 3.2 M0096 28 22.6 

M0045 9 7.3 M0097 21 16.9 

 

M0046 34 27.4 M0098 7 5.6 

M0047 16 12.9 M0099 14 11.3 

M0048 3 2.4 M0100 19 15.3 

M0049 16 12.9 M0101 12 9.7 

M0050 27 21.8 M0102 16 12.9 

 

M0051 11 8.9 M0103 18 14.5 

M0052 14 11.3 M0104 77 62.1 

M0053 30 24.2 M0105 15 12.1 

M0054 26 21.0 M0106 22 17.7 

M0055 35 28.2 M0107 15 12.1 

 

M0056 43 34.7 M0108 19 15.3 

M0057 23 18.5 M0113 9 7.3 

M0058 15 12.1 M0114 18 14.5 

M0059 27 21.8 M0115 8 6.5 

M0060 26 21.0 M0116 8 6.5 

 

M0061 2 1.6 M0117 9 7.3 

M0068 4 3.2 M0118 10 8.1 

M0069 4 3.2 M0119 9 7.3 

M0070 7 5.6 M0120 11 8.9 

M0071 4 3.2 M0121 10 8.1 

 

M0072 4 3.2 M0122 9 7.3 

M0073 4 3.2 M0123 7 5.6 

M0074 4 3.2 M0124 13 10.5 

M0075 0 0.0 M0125 6 4.8 

M0076 1 0.8 M0126 2 1.6 

See notes at end of table. 
 Appendix P. Changes Made to Variables During the Computer Edit, by Data File P-47

Table P-12. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during computer edit of the 

BIA school library media center data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected Variable 

Total number of 

changes 

Percentage of 

records affected

M0127 3 2.4 M0137 11 8.9 

M0128 1 0.8 M0138 7 5.6 

M0129 1 0.8 M0145 10 8.1 

M0130 2 1.6 M0146 14 11.3 

M0131 2 1.6 M0147 31 25.0 

 

M0132 4 3.2 M0148 16 12.9 

M0133 4 3.2 M0149 30 24.2 

M0134 4 3.2 M0150 12 9.7 

M0135 8 6.5 M0151 11 8.9 

M0136 9 7.3 

NOTE: BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

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

School Library Media Center Documentation Data File,” 2003–04. 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
Q-1 

Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File 

The tables of this appendix contain the total number of imputations applied at each of the three stages of 

imputation as well as the percent of all records affected by the imputation for each source code on each 

data file. (See chapter 8 for more details about imputation procedures.) The tables are as follows: 

Table Page 

Q-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school district data file, by variable: 2003–04 ...............................Q-2 

Q-2. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04 ..........................Q-10 

Q-3. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04.........................Q-16 

Q-4. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04 .............................Q-22 

Q-5. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school data file, by variable: 2003–04 .........................................Q-28 

Q-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school data file, by variable: 2003–04 ........................................Q-34 

Q-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school data file, by variable: 2003–04 ............................................Q-45 

Q-8. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04.............................Q-56 

Q-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04............................Q-65 

Q-10. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04................................Q-77 

Q-11. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school library media center data file, by variable: 2003–04 ........Q-86 

Q-12. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school library media center data file, by variable: 2003–04 ...........Q-89 
Q-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school district data file, by variable: 2003–04

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

D0025 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

D0026 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

D0027 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

D0028 135 2.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 135 2.8

D0029 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

D0035 15 0.3 4 0.1 0 0.0 11 0.2

D0036 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

D0037 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0

D0038 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0

D0039 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0

 

D0040 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0

D0041 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0

D0042 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0

D0043 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0

D0044 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

D0045 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

D0046 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

D0047 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

D0048 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

D0049 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0

 

D0050 61 1.3 54 1.1 7 0.1 0 0.0

D0051 5 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 0.1

D0052 1,331 28.1 1,038 21.9 247 5.2 46 1.0

D0053 1,348 28.4 1,037 21.9 259 5.5 52 1.1

D0054 1,336 28.2 1,036 21.8 254 5.4 46 1.0

 

D0055 1,328 28.0 1,033 21.8 249 5.2 46 1.0

D0056 1,327 28.0 1,032 21.7 250 5.3 45 0.9

D0057 847 17.9 803 16.9 39 0.8 5 0.1

D0058 57 1.2 42 0.9 0 0.0 15 0.3

D0059 165 3.5 0 0.0 154 3.2 11 0.2

 

D0060 80 1.7 0 0.0 48 1.0 32 0.7

D0061 513 10.8 89 1.9 370 7.8 54 1.1

D0062 496 10.5 0 0.0 433 9.1 63 1.3

D0063 96 2.0 0 0.0 56 1.2 40 0.8

D0064 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

D0065 425 9.0 84 1.8 312 6.6 29 0.6

D0066 978 20.6 625 13.2 317 6.7 36 0.8

D0067 419 8.8 79 1.7 310 6.5 30 0.6

D0068 414 8.7 73 1.5 312 6.6 29 0.6

D0069 404 8.5 72 1.5 302 6.4 30 0.6

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-3 

Table Q-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school district data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

D0070 106 2.2 103 2.2 3 0.1 0 0.0

D0071 42 0.9 0 0.0 39 0.8 3 0.1

D0072 40 0.8 0 0.0 13 0.3 27 0.6

D0077 298 6.3 0 0.0 228 4.8 70 1.5

D0078 120 2.5 8 0.2 53 1.1 59 1.2

 

D0079 190 4.0 31 0.7 85 1.8 74 1.6

D0080 182 3.8 39 0.8 74 1.6 69 1.5

D0081 182 3.8 40 0.8 72 1.5 70 1.5

D0082 192 4.0 44 0.9 82 1.7 66 1.4

D0083 195 4.1 45 0.9 84 1.8 66 1.4

 

D0084 160 3.4 48 1.0 48 1.0 64 1.3

D0085 199 4.2 45 0.9 82 1.7 72 1.5

D0086 214 4.5 46 1.0 96 2.0 72 1.5

D0087 101 2.1 0 0.0 41 0.9 60 1.3

D0088 109 2.3 2 0.0 47 1.0 60 1.3

 

D0089 106 2.2 3 0.1 44 0.9 59 1.2

D0090 104 2.2 3 0.1 42 0.9 59 1.2

D0091 207 4.4 0 0.0 147 3.1 60 1.3

D0092 376 7.9 0 0.0 303 6.4 73 1.5

D0093 208 4.4 0 0.0 147 3.1 61 1.3

 

D0094 137 2.9 0 0.0 79 1.7 58 1.2

D0095 119 2.5 0 0.0 58 1.2 61 1.3

D0096 80 1.7 0 0.0 80 1.7 0 0.0

D0097 149 3.1 4 0.1 78 1.6 67 1.4

D0098 191 4.0 41 0.9 79 1.7 71 1.5

 

D0099 187 3.9 41 0.9 78 1.6 68 1.4

D0100 192 4.0 46 1.0 76 1.6 70 1.5

D0101 215 4.5 66 1.4 78 1.6 71 1.5

D0102 70 1.5 0 0.0 70 1.5 0 0.0

D0103 117 2.5 0 0.0 61 1.3 56 1.2

 

D0104 129 2.7 9 0.2 80 1.7 40 0.8

D0105 154 3.2 29 0.6 82 1.7 43 0.9

D0106 164 3.5 35 0.7 84 1.8 45 0.9

D0107 165 3.5 36 0.8 83 1.7 46 1.0

D0113 55 1.2 0 0.0 55 1.2 0 0.0

 

D0114 137 2.9 0 0.0 134 2.8 3 0.1

D0115 168 3.5 0 0.0 166 3.5 2 0.0

D0116 35 0.7 0 0.0 35 0.7 0 0.0

D0117 173 3.6 0 0.0 170 3.6 3 0.1

D0118 41 0.9 0 0.0 41 0.9 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school district data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

D0119 173 3.6 0 0.0 169 3.6 4 0.1

D0120 38 0.8 0 0.0 38 0.8 0 0.0

D0121 198 4.2 0 0.0 178 3.8 20 0.4

D0122 20 0.4 0 0.0 12 0.3 8 0.2

D0123 21 0.4 0 0.0 13 0.3 8 0.2

 

D0124 85 1.8 1 0.0 29 0.6 55 1.2

D0125 93 2.0 2 0.0 36 0.8 55 1.2

D0126 118 2.5 3 0.1 56 1.2 59 1.2

D0127 101 2.1 1 0.0 42 0.9 58 1.2

D0128 119 2.5 11 0.2 52 1.1 56 1.2

 

D0129 100 2.1 13 0.3 32 0.7 55 1.2

D0130 102 2.1 14 0.3 34 0.7 54 1.1

D0131 107 2.3 14 0.3 37 0.8 56 1.2

D0137 38 0.8 5 0.1 33 0.7 0 0.0

D0138 46 1.0 12 0.3 34 0.7 0 0.0

 

D0139 49 1.0 15 0.3 34 0.7 0 0.0

D0140 49 1.0 15 0.3 34 0.7 0 0.0

D0141 141 3.0 107 2.3 34 0.7 0 0.0

D0142 73 1.5 39 0.8 34 0.7 0 0.0

D0143 113 2.4 79 1.7 34 0.7 0 0.0

 

D0144 121 2.6 87 1.8 34 0.7 0 0.0

D0145 89 1.9 55 1.2 34 0.7 0 0.0

D0146 93 2.0 59 1.2 34 0.7 0 0.0

D0147 72 1.5 3 0.1 56 1.2 13 0.3

D0148 86 1.8 15 0.3 56 1.2 15 0.3

 

D0149 93 2.0 19 0.4 56 1.2 18 0.4

D0150 77 1.6 7 0.1 56 1.2 14 0.3

D0151 101 2.1 26 0.5 56 1.2 19 0.4

D0152 54 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 54 1.1

D0153 85 1.8 0 0.0 68 1.4 17 0.4

 

D0154 69 1.5 0 0.0 67 1.4 2 0.0

D0155 69 1.5 0 0.0 67 1.4 2 0.0

D0156 69 1.5 0 0.0 67 1.4 2 0.0

D0157 175 3.7 0 0.0 67 1.4 108 2.3

D0158 195 4.1 0 0.0 67 1.4 128 2.7

 

D0159 192 4.0 0 0.0 66 1.4 126 2.7

D0160 178 3.8 0 0.0 67 1.4 111 2.3

D0161 163 3.4 0 0.0 67 1.4 96 2.0

D0162 217 4.6 0 0.0 66 1.4 151 3.2

D0163 83 1.7 0 0.0 67 1.4 16 0.3

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-5 

Table Q-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school district data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

D0164 109 2.3 0 0.0 67 1.4 42 0.9

D0165 89 1.9 0 0.0 67 1.4 22 0.5

D0166 74 1.6 0 0.0 67 1.4 7 0.1

D0167 72 1.5 0 0.0 67 1.4 5 0.1

D0168 201 4.2 0 0.0 67 1.4 134 2.8

 

D0169 99 2.1 0 0.0 82 1.7 17 0.4

D0170 84 1.8 0 0.0 81 1.7 3 0.1

D0171 84 1.8 0 0.0 81 1.7 3 0.1

D0172 85 1.8 0 0.0 81 1.7 4 0.1

D0173 182 3.8 0 0.0 80 1.7 102 2.1

 

D0174 189 4.0 0 0.0 81 1.7 108 2.3

D0175 173 3.6 0 0.0 80 1.7 93 2.0

D0176 165 3.5 0 0.0 81 1.7 84 1.8

D0177 173 3.6 0 0.0 81 1.7 92 1.9

D0178 196 4.1 0 0.0 80 1.7 116 2.4

 

D0179 106 2.2 0 0.0 81 1.7 25 0.5

D0180 131 2.8 0 0.0 81 1.7 50 1.1

D0181 112 2.4 0 0.0 81 1.7 31 0.7

D0182 102 2.1 0 0.0 81 1.7 21 0.4

D0183 86 1.8 0 0.0 80 1.7 6 0.1

 

D0184 207 4.4 0 0.0 81 1.7 126 2.7

D0185 114 2.4 0 0.0 97 2.0 17 0.4

D0186 70 1.5 0 0.0 70 1.5 0 0.0

D0187 70 1.5 0 0.0 70 1.5 0 0.0

D0188 73 1.5 0 0.0 70 1.5 3 0.1

 

D0189 103 2.2 0 0.0 70 1.5 33 0.7

D0190 133 2.8 0 0.0 70 1.5 63 1.3

D0191 135 2.8 0 0.0 70 1.5 65 1.4

D0192 101 2.1 0 0.0 70 1.5 31 0.7

D0193 102 2.1 0 0.0 70 1.5 32 0.7

 

D0194 179 3.8 0 0.0 70 1.5 109 2.3

D0195 110 2.3 0 0.0 70 1.5 40 0.8

D0196 124 2.6 0 0.0 70 1.5 54 1.1

D0197 131 2.8 0 0.0 70 1.5 61 1.3

D0198 87 1.8 0 0.0 70 1.5 17 0.4

 

D0199 73 1.5 0 0.0 69 1.5 4 0.1

D0200 189 4.0 0 0.0 70 1.5 119 2.5

D0201 127 2.7 0 0.0 107 2.3 20 0.4

D0202 61 1.3 0 0.0 58 1.2 3 0.1

D0203 61 1.3 0 0.0 58 1.2 3 0.1

See notes at end of table. 
Q-6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school district data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

D0204 62 1.3 0 0.0 58 1.2 4 0.1

D0205 102 2.1 0 0.0 58 1.2 44 0.9

D0206 135 2.8 0 0.0 58 1.2 77 1.6

D0207 118 2.5 0 0.0 57 1.2 61 1.3

D0208 112 2.4 0 0.0 58 1.2 54 1.1

 

D0209 99 2.1 0 0.0 57 1.2 42 0.9

D0210 173 3.6 0 0.0 58 1.2 115 2.4

D0211 88 1.9 0 0.0 58 1.2 30 0.6

D0212 120 2.5 0 0.0 57 1.2 63 1.3

D0213 144 3.0 0 0.0 56 1.2 88 1.9

 

D0214 74 1.6 0 0.0 58 1.2 16 0.3

D0215 61 1.3 0 0.0 57 1.2 4 0.1

D0216 172 3.6 0 0.0 58 1.2 114 2.4

D0217 227 4.8 0 0.0 159 3.4 68 1.4

D0218 153 3.2 0 0.0 80 1.7 73 1.5

 

D0219 148 3.1 0 0.0 69 1.5 79 1.7

D0220 176 3.7 0 0.0 93 2.0 83 1.7

D0221 191 4.0 0 0.0 108 2.3 83 1.7

D0222 210 4.4 0 0.0 127 2.7 83 1.7

D0223 205 4.3 0 0.0 142 3.0 63 1.3

 

D0224 88 1.9 0 0.0 79 1.7 9 0.2

D0225 57 1.2 0 0.0 47 1.0 10 0.2

D0226 39 0.8 0 0.0 38 0.8 1 0.0

D0227 49 1.0 5 0.1 43 0.9 1 0.0

D0228 46 1.0 4 0.1 41 0.9 1 0.0

 

D0229 54 1.1 9 0.2 44 0.9 1 0.0

D0230 48 1.0 9 0.2 38 0.8 1 0.0

D0231 50 1.1 8 0.2 41 0.9 1 0.0

D0232 45 0.9 1 0.0 43 0.9 1 0.0

D0233 45 0.9 3 0.1 41 0.9 1 0.0

 

D0239 45 0.9 0 0.0 42 0.9 3 0.1

D0240 12 0.3 0 0.0 12 0.3 0 0.0

D0241 93 2.0 0 0.0 93 2.0 0 0.0

D0242 95 2.0 0 0.0 95 2.0 0 0.0

D0243 118 2.5 0 0.0 118 2.5 0 0.0

 

D0244 104 2.2 0 0.0 104 2.2 0 0.0

D0245 240 5.1 0 0.0 239 5.0 1 0.0

D0246 80 1.7 0 0.0 80 1.7 0 0.0

D0247 85 1.8 0 0.0 85 1.8 0 0.0

D0248 200 4.2 0 0.0 146 3.1 54 1.1

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-7 

Table Q-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school district data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

D0249 147 3.1 0 0.0 147 3.1 0 0.0

D0255 83 1.7 0 0.0 82 1.7 1 0.0

D0256 657 13.8 0 0.0 657 13.8 0 0.0

D0257 170 3.6 22 0.5 136 2.9 12 0.3

D0258 166 3.5 13 0.3 139 2.9 14 0.3

 

D0259 167 3.5 19 0.4 136 2.9 12 0.3

D0260 174 3.7 24 0.5 138 2.9 12 0.3

D0261 171 3.6 21 0.4 138 2.9 12 0.3

D0262 183 3.9 24 0.5 146 3.1 13 0.3

D0263 182 3.8 23 0.5 148 3.1 11 0.2

 

D0264 152 3.2 0 0.0 140 3.0 12 0.3

D0265 241 5.1 0 0.0 241 5.1 0 0.0

D0266 168 3.5 0 0.0 168 3.5 0 0.0

D0267 261 5.5 0 0.0 35 0.7 226 4.8

D0268 277 5.8 0 0.0 43 0.9 234 4.9

 

D0269 264 5.6 0 0.0 249 5.2 15 0.3

D0270 171 3.6 0 0.0 171 3.6 0 0.0

D0276 64 1.3 2 0.0 47 1.0 15 0.3

D0277 220 4.6 6 0.1 186 3.9 28 0.6

D0278 228 4.8 14 0.3 186 3.9 28 0.6

 

D0279 1,481 31.2 1,233 26.0 218 4.6 30 0.6

D0280 242 5.1 28 0.6 186 3.9 28 0.6

D0281 255 5.4 41 0.9 186 3.9 28 0.6

D0282 2,048 43.2 1,816 38.3 203 4.3 29 0.6

D0283 163 3.4 14 0.3 120 2.5 29 0.6

 

D0284 17 0.4 0 0.0 17 0.4 0 0.0

D0285 42 0.9 0 0.0 42 0.9 0 0.0

D0286 174 3.7 0 0.0 141 3.0 33 0.7

D0292 117 2.5 0 0.0 116 2.4 1 0.0

D0293 127 2.7 24 0.5 101 2.1 2 0.0

 

D0294 140 3.0 37 0.8 101 2.1 2 0.0

D0295 119 2.5 16 0.3 101 2.1 2 0.0

D0296 126 2.7 22 0.5 102 2.1 2 0.0

D0297 128 2.7 24 0.5 102 2.1 2 0.0

D0298 136 2.9 32 0.7 102 2.1 2 0.0

 

D0299 116 2.4 12 0.3 102 2.1 2 0.0

D0300 132 2.8 28 0.6 102 2.1 2 0.0

D0301 131 2.8 27 0.6 102 2.1 2 0.0

D0302 128 2.7 25 0.5 101 2.1 2 0.0

D0303 123 2.6 19 0.4 102 2.1 2 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-8 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school district data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

D0304 176 3.7 0 0.0 119 2.5 57 1.2

D0305 183 3.9 0 0.0 125 2.6 58 1.2

D0306 193 4.1 0 0.0 133 2.8 60 1.3

D0307 128 2.7 22 0.5 104 2.2 2 0.0

D0308 234 4.9 67 1.4 104 2.2 63 1.3

 

D0309 231 4.9 64 1.3 104 2.2 63 1.3

D0310 253 5.3 86 1.8 104 2.2 63 1.3

D0311 270 5.7 103 2.2 104 2.2 63 1.3

D0312 219 4.6 53 1.1 104 2.2 62 1.3

D0313 252 5.3 86 1.8 103 2.2 63 1.3

 

D0314 313 6.6 147 3.1 103 2.2 63 1.3

D0315 184 3.9 3 0.1 122 2.6 59 1.2

D0316 205 4.3 18 0.4 126 2.7 61 1.3

D0317 207 4.4 14 0.3 132 2.8 61 1.3

D0318 141 3.0 16 0.3 123 2.6 2 0.0

 

D0319 155 3.3 0 0.0 98 2.1 57 1.2

D0320 46 1.0 21 0.4 17 0.4 8 0.2

D0321 43 0.9 17 0.4 18 0.4 8 0.2

D0322 46 1.0 19 0.4 17 0.4 10 0.2

D0323 49 1.0 22 0.5 17 0.4 10 0.2

 

D0324 35 0.7 11 0.2 15 0.3 9 0.2

D0325 30 0.6 6 0.1 15 0.3 9 0.2

D0326 29 0.6 9 0.2 15 0.3 5 0.1

D0327 28 0.6 8 0.2 15 0.3 5 0.1

D0328 30 0.6 9 0.2 15 0.3 6 0.1

 

D0329 29 0.6 9 0.2 15 0.3 5 0.1

D0330 31 0.7 11 0.2 15 0.3 5 0.1

D0331 31 0.7 11 0.2 15 0.3 5 0.1

D0332 167 3.5 0 0.0 167 3.5 0 0.0

D0333 175 3.7 68 1.4 107 2.3 0 0.0

 

D0334 152 3.2 44 0.9 108 2.3 0 0.0

D0335 140 3.0 30 0.6 110 2.3 0 0.0

D0336 144 3.0 34 0.7 110 2.3 0 0.0

D0337 146 3.1 36 0.8 110 2.3 0 0.0

D0338 141 3.0 31 0.7 110 2.3 0 0.0

 

D0339 143 3.0 33 0.7 110 2.3 0 0.0

D0340 149 3.1 39 0.8 110 2.3 0 0.0

D0341 134 2.8 24 0.5 110 2.3 0 0.0

D0342 142 3.0 32 0.7 110 2.3 0 0.0

D0343 146 3.1 36 0.8 110 2.3 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-9 

Table Q-1. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school district data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

D0344 144 3.0 34 0.7 110 2.3 0 0.0

D0350 126 2.7 0 0.0 126 2.7 0 0.0

D0351 117 2.5 0 0.0 117 2.5 0 0.0

D0352 162 3.4 0 0.0 162 3.4 0 0.0

D0353 138 2.9 36 0.8 102 2.1 0 0.0

 

D0354 123 2.6 21 0.4 102 2.1 0 0.0

D0355 121 2.6 19 0.4 102 2.1 0 0.0

D0356 158 3.3 0 0.0 158 3.3 0 0.0

D0357 72 1.5 0 0.0 72 1.5 0 0.0

D0358 49 1.0 0 0.0 49 1.0 0 0.0

 

D0359 60 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 60 1.3

D0360 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

D0361 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

D0362 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

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

School District Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 
Q-10 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-2. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

A0025 11 0.1 2 0.0 4 0.0 5 0.1

A0026 11 0.1 0 0.0 10 0.1 1 0.0

A0027 51 0.6 11 0.1 39 0.5 1 0.0

A0028 1,066 13.1 940 11.5 118 1.4 8 0.1

A0029 75 0.9 68 0.8 6 0.1 1 0.0

 

A0030 114 1.4 96 1.2 17 0.2 1 0.0

A0031 225 2.8 207 2.5 17 0.2 1 0.0

A0032 91 1.1 71 0.9 19 0.2 1 0.0

A0033 251 3.1 233 2.9 17 0.2 1 0.0

A0034 295 3.6 279 3.4 15 0.2 1 0.0

 

A0035 178 2.2 162 2.0 15 0.2 1 0.0

A0036 152 1.9 136 1.7 15 0.2 1 0.0

A0037 67 0.8 0 0.0 66 0.8 1 0.0

A0038 70 0.9 0 0.0 70 0.9 0 0.0

A0039 10 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 0.1

 

A0040 139 1.7 0 0.0 101 1.2 38 0.5

A0041 155 1.9 0 0.0 152 1.9 3 0.0

A0042 60 0.7 0 0.0 59 0.7 1 0.0

A0043 35 0.4 0 0.0 35 0.4 0 0.0

A0044 26 0.3 0 0.0 26 0.3 0 0.0

 

A0045 39 0.5 0 0.0 39 0.5 0 0.0

A0046 42 0.5 0 0.0 42 0.5 0 0.0

A0047 32 0.4 0 0.0 32 0.4 0 0.0

A0048 32 0.4 0 0.0 32 0.4 0 0.0

A0049 28 0.3 0 0.0 28 0.3 0 0.0

 

A0056 58 0.7 0 0.0 55 0.7 3 0.0

A0057 62 0.8 0 0.0 60 0.7 2 0.0

A0058 74 0.9 0 0.0 72 0.9 2 0.0

A0059 56 0.7 0 0.0 56 0.7 0 0.0

A0060 56 0.7 0 0.0 56 0.7 0 0.0

 

A0061 70 0.9 0 0.0 70 0.9 0 0.0

A0062 47 0.6 0 0.0 47 0.6 0 0.0

A0063 39 0.5 0 0.0 39 0.5 0 0.0

A0064 49 0.6 25 0.3 24 0.3 0 0.0

A0065 37 0.5 0 0.0 37 0.5 0 0.0

 

A0066 121 1.5 0 0.0 121 1.5 0 0.0

A0067 60 0.7 0 0.0 60 0.7 0 0.0

A0068 76 0.9 0 0.0 76 0.9 0 0.0

A0069 53 0.7 0 0.0 53 0.7 0 0.0

A0070 57 0.7 0 0.0 57 0.7 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-11 

Table Q-2. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

A0071 62 0.8 35 0.4 27 0.3 0 0.0

A0072 57 0.7 0 0.0 57 0.7 0 0.0

A0073 112 1.4 0 0.0 112 1.4 0 0.0

A0074 85 1.0 0 0.0 85 1.0 0 0.0

A0075 90 1.1 0 0.0 90 1.1 0 0.0

 

A0076 77 0.9 0 0.0 77 0.9 0 0.0

A0077 77 0.9 0 0.0 77 0.9 0 0.0

A0078 88 1.1 46 0.6 42 0.5 0 0.0

A0079 81 1.0 0 0.0 81 1.0 0 0.0

A0080 86 1.1 0 0.0 86 1.1 0 0.0

 

A0081 151 1.9 0 0.0 151 1.9 0 0.0

A0082 95 1.2 0 0.0 95 1.2 0 0.0

A0083 116 1.4 0 0.0 116 1.4 0 0.0

A0084 77 0.9 0 0.0 77 0.9 0 0.0

A0085 134 1.6 0 0.0 134 1.6 0 0.0

 

A0086 92 1.1 46 0.6 46 0.6 0 0.0

A0087 85 1.0 0 0.0 85 1.0 0 0.0

A0088 139 1.7 0 0.0 139 1.7 0 0.0

A0089 91 1.1 0 0.0 91 1.1 0 0.0

A0090 97 1.2 0 0.0 97 1.2 0 0.0

 

A0091 68 0.8 0 0.0 68 0.8 0 0.0

A0092 91 1.1 0 0.0 91 1.1 0 0.0

A0093 88 1.1 46 0.6 42 0.5 0 0.0

A0094 74 0.9 0 0.0 74 0.9 0 0.0

A0095 118 1.4 0 0.0 118 1.4 0 0.0

 

A0096 70 0.9 0 0.0 70 0.9 0 0.0

A0097 90 1.1 0 0.0 90 1.1 0 0.0

A0098 69 0.8 0 0.0 69 0.8 0 0.0

A0099 71 0.9 0 0.0 71 0.9 0 0.0

A0100 88 1.1 42 0.5 46 0.6 0 0.0

 

A0101 74 0.9 0 0.0 74 0.9 0 0.0

A0102 114 1.4 0 0.0 114 1.4 0 0.0

A0103 89 1.1 0 0.0 89 1.1 0 0.0

A0104 109 1.3 0 0.0 109 1.3 0 0.0

A0105 74 0.9 0 0.0 74 0.9 0 0.0

 

A0106 81 1.0 0 0.0 81 1.0 0 0.0

A0107 90 1.1 45 0.6 45 0.6 0 0.0

A0108 85 1.0 0 0.0 85 1.0 0 0.0

A0115 77 0.9 0 0.0 77 0.9 0 0.0

A0116 75 0.9 0 0.0 75 0.9 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-12 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-2. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

A0117 67 0.8 0 0.0 67 0.8 0 0.0

A0118 298 3.7 23 0.3 275 3.4 0 0.0

A0119 308 3.8 33 0.4 275 3.4 0 0.0

A0120 280 3.4 5 0.1 275 3.4 0 0.0

A0121 286 3.5 11 0.1 275 3.4 0 0.0

 

A0122 316 3.9 41 0.5 275 3.4 0 0.0

A0123 292 3.6 17 0.2 275 3.4 0 0.0

A0124 333 4.1 58 0.7 275 3.4 0 0.0

A0125 89 1.1 3 0.0 86 1.1 0 0.0

A0126 101 1.2 15 0.2 86 1.1 0 0.0

 

A0127 128 1.6 42 0.5 86 1.1 0 0.0

A0128 96 1.2 10 0.1 86 1.1 0 0.0

A0129 97 1.2 11 0.1 86 1.1 0 0.0

A0130 101 1.2 15 0.2 86 1.1 0 0.0

A0131 94 1.2 8 0.1 86 1.1 0 0.0

 

A0132 90 1.1 4 0.0 86 1.1 0 0.0

A0133 104 1.3 18 0.2 86 1.1 0 0.0

A0134 87 1.1 12 0.1 75 0.9 0 0.0

A0135 87 1.1 12 0.1 75 0.9 0 0.0

A0136 84 1.0 9 0.1 75 0.9 0 0.0

 

A0137 91 1.1 16 0.2 75 0.9 0 0.0

A0138 91 1.1 16 0.2 75 0.9 0 0.0

A0139 88 1.1 13 0.2 75 0.9 0 0.0

A0140 92 1.1 17 0.2 75 0.9 0 0.0

A0141 81 1.0 0 0.0 81 1.0 0 0.0

 

A0142 174 2.1 0 0.0 174 2.1 0 0.0

A0149 216 2.7 0 0.0 212 2.6 4 0.0

A0150 116 1.4 18 0.2 98 1.2 0 0.0

A0151 139 1.7 40 0.5 99 1.2 0 0.0

A0152 124 1.5 23 0.3 101 1.2 0 0.0

 

A0153 114 1.4 14 0.2 100 1.2 0 0.0

A0154 120 1.5 20 0.2 100 1.2 0 0.0

A0155 111 1.4 10 0.1 101 1.2 0 0.0

A0156 112 1.4 12 0.1 100 1.2 0 0.0

A0157 129 1.6 27 0.3 102 1.3 0 0.0

 

A0158 111 1.4 10 0.1 101 1.2 0 0.0

A0159 129 1.6 28 0.3 101 1.2 0 0.0

A0160 95 1.2 0 0.0 95 1.2 0 0.0

A0161 365 4.5 5 0.1 360 4.4 0 0.0

A0162 369 4.5 10 0.1 359 4.4 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-13 

Table Q-2. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

A0163 368 4.5 9 0.1 359 4.4 0 0.0

A0164 104 1.3 4 0.0 100 1.2 0 0.0

A0165 348 4.3 4 0.0 341 4.2 3 0.0

A0166 228 2.8 0 0.0 220 2.7 8 0.1

A0167 112 1.4 3 0.0 109 1.3 0 0.0

 

A0168 116 1.4 4 0.0 112 1.4 0 0.0

A0169 102 1.3 15 0.2 87 1.1 0 0.0

A0170 379 4.7 4 0.0 375 4.6 0 0.0

A0171 395 4.9 14 0.2 381 4.7 0 0.0

A0172 393 4.8 9 0.1 384 4.7 0 0.0

 

A0173 395 4.9 9 0.1 386 4.7 0 0.0

A0174 386 4.7 1 0.0 385 4.7 0 0.0

A0175 391 4.8 7 0.1 384 4.7 0 0.0

A0176 390 4.8 6 0.1 384 4.7 0 0.0

A0177 391 4.8 6 0.1 385 4.7 0 0.0

 

A0185 90 1.1 0 0.0 90 1.1 0 0.0

A0186 327 4.0 0 0.0 327 4.0 0 0.0

A0187 111 1.4 0 0.0 111 1.4 0 0.0

A0188 290 3.6 0 0.0 290 3.6 0 0.0

A0189 315 3.9 0 0.0 304 3.7 11 0.1

 

A0190 851 10.5 0 0.0 841 10.3 10 0.1

A0191 81 1.0 14 0.2 67 0.8 0 0.0

A0192 87 1.1 20 0.2 67 0.8 0 0.0

A0193 74 0.9 7 0.1 67 0.8 0 0.0

A0194 75 0.9 8 0.1 67 0.8 0 0.0

 

A0195 82 1.0 14 0.2 68 0.8 0 0.0

A0196 85 1.0 18 0.2 67 0.8 0 0.0

A0197 92 1.1 25 0.3 67 0.8 0 0.0

A0198 76 0.9 9 0.1 67 0.8 0 0.0

A0199 92 1.1 25 0.3 67 0.8 0 0.0

 

A0200 89 1.1 22 0.3 67 0.8 0 0.0

A0201 81 1.0 16 0.2 65 0.8 0 0.0

A0202 82 1.0 17 0.2 65 0.8 0 0.0

A0203 86 1.1 20 0.2 66 0.8 0 0.0

A0204 116 1.4 30 0.4 86 1.1 0 0.0

 

A0205 106 1.3 20 0.2 86 1.1 0 0.0

A0206 105 1.3 19 0.2 86 1.1 0 0.0

A0207 100 1.2 15 0.2 85 1.0 0 0.0

A0208 112 1.4 27 0.3 85 1.0 0 0.0

A0209 107 1.3 22 0.3 85 1.0 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-14 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-2. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

A0210 99 1.2 14 0.2 85 1.0 0 0.0

A0211 93 1.1 8 0.1 85 1.0 0 0.0

A0212 107 1.3 21 0.3 86 1.1 0 0.0

A0213 92 1.1 6 0.1 86 1.1 0 0.0

A0214 103 1.3 17 0.2 86 1.1 0 0.0

 

A0215 101 1.2 15 0.2 86 1.1 0 0.0

A0216 105 1.3 20 0.2 85 1.0 0 0.0

A0217 85 1.0 3 0.0 82 1.0 0 0.0

A0218 93 1.1 10 0.1 83 1.0 0 0.0

A0219 97 1.2 16 0.2 81 1.0 0 0.0

 

A0220 106 1.3 24 0.3 82 1.0 0 0.0

A0221 93 1.1 12 0.1 81 1.0 0 0.0

A0222 89 1.1 8 0.1 81 1.0 0 0.0

A0223 102 1.3 20 0.2 82 1.0 0 0.0

A0224 94 1.2 12 0.1 82 1.0 0 0.0

 

A0225 96 1.2 14 0.2 82 1.0 0 0.0

A0226 91 1.1 9 0.1 82 1.0 0 0.0

A0227 92 1.1 10 0.1 82 1.0 0 0.0

A0234 156 1.9 0 0.0 156 1.9 0 0.0

A0235 167 2.1 0 0.0 167 2.1 0 0.0

 

A0236 177 2.2 0 0.0 177 2.2 0 0.0

A0237 140 1.7 19 0.2 121 1.5 0 0.0

A0238 147 1.8 25 0.3 122 1.5 0 0.0

A0239 134 1.6 8 0.1 126 1.5 0 0.0

A0240 105 1.3 15 0.2 90 1.1 0 0.0

 

A0241 113 1.4 22 0.3 91 1.1 0 0.0

A0242 95 1.2 4 0.0 91 1.1 0 0.0

A0243 109 1.3 16 0.2 93 1.1 0 0.0

A0244 101 1.2 10 0.1 91 1.1 0 0.0

A0245 102 1.3 11 0.1 91 1.1 0 0.0

 

A0246 96 1.2 5 0.1 91 1.1 0 0.0

A0247 103 1.3 12 0.1 91 1.1 0 0.0

A0254 2 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0

A0255 23 0.3 0 0.0 23 0.3 0 0.0

A0256 115 1.4 0 0.0 111 1.4 4 0.0

 

A0257 18 0.2 0 0.0 17 0.2 1 0.0

A0258 1 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0

A0259 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0260 11 0.1 0 0.0 11 0.1 0 0.0

A0261 12 0.1 0 0.0 12 0.1 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-15 

Table Q-2. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

A0262 105 1.3 0 0.0 105 1.3 0 0.0

A0263 421 5.2 0 0.0 401 4.9 20 0.2

A0264 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0265 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0266 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0267 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

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

School Principal Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 
Q-16 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-3. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

A0025 4 0.2 1 0.0 3 0.1 0 0.0

A0026 6 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 0.3

A0027 27 1.1 12 0.5 14 0.6 1 0.0

A0028 326 13.7 142 6.0 173 7.3 11 0.5

A0029 21 0.9 11 0.5 10 0.4 0 0.0

 

A0030 23 1.0 15 0.6 8 0.3 0 0.0

A0031 55 2.3 46 1.9 9 0.4 0 0.0

A0032 31 1.3 21 0.9 10 0.4 0 0.0

A0033 67 2.8 58 2.4 9 0.4 0 0.0

A0034 76 3.2 67 2.8 9 0.4 0 0.0

 

A0035 58 2.4 48 2.0 10 0.4 0 0.0

A0036 47 2.0 36 1.5 11 0.5 0 0.0

A0037 20 0.8 0 0.0 20 0.8 0 0.0

A0038 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0039 10 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 0.4

 

A0040 56 2.4 0 0.0 51 2.1 5 0.2

A0041 66 2.8 0 0.0 49 2.1 17 0.7

A0042 48 2.0 0 0.0 40 1.7 8 0.3

A0043 24 1.0 0 0.0 24 1.0 0 0.0

A0044 17 0.7 0 0.0 17 0.7 0 0.0

 

A0045 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0046 26 1.1 0 0.0 26 1.1 0 0.0

A0047 20 0.8 0 0.0 20 0.8 0 0.0

A0048 20 0.8 0 0.0 20 0.8 0 0.0

A0049 21 0.9 0 0.0 21 0.9 0 0.0

 

A0056 32 1.3 0 0.0 32 1.3 0 0.0

A0057 39 1.6 0 0.0 39 1.6 0 0.0

A0058 41 1.7 0 0.0 41 1.7 0 0.0

A0059 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0060 34 1.4 0 0.0 34 1.4 0 0.0

 

A0061 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0062 24 1.0 0 0.0 24 1.0 0 0.0

A0063 20 0.8 0 0.0 20 0.8 0 0.0

A0064 46 1.9 33 1.4 13 0.5 0 0.0

A0065 27 1.1 0 0.0 27 1.1 0 0.0

 

A0066 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0067 42 1.8 0 0.0 42 1.8 0 0.0

A0068 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0069 27 1.1 0 0.0 27 1.1 0 0.0

A0070 29 1.2 0 0.0 29 1.2 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-17 

Table Q-3. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

A0071 49 2.1 38 1.6 11 0.5 0 0.0

A0072 35 1.5 0 0.0 35 1.5 0 0.0

A0073 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0074 48 2.0 0 0.0 48 2.0 0 0.0

A0075 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

A0076 38 1.6 0 0.0 38 1.6 0 0.0

A0077 45 1.9 0 0.0 45 1.9 0 0.0

A0078 57 2.4 45 1.9 12 0.5 0 0.0

A0079 45 1.9 0 0.0 45 1.9 0 0.0

A0080 45 1.9 0 0.0 45 1.9 0 0.0

 

A0081 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0082 47 2.0 0 0.0 47 2.0 0 0.0

A0083 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0084 37 1.6 0 0.0 37 1.6 0 0.0

A0085 67 2.8 0 0.0 67 2.8 0 0.0

 

A0086 57 2.4 44 1.9 13 0.5 0 0.0

A0087 46 1.9 0 0.0 46 1.9 0 0.0

A0088 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0089 44 1.9 0 0.0 44 1.9 0 0.0

A0090 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

A0091 30 1.3 0 0.0 30 1.3 0 0.0

A0092 52 2.2 0 0.0 52 2.2 0 0.0

A0093 49 2.1 38 1.6 11 0.5 0 0.0

A0094 50 2.1 0 0.0 50 2.1 0 0.0

A0095 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

A0096 52 2.2 0 0.0 52 2.2 0 0.0

A0097 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0098 34 1.4 0 0.0 34 1.4 0 0.0

A0099 36 1.5 0 0.0 36 1.5 0 0.0

A0100 50 2.1 38 1.6 12 0.5 0 0.0

 

A0101 45 1.9 0 0.0 45 1.9 0 0.0

A0102 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0103 46 1.9 0 0.0 46 1.9 0 0.0

A0104 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0105 34 1.4 0 0.0 34 1.4 0 0.0

 

A0106 50 2.1 0 0.0 50 2.1 0 0.0

A0107 52 2.2 39 1.6 13 0.5 0 0.0

A0108 44 1.9 0 0.0 44 1.9 0 0.0

A0115 29 1.2 0 0.0 29 1.2 0 0.0

A0116 41 1.7 0 0.0 40 1.7 1 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-18 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-3. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records

affected

A0117 16 0.7 0 0.0 16 0.7 0 0.0

A0118 65 2.7 11 0.5 54 2.3 0 0.0

A0119 74 3.1 20 0.8 54 2.3 0 0.0

A0120 58 2.4 4 0.2 54 2.3 0 0.0

A0121 63 2.7 9 0.4 54 2.3 0 0.0

 

A0122 70 2.9 16 0.7 54 2.3 0 0.0

A0123 70 2.9 16 0.7 54 2.3 0 0.0

A0124 74 3.1 20 0.8 54 2.3 0 0.0

A0125 45 1.9 2 0.1 43 1.8 0 0.0

A0126 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

A0127 50 2.1 7 0.3 43 1.8 0 0.0

A0128 49 2.1 6 0.3 43 1.8 0 0.0

A0129 48 2.0 5 0.2 43 1.8 0 0.0

A0130 48 2.0 5 0.2 43 1.8 0 0.0

A0131 48 2.0 5 0.2 43 1.8 0 0.0

 

A0132 46 1.9 3 0.1 43 1.8 0 0.0

A0133 49 2.1 6 0.3 43 1.8 0 0.0

A0134 17 0.7 4 0.2 13 0.5 0 0.0

A0135 17 0.7 3 0.1 14 0.6 0 0.0

A0136 26 1.1 9 0.4 17 0.7 0 0.0

 

A0137 25 1.1 8 0.3 17 0.7 0 0.0

A0138 24 1.0 7 0.3 17 0.7 0 0.0

A0139 20 0.8 3 0.1 17 0.7 0 0.0

A0140 20 0.8 3 0.1 17 0.7 0 0.0

A0141 24 1.0 0 0.0 24 1.0 0 0.0

 

A0142 34 1.4 0 0.0 34 1.4 0 0.0

A0149 70 2.9 0 0.0 69 2.9 1 0.0

A0150 43 1.8 6 0.3 37 1.6 0 0.0

A0151 53 2.2 12 0.5 41 1.7 0 0.0

A0152 48 2.0 9 0.4 39 1.6 0 0.0

 

A0153 42 1.8 2 0.1 40 1.7 0 0.0

A0154 45 1.9 6 0.3 39 1.6 0 0.0

A0155 49 2.1 9 0.4 40 1.7 0 0.0

A0156 46 1.9 9 0.4 37 1.6 0 0.0

A0157 51 2.1 11 0.5 40 1.7 0 0.0

 

A0158 43 1.8 4 0.2 39 1.6 0 0.0

A0159 48 2.0 9 0.4 39 1.6 0 0.0

A0160 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0161 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0162 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-19 

Table Q-3. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

A0163 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0164 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0165 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0166 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0167 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

A0168 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0169 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0170 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0171 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0172 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

A0173 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0174 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0175 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0176 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0177 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

A0185 17 0.7 0 0.0 17 0.7 0 0.0

A0186 72 3.0 0 0.0 72 3.0 0 0.0

A0187 45 1.9 0 0.0 45 1.9 0 0.0

A0188 65 2.7 0 0.0 65 2.7 0 0.0

A0189 42 1.8 0 0.0 35 1.5 7 0.3

 

A0190 74 3.1 0 0.0 68 2.9 6 0.3

A0191 13 0.5 0 0.0 13 0.5 0 0.0

A0192 20 0.8 5 0.2 15 0.6 0 0.0

A0193 15 0.6 1 0.0 14 0.6 0 0.0

A0194 15 0.6 0 0.0 15 0.6 0 0.0

 

A0195 19 0.8 5 0.2 14 0.6 0 0.0

A0196 14 0.6 0 0.0 14 0.6 0 0.0

A0197 17 0.7 3 0.1 14 0.6 0 0.0

A0198 18 0.8 3 0.1 15 0.6 0 0.0

A0199 19 0.8 5 0.2 14 0.6 0 0.0

 

A0200 18 0.8 4 0.2 14 0.6 0 0.0

A0201 20 0.8 8 0.3 12 0.5 0 0.0

A0202 19 0.8 7 0.3 12 0.5 0 0.0

A0203 20 0.8 8 0.3 12 0.5 0 0.0

A0204 30 1.3 13 0.5 17 0.7 0 0.0

 

A0205 28 1.2 10 0.4 18 0.8 0 0.0

A0206 26 1.1 8 0.3 18 0.8 0 0.0

A0207 21 0.9 3 0.1 18 0.8 0 0.0

A0208 21 0.9 3 0.1 18 0.8 0 0.0

A0209 21 0.9 3 0.1 18 0.8 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-20 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-3. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

A0210 19 0.8 1 0.0 18 0.8 0 0.0

A0211 19 0.8 1 0.0 18 0.8 0 0.0

A0212 21 0.9 3 0.1 18 0.8 0 0.0

A0213 19 0.8 1 0.0 18 0.8 0 0.0

A0214 22 0.9 4 0.2 18 0.8 0 0.0

 

A0215 24 1.0 6 0.3 18 0.8 0 0.0

A0216 19 0.8 1 0.0 18 0.8 0 0.0

A0217 18 0.8 1 0.0 17 0.7 0 0.0

A0218 22 0.9 5 0.2 17 0.7 0 0.0

A0219 21 0.9 4 0.2 17 0.7 0 0.0

 

A0220 23 1.0 6 0.3 17 0.7 0 0.0

A0221 18 0.8 1 0.0 17 0.7 0 0.0

A0222 18 0.8 1 0.0 17 0.7 0 0.0

A0223 21 0.9 4 0.2 17 0.7 0 0.0

A0224 18 0.8 1 0.0 17 0.7 0 0.0

 

A0225 24 1.0 7 0.3 17 0.7 0 0.0

A0226 19 0.8 2 0.1 17 0.7 0 0.0

A0227 18 0.8 1 0.0 17 0.7 0 0.0

A0234 36 1.5 0 0.0 36 1.5 0 0.0

A0235 41 1.7 0 0.0 41 1.7 0 0.0

 

A0236 43 1.8 0 0.0 43 1.8 0 0.0

A0237 39 1.6 5 0.2 34 1.4 0 0.0

A0238 43 1.8 10 0.4 33 1.4 0 0.0

A0239 36 1.5 2 0.1 34 1.4 0 0.0

A0240 39 1.6 11 0.5 28 1.2 0 0.0

 

A0241 36 1.5 6 0.3 30 1.3 0 0.0

A0242 31 1.3 1 0.0 30 1.3 0 0.0

A0243 33 1.4 3 0.1 30 1.3 0 0.0

A0244 33 1.4 3 0.1 30 1.3 0 0.0

A0245 36 1.5 6 0.3 30 1.3 0 0.0

 

A0246 35 1.5 5 0.2 30 1.3 0 0.0

A0247 34 1.4 4 0.2 30 1.3 0 0.0

A0254 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0255 6 0.3 0 0.0 4 0.2 2 0.1

A0256 33 1.4 0 0.0 29 1.2 4 0.2

 

A0257 29 1.2 0 0.0 29 1.2 0 0.0

A0258 29 1.2 0 0.0 29 1.2 0 0.0

A0259 29 1.2 0 0.0 29 1.2 0 0.0

A0260 29 1.2 0 0.0 29 1.2 0 0.0

A0261 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-21 

Table Q-3. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

A0262 38 1.6 0 0.0 38 1.6 0 0.0

A0263 293 12.3 0 0.0 263 11.1 30 1.3

A0264 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0265 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0266 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0267 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

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

“Private School Principal Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 
Q-22 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-4. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

A0025 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0026 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0027 2 1.4 0 0.0 2 1.4 0 0.0

A0028 27 18.5 17 11.6 10 6.8 0 0.0

A0029 1 0.7 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

A0030 4 2.7 3 2.1 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0031 2 1.4 1 0.7 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0032 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0033 4 2.7 4 2.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0034 3 2.1 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

A0035 3 2.1 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0036 5 3.4 4 2.7 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0037 8 5.5 0 0.0 8 5.5 0 0.0

A0038 10 6.8 0 0.0 10 6.8 0 0.0

A0039 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7

 

A0040 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0041 4 2.7 0 0.0 4 2.7 0 0.0

A0042 4 2.7 0 0.0 4 2.7 0 0.0

A0043 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0044 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

A0045 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0046 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0047 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0048 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0049 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

A0056 4 2.7 0 0.0 4 2.7 0 0.0

A0057 4 2.7 0 0.0 4 2.7 0 0.0

A0058 4 2.7 0 0.0 4 2.7 0 0.0

A0059 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0060 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

A0061 2 1.4 0 0.0 2 1.4 0 0.0

A0062 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0063 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0064 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0065 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

A0066 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0067 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0068 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0069 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0070 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-23 

Table Q-4. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

A0071 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0072 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0073 2 1.4 0 0.0 2 1.4 0 0.0

A0074 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0075 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

 

A0076 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0077 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0078 2 1.4 1 0.7 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0079 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0080 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

 

A0081 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0082 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0083 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0084 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0085 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

 

A0086 2 1.4 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0087 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0088 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0089 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0090 3 2.1 0 0.0 3 2.1 0 0.0

 

A0091 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0092 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0093 1 0.7 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0094 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0095 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

 

A0096 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0097 3 2.1 0 0.0 3 2.1 0 0.0

A0098 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0099 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0100 3 2.1 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

A0101 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0102 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0103 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0104 2 1.4 0 0.0 2 1.4 0 0.0

A0105 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

A0106 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0107 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0108 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0115 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0116 10 6.8 0 0.0 10 6.8 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-24 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-4. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

A0117 10 6.8 0 0.0 10 6.8 0 0.0

A0118 12 8.2 1 0.7 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0119 12 8.2 1 0.7 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0120 12 8.2 1 0.7 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0121 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

 

A0122 13 8.9 2 1.4 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0123 12 8.2 1 0.7 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0124 14 9.6 3 2.1 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0125 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0126 12 8.2 1 0.7 11 7.5 0 0.0

 

A0127 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0128 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0129 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0130 12 8.2 1 0.7 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0131 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

 

A0132 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0133 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0134 12 8.2 0 0.0 12 8.2 0 0.0

A0135 12 8.2 0 0.0 12 8.2 0 0.0

A0136 12 8.2 0 0.0 12 8.2 0 0.0

 

A0137 12 8.2 0 0.0 12 8.2 0 0.0

A0138 12 8.2 0 0.0 12 8.2 0 0.0

A0139 13 8.9 1 0.7 12 8.2 0 0.0

A0140 12 8.2 0 0.0 12 8.2 0 0.0

A0141 13 8.9 0 0.0 13 8.9 0 0.0

 

A0142 17 11.6 0 0.0 17 11.6 0 0.0

A0149 12 8.2 0 0.0 11 7.5 1 0.7

A0150 12 8.2 0 0.0 12 8.2 0 0.0

A0151 12 8.2 0 0.0 12 8.2 0 0.0

A0152 12 8.2 0 0.0 12 8.2 0 0.0

 

A0153 12 8.2 0 0.0 12 8.2 0 0.0

A0154 12 8.2 0 0.0 12 8.2 0 0.0

A0155 12 8.2 0 0.0 12 8.2 0 0.0

A0156 12 8.2 0 0.0 12 8.2 0 0.0

A0157 13 8.9 1 0.7 12 8.2 0 0.0

 

A0158 12 8.2 0 0.0 12 8.2 0 0.0

A0159 12 8.2 0 0.0 12 8.2 0 0.0

A0160 12 8.2 0 0.0 12 8.2 0 0.0

A0161 17 11.6 0 0.0 17 11.6 0 0.0

A0162 17 11.6 0 0.0 17 11.6 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-25 

Table Q-4. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

A0163 17 11.6 0 0.0 17 11.6 0 0.0

A0164 12 8.2 0 0.0 12 8.2 0 0.0

A0165 16 11.0 0 0.0 16 11.0 0 0.0

A0166 13 8.9 0 0.0 13 8.9 0 0.0

A0167 4 2.7 0 0.0 4 2.7 0 0.0

 

A0168 4 2.7 0 0.0 4 2.7 0 0.0

A0169 4 2.7 0 0.0 4 2.7 0 0.0

A0170 18 12.3 0 0.0 18 12.3 0 0.0

A0171 18 12.3 0 0.0 18 12.3 0 0.0

A0172 18 12.3 0 0.0 18 12.3 0 0.0

 

A0173 18 12.3 0 0.0 18 12.3 0 0.0

A0174 18 12.3 0 0.0 18 12.3 0 0.0

A0175 18 12.3 0 0.0 18 12.3 0 0.0

A0176 18 12.3 0 0.0 18 12.3 0 0.0

A0177 18 12.3 0 0.0 18 12.3 0 0.0

 

A0185 9 6.2 0 0.0 9 6.2 0 0.0

A0186 14 9.6 0 0.0 14 9.6 0 0.0

A0187 9 6.2 0 0.0 9 6.2 0 0.0

A0188 10 6.8 0 0.0 10 6.8 0 0.0

A0189 16 11.0 0 0.0 15 10.3 1 0.7

 

A0190 30 20.5 0 0.0 30 20.5 0 0.0

A0191 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0192 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0193 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0194 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

 

A0195 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0196 12 8.2 1 0.7 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0197 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0198 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0199 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

 

A0200 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0201 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0202 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0203 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0204 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

 

A0205 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0206 12 8.2 1 0.7 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0207 12 8.2 1 0.7 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0208 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0209 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-26 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-4. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

A0210 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0211 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0212 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0213 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0214 12 8.2 1 0.7 11 7.5 0 0.0

 

A0215 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0216 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0217 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0218 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0219 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

 

A0220 13 8.9 2 1.4 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0221 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0222 12 8.2 1 0.7 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0223 12 8.2 1 0.7 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0224 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

 

A0225 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0226 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0227 11 7.5 0 0.0 11 7.5 0 0.0

A0234 13 8.9 0 0.0 13 8.9 0 0.0

A0235 13 8.9 0 0.0 13 8.9 0 0.0

 

A0236 13 8.9 0 0.0 13 8.9 0 0.0

A0237 16 11.0 1 0.7 15 10.3 0 0.0

A0238 15 10.3 0 0.0 15 10.3 0 0.0

A0239 15 10.3 0 0.0 15 10.3 0 0.0

A0240 10 6.8 0 0.0 10 6.8 0 0.0

 

A0241 10 6.8 0 0.0 10 6.8 0 0.0

A0242 10 6.8 0 0.0 10 6.8 0 0.0

A0243 10 6.8 0 0.0 10 6.8 0 0.0

A0244 10 6.8 0 0.0 10 6.8 0 0.0

A0245 10 6.8 0 0.0 10 6.8 0 0.0

 

A0246 10 6.8 0 0.0 10 6.8 0 0.0

A0247 10 6.8 0 0.0 10 6.8 0 0.0

A0254 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0255 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0256 5 3.4 0 0.0 5 3.4 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-27 

Table Q-4. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school principal data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

A0257 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0258 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0259 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0260 2 1.4 0 0.0 2 1.4 0 0.0

A0261 4 2.7 0 0.0 4 2.7 0 0.0

 

A0262 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

A0263 9 6.2 0 0.0 9 6.2 0 0.0

A0264 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0265 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0266 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

A0267 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

NOTE: BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

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

School Principal Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 
Q-28 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-5. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school data file, by variable: 2003–04 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0400 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0401 3 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0

S0402 3 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0

S0403 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0404 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0405 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0406 3 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0

S0407 3 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0

S0408 3 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0

S0409 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0410 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0411 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0412 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0413 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0

S0414 72 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 72 0.9

 

S0415 402 5.0 109 1.4 244 3.1 49 0.6

S0416 771 9.6 0 0.0 632 7.9 139 1.7

S0417 6,613 82.8 6,449 80.7 60 0.8 104 1.3

S0418 7,243 90.6 7,056 88.3 66 0.8 121 1.5

S0419 6,704 83.9 6,539 81.8 69 0.9 96 1.2

 

S0420 5,781 72.3 5,632 70.5 56 0.7 93 1.2

S0421 5,064 63.4 4,920 61.6 53 0.7 91 1.1

S0422 77 1.0 4 0.1 0 0.0 73 0.9

S0423 1,116 14.0 0 0.0 1,017 12.7 99 1.2

S0424 169 2.1 0 0.0 150 1.9 19 0.2

 

S0425 169 2.1 0 0.0 150 1.9 19 0.2

S0426 88 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 88 1.1

S0427 155 1.9 0 0.0 134 1.7 21 0.3

S0428 160 2.0 0 0.0 139 1.7 21 0.3

S0429 1,207 15.1 0 0.0 1,132 14.2 75 0.9

 

S0430 153 1.9 0 0.0 144 1.8 9 0.1

S0431 336 4.2 0 0.0 320 4.0 16 0.2

S0432 156 2.0 0 0.0 135 1.7 21 0.3

S0433 153 1.9 0 0.0 132 1.7 21 0.3

S0434 8 0.1 0 0.0 8 0.1 0 0.0

 

S0441 34 0.4 29 0.4 0 0.0 5 0.1

S0442 92 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 92 1.2

S0443 55 0.7 43 0.5 5 0.1 7 0.1

S0444 62 0.8 45 0.6 6 0.1 11 0.1

S0445 9 0.1 0 0.0 6 0.1 3 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-29 

Table Q-5. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0446 13 0.2 0 0.0 10 0.1 3 0.0

S0447 36 0.5 31 0.4 2 0.0 3 0.0

S0448 89 1.1 71 0.9 12 0.2 6 0.1

S0449 92 1.2 76 1.0 11 0.1 5 0.1

S0450 75 0.9 57 0.7 11 0.1 7 0.1

 

S0451 58 0.7 43 0.5 11 0.1 4 0.1

S0452 98 1.2 77 1.0 12 0.2 9 0.1

S0453 87 1.1 69 0.9 11 0.1 7 0.1

S0454 84 1.1 66 0.8 11 0.1 7 0.1

S0455 156 2.0 0 0.0 126 1.6 30 0.4

 

S0456 86 1.1 83 1.0 0 0.0 3 0.0

S0457 222 2.8 10 0.1 191 2.4 21 0.3

S0458 258 3.2 42 0.5 193 2.4 23 0.3

S0459 311 3.9 92 1.2 193 2.4 26 0.3

S0460 246 3.1 31 0.4 193 2.4 22 0.3

 

S0461 295 3.7 74 0.9 194 2.4 27 0.3

S0462 186 2.3 47 0.6 107 1.3 32 0.4

S0463 159 2.0 17 0.2 109 1.4 33 0.4

S0464 145 1.8 22 0.3 92 1.2 31 0.4

S0465 73 0.9 15 0.2 39 0.5 19 0.2

 

S0466 79 1.0 20 0.3 38 0.5 21 0.3

S0467 117 1.5 55 0.7 43 0.5 19 0.2

S0468 172 2.2 100 1.3 45 0.6 27 0.3

S0469 169 2.1 0 0.0 141 1.8 28 0.4

S0470 48 0.6 8 0.1 35 0.4 5 0.1

 

S0471 55 0.7 16 0.2 34 0.4 5 0.1

S0472 44 0.6 4 0.1 35 0.4 5 0.1

S0473 51 0.6 11 0.1 35 0.4 5 0.1

S0474 56 0.7 16 0.2 35 0.4 5 0.1

S0475 219 2.7 11 0.1 177 2.2 31 0.4

 

S0476 182 2.3 14 0.2 141 1.8 27 0.3

S0477 208 2.6 3 0.0 174 2.2 31 0.4

S0478 133 1.7 36 0.5 74 0.9 23 0.3

S0479 148 1.9 0 0.0 120 1.5 28 0.4

S0480 303 3.8 0 0.0 290 3.6 13 0.2

 

S0481 192 2.4 0 0.0 160 2.0 32 0.4

S0482 122 1.5 0 0.0 115 1.4 7 0.1

S0489 219 2.7 46 0.6 143 1.8 30 0.4

S0490 248 3.1 103 1.3 117 1.5 28 0.4

S0491 203 2.5 62 0.8 114 1.4 27 0.3

See notes at end of table. 
Q-30 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-5. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0492 238 3.0 92 1.2 119 1.5 27 0.3

S0493 222 2.8 76 1.0 119 1.5 27 0.3

S0494 172 2.2 0 0.0 143 1.8 29 0.4

S0495 218 2.7 0 0.0 191 2.4 27 0.3

S0496 130 1.6 0 0.0 105 1.3 25 0.3

 

S0497 29 0.4 0 0.0 25 0.3 4 0.1

S0498 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0499 412 5.2 8 0.1 323 4.0 81 1.0

S0500 418 5.2 12 0.2 324 4.1 82 1.0

S0501 418 5.2 11 0.1 325 4.1 82 1.0

 

S0502 413 5.2 7 0.1 324 4.1 82 1.0

S0503 285 3.6 270 3.4 0 0.0 15 0.2

S0504 502 6.3 0 0.0 439 5.5 63 0.8

S0505 717 9.0 35 0.4 620 7.8 62 0.8

S0506 737 9.2 40 0.5 627 7.8 70 0.9

 

S0513 146 1.8 92 1.2 5 0.1 49 0.6

S0514 116 1.5 73 0.9 5 0.1 38 0.5

S0515 1,428 17.9 1,098 13.7 293 3.7 37 0.5

S0516 1,890 23.7 1,463 18.3 343 4.3 84 1.1

S0517 1,471 18.4 1,158 14.5 278 3.5 35 0.4

 

S0518 1,353 16.9 1,051 13.2 269 3.4 33 0.4

S0519 1,400 17.5 1,097 13.7 263 3.3 40 0.5

S0520 1,097 13.7 1,049 13.1 0 0.0 48 0.6

S0521 189 2.4 25 0.3 144 1.8 20 0.3

S0522 2,269 28.4 2,080 26.0 166 2.1 23 0.3

 

S0523 253 3.2 73 0.9 151 1.9 29 0.4

S0524 2,526 31.6 2,120 26.5 360 4.5 46 0.6

S0525 579 7.2 240 3.0 318 4.0 21 0.3

S0526 2,473 30.9 1,611 20.2 793 9.9 69 0.9

S0527 153 1.9 119 1.5 25 0.3 9 0.1

 

S0528 1,130 14.1 1,024 12.8 86 1.1 20 0.3

S0529 330 4.1 254 3.2 51 0.6 25 0.3

S0530 1,322 16.5 1,056 13.2 222 2.8 44 0.6

S0531 80 1.0 0 0.0 59 0.7 21 0.3

S0532 445 5.6 0 0.0 394 4.9 51 0.6

 

S0533 83 1.0 0 0.0 62 0.8 21 0.3

S0534 886 11.1 0 0.0 807 10.1 79 1.0

S0535 77 1.0 0 0.0 57 0.7 20 0.3

S0536 792 9.9 0 0.0 722 9.0 70 0.9

S0537 78 1.0 0 0.0 59 0.7 19 0.2

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-31 

Table Q-5. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0538 538 6.7 0 0.0 480 6.0 58 0.7

S0539 104 1.3 0 0.0 76 1.0 28 0.4

S0540 941 11.8 0 0.0 874 10.9 67 0.8

S0541 187 2.3 0 0.0 180 2.3 7 0.1

S0542 1,136 14.2 0 0.0 1,050 13.1 86 1.1

 

S0543 203 2.5 0 0.0 176 2.2 27 0.3

S0544 1,174 14.7 0 0.0 1,053 13.2 121 1.5

S0545 204 2.6 0 0.0 178 2.2 26 0.3

S0546 534 6.7 0 0.0 464 5.8 70 0.9

S0547 214 2.7 0 0.0 187 2.3 27 0.3

 

S0548 1,260 15.8 0 0.0 1,135 14.2 125 1.6

S0549 138 1.7 0 0.0 125 1.6 13 0.2

S0550 520 6.5 0 0.0 466 5.8 54 0.7

S0551 138 1.7 0 0.0 124 1.6 14 0.2

S0552 791 9.9 0 0.0 722 9.0 69 0.9

 

S0553 210 2.6 0 0.0 184 2.3 26 0.3

S0554 1,118 14.0 0 0.0 1,018 12.7 100 1.3

S0555 218 2.7 0 0.0 189 2.4 29 0.4

S0556 1,382 17.3 0 0.0 1,244 15.6 138 1.7

S0557 206 2.6 8 0.1 178 2.2 20 0.3

 

S0558 246 3.1 0 0.0 221 2.8 25 0.3

S0559 206 2.6 0 0.0 182 2.3 24 0.3

S0560 441 5.5 0 0.0 398 5.0 43 0.5

S0561 207 2.6 0 0.0 183 2.3 24 0.3

S0562 304 3.8 0 0.0 269 3.4 35 0.4

 

S0563 285 3.6 15 0.2 184 2.3 86 1.1

S0564 1,339 16.8 0 0.0 1,323 16.6 16 0.2

S0565 395 4.9 0 0.0 326 4.1 69 0.9

S0566 188 2.4 0 0.0 169 2.1 19 0.2

S0567 466 5.8 53 0.7 388 4.9 25 0.3

 

S0568 630 7.9 0 0.0 586 7.3 44 0.6

S0569 703 8.8 0 0.0 651 8.1 52 0.7

S0570 739 9.2 0 0.0 684 8.6 55 0.7

S0571 787 9.8 0 0.0 728 9.1 59 0.7

S0572 684 8.6 0 0.0 625 7.8 59 0.7

 

S0573 735 9.2 0 0.0 662 8.3 73 0.9

S0574 767 9.6 0 0.0 695 8.7 72 0.9

S0575 793 9.9 273 3.4 479 6.0 41 0.5

S0576 744 9.3 0 0.0 674 8.4 70 0.9

S0577 696 8.7 0 0.0 630 7.9 66 0.8

See notes at end of table. 
Q-32 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-5. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0578 551 6.9 73 0.9 427 5.3 51 0.6

S0579 258 3.2 36 0.5 218 2.7 4 0.1

S0580 443 5.5 221 2.8 217 2.7 5 0.1

S0581 421 5.3 199 2.5 217 2.7 5 0.1

S0582 436 5.5 215 2.7 216 2.7 5 0.1

 

S0583 425 5.3 202 2.5 218 2.7 5 0.1

S0584 432 5.4 211 2.6 216 2.7 5 0.1

S0585 440 5.5 219 2.7 216 2.7 5 0.1

S0586 429 5.4 211 2.6 213 2.7 5 0.1

S0593 612 7.7 0 0.0 561 7.0 51 0.6

 

S0594 614 7.7 0 0.0 559 7.0 55 0.7

S0595 605 7.6 0 0.0 550 6.9 55 0.7

S0596 659 8.2 0 0.0 598 7.5 61 0.8

S0597 316 4.0 0 0.0 258 3.2 58 0.7

S0604 605 7.6 49 0.6 450 5.6 106 1.3

 

S0605 329 4.1 302 3.8 19 0.2 8 0.1

S0606 1,613 20.2 453 5.7 1,026 12.8 134 1.7

S0607 1,656 20.7 519 6.5 993 12.4 144 1.8

S0608 1,654 20.7 466 5.8 1,047 13.1 141 1.8

S0609 1,610 20.1 404 5.1 1,075 13.5 131 1.6

 

S0610 413 5.2 183 2.3 201 2.5 29 0.4

S0611 489 6.1 6 0.1 442 5.5 41 0.5

S0612 245 3.1 34 0.4 203 2.5 8 0.1

S0613 276 3.5 63 0.8 205 2.6 8 0.1

S0614 293 3.7 80 1.0 205 2.6 8 0.1

 

S0615 311 3.9 96 1.2 205 2.6 10 0.1

S0616 278 3.5 64 0.8 205 2.6 9 0.1

S0617 364 4.6 150 1.9 205 2.6 9 0.1

S0618 296 3.7 82 1.0 205 2.6 9 0.1

S0619 209 2.6 61 0.8 145 1.8 3 0.0

 

S0620 292 3.7 57 0.7 230 2.9 5 0.1

S0621 367 4.6 132 1.7 230 2.9 5 0.1

S0622 289 3.6 63 0.8 221 2.8 5 0.1

S0623 310 3.9 72 0.9 233 2.9 5 0.1

S0624 297 3.7 60 0.8 232 2.9 5 0.1

 

S0625 343 4.3 1 0.0 335 4.2 7 0.1

S0626 378 4.7 1 0.0 368 4.6 9 0.1

S0627 547 6.8 18 0.2 460 5.8 69 0.9

S0628 599 7.5 42 0.5 476 6.0 81 1.0

S0629 661 8.3 89 1.1 491 6.1 81 1.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-33 

Table Q-5. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0630 171 2.1 124 1.6 29 0.4 18 0.2

S0631 144 1.8 0 0.0 131 1.6 13 0.2

S0632 219 2.7 141 1.8 43 0.5 35 0.4

S0633 285 3.6 45 0.6 185 2.3 55 0.7

S0634 1,198 15.0 3 0.0 1,051 13.2 144 1.8

 

S0635 358 4.5 65 0.8 272 3.4 21 0.3

S0636 292 3.7 78 1.0 202 2.5 12 0.2

S0637 662 8.3 0 0.0 581 7.3 81 1.0

S0638 4 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 0.1

S0639 84 1.1 3 0.0 69 0.9 12 0.2

 

S0640 94 1.2 3 0.0 79 1.0 12 0.2

S0641 92 1.2 3 0.0 77 1.0 12 0.2

S0642 86 1.1 3 0.0 71 0.9 12 0.2

S0643 82 1.0 3 0.0 66 0.8 13 0.2

S0644 83 1.0 4 0.1 66 0.8 13 0.2

 

S0645 59 0.7 6 0.1 42 0.5 11 0.1

S0646 52 0.7 12 0.2 30 0.4 10 0.1

S0647 52 0.7 12 0.2 30 0.4 10 0.1

S0648 75 0.9 15 0.2 55 0.7 5 0.1

S0649 75 0.9 19 0.2 51 0.6 5 0.1

 

S0650 72 0.9 19 0.2 48 0.6 5 0.1

S0651 68 0.9 19 0.2 44 0.6 5 0.1

S0652 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.0

S0653 207 2.6 0 0.0 115 1.4 92 1.2

S0654 252 3.2 0 0.0 141 1.8 111 1.4

 

S0655 331 4.1 0 0.0 187 2.3 144 1.8

S0656 342 4.3 0 0.0 168 2.1 174 2.2

S0661 278 3.5 278 3.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0662 18 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 18 0.2

S0663 24 0.3 2 0.0 0 0.0 22 0.3

 

S0664 15 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 15 0.2

S0665 190 2.4 161 2.0 0 0.0 29 0.4

S0666 17 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 0.2

S0667 9 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 0.1

S0668 60 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 60 0.8

 

S0669 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0670 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0671 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

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

School Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 
Q-34 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school data file, by variable: 2003–04 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0063 176 7.2 176 7.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0077 129 5.3 0 0.0 129 5.3 0 0.0

S0078 123 5.0 0 0.0 118 4.8 5 0.2

S0079 145 5.9 0 0.0 138 5.6 7 0.3

S0080 138 5.6 0 0.0 132 5.4 6 0.2

 

S0081 135 5.5 0 0.0 128 5.2 7 0.3

S0082 146 5.9 0 0.0 140 5.7 6 0.2

S0083 142 5.8 0 0.0 136 5.5 6 0.2

S0084 142 5.8 0 0.0 136 5.5 6 0.2

S0085 144 5.9 0 0.0 138 5.6 6 0.2

 

S0086 146 5.9 0 0.0 140 5.7 6 0.2

S0091 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0092 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0093 146 5.9 0 0.0 146 5.9 0 0.0

S0095 135 5.5 0 0.0 135 5.5 0 0.0

 

S0103 110 4.5 0 0.0 109 4.4 1 0.0

S0104 32 1.3 0 0.0 32 1.3 0 0.0

S0105 34 1.4 0 0.0 34 1.4 0 0.0

S0106 32 1.3 0 0.0 32 1.3 0 0.0

S0107 34 1.4 0 0.0 34 1.4 0 0.0

 

S0113 144 5.9 0 0.0 144 5.9 0 0.0

S0114 228 9.3 0 0.0 63 2.6 165 6.7

S0115 230 9.4 0 0.0 63 2.6 167 6.8

S0116 63 2.6 0 0.0 63 2.6 0 0.0

S0117 229 9.3 0 0.0 64 2.6 165 6.7

 

S0118 64 2.6 0 0.0 64 2.6 0 0.0

S0119 230 9.4 0 0.0 64 2.6 166 6.8

S0120 64 2.6 0 0.0 64 2.6 0 0.0

S0121 310 12.6 0 0.0 63 2.6 247 10.1

S0122 233 9.5 0 0.0 76 3.1 157 6.4

 

S0123 256 10.4 5 0.2 76 3.1 175 7.1

S0124 108 4.4 0 0.0 108 4.4 0 0.0

S0125 116 4.7 2 0.1 114 4.6 0 0.0

S0126 126 5.1 3 0.1 123 5.0 0 0.0

S0127 115 4.7 1 0.0 114 4.6 0 0.0

 

S0128 127 5.2 3 0.1 124 5.0 0 0.0

S0129 114 4.6 4 0.2 110 4.5 0 0.0

S0130 117 4.8 7 0.3 110 4.5 0 0.0

S0131 114 4.6 6 0.2 108 4.4 0 0.0

S0276 53 2.2 52 2.1 0 0.0 1 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-35 

Table Q-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0277 85 3.5 2 0.1 83 3.4 0 0.0

S0278 86 3.5 3 0.1 83 3.4 0 0.0

S0279 300 12.2 212 8.6 88 3.6 0 0.0

S0280 84 3.4 1 0.0 83 3.4 0 0.0

S0281 88 3.6 5 0.2 83 3.4 0 0.0

 

S0282 217 8.8 131 5.3 86 3.5 0 0.0

S0283 53 2.2 3 0.1 50 2.0 0 0.0

S0284 16 0.7 0 0.0 16 0.7 0 0.0

S0285 31 1.3 0 0.0 31 1.3 0 0.0

S0292 126 5.1 0 0.0 126 5.1 0 0.0

 

S0293 117 4.8 9 0.4 108 4.4 0 0.0

S0294 122 5.0 10 0.4 112 4.6 0 0.0

S0295 123 5.0 11 0.4 112 4.6 0 0.0

S0296 125 5.1 13 0.5 112 4.6 0 0.0

S0297 124 5.0 12 0.5 112 4.6 0 0.0

 

S0298 126 5.1 14 0.6 112 4.6 0 0.0

S0299 123 5.0 9 0.4 114 4.6 0 0.0

S0300 121 4.9 8 0.3 113 4.6 0 0.0

S0301 124 5.0 12 0.5 112 4.6 0 0.0

S0302 126 5.1 14 0.6 112 4.6 0 0.0

 

S0303 122 5.0 9 0.4 113 4.6 0 0.0

S0304 143 5.8 0 0.0 143 5.8 0 0.0

S0305 147 6.0 0 0.0 147 6.0 0 0.0

S0306 151 6.1 0 0.0 151 6.1 0 0.0

S0308 141 5.7 6 0.2 135 5.5 0 0.0

 

S0310 177 7.2 39 1.6 138 5.6 0 0.0

S0311 182 7.4 42 1.7 140 5.7 0 0.0

S0312 185 7.5 47 1.9 138 5.6 0 0.0

S0313 173 7.0 36 1.5 137 5.6 0 0.0

S0314 170 6.9 31 1.3 139 5.7 0 0.0

 

S0315 135 5.5 3 0.1 132 5.4 0 0.0

S0316 142 5.8 3 0.1 139 5.7 0 0.0

S0317 143 5.8 4 0.2 139 5.7 0 0.0

S0319 130 5.3 0 0.0 128 5.2 2 0.1

S0320 34 1.4 18 0.7 16 0.7 0 0.0

 

S0321 41 1.7 26 1.1 15 0.6 0 0.0

S0322 30 1.2 10 0.4 20 0.8 0 0.0

S0323 31 1.3 11 0.4 20 0.8 0 0.0

S0324 30 1.2 15 0.6 15 0.6 0 0.0

S0325 29 1.2 8 0.3 21 0.9 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-36 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0326 29 1.2 9 0.4 20 0.8 0 0.0

S0327 30 1.2 10 0.4 20 0.8 0 0.0

S0328 43 1.8 26 1.1 17 0.7 0 0.0

S0329 27 1.1 10 0.4 17 0.7 0 0.0

S0330 25 1.0 7 0.3 18 0.7 0 0.0

 

S0331 46 1.9 31 1.3 15 0.6 0 0.0

S0332 138 5.6 0 0.0 135 5.5 3 0.1

S0333 41 1.7 15 0.6 26 1.1 0 0.0

S0334 44 1.8 18 0.7 26 1.1 0 0.0

S0335 42 1.7 16 0.7 26 1.1 0 0.0

 

S0336 34 1.4 9 0.4 25 1.0 0 0.0

S0337 36 1.5 11 0.4 25 1.0 0 0.0

S0338 33 1.3 8 0.3 25 1.0 0 0.0

S0339 35 1.4 10 0.4 25 1.0 0 0.0

S0340 36 1.5 11 0.4 25 1.0 0 0.0

 

S0341 35 1.4 10 0.4 25 1.0 0 0.0

S0342 33 1.3 8 0.3 25 1.0 0 0.0

S0343 33 1.3 8 0.3 25 1.0 0 0.0

S0344 35 1.4 10 0.4 25 1.0 0 0.0

S0416 348 14.2 348 14.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0417 652 26.5 652 26.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0418 1,161 47.3 1,161 47.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0419 683 27.8 683 27.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0420 947 38.6 947 38.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0421 530 21.6 530 21.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0422 1,242 50.6 1,242 50.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0423 336 13.7 0 0.0 336 13.7 0 0.0

S0424 98 4.0 98 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0425 98 4.0 98 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0426 61 2.5 61 2.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0427 51 2.1 51 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0428 76 3.1 76 3.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0429 197 8.0 0 0.0 196 8.0 1 0.0

S0430 61 2.5 0 0.0 61 2.5 0 0.0

S0431 44 1.8 0 0.0 44 1.8 0 0.0

 

S0432 66 2.7 0 0.0 66 2.7 0 0.0

S0433 65 2.6 0 0.0 65 2.6 0 0.0

S0434 49 2.0 49 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0441 41 1.7 41 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0443 84 3.4 77 3.1 7 0.3 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-37 

Table Q-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0447 82 3.3 0 0.0 82 3.3 0 0.0

S0448 121 4.9 52 2.1 68 2.8 1 0.0

S0449 138 5.6 68 2.8 69 2.8 1 0.0

S0450 114 4.6 44 1.8 69 2.8 1 0.0

S0451 142 5.8 83 3.4 59 2.4 0 0.0

 

S0452 156 6.4 86 3.5 69 2.8 1 0.0

S0453 99 4.0 29 1.2 69 2.8 1 0.0

S0454 125 5.1 55 2.2 69 2.8 1 0.0

S0462 93 3.8 7 0.3 86 3.5 0 0.0

S0463 96 3.9 12 0.5 84 3.4 0 0.0

 

S0464 93 3.8 10 0.4 83 3.4 0 0.0

S0465 46 1.9 7 0.3 39 1.6 0 0.0

S0466 50 2.0 10 0.4 40 1.6 0 0.0

S0467 50 2.0 12 0.5 38 1.5 0 0.0

S0468 96 3.9 59 2.4 37 1.5 0 0.0

 

S0475 89 3.6 2 0.1 87 3.5 0 0.0

S0476 89 3.6 13 0.5 76 3.1 0 0.0

S0477 100 4.1 2 0.1 98 4.0 0 0.0

S0478 80 3.3 4 0.2 76 3.1 0 0.0

S0479 94 3.8 0 0.0 94 3.8 0 0.0

 

S0481 91 3.7 0 0.0 91 3.7 0 0.0

S0489 107 4.4 11 0.4 96 3.9 0 0.0

S0490 145 5.9 54 2.2 91 3.7 0 0.0

S0491 132 5.4 42 1.7 90 3.7 0 0.0

S0492 136 5.5 47 1.9 89 3.6 0 0.0

 

S0493 132 5.4 44 1.8 88 3.6 0 0.0

S0494 120 4.9 0 0.0 120 4.9 0 0.0

S0496 96 3.9 0 0.0 96 3.9 0 0.0

S0497 16 0.7 0 0.0 16 0.7 0 0.0

S0498 5 0.2 4 0.2 1 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0499 120 4.9 1 0.0 118 4.8 1 0.0

S0500 122 5.0 4 0.2 117 4.8 1 0.0

S0501 123 5.0 3 0.1 119 4.8 1 0.0

S0502 123 5.0 4 0.2 118 4.8 1 0.0

S0503 11 0.4 11 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0505 116 4.7 116 4.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0506 148 6.0 148 6.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0513 18 0.7 18 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0515 227 9.2 99 4.0 128 5.2 0 0.0

S0516 358 14.6 225 9.2 133 5.4 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-38 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0517 216 8.8 85 3.5 131 5.3 0 0.0

S0518 201 8.2 65 2.6 136 5.5 0 0.0

S0519 148 6.0 14 0.6 134 5.5 0 0.0

S0520 23 0.9 23 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0521 147 6.0 56 2.3 86 3.5 5 0.2

 

S0522 458 18.6 342 13.9 114 4.6 2 0.1

S0523 151 6.1 43 1.8 108 4.4 0 0.0

S0524 484 19.7 354 14.4 130 5.3 0 0.0

S0525 151 6.1 98 4.0 53 2.2 0 0.0

S0526 485 19.7 152 6.2 332 13.5 1 0.0

 

S0527 150 6.1 55 2.2 94 3.8 1 0.0

S0528 401 16.3 207 8.4 194 7.9 0 0.0

S0529 192 7.8 77 3.1 115 4.7 0 0.0

S0530 510 20.8 210 8.6 300 12.2 0 0.0

S0531 102 4.2 0 0.0 102 4.2 0 0.0

 

S0532 337 13.7 0 0.0 336 13.7 1 0.0

S0533 105 4.3 0 0.0 105 4.3 0 0.0

S0534 396 16.1 0 0.0 395 16.1 1 0.0

S0535 106 4.3 0 0.0 106 4.3 0 0.0

S0536 391 15.9 0 0.0 390 15.9 1 0.0

 

S0537 103 4.2 0 0.0 103 4.2 0 0.0

S0538 395 16.1 0 0.0 394 16.0 1 0.0

S0539 111 4.5 0 0.0 111 4.5 0 0.0

S0540 357 14.5 0 0.0 356 14.5 1 0.0

S0541 108 4.4 0 0.0 108 4.4 0 0.0

 

S0542 367 14.9 0 0.0 367 14.9 0 0.0

S0543 111 4.5 0 0.0 111 4.5 0 0.0

S0544 391 15.9 0 0.0 391 15.9 0 0.0

S0545 113 4.6 0 0.0 113 4.6 0 0.0

S0546 364 14.8 0 0.0 364 14.8 0 0.0

 

S0547 114 4.6 0 0.0 114 4.6 0 0.0

S0548 390 15.9 0 0.0 390 15.9 0 0.0

S0549 94 3.8 0 0.0 94 3.8 0 0.0

S0550 314 12.8 0 0.0 314 12.8 0 0.0

S0551 95 3.9 0 0.0 95 3.9 0 0.0

 

S0552 325 13.2 0 0.0 325 13.2 0 0.0

S0553 109 4.4 0 0.0 109 4.4 0 0.0

S0554 316 12.9 0 0.0 316 12.9 0 0.0

S0555 112 4.6 0 0.0 112 4.6 0 0.0

S0556 376 15.3 0 0.0 375 15.3 1 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-39 

Table Q-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0557 109 4.4 41 1.7 68 2.8 0 0.0

S0558 164 6.7 0 0.0 164 6.7 0 0.0

S0559 113 4.6 0 0.0 113 4.6 0 0.0

S0560 276 11.2 0 0.0 276 11.2 0 0.0

S0561 111 4.5 0 0.0 111 4.5 0 0.0

 

S0562 185 7.5 0 0.0 185 7.5 0 0.0

S0563 123 5.0 40 1.6 83 3.4 0 0.0

S0564 377 15.4 0 0.0 377 15.4 0 0.0

S0565 100 4.1 0 0.0 99 4.0 1 0.0

S0566 112 4.6 0 0.0 103 4.2 9 0.4

 

S0567 136 5.5 12 0.5 123 5.0 1 0.0

S0568 218 8.9 0 0.0 217 8.8 1 0.0

S0569 206 8.4 0 0.0 160 6.5 46 1.9

S0570 214 8.7 0 0.0 167 6.8 47 1.9

S0571 222 9.0 0 0.0 175 7.1 47 1.9

 

S0572 206 8.4 0 0.0 160 6.5 46 1.9

S0573 214 8.7 0 0.0 171 7.0 43 1.8

S0574 229 9.3 0 0.0 177 7.2 52 2.1

S0575 233 9.5 149 6.1 83 3.4 1 0.0

S0576 210 8.6 0 0.0 209 8.5 1 0.0

 

S0577 203 8.3 0 0.0 202 8.2 1 0.0

S0578 199 8.1 11 0.4 149 6.1 39 1.6

S0579 122 5.0 9 0.4 111 4.5 2 0.1

S0580 152 6.2 39 1.6 111 4.5 2 0.1

S0581 152 6.2 40 1.6 110 4.5 2 0.1

 

S0582 153 6.2 42 1.7 109 4.4 2 0.1

S0583 154 6.3 43 1.8 109 4.4 2 0.1

S0584 154 6.3 42 1.7 110 4.5 2 0.1

S0585 151 6.1 40 1.6 109 4.4 2 0.1

S0586 150 6.1 39 1.6 109 4.4 2 0.1

 

S0593 155 6.3 16 0.7 139 5.7 0 0.0

S0594 139 5.7 0 0.0 139 5.7 0 0.0

S0595 111 4.5 0 0.0 106 4.3 5 0.2

S0596 142 5.8 0 0.0 142 5.8 0 0.0

S0597 91 3.7 0 0.0 91 3.7 0 0.0

 

S0604 136 5.5 18 0.7 118 4.8 0 0.0

S0605 221 9.0 220 9.0 1 0.0 0 0.0

S0606 88 3.6 9 0.4 79 3.2 0 0.0

S0607 86 3.5 7 0.3 79 3.2 0 0.0

S0608 83 3.4 3 0.1 80 3.3 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-40 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0609 83 3.4 3 0.1 80 3.3 0 0.0

S0610 127 5.2 11 0.4 116 4.7 0 0.0

S0611 26 1.1 0 0.0 13 0.5 13 0.5

S0612 19 0.8 3 0.1 11 0.4 5 0.2

S0613 18 0.7 2 0.1 11 0.4 5 0.2

 

S0614 25 1.0 8 0.3 12 0.5 5 0.2

S0615 17 0.7 0 0.0 12 0.5 5 0.2

S0616 19 0.8 2 0.1 12 0.5 5 0.2

S0617 24 1.0 7 0.3 12 0.5 5 0.2

S0618 24 1.0 7 0.3 12 0.5 5 0.2

 

S0619 11 0.4 0 0.0 11 0.4 0 0.0

S0620 10 0.4 5 0.2 5 0.2 0 0.0

S0621 9 0.4 4 0.2 5 0.2 0 0.0

S0622 7 0.3 2 0.1 5 0.2 0 0.0

S0623 11 0.4 6 0.2 5 0.2 0 0.0

 

S0624 5 0.2 0 0.0 5 0.2 0 0.0

S0625 6 0.2 0 0.0 6 0.2 0 0.0

S0626 19 0.8 0 0.0 19 0.8 0 0.0

S0627 174 7.1 0 0.0 174 7.1 0 0.0

S0628 181 7.4 5 0.2 176 7.2 0 0.0

 

S0629 193 7.9 13 0.5 180 7.3 0 0.0

S0632 104 4.2 1 0.0 101 4.1 2 0.1

S0633 54 2.2 0 0.0 54 2.2 0 0.0

S0634 78 3.2 0 0.0 78 3.2 0 0.0

S0635 107 4.4 7 0.3 100 4.1 0 0.0

 

S0636 95 3.9 47 1.9 48 2.0 0 0.0

S0637 50 2.0 0 0.0 49 2.0 1 0.0

S0638 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0639 17 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 0.7

S0640 18 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 18 0.7

 

S0641 18 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 18 0.7

S0642 18 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 18 0.7

S0643 17 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 0.7

S0644 17 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 0.7

S0645 17 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 0.7

 

S0646 15 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 15 0.6

S0647 16 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 0.7

S0648 4 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 0.2

S0649 5 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 0.2

S0650 5 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 0.2

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-41 

Table Q-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0651 5 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 0.2

S0652 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0653 15 0.6 0 0.0 15 0.6 0 0.0

S0654 24 1.0 0 0.0 24 1.0 0 0.0

S0655 47 1.9 0 0.0 47 1.9 0 0.0

 

S0657 24 1.0 0 0.0 24 1.0 0 0.0

S0658 24 1.0 0 0.0 24 1.0 0 0.0

S0659 24 1.0 0 0.0 24 1.0 0 0.0

S0660 24 1.0 0 0.0 24 1.0 0 0.0

S0668 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0669 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0670 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0671 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0700 18 0.7 18 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0701 18 0.7 18 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0702 14 0.6 14 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0703 22 0.9 22 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0704 15 0.6 15 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0705 34 1.4 34 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0706 20 0.8 20 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0707 20 0.8 20 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0708 20 0.8 20 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0709 21 0.9 21 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0710 19 0.8 19 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0711 52 2.1 52 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0712 18 0.7 18 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0713 54 2.2 54 2.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0714 17 0.7 17 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0715 54 2.2 54 2.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0716 18 0.7 18 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0717 52 2.1 52 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0718 17 0.7 17 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0719 51 2.1 51 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0720 20 0.8 20 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0721 55 2.2 55 2.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0722 22 0.9 22 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0723 54 2.2 54 2.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0724 21 0.9 21 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0725 54 2.2 54 2.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0726 29 1.2 29 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-42 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0727 49 2.0 49 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0728 28 1.1 28 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0729 48 2.0 48 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0730 28 1.1 28 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0731 47 1.9 47 1.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0732 30 1.2 30 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0733 49 2.0 49 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0734 33 1.3 33 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0735 40 1.6 40 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0736 49 2.0 49 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0737 21 0.9 21 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0738 8 0.3 8 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0739 82 3.3 82 3.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0740 12 0.5 12 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0741 70 2.9 70 2.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0742 104 4.2 104 4.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0743 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0744 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0745 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0746 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0747 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0748 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0749 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0750 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0751 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0752 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0753 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0754 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0755 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0756 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0757 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0758 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0759 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0760 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0761 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0762 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0763 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0764 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0765 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0766 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-43 

Table Q-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0767 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0768 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0769 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0770 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0771 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0772 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0773 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0774 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0775 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0776 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0777 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0778 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0779 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0780 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0781 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0782 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0783 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0784 105 4.3 105 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0785 92 3.7 0 0.0 91 3.7 1 0.0

S0786 163 6.6 94 3.8 69 2.8 0 0.0

 

S0787 217 8.8 146 5.9 71 2.9 0 0.0

S0788 169 6.9 102 4.2 67 2.7 0 0.0

S0789 302 12.3 230 9.4 72 2.9 0 0.0

S0790 585 23.8 511 20.8 74 3.0 0 0.0

S0791 33 1.3 33 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0792 31 1.3 31 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0793 32 1.3 32 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0794 35 1.4 35 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0795 19 0.8 19 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0796 126 5.1 102 4.2 24 1.0 0 0.0

 

S0797 412 16.8 152 6.2 258 10.5 2 0.1

S0798 56 2.3 56 2.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0799 49 2.0 49 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0800 61 2.5 0 0.0 61 2.5 0 0.0

S0801 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0802 11 0.4 0 0.0 11 0.4 0 0.0

S0803 69 2.8 0 0.0 69 2.8 0 0.0

S0804 93 3.8 0 0.0 51 2.1 42 1.7

S0805 354 14.4 0 0.0 312 12.7 42 1.7

S0806 169 6.9 0 0.0 169 6.9 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-44 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-6. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0807 67 2.7 66 2.7 0 0.0 1 0.0

S0808 138 5.6 0 0.0 135 5.5 3 0.1

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

“Private School Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-45 

Table Q-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school data file, by variable: 2003–04 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0063 5 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.4

S0077 27 18.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 27 18.6

S0078 21 14.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 21 14.5

S0079 25 17.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 25 17.2

S0080 25 17.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 25 17.2

 

S0081 24 16.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 24 16.6

S0082 26 17.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 26 17.9

S0083 26 17.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 26 17.9

S0084 25 17.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 25 17.2

S0085 25 17.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 25 17.2

 

S0086 25 17.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 25 17.2

S0087 23 15.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 23 15.9

S0088 23 15.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 23 15.9

S0089 23 15.9 1 0.7 0 0.0 22 15.2

S0090 22 15.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 22 15.2

 

S0091 23 15.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 23 15.9

S0092 29 20.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 29 20.0

S0093 23 15.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 23 15.9

S0094 22 15.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 22 15.2

S0095 25 17.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 25 17.2

 

S0097 22 15.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 22 15.2

S0098 23 15.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 23 15.9

S0099 23 15.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 23 15.9

S0100 23 15.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 23 15.9

S0101 23 15.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 23 15.9

 

S0103 23 15.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 23 15.9

S0104 25 17.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 25 17.2

S0105 23 15.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 23 15.9

S0106 24 16.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 24 16.6

S0107 25 17.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 25 17.2

 

S0113 4 2.8 0 0.0 4 2.8 0 0.0

S0114 17 11.7 0 0.0 17 11.7 0 0.0

S0115 24 16.6 0 0.0 24 16.6 0 0.0

S0116 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0117 24 16.6 0 0.0 24 16.6 0 0.0

 

S0118 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0119 24 16.6 0 0.0 24 16.6 0 0.0

S0120 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0121 26 17.9 0 0.0 23 15.9 3 2.1

S0122 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-46 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0123 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0

S0124 20 13.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 13.8

S0125 20 13.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 13.8

S0126 20 13.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 13.8

S0127 21 14.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 21 14.5

 

S0128 20 13.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 13.8

S0129 20 13.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 13.8

S0130 20 13.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 13.8

S0131 20 13.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 13.8

S0152 26 17.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 26 17.9

 

S0153 11 7.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 11 7.6

S0154 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0155 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0156 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0157 17 11.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 11.7

 

S0158 18 12.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 18 12.4

S0159 14 9.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 14 9.7

S0160 18 12.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 18 12.4

S0161 14 9.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 14 9.7

S0162 17 11.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 11.7

 

S0163 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0164 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0165 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0166 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7

S0167 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0168 24 16.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 24 16.6

S0169 11 7.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 11 7.6

S0170 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0171 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0172 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0173 19 13.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 19 13.1

S0174 19 13.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 19 13.1

S0175 16 11.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 11.0

S0176 19 13.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 19 13.1

S0177 13 9.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 9.0

 

S0178 16 11.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 11.0

S0179 4 2.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.8

S0180 4 2.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.8

S0181 4 2.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.8

S0182 4 2.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.8

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-47 

Table Q-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0183 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0184 24 16.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 24 16.6

S0185 11 7.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 11 7.6

S0186 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0187 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0188 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0189 15 10.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 15 10.3

S0190 16 11.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 11.0

S0191 13 9.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 9.0

S0192 16 11.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 11.0

 

S0193 12 8.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 8.3

S0194 16 11.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 11.0

S0195 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0196 4 2.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.8

S0197 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

 

S0198 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0199 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0200 24 16.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 24 16.6

S0201 11 7.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 11 7.6

S0202 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0203 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0204 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0205 15 10.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 15 10.3

S0206 16 11.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 11.0

S0207 15 10.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 15 10.3

 

S0208 15 10.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 15 10.3

S0209 13 9.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 9.0

S0210 14 9.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 14 9.7

S0211 5 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.4

S0212 5 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.4

 

S0213 4 2.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.8

S0214 4 2.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.8

S0215 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0216 24 16.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 24 16.6

S0217 22 15.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 22 15.2

 

S0218 22 15.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 22 15.2

S0219 22 15.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 22 15.2

S0220 22 15.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 22 15.2

S0221 22 15.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 22 15.2

S0222 22 15.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 22 15.2

See notes at end of table. 
Q-48 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0223 20 13.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 13.8

S0224 5 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.4

S0225 4 2.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.8

S0226 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0227 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0228 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7

S0229 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7

S0230 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7

S0231 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7

S0232 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7

 

S0233 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0248 21 14.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 21 14.5

S0257 7 4.8 0 0.0 3 2.1 4 2.8

S0258 7 4.8 0 0.0 3 2.1 4 2.8

S0259 7 4.8 0 0.0 3 2.1 4 2.8

 

S0260 8 5.5 0 0.0 3 2.1 5 3.4

S0261 8 5.5 0 0.0 3 2.1 5 3.4

S0262 8 5.5 0 0.0 3 2.1 5 3.4

S0263 8 5.5 0 0.0 3 2.1 5 3.4

S0264 7 4.8 0 0.0 3 2.1 4 2.8

 

S0265 9 6.2 0 0.0 9 6.2 0 0.0

S0266 9 6.2 0 0.0 8 5.5 1 0.7

S0267 10 6.9 0 0.0 4 2.8 6 4.1

S0268 11 7.6 0 0.0 10 6.9 1 0.7

S0269 11 7.6 0 0.0 4 2.8 7 4.8

 

S0270 11 7.6 0 0.0 11 7.6 0 0.0

S0276 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0277 3 2.1 1 0.7 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0278 3 2.1 1 0.7 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0279 11 7.6 9 6.2 0 0.0 2 1.4

 

S0280 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0281 3 2.1 1 0.7 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0282 11 7.6 9 6.2 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0283 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0284 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0285 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0286 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0304 20 13.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 13.8

S0305 20 13.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 13.8

S0306 20 13.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 13.8

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-49 

Table Q-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0308 27 18.6 1 0.7 0 0.0 26 17.9

S0309 28 19.3 2 1.4 0 0.0 26 17.9

S0310 28 19.3 2 1.4 0 0.0 26 17.9

S0311 30 20.7 3 2.1 0 0.0 27 18.6

S0312 28 19.3 2 1.4 0 0.0 26 17.9

 

S0313 29 20.0 3 2.1 0 0.0 26 17.9

S0314 28 19.3 2 1.4 0 0.0 26 17.9

S0315 21 14.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 21 14.5

S0316 22 15.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 22 15.2

S0317 22 15.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 22 15.2

 

S0319 21 14.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 21 14.5

S0320 8 5.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 5.5

S0321 8 5.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 5.5

S0322 8 5.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 5.5

S0323 8 5.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 5.5

 

S0324 8 5.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 5.5

S0325 8 5.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 5.5

S0326 5 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.4

S0327 5 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.4

S0328 5 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.4

 

S0329 5 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.4

S0330 5 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.4

S0331 5 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.4

S0332 26 17.9 0 0.0 26 17.9 0 0.0

S0333 33 22.8 5 3.4 28 19.3 0 0.0

 

S0334 29 20.0 1 0.7 28 19.3 0 0.0

S0335 30 20.7 2 1.4 28 19.3 0 0.0

S0336 30 20.7 2 1.4 28 19.3 0 0.0

S0337 30 20.7 2 1.4 28 19.3 0 0.0

S0338 30 20.7 2 1.4 28 19.3 0 0.0

 

S0339 31 21.4 3 2.1 28 19.3 0 0.0

S0340 31 21.4 3 2.1 28 19.3 0 0.0

S0341 30 20.7 2 1.4 28 19.3 0 0.0

S0342 30 20.7 2 1.4 28 19.3 0 0.0

S0343 30 20.7 2 1.4 28 19.3 0 0.0

 

S0344 30 20.7 2 1.4 28 19.3 0 0.0

S0400 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0401 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0402 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0403 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-50 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0404 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0405 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0406 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0407 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0408 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0409 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0410 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0411 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0412 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0413 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0414 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0415 12 8.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 8.3

S0416 48 33.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 48 33.1

S0417 23 15.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 23 15.9

S0418 21 14.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 21 14.5

 

S0419 22 15.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 22 15.2

S0420 22 15.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 22 15.2

S0421 22 15.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 22 15.2

S0422 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0423 20 13.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 13.8

 

S0424 8 5.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 5.5

S0425 8 5.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 5.5

S0426 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0427 11 7.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 11 7.6

S0428 11 7.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 11 7.6

 

S0429 16 11.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 11.0

S0430 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0431 9 6.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 6.2

S0432 8 5.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 5.5

S0433 8 5.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 5.5

 

S0434 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0441 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0442 10 6.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 6.9

S0443 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0444 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4

 

S0445 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0446 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0447 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0448 6 4.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 4.1

S0449 8 5.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 5.5

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-51 

Table Q-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0450 5 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.4

S0451 6 4.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 4.1

S0452 6 4.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 4.1

S0453 5 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.4

S0454 6 4.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 4.1

 

S0455 9 6.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 6.2

S0457 5 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.4

S0458 5 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.4

S0459 5 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.4

S0460 5 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.4

 

S0461 5 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.4

S0462 17 11.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 11.7

S0463 15 10.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 15 10.3

S0464 17 11.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 11.7

S0465 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4

 

S0466 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0467 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0468 15 10.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 15 10.3

S0469 18 12.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 18 12.4

S0470 19 13.1 2 1.4 0 0.0 17 11.7

 

S0471 19 13.1 2 1.4 0 0.0 17 11.7

S0472 17 11.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 11.7

S0473 17 11.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 11.7

S0474 19 13.1 2 1.4 0 0.0 17 11.7

S0475 16 11.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 11.0

 

S0476 16 11.0 5 3.4 0 0.0 11 7.6

S0477 16 11.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 11.0

S0478 16 11.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 11.0

S0479 18 12.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 18 12.4

S0480 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

 

S0481 21 14.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 21 14.5

S0482 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7

S0489 12 8.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 8.3

S0490 13 9.0 1 0.7 0 0.0 12 8.3

S0491 14 9.7 1 0.7 0 0.0 13 9.0

 

S0492 13 9.0 1 0.7 0 0.0 12 8.3

S0493 13 9.0 1 0.7 0 0.0 12 8.3

S0494 15 10.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 15 10.3

S0495 12 8.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 8.3

S0496 11 7.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 11 7.6

See notes at end of table. 
Q-52 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0497 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0498 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0499 11 7.6 1 0.7 0 0.0 10 6.9

S0500 10 6.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 6.9

S0501 10 6.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 6.9

 

S0502 10 6.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 6.9

S0503 14 9.7 14 9.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0504 8 5.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 5.5

S0505 10 6.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 6.9

S0506 13 9.0 3 2.1 0 0.0 10 6.9

 

S0513 4 2.8 3 2.1 0 0.0 1 0.7

S0514 2 1.4 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.7

S0515 25 17.2 10 6.9 0 0.0 15 10.3

S0516 33 22.8 16 11.0 0 0.0 17 11.7

S0517 26 17.9 10 6.9 0 0.0 16 11.0

 

S0518 25 17.2 9 6.2 0 0.0 16 11.0

S0519 31 21.4 15 10.3 0 0.0 16 11.0

S0520 15 10.3 15 10.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0521 3 2.1 1 0.7 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0522 35 24.1 31 21.4 0 0.0 4 2.8

 

S0523 3 2.1 2 1.4 0 0.0 1 0.7

S0524 36 24.8 22 15.2 0 0.0 14 9.7

S0525 2 1.4 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0526 37 25.5 17 11.7 0 0.0 20 13.8

S0527 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0528 22 15.2 20 13.8 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0529 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0530 26 17.9 19 13.1 0 0.0 7 4.8

S0531 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0532 14 9.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 14 9.7

 

S0533 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0534 20 13.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 13.8

S0535 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0536 19 13.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 19 13.1

S0537 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4

 

S0538 15 10.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 15 10.3

S0539 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0540 21 14.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 21 14.5

S0541 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0542 16 11.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 11.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-53 

Table Q-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0543 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0544 26 17.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 26 17.9

S0545 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0546 6 4.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 4.1

S0547 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

 

S0548 30 20.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 30 20.7

S0549 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0550 5 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.4

S0551 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0552 13 9.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 9.0

 

S0553 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0554 29 20.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 29 20.0

S0555 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0556 36 24.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 36 24.8

S0557 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

 

S0558 5 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 3.4

S0559 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0560 4 2.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.8

S0561 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0562 4 2.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.8

 

S0563 23 15.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 23 15.9

S0564 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0565 16 11.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 11.0

S0566 15 10.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 15 10.3

S0567 10 6.9 2 1.4 0 0.0 8 5.5

 

S0568 6 4.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 4.1

S0569 10 6.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 6.9

S0570 13 9.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 9.0

S0571 12 8.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 8.3

S0572 12 8.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 8.3

 

S0573 13 9.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 9.0

S0574 13 9.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 9.0

S0575 14 9.7 3 2.1 0 0.0 11 7.6

S0576 13 9.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 9.0

S0577 12 8.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 8.3

 

S0578 8 5.5 2 1.4 0 0.0 6 4.1

S0579 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0580 5 3.4 3 2.1 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0581 6 4.1 4 2.8 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0582 6 4.1 4 2.8 0 0.0 2 1.4

See notes at end of table. 
Q-54 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0583 7 4.8 5 3.4 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0584 8 5.5 6 4.1 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0585 6 4.1 4 2.8 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0586 6 4.1 4 2.8 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0593 27 18.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 27 18.6

 

S0594 29 20.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 29 20.0

S0595 29 20.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 29 20.0

S0596 33 22.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 33 22.8

S0597 30 20.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 30 20.7

S0604 10 6.9 4 2.8 0 0.0 6 4.1

 

S0605 4 2.8 4 2.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0606 27 18.6 8 5.5 0 0.0 19 13.1

S0607 25 17.2 5 3.4 0 0.0 20 13.8

S0608 29 20.0 5 3.4 0 0.0 24 16.6

S0609 28 19.3 7 4.8 0 0.0 21 14.5

 

S0610 14 9.7 6 4.1 0 0.0 8 5.5

S0611 16 11.0 8 5.5 0 0.0 8 5.5

S0612 13 9.0 3 2.1 0 0.0 10 6.9

S0613 13 9.0 3 2.1 0 0.0 10 6.9

S0614 13 9.0 3 2.1 0 0.0 10 6.9

 

S0615 14 9.7 3 2.1 0 0.0 11 7.6

S0616 14 9.7 4 2.8 0 0.0 10 6.9

S0617 15 10.3 5 3.4 0 0.0 10 6.9

S0618 12 8.3 2 1.4 0 0.0 10 6.9

S0619 12 8.3 7 4.8 0 0.0 5 3.4

 

S0620 13 9.0 3 2.1 0 0.0 10 6.9

S0621 12 8.3 2 1.4 0 0.0 10 6.9

S0622 13 9.0 2 1.4 0 0.0 11 7.6

S0623 15 10.3 3 2.1 0 0.0 12 8.3

S0624 13 9.0 1 0.7 0 0.0 12 8.3

 

S0625 12 8.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 8.3

S0626 13 9.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 9.0

S0627 22 15.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 22 15.2

S0628 23 15.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 23 15.9

S0629 25 17.2 2 1.4 0 0.0 23 15.9

 

S0630 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0631 4 2.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.8

S0632 14 9.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 14 9.7

S0633 24 16.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 24 16.6

S0634 19 13.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 19 13.1

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-55 

Table Q-7. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

S0635 6 4.1 1 0.7 0 0.0 5 3.4

S0636 13 9.0 8 5.5 0 0.0 5 3.4

S0637 8 5.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 5.5

S0638 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0639 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

 

S0640 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0641 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0642 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0643 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0644 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

 

S0645 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0646 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0647 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0648 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0649 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4

 

S0650 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0651 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0652 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7

S0653 3 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.1

S0654 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4

 

S0655 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7

S0656 4 2.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.8

S0661 2 1.4 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0662 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.7

S0663 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

S0664 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0665 7 4.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 4.8

S0666 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0667 2 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4

S0668 25 17.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 25 17.2

 

S0669 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0670 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

S0671 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

NOTE: BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

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

School Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 
Q-56 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-8. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0026 40 0.1 0 0.0 40 0.1 0 0.0

T0027 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0028 7 0.0 7 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0029 501 1.2 45 0.1 453 1.0 3 0.0

T0030 11 0.0 0 0.0 11 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0031 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0032 77 0.2 0 0.0 77 0.2 0 0.0

T0033 27 0.1 0 0.0 27 0.1 0 0.0

T0034 576 1.3 0 0.0 571 1.3 5 0.0

T0035 458 1.1 138 0.3 301 0.7 19 0.0

 

T0036 3,496 8.1 553 1.3 2,904 6.7 39 0.1

T0037 5,001 11.6 2,581 6.0 2,402 5.6 18 0.0

T0038 894 2.1 2 0.0 892 2.1 0 0.0

T0039 229 0.5 103 0.2 105 0.2 21 0.0

T0040 372 0.9 312 0.7 45 0.1 15 0.0

 

T0051 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0052 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0053 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0054 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0055 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0056 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0057 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0058 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0059 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0060 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0061 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0062 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0063 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0064 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0065 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0066 129 0.3 91 0.2 38 0.1 0 0.0

T0067 127 0.3 89 0.2 38 0.1 0 0.0

T0068 300 0.7 0 0.0 300 0.7 0 0.0

T0069 30 0.1 30 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0070 1,518 3.5 699 1.6 819 1.9 0 0.0

 

T0071 1,384 3.2 85 0.2 1,299 3.0 0 0.0

T0072 831 1.9 324 0.7 507 1.2 0 0.0

T0073 876 2.0 308 0.7 568 1.3 0 0.0

T0074 879 2.0 308 0.7 571 1.3 0 0.0

T0075 31 0.1 30 0.1 0 0.0 1 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-57 

Table Q-8. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0076 4,512 10.4 4,360 10.1 152 0.4 0 0.0

T0077 823 1.9 819 1.9 3 0.0 1 0.0

T0078 1,247 2.9 1,247 2.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0079 1,955 4.5 415 1.0 1,540 3.6 0 0.0

T0080 1,818 4.2 1,812 4.2 5 0.0 1 0.0

 

T0081 2,174 5.0 2,174 5.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0082 2,510 5.8 922 2.1 1,588 3.7 0 0.0

T0083 3,333 7.7 3,326 7.7 6 0.0 1 0.0

T0084 3,708 8.6 3,708 8.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0085 3,933 9.1 1,593 3.7 2,340 5.4 0 0.0

 

T0086 3,736 8.6 3,723 8.6 11 0.0 2 0.0

T0087 4,038 9.3 4,038 9.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0088 4,268 9.9 2,356 5.4 1,911 4.4 1 0.0

T0089 2,127 4.9 2,113 4.9 12 0.0 2 0.0

T0090 2,435 5.6 2,434 5.6 0 0.0 1 0.0

 

T0091 2,597 6.0 1,122 2.6 1,474 3.4 1 0.0

T0092 1,491 3.4 1,427 3.3 62 0.1 2 0.0

T0093 1,689 3.9 1,688 3.9 0 0.0 1 0.0

T0094 1,804 4.2 741 1.7 1,062 2.5 1 0.0

T0095 766 1.8 697 1.6 68 0.2 1 0.0

 

T0096 851 2.0 851 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0097 887 2.1 369 0.9 518 1.2 0 0.0

T0098 651 1.5 632 1.5 14 0.0 5 0.0

T0099 694 1.6 694 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0100 713 1.6 383 0.9 325 0.8 5 0.0

 

T0101 596 1.4 586 1.4 6 0.0 4 0.0

T0102 624 1.4 624 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0103 654 1.5 367 0.8 283 0.7 4 0.0

T0104 577 1.3 575 1.3 0 0.0 2 0.0

T0105 607 1.4 607 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0106 628 1.5 381 0.9 247 0.6 0 0.0

T0116 21 0.0 20 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0

T0117 705 1.6 0 0.0 537 1.2 168 0.4

T0118 638 1.5 0 0.0 634 1.5 4 0.0

T0119 601 1.4 0 0.0 596 1.4 5 0.0

 

T0120 1,668 3.9 1,663 3.8 3 0.0 2 0.0

T0121 198 0.5 0 0.0 198 0.5 0 0.0

T0122 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0123 379 0.9 378 0.9 1 0.0 0 0.0

T0124 391 0.9 277 0.6 49 0.1 65 0.2

See notes at end of table. 
Q-58 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-8. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0125 165 0.4 0 0.0 163 0.4 2 0.0

T0126 198 0.5 0 0.0 196 0.5 2 0.0

T0127 1,384 3.2 1,366 3.2 18 0.0 0 0.0

T0128 58 0.1 0 0.0 58 0.1 0 0.0

T0129 199 0.5 191 0.4 6 0.0 2 0.0

 

T0130 220 0.5 0 0.0 220 0.5 0 0.0

T0131 338 0.8 324 0.7 11 0.0 3 0.0

T0132 176 0.4 0 0.0 176 0.4 0 0.0

T0133 157 0.4 3 0.0 154 0.4 0 0.0

T0134 295 0.7 276 0.6 15 0.0 4 0.0

 

T0135 152 0.4 0 0.0 152 0.4 0 0.0

T0136 68 0.2 2 0.0 66 0.2 0 0.0

T0137 156 0.4 151 0.3 2 0.0 3 0.0

T0138 32 0.1 0 0.0 32 0.1 0 0.0

T0139 167 0.4 138 0.3 5 0.0 24 0.1

 

T0140 18 0.0 0 0.0 18 0.0 0 0.0

T0141 86 0.2 61 0.1 1 0.0 24 0.1

T0142 119 0.3 0 0.0 119 0.3 0 0.0

T0143 31 0.1 2 0.0 29 0.1 0 0.0

T0144 134 0.3 110 0.3 2 0.0 22 0.1

 

T0145 5,128 11.9 41 0.1 5,087 11.8 0 0.0

T0146 6,077 14.1 59 0.1 6,018 13.9 0 0.0

T0147 6,161 14.2 60 0.1 6,101 14.1 0 0.0

T0148 5,306 12.3 46 0.1 5,260 12.2 0 0.0

T0149 7,404 17.1 61 0.1 7,343 17.0 0 0.0

 

T0150 5,713 13.2 65 0.2 5,648 13.1 0 0.0

T0151 646 1.5 132 0.3 514 1.2 0 0.0

T0152 657 1.5 139 0.3 518 1.2 0 0.0

T0153 610 1.4 92 0.2 518 1.2 0 0.0

T0154 816 1.9 251 0.6 565 1.3 0 0.0

 

T0155 640 1.5 0 0.0 640 1.5 0 0.0

T0156 423 1.0 0 0.0 423 1.0 0 0.0

T0157 766 1.8 0 0.0 766 1.8 0 0.0

T0158 601 1.4 0 0.0 601 1.4 0 0.0

T0159 767 1.8 0 0.0 767 1.8 0 0.0

 

T0166 371 0.9 0 0.0 371 0.9 0 0.0

T0167 1,765 4.1 0 0.0 1,765 4.1 0 0.0

T0168 1,046 2.4 923 2.1 123 0.3 0 0.0

T0169 1,155 2.7 1,032 2.4 123 0.3 0 0.0

T0170 127 0.3 4 0.0 123 0.3 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-59 

Table Q-8. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0171 553 1.3 0 0.0 553 1.3 0 0.0

T0172 252 0.6 211 0.5 41 0.1 0 0.0

T0173 464 1.1 423 1.0 41 0.1 0 0.0

T0174 42 0.1 1 0.0 41 0.1 0 0.0

T0175 228 0.5 0 0.0 228 0.5 0 0.0

 

T0176 207 0.5 166 0.4 40 0.1 1 0.0

T0177 431 1.0 390 0.9 40 0.1 1 0.0

T0178 44 0.1 3 0.0 41 0.1 0 0.0

T0179 85 0.2 0 0.0 85 0.2 0 0.0

T0180 146 0.3 103 0.2 43 0.1 0 0.0

 

T0181 423 1.0 380 0.9 43 0.1 0 0.0

T0182 44 0.1 1 0.0 43 0.1 0 0.0

T0183 47 0.1 0 0.0 47 0.1 0 0.0

T0184 31 0.1 20 0.0 11 0.0 0 0.0

T0185 114 0.3 103 0.2 11 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0186 11 0.0 0 0.0 11 0.0 0 0.0

T0187 18 0.0 0 0.0 18 0.0 0 0.0

T0188 1,673 3.9 0 0.0 1,673 3.9 0 0.0

T0189 1,759 4.1 0 0.0 1,759 4.1 0 0.0

T0190 779 1.8 608 1.4 171 0.4 0 0.0

 

T0191 1,354 3.1 1,182 2.7 172 0.4 0 0.0

T0192 179 0.4 7 0.0 172 0.4 0 0.0

T0193 23 0.1 0 0.0 23 0.1 0 0.0

T0194 27 0.1 21 0.0 6 0.0 0 0.0

T0195 53 0.1 47 0.1 5 0.0 1 0.0

 

T0196 6 0.0 0 0.0 6 0.0 0 0.0

T0197 8 0.0 0 0.0 8 0.0 0 0.0

T0198 19 0.0 13 0.0 6 0.0 0 0.0

T0199 28 0.1 22 0.1 6 0.0 0 0.0

T0200 6 0.0 0 0.0 6 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0201 6 0.0 0 0.0 6 0.0 0 0.0

T0202 11 0.0 9 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0

T0203 19 0.0 17 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0

T0204 2 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0

T0205 4 0.0 0 0.0 4 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0206 4 0.0 3 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0

T0207 6 0.0 5 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0

T0208 1 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0

T0209 21 0.0 0 0.0 21 0.0 0 0.0

T0210 609 1.4 0 0.0 609 1.4 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-60 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-8. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0211 616 1.4 0 0.0 616 1.4 0 0.0

T0212 637 1.5 0 0.0 637 1.5 0 0.0

T0213 651 1.5 0 0.0 651 1.5 0 0.0

T0214 640 1.5 0 0.0 640 1.5 0 0.0

T0215 637 1.5 0 0.0 637 1.5 0 0.0

 

T0216 648 1.5 0 0.0 648 1.5 0 0.0

T0217 578 1.3 37 0.1 541 1.3 0 0.0

T0218 607 1.4 64 0.1 543 1.3 0 0.0

T0219 573 1.3 30 0.1 543 1.3 0 0.0

T0220 570 1.3 29 0.1 541 1.3 0 0.0

 

T0221 567 1.3 24 0.1 543 1.3 0 0.0

T0222 566 1.3 20 0.0 546 1.3 0 0.0

T0223 567 1.3 11 0.0 556 1.3 0 0.0

T0224 580 1.3 28 0.1 552 1.3 0 0.0

T0225 589 1.4 21 0.0 568 1.3 0 0.0

 

T0226 554 1.3 0 0.0 554 1.3 0 0.0

T0227 490 1.1 0 0.0 490 1.1 0 0.0

T0228 402 0.9 0 0.0 402 0.9 0 0.0

T0235 1,879 4.3 1,184 2.7 695 1.6 0 0.0

T0236 668 1.5 0 0.0 668 1.5 0 0.0

 

T0237 2,664 6.2 1,816 4.2 848 2.0 0 0.0

T0238 544 1.3 0 0.0 544 1.3 0 0.0

T0239 2,413 5.6 1,438 3.3 975 2.3 0 0.0

T0240 730 1.7 0 0.0 730 1.7 0 0.0

T0241 1,415 3.3 469 1.1 946 2.2 0 0.0

 

T0242 2,212 5.1 0 0.0 2,212 5.1 0 0.0

T0243 650 1.5 0 0.0 650 1.5 0 0.0

T0244 1,272 2.9 0 0.0 1,272 2.9 0 0.0

T0245 1,230 2.8 0 0.0 1,230 2.8 0 0.0

T0246 535 1.2 0 0.0 535 1.2 0 0.0

 

T0247 658 1.5 0 0.0 658 1.5 0 0.0

T0248 718 1.7 0 0.0 718 1.7 0 0.0

T0249 591 1.4 0 0.0 591 1.4 0 0.0

T0250 726 1.7 0 0.0 726 1.7 0 0.0

T0251 762 1.8 0 0.0 762 1.8 0 0.0

 

T0252 550 1.3 0 0.0 550 1.3 0 0.0

T0253 396 0.9 0 0.0 396 0.9 0 0.0

T0254 482 1.1 0 0.0 482 1.1 0 0.0

T0255 2,604 6.0 0 0.0 2,604 6.0 0 0.0

T0256 1,249 2.9 314 0.7 935 2.2 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-61 

Table Q-8. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0257 1,385 3.2 407 0.9 978 2.3 0 0.0

T0258 1,591 3.7 633 1.5 958 2.2 0 0.0

T0259 2,163 5.0 1,199 2.8 964 2.2 0 0.0

T0260 1,748 4.0 771 1.8 977 2.3 0 0.0

T0261 1,768 4.1 798 1.8 970 2.2 0 0.0

 

T0262 1,126 2.6 31 0.1 1,095 2.5 0 0.0

T0263 1,282 3.0 216 0.5 1,066 2.5 0 0.0

T0264 1,421 3.3 314 0.7 1,107 2.6 0 0.0

T0265 810 1.9 88 0.2 722 1.7 0 0.0

T0266 805 1.9 51 0.1 754 1.7 0 0.0

 

T0267 808 1.9 52 0.1 756 1.7 0 0.0

T0268 856 2.0 82 0.2 774 1.8 0 0.0

T0269 924 2.1 0 0.0 924 2.1 0 0.0

T0270 1,130 2.6 0 0.0 1,130 2.6 0 0.0

T0271 1,403 3.2 0 0.0 1,402 3.2 1 0.0

 

T0279 1,653 3.8 11 0.0 1,642 3.8 0 0.0

T0280 894 2.1 193 0.4 701 1.6 0 0.0

T0281 1,323 3.1 449 1.0 874 2.0 0 0.0

T0282 978 2.3 163 0.4 815 1.9 0 0.0

T0283 831 1.9 0 0.0 831 1.9 0 0.0

 

T0284 1,347 3.1 335 0.8 1,012 2.3 0 0.0

T0285 388 0.9 0 0.0 388 0.9 0 0.0

T0286 840 1.9 16 0.0 824 1.9 0 0.0

T0287 1,639 3.8 0 0.0 1,639 3.8 0 0.0

T0288 1,545 3.6 0 0.0 1,545 3.6 0 0.0

 

T0289 1,502 3.5 0 0.0 1,502 3.5 0 0.0

T0290 1,183 2.7 0 0.0 1,183 2.7 0 0.0

T0297 2,319 5.4 0 0.0 2,319 5.4 0 0.0

T0298 3,082 7.1 0 0.0 3,076 7.1 6 0.0

T0299 8,007 18.5 0 0.0 8,000 18.5 7 0.0

 

T0300 548 1.3 90 0.2 458 1.1 0 0.0

T0301 664 1.5 175 0.4 489 1.1 0 0.0

T0302 716 1.7 245 0.6 471 1.1 0 0.0

T0303 835 1.9 353 0.8 482 1.1 0 0.0

T0304 675 1.6 177 0.4 498 1.2 0 0.0

 

T0311 864 2.0 0 0.0 864 2.0 0 0.0

T0312 830 1.9 0 0.0 830 1.9 0 0.0

T0313 978 2.3 0 0.0 978 2.3 0 0.0

T0314 923 2.1 0 0.0 923 2.1 0 0.0

T0315 867 2.0 0 0.0 867 2.0 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-62 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-8. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0316 884 2.0 0 0.0 884 2.0 0 0.0

T0317 842 1.9 0 0.0 842 1.9 0 0.0

T0318 721 1.7 0 0.0 721 1.7 0 0.0

T0319 702 1.6 0 0.0 702 1.6 0 0.0

T0320 754 1.7 0 0.0 754 1.7 0 0.0

 

T0321 756 1.7 0 0.0 756 1.7 0 0.0

T0322 698 1.6 0 0.0 698 1.6 0 0.0

T0323 778 1.8 0 0.0 778 1.8 0 0.0

T0330 499 1.2 0 0.0 499 1.2 0 0.0

T0331 539 1.2 0 0.0 539 1.2 0 0.0

 

T0332 511 1.2 0 0.0 511 1.2 0 0.0

T0333 514 1.2 0 0.0 514 1.2 0 0.0

T0334 525 1.2 0 0.0 525 1.2 0 0.0

T0335 488 1.1 0 0.0 488 1.1 0 0.0

T0336 529 1.2 0 0.0 529 1.2 0 0.0

 

T0337 544 1.3 0 0.0 544 1.3 0 0.0

T0338 511 1.2 0 0.0 511 1.2 0 0.0

T0339 585 1.4 0 0.0 585 1.4 0 0.0

T0340 514 1.2 0 0.0 514 1.2 0 0.0

T0341 500 1.2 0 0.0 500 1.2 0 0.0

 

T0342 550 1.3 0 0.0 550 1.3 0 0.0

T0343 621 1.4 0 0.0 621 1.4 0 0.0

T0344 842 1.9 0 0.0 842 1.9 0 0.0

T0345 529 1.2 0 0.0 529 1.2 0 0.0

T0346 657 1.5 0 0.0 657 1.5 0 0.0

 

T0347 614 1.4 0 0.0 614 1.4 0 0.0

T0348 587 1.4 0 0.0 587 1.4 0 0.0

T0349 602 1.4 0 0.0 602 1.4 0 0.0

T0350 602 1.4 0 0.0 602 1.4 0 0.0

T0351 768 1.8 0 0.0 768 1.8 0 0.0

 

T0352 832 1.9 0 0.0 832 1.9 0 0.0

T0353 820 1.9 0 0.0 820 1.9 0 0.0

T0354 1,021 2.4 0 0.0 1,021 2.4 0 0.0

T0355 1,015 2.3 0 0.0 1,015 2.3 0 0.0

T0356 1,065 2.5 0 0.0 1,065 2.5 0 0.0

 

T0357 893 2.1 0 0.0 893 2.1 0 0.0

T0358 887 2.1 0 0.0 887 2.1 0 0.0

T0359 834 1.9 0 0.0 834 1.9 0 0.0

T0360 804 1.9 0 0.0 804 1.9 0 0.0

T0361 908 2.1 0 0.0 908 2.1 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-63 

Table Q-8. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0362 750 1.7 0 0.0 750 1.7 0 0.0

T0363 1,067 2.5 0 0.0 1,067 2.5 0 0.0

T0364 800 1.8 0 0.0 800 1.8 0 0.0

T0365 838 1.9 0 0.0 838 1.9 0 0.0

T0366 878 2.0 0 0.0 878 2.0 0 0.0

 

T0367 958 2.2 0 0.0 958 2.2 0 0.0

T0368 936 2.2 0 0.0 936 2.2 0 0.0

T0369 961 2.2 0 0.0 961 2.2 0 0.0

T0370 1,158 2.7 0 0.0 1,158 2.7 0 0.0

T0371 819 1.9 0 0.0 819 1.9 0 0.0

 

T0372 916 2.1 0 0.0 916 2.1 0 0.0

T0373 847 2.0 0 0.0 847 2.0 0 0.0

T0374 940 2.2 0 0.0 940 2.2 0 0.0

T0375 967 2.2 0 0.0 967 2.2 0 0.0

T0376 851 2.0 0 0.0 851 2.0 0 0.0

 

T0377 961 2.2 0 0.0 961 2.2 0 0.0

T0378 936 2.2 0 0.0 936 2.2 0 0.0

T0379 889 2.1 0 0.0 889 2.1 0 0.0

T0380 796 1.8 0 0.0 796 1.8 0 0.0

T0381 794 1.8 0 0.0 794 1.8 0 0.0

 

T0382 690 1.6 0 0.0 690 1.6 0 0.0

T0383 643 1.5 0 0.0 643 1.5 0 0.0

T0384 492 1.1 0 0.0 492 1.1 0 0.0

T0385 402 0.9 0 0.0 402 0.9 0 0.0

T0386 265 0.6 0 0.0 265 0.6 0 0.0

 

T0387 562 1.3 0 0.0 562 1.3 0 0.0

T0388 125 0.3 0 0.0 125 0.3 0 0.0

T0389 84 0.2 0 0.0 84 0.2 0 0.0

T0393 1,027 2.4 63 0.1 964 2.2 0 0.0

T0394 431 1.0 0 0.0 431 1.0 0 0.0

 

T0395 2,535 5.9 109 0.3 2,426 5.6 0 0.0

T0396 385 0.9 0 0.0 385 0.9 0 0.0

T0397 2,888 6.7 98 0.2 2,790 6.5 0 0.0

T0398 979 2.3 0 0.0 979 2.3 0 0.0

T0399 3,211 7.4 0 0.0 3,211 7.4 0 0.0

 

T0400 974 2.3 54 0.1 920 2.1 0 0.0

T0401 999 2.3 0 0.0 999 2.3 0 0.0

T0402 1,384 3.2 81 0.2 1,303 3.0 0 0.0

T0403 413 1.0 0 0.0 413 1.0 0 0.0

T0404 1,088 2.5 28 0.1 1,060 2.5 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-64 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-8. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0405 1,000 2.3 0 0.0 1,000 2.3 0 0.0

T0406 343 0.8 0 0.0 343 0.8 0 0.0

T0407 759 1.8 0 0.0 759 1.8 0 0.0

T0408 570 1.3 0 0.0 91 0.2 479 1.1

T0409 832 1.9 0 0.0 808 1.9 24 0.1

 

T0410 1,292 3.0 0 0.0 1,286 3.0 6 0.0

T0411 623 1.4 0 0.0 621 1.4 2 0.0

T0412 610 1.4 0 0.0 610 1.4 0 0.0

T0413 573 1.3 0 0.0 573 1.3 0 0.0

T0414 599 1.4 0 0.0 599 1.4 0 0.0

 

T0415 619 1.4 0 0.0 603 1.4 16 0.0

T0416 879 2.0 0 0.0 860 2.0 19 0.0

T0417 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0418 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0419 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0420 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

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

School Teacher Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-65 

Table Q-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0025 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0026 14 0.2 0 0.0 14 0.2 0 0.0

T0027 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0028 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0029 111 1.4 29 0.4 81 1.0 1 0.0

T0030 9 0.1 0 0.0 9 0.1 0 0.0

T0031 1 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0032 47 0.6 0 0.0 47 0.6 0 0.0

T0033 12 0.2 0 0.0 12 0.2 0 0.0

T0034 148 1.9 0 0.0 140 1.8 8 0.1

T0035 171 2.1 57 0.7 96 1.2 18 0.2

T0036 659 8.3 106 1.3 506 6.3 47 0.6

T0037 848 10.6 357 4.5 453 5.7 38 0.5

T0038 157 2.0 2 0.0 155 1.9 0 0.0

T0039 107 1.3 37 0.5 48 0.6 22 0.3

T0040 192 2.4 143 1.8 34 0.4 15 0.2

T0041 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0042 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0043 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0044 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0045 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0046 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0047 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0048 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0049 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0050 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0051 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0052 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0053 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0054 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0055 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0056 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0057 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0058 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0059 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0060 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0061 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0062 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0063 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0064 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-66 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0065 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0066 32 0.4 26 0.3 6 0.1 0 0.0

T0067 32 0.4 26 0.3 6 0.1 0 0.0

T0068 35 0.4 0 0.0 35 0.4 0 0.0

T0069 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0070 328 4.1 150 1.9 178 2.2 0 0.0

T0071 308 3.9 12 0.2 296 3.7 0 0.0

T0072 177 2.2 66 0.8 111 1.4 0 0.0

T0073 190 2.4 60 0.8 130 1.6 0 0.0

T0074 185 2.3 54 0.7 131 1.6 0 0.0

T0075 3 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0

T0076 1,075 13.5 1,051 13.2 24 0.3 0 0.0

T0077 79 1.0 69 0.9 10 0.1 0 0.0

T0078 154 1.9 154 1.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0079 229 2.9 31 0.4 198 2.5 0 0.0

T0080 171 2.1 154 1.9 17 0.2 0 0.0

T0081 228 2.9 228 2.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0082 278 3.5 80 1.0 198 2.5 0 0.0

T0083 305 3.8 286 3.6 19 0.2 0 0.0

T0084 342 4.3 342 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0085 399 5.0 132 1.7 267 3.3 0 0.0

T0086 362 4.5 336 4.2 25 0.3 1 0.0

T0087 402 5.0 401 5.0 0 0.0 1 0.0

T0088 456 5.7 210 2.6 245 3.1 1 0.0

T0089 275 3.4 246 3.1 27 0.3 2 0.0

T0090 301 3.8 299 3.7 0 0.0 2 0.0

T0091 354 4.4 128 1.6 224 2.8 2 0.0

T0092 215 2.7 188 2.4 26 0.3 1 0.0

T0093 232 2.9 231 2.9 0 0.0 1 0.0

T0094 270 3.4 95 1.2 174 2.2 1 0.0

T0095 128 1.6 117 1.5 11 0.1 0 0.0

T0096 136 1.7 136 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0097 167 2.1 64 0.8 102 1.3 1 0.0

T0098 122 1.5 108 1.4 13 0.2 1 0.0

T0099 131 1.6 130 1.6 0 0.0 1 0.0

T0100 161 2.0 74 0.9 86 1.1 1 0.0

T0101 119 1.5 109 1.4 10 0.1 0 0.0

T0102 131 1.6 131 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0103 158 2.0 71 0.9 87 1.1 0 0.0

T0104 141 1.8 130 1.6 11 0.1 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-67 

Table Q-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0105 166 2.1 166 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0106 180 2.3 99 1.2 81 1.0 0 0.0

T0107 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0108 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0109 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0110 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0111 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0112 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0113 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0114 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0115 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0116 11 0.1 11 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0117 92 1.2 0 0.0 68 0.9 24 0.3

T0118 102 1.3 0 0.0 99 1.2 3 0.0

T0119 76 1.0 0 0.0 73 0.9 3 0.0

T0120 260 3.3 257 3.2 3 0.0 0 0.0

T0121 32 0.4 0 0.0 32 0.4 0 0.0

T0122 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0123 71 0.9 70 0.9 1 0.0 0 0.0

T0124 47 0.6 0 0.0 29 0.4 18 0.2

T0125 30 0.4 0 0.0 28 0.4 2 0.0

T0126 17 0.2 0 0.0 15 0.2 2 0.0

T0127 232 2.9 231 2.9 1 0.0 0 0.0

T0128 11 0.1 0 0.0 11 0.1 0 0.0

T0129 26 0.3 21 0.3 2 0.0 3 0.0

T0130 33 0.4 0 0.0 33 0.4 0 0.0

T0131 55 0.7 49 0.6 2 0.0 4 0.1

T0132 33 0.4 0 0.0 33 0.4 0 0.0

T0133 35 0.4 0 0.0 35 0.4 0 0.0

T0134 53 0.7 41 0.5 6 0.1 6 0.1

T0135 24 0.3 0 0.0 24 0.3 0 0.0

T0136 15 0.2 0 0.0 15 0.2 0 0.0

T0137 17 0.2 10 0.1 4 0.1 3 0.0

T0138 5 0.1 0 0.0 5 0.1 0 0.0

T0139 16 0.2 10 0.1 1 0.0 5 0.1

T0140 5 0.1 0 0.0 5 0.1 0 0.0

T0141 11 0.1 3 0.0 1 0.0 7 0.1

T0142 20 0.3 0 0.0 20 0.3 0 0.0

T0143 7 0.1 0 0.0 7 0.1 0 0.0

T0144 23 0.3 15 0.2 1 0.0 7 0.1

See notes at end of table. 
Q-68 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0145 919 11.5 4 0.1 915 11.5 0 0.0

T0146 1,045 13.1 5 0.1 1,040 13.0 0 0.0

T0147 1,042 13.1 4 0.1 1,038 13.0 0 0.0

T0148 969 12.1 7 0.1 962 12.1 0 0.0

T0149 1,125 14.1 7 0.1 1,118 14.0 0 0.0

T0150 1,022 12.8 16 0.2 1,006 12.6 0 0.0

T0151 192 2.4 56 0.7 136 1.7 0 0.0

T0152 197 2.5 55 0.7 142 1.8 0 0.0

T0153 167 2.1 25 0.3 142 1.8 0 0.0

T0154 220 2.8 63 0.8 157 2.0 0 0.0

T0155 183 2.3 0 0.0 183 2.3 0 0.0

T0156 122 1.5 0 0.0 122 1.5 0 0.0

T0157 193 2.4 0 0.0 193 2.4 0 0.0

T0158 135 1.7 0 0.0 135 1.7 0 0.0

T0159 178 2.2 0 0.0 178 2.2 0 0.0

T0187 227 2.8 0 0.0 227 2.8 0 0.0

T0188 243 3.0 0 0.0 243 3.0 0 0.0

T0189 244 3.1 0 0.0 243 3.0 1 0.0

T0190 183 2.3 132 1.7 50 0.6 1 0.0

T0191 121 1.5 69 0.9 51 0.6 1 0.0

T0192 51 0.6 0 0.0 51 0.6 0 0.0

T0193 3 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.0 0 0.0

T0194 2 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0

T0195 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0196 1 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0

T0197 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0

T0198 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0199 1 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0200 1 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0

T0201 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0

T0202 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0203 1 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0204 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0205 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0

T0206 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0207 1 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0208 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0209 7 0.1 0 0.0 7 0.1 0 0.0

T0210 278 3.5 0 0.0 277 3.5 1 0.0

T0211 287 3.6 0 0.0 286 3.6 1 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-69 

Table Q-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0212 294 3.7 0 0.0 293 3.7 1 0.0

T0213 341 4.3 0 0.0 340 4.3 1 0.0

T0214 293 3.7 0 0.0 292 3.7 1 0.0

T0215 290 3.6 0 0.0 289 3.6 1 0.0

T0216 296 3.7 0 0.0 295 3.7 1 0.0

T0217 274 3.4 14 0.2 259 3.2 1 0.0

T0218 282 3.5 22 0.3 259 3.2 1 0.0

T0219 277 3.5 15 0.2 261 3.3 1 0.0

T0220 270 3.4 8 0.1 261 3.3 1 0.0

T0221 268 3.4 5 0.1 262 3.3 1 0.0

T0222 272 3.4 3 0.0 268 3.4 1 0.0

T0223 274 3.4 6 0.1 267 3.3 1 0.0

T0224 274 3.4 11 0.1 262 3.3 1 0.0

T0225 272 3.4 4 0.1 267 3.3 1 0.0

T0226 259 3.2 0 0.0 258 3.2 1 0.0

T0227 178 2.2 0 0.0 177 2.2 1 0.0

T0228 160 2.0 0 0.0 159 2.0 1 0.0

T0229 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0230 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0231 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0232 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0233 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0234 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0235 323 4.0 197 2.5 126 1.6 0 0.0

T0236 73 0.9 0 0.0 73 0.9 0 0.0

T0237 382 4.8 239 3.0 143 1.8 0 0.0

T0238 126 1.6 0 0.0 126 1.6 0 0.0

T0239 405 5.1 213 2.7 192 2.4 0 0.0

T0240 112 1.4 0 0.0 112 1.4 0 0.0

T0241 202 2.5 53 0.7 149 1.9 0 0.0

T0242 309 3.9 0 0.0 309 3.9 0 0.0

T0243 124 1.6 0 0.0 124 1.6 0 0.0

T0244 147 1.8 0 0.0 147 1.8 0 0.0

T0245 151 1.9 0 0.0 151 1.9 0 0.0

T0246 97 1.2 0 0.0 97 1.2 0 0.0

T0247 70 0.9 0 0.0 70 0.9 0 0.0

T0248 80 1.0 0 0.0 80 1.0 0 0.0

T0249 107 1.3 0 0.0 107 1.3 0 0.0

T0250 59 0.7 0 0.0 59 0.7 0 0.0

T0251 65 0.8 0 0.0 65 0.8 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-70 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0252 94 1.2 0 0.0 94 1.2 0 0.0

T0253 62 0.8 0 0.0 62 0.8 0 0.0

T0254 83 1.0 0 0.0 83 1.0 0 0.0

T0255 430 5.4 0 0.0 430 5.4 0 0.0

T0256 536 6.7 72 0.9 464 5.8 0 0.0

T0257 568 7.1 92 1.2 476 6.0 0 0.0

T0258 628 7.9 154 1.9 474 5.9 0 0.0

T0259 713 8.9 242 3.0 471 5.9 0 0.0

T0260 606 7.6 132 1.7 474 5.9 0 0.0

T0261 605 7.6 135 1.7 470 5.9 0 0.0

T0262 520 6.5 12 0.2 508 6.4 0 0.0

T0263 535 6.7 42 0.5 493 6.2 0 0.0

T0264 575 7.2 48 0.6 527 6.6 0 0.0

T0265 188 2.4 27 0.3 161 2.0 0 0.0

T0266 190 2.4 20 0.3 170 2.1 0 0.0

T0267 177 2.2 8 0.1 169 2.1 0 0.0

T0268 200 2.5 20 0.3 180 2.3 0 0.0

T0269 225 2.8 0 0.0 225 2.8 0 0.0

T0270 259 3.2 0 0.0 259 3.2 0 0.0

T0271 331 4.1 0 0.0 330 4.1 1 0.0

T0272 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0273 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0274 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0275 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0276 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0277 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0278 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0279 283 3.5 105 1.3 178 2.2 0 0.0

T0280 63 0.8 19 0.2 44 0.6 0 0.0

T0281 94 1.2 36 0.5 58 0.7 0 0.0

T0282 75 0.9 10 0.1 65 0.8 0 0.0

T0283 213 2.7 0 0.0 213 2.7 0 0.0

T0284 197 2.5 132 1.7 65 0.8 0 0.0

T0285 17 0.2 0 0.0 17 0.2 0 0.0

T0286 147 1.8 1 0.0 146 1.8 0 0.0

T0287 295 3.7 0 0.0 295 3.7 0 0.0

T0288 262 3.3 0 0.0 262 3.3 0 0.0

T0289 263 3.3 0 0.0 263 3.3 0 0.0

T0290 227 2.8 0 0.0 227 2.8 0 0.0

T0291 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-71 

Table Q-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0292 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0293 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0294 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0295 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0296 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0297 320 4.0 0 0.0 320 4.0 0 0.0

T0298 977 12.2 0 0.0 962 12.1 15 0.2

T0299 1,689 21.2 0 0.0 1,685 21.1 4 0.1

T0300 77 1.0 21 0.3 56 0.7 0 0.0

T0301 96 1.2 30 0.4 66 0.8 0 0.0

T0302 108 1.4 41 0.5 67 0.8 0 0.0

T0303 134 1.7 66 0.8 68 0.9 0 0.0

T0304 105 1.3 33 0.4 72 0.9 0 0.0

T0305 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0306 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0307 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0308 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0309 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0310 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0311 177 2.2 0 0.0 177 2.2 0 0.0

T0312 164 2.1 0 0.0 164 2.1 0 0.0

T0313 220 2.8 0 0.0 220 2.8 0 0.0

T0314 209 2.6 0 0.0 209 2.6 0 0.0

T0315 187 2.3 0 0.0 187 2.3 0 0.0

T0316 176 2.2 0 0.0 176 2.2 0 0.0

T0317 176 2.2 0 0.0 176 2.2 0 0.0

T0318 116 1.5 0 0.0 116 1.5 0 0.0

T0319 108 1.4 0 0.0 108 1.4 0 0.0

T0320 110 1.4 0 0.0 110 1.4 0 0.0

T0321 114 1.4 0 0.0 114 1.4 0 0.0

T0322 106 1.3 0 0.0 106 1.3 0 0.0

T0323 164 2.1 0 0.0 164 2.1 0 0.0

T0324 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0325 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0326 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0327 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0328 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0329 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0330 119 1.5 0 0.0 119 1.5 0 0.0

T0331 112 1.4 0 0.0 112 1.4 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-72 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0332 133 1.7 0 0.0 133 1.7 0 0.0

T0333 104 1.3 0 0.0 104 1.3 0 0.0

T0334 94 1.2 0 0.0 94 1.2 0 0.0

T0335 83 1.0 0 0.0 83 1.0 0 0.0

T0336 91 1.1 0 0.0 91 1.1 0 0.0

T0337 119 1.5 0 0.0 119 1.5 0 0.0

T0338 92 1.2 0 0.0 92 1.2 0 0.0

T0339 102 1.3 0 0.0 102 1.3 0 0.0

T0340 127 1.6 0 0.0 127 1.6 0 0.0

T0341 93 1.2 0 0.0 93 1.2 0 0.0

T0342 111 1.4 0 0.0 111 1.4 0 0.0

T0343 141 1.8 0 0.0 141 1.8 0 0.0

T0344 318 4.0 0 0.0 318 4.0 0 0.0

T0345 81 1.0 0 0.0 81 1.0 0 0.0

T0346 316 4.0 0 0.0 316 4.0 0 0.0

T0347 170 2.1 0 0.0 170 2.1 0 0.0

T0348 133 1.7 0 0.0 133 1.7 0 0.0

T0349 130 1.6 0 0.0 130 1.6 0 0.0

T0350 117 1.5 0 0.0 117 1.5 0 0.0

T0351 145 1.8 0 0.0 145 1.8 0 0.0

T0352 141 1.8 0 0.0 141 1.8 0 0.0

T0353 139 1.7 0 0.0 139 1.7 0 0.0

T0354 146 1.8 0 0.0 146 1.8 0 0.0

T0355 154 1.9 0 0.0 154 1.9 0 0.0

T0356 134 1.7 0 0.0 134 1.7 0 0.0

T0357 118 1.5 0 0.0 118 1.5 0 0.0

T0358 133 1.7 0 0.0 133 1.7 0 0.0

T0359 127 1.6 0 0.0 127 1.6 0 0.0

T0360 132 1.7 0 0.0 132 1.7 0 0.0

T0361 150 1.9 0 0.0 150 1.9 0 0.0

T0362 134 1.7 0 0.0 134 1.7 0 0.0

T0363 136 1.7 0 0.0 136 1.7 0 0.0

T0364 129 1.6 0 0.0 129 1.6 0 0.0

T0365 145 1.8 0 0.0 145 1.8 0 0.0

T0366 143 1.8 0 0.0 143 1.8 0 0.0

T0367 148 1.9 0 0.0 148 1.9 0 0.0

T0368 134 1.7 0 0.0 134 1.7 0 0.0

T0369 134 1.7 0 0.0 134 1.7 0 0.0

T0370 186 2.3 0 0.0 186 2.3 0 0.0

T0371 128 1.6 0 0.0 128 1.6 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-73 

Table Q-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0372 145 1.8 0 0.0 145 1.8 0 0.0

T0373 140 1.8 0 0.0 140 1.8 0 0.0

T0374 148 1.9 0 0.0 148 1.9 0 0.0

T0375 164 2.1 0 0.0 164 2.1 0 0.0

T0376 125 1.6 0 0.0 125 1.6 0 0.0

T0377 148 1.9 0 0.0 148 1.9 0 0.0

T0378 151 1.9 0 0.0 151 1.9 0 0.0

T0379 141 1.8 0 0.0 141 1.8 0 0.0

T0380 132 1.7 0 0.0 132 1.7 0 0.0

T0381 128 1.6 0 0.0 128 1.6 0 0.0

T0382 182 2.3 0 0.0 182 2.3 0 0.0

T0383 120 1.5 0 0.0 120 1.5 0 0.0

T0384 88 1.1 0 0.0 88 1.1 0 0.0

T0385 17 0.2 0 0.0 17 0.2 0 0.0

T0386 14 0.2 0 0.0 14 0.2 0 0.0

T0387 110 1.4 0 0.0 110 1.4 0 0.0

T0388 7 0.1 0 0.0 7 0.1 0 0.0

T0389 12 0.2 0 0.0 12 0.2 0 0.0

T0390 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0391 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0392 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0393 257 3.2 18 0.2 239 3.0 0 0.0

T0394 110 1.4 0 0.0 110 1.4 0 0.0

T0395 522 6.5 21 0.3 501 6.3 0 0.0

T0396 124 1.6 0 0.0 124 1.6 0 0.0

T0397 615 7.7 19 0.2 596 7.5 0 0.0

T0398 233 2.9 0 0.0 233 2.9 0 0.0

T0399 803 10.1 0 0.0 803 10.1 0 0.0

T0400 239 3.0 16 0.2 223 2.8 0 0.0

T0401 102 1.3 0 0.0 102 1.3 0 0.0

T0402 259 3.2 18 0.2 241 3.0 0 0.0

T0403 30 0.4 0 0.0 30 0.4 0 0.0

T0404 199 2.5 3 0.0 196 2.5 0 0.0

T0405 240 3.0 0 0.0 240 3.0 0 0.0

T0406 64 0.8 0 0.0 64 0.8 0 0.0

T0407 133 1.7 0 0.0 133 1.7 0 0.0

T0408 79 1.0 0 0.0 14 0.2 65 0.8

T0409 129 1.6 0 0.0 122 1.5 7 0.1

T0410 234 2.9 0 0.0 224 2.8 10 0.1

T0411 94 1.2 0 0.0 88 1.1 6 0.1

See notes at end of table. 
Q-74 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0412 86 1.1 0 0.0 86 1.1 0 0.0

T0413 83 1.0 0 0.0 83 1.0 0 0.0

T0414 85 1.1 0 0.0 85 1.1 0 0.0

T0415 88 1.1 0 0.0 85 1.1 3 0.0

T0416 257 3.2 0 0.0 231 2.9 26 0.3

T0417 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0418 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0419 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0420 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0421 174 2.2 0 0.0 174 2.2 0 0.0

T0422 93 1.2 0 0.0 93 1.2 0 0.0

T0423 131 1.6 116 1.5 15 0.2 0 0.0

T0424 70 0.9 54 0.7 16 0.2 0 0.0

T0425 15 0.2 0 0.0 15 0.2 0 0.0

T0426 33 0.4 0 0.0 33 0.4 0 0.0

T0427 13 0.2 11 0.1 2 0.0 0 0.0

T0428 19 0.2 17 0.2 2 0.0 0 0.0

T0429 2 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0

T0430 2 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0

T0431 5 0.1 4 0.1 1 0.0 0 0.0

T0432 7 0.1 6 0.1 1 0.0 0 0.0

T0433 1 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0

T0434 2 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0

T0435 4 0.1 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0

T0436 4 0.1 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0

T0437 2 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0

T0438 1 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0

T0439 1 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0440 1 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0441 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0442 12 0.2 0 0.0 12 0.2 0 0.0

T0443 175 2.2 0 0.0 175 2.2 0 0.0

T0444 373 4.7 0 0.0 373 4.7 0 0.0

T0445 298 3.7 227 2.8 71 0.9 0 0.0

T0446 176 2.2 103 1.3 72 0.9 1 0.0

T0447 69 0.9 0 0.0 69 0.9 0 0.0

T0448 37 0.5 0 0.0 37 0.5 0 0.0

T0449 29 0.4 21 0.3 8 0.1 0 0.0

T0450 43 0.5 35 0.4 8 0.1 0 0.0

T0451 8 0.1 0 0.0 8 0.1 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-75 

Table Q-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0452 8 0.1 0 0.0 8 0.1 0 0.0

T0453 11 0.1 7 0.1 4 0.1 0 0.0

T0454 23 0.3 19 0.2 4 0.1 0 0.0

T0455 4 0.1 0 0.0 4 0.1 0 0.0

T0456 3 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.0 0 0.0

T0457 10 0.1 4 0.1 5 0.1 1 0.0

T0458 18 0.2 12 0.2 4 0.1 2 0.0

T0459 5 0.1 0 0.0 5 0.1 0 0.0

T0460 3 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.0 0 0.0

T0461 1 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0

T0462 3 0.0 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0463 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0464 193 2.4 0 0.0 193 2.4 0 0.0

T0465 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0466 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0467 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0468 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0469 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0470 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0471 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0472 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0473 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0474 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0475 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0476 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0477 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0478 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0479 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0480 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0481 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0482 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0483 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0484 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0485 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0486 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0487 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0488 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0489 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0490 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0491 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-76 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-9. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the private school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0492 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0493 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0494 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0495 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0496 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0497 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0498 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0499 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0500 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

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

“Private School Teacher Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-77 

Table Q-10. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0026 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0027 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0028 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0029 12 1.9 0 0.0 12 1.9 0 0.0

T0030 1 0.2 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0

 

T0031 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0032 2 0.3 0 0.0 2 0.3 0 0.0

T0033 1 0.2 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0

T0034 8 1.3 0 0.0 8 1.3 0 0.0

T0035 7 1.1 1 0.2 5 0.8 1 0.2

 

T0036 62 9.9 10 1.6 51 8.2 1 0.2

T0037 69 11.1 34 5.4 34 5.4 1 0.2

T0038 25 4.0 0 0.0 25 4.0 0 0.0

T0039 5 0.8 1 0.2 3 0.5 1 0.2

T0040 3 0.5 3 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0051 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0052 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0053 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0054 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0055 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0056 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0057 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0058 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0059 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0060 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0061 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0062 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0063 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0064 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0065 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0066 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0067 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0068 6 1.0 0 0.0 6 1.0 0 0.0

T0069 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0070 55 8.8 32 5.1 23 3.7 0 0.0

 

T0071 34 5.4 5 0.8 29 4.6 0 0.0

T0072 28 4.5 16 2.6 12 1.9 0 0.0

T0073 28 4.5 17 2.7 11 1.8 0 0.0

T0074 27 4.3 16 2.6 11 1.8 0 0.0

T0075 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-78 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-10. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0076 48 7.7 45 7.2 3 0.5 0 0.0

T0077 23 3.7 23 3.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0078 25 4.0 25 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0079 32 5.1 3 0.5 29 4.6 0 0.0

T0080 32 5.1 32 5.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0081 34 5.4 34 5.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0082 41 6.6 12 1.9 29 4.6 0 0.0

T0083 44 7.1 44 7.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0084 46 7.4 46 7.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0085 52 8.3 19 3.0 33 5.3 0 0.0

 

T0086 46 7.4 46 7.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0087 48 7.7 48 7.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0088 51 8.2 21 3.4 30 4.8 0 0.0

T0089 25 4.0 25 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0090 29 4.6 29 4.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0091 29 4.6 11 1.8 18 2.9 0 0.0

T0092 22 3.5 22 3.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0093 24 3.8 24 3.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0094 26 4.2 5 0.8 21 3.4 0 0.0

T0095 9 1.4 9 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0096 8 1.3 8 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0097 9 1.4 2 0.3 7 1.1 0 0.0

T0098 8 1.3 8 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0099 6 1.0 6 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0100 8 1.3 1 0.2 7 1.1 0 0.0

 

T0101 6 1.0 6 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0102 4 0.6 4 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0103 6 1.0 3 0.5 3 0.5 0 0.0

T0104 6 1.0 6 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0105 4 0.6 4 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0106 6 1.0 1 0.2 5 0.8 0 0.0

T0116 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0117 17 2.7 0 0.0 15 2.4 2 0.3

T0118 13 2.1 0 0.0 13 2.1 0 0.0

T0119 11 1.8 0 0.0 11 1.8 0 0.0

 

T0120 37 5.9 37 5.9 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0121 5 0.8 0 0.0 5 0.8 0 0.0

T0122 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0123 9 1.4 9 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0124 8 1.3 2 0.3 0 0.0 6 1.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-79 

Table Q-10. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0125 2 0.3 0 0.0 2 0.3 0 0.0

T0126 2 0.3 0 0.0 2 0.3 0 0.0

T0127 26 4.2 26 4.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0128 2 0.3 0 0.0 2 0.3 0 0.0

T0129 4 0.6 4 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0130 3 0.5 0 0.0 3 0.5 0 0.0

T0131 8 1.3 7 1.1 1 0.2 0 0.0

T0132 7 1.1 0 0.0 7 1.1 0 0.0

T0133 2 0.3 0 0.0 2 0.3 0 0.0

T0134 10 1.6 9 1.4 1 0.2 0 0.0

 

T0135 7 1.1 0 0.0 7 1.1 0 0.0

T0136 1 0.2 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0

T0137 1 0.2 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0138 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0139 5 0.8 4 0.6 0 0.0 1 0.2

 

T0140 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0141 2 0.3 2 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0142 6 1.0 0 0.0 6 1.0 0 0.0

T0143 2 0.3 0 0.0 2 0.3 0 0.0

T0144 6 1.0 5 0.8 0 0.0 1 0.2

 

T0145 101 16.2 2 0.3 99 15.9 0 0.0

T0146 111 17.8 2 0.3 109 17.5 0 0.0

T0147 113 18.1 2 0.3 111 17.8 0 0.0

T0148 118 18.9 1 0.2 117 18.8 0 0.0

T0149 134 21.5 0 0.0 134 21.5 0 0.0

 

T0150 107 17.1 0 0.0 107 17.1 0 0.0

T0151 47 7.5 1 0.2 46 7.4 0 0.0

T0152 49 7.9 3 0.5 46 7.4 0 0.0

T0153 48 7.7 2 0.3 46 7.4 0 0.0

T0154 51 8.2 5 0.8 46 7.4 0 0.0

 

T0155 48 7.7 0 0.0 48 7.7 0 0.0

T0156 48 7.7 0 0.0 48 7.7 0 0.0

T0157 43 6.9 0 0.0 43 6.9 0 0.0

T0158 43 6.9 0 0.0 43 6.9 0 0.0

T0159 46 7.4 0 0.0 46 7.4 0 0.0

 

T0166 7 1.1 0 0.0 7 1.1 0 0.0

T0167 38 6.1 0 0.0 38 6.1 0 0.0

T0168 28 4.5 21 3.4 7 1.1 0 0.0

T0169 17 2.7 10 1.6 7 1.1 0 0.0

T0170 8 1.3 1 0.2 7 1.1 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-80 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-10. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0171 14 2.2 0 0.0 14 2.2 0 0.0

T0172 1 0.2 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0

T0173 10 1.6 9 1.4 1 0.2 0 0.0

T0174 1 0.2 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0

T0175 4 0.6 0 0.0 4 0.6 0 0.0

 

T0176 1 0.2 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0177 4 0.6 4 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0178 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0179 3 0.5 0 0.0 3 0.5 0 0.0

T0180 1 0.2 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0181 2 0.3 2 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0182 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0183 2 0.3 0 0.0 2 0.3 0 0.0

T0184 1 0.2 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0185 2 0.3 2 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0186 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0187 5 0.8 0 0.0 5 0.8 0 0.0

T0188 55 8.8 0 0.0 55 8.8 0 0.0

T0189 54 8.7 0 0.0 54 8.7 0 0.0

T0190 34 5.4 24 3.8 10 1.6 0 0.0

 

T0191 30 4.8 20 3.2 10 1.6 0 0.0

T0192 11 1.8 1 0.2 10 1.6 0 0.0

T0193 1 0.2 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0

T0194 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0195 1 0.2 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0196 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0197 1 0.2 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0

T0198 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0199 1 0.2 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0200 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

T0201 1 0.2 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0

T0202 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0203 1 0.2 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0204 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0205 1 0.2 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0

 

T0206 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0207 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0208 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0209 1 0.2 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0

T0210 22 3.5 0 0.0 22 3.5 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-81 

Table Q-10. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0211 22 3.5 0 0.0 22 3.5 0 0.0

T0212 22 3.5 0 0.0 22 3.5 0 0.0

T0213 22 3.5 0 0.0 22 3.5 0 0.0

T0214 24 3.8 0 0.0 24 3.8 0 0.0

T0215 23 3.7 0 0.0 23 3.7 0 0.0

 

T0216 24 3.8 0 0.0 24 3.8 0 0.0

T0217 23 3.7 1 0.2 22 3.5 0 0.0

T0218 24 3.8 2 0.3 22 3.5 0 0.0

T0219 24 3.8 2 0.3 22 3.5 0 0.0

T0220 22 3.5 0 0.0 22 3.5 0 0.0

 

T0221 22 3.5 0 0.0 22 3.5 0 0.0

T0222 22 3.5 0 0.0 22 3.5 0 0.0

T0223 22 3.5 0 0.0 22 3.5 0 0.0

T0224 22 3.5 0 0.0 22 3.5 0 0.0

T0225 22 3.5 0 0.0 22 3.5 0 0.0

 

T0226 22 3.5 0 0.0 22 3.5 0 0.0

T0227 4 0.6 0 0.0 4 0.6 0 0.0

T0228 3 0.5 0 0.0 3 0.5 0 0.0

T0235 75 12.0 14 2.2 61 9.8 0 0.0

T0236 44 7.1 0 0.0 44 7.1 0 0.0

 

T0237 87 13.9 24 3.8 63 10.1 0 0.0

T0238 22 3.5 0 0.0 22 3.5 0 0.0

T0239 84 13.5 19 3.0 65 10.4 0 0.0

T0240 28 4.5 0 0.0 28 4.5 0 0.0

T0241 76 12.2 9 1.4 67 10.7 0 0.0

 

T0242 70 11.2 0 0.0 70 11.2 0 0.0

T0243 68 10.9 0 0.0 68 10.9 0 0.0

T0244 56 9.0 0 0.0 56 9.0 0 0.0

T0245 54 8.7 0 0.0 54 8.7 0 0.0

T0246 62 9.9 0 0.0 62 9.9 0 0.0

 

T0247 40 6.4 0 0.0 40 6.4 0 0.0

T0248 42 6.7 0 0.0 42 6.7 0 0.0

T0249 62 9.9 0 0.0 62 9.9 0 0.0

T0250 68 10.9 0 0.0 68 10.9 0 0.0

T0251 66 10.6 0 0.0 66 10.6 0 0.0

 

T0252 62 9.9 0 0.0 62 9.9 0 0.0

T0253 34 5.4 0 0.0 34 5.4 0 0.0

T0254 37 5.9 0 0.0 37 5.9 0 0.0

T0255 85 13.6 0 0.0 85 13.6 0 0.0

T0256 75 12.0 2 0.3 73 11.7 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-82 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-10. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0257 74 11.9 1 0.2 73 11.7 0 0.0

T0258 76 12.2 3 0.5 73 11.7 0 0.0

T0259 84 13.5 11 1.8 73 11.7 0 0.0

T0260 81 13.0 8 1.3 73 11.7 0 0.0

T0261 82 13.1 9 1.4 73 11.7 0 0.0

 

T0262 76 12.2 1 0.2 75 12.0 0 0.0

T0263 78 12.5 4 0.6 74 11.9 0 0.0

T0264 87 13.9 8 1.3 79 12.7 0 0.0

T0265 70 11.2 0 0.0 70 11.2 0 0.0

T0266 70 11.2 1 0.2 69 11.1 0 0.0

 

T0267 71 11.4 1 0.2 70 11.2 0 0.0

T0268 71 11.4 0 0.0 71 11.4 0 0.0

T0269 78 12.5 0 0.0 78 12.5 0 0.0

T0270 80 12.8 0 0.0 80 12.8 0 0.0

T0271 85 13.6 0 0.0 85 13.6 0 0.0

 

T0279 75 12.0 0 0.0 75 12.0 0 0.0

T0280 61 9.8 1 0.2 60 9.6 0 0.0

T0281 65 10.4 5 0.8 60 9.6 0 0.0

T0282 62 9.9 1 0.2 61 9.8 0 0.0

T0283 71 11.4 0 0.0 71 11.4 0 0.0

 

T0284 90 14.4 18 2.9 72 11.5 0 0.0

T0285 46 7.4 0 0.0 46 7.4 0 0.0

T0286 71 11.4 0 0.0 71 11.4 0 0.0

T0287 78 12.5 0 0.0 78 12.5 0 0.0

T0288 79 12.7 0 0.0 79 12.7 0 0.0

 

T0289 79 12.7 0 0.0 79 12.7 0 0.0

T0290 78 12.5 0 0.0 78 12.5 0 0.0

T0297 35 5.6 0 0.0 35 5.6 0 0.0

T0298 34 5.4 0 0.0 29 4.6 5 0.8

T0299 97 15.5 0 0.0 97 15.5 0 0.0

 

T0300 21 3.4 1 0.2 20 3.2 0 0.0

T0301 24 3.8 2 0.3 22 3.5 0 0.0

T0302 20 3.2 0 0.0 20 3.2 0 0.0

T0303 22 3.5 1 0.2 21 3.4 0 0.0

T0304 21 3.4 1 0.2 20 3.2 0 0.0

 

T0311 49 7.9 0 0.0 49 7.9 0 0.0

T0312 51 8.2 0 0.0 51 8.2 0 0.0

T0313 47 7.5 0 0.0 47 7.5 0 0.0

T0314 47 7.5 0 0.0 47 7.5 0 0.0

T0315 50 8.0 0 0.0 50 8.0 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-83 

Table Q-10. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0316 51 8.2 0 0.0 51 8.2 0 0.0

T0317 48 7.7 0 0.0 48 7.7 0 0.0

T0318 44 7.1 0 0.0 44 7.1 0 0.0

T0319 45 7.2 0 0.0 45 7.2 0 0.0

T0320 45 7.2 0 0.0 45 7.2 0 0.0

 

T0321 45 7.2 0 0.0 45 7.2 0 0.0

T0322 46 7.4 0 0.0 46 7.4 0 0.0

T0323 45 7.2 0 0.0 45 7.2 0 0.0

T0330 11 1.8 0 0.0 11 1.8 0 0.0

T0331 14 2.2 0 0.0 14 2.2 0 0.0

 

T0332 9 1.4 0 0.0 9 1.4 0 0.0

T0333 10 1.6 0 0.0 10 1.6 0 0.0

T0334 9 1.4 0 0.0 9 1.4 0 0.0

T0335 11 1.8 0 0.0 11 1.8 0 0.0

T0336 12 1.9 0 0.0 12 1.9 0 0.0

 

T0337 10 1.6 0 0.0 10 1.6 0 0.0

T0338 10 1.6 0 0.0 10 1.6 0 0.0

T0339 11 1.8 0 0.0 11 1.8 0 0.0

T0340 11 1.8 0 0.0 11 1.8 0 0.0

T0341 10 1.6 0 0.0 10 1.6 0 0.0

 

T0342 13 2.1 0 0.0 13 2.1 0 0.0

T0343 14 2.2 0 0.0 14 2.2 0 0.0

T0344 12 1.9 0 0.0 12 1.9 0 0.0

T0345 10 1.6 0 0.0 10 1.6 0 0.0

T0346 12 1.9 0 0.0 12 1.9 0 0.0

 

T0347 12 1.9 0 0.0 12 1.9 0 0.0

T0348 14 2.2 0 0.0 14 2.2 0 0.0

T0349 11 1.8 0 0.0 11 1.8 0 0.0

T0350 13 2.1 0 0.0 13 2.1 0 0.0

T0351 8 1.3 0 0.0 8 1.3 0 0.0

 

T0352 9 1.4 0 0.0 9 1.4 0 0.0

T0353 9 1.4 0 0.0 9 1.4 0 0.0

T0354 12 1.9 0 0.0 12 1.9 0 0.0

T0355 11 1.8 0 0.0 11 1.8 0 0.0

T0356 11 1.8 0 0.0 11 1.8 0 0.0

 

T0357 12 1.9 0 0.0 12 1.9 0 0.0

T0358 13 2.1 0 0.0 13 2.1 0 0.0

T0359 9 1.4 0 0.0 9 1.4 0 0.0

T0360 12 1.9 0 0.0 12 1.9 0 0.0

T0361 10 1.6 0 0.0 10 1.6 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-84 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-10. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0362 9 1.4 0 0.0 9 1.4 0 0.0

T0363 11 1.8 0 0.0 11 1.8 0 0.0

T0364 46 7.4 0 0.0 46 7.4 0 0.0

T0365 44 7.1 0 0.0 44 7.1 0 0.0

T0366 44 7.1 0 0.0 44 7.1 0 0.0

 

T0367 44 7.1 0 0.0 44 7.1 0 0.0

T0368 46 7.4 0 0.0 46 7.4 0 0.0

T0369 46 7.4 0 0.0 46 7.4 0 0.0

T0370 49 7.9 0 0.0 49 7.9 0 0.0

T0371 45 7.2 0 0.0 45 7.2 0 0.0

 

T0372 45 7.2 0 0.0 45 7.2 0 0.0

T0373 45 7.2 0 0.0 45 7.2 0 0.0

T0374 45 7.2 0 0.0 45 7.2 0 0.0

T0375 50 8.0 0 0.0 50 8.0 0 0.0

T0376 51 8.2 0 0.0 51 8.2 0 0.0

 

T0377 53 8.5 0 0.0 53 8.5 0 0.0

T0378 52 8.3 0 0.0 52 8.3 0 0.0

T0379 52 8.3 0 0.0 52 8.3 0 0.0

T0380 54 8.7 0 0.0 54 8.7 0 0.0

T0381 52 8.3 0 0.0 52 8.3 0 0.0

 

T0382 28 4.5 0 0.0 28 4.5 0 0.0

T0383 25 4.0 0 0.0 25 4.0 0 0.0

T0384 10 1.6 0 0.0 10 1.6 0 0.0

T0385 6 1.0 0 0.0 6 1.0 0 0.0

T0386 5 0.8 0 0.0 5 0.8 0 0.0

 

T0387 12 1.9 0 0.0 12 1.9 0 0.0

T0388 3 0.5 0 0.0 3 0.5 0 0.0

T0389 2 0.3 0 0.0 2 0.3 0 0.0

T0393 19 3.0 1 0.2 18 2.9 0 0.0

T0394 18 2.9 0 0.0 18 2.9 0 0.0

 

T0395 51 8.2 3 0.5 48 7.7 0 0.0

T0396 8 1.3 0 0.0 8 1.3 0 0.0

T0397 63 10.1 2 0.3 61 9.8 0 0.0

T0398 9 1.4 0 0.0 9 1.4 0 0.0

T0399 53 8.5 0 0.0 53 8.5 0 0.0

 

T0400 20 3.2 2 0.3 18 2.9 0 0.0

T0401 16 2.6 0 0.0 16 2.6 0 0.0

T0402 30 4.8 2 0.3 28 4.5 0 0.0

T0403 5 0.8 0 0.0 5 0.8 0 0.0

T0404 35 5.6 1 0.2 34 5.4 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-85 

Table Q-10. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school teacher data file, by variable: 2003–04—Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

T0405 10 1.6 0 0.0 10 1.6 0 0.0

T0406 7 1.1 0 0.0 7 1.1 0 0.0

T0407 13 2.1 0 0.0 13 2.1 0 0.0

T0408 6 1.0 0 0.0 1 0.2 5 0.8

T0409 14 2.2 0 0.0 14 2.2 0 0.0

 

T0410 12 1.9 0 0.0 12 1.9 0 0.0

T0411 8 1.3 0 0.0 8 1.3 0 0.0

T0412 7 1.1 0 0.0 7 1.1 0 0.0

T0413 7 1.1 0 0.0 7 1.1 0 0.0

T0414 13 2.1 0 0.0 13 2.1 0 0.0

 

T0415 16 2.6 0 0.0 13 2.1 3 0.5

T0416 12 1.9 0 0.0 11 1.8 1 0.2

T0417 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0418 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0419 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

T0420 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

NOTE: BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

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

School Teacher Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 
Q-86 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-11. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school library media center data file, by variable: 2003–04 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

M0025 83 1.1 0 0.0 83 1.1 0 0.0

M0026 30 0.4 0 0.0 29 0.4 1 0.0

M0027 34 0.5 27 0.4 7 0.1 0 0.0

M0028 33 0.5 26 0.4 7 0.1 0 0.0

M0029 36 0.5 27 0.4 9 0.1 0 0.0

 

M0030 26 0.4 16 0.2 10 0.1 0 0.0

M0031 38 0.5 29 0.4 9 0.1 0 0.0

M0032 28 0.4 20 0.3 8 0.1 0 0.0

M0033 18 0.2 9 0.1 9 0.1 0 0.0

M0040 33 0.5 11 0.2 22 0.3 0 0.0

 

M0041 120 1.7 97 1.3 19 0.3 4 0.1

M0042 449 6.2 424 5.9 20 0.3 5 0.1

M0043 461 6.4 439 6.1 19 0.3 3 0.0

M0044 253 3.5 250 3.5 3 0.0 0 0.0

M0045 96 1.3 82 1.1 7 0.1 7 0.1

 

M0046 190 2.6 179 2.5 7 0.1 4 0.1

M0047 154 2.1 143 2.0 6 0.1 5 0.1

M0048 34 0.5 26 0.4 8 0.1 0 0.0

M0049 161 2.2 148 2.0 11 0.2 2 0.0

M0050 391 5.4 367 5.1 15 0.2 9 0.1

 

M0051 423 5.9 410 5.7 6 0.1 7 0.1

M0052 7 0.1 7 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0

M0053 408 5.6 104 1.4 297 4.1 7 0.1

M0054 355 4.9 36 0.5 311 4.3 8 0.1

M0055 582 8.1 261 3.6 311 4.3 10 0.1

 

M0056 633 8.8 318 4.4 306 4.2 9 0.1

M0057 335 4.6 6 0.1 319 4.4 10 0.1

M0058 90 1.2 0 0.0 90 1.2 0 0.0

M0059 186 2.6 0 0.0 183 2.5 3 0.0

M0060 94 1.3 0 0.0 87 1.2 7 0.1

 

M0061 135 1.9 108 1.5 21 0.3 6 0.1

M0068 74 1.0 2 0.0 72 1.0 0 0.0

M0069 89 1.2 1 0.0 88 1.2 0 0.0

M0070 77 1.1 1 0.0 76 1.1 0 0.0

M0071 80 1.1 2 0.0 78 1.1 0 0.0

 

M0072 83 1.1 3 0.0 80 1.1 0 0.0

M0073 76 1.1 2 0.0 74 1.0 0 0.0

M0074 105 1.5 6 0.1 99 1.4 0 0.0

M0075 33 0.5 0 0.0 33 0.5 0 0.0

M0076 223 3.1 0 0.0 217 3.0 6 0.1

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-87 

Table Q-11. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school library media center data file, by variable: 2003–04—

Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

M0077 113 1.6 0 0.0 113 1.6 0 0.0

M0084 4 0.1 0 0.0 4 0.1 0 0.0

M0085 135 1.9 0 0.0 133 1.8 2 0.0

M0086 6 0.1 0 0.0 6 0.1 0 0.0

M0087 184 2.5 0 0.0 182 2.5 2 0.0

 

M0088 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

M0089 66 0.9 0 0.0 64 0.9 2 0.0

M0090 318 4.4 5 0.1 306 4.2 7 0.1

M0091 327 4.5 57 0.8 260 3.6 10 0.1

M0092 506 7.0 53 0.7 452 6.3 1 0.0

 

M0093 464 6.4 41 0.6 417 5.8 6 0.1

M0094 386 5.3 47 0.7 333 4.6 6 0.1

M0095 597 8.3 25 0.3 565 7.8 7 0.1

M0096 413 5.7 36 0.5 360 5.0 17 0.2

M0097 364 5.0 39 0.5 320 4.4 5 0.1

 

M0098 81 1.1 5 0.1 71 1.0 5 0.1

M0099 195 2.7 0 0.0 193 2.7 2 0.0

M0100 264 3.7 9 0.1 252 3.5 3 0.0

M0101 175 2.4 0 0.0 175 2.4 0 0.0

M0102 164 2.3 18 0.2 138 1.9 8 0.1

 

M0103 247 3.4 0 0.0 240 3.3 7 0.1

M0104 1,001 13.8 9 0.1 958 13.3 34 0.5

M0105 264 3.7 15 0.2 245 3.4 4 0.1

M0106 253 3.5 0 0.0 231 3.2 22 0.3

M0107 268 3.7 0 0.0 262 3.6 6 0.1

 

M0108 79 1.1 0 0.0 77 1.1 2 0.0

M0113 113 1.6 0 0.0 113 1.6 0 0.0

M0114 92 1.3 0 0.0 11 0.2 81 1.1

M0115 151 2.1 12 0.2 139 1.9 0 0.0

M0116 149 2.1 0 0.0 149 2.1 0 0.0

 

M0117 148 2.0 0 0.0 148 2.0 0 0.0

M0118 170 2.4 0 0.0 170 2.4 0 0.0

M0119 136 1.9 0 0.0 136 1.9 0 0.0

M0120 123 1.7 22 0.3 101 1.4 0 0.0

M0121 117 1.6 17 0.2 100 1.4 0 0.0

 

M0122 105 1.5 2 0.0 103 1.4 0 0.0

M0123 92 1.3 0 0.0 92 1.3 0 0.0

M0124 256 3.5 0 0.0 256 3.5 0 0.0

M0125 111 1.5 0 0.0 111 1.5 0 0.0

M0126 55 0.8 9 0.1 46 0.6 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-88 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-11. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the public school library media center data file, by variable: 2003–04—

Continued 

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

M0127 63 0.9 10 0.1 53 0.7 0 0.0

M0128 70 1.0 17 0.2 53 0.7 0 0.0

M0129 66 0.9 15 0.2 51 0.7 0 0.0

M0130 82 1.1 33 0.5 49 0.7 0 0.0

M0131 66 0.9 16 0.2 50 0.7 0 0.0

 

M0132 101 1.4 52 0.7 49 0.7 0 0.0

M0133 33 0.5 0 0.0 33 0.5 0 0.0

M0134 110 1.5 2 0.0 108 1.5 0 0.0

M0135 112 1.5 2 0.0 110 1.5 0 0.0

M0136 166 2.3 26 0.4 140 1.9 0 0.0

 

M0137 194 2.7 36 0.5 158 2.2 0 0.0

M0138 143 2.0 0 0.0 143 2.0 0 0.0

M0145 264 3.7 0 0.0 264 3.7 0 0.0

M0146 298 4.1 31 0.4 267 3.7 0 0.0

M0147 252 3.5 0 0.0 252 3.5 0 0.0

 

M0148 358 5.0 59 0.8 299 4.1 0 0.0

M0149 385 5.3 0 0.0 385 5.3 0 0.0

M0150 209 2.9 0 0.0 209 2.9 0 0.0

M0151 233 3.2 0 0.0 232 3.2 1 0.0

M0152 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

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

School Library Media Center Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-89 

Table Q-12. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school library media center data file, by variable: 2003–04

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

M0025 3 2.4 0 0.0 3 2.4 0 0.0

M0026 2 1.6 0 0.0 2 1.6 0 0.0

M0027 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 0.8 0 0.0

M0028 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 0.8 0 0.0

M0029 2 1.6 0 0.0 2 1.6 0 0.0

 

M0030 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 0.8 0 0.0

M0031 2 1.6 1 0.8 1 0.8 0 0.0

M0032 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 0.8 0 0.0

M0033 2 1.6 1 0.8 1 0.8 0 0.0

M0040 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

M0041 1 0.8 1 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

M0042 8 6.5 8 6.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

M0043 7 5.6 7 5.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

M0044 3 2.4 3 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

M0045 2 1.6 2 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

M0046 8 6.5 7 5.6 0 0.0 1 0.8

M0047 8 6.5 8 6.5 0 0.0 0 0.0

M0048 1 0.8 1 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

M0049 2 1.6 2 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

M0050 7 5.6 7 5.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

M0051 6 4.8 6 4.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

M0052 1 0.8 1 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

M0053 17 13.7 1 0.8 14 11.3 2 1.6

M0054 18 14.5 2 1.6 14 11.3 2 1.6

M0055 16 12.9 0 0.0 14 11.3 2 1.6

 

M0056 19 15.3 3 2.4 14 11.3 2 1.6

M0057 14 11.3 0 0.0 12 9.7 2 1.6

M0058 5 4.0 0 0.0 5 4.0 0 0.0

M0059 4 3.2 0 0.0 4 3.2 0 0.0

M0060 3 2.4 0 0.0 3 2.4 0 0.0

 

M0061 2 1.6 2 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

M0068 4 3.2 0 0.0 4 3.2 0 0.0

M0069 4 3.2 0 0.0 4 3.2 0 0.0

M0070 7 5.6 0 0.0 7 5.6 0 0.0

M0071 4 3.2 0 0.0 4 3.2 0 0.0

 

M0072 4 3.2 0 0.0 4 3.2 0 0.0

M0073 4 3.2 0 0.0 4 3.2 0 0.0

M0074 4 3.2 0 0.0 4 3.2 0 0.0

M0075 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

M0076 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 0.8 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Q-90 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table Q-12. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school library media center data file, by variable: 2003–04—

Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

M0077 6 4.8 0 0.0 6 4.8 0 0.0

M0084 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

M0085 10 8.1 0 0.0 10 8.1 0 0.0

M0086 3 2.4 0 0.0 3 2.4 0 0.0

M0087 8 6.5 0 0.0 7 5.6 1 0.8

 

M0088 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

M0089 1 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.8

M0090 11 8.9 0 0.0 10 8.1 1 0.8

M0091 10 8.1 1 0.8 7 5.6 2 1.6

M0092 16 12.9 2 1.6 14 11.3 0 0.0

 

M0093 17 13.7 3 2.4 14 11.3 0 0.0

M0094 14 11.3 2 1.6 10 8.1 2 1.6

M0095 15 12.1 2 1.6 12 9.7 1 0.8

M0096 16 12.9 2 1.6 12 9.7 2 1.6

M0097 12 9.7 3 2.4 7 5.6 2 1.6

 

M0098 5 4.0 0 0.0 5 4.0 0 0.0

M0099 11 8.9 0 0.0 11 8.9 0 0.0

M0100 16 12.9 2 1.6 13 10.5 1 0.8

M0101 12 9.7 0 0.0 12 9.7 0 0.0

M0102 12 9.7 0 0.0 10 8.1 2 1.6

 

M0103 8 6.5 0 0.0 7 5.6 1 0.8

M0104 34 27.4 0 0.0 28 22.6 6 4.8

M0105 15 12.1 0 0.0 12 9.7 3 2.4

M0106 8 6.5 0 0.0 5 4.0 3 2.4

M0107 14 11.3 0 0.0 12 9.7 2 1.6

 

M0108 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 0.8 0 0.0

M0113 9 7.3 0 0.0 9 7.3 0 0.0

M0114 6 4.8 0 0.0 1 0.8 5 4.0

M0115 8 6.5 0 0.0 8 6.5 0 0.0

M0116 8 6.5 0 0.0 8 6.5 0 0.0

 

M0117 9 7.3 0 0.0 9 7.3 0 0.0

M0118 9 7.3 0 0.0 9 7.3 0 0.0

M0119 9 7.3 0 0.0 9 7.3 0 0.0

M0120 11 8.9 3 2.4 8 6.5 0 0.0

M0121 10 8.1 2 1.6 8 6.5 0 0.0

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix Q. Imputation Changes to Variables, by Data File Q-91 

Table Q-12. Number of changes and percentage of records affected during stage 1–stage 3 

imputation of the BIA school library media center data file, by variable: 2003–04—

Continued

 Total Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 

Variable 

Number of

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected 

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes

Percentage 

of records 

affected

Number of 

changes 

Percentage 

of records 

affected

M0122 9 7.3 1 0.8 8 6.5 0 0.0

M0123 7 5.6 0 0.0 7 5.6 0 0.0

M0124 9 7.3 0 0.0 9 7.3 0 0.0

M0125 6 4.8 0 0.0 6 4.8 0 0.0

M0126 2 1.6 1 0.8 1 0.8 0 0.0

 

M0127 3 2.4 1 0.8 2 1.6 0 0.0

M0128 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 0.8 0 0.0

M0129 1 0.8 0 0.0 1 0.8 0 0.0

M0130 2 1.6 1 0.8 1 0.8 0 0.0

M0131 2 1.6 1 0.8 1 0.8 0 0.0

 

M0132 4 3.2 4 3.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

M0133 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

M0134 4 3.2 0 0.0 4 3.2 0 0.0

M0135 8 6.5 0 0.0 8 6.5 0 0.0

M0136 9 7.3 1 0.8 8 6.5 0 0.0

 

M0137 11 8.9 1 0.8 10 8.1 0 0.0

M0138 7 5.6 0 0.0 7 5.6 0 0.0

M0145 10 8.1 0 0.0 10 8.1 0 0.0

M0146 14 11.3 1 0.8 13 10.5 0 0.0

M0147 13 10.5 0 0.0 13 10.5 0 0.0

 

M0148 16 12.9 1 0.8 15 12.1 0 0.0

M0149 13 10.5 0 0.0 13 10.5 0 0.0

M0150 12 9.7 0 0.0 12 9.7 0 0.0

M0151 11 8.9 0 0.0 11 8.9 0 0.0

M0152 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

NOTE: BIA refers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

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

School Library Media Center Restricted Use Data File,” 2003–04. 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
R-1 

Appendix R. Weighting Adjustment Cells

A detailed listing of the weighting classes, or cells, is contained in this appendix. Presented first are the 

public school, principal, and library media center level adjustments. Presented next are the public school 

district level adjustments, followed by the private school and principal level adjustments. The teacher 

level adjustments are presented last. Refer to chapter 9 on weighting for a more general description of the 

weighting procedure. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Funded, Public Charter, and Other Public Schools, 

Principals, and Library Media Center Noninterview Adjustment Cells 

and 

BIA-Funded, Public Charter, and Other Public School 

Teacher Listing Form Nonresponse Adjustment Cells 

Note: For many public school adjustments, certain states are used in combination with region. These 

states were chosen based on their sample size and potential ability to serve in defining weighting classes. 

Other states not specifically broken out from their respective regions did not have enough sample to avoid 

collapsing according to the collapsing rules defined in chapter 9. 

Certainty Schools: State/Region by School Level by Enrollment 

 Northeast by Elementary: No enrollment categories 

 Northeast by Combined: No enrollment categories 

 Northeast by Secondary: Less than 600, 600–1,000, 1,001–1,500, 1,501–2,000, 

2,001–2,600, 2,601 or more 

 Midwest: Same as Northeast 

 Florida: Same as Northeast 

 Balance of South: Same as Northeast 

 Nevada: Same as Northeast 

 New Mexico: Same as Northeast 

 Balance of West: Same as Northeast 

BIA-Funded Schools: State by School Level by Enrollment 

 Arizona by Elementary: Less than 200, 200 or more 

 Arizona by Combined: No enrollment categories 

 Arizona by Secondary: No enrollment categories 

 New Mexico: Same as Arizona 

 South Dakota: Same as Arizona 

 All other states: Same as Arizona 

Public Charter Schools: State/Region by School Level 

 Pennsylvania: No enrollment categories 

 Balance of Northeast: No enrollment categories 

 Michigan: No enrollment categories 

 Ohio: No enrollment categories 

 Wisconsin: No enrollment categories 

 Balance of Midwest: No enrollment categories 

 Florida: No enrollment categories 
R-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

 North Carolina: No enrollment categories 

 Texas: No enrollment categories 

 Balance of South: No enrollment categories 

 Arizona: No enrollment categories 

 California: No enrollment categories 

 Balance of West: No enrollment categories 

High American Indian Enrollment Schools: State/Region by School Level by Enrollment 

 Minnesota by Elementary: Less than 200, 200–350, 351–475, 476 or more 

 Minnesota by Combined: Less than 300, 300–450, 451 or more 

 Minnesota by Secondary: Less than 250, 250–350, 351–550, 551 or more 

 North Dakota: Same as Minnesota 

 South Dakota: Same as Minnesota 

 Balance of Midwest: Same as Minnesota 

 North Carolina: Same as Minnesota 

 Oklahoma: Same as Minnesota 

 Balance of South: Same as Minnesota 

 Arizona: Same as Minnesota 

 California: Same as Minnesota 

 Montana: Same as Minnesota 

 New Mexico: Same as Minnesota 

 Washington: Same as Minnesota 

 Balance of West: Same as Minnesota 

All Other Public Schools: School Level by Enrollment by Urbanicity 

 Alabama: Elementary: Less than 325, 325–484, 485–625, 626 or more 

 Combined: Less than 600, 600 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 372, 372–557, 558–910, 911 or more 

 Alaska: Elementary: Less than 328, 328–413, 414–492, 493 or more 

 Combined: Less than 117, 117 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 196, 196–471, 472–636, 637 or more 

 Arizona: Elementary: Less than 467, 467–624, 625–835, 836 or more 

 Combined: Less than 156, 156 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 782, 782–1,314, 1,315–2,290, 2,291 or more 

 Arkansas: Elementary: Less than 320, 320–418, 419–550, 551 or more 

 Combined: Less than 791, 791 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 350, 350–514, 515–854, 855 or more 

 California: Elementary: Less than 469, 469–664, 665–890, 891 or more 

 Combined: Less than 245, 245 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 963, 963–1,445, 1,446–2,082, 2,083 or more 

 Colorado: Elementary: Less than 315, 315–478, 479–618, 619 or more 

 Combined: Less than 272, 272 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 463, 463–1,013, 1,014–1,576, 1,577 or more 
Appendix R. Weighting Adjustment Cells R-3 

 Connecticut: Elementary: Less than 368, 368–463, 464–587, 588 or more 

 Combined: Less than 168, 168 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 668, 668–971, 972–1,351, 1352 or more 

 Delaware: Elementary: Less than 441, 441–541, 542–751, 752 or more 

 Combined: Less than 99, 99 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 867, 867–1,060, 1,061–1,423, 1,424 or more 

 District of Columbia: Elementary: Less than 331, 331–406, 407–489, 490 or more 

 Combined: Less than 92, 92 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 335, 335–663, 664–834, 835 or more 

 Florida: Elementary: Less than 643, 643–816, 817–1,094, 1,095 or more 

 Combined: Less than 118, 118 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 1,229, 1,229–1,905, 1,906–2,660, 2,661 or more 

 Georgia: Elementary: Less than 493, 493–660, 661–861, 862 or more 

 Combined: Less than 718, 718 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 894, 894–1,328, 1,329–1,738, 1,739 or more 

 Hawaii: Elementary: Less than 441, 441–626, 627–809, 810 or more 

 Combined: Less than 388, 388 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 986, 986–1,354, 1,355–1,845, 1,846 or more 

 Idaho: Elementary: Less than 313, 313–445, 446–561, 562 or more 

 Combined: Less than 194, 194 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 315, 315–573, 574–905, 906 or more 

 Illinois: Elementary: Less than 314, 314–447, 448–650, 651 or more 

 Combined: Less than 327, 327 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 315, 315–951, 952–1,651, 1652 or more 

 Indiana: Elementary: Less than 356, 356–600, 601–638, 639 or more 

 Combined: Less than 336, 336 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 466, 466–729, 730–1,308, 1,309 or more 

 Iowa: Elementary: Less than 238, 238–324, 325–454, 455 or more 

 Combined: Less than 405, 405 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 257, 257–478, 479–819, 820 or more 

 Kansas: Elementary: Less than 226, 226–333, 334–449, 450 or more 

 Combined: Less than 201, 201 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 203, 203–424, 425–1,039, 1,040 or more 

 Kentucky: Elementary: Less than 321, 321–443, 444–581, 582 or more 

 Combined: Less than 67, 67 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 566, 566–748, 749–1,118, 1,119 or more 

 Louisiana: Elementary: Less than 362, 362–475, 476–632, 633 or more 

 Combined: Less than 334, 334 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 429, 429–716, 717–1,139, 1,140 or more 
R-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

 Maine: Elementary: Less than 179, 179–270, 271–405, 406 or more 

 Combined: Less than 214, 214 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 366, 366–599, 600–813, 814 or more 

 Maryland: Elementary: Less than 436, 436–550, 551–696, 697 or more 

 Combined: Less than 107, 107 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 989, 989–1,337, 1,338–1,650, 1,651 or more 

 Massachusetts: Elementary: Less than 338, 338–467, 468–679, 680 or more 

 Combined: Less than 607, 607 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 663, 663–910, 911–1,257, 1,258 or more 

 Michigan: Elementary: Less than 326, 326–406, 407–506, 507 or more 

 Combined: Less than 150, 150 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 501, 501–744, 745–1,301, 1,302 or more 

 Minnesota: Elementary: Less than 356, 356–536, 537–697, 698 or more 

 Combined: Less than 210, 210 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 143, 143–457, 458–1,237, 1,238 or more 

 Mississippi: Elementary: Less than 379, 379–490, 491–697, 698 or more 

 Combined: Less than 578, 578 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 283, 283–461, 462–687, 688 or more 

 Missouri: Elementary: Less than 317, 317–412, 413–540, 541 or more 

 Combined: Less than 400, 400 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 306, 306–704, 705–1,350, 1,351 or more 

 Montana: Elementary: Less than 117, 117–273, 274–384, 385 or more 

 Combined: Less than 175, 175 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 189, 189–310, 311–553, 554 or more 

 Nebraska: Elementary: Less than 100, 100–264, 265–376, 377 or more 

 Combined: Less than 256, 256 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 200, 200–428, 429–1,028, 1,029 or more 

 Nevada: Elementary: Less than 492, 492–736, 737–927, 928 or more 

 Combined: Less than 194, 194 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 578, 578–807, 808–1,313, 1,314 or more 

 New Hampshire: Elementary: Less than 275, 275–407, 408–590, 591 or more 

 Combined: Less than 699, 699 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 636, 636–923, 924–1,349, 1,350 or more 

 New Jersey: Elementary: Less than 375, 375–540, 541–697, 698 or more 

 Combined: Less than 143, 143 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 655, 655–1,067, 1,068–1,376, 1,377 or more 

 New Mexico: Elementary: Less than 311, 311–464, 465–593, 594 or more 

 Combined: Less than 163, 164 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 225, 225–425, 426–741, 742 or more 
Appendix R. Weighting Adjustment Cells R-5 

 New York: Elementary: Less than 449, 449–563, 564–758, 759 or more 

 Combined: Less than 394, 394 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 577, 577–1,087, 1,088–1,727, 1,728 or more 

 North Carolina: Elementary: Less than 391, 391–555, 556–793, 794 or more 

 Combined: Less than 78, 78 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 769, 769–1,162, 1,163–1,522, 1,523 or more 

 North Dakota: Elementary: Less than 129, 129–271, 272–380, 381 or more 

 Combined: Less than 185, 185 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 173, 173–358, 359–809, 810 or more 

 Ohio: Elementary: Less than 327, 327–436, 437–555, 556 or more 

 Combined: Less than 482, 482 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 445, 445–684, 685–1,096, 1,097 or more 

 Oklahoma: Elementary: Less than 317, 317–427, 428–569, 570 or more 

 Combined: Less than 353, 353 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 414, 414–792, 793–1,239, 1,240 or more 

 Oregon: Elementary: Less than 316, 316–447, 448–564, 565 or more 

 Combined: Less than 154, 154 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 399, 399–807, 808–1,511, 1,512 or more 

 Pennsylvania: Elementary: Less than 348, 348–485, 486–664, 665 or more 

 Combined: Less than 718, 718 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 593, 593–882, 883–1,260, 1,261 or more 

 Rhode Island: Elementary: Less than 310, 310–422, 423–607, 608 or more 

 Combined: Less than 124, 124 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 836, 836–897, 898–1,304, 1,305 or more 

 South Carolina: Elementary: Less than 490, 490–606, 607–721, 722 or more 

 Combined: Less than 276, 276 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 631, 631–949, 950–1,393, 1,394 or more 

 South Dakota: Elementary: Less than 179, 179–350, 351–493, 494 or more 

 Combined: Less than 261, 261 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 181, 181–294, 295–647, 648 or more 

 Tennessee: Elementary: Less than 397, 397–540, 541–687, 688 or more 

 Combined: Less than 446, 446 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 608, 608–936, 937–1,434, 1,435 or more 

 Texas: Elementary: Less than 396, 396–550, 551–826, 827 or more 

 Combined: Less than 193, 193 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 650, 650–923, 924–1,914, 1,915 or more 

 Utah: Elementary: Less than 464, 464–566, 567–717, 718 or more 

 Combined: Less than 102, 102 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 756, 756–1,120, 1,121–1,558, 1,559 or more 
R-6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

 Vermont: Elementary: Less than 131, 131–257, 258–335, 336 or more 

 Combined: Less than 258, 258 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 404, 404–626, 627–869, 870 or more 

 Virginia: Elementary: Less than 396, 396–537, 538–707, 708 or more 

 Combined: Less than 321, 321 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 536, 536–1,196, 1,197–1,779, 1,780 or more 

 Washington: Elementary: Less than 411, 411–504, 505–571, 572 or more 

 Combined: Less than 161, 161 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 424, 424–784, 785–1,507, 1,508 or more 

 West Virginia: Elementary: Less than 236, 236–307, 308–422, 423 or more 

 Combined: Less than 91, 91 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 252, 252–532, 533–973, 974 or more 

 Wisconsin: Elementary: Less than 275, 275–417, 418–555, 556 or more 

 Combined: Less than 397, 397 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 429, 429–681, 682–1,447, 1,448 or more 

 Wyoming: Elementary: Less than 157, 157–267, 268–354, 355 or more 

 Combined: Less than 143, 143 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 177, 177–331, 332–671, 672 or more 

Public Charter, High American Indian Enrollment, and Other Public Schools, 

Principals, Library Media Centers, and Public Teacher 

First-Stage Ratio Adjustment Cells 

Public Charter Schools: State by School Level 

 Elementary: No enrollment categories 

 Combined: No enrollment categories 

 Secondary: No enrollment categories 

High American Indian Enrollment Schools: State by School Level by Enrollment 

 Elementary: Less than 200, 200–350, 351–475, 476 or more 

 Combined: Less than 300, 300–450, 451 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 250, 250–350, 351–550, 551 or more 

All Other Public Schools: School Level by Enrollment by Urbanicity 

 Alabama: Elementary: Less than 355, 355–556, 557 or more 

 Combined: Less than 599, 599 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 432, 432–746, 747 or more 

 Alaska: Elementary: Less than 364, 364–458, 459 or more 

 Combined: Less than 117, 117 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 235, 235–544, 545 or more 
Appendix R. Weighting Adjustment Cells R-7 

 Arizona: Elementary: Less than 625, 625–900, 901 or more 

 Combined: Less than 157, 157 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 987, 987–1,863, 1,864 or more 

 Arkansas: Elementary: Less than 325, 325–435, 436 or more 

 Combined: Less than 791, 791 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 375, 375–560, 561 or more 

 California: Elementary: Less than 537, 537–804, 805 or more 

 Combined: Less than 200, 200 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 964, 964–1,815, 1,816 or more 

Colorado: Elementary: Less than 450, 450–522, 523 or more 

 Combined: Less than 272, 272 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 750, 750–1,400, 1,401 or more 

 Connecticut: Elementary: Less than 393, 393–530, 531 or more 

 Combined: Less than 169, 169 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 756, 756–1,190, 1,191 or more 

 Delaware: Elementary: Less than 489, 489–667, 668 or more 

 Combined: Less than 99, 99 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 997, 997–1,340, 1,341 or more 

 District of Columbia: Elementary: Less than 362, 362–474, 475 or more 

 Combined: Less than 92, 92 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 391, 391–760, 761 or more 

 Florida: Elementary: Less than 677, 677–938, 939 or more 

 Combined: Less than 118, 118 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 1,485, 1,485–2,272, 2,273 or more 

 Georgia: Elementary: Less than 600, 600–800, 801 or more 

 Combined: Less than 718, 718 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 1,250, 1,250–1,775, 1,776 or more 

 Hawaii: Elementary: Less than 575, 575–715, 716 or more 

 Combined: Less than 388, 388 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 1,080, 1,080–1,667, 1,668 or more 

 Idaho: Elementary: Less than 359, 359–515, 516 or more 

 Combined: Less than 194, 194 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 427, 427–772, 773 or more 

 Illinois: Elementary: Less than 338, 338–583, 584 or more 

 Combined: Less than 327, 327 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 531, 531–1,382, 1,383 or more 

 Indiana: Elementary: Less than 410, 410–555, 556 or more 

 Combined: Less than 336, 336 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 650, 650–1,037, 1,038 or more 
R-8 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

 Iowa: Elementary: Less than 267, 267–389, 390 or more 

 Combined: Less than 405, 405 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 302, 302–657, 658 or more 

 Kansas: Elementary: Less than 273, 273–406, 407 or more 

 Combined: Less than 201, 201 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 254, 254–777, 778 or more 

 Kentucky: Elementary: Less than 371, 371–526, 527 or more 

 Combined: Less than 68, 68 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 618, 618–989, 990 or more 

 Louisiana: Elementary: Less than 406, 406–568, 569 or more 

 Combined: Less than 335, 335 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 577, 577–964, 965 or more 

 Maine: Elementary: Less than 218, 218–364, 365 or more 

 Combined: Less than 214, 214 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 466, 466–728, 729 or more 

 Maryland: Elementary: Less than 471, 471–608, 609 or more 

 Combined: Less than 108, 108 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 1,082, 1,082–1,565, 1,566 or more 

 Massachusetts: Elementary: Less than 393, 393–506, 507 or more 

 Combined: Less than 608, 608 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 766, 766–1,138, 1,139 or more 

 Michigan: Elementary: Less than 329, 329–470, 471 or more 

 Combined: Less than 150, 150 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 650, 650–1,100, 1,101 or more 

 Minnesota: Elementary: Less than 406, 406–642, 643 or more 

 Combined: Less than 210, 210 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 185, 185–919, 920 or more 

 Mississippi: Elementary: Less than 403, 403–613, 614 or more 

 Combined: Less than 579, 579 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 304, 304–628, 629 or more 

 Missouri: Elementary: Less than 400, 400–515, 516 or more 

 Combined: Less than 293, 293 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 635, 635–900, 901 or more 

 Montana: Elementary: Less than 190, 190–330, 331 or more 

 Combined: Less than 175, 175 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 215, 215–325, 326 or more 

 Nebraska: Elementary: Less than 196, 196–341, 342 or more 

 Combined: Less than 256, 256 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 287, 287–755, 756 or more 
Appendix R. Weighting Adjustment Cells R-9 

 Nevada: Elementary: Less than 635, 635–900, 901 or more 

 Combined: Less than 194, 194 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 711, 711–1,254, 1,255 or more 

New Hampshire: Elementary: Less than 322, 322–493, 494 or more 

 Combined: Less than 700, 700 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 704, 704–1,261, 1,262 or more 

 New Jersey: Elementary: Less than 433, 433–626, 627 or more 

 Combined: Less than 144, 144 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 912, 912–1,229, 1,230 or more 

 New Mexico: Elementary: Less than 225, 225–360, 361 or more 

 Combined: Less than 163, 163 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 329, 329–612, 613 or more 

 New York: Elementary: Less than 496, 496–654, 655 or more 

 Combined: Less than 394, 394 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 670, 670–1,342, 1,343 or more 

 North Carolina: Elementary: Less than 300, 300–475, 476 or more 

 Combined: Less than 78, 78 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 910, 910–1,337, 1,338 or more 

 North Dakota: Elementary: Less than 110, 110–275, 276 or more 

 Combined: Less than 185, 185 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 199, 199–663, 664 or more 

 Ohio: Elementary: Less than 368, 368–522, 523 or more 

 Combined: Less than 483, 483 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 522, 522–920, 921 or more 

 Oklahoma: Elementary: Less than 375, 375–550, 551 or more 

 Combined: Less than 353, 353 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 250, 250–700, 701 or more 

 Oregon: Elementary: Less than 384, 384–503, 504 or more 

 Combined: Less than 155, 155 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 506, 506–1,213, 1,214 or more 

 Pennsylvania: Elementary: Less than 400, 400–586, 587 or more 

 Combined: Less than 719, 719 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 726, 726–1,106, 1,107 or more 

 Rhode Island: Elementary: Less than 334, 334–493, 494 or more 

 Combined: Less than 124, 124 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 851, 851–1,173, 1,174 or more 

 South Carolina: Elementary: Less than 513, 513–671, 672 or more 

 Combined: Less than 277, 277 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 950, 950–1,380, 1,381 or more 
R-10 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

 South Dakota: Elementary: Less than 245, 245–431, 432 or more 

 Combined: Less than 261, 261 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 199, 199–457, 458 or more 

 Tennessee: Elementary: Less than 449, 449–626, 627 or more 

 Combined: Less than 446, 446 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 600, 600–1,000, 1,001 or more 

 Texas: Elementary: Less than 455, 455–677, 678 or more 

 Combined: Less than 193, 193 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 571, 571–1,522, 1,523 or more 

 Utah: Elementary: Less than 504, 504–663, 664 or more 

 Combined: Less than 102, 102 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 828, 828–1,334, 1,335 or more 

 Vermont: Elementary: Less than 167, 167–299, 300 or more 

 Combined: Less than 259, 259 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 499, 499–737, 738 or more 

 Virginia: Elementary: Less than 459, 459–618, 619 or more 

 Combined: Less than 322, 322 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 782, 782–1,563, 1,564 or more 

 Washington: Elementary: Less than 449, 449–542, 543 or more 

 Combined: Less than 161, 161 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 638, 638–1,301, 1,302 or more 

 West Virginia: Elementary: Less than 252, 252–369, 370 or more 

 Combined: Less than 91, 91 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 275, 275–600, 601 or more 

 Wisconsin: Elementary: Less than 319, 319–496, 497 or more 

 Combined: Less than 397, 397 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 504, 504–1,025, 1,026 or more 

 Wyoming: Elementary: Less than 188, 188–312, 313 or more 

 Combined: Less than 143, 143 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 245, 245–527, 528 or more 

District Noninterview Adjustment Tables 

All States: Enrollment by Metro Status Code 

 Delaware, District of Columbia, 

 Maryland, Nevada, and Utah: No enrollment categories 

 Alaska, Florida, Louisiana, 

 and Rhode Island: Less than 525, 525 or more 
Appendix R. Weighting Adjustment Cells R-11 

 Colorado, New Hampshire, 

 South Carolina, Tennessee, 

 Vermont, West Virginia, and 

 Wyoming: Less than 650, 650–1,900, 1,901 or more 

 New Mexico, North Carolina, 

 and Virginia: Less than 400, 400–900, 901–3,000, 3,001 or more 

 Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, 

 Kentucky, Maine, and Oregon: Less than 2,300, 2,300–2,800, 2,801–3,900, 3,901–6,000, 

6,001 or more 

 Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, 

 Indiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, 

 South Dakota, Washington, and 

 Wisconsin: Less than 400, 400–750, 751–2,000, 2,001–3,600, 3,601–

8,900, 8,901 or more 

 Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, and 

 New York: Less than 75, 75–205, 206–290, 291–450, 451–700, 701–

1,250, 1,251 or more 

 Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, 

 Missouri, Montana, Ohio, and 

 Pennsylvania: Less than 1,200, 1,200–2,025, 2,026–2,600, 2,601–3,440, 

3,441–4,275, 4,276–5,800, 5,801–6,750, 6,751 or more 

 Minnesota and New Jersey: Less than 600, 600–1,200, 1,201–1,675, 1,676–2,125, 

2,126–2,700, 2,701–3,700, 3,701–4,650, 4,651–6,050, 

6,051–8,700, 8,701 or more 

 California and Texas: Less than 200, 200–360, 361–815, 816–1,600, 1,601–2,650, 

2,651–3,100, 3,101–4,150, 4,151–6,935, 6,936–13,500, 

13,501–15,000, 15,001 or more 

 Oklahoma: Less than 175, 175–285, 286–370, 371–455, 456–650, 651–

795, 796–980, 981–1,250, 1,251–1,600, 1,601–2,350, 

2,351–2,700, 2,701 or more 

District First-Stage Tables 

 Alaska, Delaware, District of 

 Columbia, Florida, Rhode Island, 

 Utah, and Vermont: All one enrollment category 

 Louisiana, South Carolina, and 

 Wyoming: Less than 3,800, 3,800 or more 

 Colorado, New Mexico, 

 and Virginia: Less than 650, 650–1,900, 1,901 or more 
R-12 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

 Alabama, Idaho, Maine, North 

 Carolina, and Tennessee: Less than 400, 400–800, 801–1,100, 1,101 or more 

 Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, 

 New Hampshire and Washington: Less than 1,575, 1,575–2,650, 2,651–3,600, 3,601–6,200, 

6,201 or more 

 Connecticut, Indiana, North 

 Dakota, and Oregon: Less than 1,000, 1,000–1,600, 1,601–2,500, 2,501–3,200, 

3,201–4,200, 4,201 or more 

 Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, 

 Missouri, Montana, New York, 

 South Dakota, and Wisconsin: Less than 375, 375–500, 501–640, 641–950, 951–1,400, 

1,401–2,230, 2,231 or more 

 Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, 

 Ohio and Pennsylvania: Less than 410, 410–650, 651–800, 801–1,130, 1,131–

1,650, 1,651–1,830, 1,831–2,750, 2,751 or more 

 Massachusetts and Nebraska: Less than 1,125, 1,125–1,525, 1,526–2,225, 2,226–2,625, 

2,626–3,400, 3,401–3,900, 3,901–4,575, 4,576–6,100, 

6,101 or more 

 New Jersey: Less than 600, 600–1,200, 1,201–1,675, 1,676–2,125, 

2,126–2,700, 2,701–3,700, 3,701–4,650, 4,651–6,050, 

6,051–8,700, 8,701 or more 

 California, Oklahoma, and Texas: Less than 175, 175–275, 276–345, 346–425, 426–575, 

576–730, 731–875, 876–1,100, 1,101–1,325, 1,326–

1,675, 1,676 or more 

Private School Noninterview Cells and 

Private School Teacher Listing Form Nonresponse Adjustment Cells 

Certainty Schools: 

 All schools in one category 

Catholic—Parochial Schools: School Level by Census Region by Enrollment 

 Elementary by Northeast: Less than 175, 175–224, 225–299, 300–449, 450 or more 

 Elementary by Midwest: Less than 100, 100–149, 150–199, 200–249, 250–349, 

350–449, 450 or more 

 Elementary by South: Less than 225, 225–399, 400 or more 

 Elementary by West: Less than 300, 300 or more 

 Combined: No enrollment categories 

 Secondary: Less than 300, 300–599, 600 or more 
Appendix R. Weighting Adjustment Cells R-13 

Catholic—Diocesan Schools: School Level by Enrollment 

 Elementary: Less than 100, 100–149, 150–199, 200–224, 225–249, 

250–299, 300–399, 400–499, 500 or more 

 Combined: No enrollment categories 

 Secondary: Less than 300, 300–599, 600–799, 800–999, 1,000 or more 

Catholic—Private: School Level by Enrollment 

 Elementary: Less than 250, 250 or more 

 Combined: Less than 350, 350 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 400, 400–599, 600–999, 1,000 or more 

Amish: Region by Enrollment 

 Northeast: Less than 25, 25–29, 30 or more 

 Midwest: Less than 25, 25–34, 35 or more 

 South: No enrollment categories 

 West: No enrollment categories 

Assembly of God, Episcopal, Jewish, Mennonite, and Seventh-Day Adventist: School Level by 

Enrollment 

 Elementary: Less than 100, 100–199, 200 or more 

 Combined: Less than 125, 125 or more 

 Secondary: No enrollment categories 

Baptist: School Level by Recoded Urbanicity by Enrollment 

 Elementary by All Urbanicity: Less than 100, 100–199, 200 or more 

 Combined by Central City: Less than 150, 150 or more 

 Combined by Suburban: Less than 100, 100–299, 300 or more 

 Combined by Rural: Less than 75, 75 or more 

 Secondary by All Urbanicity: No enrollment categories 

Pentecostal and Nonsectarian—Special Education: School Level by Enrollment 

 Elementary: Less than 100, 100 or more 

 Combined: Less than 30, 30–49, 50–174, 175 or more 

 Secondary: No enrollment categories 

Lutheran—Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod: School Level by 

Enrollment 

 Elementary: Less than 100, 100–149, 150–199, 200 or more 

 Combined: No enrollment categories 

 Secondary: No enrollment categories 
R-14 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Other Religious: School Level by Region by Enrollment: 

 Elementary by Northeast: Less than 100, 100 or more 

 Elementary by Midwest: Less than 100, 100–199, 200 or more 

 Elementary by South: Less than 50, 50–99, 100–149, 150 or more 

 Elementary by West: Less than 100, 100–199, 200 or more 

 Combined by Northeast: Less than 75, 75–199, 200 or more 

 Combined by Midwest: Less than 75, 75–199, 200 or more 

 Combined by South: Less than 25, 25–49, 50–74, 75–124, 125–169, 170–199, 

200–299, 300–449, 450–649, 650 or more 

 Combined by West: Less than 50, 50–149, 150–399, 400 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 125, 125 or more 

Nonsectarian—Regular: School Level by Region by Enrollment: 

 Elementary by Northeast: Less than 125, 125 or more 

 Elementary by Midwest: No enrollment categories 

 Elementary by South: Less than 75, 75–224, 225 or more 

 Elementary by West: Less than 75, 75–149, 150 or more 

 Combined by Northeast: Less than 150, 150–399, 400 or more 

 Combined by Midwest: Less than 300, 300 or more 

 Combined by South: Less than 150, 150–299, 300–499, 500–899, 900 or more 

 Combined by West: Less than 250, 250 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 150, 150 or more 

Nonsectarian—Special Emphasis: School Level by Enrollment: 

 Elementary: Less than 25, 25–49, 50–99, 100 or more 

 Combined: Less than 75, 75 or more 

 Secondary: No enrollment categories 

Noncertainty Area Frame: School Level by Typology by Enrollment 

 Elementary by Typology: Less than 30, 30 or more 

 Combined by Typology: Less than 30, 30 or more 

 Secondary by Typology: No enrollment categories 

Private School and Teacher First-Stage Cells (List Frame only) 

 All Affiliation Strata: Affiliation stratum by school level 

Private School Second-Stage Cells 

Catholic—Parochial: School Level by Enrollment by Urbanicity 

 Elementary by Urbanicity: Less than 100, 100–149, 150–174, 175–199, 200–224, 

225–249, 250–274, 275–299, 300–349, 350–449, 450–

549, 550 or more 

 Combined and Secondary: Same as Elementary 
Appendix R. Weighting Adjustment Cells R-15 

Catholic—Diocesan: School Level by Enrollment by Urbanicity 

 Elementary by Urbanicity: Less than 75, 75–99, 100–124, 125–149, 150–174, 175–

199, 200–224, 225–249, 250–274, 275–299, 300–349, 

350–399, 400–449, 450–499, 500–549, 550–649, 650–

749, 750–849, 850–949, 950–1,149, 1,150 or more 

 Combined and Secondary: Same as Elementary 

Catholic—Private: School Level by Enrollment by Urbanicity 

 Elementary: Less than 50, 50–99, 100–174, 175–249, 250–349, 350 or 

more 

 Combined: Less than 200, 200–549, 550 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 175, 175–274, 275–349, 350–449, 450–549, 

550–749, 750–949, 950 or more 

Amish: Region by School Level by Enrollment by Urbanicity 

 Northeast by Elementary: Less than 25, 25–49, 50 or more 

 Northeast by Combined: Less than 25, 25 or more 

 Northeast by Secondary: No enrollment categories 

 Midwest: Same as Northeast 

 South and West combined: Same as Northeast 

Assembly of God: School Level by Enrollment by Urbanicity 

 Elementary: Less than 75, 75–124, 125–199, 200 or more 

 Combined: Less than 35, 35–99, 100–249, 250 or more 

 Secondary: No enrollment categories 

Baptist: School Level by Enrollment by Urbanicity 

 Elementary: Less than 25, 25–49, 50–99, 100–149, 150–224, 225 or 

more 

 Combined: Less than 25, 25–49, 50–74, 75–99, 100–124, 125–149, 

150–174, 175–199, 200–224, 225–249, 250–299, 300–

349, 350–449, 450–549, 550 or more 

 Secondary: No enrollment categories 

Episcopal: School Level by Enrollment by Urbanicity 

 Elementary: Less than 50, 50–99, 100–149, 150–199, 200–274, 275–

449, 450 or more 

 Combined: Less than 650, 650 or more 

 Secondary: No enrollment categories 
R-16 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Jewish: School Level by Enrollment by Urbanicity 

 Elementary: Less than 50, 50–99, 100–149, 150–199, 200–274, 275–

449, 450 or more 

 Combined: Less than 225, 225–349, 350–649, 650 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 50, 50–99, 100–199, 200 or more 

Lutheran—Missouri Synod: School Level by Enrollment by Urbanicity 

 Elementary: Less than 25, 25–49, 50–74, 75–99, 100–124, 125–149, 

150–174, 175–199, 200–249, 250–299, 300 or more 

 Combined: No enrollment categories 

 Secondary: Less than 200, 200 or more 

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod: School Level by Enrollment by Urbanicity 

 Elementary: Less than 35, 35–69, 70–99, 100–149, 150 or more 

 Combined: No enrollment categories 

 Secondary: No enrollment categories 

Mennonite: School Level by Enrollment by Urbanicity 

 Elementary: Less than 25, 25–49, 50 or more 

 Combined: Less than 25, 25–49, 50–74, 75 or more 

 Secondary: No enrollment categories 

Pentecostal: School Level by Enrollment by Urbanicity 

 Elementary: Less than 75, 75 or more 

 Combined: Less than 25, 25–49, 50–99, 100 or more 

 Secondary: No enrollment categories 

Seventh-Day Adventist: School Level by Enrollment by Urbanicity 

 Elementary: Less than 25, 25–49, 50–99, 100 or more 

 Combined: Less than 25, 25–49, 50–124, 125 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 125, 125 or more 

Other Religious: School Level by Enrollment by Urbanicity 

 Elementary: Less than 25, 25–49, 50–74, 75–99, 100–124, 125–149, 

150–174, 175–199, 200–224, 225–274, 275–324, 325–

374, 375–449, 450–549, 550–749, 750 or more 

 Combined: Same as Elementary 

 Secondary: Same as Elementary 
Appendix R. Weighting Adjustment Cells R-17 

Nonsectarian—Regular: School Level by Enrollment by Urbanicity 

 Elementary: Less than 25, 25–49, 50–74, 75–99, 100–124, 125–149, 

150–184, 185–224, 225–274, 275–349, 350 or more 

 Combined: Less than 25, 25–49, 50–74, 75–174, 175–267, 268–449, 

450–649, 650–849, 850 or more 

 Secondary: Less than 25, 25–49, 50–74, 75–124, 125–274, 275 or 

more 

Nonsectarian—Special Emphasis: School Level by Enrollment by Urbanicity 

 Elementary: Less than 25, 25–49, 50–74, 75–99, 100–124, 125–149, 

150–199, 200 or more 

 Combined: Same as Elementary 

 Secondary: Same as Elementary 

Nonsectarian—Special Education: School Level by Enrollment by Urbanicity 

 Elementary: No enrollment categories 

 Combined: Less than 50, 50–99, 100 or more 

 Secondary: No enrollment categories 

Teacher Within School Noninterview Adjustment Factor Cells 

BIA-Funded School Teachers: Teacher Subject by Region by Enrollment by Teacher Stratum 

 Special Education by Region: No enrollment categories 

 Elementary by Northeast: No enrollment categories 

 Elementary by Midwest: Less than 300, 300 or more 

 Elementary by South: No enrollment categories 

 Elementary by West: Less than 149, 150–224, 225–324, 325–399, 400–524, 525 

or more 

 Math: No enrollment categories 

 Science: No enrollment categories 

 English: No enrollment categories 

 Social Studies: No enrollment categories 

 Vocational/Technical: No enrollment categories 

 Other by Region: No enrollment categories 

Public Charter School Teachers: Teacher Subject by Region by Enrollment by Teacher Stratum 

 Special Education by Region: No enrollment categories 

 Elementary by Northeast: No enrollment categories 

 Elementary by Midwest: Less than 350, 350–474, 475 or more 

 Elementary by South: Less than 175, 175–449, 450 or more 

 Elementary by West: Less than 150, 150–249, 250–349, 350–549, 550–849, 850 

or more 

 Math by Northeast: No enrollment categories 

 Math by Midwest: No enrollment categories 

 Math by South: No enrollment categories 

 Math by West: Less than 300, 300 or more 
R-18 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

 Science by Region: No enrollment categories 

 English by Northeast: No enrollment categories 

 English by Midwest: No enrollment categories 

 English by South: No enrollment categories 

 English by West: Less than 250, 250 or more 

 Social Studies by Region: No enrollment categories 

 Vocational/Technical by Region: No enrollment categories 

 Other by Northeast: Less than 315, 315 or more 

 Other by Midwest: Less than 250, 250 or more 

 Other by South: Less than 250, 250 or more 

 Other by West: Less than 200, 200–449, 450 or more 

High American Indian Enrollment School Teachers: Teacher Stratum by Region by Enrollment by 

Teacher Subject 

 Experienced by Northeast: No enrollment categories 

 Experienced by Midwest: Less than 250, 250–349, 350 or more 

 Experienced by South: Less than 200, 200–299, 300–399, 400–474, 475–599, 600 

or more 

 Experienced by West: Less than 200, 200–299, 300–399, 400–499, 500–799, 800 

or more 

 New: Less than 275, 275–399, 400 or more 

 American Indian/Alaska Native 

 by Northeast: No enrollment categories 

 American Indian/Alaska Native 

 by Midwest: Less than 500, 500 or more 

 American Indian/Alaska Native 

 by South: Less than 200, 200–399, 400–499, 500 or more 

 American Indian/Alaska Native 

 by West: Less than 225, 225–324, 325–374, 375–449, 450–474, 

475–499, 500–624, 625 or more 

 Asian/Pacific Islander: No enrollment categories 

Remaining Public School Teachers: Teacher Subject by Teacher Stratum by Urbanicity 

 American Indian/Alaska Native 

 by Teacher Subject: No enrollment categories 

 Asian/Pacific Islander by 

 Teacher Subject: No enrollment categories 

 Experienced by Urbanicity 

 by Teacher Subject: No enrollment categories 

 New by Urbanicity by 

 Teacher Subject: No enrollment categories 

Private School Listing Frame Teachers: Affiliation by Urbanicity by Teacher Subject by Region by 

Enrollment 

 Catholic—Parochial by Central City: Less than 140, 140–199, 200–224, 225–274, 275–359, 

360–474, 475–599, 600 or more 

 Catholic—Parochial by Suburban: Less than 125, 125–214, 215–274, 275–324, 325–399, 

400–499, 500–549, 550–699, 700 or more 
Appendix R. Weighting Adjustment Cells R-19 

 Catholic—Parochial by Rural: Less than 100, 100–149, 150–199, 200–298, 299 or more 

 Catholic—Diocesan by Central City: Less than 250, 250–399, 400–599, 600–849, 850 or more 

 Catholic—Diocesan by Suburban: Less than 175, 175–234, 235–299, 300–499, 500–699, 

700–899, 900 or more 

 Catholic—Diocesan by Rural: Less than 100, 100–174, 175 or more 

 Catholic—Private: Less than 200, 200–299, 300–449, 450–549, 550–624, 

625–849, 850 or more 

 Amish: Less than 25, 25–34, 35 or more 

 Assembly of God: Less than 75, 75–224, 225 or more 

 Baptist: Less than 75, 75–149, 150–234, 235–349, 350–474, 475 or 

more 

 Episcopal: Less than 150, 150–299, 300 or more 

 Jewish: Less than 125, 125–274, 275–499, 500 or more 

 Lutheran—Missouri Synod: Less than 100, 100–149, 150–199, 200–299, 300 or more 

 Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran 

 Synod: Less than 50, 50–74, 75–99, 100–149, 150 or more 

 Mennonite: Less than 50, 50–99, 100 or more 

 Pentecostal: Less than 50, 50–149, 150 or more 

 Seventh-Day Adventist: Less than 175, 175 or more 

 Other Religious: Less than 50, 50–74, 75–99, 100–124, 125–149, 150–174, 

175–199, 200–249, 250–324, 325–399, 400–499, 500–

599, 600–799, 800 or more 

 Nonsectarian—Regular: Less than 50, 50–99, 100–149, 150–199, 200–299, 300–

399, 400–499, 500–599, 600–999, 1,000 or more 

 Nonsectarian—Special Emphasis: Less than 50, 50–99, 100–199, 200 or more 

 Nonsectarian—Special Education: Less than 50, 50–99, 100–199, 200 or more 

Private Area Frame Teachers: Teacher Subject by Affiliation by Enrollment 

 Special Education: No enrollment categories 

 Elementary: Less than 27, 28–54, 55 or more 

 Math: No enrollment categories 

 Science: No enrollment categories 

 English: No enrollment categories 

 Social Studies: No enrollment categories 

 Vocational/Technical: No enrollment categories 

 Other: No enrollment categories 

Teacher Adjustment Factor Cells 

BIA-funded Teachers: Race/Ethnicity by School Level 

 American Indian or Alaska Native: No enrollment categories 

 Other: No enrollment categories 

High American Indian Enrollment Teachers: State by Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity 

 Minnesota: No enrollment categories 

 North Dakota: No enrollment categories 

 South Dakota: No enrollment categories 

 Balance Midwest: No enrollment categories 
R-20 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

 North Carolina: No enrollment categories 

 Oklahoma: Less than 149, 149–249, 250–324, 325–449, 450 or more 

 Balance South: No enrollment categories 

 Arizona: No enrollment categories 

 California: No enrollment categories 

 Montana: No enrollment categories 

 New Mexico: No enrollment categories 

 Washington: No enrollment categories 

 Balance West: No enrollment categories 

Public Charter Teachers: State/Region by Race/Ethnicity by Enrollment by School Level 

 Pennsylvania by Asian/Pacific 

 Islander, White, American Indian/ 

 Alaska Native, Hispanic, or Black: No enrollment categories 

 Balance Northeast by Asian/ 

 Pacific Islander, American Indian/ 

 Alaska Native, Hispanic, or Black: No enrollment categories 

 Balance Northeast by White: Less than 175, 175 or more 

 Michigan by Asian/Pacific 

 Islander, American Indian/ 

 Alaska Native, or Hispanic: No enrollment categories 

 Michigan by White: Less than 200, 200–399, 400 or more 

 Michigan by Black: Less than 300, 300 or more 

 Ohio by Asian/Pacific Islander, 

 White, American Indian/Alaska 

 Native, Hispanic, or Black: No enrollment categories 

 Wisconsin by Asian/Pacific 

 Islander, White, American Indian/ 

 Alaska Native, Hispanic, or 

 Black: No enrollment categories 

 Balance Midwest by Asian/ 

 Pacific Islander, White, American 

 Indian/Alaska Native, 

 Hispanic, or Black: No enrollment categories 

 Florida by Asian/Pacific Islander, 

 American Indian/Alaska Native, 

 Hispanic, or Black: No enrollment categories 
Appendix R. Weighting Adjustment Cells R-21 

 Florida by White: Less than 150, 150 or more 

 North Carolina by Asian/Pacific 

 Islander, White, American Indian/ 

 Alaska Native, Hispanic, or Black: No enrollment categories 

 Texas by Asian/Pacific Islander, 

 White, American Indian/Alaska 

 Native, Hispanic, or Black: No enrollment categories 

 Balance South by Asian/Pacific 

 Islander, American Indian/ 

 Alaska Native, Hispanic, or Black: No enrollment categories 

 Balance South by White: Less than 500, 500 or more 

 Arizona by Asian/Pacific Islander, 

 American Indian/Alaska Native, 

 Hispanic, or Black: No enrollment categories 

 Arizona by White: Less than 100, 100–199, 200 or more 

 California by Asia/Pacific 

 Islander, American Indian/ 

 Alaska Native, Hispanic, or Black: No enrollment categories 

 California by White: Less than 200, 200–599, 600 or more 

 Colorado by Asian/Pacific 

 Islander, American Indian/Alaska 

 Native, Hispanic, or Black: No enrollment categories 

 Colorado by White: Less than 250, 250 or more 

 Balance West by Asian/Pacific 

 Islander, White, American Indian/ 

 Alaska Native, Hispanic, or Black: No enrollment categories 

Remaining Public School Teachers: State by Race/Ethnicity by Enrollment by School Level 

 California or Georgia 

 Asian/Pacific Islander: Less than 500, 500–699, 700–899, 900–1,199, 1,200 or 

more 

 White: Same as Asian/Pacific Islander 

 American Indian/Alaska 

 Native: No enrollment categories 

 Hispanic: Same as Asian/Pacific Islander 

 Black: Same as Asian/Pacific Islander 
R-22 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

 Texas 

 Asian/Pacific Islander: Less than 500, 500–799, 800–1,799, 1,800–1,999, 2,000 or 

more 

 White: Same as Asian/Pacific Islander 

 American Indian/Alaska 

 Native: No enrollment categories 

 Hispanic: Same as Asian/Pacific Islander 

 Black: Same as Asian/Pacific Islander 

 Arizona, Colorado. Connecticut, 

 New Mexico 

 Asian/Pacific Islander: Less than 100, 100–199, 200–299, 300 or more 

 White: Less than 349, 350–499, 500–599, 600 or more 

 American Indian/Alaska 

 Native: No enrollment categories 

 Hispanic: Less than 300, 300–449, 450–649, 650 or more 

 Black: Less than 350, 350–699, 700–899, 900 or more 

Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, 

 District of Columbia,Florida, Louisiana, 

 Maryland, Mississippi, New York, 

 North Carolina, South Carolina, 

 Tennessee, Virginia 

 Asian/Pacific Islander: Less than 100, 100–199, 200–299, 300 or more 

 White: Less than 400, 400–549, 550–749, 750 or more 

 American Indian/Alaska 

 Native: No enrollment categories 

 Hispanic: Less than 350, 350–699, 700–899, 900 or more 

 Black: Less than 450, 450–599, 600–799, 800 or more 

 All Remaining States 

 Asian/Pacific Islander: Less than 100, 100–199, 200–299, 300 or more 

 White: Less than 200, 200–99, 400–599, 600 or more 

 American Indian/Alaska 

 Native: No enrollment categories 

 Hispanic: Less than 350, 350–699, 700–899, 900 or more 

 Black: Less than 350, 350–699, 700–899, 900 or more 

Catholic—Parochial, Catholic—Diocesan, and Other Religious Private School Teachers: 

Race/Ethnicity by Enrollment by School Level 

 Asian/Pacific Islander: Less than 300, 300 or more 

 White: Less than 150, 150–199, 200–249, 250–299, 300–349, 

350–449, 450–549, 550–699, 700 or more 

 American Indian/Alaska Native: No enrollment categories 

 Hispanic: Less than 230, 230–299, 300–399, 400–549, 550 or more 

 Black: Less than 225, 225–349, 350 or more 
Appendix R. Weighting Adjustment Cells R-23 

Baptist Private School Teachers: Race/Ethnicity by Enrollment by School Level 

 Asian/Pacific Islander: No enrollment categories 

 White: Less than 100, 100–299, 300 or more 

 American Indian/Alaska Native: No enrollment categories 

 Hispanic: No enrollment categories 

 Black: No enrollment categories 

Episcopal Private School Teachers: Race/Ethnicity by Enrollment by School Level 

 Asian/Pacific Islander: No enrollment categories 

 White: Less than 200, 200–499, 500 or more 

 American Indian/Alaska Native: No enrollment categories 

 Hispanic: No enrollment categories 

 Black: No enrollment categories 

Seventh-Day Adventist Private School Teachers: Race/Ethnicity by Enrollment by School Level 

 Asian/Pacific Islander: No enrollment categories 

 White: Less than 20, 20–69, 70 or more 

 American Indian/Alaska Native: No enrollment categories 

 Hispanic: No enrollment categories 

 Black: No enrollment categories 

Nonsectarian—Special Emphasis Private School Teachers: Race/Ethnicity by Enrollment by 

School Level 

 Asian/Pacific Islander: No enrollment categories 

 White: Less than 100, 100–299, 300 or more 

 American Indian/Alaska Native: No enrollment categories 

 Hispanic: No enrollment categories 

 Black: No enrollment categories 

Jewish Private School Teachers: Race/Ethnicity by Enrollment by School Level 

 Asian/Pacific Islander: No enrollment categories 

 White: Less than 175, 175–349, 350 or more 

 American Indian/Alaska Native: No enrollment categories 

 Hispanic: No enrollment categories 

 Black: No enrollment categories 

Lutheran Private School Teachers: Race/Ethnicity by Enrollment by School Level 

 Asian/Pacific Islander: No enrollment categories 

 White: Less than 125, 125–224, 225 or more 

 American Indian/Alaska Native: No enrollment categories 

 Hispanic: No enrollment categories 

 Black: No enrollment categories 
R-24 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Nonsectarian—Special Education Private School Teachers: Race/Ethnicity by Enrollment by 

School Level 

 Asian/Pacific Islander: No enrollment categories 

 White: Less than 40, 40–69, 70–99, 100–174, 175 or more 

 American Indian/Alaska Native: No enrollment categories 

 Hispanic: No enrollment categories 

 Black: Less than 100, 100 or more 

Catholic—Private, Private School Teachers: Race/Ethnicity by Enrollment by School Level 

 Asian/Pacific Islander: Less than 700, 700 or more 

 White: Less than 188, 188–299, 300–499, 500–599, 600–799, 800 

or more 

 American Indian/Alaska Native: No enrollment categories 

 Hispanic: Less than 275, 275–549, 550–799, 800 or more 

 Black: Less than 500, 500–799, 800 or more 

Nonsectarian—Special Emphasis Private School Teachers: Race/Ethnicity by Enrollment by 

School Level 

 Asian/Pacific Islander: Less than 750, 750 or more 

 White: Less than 188, 188–299, 300–499, 500–599, 600–799, 800 

or more 

 American Indian/Alaska Native: No enrollment categories 

 Hispanic: Less than 275, 275–549, 550–799, 800 or more 

 Black: Less than 500, 500–799, 800 or more 

Amish Private School Teachers: Region by Enrollment 

 Northeast: Less than 25, 25–29, 30 or more 

 Midwest: Less than 25, 25–29, 30 or more 

 South: No enrollment categories 

 West: No enrollment categories 

Assembly of God Private School Teachers: School Level by Enrollment 

 Elementary: Less than 75, 75–174, 175 or more 

 Combined: Less than 150, 150 or more 

 Secondary: No enrollment categories 

Lutheran—Missouri Synod Private School Teachers: School Level by Enrollment 

 Elementary: Less than 30, 30–59, 60 or more 

 Combined: Less than 30, 30 or more 

 Secondary: No enrollment categories 

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod Private School Teachers: School Level by Enrollment 

 Elementary: Less than 45, 45–74, 75–114, 115 or more 

 Combined: No enrollment categories 

 Secondary: No enrollment categories 
Appendix R. Weighting Adjustment Cells R-25 

Pentecostal Private School Teachers: School Level by Enrollment 

 Elementary: Less than 100, 100 or more 

 Combined: Less than 25, 25–44, 45–174, 175 or more 

 Secondary: No enrollment categories 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
S-1 

Appendix S. Response Variance in the 

2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

This report, prepared by Robyn Sirkis from the Survey Response Analysis Branch of the Demographic 

Statistical Methods Division in the U.S. Bureau of the Census, contains the following material: 

Summary ............................................................................................................................................ S-3 

Major Findings............................................................................................................................. S-3 

Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... S-7 

Reinterview Procedures ............................................................................................................... S-7 

Reinterview Sample Design......................................................................................................... S-7 

Reinterview Response Rates........................................................................................................ S-9 

Weighted Data ........................................................................................................................... S-10 

Reinterview Model Assumptions............................................................................................... S-10 

Measures Used to Estimate Response Variance ........................................................................ S-11 

Response Variance Measures for Rare Categories .................................................................... S-13 

Limitations................................................................................................................................. S-13 

Detailed Results................................................................................................................................ S-14 

Principal Reinterview Questionnaire—Private and Public School Principals........................... S-14 

School Reinterview Questionnaire—Private and Public Schools.............................................. S-23 

Private and Public Teacher Reinterview Questionnaires........................................................... S-28 

Summary of Response Variance Levels by Question Number ........................................................ S-39 

Principal Reinterview Questionnaire—Private School Principals............................................. S-39 

Principal Reinterview Questionnaire—Public School Principals.............................................. S-40 

School Reinterview Questionnaire—Private Schools................................................................ S-41 

School Reinterview Questionnaire—Public Schools................................................................. S-42 

Private Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire .............................................................................. S-43 

Public Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire................................................................................ S-44 

Response Variance Formulas ........................................................................................................... S-45 

Hui-Walter Method .......................................................................................................................... S-46 

Introduction................................................................................................................................ S-46 

The Hui-Walter Method............................................................................................................. S-46 

Using the Results of the Hui-Walter Method to Estimate the Index of Inconsistency .............. S-47 

How to Estimate the Hui-Walter Model Parameters.................................................................. S-47 

How Many Responses Are Necessary for Analysis? ....................................................................... S-48 

Questions in Both the 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS—School Reinterview Questionnaires........ S-49 

Questions in Both the 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS—Private Teacher and Public Teacher 

Reinterview Questionnaires.............................................................................................................. S-54 

Measures........................................................................................................................................... S-56 

Principal Reinterview Questionnaire—Private School Principals............................................. S-57 

Principal Reinterview Questionnaire—Public School Principals.............................................. S-62 

School Reinterview Questionnaire—Private Schools................................................................ S-68 

School Reinterview Questionnaire—Public Schools................................................................. S-73 

Private Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire .............................................................................. S-80 

Public Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire................................................................................ S-98 

References ...................................................................................................................................... S-116 

Attachments: 

S-1. Principal Reinterview Questionnaire .......................................................................................S-117 

S-2. School Reinterview Questionnaire ..........................................................................................S-123 
S-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

S-3. Private Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire ............................................................................S-132

S-4. Public Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire..............................................................................S-148 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-3 

Summary 

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) sponsors the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 

conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. SASS is an integrated set of surveys including principal, school, 

and teacher surveys. The Census Bureau first conducted SASS during the 1987–1988 school year. This 

report describes the results of the reinterview program for the 2003–04 SASS. The purpose of the 

reinterview was to measure response variance for certain questions that NCES and the Census Bureau 

considered critical to the survey or suspected were problematic. Previous reports contain the reinterview 

results from the 1987–88 (Newbrough 1989), 1990–91 (Royce 1994), 1993–94 (Bushery, Schreiner, and 

Sebron 1998), and 1999–2000 (Ennis and Miller 2004) school years. 

Reinterview programs allow for detecting problems in the questions, but usually they can neither identify 

causes of response error nor correct the problems. High response variance indicates a problematic 

question, and moderate response variance suggests some problems with reliability. 

It is useful to note which questions were the same or were modified in the current SASS (2003–04) and 

the previous SASS (1999–2000). The School Reinterview Questionnaire for the 2003–04 SASS was 

compared with the Private School Reinterview Questionnaire and the Public School Reinterview 

Questionnaire for the 1999–2000 SASS. The table with the listing of the questions for the schools can be 

found in the section “Questions in Both the 1999–2000 SASS and the 2003–2004 SASS—School 

Reinterview Questionnaire.” The Private Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire and the Public Teacher 

Reinterview Questionnaire for the 2003–04 SASS were compared with the Teacher Reinterview 

Questionnaire for the 1999–2000 SASS. The table with the listing of the questions for the teachers can be 

found in the section “Questions in Both the 1999–2000 SASS and the 2003–04 SASS—Private Teacher 

and Public Teacher Reinterview Questionnaires.” There is not a table for the principals, because there was 

no principal reinterview questionnaire for the 1999–2000 SASS. 

Major Findings 

Principal Reinterview Questionnaire—Private and Public School Principals 

The response variance was evaluated in 17 questions for the private school principals, and 20 questions 

for the public school principals from the 2003–04 SASS Principal Reinterview Questionnaire. The 

questions were divided into five groups according to the question topic. Tables S-1 and S-2 summarize 

the levels of response variance for each group of questions for the private and public school principals, 

respectively. A copy of the Principal Reinterview Questionnaire can be found in Attachment S-1. 

The numbers in the percent columns in tables S-1 through S-6 are the percentage of questions that fall in 

that type of variance (high, moderate, or low). 
S-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table S-1. Summary of response variance for the SASS Principal Reinterview Questionnaire—

private school principals, by question group: 2003–04 

Total evaluated High Moderate Low 

Question group Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

 All questions 17 100.0 7 41.2 8 47.1 2 11.8

Experience, training, and working 

 conditions 10 100.0 6 60.0 3 30.0 1 10.0

Teacher and school performance 1 100.0 0 0.0 1 100.0 0 0.0

School climate and safety 2 100.0 0 0.0 2 100.0 0 0.0

Parent or guardian involvement 3 100.0 1 33.3 2 66.7 0 0.0

Demographic information 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0

NOTE: The numbers in the percent columns are the percentage of questions that fall in that type of variance (high, moderate, or

low). The counts for all the tables exclude the questions where the Bowker Test and t-test fails, and where the rare characteristics 

occur (for the Yes/No questions). Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

For the private school principals, 41 percent of the 17 questions evaluated displayed high response 

variance, suggesting problems with reliability. There was moderate response variance for 47 percent of 

the questions analyzed and low response variance for 12 percent. 

Table S-2. Summary of response variance for the SASS Principal Reinterview Questionnaire—

public school principals, by question group: 2003–04 

Total evaluated High Moderate Low 

Question group Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

 All questions 20 100.0 13 65.0 6 30.0 1 5.0

Experience, training, and working 

 conditions 8 100.0 5 62.5 3 37.5 0 0.0

Teacher and school performance 6 100.0 5 83.3 1 16.7 0 0.0

School climate and safety 2 100.0 1 50.0 1 50.0 0 0.0

Parent or guardian involvement 3 100.0 2 66.7 1 33.3 0 0.0

Demographic information 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0

NOTE: The numbers in the percent columns are the percentage of questions that fall in that type of variance (high, moderate, or

low). The counts for all the tables exclude the questions where the Bowker Test and t-test fails, and where the rare characteristics 

occur (for the Yes/No questions). Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

For the public school principals, 65 percent of the 20 questions evaluated displayed high response 

variance, 30 percent displayed moderate response variance, and 5 percent displayed low response 

variance. 

School Reinterview Questionnaire—Private and Public Schools 

The response variance was evaluated in 20 questions for the private schools and 38 questions for the 

public schools from the 2003–04 SASS School Reinterview Questionnaire. The questions were divided 

into three groups according to the question topic. Tables S-3 and S-4 summarize the levels of response 

variance for each group of questions for the private and public schools, respectively. A copy of the School 

Reinterview Questionnaire can be found in Attachment S-2. 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-5 

Table S-3. Summary of response variance for the SASS School Reinterview Questionnaire—

private schools, by question group: 2003–04 

Total evaluated High Moderate Low 

Question group Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

 All questions 20 100.0 1 5.0 3 15.0 16 80.0

General information 9 100.0 1 11.1 1 11.1 7 77.8

Staffing 7 100.0 0 0.0 1 14.3 6 85.7

Special programs and services 4 100.0 0 0.0 1 25.0 3 75.0

NOTE: The numbers in the percent columns are the percentage of questions that fall in that type of variance (high, moderate, or

low). The counts for all the tables exclude the questions where the Bowker Test and t-test fails, and where the rare characteristics 

occur (for the Yes/No questions). Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

For the private schools, 5 percent of the 20 questions evaluated displayed high response variance, 

suggesting problems with reliability. There was moderate response variance for 15 percent of the 

questions analyzed and low response variance for 80 percent. 

Table S-4. Summary of response variance for the SASS School Reinterview Questionnaire—

public schools, by question group: 2003–04 

Total evaluated High Moderate Low 

Question group Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

 All questions 38 100.0 7 18.4 12 31.6 19 50.0

General information 14 100.0 6 42.9 3 21.4 5 35.7

Staffing 8 100.0 0 0.0 3 37.5 5 62.5

Special programs and services 16 100.0 1 6.3 6 37.5 9 56.3

NOTE: The numbers in the percent columns are the percentage of questions that fall in that type of variance (high, moderate, or

low). The counts for all the tables exclude the questions where the Bowker Test and t-test fails, and where the rare characteristics 

occur (for the Yes/No questions). Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

For the public schools, 18 percent of the 38 questions evaluated displayed high response variance, 

suggesting problems with reliability. There was moderate response variance for 32 percent of the 

questions analyzed and low response variance for 50 percent. 

Private Teacher and Public Teacher Reinterview Questionnaires 

The response variance was evaluated in 24 questions from the 2003–04 SASS Private Teacher 

Reinterview Questionnaire and 26 questions from the 2003–04 SASS Public Teacher Reinterview 

Questionnaire. 

The questions were divided into seven groups according to the question topic. Tables S-5 and S-6 

summarize the levels of response variance for each group of questions for the private and public school 

teachers, respectively. Copies of the Private Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire and the Public Teacher 

Reinterview Questionnaire can be found in Attachments S-3 and S-4, respectively. 
S-6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Table S-5. Summary of response variance for the SASS Private Teacher Reinterview 

Questionnaire, by question group: 2003–04 

Total evaluated High Moderate Low 

Question group Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

 All questions 24 100.0 6 25.0 7 29.2 11 45.8

General information 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0

Class organization 2 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 100.0

Educational background 9 100.0 1 11.1 3 33.3 5 55.6

Certification and training 4 100.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 1 25.0

Professional development 3 100.0 3 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Resources and assessments of 

 students 2 100.0 1 50.0 1 50.0 0 0

Working conditions 3 100.0 0 0.0 1 33.3 2 66.7

NOTE: The numbers in the percent columns are the percentage of questions that fall in that type of variance (high, moderate, or

low). The counts for all the tables exclude the questions where the Bowker Test and t-test fails, and where the rare characteristics 

occur (for the Yes/No questions). Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

For the private school teachers, 25 percent of the 24 questions evaluated displayed high response 

variance, suggesting problems with reliability. There was moderate response variance for 29 percent of 

the questions analyzed and low response variance for 46 percent. 

Table S-6. Summary of response variance for the SASS Public Teacher Reinterview 

Questionnaire, by question group: 2003–04 

Total evaluated High Moderate Low 

Question group Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

 All questions 26 100.0 5 19.2 12 46.2 9 34.6

General information 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 100.0

Class organization 2 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 100.0

Educational background 9 100.0 0 0.0 4 44.4 5 55.6

Certification and training 8 100.0 0 0.0 7 87.5 1 12.5

Professional development 3 100.0 3 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Resources and assessments of 

 students 1 100.0 0 0.0 1 100.0 0 0.0

Working conditions 2 100.0 2 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

NOTE: The numbers in the percent columns are the percentage of questions that fall in that type of variance (high, moderate, or

low). The counts for all the tables exclude the questions where the Bowker Test and t-test fails, and where the rare characteristics 

occur (for the Yes/No questions). Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

For the public school teachers, 19 percent of the 26 questions evaluated displayed high response variance, 

46 percent displayed moderate response variance, and 35 percent displayed low response variance. 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-7 

Methodology 

Reinterview Procedures 

For the original survey, questionnaires were delivered to respondents and were self-administered. The 

nonrespondents were contacted by Census Bureau field representatives for follow-up. Once the Census 

Bureau clerical staff received a completed original questionnaire from a respondent selected for 

reinterview, the staff then mailed out the proper reinterview questionnaire with a letter explaining the 

purpose of the reinterview to the respondent. The respondents would complete the reinterview 

questionnaires (self-administered) and then mail the questionnaires back to the Census Bureau clerical 

staff in the provided envelope. A second mailout was sent for people who did not respond by February 

24, 2004. 

Reinterview Sample Design 

SASS is an integrated set of surveys including school, principal, and teacher surveys. Public and private 

schools each have their own unique surveys. The reinterview sample for each of the SASS surveys is a 

random subsample of that survey’s full sample. 

Private Schools and Principals Sampling 

The final 2003–04 SASS private school sample (3,662) was used as the reinterview sample frame. With 

the 370 desired reinterviews there was a 90 percent certainty that a change of 5 percent in the 

respondents’ answers between the original and reinterview could be detected. An oversample was taken 

to account for original survey and reinterview noninterviews. This brought the total number of cases 

selected for the private school sample to 686. The response rates were taken from the 1999–2000 SASS 

and its reinterview to calculate the reinterview sample. Exhibit S-1 documents how the private school 

reinterview sample size was computed.

Exhibit S-1. Computation of private school and principal reinterview sample size: 2003–04 

Cases Private schools and principals

Number of cases selected for reinterview 686

Original noninterview rate1 18.1%

Projected number of cases after removing original noninterviews 562

Out-of-scope rate1

 7.9%

Projected number of cases eligible for reinterview 508

Completion rate1 72.8%

Projected number of completed reinterviews 370

1

 The original noninterview and reinterview response rates were taken from the 1999–2000 SASS. 

SOURCE: Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
S-8 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Public Schools and Principals Reinterview Sampling 

The final 2003–04 SASS public school sample (10,368) was used as the reinterview sample frame. With 

the 1,261 desired reinterviews there was a 90 percent certainty that a change of 5 percent in the 

respondents’ answers between the original and reinterview could be detected. The sample was 

oversampled to account for original survey and reinterview noninterviews. That brought the total number 

of cases selected for the public school sample to 1,951. The response rates were taken from the 1999–

2000 SASS and its reinterview to calculate the reinterview sample. Exhibit S-2 documents how the public 

school reinterview sample size was computed. 

Exhibit S-2. Computation of public school and principal reinterview sample size: 2003–04 

Cases Public schools and principals

Number of cases selected for reinterview 1,951

Original noninterview rate1 11.0%

Projected number of cases after removing original noninterviews 1,736

Out-of-scope rate1

 3.8%

Projected number of cases eligible for reinterview 1,662

Completion rate1 75.9%

Projected number of completed reinterview 1,261

1

 The original noninterview and reinterview response rates were taken from the 1999–2000 SASS. 

SOURCE: Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

Public and Private School Teacher Sampling 

The expected number of 2003–04 SASS public and private school teachers (67,200) was used as the 

reinterview sample frame. The public and private school teacher samples were chosen separately. For 

both the public and private school teacher desired reinterview samples there was a 90 percent certainty 

that a change of 5 percent in the respondents’ answers between the original and reinterview could be 

detected. An oversample was taken to account for original survey and reinterview noninterviews. This 

brought the total number of cases selected for the teacher sample to 4,133. The response rates were taken 

from the 1999–2000 SASS and its reinterview to calculate the reinterview sample. Exhibit S-3 documents 

how the teacher reinterview sample size was computed. 

Exhibit S-3. Computation of teacher reinterview sample size: 2003–04 

Teachers 

Cases Public Private

Number of cases selected for reinterview 2,758 1,375

Original noninterview rate1 16.7% 23.6%

Projected number of cases after removing original noninterviews 2,298 1,051

Out-of-scope rate1

 7.8% 11.9%

Projected number of cases eligible for reinterview 2,082 887

Completion rate1

 70.6% 70.0%

Projected number of completed reinterviews 1,470 621

1

 The original noninterview and reinterview response rates were taken from the 1999–2000 SASS. 

SOURCE: Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-9 

Reinterview Response Rates 

Principal Reinterview Questionnaire—Private and Public School Principals 

There were 1,333 completed principal reinterviews—278 private school principal cases and 1,055 public 

school principal cases. The reinterview response rate was 66.09 percent. Exhibit S-4 shows the 

reinterview sample sizes and response rates for the private and public school principals. 

Exhibit S-4. SASS sample sizes and response rates for private and public school principal 

reinterviews: 2003–04 

Principals 

Cases Total Public Private

Selected for reinterview 2,637 1,951 686

 Noninterview in original 483 336 147

 Out-of-scope 137 52 85

 Original interview completed 2,017 1,563 454

Eligible for reinterview 2,017 1,563 454

Reinterview completed 1,333 1,055 278

Reinterview response rate 66.09% 67.50% 61.23%

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

The School Reinterview Questionnaire—Private and Public Schools 

There were 911 completed school reinterviews—244 private school cases and 667 public school cases. 

The reinterview response rate was 45.53 percent. Exhibit S-5 shows the reinterview sample sizes and 

response rates for the private and public schools. 

Exhibit S-5. SASS sample sizes and response rates for private and public school reinterviews: 

2003–04 

Schools 

Cases Total Public Private

Selected for reinterview 2,637 1,951 686

 Noninterview in original 519 365 154

 Out-of-scope 117 45 72

 Original interview completed 2,001 1,541 460

Eligible for reinterview 2,001 1,541 460

Reinterview completed 911 667 244

Reinterview response rate 45.53% 43.28% 53.04%

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

The Private Teacher and Public Teacher Reinterview Questionnaires 

There were 304 completed private school teacher reinterviews, and 763 public school teacher 

reinterviews. The reinterview response rate was 58.92 percent. Exhibit S-6 shows the reinterview sample 

sizes and response rates for the private and public school teachers. 
S-10 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Exhibit S-6. SASS sample size and response rates for public and private school teachers: 2003–04 

Teachers 

Cases Total Public Private

Selected for reinterview 2,202 1,602 600

 Noninterview in original 362 265 97

 Out-of-scope 29 27 2

 Original interview completed 1,811 1,310 501

Eligible for reinterview 1,811 1,310 501

Ineligible for reinterview 1,931 1,156 775

Reinterview completed 1,067 763 304

Reinterview response rate 58.92% 58.24% 60.68%

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 

Weighted Data 

The reinterview data were weighted to reflect the sample design and to obtain an unbiased estimate. The 

response error reinterview is considered as a simple random sub-sample drawn from the original sample. 

The data were weighted to account for reinterview sampling. After the reinterview data were weighted, 

the data were then reweighted back to the reinterview sample size. The purpose of the weighting was to 

obtain the correct distribution of the reinterview cases across the population. The reweight process is used 

to re-adjust the inflated size back to the actual sample size in reinterview. Therefore, each case in the 

reinterview sample has a weight of: 

∑

∑ =

re ervuew

orig

i

original

orig

i

orig

i

RI

i

w

w

w w

int

* 

Reinterview Model Assumptions 

The response error reinterview model assumes the reinterview is an independent replication of the 

original interview. 

Independence means that the response errors are not correlated between the original interview and the 

reinterview. If the respondents remembered their original answers and consciously repeated them in the 

reinterview, the independence assumption would be violated. Lack of independence generally results in 

underestimates of response variance. 

Replication means that the reinterview was conducted under the same conditions as the original 

interview. If the reinterview replicates the original interview, the distribution of the original and 

reinterview responses will be the same. With quantitative data, the means and variances of the original 

and reinterview responses will be equal. With categorical data, the difference between the original 

proportion in-category and the reinterview proportion in-category, the net difference rate (NDR), will be 

zero. 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-11 

Measures Used to Estimate Response Variance1

Random errors of measurement in the survey process (nonsampling error) increase the mean square error 

(MSE) of the data collected. When the errors are not correlated with the answers or with each other, this 

variability is called “simple response variance.” 

The index of inconsistency (index) and the gross difference rate (GDR) are the principal measures of 

response variance in categorical data. The index and GDR are estimated for each question category. 

Overall estimates of the index and the GDR for a question, the aggregate index and the aggregate GDR, 

apply to questions with three or more answer categories. 

This report provides 90 percent confidence intervals for these measures. See the section on “Response 

Variance Formulas” for the formulas used to calculate the reinterview measures and the confidence 

intervals. 

Index of Inconsistency 

The index of inconsistency estimates the ratio of simple response variance to total variance for a question 

answer. It is a relative measure of simple response variance. 

The aggregate index is similar to the index of inconsistency, but it applies to the entire question rather 

than a specific answer category. It is an average index of inconsistency across all categories for the 

question. For questions with two categories (e.g., yes/no questions), the index of inconsistency and the 

aggregate index are equal. 

An aggregate index of zero means responses were in perfect agreement, but an index of 100 does not 

mean that all of the respondents changed answers. Rather, this is what would be expected if there were no 

relationship between original and reinterview answers beyond chance agreement. 

Use this rule of thumb to interpret the index of inconsistency and the aggregate index. 

Index value Response variance level Interpretation 

Less than 20 Low Usually not a major problem 

Between 20 and 50 Moderate Somewhat problematic 

Greater than 50 High Very problematic 

Any of these factors may cause high response variance: 

• The methods used to collect the data may need improvement or the question may be unclearly 

written. 

• The concept itself may not be measurable. 

• Respondents may not be able to provide reliable information to the level of detail asked. 

 

1

 See the following references: Hansen, Hurwitz, and Marks (1951); Hansen, Hurwitz, and Madow (1953); Lessler 

and Kalsbeek (1992); and U.S. Bureau of the Census (n.d.). 
S-12 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Gross Difference Rate 

The gross difference rate (GDR) is the percentage of responses that fall in a category in the original 

interview but not in the reinterview, or vice versa. For a single category, one-half the GDR estimates the 

simple response variance. 

The aggregate GDR applies to an entire question rather than to a specific answer category. For questions 

with more than two categories, the aggregate GDR is the percentage of responses that change between the 

original interview and the reinterview. 

GDR is more difficult to interpret than the index of inconsistency. Large GDRs indicate serious response 

variance in the data. Unfortunately, a small GDR is no guarantee of good consistency. In a low-frequency 

category, even a small GDR can represent high response variance relative to total variance. If this is the 

case, the index of inconsistency will tell us. 

Net Difference Rate 

In categorical data, the net difference rate (NDR) helps indicate how well the reinterview meets some of 

the model assumptions. A statistically significant NDR (i.e., statistically different from zero) suggests that 

the reinterview may not replicate the original survey conditions as well as desired. 

The McNemar Test for the Yes/No questions tests whether the NDR is significant. The Hui-Walter 

Method is used to calculate the index for the Yes/No questions if the NDR is found to be significant. 

More information about this method is available in the section titled “Hui-Walter Method.” 

The Bowker Test is an extension of the McNemar Test and is used for the questions that have multiple 

categories. 

For the quantitative questions, the mean difference between the paired responses was tested to see if it is 

significantly different from zero. This test provides information analogous to the NDR. 

Cross-Tabulations 

For a “yes/no” question, the cross-tabulation looks like this: 

Original response 

Reinterview response Total

Not 

applicable Subtotal Yes No 

Total 

Not applicable 

Subtotal n a + c b + d

Yes a + b a b

No c + d c d

where 

n = the number of respondents who answered the question in both the original and the 

reinterview; 

a = the number of respondents who answered “yes” both times; 

b = the number of respondents whose answer changed from “no” in the original to “yes” in the 

reinterview; 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-13 

c = the number of respondents whose answer changed from “yes” in the original to “no” in the 

reinterview; and 

d = the number of respondents who answered “no” both times. 

Only cases where respondents answered the question in both the original interview and reinterview were 

used to compute the response variance measures. 

In multicategory questions, these cross-tabulations show the movement among answer categories between 

the original interview and the reinterview. Patterns in this movement can provide clues to the reasons for 

inconsistent reporting. In some cases, such movement may even suggest question revisions to reduce 

response variance. 

Response Variance Measures for Rare Categories 

A rare characteristic is one that is not widely distributed among a population. From a response variance 

perspective a characteristic is called rare when a small percent of cases fall in the category represented by 

the characteristic. In this report, 5 percent is set as the cut-off point. The index of inconsistency may be 

substantially higher for rare categories when only a few individuals among the small number reporting the 

characteristic change their response (interview vs. reinterview). This may also be a problem for small 

sample sizes, even when they do not have rare characteristics. 

A category which represents a rare characteristic will have small total variance. This makes the ratio of 

the simple response variance to total variance seem larger in comparison to that ratio for more common 

characteristics. High indexes were observed for rare categories in a distribution even though the gross 

difference rate (the proportion of individuals in the sample changing their responses) may be small. The 

problem with rare characteristics is that the point estimate (index) is highly biased. If the GDR is greater 

than 5 percent then the question is problematic. If the GDR is less than 5 percent then the question is not 

problematic. 

Limitations 

As is always a potential problem with response error reinterviews, not all reinterviews may have been 

independent, in that some respondents may have simply remembered and repeated their original answers. 

For some questions, the reinterview did not replicate the original interview. For the public school 

principals, private school teachers, and public school teachers, the proportion of questions in which the 

NDR was statistically significant was higher than the 10 percent that would be expected by chance. 

Specifically, 6.8 percent of the 59 response categories in questions evaluated for the private school 

principals, 22.7 percent of the 75 response categories in questions evaluated for the public school 

principals, 0 percent of the 24 response categories in questions evaluated for the private schools, 7.4 

percent of the 54 response categories in questions evaluated for the public schools, 11.6 percent of the 86 

response categories in questions evaluated for the private school teachers, and 15.4 percent of the 156 

response categories in questions evaluated for the public school teachers were statistically significant for 

the Bowker Test or displayed statistically significant NDRs. 

Operational constraints often make it difficult to conduct the reinterview as an exact replication of the 

original. When a reinterview does not replicate the original interview perfectly, the differences in 

methodology may cause an overestimation or underestimation of the response variance. 

One reason the reinterview did not replicate the original interview is that the reinterview contains only a 

subset of questions from the original interview questionnaire. 
S-14 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Detailed Results 

For ease in presentation, the questions were divided into groups based on content. In each group, the 

questions discussed are those that exhibited moderate response variance (indices between 20 and 50) or 

high response variance (indices greater than 50). The estimates of reliability are given with 90 percent 

confidence intervals. The questions were mentioned if the Bowker Test for symmetry or t test was found 

to be significant. The Yes/No questions are mentioned if the categories were found to be rare. Certain 

questions were not evaluated because there were not enough data. Questions where at least 138 

respondents did not answer both the original interview and reinterview were not evaluated. The method 

used to find the sample size of 138 can be found in the section titled “How Many Responses Are 

Necessary for Analysis?” A listing of all the question numbers and their response variance levels 

(indexes) can be found in the section titled “Summary of Response Variance Levels by Question 

Number.” 

Unless shown otherwise, categorical questions have “Yes” and “No” as possible responses. The “mark all 

that applies” questions were analyzed as individual “Yes or No” questions. 

For the questions with high indexes, logistic regression was used to test a model for inconsistency with 

explanatory variables gender, age, race, and ethnicity for the principals and teachers. Significant 

explanatory variables contributed to the inconsistency of the responses between the original interview and 

the reinterview. The odds ratios produced by logistic regression were reported if they were greater than 

1.5. Logistic regression was only used on the questions where the model fit the data. The data were not 

distributed properly for logistic regression to be appropriate for the categorical questions. Logistic 

regression was used for the quantitative questions where the t test did not fail. The indexes and GDRs for 

the questions can be found in the final section, “Measures.” 

Principal Reinterview Questionnaire—Private and Public School Principals 

Experience, Training, and Working Conditions 

Question 1: What is the highest degree you have earned? 

Mark (X) only one box. 

1 G Associate degree 

2 G Bachelor’s degree (B.A., B.S., B.E., etc.) 

3 G Master’s degree (M.A., M.A.T., M.B.A., M.Ed., M.S., etc.) 

4 G Education specialist or professional diploma (at least one year beyond master’s level) 

5 G Doctorate or first professional degree (Ph.D., Ed.D., M.D., L.L.B., J.D., D.D.S.) 

6 G Do not have a degree 

For the public school principals, the question had a moderate response variance with an index of 32.09 

(28.95, 35.91). Approximately 18.06 percent (16.11, 20.01) of the respondents changed their answers 

from the original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “Bachelor’s 

Degree” category was rare. Also, the NDR for the “Education specialist or professional diploma” 

category was statistically different from zero. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original 

interview and the reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore, the index can be used to evaluate this 

question. The moderate index indicates that the question is somewhat problematic. 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-15 

Question 2: How many total hours do you spend on ALL school-related activities for this school during a 

typical FULL WEEK? 

Include hours spent working during the school day, before school, and on weekends. 

 Total weekly 

hours 

For the private school principals, the question had a moderate response variance with an index of 38.25 

(26.03, 50.48), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

For the public school principals, the question had a moderate response variance with an index of 44.16 

(33.18, 55.14), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

Question 3: How many total hours do you spend interacting with students during a typical FULL WEEK 

at this school? 

Include both formal and informal interactions. 

 Total weekly 

hours 

For the private school principals, the question had a moderate response variance with an index of 36.11 

(30.23, 41.99), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

For the public school principals, the t test indicated that there is a significant difference in the means of 

the original interview and the reinterview. Therefore, the index of inconsistency should not be used to 

evaluate this question. 

Question 4: How many months is the contract year for your position as principal/school head of this 

school? 

Mark (X) only one box. 

1 G Less than 9 months 5 G 10-1/2 months 

2 G 9 months 6 G 11 months 

3 G 9-1/2 months 7 G 11-1/2 months 

4 G 10 months 8 G 12 months 

The question had a moderate response variance for the private school principals with an index of 49.42 

(41.99, 60.00). Approximately 23.16 percent (18.95, 27.37) of the respondents changed their answers 

from the original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “9 months,” 

“9-1/2 months,” “10-1/2 months,” and “11-1/2 months” categories were rare. The Bowker Test for 

symmetry indicated that the original interview and the reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore, 

the index can be used to evaluate this question. The moderate index indicates that the question is 

somewhat problematic. 

For the public school principals, the question had a moderate response variance with an index of 31.75 

(28.79, 35.33). Approximately 19.79 percent (17.76, 21.82) of the respondents changed their answers 

from the original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “9 months,” 
S-16 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“9-1/2 months,” and “11-1/2 months” categories were rare. Also, the NDRs for the “Less than 9 months” 

and “11 months” categories were statistically different from zero. The Bowker Test for symmetry 

indicated that the original interview and the reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore, the index 

can be used to evaluate this question. The moderate index indicates that the question is somewhat 

problematic. 

Questions 5a–5f: Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following 

statements. 

Mark (X) ONE box on each line. 

5a: The stress and disappointments involved in serving as principal/school head of this school aren’t 

really worth it. 

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly 

agree agree disagree disagree 

1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 

For the private school principals, the question had a high response variance with an index of 65.28 (57.54, 

75.86). Approximately 33.45 percent (28.77, 38.13) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “Strongly agree” 

category was rare. The index can be used to evaluate this question. The high index indicates that the 

question is problematic, since many of the respondents changed their responses between the two 

interviews. 

For the public school principals, the question had a high response variance with an index of 65.20 (61.34, 

69.70). Approximately 38.92 percent (36.43, 41.41) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “Strongly agree” 

category was rare. Also, the NDR for the “Somewhat agree” category was statistically different from 

zero. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview and the reinterview have the 

same distribution. Therefore the index can be used to evaluate this question. The high index indicates that 

the question is problematic, since many of the respondents changed their responses between the two 

interviews. 

The four answer categories were collapsed into two categories. The two categories “Strongly agree” and 

“Somewhat agree” were combined into one category. The other two categories “Somewhat disagree” and 

“Strongly disagree” were combined into another category. The question still had a high response variance 

for the private and public school principals. However, the GDR was much lower for the private and 

public school principals, which is not surprising since there are fewer categories to change an answer 

from the original interview to the reinterview. 

5b: The faculty and staff at this school like being here; I would describe them as a satisfied group. 

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly 

agree agree disagree disagree 

1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 

For the private school principals, the question had a high response variance with an index of 72.44 (63.71, 

84.39). Approximately 32.61 percent (27.97, 37.25) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “Somewhat disagree” 

and “Strongly disagree” categories were rare. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-17 

interview and the reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore the index can be used to evaluate this 

question. The high index indicates that the question is problematic, since many of the respondents 

changed their responses between the two interviews. 

For the public school principals, the question had a high response variance with an index of 62.43 (58.35, 

67.22). Approximately 34.13 percent (31.72, 36.55) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “Somewhat disagree” 

and “Strongly disagree” categories were rare. Also, the NDR for the “Strongly agree” category was 

statistically different from zero. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview and 

the reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore the index can be used to evaluate this question. The 

high index indicates that the question is problematic, since many of the respondents changed their 

responses between the two interviews. 

The four answer categories were collapsed into two categories. The two categories “Strongly agree” and 

“Somewhat agree” were combined into one category. The other two categories “Somewhat disagree” and 

“Strongly disagree” were combined into another category. The question still had a high response variance 

for the private and public school principals. However, the GDR was much lower for the private and 

public school principals, which is not surprising since there are fewer categories to change an answer 

from the original interview to the reinterview. 

5c: If I could get a higher paying job, I’d leave education as soon as possible. 

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly 

agree agree disagree disagree 

1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 

For the private school principals, the question had a high response variance with an index of 58.86 (50.80, 

70.11). Approximately 26.81 percent (22.43, 31.20) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “Strongly agree” 

category was rare. Also, the NDR for the “Strongly disagree” category was statistically different from 

zero. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview and the reinterview have the 

same distribution. Therefore, the index can be used to evaluate this question. The high index indicates that 

the question is problematic, since many of the respondents changed their responses between the two 

interviews. 

For the public school principals, the question had a high response variance with an index of 63.59 (59.94, 

67.84). Approximately 40.46 percent (37.96, 42.97) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview 

and the reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore the index can be used to evaluate this question. 

The high index indicates that the question is problematic, since many of the respondents changed their 

responses between the two interviews. 

The four answer categories were collapsed into two categories. The two categories “Strongly agree” and 

“Somewhat agree” were combined into one category. The other two categories “Somewhat disagree” and 

“Strongly disagree” were combined into another category. The question still had a high response variance 

for the private and public school principals. However, the GDR was much lower for the private and 

public school principals, which is not surprising since there are fewer categories to change an answer 

from the original interview to the reinterview. 
S-18 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

5d: I think about transferring to another school. 

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly 

agree agree disagree disagree 

1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 

For the private school principals, the question had a high response variance with an index of 51.24 (43.98, 

61.43). Approximately 25.45 percent (21.13, 29.78) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “Strongly agree” 

category was rare. Also, the NDR for the “Strongly disagree” category was statistically different from 

zero. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview and the reinterview have the 

same distribution. Therefore, the index can be used to evaluate this question. The high index indicates that 

the question is problematic, since many of the respondents changed their responses between the two 

interviews. 

For the public school principals, the question had a high response variance with an index of 54.25 (50.39, 

58.80). Approximately 30.41 percent (28.07, 32.76) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The NDR for the “Strongly agree” category was statistically 

different from zero. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview and the 

reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore, the index can be used to evaluate this question. The 

gender, age, races (Black or African-American, Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native) and ethnicity 

of the public school principal were found to be significant. The high index indicates that the question is 

problematic, since many of the respondents changed their responses between the two interviews. 

The four answer categories were collapsed into two categories. The two categories “Strongly agree” and 

“Somewhat agree” were combined into one category. The other two categories “Somewhat disagree” and 

“Strongly disagree” were combined into another category. Collapsing the categories reduced response 

variance from the high range to the moderate range for the private and public school principals. The GDR 

was much lower for the private and public school principals, which is not surprising since there are fewer 

categories to change an answer from the original interview to the reinterview. 

5e: I don’t seem to have as much enthusiasm now as I did when I began my career as a principal/school 

head. 

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly 

agree agree disagree disagree 

1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 

For the private school principals, the question had a high response variance with an index of 57.94 (51.65, 

66.45). Approximately 37.68 percent (32.88, 42.48) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “Strongly agree” 

category was rare. The index can be used to evaluate this question. The high index indicates that the 

question is problematic, since many of the respondents changed their responses between the two 

interviews. 

Approximately 41.31 percent (38.80, 43.82) of the public school principals changed their answers from 

the original interview to the reinterview. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicates that the original and 

reinterview did not have the same distribution. Therefore, the index of inconsistency should not be used to 

evaluate this question. 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-19 

The four answer categories were collapsed into two categories. The two categories “Strongly agree” and 

“Somewhat agree” were combined into one category. The other two categories “Somewhat disagree” and 

“Strongly disagree” were combined into another category. Collapsing the categories reduced response 

variance from the high range to the moderate range for the private school principals. The question still 

had a high response variance for the public school principals. The GDR was much lower for the private 

and public school principals, which is not surprising since there are fewer categories to change an answer 

from the original interview to the reinterview. 

5f: I think about staying home from school because I’m just too tired to go. 

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly 

agree agree disagree disagree 

1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 

For the private school principals, the question had a high response variance with an index of 65.27 (57.02, 

76.62). Approximately 30.43 percent (25.88, 34.99) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “Strongly agree” 

category was rare. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview and the 

reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore the index can be used to evaluate this question. The 

high index indicates that the question is problematic, since many of the respondents changed their 

responses between the two interviews. 

For the public school principals, the question had a high response variance with an index of 64.45 (59.49, 

70.33). Approximately 26.97 percent (24.71, 29.23) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “Strongly agree” 

category was rare. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview and the 

reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore the index can be used to evaluate this question. The 

high index indicates that the question is problematic, since many of the respondents changed their 

responses between the two interviews. 

The four answer categories were collapsed into two categories. The two categories “Strongly agree” and 

“Somewhat agree” were combined into one category. The other two categories “Somewhat disagree” and 

“Strongly disagree” were combined into another category. The question still had a high response variance 

for the private and public school principals. However, the GDR was much lower for the private and 

public school principals, which is not surprising since there are fewer categories to change an answer 

from the original interview to the reinterview. 

Teacher and School Performance 

Question 6: In your opinion, what percentage of teachers in this school are presently teaching to high 

academic standards? 

 Percent 

For the private school principals, the question had a moderate response variance with an index of 45.95 

(18.82, 73.08), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

For the public school principals, the t test indicated that there is a significant difference in the means of 

the original interview and the reinterview. Therefore, the index of inconsistency should not be used to 

evaluate this question. 
S-20 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Question 7a: Does this school have a formal school improvement plan? 

The question had a moderate response variance for the public school principals with an index of 46.12 

(38.90, 54.81), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. Approximately 8.38 percent 

(7.01, 10.02) of the respondents changed their answers from the original interview to the reinterview. 

Questions 7b(1)–7b(3): Do you use any of the following to assess this school’s progress on that plan? 

7b(1): State or national tests 

Approximately 3.52 percent (2.59, 4.77) of the respondents changed their answers from the original 

interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “No” category was rare. 

Therefore, the index cannot be used to evaluate the question. However, the question is not problematic 

since less than 5 percent of the respondents were inconsistent with their responses between the two 

interviews. 

7b(2): Parent or student surveys 

Approximately 15.57 percent (13.66, 17.82) of the public school principals changed their answers from 

the original interview to the reinterview. The question had a high response variance with an index of 

59.91 (55.85, 63.97). The index was evaluated using the Hui-Walter Method since the McNemar Test 

indicated that the NDR was statistically different from zero, suggesting the model assumptions were not 

met as well as desired. 

7b(3): Student portfolios 

The question had a high response variance for the public school principals with an index of 54.54 (49.71, 

60.04), which implies that this question is very problematic. Approximately 27.07 percent (24.69, 29.79) 

of the respondents changed their answers from the original interview to the reinterview. 

Question 8a: Has either your district or state established school PERFORMANCE standards? 

The question had a high response variance for the public school principals with an index of 70.04 (60.22, 

81.69) which implies that this question is very problematic. Approximately 10.44 percent (8.99, 12.16) of 

the respondents changed their answers from the original interview to the reinterview. 

Question 8b: LAST school year (2002–2003), was this school evaluated on district or state 

PERFORMANCE standards? 

The question had a high response variance for the public school principals with an index of 91.33(77.25, 

108.29) which implies that this question is very problematic. Approximately 10.05 percent (8.51, 11.90) 

of the respondents changed their answers from the original interview to the reinterview. 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-21 

Question 9: Which of the following best describes this school’s performance last year? 

Mark (X) only one box. 

1 G Passed all district and state performance standards 

2 G Passed most district and state performance standards 

3 G Passed some district and state performance standards 

4 G Passed no district and state performance standards 

The question had a high response variance for the public school principals with an index of 50.38 (46.49, 

55.02). Approximately 30.12 percent (27.58, 32.66) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “Passed no district and 

state performance standards” category was rare. Also, the NDRs for the “Passed all district and state 

performance standards,” “Passed most district and state performance standards,” and “Passed some 

district and state performance standards” categories were statistically different from zero. The Bowker 

Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview and the reinterview have the same distribution. 

Therefore, the index can be used to evaluate this question. The high index indicates that the question is 

problematic, since many of the respondents changed their responses between the two interviews. 

School Climate And Safety 

Question 10: LAST school year (2002–03), how many students were expelled from this school, that is, 

removed or transferred for at least the remainder of the school year? 

If none, please mark (X) the box. 

0 G None 

 Students 

The question had a moderate response variance for the private school principals with an index of 39.87 

(35.95, 43.79), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

 

The question had a high response variance for the public school principals with an index of 80.99 (51.52, 

110.47), which implies that this question is very problematic. Logistic regression was not used since the 

model did not fit the data. 

Question 11: What was the total number of suspensions during the LAST school year (2002–03)? 

Include in-school and out-of-school suspensions. If none, please mark (X) the box. 

0 G None 

 

Suspensions 

For the private school principals, the question had a moderate response variance with an index of 21.57 

(2.04, 41.10), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 
S-22 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

For the public school principals, the question had a moderate response variance with an index of 28.30 

(23.95, 32.64), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

Parent or Guardian Involvement 

Questions 12a–12c: LAST school year (2002–03), what percentage of students had at least one parent or 

guardian participating in the following events? 

Mark (X) ONE box for each line.

12a: Open house or back-to-school night 

0–25% 26–50% 51–75% 76–100% Not applicable 

1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 G

For the private school principals, the question had a moderate response variance with an index of 49.67 

(43.05, 58.88). Approximately 28.21 percent (23.72, 32.69) of the respondents changed their answers 

from the original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “0–25%” 

category was rare. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview and the 

reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore, the index can be used to evaluate this question. The 

moderate index indicates that the question is somewhat problematic. 

For the public school principals, the question had a high response variance with an index of 53.66 (50.41, 

57.45). Approximately 38.18 percent (35.69, 40.68) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “Not applicable” 

category was rare. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview and the 

reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore the index can be used to evaluate this question. The 

high index indicates that the question is problematic, since many of the respondents changed their 

responses between the two interviews. 

12b: All regularly scheduled schoolwide parent-teacher conferences 

0–25% 26–50% 51–75% 76–100% Not applicable 

1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 G

For the private school principals, the question had a moderate response variance with an index of 40.17 

(33.51, 49.85). Approximately 19.41 percent (15.48, 23.35) of the respondents changed their answers 

from the original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “0–25%” 

category was rare. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview and the 

reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore, the index can be used to evaluate this question. The 

moderate index indicates that the question is somewhat problematic. 

For the public school principals, the question had a moderate response variance with an index of 45.14 

(41.97, 48.87). Approximately 31.43 percent (29.04, 33.83) of the respondents changed their answers 

from the original interview to the reinterview. The NDR for the “76–100%” category was statistically 

different from zero. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview and the 

reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore, the index can be used to evaluate this question. The 

moderate index implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-23 

12c: One or more special subject-area events (e.g., science fair, concerts, etc.) 

0–25% 26–50% 51–75% 76–100% Not applicable 

1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 G

For the private school principals, the question had a high response variance with an index of 60.65 (53.96, 

69.74). Approximately 37.27 percent (32.44, 42.10) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The NDRs for the “0–25% and “Not applicable” categories were 

statistically different from zero. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicates that the original interview and 

the reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore the index can be used to evaluate this question. The 

high index indicated that the question is problematic, since many of the respondents changed their 

responses between the two interviews. 

For the public school principals, the question had a high response variance with an index of 69.56 (66.32, 

73.34). Approximately 51.38 percent (48.80, 53.97) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “Not applicable” 

category was rare. The NDR for the “0–25%” category was statistically different from zero. The Bowker 

Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview and the reinterview have the same distribution. 

Therefore, the index can be used to evaluate this question. The high index indicates that the question is 

problematic, since many of the respondents changed their responses between the two interviews. 

School Reinterview Questionnaire—Private and Public Schools 

General Information 

Questions 1b, 1e, 1f: Around the first of October, how many students enrolled in grades K–12 and 

comparable ungraded levels were— 

Do NOT include prekindergarten, postsecondary, or adult education students. If none, please mark (X) 

the box. 

1b: White, not of Hispanic origin? 

 

0 G None 

 Students 

The question had a moderate response variance for the public schools with an index of 27.42 (10.08, 

44.76), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

1e: American Indian or Alaska Native? 

0 G None

 Students 

The question had a high response variance for the public schools with an index of 89.68 (63.64, 115.72), 

which implies that this question is very problematic. 
S-24 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

1f: Total students (sum of entries in items 1a–e)

0 G None

 Total 

students 

The question had a moderate response variance for the public schools with an index of 23.34 (9.77, 

36.90), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

Question 2: For this school year (2003–2004), what is the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) at this 

school? 

Round to the nearest whole percent.

 Percent 

The question had a high response variance for the private schools with an index of 79.85 (44.54, 115.16), 

which implies that this question is very problematic. 

The question had a high response variance for the public schools with an index of 80.60 (63.81, 97.38), 

which implies that this question is very problematic. 

Question 4a: Does this school have one or more temporary buildings? 

The question had a moderate response variance for the private schools with an index of 25.42 (16.81, 

38.65), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. Approximately 6.30 percent (4.13, 

9.61) of the respondents changed their answers from the original interview to the reinterview. 

Question 4b: What is the capacity of the temporary building(s)? 

 Students 

The question had a moderate response variance for the public schools with an index of 23.15 (14.57, 

31.73), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

Question 5: Does this school receive performance reports from the district that cover such things as 

students’ scores on achievement tests or graduation rates? 

The question had a high response variance for the public schools with an index of 65.75 (53.66, 80.87), 

which implies that this question is very problematic. Approximately 9.13 percent (7.38, 11.31) of the 

respondents changed their answers from the original interview to the reinterview. 

Question 6: Regardless of source, does this school have performance reports? 

The question had a high response variance for the public schools with an index of 64.86 (34.05, 125.11), 

which implies that this question is very problematic. Approximately 9.38 percent (4.85, 18.13) of the 

respondents changed their answers from the original interview to the reinterview. 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-25 

Questions 7a–7f: Does this school use these performance reports to—

7a: Evaluate the progress of students in this school? 

Approximately 1.90 percent (1.19, 3.05) of the respondents changed their answers from the original 

interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “No” category was rare. 

Therefore, the index cannot be used to evaluate the question. However, the question is not problematic 

since less than 5 percent of the respondents were inconsistent with their responses between the two 

interviews. 

7b: Determine the next year’s instructional focus? 

Approximately 8.15 percent (6.47, 10.25) of the respondents for the public schools changed their answers 

from the original interview to the reinterview. The question had a high response variance for the public 

schools with an index of 90.10 (88.44, 91.76). This index was evaluated using the Hui-Walter Method 

since the McNemar Test indicated that the NDR was statistically different from zero, suggesting the 

model assumptions were not met as well as desired. 

7c: Realign the curriculum, such as with content standards and/or other indicator criteria? 

Approximately 5.80 percent (4.41, 7.62) of the respondents changed their answers from the original 

interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “No” category was rare. 

Therefore, the index cannot be used to evaluate the question. However, the question is problematic since 

more than 5 percent of the respondents were inconsistent with their responses between the two interviews. 

7d: Inform parents and the community of the school’s progress? 

Approximately 1.59 percent (0.95, 2.66) of the respondents changed their answers from the original 

interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “No” category was rare. 

Therefore, the index cannot be used to evaluate the question. However, the question is not problematic 

since less than 5 percent of the respondents were inconsistent with their responses between the two 

interviews. 

7e: Prompt school-level initiatives for improvement? 

Approximately 5.31 percent (3.99, 7.06) of the respondents for the public schools changed their answers 

from the original interview to the reinterview. The question had a high response variance for the public 

schools with an index of 92.48 (89.26, 95.70). This index was evaluated using the Hui-Walter Method 

since the McNemar Test indicated that the NDR was statistically different from zero, suggesting the 

model assumptions were not met as well as desired. 

Staffing

Question 8: Around the first of October, how many TEACHERS held full-time or part-time positions or 

assignments around the school? 

If none, please mark (X) the box. 

Part time? 

0 G None
S-26 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

 

The question had a moderate response variance for the public schools with an index of 23.00 (14.43, 

31.58) which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. The other part of the question pertained 

to full-time teachers. 

Questions 9a, 9e: Of the full-time and part-time TEACHERS in this school around the first of October, 

how many were— 

If none, please mark (X) the box. 

9a: Hispanic, regardless of race?

0 G None 

 

Teachers 

The question had a moderate response variance for the private schools with an index of 45.37 (7.29, 

83.44), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

The question had a moderate response variance for the public schools with an index of 43.53 (15.79, 

71.27), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

9e: American Indian or Alaska Native? 

0 G None

 Teachers 

The question had a moderate response variance for the public schools with an index of 28.26 (0, 91.29), 

which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

Special Programs and Services 

Question 11a: Does this school primarily serve students with disabilities? 

The question had a high response variance for the public schools with an index of 71.38 (58.29, 87.76), 

which implies that this question is very problematic. Approximately 9.55 percent (7.71, 11.82) of the 

respondents changed their answers from the original interview to the reinterview. 

11b: How many IEP students are in each of the following instructional students? 

The sum of entries in item 11b should equal the entry in item 10 above. 

 

All day in a regular classroom (100 percent 

 of the school day) 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-27 

The question had a moderate response variance for the public schools with an index of 43.95 (24.76, 

63.15), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

 

Most of the day in a regular classroom (80–99 percent 

of the school day) 

The question had a moderate response variance for the public schools with an index of 29.85 (11.79, 

47.91), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

 

Some of the day in a regular classroom (40–79 

percent of the school day) 

The question had a moderate response variance for the public schools with an index of 38.43 (29.54, 

47.32), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

 

Little or none of the day in a regular classroom 

(0–39 percent of the school day) 

The question had a moderate response variance for the public schools with an index of 21.16 (9.19, 

33.13), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

Question 12a: Of the students enrolled in this school as of October 1, have any been identified as limitedEnglish proficient? 

Do not include prekindergarten, postsecondary, or adult education students. 

(Limited-English proficient (LEP) refers to students whose native or dominant language is other than 

English and who have sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English 

language as to deny them the opportunity to learn successfully in an English-speaking-only classroom.) 

The question had a moderate response variance for the private schools with an index of 35.75 (25.44, 

50.69) which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. Approximately 9.05 percent (6.33, 

12.94) of the respondents changed their answers from the original interview to the reinterview. 

Question 15: Around the first of October, how many students were APPROVED for free or reducedprice lunches? 

Report a separate count for prekindergarten students. 

If none, please mark (X) the box. 

0 G None

 Prekindergarten students approved 
S-28 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

The question had a moderate response variance for the public schools with an index of 47.78 (14.86, 

80.71), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

The other part of the question, pertained to other students approved (kindergarten and higher). 

Question 17: How many students participate in the Title I program? 

Report a separate count for prekindergarten students. 

If none, please mark (X) the box. 

0 G None

 Prekindergarten students approved 

The question had a moderate response variance for the public schools with an index of 27.13 (10.06, 

44.20), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

The other part of the question, pertained to other students approved (kindergarten and higher). 

Private and Public Teacher Reinterview Questionnaires 

Educational Background 

Question 4a: Do you have a bachelor’s degree?

Approximately 1.34 percent (0.80, 2.24) of the respondents changed their answers from the original 

interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “No” category was rare. 

Therefore, the index cannot be used to evaluate the question. However, the question is not problematic 

since less than 5 percent of the respondents were inconsistent with their responses between the two 

interviews. 

Question 4c: Was this degree awarded by a university’s Department or College of Education, or a 

college’s Department or School of Education? 

The question had a moderate response variance for the public school teachers with an index of 24.06 

(19.42, 29.92), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. Approximately 7.66 percent 

(6.13, 9.58) of the respondents changed their answers from the original interview to the reinterview. 

Question 4e: Did you have a second major field of study? 

For the private school teachers, the question had a moderate response variance with an index of 26.78 

(20.30, 35.70), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. Approximately 12.40 percent 

(9.47, 16.44) of the respondents changed their answers from the original interview to the reinterview. 

For the public school teachers, the question had a moderate response variance with an index of 30.41 

(25.77, 36.02), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. Approximately 12.59 percent 

(10.69, 14.89) of the respondents changed their answers from the original interview to the reinterview. 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-29 

Question 4f: What was your second major field of study? 

Code Major 

There were too many categories, and not enough data in each of the response categories to evaluate this 

question. The collapsed categories can be found on table 2 on the questionnaires (attachments S-3 and S4). The response categories of this question were collapsed to the following 15 categories: 

• elementary education; 

• secondary education; 

• special education; 

• other education; 

• arts & music; 

• English and language arts; 

• English as a second language; 

• foreign languages; 

• mathematics and computer science; 

• health education; 

• natural sciences; 

• social sciences; 

• vocational/technical education; 

• miscellaneous; and 

• other. 

For the public school teachers, the question had a moderate response variance with an index of 24.26 

(19.87, 31.07). Approximately 21.74 percent (16.74, 26.74) of the respondents changed their answers 

from the original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “secondary 

education,” “other education,” “arts and music,” “foreign languages,” “health education,” 

“vocational/technical education,” “miscellaneous,” and “other” categories were rare. Also, the NDR for 

the “social sciences” category was statistically significant from zero. The Bowker Test for symmetry 

indicated that the original interview and the reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore, the index 

can be used to evaluate this question. The moderate index indicates that the question is somewhat 

problematic. 

Question 5c: Was this degree awarded by a university’s Department or College of Education, or a 

college’s Department or School of Education? 

For the public school teachers, the question had a moderate response variance with an index of 25.53 

(17.02, 38.39), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. Approximately 4.80 percent 

(3.19, 7.23) of the respondents changed their answers from the original interview to the reinterview. 
S-30 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Question 6: How long did your practice teaching last? 

Mark (X) only one box.

1 G I had no practice teaching 

2 G 4 weeks or less 

3 G 5–7 weeks 

4 G 8–11 weeks 

5 G 12 weeks or more 

The question had a moderate response variance for the private school teachers with an index of 36.19 

(31.05, 43.36). Approximately 24.48 percent (20.33, 28.64) of the respondents changed their answers 

from the original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “4 weeks or 

less” category was rare. Also, The NDR for the “I had no practice teaching” and “12 weeks or more” 

categories was statistically different from zero. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original 

interview and the reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore the index can be used to evaluate this 

question. The moderate index indicates that the question is somewhat problematic. 

Approximately 21.40 percent (18.90, 23.90) of the public school teachers changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original and 

reinterview did not have the same distribution. Therefore, the index of inconsistency should not be used to 

evaluate this question. 

Question 7 (part 1): Have you ever taken any graduate or undergraduate courses that focused on 

teaching methods or teaching strategies? 

Include courses you have taken to earn a degree and courses taken outside a degree program. 

Do not include student teaching.

Approximately 12.90 percent (10.09, 16.69) of the private school teachers changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The question had a moderate response variance for the private 

school teachers with an index of 46.45 (41.67, 51.23). The index was evaluated using the Hui-Walter 

Method since the McNemar Test indicated that the NDR was statistically different from zero, suggesting 

the model assumptions were not met as well as desired. 

Approximately 8.01 percent (6.43, 9.98) of the public school teachers changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “No” category was 

rare. Therefore, the index cannot be used to evaluate the question. However, the question is problematic 

since more than 5 percent of the respondents were inconsistent with their responses between the two 

interviews. 

Question 7 (part 2): How many courses? 

Mark (X) only one box, then GO TO item 8 below. 

1 G 1 to 2 courses 

2 G 3 to 4 courses

3 G 5 to 9 courses

4 G 10 or more courses 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-31 

The question had a high response variance for the private school teachers with an index of 57.07 (50.84, 

65.80). Approximately 42.52 percent (36.96, 48.08) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The NDR for the “1 to 2 courses” category was statistically different 

from zero. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview and the reinterview have 

the same distribution. Therefore, the index can be used to evaluate this question. The high index indicates 

that the question is problematic, since many of the respondents changed their responses between the two 

interviews. 

Approximately 48.17 percent (44.95, 51.38) of the public school teachers changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original and 

reinterview did not have the same distribution. Therefore, the index of inconsistency should not be used to 

evaluate this question. 

Question 8: Which of the following describes how you obtained the teaching methods or teaching 

strategies coursework? 

Mark (X) only one box. 

1 G Through an “alternative program designed to expedite the transition of non-teachers to a teaching 

career (e.g., a state, district or university alternative program) 

2 G Through a bachelor’s degree granting program (B.A. or B.S.) 

3 G Through a fifth year program (not leading to a master’s degree) 

4 G Through a master’s degree granting program (M.A., M.S., M.Ed., M.A.T.) 

5 G Through individual courses (not part of a program leading to a degree) 

6 G Other 

Approximately 34.21 percent (29.04, 39.38) of the private school teachers changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original and 

reinterview did not have the same distribution. Therefore, the index of inconsistency should not be used to 

evaluate this question. 

 

Approximately 32.98 percent (29.98, 35.98) of the public school teachers changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original and 

reinterview did not have the same distribution. Therefore, the index of inconsistency should not be used to 

evaluate this question. 

Certification And Training 

NOTE: Question 9a was different for the Private Teacher and Public Teacher Questionnaires. 

Question 9a (Private School Teachers): Do you currently hold regular or full certification by an 

accrediting or certifying body OTHER THAN THE STATE? 

Information about state-granted certification will be asked in item 10. 

The question had a moderate response variance for the private school teachers with an index of 48.88 

(38.52, 62.57) which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. Approximately 13.56 percent 

(10.74, 17.30) of the respondents changed their answers from the original interview to the reinterview. 
S-32 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Question 9a (Public School Teachers): Which of the following describes the teaching certificate you 

currently hold in this state? 

Mark (X) only one box 

If you currently hold more than one of the following, a second certificate may be listed in item 10. 

1 G Regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional certificate 

2 G Probationary certificate (issued after satisfying all requirements except the completion of a 

probationary period) 

3 G Provisional or other type of certificate given to persons who are still participating in what the state 

calls an “alternative certification program” 

4 G Temporary certificate (requires some additional college coursework, student teaching, and/or passage 

of a test before regular certification can be obtained) 

5 G Waiver or emergency certificate (issued to persons with insufficient teacher preparation who must 

complete a regular certification program in order to continue teaching) 

6 G I do not have any of the above certifications in THIS state. 

The question had a moderate response variance for the public school teachers with an index of 33.02 

(27.06, 41.47). Approximately 7.18 percent (5.62, 8.74) of the respondents changed their answers from 

the original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the categories “2,” “3,” 

“4,” and “5” were rare. Also, the NDRs for the “temporary certificate” and “I do not have any of the 

above certifications in THIS state” categories were statistically different from zero. The Bowker Test for 

symmetry indicated that the original interview and the reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore 

the index can be used to evaluate this question. The moderate index indicates that the question is 

somewhat problematic. 

Question 9b (part 1): Some certificates may allow you to teach in multiple content areas. In what content 

area(s) does the teaching certificate marked above allow you to teach in this state? 

(For some teachers the content area may be the grade level [e.g., elementary general, secondary general, 

etc].) 

Please record the content area code from Table 3 on page 9. 

Code Content Area 

There were too many categories, and not enough data in each of the response categories to evaluate this 

question. The collapsed categories can be found on table 3 on the questionnaires (attachments S-3 and S4). The response categories of this question were collapsed to the following 14 categories: 

• elementary education; 

• secondary education; 

• special education; 

• arts & music; 

• English and language arts; 

• English as a second language; 

• foreign languages; 

• mathematics and computer science; 

• health education; 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-33 

• natural sciences; 

• social sciences; 

• vocational/technical education; 

• miscellaneous; and 

• other. 

NOTE: This question is helpful for understanding part two, even though there was a low index for 

the public schools. 

Question 9b (part 2): Which of the following grade ranges does this certificate apply to? 

Mark (X) all that apply. 

1 G Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

2 G Secondary grades (including middle school) 

3 G Ungraded 

Approximately 10.39 percent (8.65, 12.54) of the public school teachers changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The question had a moderate response variance for the public school 

teachers with an index of 22.27 (19.67, 24.86). The index was evaluated using the Hui-Walter Method 

since the McNemar Test indicated that the NDR was statistically different from zero, suggesting the 

model assumptions were not met as well as desired. 

The answer category “secondary grades” had a moderate response variance for the public school teachers 

with an index of 29.77 (25.47, 34.92), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

Approximately 14.11 percent (12.10, 16.54) of the respondents changed their answers from the original 

interview to the reinterview. 

Approximately 5.11 percent (3.85, 6.76) of the respondents changed their answers from the original 

interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “Yes” category was rare. 

Therefore, the index cannot be used to evaluate the question. However, the question is problematic since 

more than 5 percent of the respondents were inconsistent with their responses between the two interviews. 

Question 9c (part 1): If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you 

to teach, please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 10a. 

Code Content Area 

There were too many categories, and not enough data in each of the response categories, to evaluate this 

question. The collapsed categories can be found on table 3 on the questionnaires (attachments S-3 and S4). The response categories of this question were collapsed to the following 14 categories: 

• elementary education; 

• secondary education; 

• special education; 

• arts & music; 

• English and language arts; 

• English as a second language; 

• foreign languages; 
S-34 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

• mathematics and computer science; 

• health education; 

• natural sciences; 

• social sciences; 

• vocational/technical education; 

• miscellaneous; and 

• other. 

The question had a moderate response variance for the public school teachers with an index of 22.81 

(18.98, 28.47). Approximately 20.41 percent (16.17, 24.64) of the respondents changed their answers 

from the original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “arts and 

music,” “foreign languages,” “health education,” “vocational/technical education,” “miscellaneous,” and 

“other” categories were rare. Also, the NDR for the “natural sciences” category was statistically 

significant from zero. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview and the 

reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore the index can be used to evaluate this question. The 

moderate index indicates that the question is somewhat problematic. 

Question 9c (part 2): Which of the following grade ranges does this certificate apply to? 

Mark (X) all that apply. 

1 G Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

2 G Secondary grades (including middle school) 

3 G Ungraded 

The answer category “Elementary grades” had a moderate response variance for the public school 

teachers with an index of 24.44 (18.43, 32.74), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

Approximately 12.24 percent (9.31, 16.31) of the respondents changed their answers from the original 

interview to the reinterview. 

The answer category “secondary grades” had a moderate response variance for the public school teachers 

with an index of 24.01 (17.23, 33.76), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

Approximately 9.28 percent (6.55, 13.16) of the respondents changed their answers from the original 

interview to the reinterview. 

Approximately 5.51 percent (3.50, 8.66) of the respondents changed their answers from the original 

interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “Yes” category was rare. 

Therefore, the index cannot be used to evaluate the question. However, the question is problematic since 

more than 5 percent of the respondents were inconsistent with their responses between the two interviews. 

Note: Question 10a was different for the Private and Public Teacher Questionnaires. 

Question 10a (Public School Teachers): Do you have another current teaching certificate from this 

state? 

The question had a moderate response variance for the public teachers with an index of 47.27 (38.07, 

58.90), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. Approximately 7.63 percent (6.09, 

9.55) of the respondents changed their answers from the original interview to the reinterview. 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-35 

Question 10b: Which of the following describes this current teaching certificate you hold from this state? 

Mark (X) only one box. 

1 G Regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional certificate 

2 G Probationary certificate (issued after satisfying all requirements except the completion of a 

probationary period) 

3 G Provisional or other type of certificate given to persons who are participating in what the state calls 

an “alternative certification program” 

4 G Temporary certificate (requires some additional college coursework, student teaching, and/or passage 

of a test before regular certification can be obtained) 

5 G Waiver or emergency certificate (issued to persons with insufficient teacher preparation who must 

complete a regular certification program in order to continue teaching) 

The question had a moderate response variance for the private school teachers with an index of 39.27 

(27.61, 65.21). Approximately 7.38 percent (3.86, 10.91) of the respondents changed their answers from 

the original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that categories “2,” “3,” 

“4,” and “5” were rare. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview and the 

reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore, the index can be used to evaluate this question. The 

moderate index indicates that the question is somewhat problematic. 

Question 11a (Only Private School Teachers): Do you have another current teaching certificate from 

this state? 

The question had a high response variance for the private school teachers with an index of 52.56 (34.02, 

82.10), which implies that this question is very problematic. Approximately 8.67 percent (5.51, 13.62) of 

the respondents changed their answers from the original interview to the reinterview. 

Professional Development 

Question 12a (Private School Teachers) and Question 11a (Public School Teachers): 

In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional development activities specific to and 

concentrating on the content of the subject(s) you teach? 

Approximately 24.57 percent (20.90, 29.17) of the private school teachers changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The question had a high response variance for the private school 

teachers with an index of 54.66 (52.18, 57.13). The index was evaluated using the Hui-Walter Method 

since the McNemar Test indicated that the NDR was statistically different from zero, suggesting the 

model assumptions were not met as well as desired. 

Approximately 17.19 percent (15.08, 19.68) of the public school teachers changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The question had a high response variance for the public school 

teachers with an index of 66.04 (62.04, 70.03). The question was evaluated using the Hui-Walter Method 

since the McNemar Test indicated that the NDR was statistically different from zero, suggesting the 

model assumptions were not met as well as desired. 
S-36 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Question 12b (Private School Teachers) and Question 11b (Public School Teachers):

In the past 12 months, how many hours did you spend on these activities? 

Mark (X) only one box. 

1 G 8 hours 

2 G 9–16 

3 G 17–32 hours 

4 G 33 hours or more 

The question had a high response variance for the private school teachers with an index of 67.73 (60.67, 

78.17). Approximately 50.96 percent (44.39, 57.52) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview 

and the reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore the index can be used to evaluate this question. 

The high index indicates that the question is problematic, since many of the respondents changed their 

responses between the two interviews. 

The question had a high response variance for the public school teachers with an index of 68.07 (63.77, 

73.38). Approximately 50.56 percent (47.00, 54.12) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The NDRs for the “8 hours,” “17–32 hours,” and “33 hours or more” 

categories were statistically different from zero. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original 

interview and the reinterview have the same distribution. Therefore the index can be used to evaluate this 

question. The high index indicates that the question is problematic, since many of the respondents 

changed their responses between the two interviews. 

Question 12c (Private School Teachers) and Question 11c (Public School Teachers): 

Overall, how useful were these activities to you? 

Mark (X) only one box. 

1 G Not useful 

2 G Somewhat useful 

3 G Useful 

4 G Very useful 

The question had a high response variance for the private school teachers with an index of 63.28 (55.39, 

75.01). Approximately 41.77 percent (35.32, 48.23) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “not useful” category 

was rare. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview and the reinterview have 

the same distribution. Therefore the index can be used to evaluate this question. The high index indicates 

that the question is problematic, since many of the respondents changed their responses between the two 

interviews. 

The question had a high response variance for the public school teachers with an index of 56.29 (51.46, 

62.31). Approximately 35.59 percent (32.18, 39.01) of the respondents changed their answers from the 

original interview to the reinterview. The analysis of this question showed that the “not useful” category 

was rare. The Bowker Test for symmetry indicated that the original interview and the reinterview have 

the same distribution. Therefore the index can be used to evaluate this question. The high index indicates 

that the question is problematic, since many of the respondents changed their responses between the two 

interviews. 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-37 

The four answer categories were collapsed into two categories. The three categories “somewhat useful,” 

“useful,” and “very useful” were combined into one category. The other category was “not useful.” The 

question still had a high response variance for the private and public school teachers. However, the GDR 

was much lower for the private and public school teachers, which is not surprising since there are fewer 

categories to change an answer from the original interview to the reinterview. 

Resources and Assessments of Students 

Question 13 (Private School Teachers) and Question 12 (Public School Teachers):

Of all the students you teach at this school, how many have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) because 

they have disabilities or are special education students? 

If none, please mark (X) the box. 

0 G None 

 Students 

The question had a moderate response variance for the private school teachers with an index of 29.72 

(8.78, 50.66), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

For the public school teachers, the t test indicated that there is a significant difference in the means of the 

original interview and the reinterview. Therefore, the index of inconsistency should not be used to 

evaluate this question. 

Question 14 (Private School Teachers) and Question 13 (Public School Teachers):

Of all the students you teach at this school, how many are of limited-English proficiency? 

(Students of limited-English proficiency are those whose native or dominant language is other than 

English, and who have sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English 

language as to deny them the opportunity to learn successfully in an English-speaking only classroom.) 

If none, please mark (X) the box. 

0 G None 

 Students 

The question had a high response variance for the private school teachers with an index of 66.05 (57.34, 

74.76), which implies that this question is very problematic. The gender and age of the private school 

teacher were found to be significant. The odds of being in the inconsistent group are 1.553 times more for 

a male private school teacher than for a female private school teacher. The odds of being in the 

inconsistent group are 1.892 times more for a private school teacher who is Asian than for a private 

school teacher who is White. 

The question had a moderate response variance for the public school teachers with an index of 40.14 

(31.53, 48.76), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 
S-38 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Working Conditions 

Question 15 (Private School Teachers) and Question 14 (Public School Teachers):

How many total hours do you spend on ALL teaching and other school-related activities during a typical 

FULL WEEK at this school? 

Include hours spent working during the school day, before school, after school, and on weekends. 

 Total weekly 

hours 

The question had a moderate response variance for the public school teachers with an index of 52.32 

(31.53, 73.11), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

Question 16 (Private School Teachers) and Question 15 (Public School Teachers):

How many hours are you required to work to receive base pay during a typical FULL WEEK at this 

school? 

(This would be base contract hours, or the equivalent.) 

 Total weekly 

hours 

For the public teachers, the t-test indicated that there is a significant difference in the means of the 

original interview and the reinterview. Therefore, the index of inconsistency should not be used to 

evaluate this question. 

Question 17 (Private School Teachers) and Question 16 (Public School Teachers):

How many hours a week do you spend delivering instruction to a class of students? 

If you are a pull-out teacher, please include the number of hours you instruct individual students or small 

groups of students. 

 Total weekly 

hours 

The question had a moderate response variance for the private school teachers with an index of 33.73 

(15.33, 52.13), which implies that this question is somewhat problematic. 

The question had a high response variance for the public school teachers with an index of 65.64 (49.36, 

81.92), which implies that this question is very problematic. The gender, age, races (Black or AfricanAmerican, Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native) and ethnicity of the public school teacher were 

found to be significant. The odds of being in the inconsistent group are 1.751 times more for a female 

public school teacher than for a male public school teacher. The odds of being in the inconsistent group 

are 1.518 times more for a public school teacher who is Asian than for a public school teacher who is 

White. 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-39 

Summary of Response Variance Levels by Question Number 

Notes for tables S-7 through S-12: 

H = Hui-Walter Method (evaluated index for Yes/No questions where NDR is significant). 

B = Bowker Test (used for multiple categories to test if NDR is significant). 

T = t test (used for continuous questions to test if the means of the original and reinterview follow the 

same distribution). 

Principal Reinterview Questionnaire—Private School Principals 

Table S-7. Response variance level for each question in the SASS Principal Reinterview 

Questionnaire for private school principals, by question group: 2003–04 

Question group 

Questions with 

high response 

variance

Questions with 

moderate 

response 

variance

Questions with 

low response 

variance

Questions not 

analyzed 

 due to not 

enough data 

Questions not 

answered 

due to skip 

patterns

Experience, training, and 

 working conditions 

5a

5b

5c

5d

5e

5f

2

3

4

1

Teacher and school 

 performance 

6 7a

7b

8a

8b

9

School climate and safety 10

11

Parent or guardian 

 involvement 

12c 12a

12b

Demographic information 13

SOURCE: Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
S-40 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Principal Reinterview Questionnaire—Public School Principals 

Table S-8. Response variance level for each question in the SASS Principal Reinterview 

Questionnaire for public school principals, by question group: 2003–04 

Question group 

Questions 

with high 

response 

variance

Questions 

with 

moderate 

response 

variance

Questions 

with low 

response 

variance

Questions 

where 

Bowker Test 

fails or t-test 

fails

Questions 

(Yes/No) 

with rare 

categories 

not 

problematic 

Questions not 

analyzed due 

to not enough 

data

Experience, training, and 

 working conditions 

5a

5b

5c

5d

5f

1

2

4

3 (T)

5e (B)

Teacher and school 

 performance 

7b(2)(H)

7b(3)

8a

8b

9

7a 6 (T) 

School climate and safety 10 11

Parent or guardian 

 involvement 

12a

12c

12b 

Demographic information 13

NOTE: H = Hui-Walter Method (evaluated index for Yes/No questions where NDR is significant). 

B = Bowker Test (used for multiple categories to test if NDR is significant). 

T = t test (used for continuous questions to test if the means of the original and reinterview follow the same distribution). 

SOURCE: Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-41 

School Reinterview Questionnaire—Private Schools 

Table S-9. Response variance level for each question in the SASS School Reinterview 

Questionnaire for private schools, by question group: 2003–04 

Question group 

Questions 

with high 

response 

variance

Questions 

with 

moderate 

response 

variance

Questions 

with low 

response 

variance

Questions not 

analyzed due 

to not enough 

data 

Questions not 

answered due 

to skip 

patterns 

Questions not 

on original 

questionnaire

General information 2 4a 1a

1b

1c

1d

1e

1f

3

4b 5 

6 

7a 

7b 

7c 

7d 

7e 

Staffing 9a 8a

9b

9c

9d

9e

9f

 8b

Special programs and 

 services 

12a 10

14

16

11a 

11b 

12b 

15 

17 

13a

13b

SOURCE: Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
S-42 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

School Reinterview Questionnaire—Public Schools 

Table S-10. Response variance level for each question in the SASS School Reinterview 

Questionnaire for public schools, by question group: 2003–04 

Question group 

Questions with 

high response 

variance

Questions with 

moderate 

response 

variance

Questions with 

low response 

variance

Questions 

(Yes/No) with 

rare categories 

not problematic 

Questions not 

analyzed 

due to not 

enough data

General information 1e

2

5

6

7b(H)

7e(H)

1b

1f

4b

1a

1c

1d

3

4a

7a 

7c 

7d 

Staffing 8b

9a

9e

8a

9b

9c

9d

9f

Special program and 

 services 

11a 11b

(all 4 parts)

15 (prekindergarten)

17 (prekindergarten)

10

12a

12b

13a

13b

14

15 

(kindergarten 

and higher)

16

17 

(kindergarten 

and higher)

NOTE: H = Hui-Walter Method (evaluated index for Yes/No questions where NDR is significant). 

SOURCE: Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-43 

Private Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire 

Table S-11. Response variance level for each question in the SASS Private Teacher Reinterview 

Questionnaire, by question group: 2003–04 

Question group 

Questions 

with high 

response 

variance

Questions

with moderate 

response 

variance

Questions with 

low response 

variance

Questions where 

Bowker Test fails 

or t-test fails 

Questions not 

analyzed 

due to not 

enough data

General information 1

Class organization 2

3

Educational background 7(part 2) 4e

6

7(part 1) (H)

4a

4b

4c

4d

5a (H)

8 (B) 4f

5b

5c

5d

Certification and training 11a 9a

10b

10a 9b–9f

10c–10g

11b

11c–11g

Professional development 12a (H)

12b

12c

Resources and assessments 

 of students 

14 13 

Working conditions 17 15

16

NOTE: H = Hui-Walter Method (evaluated index for Yes/No questions where NDR is significant). 

B = Bowker Test (used for multiple categories to test if NDR is significant). 

SOURCE: Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
S-44 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Public Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire 

Table S-12. Response variance level for each question in the SASS Public Teacher Reinterview 

Questionnaire, by question group: 2003–04 

Question group 

Questions 

with high 

response 

variance 

Questions 

with 

moderate 

response 

variance

Questions 

with low 

response 

variance

Questions 

where 

Bowker Test 

fails or t-test 

fails

Questions 

(Yes/No) 

with rare 

categories 

not 

problematic 

Questions 

not analyzed 

due to not 

enough data

General information 1

Class organization 2

3

Educational background 4c

4e

4f

5c

4b

4d

5a (H)

5b

5d

6 (B)

7(part 2) (B)

8 (B)

4a 

7(part 1) 

Certification and training 9a

9b(part 2) (H)

elementary 

grades

9b(part 2)

secondary 

grades

9c(part 1)

9c(part 2)

elementary

grades

9c(part 2)

secondary 

grades

10a

9b(part 1) 9b(part 2) 

ungraded 

9c(part 2) 

ungraded 

9d–9f

10b–10g

Professional development 11a (H) 

11b 

11c 

Resources and assessments 

of students 

 13 12 (T) 

Working conditions 14 

16 

15 (T)

NOTE: H = Hui-Walter Method (evaluated index for Yes/No questions where NDR is significant). 

B = Bowker Test (used for multiple categories to test if NDR is significant). 

T = t test (used for continuous questions to test if the means of the original and reinterview follow the same distribution). 

SOURCE: Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-45 

Response Variance Formulas 

Formulas for categorical questions use a, b, c, d, and n from the cross-tabulation table: 

Original response 

Reinterview 

response 

Total N/A Subtotal Yes No 

Total 

N/A 

Subtotal n a + c b + d 

Yes a + b a b 

No c + d c d 

(For multicategory questions, treat “in category” as yes and “not in category” as no.) 

• Original Percentage—the percentage of original responses in a specific answer category. The 

formula is: 

Po = [(a + c)/n] × 100 

• Reinterview Percentage—the percentage of reinterview responses in a specific answer category. 

The formula is: 

Pr = [(a + b)/n] × 100 

• Net Difference Rate (NDR)—the difference between the original percent in a specific answer 

category and the reinterview percent in that category. The net difference rate measures the net 

effect of responses changing into and out of that category. The formula is: 

NDR = Po - Pr

= [[(a + c) - (a + b)]/n] × 100 

= [(c - b)/n] × 100 

• Gross Difference Rate (GDR)—the percentage of the responses which change into or out of a 

specific answer category. The formula is: 

GDR = [(b + c)/n] × 100 

• Simple Response Variance—the average variance of responses from the same units to the same 

question over repeated interviews. The simple response variance is estimated by half of the GDR 

(expressed as a proportion). The formula is: 

SRV = (b + c)/2n

• Index of Inconsistency—the ratio (scaled as a percentage) of simple response variance to the total 

population variance for a characteristic. The index represents the proportion of the total 

population variance for a characteristic caused by simple response variance. 

For categorical data, when P = Po = Pr, the formula is: 

Index = [SRV/P(1 - P)] × 100 = [[(b + c)/2n] / P(1 - P)] × 100 
S-46 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

where the total population variance for the characteristic is P(1 - P). 

When Po ≠ Pr and RI replicates the original, then the index is estimated by: 

1⁄2( ) p1q2 p2 q1

SRV I

+ =

where 

n

a b

p

+

2 = , 1 1 q = 1− p , 2 2 q = 1− p 

For quantitative data, the index is estimated as follows: 

( ) 2

1

2

1 ( )

( ( ) ( ) ) 2

1

2

1 ( )

2

2

2

1

1

2

1 2

1 1

2

2 2

2

1 1

1

2

1 2

s s

x x

n

x x x x

n

x x

n I

n

i

i i

n

i

n

i

i i

n

i

i i

+

−

=

− + −

−

=

∑

∑ ∑

∑ =

= =

= ∧

where 2

1

1

1

2

1 ( ) 1

1

x x

n

s

n

i

∑ i

=

− − = and 2

2

1

2

2

2 ( ) 1

1

x x

n

s

n

i

∑ i

=

− − =

• Overall GDR (L-fold GDR)—the percentage of people who change their answers to a question. 

• Aggregate Index of Inconsistency (L-fold Index)—a weighted average of indices of inconsistency 

across all categories of the question. 

Hui-Walter Method 

Introduction 

The Hui-Walter method is a kind of latent class analysis that can be applied to estimate false positive and 

false negative error probabilities. The results of the Hui-Walter can be used to estimate the index of 

inconsistency from interview and reinterview data, generally when the assumption of independence for 

the response error reinterview is not met. 

The Hui-Walter Method 

Assume that the population of interest is divided into multiple subpopulations index by the letter g. There 

will be two subpopulations for this discussion. 

Let πg be the prevalence rate of interest in the g

th subpopulation. Assume that πg=1 ≠ πg=2. The false 

positive and false negative error probabilities, denoted by αr,g and βr,g respectively, are given below: 

αr,g = Pr(Observation = In category|Truth = Not in category, r, group = g) and 

βr,g = Pr(Observation = Not in category|Truth = In category, r, group = g), 

where r = 1 for the original interview and r = 2 for the reinterview.\ 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-47 

It is assumed that the reinterview is an independent replication of the original interview. It is also assumed 

that error probabilities are equal for both subgroups, but that πg=1 ≠ πg=2. 

Based on the assumptions, βr,1 = βr,2 = βr and αr,1 = αr,2 = αr (r = 1, 2). The Hui-Walter method splits the 

observed table into four 2 × 2 tables: two groups, two tables for each group. Given that the two 2 × 2 

tables in each group provide six degrees of freedom, estimation is possible. 

Using the Results of the Hui-Walter Method to Estimate the Index of 

Inconsistency 

After using the Hui-Walter method, estimate the index as follows: 

p = 1⁄2{Pr(G = 1)[πg=1(1 - β1) + (1 - π1)α1] + Pr(G = 2)[πg=2(1 - β1) + (1 - π2)α1]} 

+ 1⁄2{Pr(G = 1)[πg=1(1 - β2) + (1 - π1)α2] + Pr(G = 2)[πg=2(1 - β2) + (1 - π2)α2]}, 

GDR = Pr(G = 1)[πg=1(β1 + β1 - 2β1β2) + (1 - πg=1) (α1 + α1 - 2α1α2)] + 

Pr(G = 2)[πg=2(β1 + β1 - 2β1β2) + (1 - πg=2) (α1 + α1 - 2α1α2)], 

and 

Index of inconsistency = (GDR/2)/[p(1 - p)]. 

How to Estimate the Hui-Walter Model Parameters 

Shown below is how estimate the model parameters πg=1, πg=1, α1, , α2, β1, and β2 from the interview and 

reinterview data. The algorithm gives two sets of estimates, based on a determinant s = ±1. The most 

reasonable of the estimates was chosen. First the conventions are set as follows: 

I = 1 if the interview response is in category 

I = 2 if the interview response is not in category 

R = 1 if the reinterview response is in category 

R = 2 if the reinterview response is not in category 

nijk = # {G = i, i = j, R = k} 

Now define the following: 

ni = # {G = i} = ni11 + ni12 + ni21 + ni22 (i = 1, 2) 

n = n1 + n2

pijk = Pr(I = j, R = k | G = k) = nijk/ni(i, i, k = 1, 2) 

pi·k = Pr(R = k | G = k) = pi1k + pi2k + pi3k+ pi4k (i, k = 1, 2) 

pij· = Pr(I = j | G = k) = pij1 + pij2 + pij3 + pij4 (i, j = 1, 2) 

D = s[(p11·p2·1 - p21·p1·1 + p111 - p211)(p11·p2·1 - p21·p1·1 + p111 - p211) - 4(p11· - p21·)(p111p2·1 - p211p1·1)] 

E1 = p2·1 - p1·1

E2 = p21· - p11· 

From Hui, 

πg=1 = Pr(In category | G = 1) = 1⁄2 + [p11·(p1·1 - p2·1) + p1·1(p11· - p21·) + p211 - p111]/(2D) 

πg=2 = Pr(In category | G = 2) = 1⁄2 + [p21·(p1·1 - p2·1) + p2·1(p11· - p21·) + p211 - p111]/(2D) 
S-48 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

With these definitions and conventions, Pr(G = i) = ni/n (i = 1, 2), and the false positive and false 

negative error probabilities are: 

α1 = (p21·p1·1 - p2·1p11· + p211 - p111 + D)/(2 E2)

α2 = (p11·p2·1 - p1·1p21· + p211 - p111 + D)/(2 E1)

β1 = (p2·2p12·. - p22·p1·2 + p122 - p222 + D)/(2 E2) 

β2 = (p1·2p22· - p12·p2·2 + p122 - p222 + D)/(2 E1) 

How Many Responses Are Necessary for Analysis? 

In order to decide the sample size n, the reasonable values must be decided for e: marginal error, and α: 

the significant level. Both of them must satisfy the following equation: 

P(| y − yU |≤ e) = 1−α , 

where y and Uy are the mean of the estimate and the mean of population quantity respectively. α = 0.1 

is usually used. The e has not been set yet so far. In this example, e = 0.07. 

For a Simple Random Sample (SRS), e is calculated as follows: 

(1 ) / 2 N

n

n

S

e = zα − . 

Solve for n: 

N

n

n

n

0

0

1+

= , where 2

2 2

/ 2

0

e

z S

n α = . 

For large populations, S ≅ p (1 - p) where p is the proportion of the in-category of the variable of the 

interest. 

S attains its maximal value when p = 1/2. So using 2

2

0 4

1.65

e

n = will result in 90 percent confidence 

interval with width at most 2e. 

The n that is acceptable to estimate the index of inconsistency is as follows: 

n0 = 1.652

/(4 x 0.072) ≅ 138 observations. 

Note: Determine the value of e is up to the analysts, and sponsors. If e is set too tight (e.g., e = 0.05), then 

there will not be enough data to analyze for many of the questions. 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-49 

Questions in Both the 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS—School 

Reinterview Questionnaires 

The left side of the table below lists the question, and the response variance for that question, as it 

appeared in the 1999–2000 SASS Private School and Public School Reinterview Questionnaires. The 

question number refers to the 1999–2000 school reinterview questionnaires. The 1999–2000 SASS 

reinterview report was referred to for the response variance measures. The right side of the table lists the 

same information for the 2003–04 SASS School Reinterview Questionnaire for the private and public 

schools. 

1999–2000 Question 2003–04 Question 

Question 1b Question 2 

During the last school year (1998–1999), what was 

the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) at this 

school? 

Private schools: Index = 6.1 (1.7, 10.5) 

Public schools: Index = 26.2 (18.1, 34.3) 

 students 

For this school year ( 2003–04), what is the 

Average Daily Attendance (ADA) at this school? 

 Percent 

Private schools: Index = 79.85 (45.58, 114.12) 

Public schools: Index = 80.60 (63.81, 97.38) 

Question 2 Question 3 

What is the current enrollment CAPACITY of this 

school? 

Capacity of permanent buildings 

Private schools: Index = 2.2 (1.1, 3.4) 

Public schools: Index = 10.9(5.1,16.6) 

 students 

What is the current capacity of this school’s 

building(s)? 

Private schools: Index = 4.99 (1.09, 8.89) 

Public schools: Index = 11.30 (1.87, 20.73) 

 students 

Question 2 Question 4b 

What is the current enrollment CAPACITY of this 

school? 

Capacity of temporary buildings(s) 

 students 

Private schools: Index = 51.2 (25.5, 76.9) 

Public schools: Index = 49.9 (37.2, 62.5) 

What is the capacity of the temporary building(s)? 

 students 

Private schools: There were not enough data to 

analyze this question for the private schools. 

Public schools: Index = 23.15 (14.57, 31.73)
S-50 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

1999–2000 Question 2003–04 Question 

Question 5a Question 5 

Does this school receive performance reports from 

the district on such things as students’ scores on 

achievement tests or graduation rates? 

Public schools: Index = 55.2 (46.9, 64.7); 

GDR = 8.5 (7.3, 10.0) 

Does this school receive performance reports from 

the district that cover such things as students’ 

scores on achievement tests or graduation rates? 

Public schools: Index = 65.75 (53.66, 80.87); 

GDR = 9.13 (7.38, 11.31) 

Question 5b (used for (1)–(5)) 

Does this school use these performance rates to— 

Question 7 (used for a–e) 

Does this school use these performance reports to—

(1) Evaluate the progress of students in this 

school? 

Public schools: Index = 65.2 (49.4, 85.5); 

GDR = 3.7(2.8, 4.8)

(2) Determine the next year’s instructional focus? 

Public schools: Index - 68.3 (56.5, 82.3); 

GDR = 7.4(6.1, 8.9)

(3) Realign the curriculum, such as with content 

standards and/or other indicator criteria? 

Public schools: Index = 67.0(55.5, 80.4);

GDR = 7.6(6.3, 9.2)

(4) Inform parents and the community of the 

school’s progress? 

Public schools: Index = 69.6 (49.5, 96.9); 

GDR = 2.5(1.8, 3.5)

The index could not be used to evaluate this question, 

since the NDR was significantly different from zero. 

(5) Prompt school-level initiatives for 

improvement? 

Public schools: Index = 71.0(56.2, 89.3); 

GDR = 5.1(4.0, 6.4) 

a. Evaluate the progress of students in this school? 

Public schools: Index = 75.90 (46.77, 122.26); 

GDR = 1.90 (1.19, 3.05) 

The question is not problematic, since most of the 

respondents were consistent with their responses 

between the two interviews. 

b. Determine the next year’s instructional focus? 

Public schools: Index = 90.10 (88.44, 91.76); 

GDR = 8.15 (6.47, 10.25) 

c. Realign the curriculum, such as with content 

standards and/or other indicator criteria? 

Public schools: Index = 61.00 (46.74, 79.87); 

GDR = 5.80 (4.41, 7.62) 

The question is not problematic, since most of the 

respondents were consistent with their responses 

between the two interviews. 

d. Inform parents and the community of the 

school’s progress? 

Public schools: Index = 36.52 (21.37, 61.62); 

GDR= 1.59 (0.95, 2.66) 

The question is not problematic, since most of the 

respondents were consistent with their responses 

between the two interviews. 

e. Prompt school-level initiatives for 

improvement? 

Public schools: Index = 92.48 (89.26, 95.70); 

GDR = 5.31 (3.99, 7.06) 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-51 

1999–2000 Question 2003–04 Question 

Question 13 (Private schools) 

Question 14a (Public schools) Question 16 

Around the first of October, did any students 

enrolled in this school receive Title I services at 

this school, or at any other location? 

Private schools: Index = 21.7(4.9, 9.6); 

GDR = 6.9 (15.3, 30.3)

Public schools: Index = 15.7 (13.3, 18.6); 

GDR = 7.9(6.6, 9.3)

Around the first of October, did any students 

enrolled in this school receive Title I services at 

this school, or at any other location? 

Private schools: Index = 11.30 (6.48, 19.52); 

GDR = 3.77 (2.19, 6.47)

Public schools: Index = 18.08 (14.55, 22.56); 

GDR = 8.61 (6.86, 10.81) 

Question 14a 

(Private schools) 

Question 15a 

(Public schools) Question 17 

How many students are 

served by this Title I 

program? 

Index = 1.7 (-0.7, 4.2) 

 students 

If this school is 

designated as a targeted 

assistance school, how 

many students are 

served by the Title I 

program? 

Index = 5.2 (-0.1, 10.5) 

 students 

How many students participate in the Title I 

program? 

Prekindergarten students approved?

There were not enough data to analyze this question 

for the private schools. 

Public schools: Index = 27.13 (10.06, 44.20) 

Other students approved (kindergarten and 

higher)? 

There were not enough data to analyze this 

question for the private schools. 

Public schools: Index = 4.13 (0, 15.61) 

 

 

Question 15a (Private schools) 

Question 16a (Public schools) Question 10 

Of all the students enrolled in this school, how 

many have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) 

because they have disabilities or are special 

education students? 

Private schools: Index = 12.7 (2.7, 22.7) 

Public schools: Index = 14.7 (8.4, 20.9) 

 students 

Of the students enrolled in this school, how many 

have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) because 

they have special needs? 

 students 

Private schools: Index = 5.69 (1.66, 9.71) 

Public schools: Index = 8.67 (4.50, 12.84) 
S-52 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

1999–2000 Question 2003–04 Question 

Question 15b (Private schools) 

Question 16b (Public schools) Question 11b 

How many of these IEP students are in each of the 

following instructional settings? 

All day in a regular classroom 

(100% of the school day) 

Private schools: Index = 8.5 (-3.0, 20.0) 

Public schools: Index = 35.2(23.4, 47.1) 

Most of the day in a regular classroom 

(80–99% of the school day) 

Private schools: Index =36.8 (13.3, 60.3) 

Public schools: Index = 56.9 (44.4, 69.4)

Some of the day in a regular classroom 

(40–79% of the school day) 

Private schools: Index = 1.9 (-1.1, 4.8) 

Public schools: Index = 38.5 (29.4, 47.5) 

Little or none of the day in a regular classroom 

(0–39% of the school day) 

Private schools: Index = 1.3 (-0.5, 3.1) 

Public schools: Index = 21.2 (13.5, 29.0) 

 students 

 students 

 students 

 students 

How many IEP students are in each of the 

following instructional settings? 

All day in a regular classroom 

(100% of the school day) 

Private schools: There were not enough data to 

analyze this question for the private schools. 

Public schools: Index = 43.95 (24.76, 63.15) 

Most of the day in a regular classroom (80–99% of 

the school day) 

Private schools: There were not enough data to 

analyze this question for the private schools. 

Public schools: Index = 29.85 (11.79, 47.91) 

Some of the day in a regular classroom 

(40–79% of the school day) 

Private schools: There were not enough data to 

analyze this question for the private schools. 

Public schools: Index = 38.43 (29.54, 47.32) 

Little or none of the day in a regular classroom 

(0–39% of the school day) 

Private schools: There were not enough data to 

analyze this question for the private schools. 

Public schools: Index = 21.16 (9.19, 33.13) 

 students 

 students 

 students 

 students 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-53 

1999–2000 Question 2003–04 Question 

Question 16a (Private schools) 

Question 17a (Public schools) Question 12a 

Of the students enrolled in this school as of 

October 1, have any been identified as limitedEnglish proficient? 

Private schools: Index = 36.5 (27.5, 47.9); 

GDR= 10.1 (7.6, 13.3)

Public schools: Index = 17.3 (14.6, 20.4); 

GDR = 8.6 (7.3, 10.2)

Of the students enrolled in this school as of 

October 1, have any been identified as limitedEnglish proficient? 

Private schools: Index = 35.75 (25.44, 50.69); 

GDR= 9.05 (6.33, 12.94)

Public schools: Index = 15.48 (12.20, 19.71); 

GDR = 7.61 (5.94, 9.75)

Question 16b (Private schools) 

Question 17b (Public schools) Question 12b 

How many limited-English proficient students are 

enrolled in this school? 

Private schools: Index = 2.6 (0.4, 4.8) 

Public schools: Index = 18.4 (7.9, 29.0)

 students 

How many limited-English proficient students are 

enrolled in this school? 

Private schools: There were not enough data to 

analyze this question for the private schools. 

Public schools: Index = 3.70 (1.36, 6.05) 

 students 
S-54 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Questions in Both the 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS—Private Teacher 

and Public Teacher Reinterview Questionnaires 

The left side of the table below lists the question and the response variance for that question as it appeared 

in the 1999–2000 SASS Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire. The question number refers to the 1999–

2000 Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire. The 1999–2000 SASS reinterview report for the 1999–2000 

was referred to for the response variance measures. The right side of the table lists the same information 

for the 2003–04 SASS Private Teacher Reinterview and the Public Teacher Reinterview Questionnaires. 

1999–2000 Question 2003–04 Question 

Question 1 Question 3 

THIS school year, which is your MAIN teaching 

assignment field at this school, that is, the field in 

which you teach the most classes? 

Record the assignment field code and the 

assignment field name from Table 1 on page 5 

Private school teachers: Index = 9.9 (7.3, 13.3); 

GDR = 7.1 (5.3, 9.6) 

Public school teachers: Index = 11.6 (9.9, 13.6); 

GDR = 9.2 (7.8, 10.7) 

Code Main assignment 

field 

This school year, what is your MAIN teaching 

assignment field at this school? 

Record one of the assignment field codes listed 

In Table 1 on page 5. 

Private school teachers: Index = 8.18 (5.71, 13.93); 

GDR = 7.25 (3.62, 10.88)

Public school teachers: Index = 4.08 (2.94, 6.24); 

GDR= 3.56 (2.12, 4.99)

Code Main Assignment

Question 3a Question 1 

In what year did you begin your first teaching 

position, either full-time or part-time, at the 

elementary or secondary level? 

Private school teachers: Index = 6.1 (3.1, 9.1) 

Public school teachers: Index = 3.6 (2.0, 5.3) 

In what year did you begin teaching, either fulltime or part-time, at the elementary or secondary 

level? 

Private school teachers: Index = 2.60 (0.46, 4.75) 

Public school teachers: Index = 0.73 (0.31, 1.14) 

Question 4a 

Question 12a (Private school teachers) 

Question 11a (Public school teachers) 

In the past 12 months, have you participated in any 

professional development activities that focused on 

in-depth study of the content in your MAIN 

teaching assignment field? 

Private school teachers: Index = 55.7 (48.8, 63.2); 

GDR = 28.3 (24.8, 32.1) 

Public school teachers: Index = 62.7 (58.2, 67.3); 

GDR = 31.1 (28.8, 33.4)

In the past 12 months, have you participated in any 

professional development activities specific to and 

concentrating on the content of the subject(s) you 

teach? 

Private school teachers: Index = 54.66 (52.18, 

57.13); GDR = 24.57 (20.90, 29.17) 

Public school teachers: Index = 66.04 (62.04, 70.03); 

GDR = 17.19 (15.08, 19.68) 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-55 

1999–2000 Question 2003–04 Question 

Question 4a(1) 

Question 12b (Private school teachers) 

Question 11b (Public school teachers) 

In the past 12 months, how many hours did you 

spend on the activities? 

Mark (X) only one box. 

1 G 8 hours 

2 G 9–16 

3 G 17–32 hours 

4 G 33 hours or more 

Private school teachers: Index = 55.4 (46.6, 64.6); 

GDR = 41.1 (34.6, 48.0) 

Public school teachers: Index = 69.6 (64.5, 74.7); 

GDR = 51.4 (47.6, 55.1) 

In the past 12 months, how many hours did you 

spend on these activities? 

Mark (X) only one box. 

1 G 8 hours 

2 G 9–16 

3 G 17–32 hours 

4 G 33 hours or more 

Private school teachers: Index = 67.73 (60.67, 

78.17); GDR = 50.96 (44.39, 57.52) 

Public school teachers: Index = 68.07 (63.77, 73.38); 

GDR = 50.56 (47.00, 54.12) 

Question 4a(2) 

Question 12c (Private school teachers) 

Question l 1 c (Public school teachers) 

Overall, how useful were these activities to you? 

Not useful Very 

at all useful 

1 G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 G

Private school teachers: Index = 69.1 (58.7, 79.7); 

GDR = 45.2 (38.4, 52.1) 

Public school teachers: Index = 60.8 (55.4, 66.4); 

GDR = 41.2(37.5,45.0)

Overall, how useful were these activities to you? 

Mark (X) only one box. 

1 G Not useful 

2 G Somewhat useful 

3 G Useful 

4 G Very useful 

Private school teachers: Index = 63.28 (55.39, 

75.01); GDR = 41.77 (35.32, 48.23)

Public school teachers: Index = 56.29 (51.46, 62.31); 

GDR = 35.59 (32.18, 39.01)

Question 6a 

Question 13 (Private school teachers) 

Question 12 (Public school teachers) 

Of all the students you teach at this school, how 

many have disabilities or are special education 

students, that is, how many have an Individual 

Education Plan (IEP)? 

Private school teachers: Index = 3.1 (0.1, 6.0) 

Public school teachers: Index = 29.5 (18.1, 40.8) 

 students 

Of all the students you teach at this school, how 

many have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) 

because they have disabilities or are special 

education students? 

 students 

Private school teachers: Index = 29.72 (10.03, 49.40)

Public school teachers: Index = 14.99 (10.18, 

19.80) [There is a significance difference in the 

means of the original interview and the reinterview 

for the public school teachers. Therefore, the index 

cannot be used to evaluate the question.] 
S-56 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

1999–2000 Question 2003–04 Question 

Question 7 

Question 14 (Private school teachers) 

Question 13 (Public school teachers) 

Of all the students you teach at this school, how 

many are of limited-English proficiency? 

Private school teachers: Index = 26.8 (2.8, 50.8) 

Public school teachers: Index = 40.7 (23.4, 58.0)

 students 

Of all the students you teach at this school, how 

many are of limited-English proficiency? 

Private school teachers: Index = 66.05 (55.12, 

76.98) 

Public school teachers: Index = 40.14 (31.53, 

48.76)

 students 

Measures 

The indexes and GDRs for the questions in each reinterview questionnaire are contained in the following 

pages. For each index and GDR, the lower confidence level (LCL) and upper confidence level (UCL) are 

also presented. The following notes are used with the results: 

• If there is an “R” next to the answer category, then that category is rare. 

• If there is an “N” next to the answer category, it means that the NDR for that category is 

significant. 

• If Interpretation is given as “unreliable (not problematic),” then the index for that category is 

unreliable, but the answer category is not problematic. 

• If Interpretation is given as “unreliable (problematic),” then the index for that category is 

unreliable, and the answer category is problematic. 

• If Interpretation is given as “unreliable (NDR sig),” then the index for that category is unreliable, 

because the NDR is significant for that answer category. 

The Index is not reported in the following cases: 

• rare categories; 

• Bowker Test failed for multiple category questions; 

• t test failed for quantitative questions; 

• NDR is significant; or 

• sample size less than 138. 

GDR is not reported in the following cases: 

• Bowker Test failed for multiple category questions; 

• NDR is significant; or 

• quantitative questions (there is no GDR, just the index). 
S-57 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Principal Reinterview Questionnaire—Private School Principals 

Question: 1 

What is the highest degree you have earned? 

Item: A0039 

sample size = 274 

1 = Associate Degree 

2 = Bachelor’s Degree (B.A., B.S., B.E., etc.) 

3 = Master’s degree (M.A., M.A.T., M.B.A., M.Ed., M.S., etc) 

4 = Education specialist or professional diploma (at least one year beyond master’s level) 

5 = Doctorate or first professional degree (Ph.D., Ed.D., M.D., L.L.B., J.D., D.D.S.) 

6 = Do not have a degree 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 14.74 11.44 20.15 10.22 7.21 13.23 low 

 1R 0.73 0.24 2.21 unreliable (not problematic) 

 2 4.96 2.41 10.22 1.82 0.89 3.75 low 

 3 13.92 9.67 20.17 6.93 4.76 10.09 low 

 4 28.70 19.94 41.58 6.93 4.76 10.09 moderate 

 5 18.45 9.65 34.41 2.55 1.39 4.71 low 

 6R 1.46 0.66 3.25 unreliable (not problematic) 

 

 

Question: 2 

How many total hours do you spend on ALL school-related activities for this school during a 

typical FULL WEEK? 

Item: A0040 

sample size = 268 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

38.2531 26.0271 50.4791 moderate 

 

 

Question: 3 

How many total hours do you spend interacting with students during a typical FULL WEEK at this 

school? 

Item: A0041 

sample size = 269 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

36.1098 30.2310 41.9886 moderate 

 

 

Question: 4 

How many months is the contract year for your position as principal/school head of this school? 

Item: A0042 

sample size = 272 

1 = Less than 9 months 

2 = 9 months 

3 = 9-1/2 months 

4 = 10 months 

5 = 10-1/2 months 

6 = 11 months 

7 = 11-1/2 months 

8 = 12 months 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 49.42 41.99 60.00 23.16 18.95 27.37 moderate 

 2R 3.68 2.20 6.15 unreliable (not problematic) 

 3R 2.21 1.14 4.27 unreliable (not problematic) 

 4 41.02 28.80 58.83 7.35 5.10 10.60 moderate 

 5R 4.78 3.04 7.51 unreliable (not problematic) 

 6 47.05 33.35 66.85 7.72 5.40 11.03 moderate 

 7R 2.57 1.40 4.75 unreliable (not problematic) 

 8 44.17 35.87 54.93 18.01 14.68 22.35 moderate 
S-58 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Questions: 5a-5f 

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 

 

Question: 5a 

The stress and disappointments involved in serving as principal/school head of this school 

aren’t really worth it. 

Item: A0043 

sample size = 275 

1 = Strongly agree 

2 = Somewhat agree 

3 = Somewhat disagree 

4 = Strongly disagree 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 65.28 57.54 75.86 33.45 28.77 38.13 high 1R 1.82 0.88 3.74 unreliable (not problematic) 

 2 66.33 51.77 85.76 13.45 10.56 17.33 high 

 3 81.57 69.93 96.10 28.00 24.04 32.95 high 

 4 52.10 43.81 62.58 23.64 19.91 28.34 high 

 

 

Question: 5b 

The faculty and staff at this school like being here; 

I would describe them as a satisfied group. 

Item: A0044 

sample size = 276 

1 = Strongly agree 

2 = Somewhat agree 

3 = Somewhat disagree 

4 = Strongly disagree 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 72.44 63.71 84.39 32.61 27.97 37.25 high 1 69.84 60.20 81.82 29.35 25.33 34.35 high 

 2 69.68 59.09 82.98 25.36 21.54 30.16 high 

 3R 3.62 2.17 6.06 unreliable (not problematic) 

 4R 6.88 4.73 10.02 unreliable (problematic) 

 

 

Question: 5c 

If I could get a higher paying job, I’d leave education as soon as possible. 

Item: A0046 

sample size = 276 

1 = Strongly agree 

2 = Somewhat agree 

3 = Somewhat disagree 

4 = Strongly disagree 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 58.86 50.80 70.11 26.81 22.43 31.20 high 

 1R 1.81 0.88 3.72 unreliable (not problematic) 

 2 66.22 49.45 89.43 10.14 7.65 13.62 high 

 3 65.34 53.95 79.90 20.29 16.80 24.76 high 

 4N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-59 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 5d 

I think about transferring to another school. 

Item: A0047 

sample size = 275 

1 = Strongly agree 

2 = Somewhat agree 

3 = Somewhat disagree 

4 = Strongly disagree 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 51.24 43.98 61.43 25.45 21.13 29.78 high 

 1R 2.55 1.38 4.69 unreliable (not problematic) 

 2 41.30 31.68 54.32 12.00 9.27 15.72 moderate 

 3 83.74 68.16 103.88 18.18 14.85 22.50 high 

 4N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 

 

Question: 5e 

I don’t seem to have as much enthusiasm now as I did when I began my career as a principal/school 

head. 

Item: A0048 

sample size = 276 

1 = Strongly agree 

2 = Somewhat agree 

3 = Somewhat disagree 

4 = Strongly disagree 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 57.94 51.65 66.45 37.68 32.88 42.48 high 

 1R 6.16 4.14 9.16 unreliable (problematic) 

 2 58.29 48.83 70.28 22.83 19.16 27.47 high 

 3 72.96 61.45 87.48 23.91 20.18 28.63 high 

 4 44.81 37.47 54.13 22.46 18.82 27.09 moderate 

 

 

Question: 5f 

I think about staying home from school because I’m just too tired to go. 

Item: A0049 

sample size = 276 

1 = Strongly agree 

2 = Somewhat agree 

3 = Somewhat disagree 

4 = Strongly disagree 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 65.27 57.02 76.62 30.43 25.88 34.99 high 

 1R 1.45 0.65 3.23 unreliable (not problematic) 

 2 49.93 38.11 66.00 11.59 8.91 15.25 moderate 

 3 82.93 68.78 100.99 21.01 17.47 25.54 high 

 4 64.09 54.69 75.85 26.81 22.92 31.69 high 

 

 

Question: 6 

In your opinion, what percentage of teachers in this school are presently teaching to high 

academic standards? 

Item: A0149 

sample size = 271 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

45.9482 18.8155 73.0808 moderate 
S-60 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Questions: 7-9 

 

Not for Private Principals 

Question: 10 

LAST school year (2002-03), how many students were expelled from this school, that is, removed or 

transferred for at least the remainder of the school year? 

Item: A0189 

sample size = 268 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

39.8696 35.9537 43.7854 moderate 

 

 

Question: 11 

What was the total number of suspensions during the LAST school year (2003-03)? 

Item: A0190 

sample size = 261 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

21.5744 2.0447 41.1041 moderate 

 

 

Questions: 12a-12c 

LAST school year (2002-03), what percentage of students had at least one parent or guardian 

participating in the following events? 

 

Question: 12a 

Open house or back-to-school night 

Item: A0234 

sample size = 273 

1 = 0-25% 

2 = 26-50% 

3 = 51-75% 

4 = 51-75% 

5 = Not applicable 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 49.67 43.05 58.88 28.21 23.72 32.69 moderate 

 1R 5.13 3.32 7.93 unreliable (problematic) 

 2 51.90 35.21 76.90 6.23 4.19 9.26 high 

 3 59.09 47.58 74.10 16.85 13.62 21.07 high 

 4 43.59 36.01 53.30 20.51 16.99 25.03 moderate 

 5 43.84 31.07 62.29 7.69 5.38 10.99 moderate 

 

 

Question: 12b 

All regularly scheduled schoolwide parent-teacher conferences 

Item: A0235 

sample size = 273 

1 = 0-25% 

2 = 26-50% 

3 = 51-75% 

4 = 51-75% 

5 = Not applicable 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 40.17 33.51 49.85 19.41 15.48 23.35 moderate 1R 3.30 1.92 5.67 unreliable (not problematic) 

 2 70.52 49.51 101.14 7.33 5.08 10.56 high 

 3 56.10 43.04 73.79 12.09 9.34 15.83 high 

 4 29.62 22.83 38.77 12.45 9.66 16.24 moderate 

 5 22.01 13.02 36.99 3.66 2.19 6.13 moderate 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-61 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 12c 

One or more special subject-area events (e.g., science fair, concerts, etc.) 

Item: A0236 

sample size = 271 

1 = 0-25% 

2 = 26-50% 

3 = 51-75% 

4 = 51-75% 

5 = Not applicable 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 60.65 53.96 69.74 37.27 32.44 42.10 high 

 1N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 2 93.44 70.22 125.43 10.70 8.11 14.29 high 

 3 72.76 61.53 86.90 25.09 21.26 29.92 high 

 4 50.32 42.48 60.20 24.72 20.91 29.53 high 

 5N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 

 

Question: 13 

What is your current ANNUAL salary for your position at this school before taxes and deductions? 

Item: A0263 

sample size = 238 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

9.0324 -1.3120 19.3768 low 

 
S-62 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Principal Reinterview Questionnaire—Public School Principals 

 

Question: 1 

What is the highest degree you have earned? 

Item: A0039 

sample size = 1,052 

1 = Associate Degree 

2 = Bachelor’s Degree (B.A., B.S., B.E., etc.) 

3 = Master’s degree (M.A., M.A.T., M.B.A., M.Ed., M.S., etc) 

4 = Education specialist or professional diploma (at least one year beyond master’s level) 

5 = Doctorate or first professional degree (Ph.D., Ed.D., M.D., L.L.B., J.D., D.D.S.) 

6 = Do not have a degree 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 32.09 28.95 35.91 18.06 16.11 20.01 moderate 

 2R 1.24 0.79 1.94 unreliable (not problematic) 

 3 33.21 29.65 37.29 16.44 14.69 18.45 moderate 

 4N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 5 11.40 7.70 16.81 1.71 1.16 2.52 low 

 

 

Question: 2 

How many total hours do you spend on ALL school-related activities for this school during a 

typical FULL WEEK? 

Item: A0040 

sample size = 1,015 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

44.1596 33.1844 55.135 moderate 

 

 

Question: 3 

How many total hours do you spend interacting with students during a typical FULL WEEK at this 

school? 

Item: A0041 

sample size = 1,035 

 

Failed t test 

Question: 4 

How many months is the contract year for your position as principal/school head of this school? 

Item: A0042 

sample size = 1,041 

1 = Less than 9 months 

2 = 9 months 

3 = 9-1/2 months 

4 = 10 months 

5 = 10 –1/2 months 

6 = 11 months 

7 = 11-1/2 months 

8 = 12 months 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 31.75 28.79 35.33 19.79 17.76 21.82 moderate 

 1N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 2R 0.86 0.50 1.49 unreliable (not problematic) 

 3R 1.06 0.65 1.73 unreliable (not problematic) 

 4 35.77 29.36 43.68 6.24 5.09 7.65 moderate 

 5 54.48 46.70 63.71 9.80 8.33 11.53 high 

 6N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 7R 2.02 1.41 2.88 unreliable (not problematic) 

 8 15.83 13.29 18.91 7.78 6.48 9.34 low 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-63 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Questions: 5a-5f 

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 

 

Question: 5a 

The stress and disappointments involved in serving as principal/school head of this school aren’t 

really worth it. 

Item: A0043 

sample size = 1,038 

1 = Strongly agree 

2 = Somewhat agree 

3 = Somewhat disagree 

4 = Strongly disagree 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 65.20 61.34 69.70 38.92 36.43 41.41 high 1R 3.56 2.72 4.67 unreliable (not problematic) 

 2N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 3 76.63 70.76 83.20 28.52 26.34 30.95 high 

 4 53.79 49.46 58.65 26.49 24.37 28.88 high 

 

 

Question: 5b 

The faculty and staff at this school like being here; I would describe them as a satisfied group. 

Item: A0044 

sample size = 1,040 

1 = Strongly agree 

2 = Somewhat agree 

3 = Somewhat disagree 

4 = Strongly disagree 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 62.43 58.35 67.22 34.13 31.72 36.55 high 

 1N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 2 60.40 55.64 65.74 27.31 25.17 29.71 high 

 3R 8.27 6.93 9.87 unreliable (problematic) 

 4R 5.87 4.75 7.24 unreliable (problematic) 

 

 

Question: 5c 

If I could get a higher paying job, I’d leave education as soon as possible. 

Item: A0046 

sample size = 1,038 

1 = Strongly agree 

2 = Somewhat agree 

3 = Somewhat disagree 

4 = Strongly disagree 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 63.59 59.94 67.84 40.46 37.96 42.97 high 

 1 60.50 50.60 72.52 7.51 6.24 9.05 high 

 2 76.79 69.37 85.22 19.85 17.94 22.01 high 

 3 78.97 73.24 85.37 30.83 28.60 33.32 high 

 4 45.50 41.46 50.07 22.74 20.73 25.01 moderate 

 

 
S-64 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 5d 

I think about transferring to another school. 

Item: A0047 

sample size = 1,039 

1 = Strongly agree 

2 = Somewhat agree 

3 = Somewhat disagree 

4 = Strongly disagree 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 54.25 50.39 58.80 30.41 28.07 32.76 high 

 1N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 2 59.01 53.04 65.81 18.38 16.54 20.49 high 

 3 72.22 64.96 80.49 18.58 16.72 20.69 high 

 4 40.02 36.05 44.54 18.96 17.09 21.09 moderate 

Question: 5e 

I don’t seem to have as much enthusiasm now as I did when I began my career as a principal/school 

head. 

Item: A0048 

sample size = 1,041 

1 = Strongly agree 

2 = Somewhat agree 

3 = Somewhat disagree 

4 = Strongly disagree 

 

Failed Bowker Test 

 

 

Question: 5f 

I think about staying home from school because I’m just too tired to go. 

Item: A0049 

sample size = 1,042 

1 = Strongly agree 

2 = Somewhat agree 

3 = Somewhat disagree 

4 = Strongly disagree 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 64.45 59.49 70.33 26.97 24.71 29.23 high 

 1R 3.84 2.96 4.98 unreliable (not problematic) 

 2 62.45 54.19 72.14 11.32 9.84 13.07 high 

 3 77.53 69.62 86.57 18.04 16.21 20.13 high 

 4 54.35 49.25 60.14 20.73 18.79 22.92 high 

 

 

Question: 6 

In your opinion, what percentage of teachers in this school are presently teaching to high 

academic standards? 

Item: A0149 

sample size = 1,026 

Failed t test 

 

 

Question: 7a 

Does this school have a formal school improvement plan? 

Item: A0160 

sample size = 1,014 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 46.12 38.90 54.81 8.38 7.01 10.02 moderate 

 1 46.12 38.90 54.81 8.38 7.01 10.02 moderate 

 2 46.12 38.90 54.81 8.38 7.01 10.02 moderate 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-65 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Questions: 7b(1) -7b(3) 

Do you use any of the following to assess this school’s progress on that plan? 

 

 

Question: 7b(1) 

State or national tests 

Item: A0161 

sample size = 825 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

This question is not problematic. This is a Yes/No question that has a rare category and the GDR is 

less than 5 percent. 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 3.52 2.59 4.77 

 1 3.52 2.59 4.77 

 2R 3.52 2.59 4.77 

 

 

Question: 7b(2) 

Parent or student surveys 

Item: A0162 

sample size = 822 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 

Index calculated using Hui-Walter Method 

NDR was Significant (Yes/No question) 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

59.91 55.8493 63.9677 15.57 13.66 17.82 high 

Question: 7b(3) 

Student portfolios 

Item: A0163 

sample size = 820 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 54.54 49.71 60.04 27.07 24.69 29.79 high 1 54.54 49.71 60.04 27.07 24.69 29.79 high 

 2 54.54 49.71 60.04 27.07 24.69 29.79 high 

Question: 8a 

Has either your district or state established school PERFORMANCE standards? 

Item: A0164 

sample size = 1,006 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 70.04 60.22 81.69 10.44 8.99 12.16 high 1 70.04 60.22 81.69 10.44 8.99 12.16 high 

 2 70.04 60.22 81.69 10.44 8.99 12.16 high 
S-66 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 8b 

LAST school year (2002-03), was this school evaluated on district or state PERFORMANCE standards? 

Item: A0165 

sample size = 856 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 91.33 77.25 108.29 10.05 8.51 11.90 high 1 91.33 77.25 108.29 10.05 8.51 11.90 high 

 2 91.33 77.25 108.29 10.05 8.51 11.90 high 

Question: 9 - page 6 

Which of the following best describes this school’s performance last year? 

Item: A0166 

sample size = 883 

1 = Passed all district and state performance standards 

2 = Passed most district and state performance standards 

3 = Passed some district and state performance standards 

4 = Passed no district and state performance standards 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 50.38 46.49 55.02 30.12 27.58 32.66 high 1N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 2N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 3N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 4R 0.79 0.43 1.46 unreliable (not problematic) 

Question: 10 

LAST school year (2002-03), how many students were expelled from this school, that is, removed or 

transferred for at least the remainder of the school year? 

Item: A0189 

sample size = 1,001 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

80.9907 51.5164 110.465 high 

Question: 11 

What was the total number of suspensions during the LAST school year (2003-03)? 

Item: A0190 

sample size = 912 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

28.2953 23.9523 32.638 moderate 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-67 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Questions: 12a-12c 

LAST school year (2002-03), what percentage of students had at least one parent or guardian 

participating in the following events? 

Question: 12a 

Open house or back-to-school night 

Item: A0234 sample size = 1,024 

1 = 0-25% 

2 = 26-50% 

3 = 51-75% 

4 = 51-75% 

5 = Not applicable 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 53.66 50.41 57.45 38.18 35.69 40.68 high 

 1 63.47 54.33 74.34 9.77 8.29 11.51 high 

 2 60.50 54.60 67.21 19.73 17.81 21.90 high 

 3 70.78 64.87 77.43 25.29 23.19 27.66 high 

 4 35.71 31.97 40.00 17.48 15.66 19.57 moderate 

 5R 4.10 3.18 5.28 unreliable (not problematic) 

Question: 12b 

All regularly scheduled schoolwide parent-teacher conferences 

Item: A0235 

sample size = 1,018 

1 = 0-25% 

2 = 26-50% 

3 = 51-75% 

4 = 51-75% 

5 = Not applicable 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 45.14 41.97 48.87 31.43 29.04 33.83 moderate 

 1 66.32 57.24 77.05 10.81 9.34 12.54 high 

 2 55.04 48.83 62.21 15.42 13.69 17.42 high 

 3 62.65 56.43 69.73 19.25 17.35 21.42 high 

 4N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 5 37.05 29.79 46.18 5.30 4.24 6.63 moderate 

Question: 12c 

One or more special subject-area events (e.g., science fair, concerts, etc.) 

Item: A0236 

sample size = 1,012 

1 = 0-25% 

2 = 26-50% 

3 = 51-75% 

4 = 51-75% 

5 = Not applicable 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 69.56 66.32 73.34 51.38 48.80 53.97 high 

 1N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 2 80.87 74.30 88.26 26.58 24.43 29.00 high 

 3 83.38 77.67 89.74 33.99 31.68 36.58 high 

 4 50.98 46.47 56.08 23.32 21.27 25.64 high 

 5R 6.82 5.60 8.31 unreliable (problematic) 

Question: 13 

What is your current ANNUAL salary for your position at this school before taxes and deductions? 

Item: A0263 

sample size = 992 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

9.5509 5.7974 13.304 low 
S-68 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

School Reinterview Questionnaire—Private Schools 

Questions: 1a-1f 

Around the first of October, how many students enrolled in grades K-12 and comparable ungraded 

levels wereQuestion: 1a 

Hispanic, regardless of race? 

Item: S0417 

sample size = 226 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

4.986 3.025 6.947 low 

Question: 1b 

White, not of Hispanic origin? 

Item: S0418 

sample size = 222 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

3.447 0.282 6.612 low 

Question: 1c 

Black, not of Hispanic origin? 

Item: S0419 

sample size = 218 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

0.410 0.034 0.786 low 

Question: 1d 

Asian or Pacific Islander? 

Item: S0420 

sample size = 215 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

2.293 -1.690 6.277 low 

 

 

Question: 1e 

American Indian or Alaska Native? 

Item: S0421 

sample size = 207 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

0.515 -0.039 1.068 low 

 

 

Question: 1f 

Total students 

Item: S0422 

sample size = 218 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

2.189 0.304 4.075 low 

 

 

Question: 2 

For this school year (2003-04), what is the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) at this school? 

Item: S0423 

sample size = 201 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

79.850 44.536 115.164 high 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-69 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 3 

What is the current capacity of this school’s building(s)? 

Item: S0429 

sample size = 225 

 

Index LCL UCL Variance 

 

4.990 1.303 8.677 low 

 

 

Question: 4a 

Does this school have one or more temporary buildings? 

Item: S0430 

sample size = 238 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 25.42 16.81 38.65 6.30 4.13 9.61 moderate 

 1 25.42 16.81 38.65 6.30 4.13 9.61 moderate 

 2 25.42 16.81 38.65 6.30 4.13 9.61 moderate 

Question: 4b 

What is the capacity of the temporary building(s)? 

Item: S0431 

sample size = 25 

 

Small sample size 

 

 

Questions: 5-7 

 

Not for the Private Schools 

 

 

Question: 8 

Around the first of October, how many TEACHERS held full-time or part-time positions or 

assignment in this school? 

Full-time 

Item: S0513 

sample size = 241 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

2.801 1.056 4.547 low 

 

Part-time 

Item: S0514 

 

Not on original Private School Questionnaire 

 

 

Questions: 9a-9f 

Of the full-time and part-time TEACHERS in this school around the first of October, how many 

were- 

 

 

Question: 9a 

Hispanic, regardless of race? 

Item: S0515 

sample size = 226 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

45.366 7.288 83.443 moderate 

 
S-70 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 9b 

White, not of Hispanic origin? 

Item: S0516 

sample size = 225 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

4.623 1.637 7.609 low 

 

 

Question: 9c 

Black, not of Hispanic origin? 

Item: S0517 

sample size = 215 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

7.759 1.527 13.990 low 

 

Question: 9d 

Asian or Pacific Islander? 

Item: S0518 

sample size = 212 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

0.191 0.005 0.376 low 

 

 

Question: 9e 

American Indian or Alaska Native? 

Item: S0519 

sample size = 206 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

5.015 1.153 8.877 low 

 

 

Question: 9f 

Total Teachers 

Item: S0520 

sample size = 234 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

2.724 1.133 4.316 low 

 

 

Question: 10 

Of the students enrolled in this school, how many have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) 

Because they have special needs? 

Item: S0604 

sample size = 232 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

5.685 0.583 10.786 low 

 

 

Question: 11a 

Does this school primarily serve students with disabilities? 

Item: S0605 

sample size = 127 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 5.51 2.99 10.17 

 1 5.51 2.99 10.17 

 2 5.51 2.99 10.17 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-71 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 11b 

How many IEP students are in each of the following settings? 

 

All day in a regular classroom 

Item: S0606 

sample size = 52 

 

Small sample size 

 

Most of the day in a regular classroom 

Item: S0607 

sample size = 25 

 

Small sample size 

 

Some of the day in a regular classroom 

Item: S0608 

sample size = 8 

 

Small sample size 

 

Little or none of the day in a regular classroom 

Item: S0609 

sample size = 7 

 

Small sample size 

 

 

Question: 12a 

Of the students enrolled in this school as of October 1, have any been identified as 

limited-English proficient 

Item: S0610 

sample size = 232 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 35.75 25.44 50.69 9.05 6.33 12.94 moderate

 1 35.75 25.44 50.69 9.05 6.33 12.94 moderate 

 2 35.75 25.44 50.69 9.05 6.33 12.94 moderate 

 

 

Question: 12b 

How many limited-English proficient students are enrolled in this school? 

Item: S0611 

sample size = 25 

 

Small sample size 

 

 

Question: 13a 

Does this school have any prekindergarten students? 

Item: S0630 

 

Not on original Private School Questionnaire 

 

 

Question: 13b 

Around the first of October, how many prekindergarten students were enrolled in this school? 

Item: S0631 

 

Not on original Private School Questionnaire 

 

 
S-72 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 14 

Does this school participate in the National School Lunch Program (that is, the federal free or 

reduced-price lunch program)? 

Item: S0632 

sample size = 241 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 1.08 0.24 4.86 0.41 0.09 1.86 low

 1 1.08 0.24 4.86 0.41 0.09 1.86 low 

 2 1.08 0.24 4.86 0.41 0.09 1.86 low 

 

 

Question: 15 

Around the first of October, how many students at this school were APPROVED for free or reducedprice lunches? 

 

Prekindergarten students approved 

Item: S0633 

sample size = 56 

 

Small sample size 

 

Other students approved (kindergarten and higher) 

Item: S0634 

sample size = 59 

 

Small sample size 

 

 

Question: 16 

Around the first of October, did any students enrolled in this school receive Title I services at 

this school, or at any other location? 

Item: S0635 

sample size = 239 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 11.30 6.48 19.52 3.77 2.19 6.47 low

 1 11.30 6.48 19.52 3.77 2.19 6.47 low 

 2 11.30 6.48 19.52 3.77 2.19 6.47 low 

 

 

Question: 17 

How many students participate in the Title 1 program? 

 

Prekindergarten students participating 

Item: S0636 

sample size = 47 

 

Small sample size 

 

 

Other students participating (kindergarten and higher) 

Item: S0637 

sample size = 48 

 

Small sample size 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-73 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

School Reinterview Questionnaire—Public Schools 

 

 

Questions: 1a-1f 

Around the first of October, how many students enrolled in grades K-12 and comparable ungraded 

levels were- 

 

Question: 1a 

Hispanic, regardless of race? 

Item: S0417 

sample size = 633 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

19.3464 3.1881 35.505 low 

 

 

Question: 1b 

White, not of Hispanic origin? 

Item: S0418 

sample size = 621 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

27.4223 10.0822 44.762 moderate 

 

 

Question: 1c 

Black, not of Hispanic origin? 

Item: S0419 

sample size = 626 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

3.6103 -14.3896 21.610 low 

 

 

Question: 1d 

Asian or Pacific Islander? 

Item: S0420 

sample size = 614 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

7.2098 4.6359 9.784 low 

 

 

Question: 1e 

American Indian or Alaska Native? 

Item: S0421 

sample size = 603 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

89.6797 63.6400 115.719 high 

 

 

Question: 1f 

Total students 

Item: S0422 

sample size = 614 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

23.3378 9.7729 36.903 moderate 

 

 

Question: 2 

For this school year (2003-04), what is the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) at this school? 

Item: S0423 

sample size = 560 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

80.5973 63.8118 97.383 high 

 

 
S-74 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 3 

What is the current capacity of this school’s building(s)? 

Item: S0429 

sample size = 563 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

11.3031 1.8736 20.732 low 

Question: 4a 

Does this school have one or more temporary buildings? 

Item: S0430 

sample size = 647 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 14.25 11.04 18.46 6.03 4.64 7.84 low 

 1 14.25 11.04 18.46 6.03 4.64 7.84 low 

 2 14.25 11.04 18.46 6.03 4.64 7.84 low 

 

 

Question: 4b 

What is the capacity of the temporary building(s)? 

Item: S0431 

sample size = 147 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

23.1475 14.5655 31.730 moderate 

 

 

Question: 5 

Does this school receive performance reports from the district that cover such things as 

students’ scores on achievement tests or graduation rates? 

Item: S0455 

sample size = 647 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 65.75 53.66 80.87 9.13 7.38 11.31 high 1 65.75 53.66 80.87 9.13 7.38 11.31 high 

 2 65.75 53.66 80.87 9.13 7.38 11.31 high 

 

 

Question: 6 

Regardless of source, does this school have performance reports? 

Item: S0456 

sample size = 64 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 9.38 4.85 18.13 

 1 9.38 4.85 18.13 

 2 9.38 4.85 18.13 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-75 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Questions: 7a-7e 

Does this school use these performance reports to- 

 

Question: 7a 

Evaluate the progress of students in this school? 

Item: S0457 

sample size = 630 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

This question is not problematic. This is a Yes/No question that has a rare category and the GDR 

is less than 5 percent. 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 1.90 1.19 3.05 

 1 1.90 1.19 3.05 

 2R 1.90 1.19 3.05 

 

 

Question: 7b 

Determine the next year’s instructional focus? 

Item: S0458 

sample size = 626 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 

Index calculated using Hui-Walter Method 

NDR was Significant (Yes/No question) 

 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

90.10 88.4421 91.7615 8.15 6.47 10.25 high 

 

 

Question: 7c 

Realign the curriculum, such as with content standards and/or other indicator criteria? 

Item: S0459 

sample size = 621 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

This question is problematic. This is a Yes/No question that has a rare category and the GDR is 

greater than 5 percent. 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 5.80 4.41 7.62 

 1 5.80 4.41 7.62 

 2R 5.80 4.41 7.62 

Question: 7d 

Inform parents and the community of the school’s progress? 

Item: S0460 

sample size = 629 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

This question is not problematic. This is a Yes/No question that has a rare category and the GDR 

is less than 5 percent. 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 1.59 0.95 2.66 

 1 1.59 0.95 2.66 

 2R 1.59 0.95 2.66 
S-76 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 7e 

Prompt school-level initiatives for improvement? 

Item: S0461 

sample size = 622 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Index calculated using Hui-Walter Method 

NDR was Significant (Yes/No question)

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

92.48 89.2626 95.6988 5.31 3.99 7.06 high 

 

 

Question: 8 

Around the first of October, how many TEACHERS held full-time or part-time positions or 

assignment in this school? 

 

Full-time 

Item: S0513 

sample size = 656 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

5.9598 0.3051 11.615 low 

 

Part-time 

Item: S0514 

sample size = 579 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

23.0014 14.4267 31.576 moderate 

 

 

Questions: 9a-9f 

Of the full-time and part-time TEACHERS in this school around the first of October, how many 

were- 

 

Question: 9a 

Hispanic, regardless of race? 

Item: S0515 

sample size = 637 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

43.5287 15.7858 71.272 moderate 

 

 

Question: 9b 

White, not of Hispanic origin? 

Item: S0516 

sample size = 633 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

9.8034 5.1893 14.417 low 

 

 

Question: 9c 

Black, not of Hispanic origin? 

Item: S0517 

sample size = 626 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

0.5583 -0.0080 1.125 low 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-77 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 9d 

Asian or Pacific Islander? 

Item: S0518 

sample size = 608 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

6.9949 -0.9236 14.913 low 

 

 

Question: 9e 

American Indian or Alaska Native? 

Item: S0519 

sample size = 601 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

28.2615 -34.7632 91.286 moderate 

 

Question: 9f 

Total Teachers 

Item: S0520 

sample size = 627 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

6.5703 3.3952 9.745 low 

 

 

Question: 10 

Of the students enrolled in this school, how many have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) 

Because they have special needs? 

Item: S0604 

sample size = 596 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

8.6688 4.4957 12.842 low 

 

Question: 11a 

Does this school primarily serve students with disabilities? 

Item: S0605 

sample size = 618 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 71.38 58.29 87.76 9.55 7.71 11.82 high

 1 71.38 58.29 87.76 9.55 7.71 11.82 high 

 2 71.38 58.29 87.76 9.55 7.71 11.82 high 

 

 

Question: 11b How many IEP students are in each of the following settings? 

 

All day in a regular classroom 

Item: S0606 

sample size = 351 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

43.9531 24.7582 63.148 moderate 

Most of the day in a regular classroom 

Item: S0607 

sample size = 392 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

29.8459 11.7861 47.906 moderate 

 
S-78 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Some of the day in a regular classroom 

Item: S0608 

sample size = 346 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

38.4295 29.5428 47.316 moderate 

Little or none of the day in a regular classroom 

Item: S0609 

sample size = 332 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

21.1609 9.1916 33.130 moderate 

 

 

Question: 12a 

Of the students enrolled in this school as of October 1, have any been identified as limitedEnglish proficient? 

Item: S0610 

sample size = 578 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 15.48 12.20 19.71 7.61 5.94 9.75 low 1 15.48 12.20 19.71 7.61 5.94 9.75 low 

 2 15.48 12.20 19.71 7.61 5.94 9.75 low 

Question: 12b 

How many limited-English proficient students are enrolled in this school? 

Item: S0611 

sample size = 325 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

3.7025 1.3593 6.046 low 

 

Question: 13a 

Does this school have any prekindergarten students? 

Item: S0630 

sample size = 654 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 11.93 9.02 15.83 5.05 3.79 6.71 low 

 1 11.93 9.02 15.83 5.05 3.79 6.71 low 

 2 11.93 9.02 15.83 5.05 3.79 6.71 low 

 

 

Question: 13b 

Around the first of October, how many prekindergarten students were enrolled in this school? 

Item: S0631 

sample size = 139 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

5.6240 0.9791 10.269 low 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-79 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 14 

Does this school participate in the National School Lunch Program (that is, the federal free or 

reduced-price lunch program)? 

Item: S0632 

sample size = 652 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 8.27 4.48 15.28 1.07 0.58 1.98 low 

 1 8.27 4.48 15.28 1.07 0.58 1.98 low 

 2 8.27 4.48 15.28 1.07 0.58 1.98 low 

 

 

Question: 15 

Around the first of October, how many students at this school were APPROVED for free or reducedprice lunches? 

 

Prekindergarten students approved 

Item: S0633 

sample size = 366 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

47.7849 14.8565 80.713 moderate 

 

 

Other students approved (kindergarten and higher) 

Item: S0634 

sample size = 519 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

11.0196 -2.2353 24.274 low 

 

 

Question: 16 

Around the first of October, did any students enrolled in this school receive Title I services at 

this school, or at any other location? 

Item: S0635 

sample size = 604 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 18.08 14.55 22.56 8.61 6.86 10.81 low 

 1 18.08 14.55 22.56 8.61 6.86 10.81 low 

 2 18.08 14.55 22.56 8.61 6.86 10.81 low 

 

 

Question: 17 

How many students participate in the Title 1 program? 

 

Prekindergarten students participating 

Item: S0636 

sample size = 208 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

27.1333 10.0624 44.204 moderate 

Other students participating (kindergarten and higher) 

Item: S0637 

sample size = 268 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

4.1270 -7.3591 15.613 low 

 

 
S-80 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Private Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire 

 

 

Question: 1 

In what year did you begin teaching, either full-time or part-time, at the elementary or 

secondary level? 

Item: T0035 

sample size = 290 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

2.6046 0.1863 5.0230 low 

 

 

Question: 2 

Which statement best describes the way YOUR classes at this school are organized? 

Item: T0066 

sample size = 293 

1 = You instruct several classes of different student most or all of the day in one or more 

 subjects (such as algebra, history, biology). (Departmentalized Instruction) 

2 = You are an elementary school teacher who teaches only one subject (such as art, music, 

 physical education or computer skills). *Elementary Enrichment Class) 

3 = You instruct the same group of students all or most of the day in multiple subjects. (Self- 

 Contained Class) 

4 = You are one of two or more teachers, in the same class, at the same time, and are jointly 

 responsible for teaching a single group of students. (Team Teaching) 

5 = You instruct selected students released from their regular classes in specific skills or to 

 address specific needs (such as gifted and talented, special education, reading, English as a 

 Second Language). (Pull-Out” Class) 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 15.19 11.82 20.66 9.90 7.03 12.77 low 

 1 14.80 10.47 21.04 7.17 5.02 10.24 low 

 2 27.91 18.90 41.38 5.80 3.90 8.62 moderate 

 3 7.79 4.76 12.75 3.75 2.30 6.13 low 

 4R 2.39 1.30 4.41 unreliable (not problematic) 

 5R 0.68 0.23 2.06 unreliable (not problematic) 

 

 

Question: 3 

This school year, what is your MAIN teaching assignment field at this school? 

Item: T0075 

sample size = 138 

 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Special Education 9 = Natural Sciences 

3 = Arts & Music 10 = Social Sciences 

4 = English and Language Arts 11 = Vocational/Technical Education 

5 = English as a Second Language 12 = Miscellaneous 

6 = Foreign Languages 13 = Other 

7 = Health Education 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 8.18 5.71 13.93 7.25 3.62 10.88 low 1R 2.90 1.30 6.46 unreliable (not problematic) 

 2R 0.72 0.16 3.25 unreliable (not problematic) 

 3 0.00 0.00 6.87 0.00 0.00 1.96 low 

 4 8.26 3.29 20.72 2.17 0.87 5.44 low 

 6 0.00 0.00 10.18 0.00 0.00 1.96 low 

 7 0.00 0.00 16.18 0.00 0.00 1.96 low 

 8 13.41 5.42 30.53 2.90 1.30 6.46 low 

 9 10.32 3.34 26.68 2.17 0.87 5.44 low 

 10 9.88 3.26 29.94 1.45 0.48 4.38 low 

 11R 1.45 0.48 4.38 unreliable (not problematic) 

 12 5.65 1.26 25.43 0.72 0.16 3.25 low 

 13R 0.00 0.00 1.96 unreliable (not problematic) 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-81 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 4a 

Do you have a bachelor’s degree? 

Item: T0116 

sample size = 299 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 8.14 3.65 18.18 1.34 0.60 2.98 low 1 8.14 3.65 18.18 1.34 0.60 2.98 low 

 2 8.14 3.65 18.18 1.34 0.60 2.98 low 

 

 

Question: 4b 

In what year did you receive your bachelor’s degree? 

Item: T0117 

sample size = 257 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

0.2321 0.0912 0.3729 low 

 

 

Question: 4c 

Was this degree awarded by a university’s Department or College of Education, or a college’s 

Department or School of Education? 

Item: T0118 

sample size = 256 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 17.27 11.73 25.57 6.64 4.47 9.87 low 1 17.27 11.73 25.57 6.64 4.47 9.87 low 

 2 17.27 11.73 25.57 6.64 4.47 9.87 low 

 

 

Question: 4d 

What was your major field of study? 

Item: T0119 

sample size = 254 

1 = Elementary Education 9 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 10 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 11 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Other Education 12 = Social Sciences 

5 = Arts & Music 13 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English and Language Arts 14 = Miscellaneous 

7 = English as a Second Language 15 = Other 

8 = Foreign Languages 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 10.91 8.28 15.43 9.06 6.09 12.02 low 

 1 7.72 4.49 13.30 3.54 2.06 6.09 low 

 2R 1.97 0.96 4.04 unreliable (not problematic) 

 3R 0.39 0.09 1.76 unreliable (not problematic) 

 4R 0.39 0.09 1.76 unreliable (not problematic) 

 5 7.03 2.80 17.65 1.18 0.47 2.96 low 

 6 14.34 7.05 28.14 2.36 1.22 4.57 low 

 8R 1.57 0.71 3.51 unreliable (not problematic) 

 9 0.00 0.00 9.08 0.00 0.00 1.07 low 

 10R 0.39 0.09 1.76 unreliable (not problematic) 

 11 7.56 2.49 22.92 0.79 0.26 2.38 low 

 12 4.28 1.41 12.99 0.79 0.26 2.38 low 

 13R 1.18 0.47 2.96 unreliable (not problematic) 

 14R 1.57 0.71 3.51 unreliable (not problematic) 

 15R 1.97 0.96 4.04 unreliable (not problematic) 

 

 
S-82 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 4e 

Did you have a second major field of study? 

Item: T0120 

sample size = 242 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 26.78 20.30 35.70 12.40 9.47 16.44 moderate 1 26.78 20.30 35.70 12.40 9.47 16.44 moderate 

 2 26.78 20.30 35.70 12.40 9.47 16.44 moderate 

 

Question: 4f 

What was your second major field of study? 

Item: T0121 

sample size = 72 

1 = Elementary Education 9 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 10 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 11 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Other Education 12 = Social Sciences 

5 = Arts & Music 13 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English and Language Arts 14 = Miscellaneous 

7 = English as a Second Language 15 = Other 

8 = Foreign Languages 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 22.22 14.16 30.28 

 1 6.94 3.38 14.27 

 2 4.17 1.67 10.43 

 3 2.78 0.92 8.39 

 4 2.78 0.92 8.39 

 5 5.56 2.49 12.38 

 6 4.17 1.67 10.43 

 8 5.56 2.49 12.38 

 9 0.00 0.00 3.76 

 10 1.39 0.31 6.23 

 11 1.39 0.31 6.23 

 12 5.56 2.49 12.38 

 13 1.39 0.31 6.23 

 14 1.39 0.31 6.23 

 15 1.39 0.31 6.23 

 

 

Question: 5a 

Do you have a master’s degree? 

Item: T0123 

sample size = 259 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Index calculated using Hui-Walter Method 

NDR was Significant (Yes/No question) 

 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

5.45 5.2524 5.6468 2.32 1.20 4.48 low 

 

 

Question: 5b 

In what year did you receive your master’s degree? 

Item: T0124 

sample size = 78 

Small sample size 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-83 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 5c 

Was this degree awarded by a university’s Department or College of Education, or a college’s 

Department or School of Education? 

Item: T0125 

sample size = 78 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 5.13 2.30 11.42 

 1 5.13 2.30 11.42 

 2 5.13 2.30 11.42 

 

 

Question: 5d 

What was your major field of study? 

Item: T0126 

sample size = 76 

1 = Elementary Education 9 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 10 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 11 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Other Education 12 = Social Sciences 

5 = Arts & Music 13 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English and Language Arts 14 = Miscellaneous 

7 = English as a Second Language 15 = Other 

8 = Foreign Languages 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 13.16 6.78 19.54 

 1 5.26 2.36 11.72 

 2 2.63 0.87 7.95 

 3 1.32 0.29 5.90 

 4 3.95 1.58 9.88 

 5 0.00 0.00 3.56 

 6 0.00 0.00 3.56 

 8 0.00 0.00 3.56 

 9 0.00 0.00 3.56 

 10 0.00 0.00 3.56 

 11 0.00 0.00 3.56 

 12 0.00 0.00 3.56 

 13 1.32 0.29 5.90 

 14 3.95 1.58 9.88 

 

 

Question: 6 

How long did your practice teaching last? 

Item: T0155 

sample size = 290 

1 = I had no practice teaching 

2 = 4 weeks or less 

3 = 5-7 weeks 

4 = 8-11 weeks 

5 = 12 weeks or more 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 36.19 31.05 43.36 24.48 20.33 28.64 moderate 

 1N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 2R 3.10 1.81 5.33 unreliable (not problematic) 

 3 69.84 50.31 97.65 7.93 5.64 11.16 high 

 4 49.56 40.28 61.54 17.24 14.06 21.36 moderate 

 5N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 

 
S-84 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 7 part 1 

Have you ever taken any graduate or undergraduate courses that focused on teaching methods or 

teaching strategies? 

Item: T0156 

sample size = 279 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Index calculated using Hui-Walter Method 

NDR was Significant (Yes/No question) 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

46.45 41.6672 51.2346 12.90 10.09 16.69 moderate 

 

 

Question: 7 part 2 

How many courses? 

Item: T0157 

sample size = 214 

1 = 1 or 2 courses 

2 = 3 to 4 courses 

3 = 5 to 9 courses 

4 = 10 or more courses 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 57.07 50.84 65.80 42.52 36.96 48.08 high 

 1N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 2 58.40 47.95 72.03 23.36 19.24 28.76 high 

 3 67.86 57.06 81.75 28.04 23.62 33.72 high 

 4 45.48 35.77 58.53 17.29 13.67 22.17 moderate 

 

 

Question: 8 

Which of the following describes how you obtained the teaching methods or teaching strategies 

coursework? 

Item: T0159 

sample size = 228 

1 = Through an alternative program designed to expedite the transition of non-teachers to a 

 teaching career (e.g., a state, district or university alternative program) 

2 = Through a bachelor’s degree granting program (B.A. or B.S.) 

3 = Through a fifth year program (not leading to a master’s degree) 

4 = Through a master’s degree granting program (M.A., M.S., M.Ed., M.A.T.) 

5 = Through individual courses (not part of a program leading to a degree) 

6 = Other 

Failed Bowker Test 

 

 

Question: 9a 

Do you currently hold regular or full certification by an accrediting or certifying body OTHER 

THAN THE STATE? 

Item: T0421 

sample size = 295 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 48.88 38.52 62.57 13.56 10.74 17.30 moderate 

 1 48.88 38.52 62.57 13.56 10.74 17.30 moderate 

 2 48.88 38.52 62.57 13.56 10.74 17.30 moderate 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-85 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 9b 

Some certificates may allow you to teach in multiple content areas. In what content area(s) does 

this teaching certificate allow you to teach at this school? 

Item: T0422 

sample size = 35 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 9 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 10 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Arts & Music 11 = Social Sciences 

5 = English and Language Arts 12 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English as a Second Language 13 = Miscellaneous 

7 = Foreign Languages 14 = Other 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 14.29 4.56 24.02 

 1 8.57 3.43 21.45 

 4 0.00 0.00 7.73 

 5 5.71 1.89 17.27 

 7 0.00 0.00 7.73 

 8 5.71 1.89 17.27 

 9 2.86 0.64 12.81 

 11 0.00 0.00 7.73 

 12 2.86 0.64 12.81 

 13 0.00 0.00 7.73 

 14 2.86 0.64 12.81 

 

 

Question: 9b part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

Question: 9b. part 2 0423 

Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

Item: T0423 

sample size = 33 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 6.06 2.01 18.32 

 1 6.06 2.01 18.32 

 2 6.06 2.01 18.32 

 

 

Question: 9b part 2 0424 

Secondary grades (including middle school) 

Item: T0424 

sample size = 33 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 18.18 11.24 33.33 

 1 18.18 11.24 33.33 

 2 18.18 11.24 33.33 

Question: 9b part 2 0425 

Ungraded 

Item: T0425 

sample size = 33 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 6.06 2.01 18.32 

 1 6.06 2.01 18. 

 2 6.06 2.01 18.32 

 

 
S-86 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 9c part 1 

If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach, 

please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 10a on page 11. 

Item: T0427 

sample size = 4 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 9 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 10 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Arts & Music 11 = Social Sciences 

5 = English and Language Arts 12 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English as a Second Language 13 = Miscellaneous 

7 = Foreign Languages 14 = Other 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 100.00 100.00 100.00 

 1 75.00 73.21 144.44 

 2 25.00 23.21 94.44 

 4 25.00 23.21 94.44 

 5 25.00 23.21 94.44 

 7 25.00 23.21 94.44 

 13 25.00 23.21 94.44 

 

 

Question: 9c part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

Question: 9c. part 2 0427 

Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

Item: T0427 

sample size = 5 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 54.12 

 1 0.00 0.00 54.12 

 2 0.00 0.00 54.12 

 

 

Question 9c part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

Question: 9c. part 2 0428 

Secondary grades (including middle school) 

Item: T0428 

sample size = 5 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 54.12 

 1 0.00 0.00 54.12 

 2 0.00 0.00 54.12 

 

 

Question: 9c part 2 0429 

Ungraded 

Item: T0429 

sample size = 5 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 54.12 

 1 0.00 0.00 54.12 

 2 0.00 0.00 54.12 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-87 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 9d part 1 

If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach 

please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 10a on page 11. 

Item: T0430 

sample size = 3 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 9 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 10 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Arts & Music 11 = Social Sciences 

5 = English and Language Arts 12 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English as a Second Language 13 = Miscellaneous 

7 = Foreign Languages 14 = Other 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 33.33 0.00 78.10 

 4 0.00 0.00 90.20 

 8 0.00 0.00 90.20 

 10 33.33 33.66 123.20 

 13 33.33 33.66 123.20 

 

 

Question: 9d part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

 

Question: 9d part 2 0431 

Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

Item: T0431 

sample size = 3 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 90.20 

 1 0.00 0.00 90.20 

 2 0.00 0.00 90.20 

 

 

Question: 9d part 2 0432 

Secondary grades (including middle school) 

Item: T0432 

sample size = 3 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 90.20 

 1 0.00 0.00 90.20 

 

Question: 9d part 2 0433 

Ungraded 

Item: T0433 

sample size = 3 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 90.20 

 1 0.00 0.00 90.20 

 2 0.00 0.00 90.20 

 

 
S-88 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 9e 

If there is an additional content area that the certificate described in item 11b allows you to 

teach, please list it below. Otherwise GO TO item 12 on page 15. 

Items: T0434, T0435, T0436, T0437 

There were no respondents who answered this question. 

 

 

Question: 9f 

If there is an additional content area that the certificate described in item 11b allows you to 

teach, please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 12 on page 15. 

Items: T0438, T0439, T0440, T0441 

 

There were no respondents who answered this question. 

 

 

Question: 10a 

Do you have a current teaching certificate from this state? 

Item: T0442 

sample size = 283 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 5.06 2.74 9.35 2.47 1.34 4.56 low 

 1 5.06 2.74 9.35 2.47 1.34 4.56 low 

 2 5.06 2.74 9.35 2.47 1.34 4.56 low 

 

 

Question: 10b - page 11 

Which of the following describes this current teaching certificate you hold from this state? 

Item: T0443 

sample size = 149 

1 = Regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional certificate 

2 = Probationary certificate (issued after satisfying all requirements except the completion of a 

 probationary period) 

3 = Provisional or other type of certificate given to persons who are still participating in what 

 the state calls an alternative certification program 

4 = Temporary certificate (requires some additional college coursework, student teaching, and/or 

 passage of a test before regular certification can be obtained) 

5 = Waiver or emergency certificate (issued to persons with insufficient teacher preparation 

 who must complete a regular certification program in order to continue teaching) 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 39.27 27.61 65.21 7.38 3.86 10.91 moderate 1 36.90 22.20 61.65 6.71 4.01 11.23 moderate 

 2R 2.68 1.21 5.98 unreliable (not problematic) 

 3R 4.03 2.08 7.79 unreliable (not problematic) 

 4R 1.34 0.44 4.06 unreliable (not problematic) 

 5R 0.00 0.00 1.82 unreliable (not problematic) 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-89 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 10c part 1 

Some certificates may allow you to teach in multiple content areas. In what content area(s) does 

the teaching certificate marked in item 10b allow you to teach in this state? 

Item: T0444 

sample size = 130 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 9 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 10 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Arts & Music 11 = Social Sciences 

5 = English and Language Arts 12 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English as a Second Language 13 = Miscellaneous 

7 = Foreign Languages 14 = Other 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 6.92 3.26 10.59 

 1 2.31 0.92 5.77 

 2 1.54 0.51 4.65 

 3 0.00 0.00 2.08 

 4 0.77 0.17 3.45 

 5 1.54 0.51 4.65 

 7 0.00 0.00 2.08 

 8 2.31 0.92 5.77 

 9 1.54 0.51 4.65 

 10 0.77 0.17 3.45 

 11 2.31 0.92 5.77 

 12 0.00 0.00 2.08 

 14 0.77 0.17 3.45 

 

 

Question: 10c part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

Question: 10c part 2 0445 

Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

Item: T0445 

sample size = 127 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 7.87 4.71 13.17 

 1 7.87 4.71 13.17 

 2 7.87 4.71 13.17 

 

 

Question: 10c part 2 0446 

Secondary grades (including middle school) 

Item: T0446 

sample size = 126 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 16.67 12.28 23.20 

 1 16.67 12.28 23.20 

 2 16.67 12.28 23.20 

 
S-90 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 10c part 2 0447 

Ungraded 

Item: T0447 

sample size = 126 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 1.59 0.53 4.80 

 1 1.59 0.53 4.80 

 2 1.59 0.53 4.80 

 

 

Question: 10d part 1 

If there is an additional content area that the certificate described in item 10b allows you to 

teach, please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 11a on page 13. 

Item: T0448 

sample size = 33 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 9 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 10 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Arts & Music 11 = Social Sciences 

5 = English and Language Arts 12 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English as a Second Language 13 = Miscellaneous 

7 = Foreign Languages 14 = Other 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 27.27 14.52 40.03 

 1 6.06 2.01 18.32 

 2 6.06 2.01 18.32 

 3 0.00 0.00 8.20 

 5 18.18 11.24 33.33 

 7 0.00 0.00 8.20 

 8 3.03 0.68 13.58 

 9 6.06 2.01 18.32 

 10 3.03 0.68 13.58 

 12 3.03 0.68 13.58 

 

 

Question: 10d part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

Question: 10d. part 2 0449 

Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

Item: T0449 

sample size = 31 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 16.13 9.63 31.36 

 1 16.13 9.63 31.36 

 2 16.13 9.63 31.36 

 

 

Question: 10d part 2 0450 

Secondary grades (including middle school) 

Item: T0450 

sample size = 31 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 12.90 7.36 27.17 

 1 12.90 7.36 27.17 

 2 12.90 7.36 27.17 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-91 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 10d part 2 0451 

Ungraded 

Item: T0451 

sample size = 30 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 10.00 4.00 25.02 

 1 10.00 4.00 25.02 

 2 10.00 4.00 25.02 

 

 

Question: 10e part 1 

If there is an additional content area that the certificate described in item 10b allows you to 

teach, please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 11a on page 13. 

Item: T0452 

sample size = 10 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 9 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 10 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Arts & Music 11 = Social Sciences 

5 = English and Language Arts 12 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English as a Second Language 13 = Miscellaneous 

7 = Foreign Languages 14 = Other 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 40.00 14.52 65.48 

 1 10.00 2.23 44.83 

 3 0.00 0.00 27.06 

 5 10.00 2.23 44.83 

 7 0.00 12.72 54.34 

 8 0.00 0.00 27.06 

 9 20.00 12.72 54. 

 10 0.00 0.00 27.06 

 11 10.00 2.23 44.83 

 12 10.00 2.23 44.83 

 

 

Question: 10e part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

Question: 10e part 2 0453 

Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

Item: T0453 

sample size = 6 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 45.10 

 1 0.00 0.00 45.10 

 2 0.00 0.00 45.10 

 

 

Question: 10e part 2 0454 

Secondary grades (including middle school) 

Item: T0454 

sample size = 6 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 1 0.00 0.00 45.10 

 

 
S-92 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 10e part 2 0455 

Ungraded 

Item: T0455 

sample size = 6 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 16.67 14.19 64.24 

 1 16.67 14.19 64.24 

 2 16.67 14.19 64.24 

 

 

Question: 10f part 1 

If there is an additional content area that the certificate described in item 10b allows you to 

teach, please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 11a on page 13. 

Item: T0456 

sample size = 4 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 9 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 10 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Arts & Music 11 = Social Sciences 

5 = English and Language Arts 12 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English as a Second Language 13 = Miscellaneous 

7 = Foreign Languages 14 = Other 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 25.00 0.00 60.62 

 3 0.00 0.00 67.65 

 10 0.00 0.00 67.65 

 11 25.00 23.21 94.44 

 12 25.00 23.21 94.44 

 

Question: 10f part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

Question: 10f part 2 0457 

Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

Item: T0457 

sample size = 4 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 25.00 23.21 94.44 

 1 25.00 23.21 94.44 

 2 25.00 23.21 94.44 

 

 

Question: 10f part 2 0458 

Secondary grades (including middle school) 

Item: T0458 

sample size = 4 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 1 0.00 0.00 67.65 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-93 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 10f part 2 0459 

Ungraded 

Item: T0459 

sample size = 4 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 25.00 23.21 94.44 

 1 25.00 23.21 94.44 

 2 25.00 23.21 94.44 

 

 

Question: 10g part 1 

If there is an additional content area that the certificate described in item 10b allows you to 

teach, please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 11a below. 

Item: T0460 

sample size = 2 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 9 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 10 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Arts & Music 11 = Social Sciences 

5 = English and Language Arts 12 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English as a Second Language 13 = Miscellaneous 

7 = Foreign Languages 14 = Other 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 50.00 0.00 108.16 

 5 50.00 59.49 175.81 

 10 0.00 0.00 135.30 

 11 50.00 59.49 175.81 

 

 

Question: 10g part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

Question: 10g part 2 0461 

Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

Item: T0461 

sample size = 2 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 2 0.00 0.00 135.30 

 

 

Question: 10g part 2 0462 

Secondary grades (including middle school) 

Item: T0462 

sample size = 2 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 1 0.00 0.00 135.30 

 

 
S-94 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 10g part 2 0463 

Ungraded 

Item: T0463 

sample size = 2 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 2 0.00 0.00 135.30 

 

 

Question: 11a 

Do you have another current teaching certificate from this state? 

Item: T0187 

sample size = 150 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 52.56 34.02 82.10 8.67 5.51 13.62 high 

 1 52.56 34.02 82.10 8.67 5.51 13.62 high 

 2 52.56 34.02 82.10 8.67 5.51 13.62 high 

 

 

Question: 11b 

Which of the following describes this other current teaching certificate you hold from this 

state? 

Item: T0188 

sample size = 6 

1 = Regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional certificate 

2 = Probationary certificate (issued after satisfying all requirements except the completion of a 

 probationary period) 

3 = Provisional or other type of certificate given to persons who are still participating in what 

 the state calls an alternative certification program 

4 = Temporary certificate (requires some additional college coursework, student teaching, and/or 

 passage of a test before regular certification can be obtained) 

5 = Waiver or emergency certificate (issued to persons with insufficient teacher preparation 

 who must complete a regular certification program in order to continue teaching) 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 1 0.00 0.00 45.10 

 

 

Question: 11c part 1 

In what content area(s) does this other current teaching certificate, marked in 11b above, allow 

you to teach in this state? 

Item: T0189 

sample size = 8 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 9 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 10 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Arts & Music 11 = Social Sciences 

5 = English and Language Arts 12 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English as a Second Language 13 = Miscellaneous 

7 = Foreign Languages 14 = Other 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 25.00 0.00 50.18 

 1 12.50 10.18 48.65 

 3 12.50 10.18 48.65 

 4 12.50 10.18 48.65 

 5 12.50 10.18 48.65 

 11 0.00 0.00 33.83 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-95 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 11c part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

Question: 11c. part 2 0190 

Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

Item: T0190 

sample size = 7 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 14.29 11.86 55.37 

 1 14.29 11.86 55.37 

 2 14.29 11.86 55.37 

 

 

Question: 11c part 2 0191 

Secondary grades (including middle school) 

Item: T0191 

sample size = 6 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 16.67 14.19 64.24 

 1 16.67 14.19 64.24 

 2 16.67 14.19 64.24 

 

 

Question: 11c part 2 0192 

Ungraded 

Item: T0192 

sample size = 6 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 45.10 

 1 0.00 0.00 45.10 

 2 0.00 0.00 45.10 

 

 

Question: 11d 

If there is an additional content area that the certificate described in item 11b allows you to 

teach, please list it below. Otherwise GO TO item 12 on page 15. 

Items: T0193, T0194, T0195, T0196 

There were no respondents who answered this question. 

 

 

Question: 11e 

If there is an additional content area that the certificate described in item 11b allows you to 

teach, please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 12 on page 15. 

Items: T0197, T0198, T0199, T0200 

 

There were no respondents who answered this question. 

Question: 11f 

If there is an additional content area that the certificate described in item 11b allows you to 

teach, please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 12 on page 15. 

Items: T0201, T0202, T0203, T0204 

 

There were no respondents who answered this question. 

 

 

Question: 11g 

If there is an additional content area that the certificate described in item 11b allows you to 

teach, please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 12 on page 15. 

Items: T0205, T0206, T0207, T0208 

 

There were no respondents who answered this question. 
S-96 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 12a 

In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional development activities specific 

to and concentrating on the content of the subject(s) you teach? 

Item: T0243 

sample size = 293 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Index calculated using Hui-Walter Method 

NDR was significant (Yes/No question) 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

54.66 52.1837 57.1271 24.57 20.90 29.17 high 

 

Question: 12b 

In the past 12 months, how many hours did you spend on these activities? 

Item: T0244 

sample size = 157 

1 = 8 hours or less 

2 = 9-16 hours 

3 = 17-32 hours 

4 = 33 hours or more 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 67.73 60.67 78.17 50.96 44.39 57.52 high 

 1 55.45 43.38 72.11 21.02 16.53 27.23 high 

 2 72.77 59.11 91.14 26.75 21.80 33.42 high 

 3 81.04 66.72 100.15 29.30 24.19 36.14 high 

 4 62.65 50.32 79.35 24.84 20.03 31.38 high 

 

 

Question: 12c 

Overall, how useful were these activities to you? 

Item: T0245 

sample size = 158 

1 = Not useful 

2 = Somewhat useful 

3 = Useful 

4 = Very useful 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 63.28 55.39 75.01 41.77 35.32 48.23 high 

 1R 1.90 0.76 4.75 unreliable (not problematic) 

 2 64.51 51.38 82.39 23.42 18.73 29.82 high 

 3 75.36 63.93 90.40 36.08 30.65 43.22 high 

 4 48.20 38.05 62.09 22.15 17.57 28.44 moderate 

 

 

Question: 13 

Of all the students you teach at this school, how many have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) 

because they have disabilities or are special education students? 

Item: T0279 

sample size = 291 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 29.7176 8.7764 50.6587 moderate 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-97 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 14 

Of all the students you teach at this school, how many are of limited-English proficiency? 

Item: T0284 

sample size = 291 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

66.0494 57.3351 74.7637 high

 

 

Question: 15 

How many total hours do you spend on ALL teaching and other school-related activities during a 

typical FULL WEEK at this school? 

Item: T0297 

sample size = 298 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

14.9948 11.3170 18.6726 low 

 

 

Question: 16 

How many hours are you required to work to receive base pay during a typical FULL WEEK at this 

school? 

Item: T0298 

sample size = 279 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

16.1036 7.4842 24.7229 low 

Question: 17 

How many hours a week do you spend delivering instruction to a class of students? 

Item: T0299 

sample size = 288 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

33.7292 15.3275 52.1309 moderate 
S-98 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Public Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire 

 

 

Question: 1 

In what year did you begin teaching, either full-time or part-time, at the elementary or 

secondary level? 

Item: T0035 

sample size = 735 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

0.7279 0.3118 1.144 low 

 

 

Question: 2 

Which statement best describes the way YOUR classes at this school are organized? 

Item: T0066 

sample size = 738 

1 = You instruct several classes of different student most or all of the day in one or 

 more subjects (such as algebra, history, biology). (Departmentalized Instruction) 

2 = You are an elementary school teacher who teaches only one subject (such as art, 

 music, physical education or computer skills). *Elementary Enrichment Class) 

3 = You instruct the same group of students all or most of the day in multiple subjects. 

 (Self-Contained Class) 

4 = You are one of two or more teachers, in the same class, at the same time, and are 

 jointly responsible for teaching a single group of students. (Team Teaching) 

5 = You instruct selected students released from their regular classes in specific skills 

 or to address specific needs (such as gifted and talented, special education, 

 reading, English as a Second Language). (Pull-Out” Class) 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 10.29 8.40 12.99 6.91 5.37 8.45 low 

 1 5.81 4.06 8.31 2.85 1.99 4.07 low 

 2 17.37 11.90 25.32 2.57 1.77 3.75 low 

 3 7.08 5.06 9.90 3.25 2.33 4.54 low 

 4R 2.30 1.55 3.42 unreliable (not problematic) 

 5 16.68 11.66 23.86 2.85 1.99 4.07 low 

 

 

Question: 3 

This school year, what is your MAIN teaching assignment field at this school? 

Item: T0075 

sample size = 450 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Special Education 9 = Natural Sciences 

3 = Arts & Music 10 = Social Sciences 

4 = English and Language Arts 11 = Vocational/Technical Education 

5 = English as a Second Language 12 = Miscellaneous 

6 = Foreign Languages 13 = Other 

7 = Health Education 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 4.08 2.94 6.24 3.56 2.12 4.99 low 1R 0.67 0.27 1.67 unreliable (not problematic) 

 2R 0.67 0.27 1.67 unreliable (not problematic) 

 3 0.00 0.00 2.62 0.00 0.00 0.60 low 

 4 1.42 0.47 4.32 0.44 0.15 1.34 low 

 5R 0.00 0.00 0.60 unreliable (not problematic) 

 6R 0.00 0.00 0.60 unreliable (not problematic) 

 7 0.00 0.00 3.23 0.00 0.00 0.60 low 

 8 6.78 3.67 12.52 1.56 0.84 2.87 low 

 9 3.55 1.59 7.93 0.89 0.40 1.98 low 

 10 6.63 3.22 13.66 1.11 0.54 2.28 low 

 11 6.75 3.48 13.08 1.33 0.69 2.58 low 

 13R 0.44 0.15 1.34 unreliable (not problematic) 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-99 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 4a 

Do you have a bachelor’s degree? 

Item: T0116 

sample size = 748 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

This question is not problematic. This is a Yes/No question that has a rare category and the GDR 

is less than 5 percent.

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 1.34 0.80 2.24 

 1 1.34 0.80 2.24 

 2R 1.34 0.80 2.24 

Question: 4b 

In what year did you receive your bachelor’s degree? 

Item: T0117 

sample size = 704 

 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

0.7997 -0.0163 1.616 low 

Question: 4c 

Was this degree awarded by a university’s Department or College of Education, or a college’s 

Department or School of Education? 

Item: T0118 

sample size = 705 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 24.06 19.42 29.92 7.66 6.13 9.58 moderate 1 24.06 19.42 29.92 7.66 6.13 9.58 moderate 

 2 24.06 19.42 29.92 7.66 6.13 9.58 moderate 

Question: 4d 

What was your major field of study? 

Item: T0119 

sample size = 686 

1 = Elementary Education 9 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 10 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 11 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Other Education 12 = Social Sciences 

5 = Arts & Music 13 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English and Language Arts 14 = Miscellaneous 

7 = English as a Second Language 15 = Other 

8 = Foreign Languages 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 14.39 12.27 17.22 11.81 9.78 13.83 low 

 1 5.91 4.06 8.62 2.77 1.90 4.03 low 

 2R 2.04 1.32 3.16 unreliable (not problematic) 

 3R 0.73 0.35 1.50 unreliable (not problematic) 

 4R 1.17 0.66 2.07 unreliable (not problematic) 

 5 0.76 0.17 3.43 0.15 0.03 0.65 low 

 6 10.59 5.99 18.40 1.31 0.76 2.26 low 

 7R 0.15 0.03 0.65 unreliable (not problematic) 

 8R 0.00 0.00 0.39 unreliable (not problematic) 

 9N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 10R 1.46 0.87 2.44 unreliable (not problematic) 

 11 8.59 4.65 15.87 1.02 0.55 1.88 low 

 12 15.46 10.07 23.67 2.19 1.43 3.33 low 

 13 18.41 11.99 28.17 2.19 1.43 3.33 low 

 14R 0.73 0.35 1.50 unreliable (not problematic) 

 15 80.05 62.40 103.02 5.98 4.63 7.72 high 
S-100 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 4e 

Did you have a second major field of study? 

Item: T0120 

sample size = 675 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 30.41 25.77 36.02 12.59 10.69 14.89 moderate 1 30.41 25.77 36.02 12.59 10.69 14.89 moderate 

 2 30.41 25.77 36.02 12.59 10.69 14.89 moderate 

 

 

Question: 4f 

What was your second major field of study? 

Item: T0121 

sample size = 184 

1 = Elementary Education 9 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 10 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 11 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Other Education 12 = Social Sciences 

5 = Arts & Music 13 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English and Language Arts 14 = Miscellaneous 

7 = English as a Second Language 15 = Other 

8 = Foreign Languages 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 24.26 19.87 31.07 21.74 16.74 26.74 moderate 

 1 25.27 15.91 40.38 6.52 4.07 10.44 moderate 

 2R 7.07 4.49 11.11 unreliable (problematic) 

 3 16.55 6.61 37.75 2.17 0.98 4.84 low 

 4R 0.54 0.12 2.44 unreliable (not problematic) 

 5R 2.72 1.32 5.58 unreliable (not problematic) 

 6 26.74 16.43 43.68 5.98 3.66 9.77 moderate 

 7 11.22 3.58 29.04 1.63 0.65 4.08 low 

 8R 0.00 0.00 1.47 unreliable (not problematic) 

 9 3.16 0.70 14.21 0.54 0.12 2.44 low 

 10R 0.54 0.12 2.44 unreliable (not problematic) 

 11 22.09 11.67 41.09 3.80 2.06 7.02 moderate 

 12N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 13R 1.63 0.65 4.08 unreliable (not problematic) 

 14R 0.00 0.00 1.47 unreliable (not problematic) 

 15R 6.52 4.07 10.44 unreliable (problematic) 

 

 

Question: 5a 

Do you have a master’s degree? 

Item: T0123 

sample size = 706 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Index calculated using Hui-Walter Method 

NDR was Significant (Yes/No question) 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

3.29 3.1097 3.4733 1.70 1.06 2.72 low 

 

Question: 5b 

In what year did you receive your master’s degree? 

Item: T0124 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

2.9071 0.6970 5.117 low 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-101 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 5c 

Was this degree awarded by a university’s Department or College of Education, or a college’s 

Department or School of Education? 

Item: T0125 

sample size = 333 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 25.53 17.02 38.39 4.80 3.19 7.23 moderate 

 1 25.53 17.02 38.39 4.80 3.19 7.23 moderate 

 2 25.53 17.02 38.39 4.80 3.19 7.23 moderate 

 

 

Question: 5d 

What was your major field of study? 

Item: T0126 

sample size = 324 

1 = Elementary Education 9 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 10 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 11 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Other Education 12 = Social Sciences 

5 = Arts & Music 13 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English and Language Arts 14 = Miscellaneous 

7 = English as a Second Language 15 = Other 

8 = Foreign Languages 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 14.59 11.76 18.89 12.35 9.34 15.35 low 

 1 2.15 0.86 5.40 0.93 0.37 2.32 low 

 2 23.49 14.91 37.00 4.01 2.55 6.31 moderate 

 3 7.05 3.43 14.52 1.54 0.75 3.17 low 

 4 29.39 21.12 41.14 7.10 5.05 9.99 moderate 

 5R 0.00 0.00 0.84 unreliable (not problematic) 

 6 7.47 2.98 18.74 0.93 0.37 2.32 low 

 7R 0.00 0.00 0.84 unreliable (not problematic) 

 8R 0.00 0.00 0.84 unreliable (not problematic) 

 9R 0.62 0.20 1.87 unreliable (not problematic) 

 10R 1.23 0.55 2.75 unreliable (not problematic) 

 11R 1.23 0.55 2.75 unreliable (not problematic) 

 12N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 13R 0.00 0.00 0.84 unreliable (not problematic) 

 14R 0.93 0.37 2.32 unreliable (not problematic) 

 15 52.07 33.66 80.60 4.32 2.79 6.68 high 

 

 

Question: 6 

How long did your practice teaching last? 

Item: T0155 

sample size = 729 

1 = I had no practice teaching 

2 = 4 weeks or less 

3 = 5-7 weeks 

4 = 8-11 weeks 

5 = 12 weeks or more 

Failed Bowker Test 

 

 
S-102 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 7 part 1 

Have you ever taken any graduate or undergraduate courses that focused on teaching methods or 

teaching strategies? 

Item: T0156 

sample size = 699 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

This question is problematic. This is a Yes/No question that has a rare category and the GDR is 

greater than 5 percent. 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 8.01 6.43 9.98 

 1 8.01 6.43 9.98 

 2R 8.01 6.43 9.98 

 

 

Question: 7 part 2 

How many courses? 

Item: T0157 

sample size = 654 

1 = 1 or 2 courses 

2 = 3 to 4 courses 

3 = 5 to 9 courses 

4 = 10 or more courses 

Failed Bowker Test 

 

 

Question: 8 

Which of the following describes how you obtained the teaching methods or teaching strategies 

coursework? 

Item: T0159 

sample size = 664 

1 = Through an alternative program designed to expedite the transition of non-teachers to a 

 teaching career (e.g., a state, district or university alternative program) 

2 = Through a bachelor’s degree granting program (B.A. or B.S.) 

3 = Through a fifth year program (not leading to a master’s degree) 

4 = Through a master’s degree granting program (M.A., M.S., M.Ed., M.A.T.) 

5 = Through individual courses (not part of a program leading to a degree) 

6 = Other 

Failed Bowker Test 

 

 

Question: 9a 

Which of the following describes the teaching certificate you currently hold in this state? 

Item: T0166 

sample size = 738 

1 = Regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional certificate 

2 = Probationary certificate (issued after satisfying all requirements except the completion of a 

 probationary period) 

3 = Provisional or other type of certificate given to persons who are still participating in what 

 the state calls an alternative certification program 

4 = Temporary certificate (requires some additional college coursework, student teaching, and/or 

 passage of a test before regular certification can be obtained) 

5 = Waiver or emergency certificate (issued to persons with insufficient teacher preparation 

 who must complete a regular certification program in order to continue teaching) 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 33.02 27.06 41.47 7.18 5.62 8.74 moderate 

 1 21.61 16.32 28.68 4.47 3.36 5.95 moderate 

 2R 2.44 1.66 3.59 unreliable (not problematic) 

 3R 1.63 1.02 2.60 unreliable (not problematic) 

 4N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 5R 0.14 0.03 0.61 unreliable (not problematic) 

 6N unreliable (NDR sig) 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-103 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 9b part 1 

Some certificates may allow you to teach in multiple content areas. In what content area(s) does 

the teaching certificate marked above allow you to teach in this state? 

Item: T0167 

sample size = 671 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 9 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 10 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Arts & Music 11 = Social Sciences 

5 = English and Language Arts 12 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English as a Second Language 13 = Miscellaneous 

7 = Foreign Languages 14 = Other 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 12.52 10.45 15.36 9.54 7.67 11.40 low 1 7.82 5.66 10.79 3.87 2.81 5.34 low 

 2R 3.13 2.19 4.47 unreliable (not problematic) 

 3 14.34 9.19 22.28 2.09 1.35 3.23 low 

 4 3.54 1.41 8.87 0.45 0.18 1.12 low 

 5 16.68 11.02 25.17 2.38 1.58 3.59 low 

 6R 0.15 0.03 0.67 unreliable (not problematic) 

 7R 0.15 0.03 0.67 unreliable (not problematic) 

 8 7.24 3.52 14.91 0.75 0.36 1.53 low 

 9 18.09 11.14 29.14 1.79 1.12 2.86 low 

 10 12.16 7.11 20.52 1.49 0.89 2.49 low 

 11R 1.49 0.89 2.49 unreliable (not problematic) 

 12 7.24 3.52 14.91 0.75 0.36 1.53 low 

 14R 0.60 0.27 1.33 unreliable (not problematic) 

Question: 9b part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

Question: 9b part 2 0168 - page 10 

Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

Item: T0168 

sample size = 664 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 

Index calculated using Hui-Walter Method 

NDR was Significant (Yes/No question) 

 dex Index GDR GDR 

Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

22.27 19.6866 24.8587 10.39 8.65 12.54 moderate 

 

Question: 9b part 2 0169 

Secondary grades (including middle school) 

Item: T0169 

sample size = 666 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

Aggregate 29.77 25.47 34.92 14.11 12.10 16.54 moderate 

 1 29.77 25.47 34.92 14.11 12.10 16.54 moderate 

 2 29.77 25.47 34.92 14.11 12.10 16.54 moderate 

 

 
S-104 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 9b part 2 0170 

Ungraded 

Item: T0170 

sample size = 666 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 

This question is problematic. This is a Yes/No question that has a rare category and the GDR is 

greater than 5 percent. 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 5.11 3.85 6.76 

 1R 5.11 3.85 6.76 

 2 5.11 3.85 6.76 

Question: 9c part 1 

If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach, 

please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 10a on page 12. 

Item: T0171 

sample size = 245 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 9 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 10 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Arts & Music 11 = Social Sciences 

5 = English and Language Arts 12 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English as a Second Language 13 = Miscellaneous 

7 = Foreign Languages 14 = Other 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 22.81 18.98 28.47 20.41 16.17 24.64 moderate 

 1 28.78 17.98 46.12 4.90 3.06 7.84 moderate 

 2 40.62 24.09 68.20 4.08 2.44 6.83 moderate 

 3 9.11 4.42 18.75 2.04 0.99 4.19 low 

 4R 1.63 0.73 3.64 unreliable (not problematic) 

 5 30.10 20.47 44.55 6.94 4.67 10.31 moderate 

 6 0.00 0.00 9.67 0.00 0.00 1.10 low 

 7R 0.00 0.00 1.10 unreliable (not problematic) 

 8 17.13 8.99 31.93 2.86 1.55 5.27 low 

 9R 6.94 4.67 10.31 unreliable (problematic) 

 10N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 11 17.69 10.79 28.97 4.49 2.75 7.34 low 

 12R 1.22 0.49 3.06 unreliable (not problematic) 

 13R 1.22 0.49 3.06 unreliable (not problematic) 

 14R 0.00 0.00 1.10 unreliable (not problematic) 

 

 

Question: 9c part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

Question: 9c part 2 0172 

Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

Item: T0172 

sample size = 237 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

 

Aggregate 24.44 18.43 32.74 12.24 9.31 16.31 moderate 1 24.44 18.43 32.74 12.24 9.31 16.31 moderate 

 2 24.44 18.43 32.74 12.24 9.31 16.31 moderate 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-105 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 9c part 2 0173 

Secondary grades (including middle school) 

Item: T0173 

sample size = 237 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 24.01 17.23 33.76 9.28 6.55 13.16 moderate 1 24.01 17.23 33.76 9.28 6.55 13.16 moderate 

 2 24.01 17.23 33.76 9.28 6.55 13.16 moderate 

 

 

Question: 9c part 2 0174 

Ungraded 

Item: T0174 

sample size = 236 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 

This question is problematic. This is a Yes/No question that has a rare category and the GDR is 

greater than 5 percent. 

 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 5.51 3.50 8.66 

 1R 5.51 3.50 8.66 

 2 5.51 3.50 8.66 

 

 

Question: 9d part 1 

Some certificates may allow you to teach in multiple content areas. In what content area(s) does 

the teaching certificate marked in 9a allow you to teach in this state? 

Item: T0175 

sample size = 105 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 9 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 10 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Arts & Music 11 = Social Sciences 

5 = English and Language Arts 12 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English as a Second Language 13 = Miscellaneous 

7 = Foreign Languages 14 = Other 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 22.86 16.12 29.60 

 1 9.52 5.69 15.93 

 2 2.86 1.14 7.15 

 3 1.90 0.63 5.76 

 4 0.95 0.21 4.27 

 5 15.24 10.76 22.30 

 6 0.00 0.00 2.58 

 7 0.95 0.21 4.27 

 8 0.95 0.21 4.27 

 9 1.90 0.63 5.76 

 10 0.95 0.21 4.27 

 11 4.76 2.32 9.78 

 12 0.95 0.21 4.27 

 13 4.76 2.32 9.78 

 

 
S-106 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 9d part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

Question: 9d. part 2 0176 

Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

Item: T0176 

sample size = 95 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 10.53 6.77 17.13 

 1 10.53 6.77 17.13 

 2 10.53 6.77 17.13 

 

 

Question: 9d part 2 0177 

Secondary grades (including middle school) 

Item: T0177 

sample size = 95 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 13.68 9.31 20.91 

 1 13.68 9.31 20.91 

 2 13.68 9.31 20.91 

 

 

Question: 9d part 2 0178 

Ungraded 

Item: T0178 

sample size = 95 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 7.37 4.00 13.59 

 1 7.37 4.00 13.59 

 2 7.37 4.00 13.59 

 

 

Question: 9e part 1 

If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach, 

please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 10a on page 12. 

Item: T0179 

sample size = 41 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 9 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 10 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Arts & Music 11 = Social Sciences 

5 = English and Language Arts 12 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English as a Second Language 13 = Miscellaneous 

7 = Foreign Languages 14 = Other 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 19.51 9.33 29.69 

 1 9.76 4.38 21.73 

 2 7.32 2.92 18.31 

 3 2.44 0.54 10.93 

 5 7.32 2.92 18.31 

 6 0.00 0.00 6.60 

 7 2.44 0.54 10.93 

 8 2.44 0.54 10.93 

 10 0.00 0.00 6.60 

 11 2.44 0.54 10.93 

 13 4.88 1.61 14.74 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-107 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 9e part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

Question: 9e. part 2 0180 

Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

Item: T0180 

sample size = 26 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 3.85 0.86 17.24 

 1 3.85 0.86 17.24 

 2 3.85 0.86 17.24 

Question: 9e part 2 0181 

Secondary grades (including middle school) 

Item: T0181 

sample size = 27 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 7.41 2.45 22.39 

 1 7.41 2.45 22.39 

 2 7.41 2.45 22.39 

 

 

Question: 9e part 2 0182 

Ungraded 

Item: T0182 

sample size = 27 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 3.70 0.83 16.60 

 1 3.70 0.83 16.60 

 2 3.70 0.83 16.60 

Question: 9f part 1 

If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach, 

please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 10a on page 12. 

Item: T0183 

sample size = 16 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 9 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 10 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Arts & Music 11 = Social Sciences 

5 = English and Language Arts 12 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English as a Second Language 13 = Miscellaneous 

7 = Foreign Languages 14 = Other 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 3 0.00 0.00 16.91 

 5 0.00 0.00 16.91 

 9 0.00 0.00 16.91 

 10 0.00 0.00 16.91 

 11 0.00 0.00 16.91 
S-108 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 9f part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

Question: 9f. part 2 0184 

Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

Item: T0184 

sample size = 12 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 2 0.00 0.00 22.55 

 

 

Question: 9f part 2 0185 

Secondary grades (including middle school) 

Item: T0185 

sample size = 12 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 1 0.00 0.00 22.55 

Question: 9f part 2 0186 

Ungraded 

Item: T0186 

sample size = 12 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 2 0.00 0.00 22.55 

 

 

Question: 10a 

Do you have another current teaching certificate in this state? 

Item: T0187 

sample size = 695 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 47.27 38.07 58.90 7.63 6.09 9.55 moderate 

 1 47.27 38.07 58.90 7.63 6.09 9.55 moderate 

 2 47.27 38.07 58.90 7.63 6.09 9.55 moderate 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-109 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 10b 

Which of the following describes this current teaching certificate you hold in this state? 

Item: T0188 

sample size = 31 

1 = Regular or standard state certificate or advanced professional certificate 

2 = Probationary certificate (issued after satisfying all requirements except the completion of a 

 probationary period) 

3 = Provisional or other type of certificate given to persons who are still participating in what 

 the state calls an alternative certification program 

4 = Temporary certificate (requires some additional college coursework, student teaching, and/or 

 passage of a test before regular certification can be obtained) 

5 = Waiver or emergency certificate (issued to persons with insufficient teacher preparation 

 who must complete a regular certification program in order to continue teaching) 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 9.68 0.94 18.41 

 1 9.68 3.87 24.22 

 2 9.68 3.87 24.22 

 3 0.00 0.00 8.73 

 

 

Question: 10c part 1 

In what content area(s) does this current teaching certificate, marked in 10b above, allow you to 

teach in this state? 

Item: T0189 

sample size = 29 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 9 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 10 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Arts & Music 11 = Social Sciences 

5 = English and Language Arts 12 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English as a Second Language 13 = Miscellaneous 

7 = Foreign Languages 14 = Other 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 10.34 1.04 19.65 

 1 3.45 0.77 15.46 

 2 3.45 0.77 15.46 

 3 0.00 0.00 9.33 

 4 3.45 0.77 15.46 

 5 0.00 0.00 9.33 

 6 0.00 0.00 9.33 

 8 3.45 0.77 15.46 

 10 6.90 2.28 20.84 

 14 0.00 0.00 9.33 

 

 

Question: 10c part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

Question: 10c. part 2 0190 

Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

Item: T0190 

sample size = 29 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 20.69 12.98 37.73 

 1 20.69 12.98 37.73 

 2 20.69 12.98 37.73 

 

 
S-110 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 10c part 2 0191 

Secondary grades (including middle school) 

Item: T0191 

sample size = 29 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 31.03 21.57 49.83 

 1 31.03 21.57 49.83 

 2 31.03 21.57 49.83 

 

 

Question: 10c part 2 0192 

Ungraded 

Item: T0192 

sample size = 29 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 9.33 

 1 0.00 0.00 9.33 

 2 0.00 0.00 9.33 

 

 

Question: 10d part 1 

If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach, 

please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 11a on page 14. 

Item: T0193 

sample size = 5 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 9 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 10 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Arts & Music 11 = Social Sciences 

5 = English and Language Arts 12 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English as a Second Language 13 = Miscellaneous 

7 = Foreign Languages 14 = Other 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 20.00 0.00 49.43 

 3 20.00 17.63 76.49 

 7 0.00 0.00 54.12 

 11 20.00 17.63 76.49 

Question: 10d part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

Question: 10d part 2 0194 

Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

Item: T0194 

sample size = 5 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 20.00 17.63 76.49 

 1 20.00 17.63 76.49 

 2 20.00 17.63 76.49 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-111 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 10d part 2 0195 

Secondary grades (including middle school) 

Item: T0195 

sample size = 5 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 1 0.00 0.00 54.12 

 

 

Question: 10d part 2 0196 

Ungraded 

Item: T0196 

sample size = 5 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 54.12 

 1 0.00 0.00 54.12 

 2 0.00 0.00 54.12 

 

 

Question: 10e part 1 

In what content area(s) does this current teaching certificate, marked in 10b, allow you to teach 

in this state? 

Item: T0197 

sample size = 4 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 9 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 10 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Arts & Music 11 = Social Sciences 

5 = English and Language Arts 12 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English as a Second Language 13 = Miscellaneous 

7 = Foreign Languages 14 = Other 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 75.00 39.38 110.62 

 1 50.00 42.70 124.95 

 3 0.00 0.00 67.65 

 6 50.00 42.70 124.95 

 8 25.00 23.21 94.44 

 10 25.00 23.21 94.44 

 

 

Question: 10e part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

Question: 10e part 2 0198 

Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

Item: T0198 

sample size = 3 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 66.67 67.00 156.54 

 1 66.67 67.00 156.54 

 2 66.67 67.00 156.54 

 

 
S-112 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 10e part 2 0199 

Secondary grades (including middle school) 

Item: T0199 

sample size = 3 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 1 0.00 0.00 90.20 

 

 

Question: 10e part 2 0200 

Ungraded 

Item: T0200 

sample size = 3 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 90.20 

 1 0.00 0.00 90.20 

 2 0.00 0.00 90.20 

 

 

Question: 10f part 1 

If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach, 

please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 11a on page 14. 

Item: T0201 

sample size = 1 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 9 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 10 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Arts & Music 11 = Social Sciences 

5 = English and Language Arts 12 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English as a Second Language 13 = Miscellaneous 

7 = Foreign Languages 14 = Other 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 3 0.00 0.00 270.60 

 

 

Question: 10f part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

Question: 10f part 2 0202 

Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

Item: T0202 

sample size = 1 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 1 0.00 0.00 270.60 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-113 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 10f part 2 0203 

Secondary grades (including middle school) 

Item: T0203 

sample size = 1 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 1 0.00 0.00 270.60 

Question: 10f part 2 0204 

Ungraded 

Item: T0204 

sample size = 1 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 1 0.00 0.00 270.60 

Question: 10g part 1 

If there is an additional content area that the certificate described above allows you to teach, 

please list it below. Otherwise, GO TO item 11a on page 14. 

Item: T0205 

sample size = 1 

1 = Elementary Education 8 = Mathematics and Computer Science 

2 = Secondary Education 9 = Health Education 

3 = Special Education 10 = Natural Sciences 

4 = Arts & Music 11 = Social Sciences 

5 = English and Language Arts 12 = Vocational/Technical Education 

6 = English as a Second Language 13 = Miscellaneous 

7 = Foreign Languages 14 = Other 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 3 0.00 0.00 270.60 

Question: 10g part 2 

Which of the following grade ranges does this certification apply to? 

 

Question: 10g part 2 0206 

Elementary grades (including early childhood, preschool and kindergarten) 

Item: T0206 

sample size = 1 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 1 0.00 0.00 270.60 

Question: 10g part 2 0207 

Secondary grades (including middle school) 

Item: T0207 

sample size = 1 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 1 0.00 0.00 270.60 
S-114 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 10g part 2 0208 

Ungraded 

Item: T0208 

sample size = 1 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Category GDR LCL UCL 

Aggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 1 0.00 0.00 270.60 

 

 

Question: 11a 

In the past 12 months, have you participated in any professional development activities specific 

to and concentrating on the content of the subject(s) you teach? 

Item: T0243 

sample size = 727 

1 = Yes 

2 = No 

Index calculated using Hui-Walter Method 

NDR was Significant (Yes/No question) 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

66.04 62.0447 70.0279 17.19 15.08 19.68 high 

 

Question: 11b 

In the past 12 months, how many hours did you spend on these activities? 

Item: T0244 

sample size = 534 

1 = 8 hours or less 

2 = 9-16 hours 

3 = 17-32 hours 

4 = 33 hours or more 

 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 68.07 63.77 73.38 50.56 47.00 54.12 high 

 1N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 2 73.81 66.43 82.44 30.34 27.32 33.86 high 

 3N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 4N unreliable (NDR sig) 

 

 

Question: 11c 

Overall, how useful were these activities to you? 

Item: T0245 

sample size = 531 

1 = Not useful 

2 = Somewhat useful 

3 = Useful 

4 = Very useful 

 

 Index Index GDR GDR 

Category Index LCL UCL GDR LCL UCL Interpretation 

Aggregate 56.29 51.46 62.31 35.59 32.18 39.01 high 1R 2.45 1.56 3.85 unreliable (not problematic) 

 2 61.96 54.30 71.07 22.03 19.33 25.25 high 

 3 59.76 53.71 66.83 29.94 26.93 33.47 high 

 4 44.53 38.06 52.36 16.76 14.35 19.68 moderate 

 

 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-115 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

Question: 13

Of all the students you teach at this school, how many have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) 

because they have disabilities or are special education students? 

Item: T0279 

sample size = 707 

Failed t test 

 

Question: 14 

Of all the students you teach at this school, how many are of limited-English proficiency? 

Item: T0284 

sample size = 722 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

40.1430 31.5286 48.758 moderate 

 

 

Question: 15 

How many total hours do you spend on ALL teaching and other school-related activities during a 

typical FULL WEEK at this school? 

Item: T0297 

sample size = 738 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

52.3196 31.5258 73.113 high 

 

Question: 16 

How many hours are you required to work to receive base pay during a typical FULL WEEK at this 

school? 

Item: T0298 

sample size = 723 

Failed t test 

Question: 17 

How many hours a week do you spend delivering instruction to a class of students? 

Item: T0299 

sample size = 712 

Index LCL UCL Interpretation 

65.6425 49.3645 81.921 high 
S-116 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

“R” next to the answer category = category is rare. 

“N” next to an answer category = NDR for that category is significant. 

Interpretation “unreliable (not problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, but answer category is not problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (problematic)” = index for that category is unreliable, and answer category is problematic. 

Interpretation “unreliable (NDR sig)” = index for that category is unreliable, because NDR is significant for that answer category. 

References 

Bushery, J., Schreiner, I., and Sebron, G. (1998). Response Variance in the 1993–94 Schools and Staffing 

Survey: A Reinterview Report (NCES 98-02). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education Statistics Working Paper. 

Ennis, S.R., and Miller, D.E. (2004). Response Variance in the 1999–2000 Schools and Staffing Survey. 

In S.D. Tourkin, K.W. Pugh, S.E. Fondelier, R.J. Parmer, C. Cole, B. Jackson, T. Warner, G. Weant, 

and E. Walter. 1999–2000 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) Data File User’s Manual (NCES 

2004-303) (Appendix H). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics. Retrieved May 4, 2005, from 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2004303. 

Hansen, M.H., Hurwitz, W.N., Marks, E.S., and Mauldin, W.P. (1951). Response Errors in Surveys. 

Journal of the American Statistical Association, 46: 147–190. 

Hansen, M.H., Hurwitz, W.N., and Madow, W.G. (1953). Sample Survey Methods and Theory. New 

York: John Wiley & Sons. 

Lessler, J.T., and Kalsbeek, W.D. (1992). Nonsampling Error in Surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 

Newbrough, J. (1989). Report of SASS-2/3(R) and SASS-4(R) Reinterview. Internal U.S. Bureau of the 

Census Report. 

Royce, D. (1994). 1991 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) Reinterview Response Variance Report

(NCES 94-03). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics Working Paper. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Evaluating Census of Population and Housing. Washington, DC: Statistical 

Training Document. 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-117

Attachment S-1. Principal Reinterview Questionnaire 
S-118 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-119
S-120 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-121
S-122 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-123

Attachment S-2. School Reinterview Questionnaire 
S-124 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-125
S-126 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-127
S-128 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-129
S-130 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-131
S-132 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Attachment S-3. Private Teacher Reinterview Questionnaire 
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-133
S-134 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-135
S-136 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-137
S-138 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-139
S-140 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-141
S-142 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-143
S-144 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-145
S-146 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey
Appendix S. Response Variance in the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey S-147
This page is intentionally left blank. 
T-1 

Appendix T. Frame and Created Variables 

Variables were classified as frame variables if they were drawn from or based on the Schools and Staffing 

Survey (SASS) sampling frame, which was created from the Common Core of Data (CCD) for public and 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools and the Private School Universe Survey (PSS) for private 

schools. Frame variables may or may not have been used for sampling. Selected variables from these 

sources were included on the restricted-use data files if they provided potentially valuable information to 

the user that was not available on the survey. 

Created variables are based on survey variables, frame variables, other created variables, or a combination 

of these. These variables are frequently used in National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

publications and have been added to the files to facilitate data analysis. 

The frame and created variables included on the 2003–04 SASS data files are listed below along with a 

brief description. The code used to produce the created variables is also detailed. 

Variable name Description and specifications 

AFFL_99 1999–2000 Private school affiliation (no longer sampling stratum). 

1 = Roman Catholic; 

2 = Friends; 

3 = Episcopal; 

4 = National Society of Hebrew Day Schools; 

5 = Solomon Schechter Day Schools; 

6 = Other Jewish; 

7 = Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod; 

8 = Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod; 

9 = Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; 

10 = Other Lutheran; 

11 = Seventh-Day Adventist; 

12 = Christian Schools International; 

13 = American Association of Christian Schools; 

14 = Association of Christian Schools International; 

15 = National Association of Private Special Education Centers; 

16 = Montessori; 

17 = National Association of Independent Schools; 

18 = National Independent Private Schools Association; 

19 = Association of Military Colleges and Schools; 

20 = All else. 

If s0764 = 1 then affl_99 = 19; else if s0740 = 1 then affl_99 = 1; else if s0740 = 14 then 

affl_99 = 2; else if s0740 = 13 then affl_99 = 3; else if s0757 = 1 then affl_99 = 4; else if 

s0759 = 1 then affl_99 = 5; else if s0740 = 17 then affl_99 = 6; else if s0740 = 19 then affl_99 

= 7; else if s0740 = 21 then affl_99 = 8; else if s0740 = 20 then affl_99 = 9; else if s0740 = 22 

then affl_99 = 10; else if s0740 = 27 then affl_99 = 11; else if s0747 = 1 then affl_99 = 12; 

else if s0744 = 1 then affl_99 = 13; else if s0745 = 1 then affl_99 = 14; else if s0769 = 1 then 

affl_99 = 15; else if s0762 = 1 or s0763 = 1 then affl_99 = 16; else if s0779 = 1 then affl_99 = 

17; else if s0782 = 1 then affl_99 = 18; else affl_99 = 20; 
T-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Variable name Description and specifications 

AG_MSC03 2000 Decennial Census Metro Status Code; classification of the district’s service area relative 

to a Core Based Statistical Area. Micropolitan areas are new, smaller designated metropolitan 

areas with populations as low as 10,000 residents. For more information on Core Based 

Statistical Areas see http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html. 

Origin: MSC03 from the 2003–04 CCD. 

1 = Primarily serves a principal city of a CBSA; 

2 = Serves a CBSA but not primarily its principal city; 

3 = Does not serve a CBSA. 

AG_MSC99 1990 Decennial Census Metro Status Code; classification of the district’s service area relative 

to a metropolitan statistical area. Code was assigned using 1990 Census data. Origin: MSC01 

on the 2001–02 CCD. 

1 = Primarily serves a central city of an MSA; 

2 = Serves an MSA but not primarily its central city; 

3 = Does not serve an MSA. 

AG_NOSC2 Total number of schools in district, after frame school collapsing procedure. 

AG_NOSCH Number of schools in the district as assigned by CCD. Origin: SCH01 on 2001–02 CCD. 

AG_ZIP Five-digit ZIP code for the school district. Origin: LZIP01 on the 2001–02 CCD. 

AGCBSA03 2000 Decennial Census Core Based Statistical Area or Consolidated Statistical Area 

measurement variable. Micropolitan areas are new, smaller designated metropolitan areas with 

populations as low as 10,000 residents. For more information on Core Based Statistical Areas 

see http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html. Origin: CBSA03 

from 2003–04 CCD. A value in this field indicates that the district’s address is associated with 

a recognized population nucleus and adjacent communities that have a high degree of 

integration with that nucleus. These areas are designated by the U.S. Government as a 

metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area. If the district is not in any type of 

metropolitan/micropolitan statistical area, then the field is zero. 

AGCMSA99 1990 Decennial Census data; unique numeric code assigned by U.S. Office of Management 

and Budget, which identifies a geographic area consisting of a large population nucleus and 

social integration with that nucleus. If the district is not located within one of these areas the 

field will contain “000000.” Origin: CMSA01 on 2001–02 CCD. Metropolitan Statistical Area 

(MSA): A core area containing a large population nucleus, together with adjacent communities 

that have a high degree of social and economic integration with that core. An area may be an 

MSA if it is in the MSA in the immediate area and it has a city of at least 50,000 population, 

or it is an urbanized area of at least 50,000 with a total metropolitan population of at least 

100,000. PMSA: Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area—A metropolitan statistical area that is 

a component of a CMSA. Several adjacent PMSAs comprise a single CMSA. CMSA: 

Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area—Area of greater than 1 million population that is 

the totality of the PMSAs in a single area. 

AGE_P Age of principal. Calculated as follows: age_p = sum (2003, -a0262); 

AGE_T Age of teacher. Calculated as follows: age_t = sum (2003, -t0416); 
Appendix T. Frame and Created Variables T-3 

Variable name Description and specifications 

AGTYPE District type code. Origin: TYPE01 on 2001–02 CCD. 

1 = Local school district that is not a component of a supervisory union. 

2 = Local school district, component of a supervisory union sharing a superintendent and 

administrative services with other local school districts. 

3 = Supervisory union administrative center, or a county superintendent serving the same 

purpose. 

4 = Regional education services agency, or a county superintendent serving the same purpose. 

5 = State-operated institution charged, at least in part, with providing elementary and/or 

secondary instruction or services to a special needs population. 

6 = Federally-operated institution charged, at least in part, with providing elementary and/or 

secondary instruction services to a special needs population. 

7 = Other education agencies that do not fit into the first six categories. 

AIFLAG Flag identifying BIA schools and proportion of American Indian students enrolled in non-BIA 

schools. Categories include: 1 = BIA-funded school; 2 = Non-BIA school, 20% or more 

American Indian enrollment; 3 = Non-BIA school, less than 20% American Indian enrollment. 

Coded as follows: 

If BIAFLAG = 1 then AIFLAG = 1; 

If BIAFLAG = 2 and S0421/ENRK12UG ge .2 then AIFLAG = 2; 

If BIAFLAG = 2 and S0421/ENRK12UG lt .2 then AIFLAG = 3; 

ASSIGN03 General field of main teaching assignment. Categories include: 

1 = Early Childhood/General Elementary; 

2 = Special Education; 

3 = Arts/Music; 

4 = English/Language Arts; 

5 = ESL/Bilingual Education; 

6 = Foreign Languages; 

7 = Health/Physical Education; 

8 = Mathematics; 

9 = Natural Science; 

10 = Social Sciences; 

11 = Vocational/Technical Education; 

12 = All Others; 

Coded as follows: 

if t0069 in (101,102) or t0075 in (101,102) then ASSIGN03 = 1; 

if t0069 = 110 or t0075 = 110 then ASSIGN03 = 2; 

if t0069 in (141, 143, 144, 145) or t0075 in (141, 143, 144, 145) then ASSIGN03 = 3; 

if t0069 in (151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 158, 159) or t0075 in (151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 158, 159) 

then ASSIGN03 = 4; 

if t0069 in (160, 161, 162) or t0075 in (160, 161, 162) then ASSIGN03 = 5; 

if 171 le t0069 le 175 or 171 le t0075 le 175 then ASSIGN03 = 6; 

if t0069 in (181, 182) or t0075 in (181, 182) then ASSIGN03 = 7; 

if t0069 in (191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201) or t0075 in (191, 192, 193, 194, 

195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201) then ASSIGN03 = 8; 

if t0069 in (210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 217) or t0075 in (210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 217) 

then ASSIGN03 = 9; 

if t0069 in (220, 221, 225, 226, 227, 228, 231, 233, 234) or t0075 in (220, 221, 225, 226, 227, 

228, 231, 233, 234) then ASSIGN03 = 10; 

if 241 le t0069 le 256 or 241 le t0075 le 256 then ASSIGN03 = 11; 

if t0069 in (197, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268) or t0075 in (197, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268) 

then ASSIGN03 = 12; 
T-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Variable name Description and specifications 

BIAFLAG Flag that indicates whether a school is operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Origin: GBIAFL on SASS sampling frame. 

Categories include: 

1 = School is operated or funded by BIA. 

2 = School is not operated or funded by BIA. 

BIALEA BIA District identifier. Origin: BIAREG on SASS sampling frame. 

1 = BIA school in a regular district; 

2 = BIA school, not in a regular district; 

CCDIDLEA Seven-digit NCES identification code for the district. Origin: GCLEAID on SASS sampling 

frame. Char 1–2: FIPS state code. Char 3–7: District code. For a complete list of FIPS codes, 

reference http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/fip5-2.htm. Note that this variable has been altered 

to reflect cases in New England where the CCD definition of a school district did not match 

the SASS definition of a school district. For some New England schools, district level data 

were collected from supervisory unions. 

CHARFLAG Flag that indicates whether or not a school is a public charter school; a public charter school 

provides free elementary and/or secondary education to eligible students under a specific 

charter granted by the state legislature or other appropriate authority. Copied from S0661 on 

the public school and BIA school files. 

1 = School is a public charter school 

2 = School is not a public charter school 

CLASSZ_D Average size of the classes taught by the teacher, if the teacher had departmental classes; i.e., 

he/she taught subject matter courses to several classes of different students all or most of the 

day. 

Calculated as follows: ARRAY t(79:106) t0079-t0106; do i = 79 to 106; if t(i) = -8 then 

t(i) = .; end; if t0066 = 1 then classz_d = round (mean(t0079, t0082, t0085, t0088, t0091, 

t0094, t0097, t0100, t0103, t0106),.0001); else classz_d = -8; ARRAY t(79:106) t0079–t0106; 

do i = 79 to 106; if t(i) = . then t(i) = -8; end; 

CLASSZ_S Average size of the classes taught by the teacher, if the teacher had self-contained classes; i.e., 

he/she taught multiple subjects to the same class of students all or most of the day. Teachers 

who had 2 or more self-contained classes (e.g., a kindergarten teacher who teaches 2 half-day 

sessions each day) were asked to report the average class size. Coded as follows: if t0068 = -8 

then t0068 = .; if t0066 = 3 then classz_s = t0068; else classz_s = -8; if t0068 = . then t0068 

= -8; 

CNTLNUMD District control number. Digit 1–2: State FIPS code. Digit 3–5: District number (000 for 

private schools, 101–899—All public schools except public schools with no districts, state run 

schools, one school districts, and some charter schools, 901–999—Public schools with no 

districts, state run schools, one school districts, and some charter schools). Digit 6: Check digit 

—Computed from other parts of control number. 
Appendix T. Frame and Created Variables T-5 

Variable name Description and specifications 

CNTLNUML Library media center control number. Digits 1–2: State FIPS code. Digits 3–5: District number 

(101–899—All public schools except public schools with no districts, state run schools, one 

school districts, and some charter schools, 901–999—Public schools with no districts, state run 

schools, one school districts, and some charter schools). Digit 6: Type of school (1 = Regular 

public school; 2 = DoD school; 3 = BIA school; 7 = One school districts; 8 = Charter school 

operated by regular District; 9 = Charter school operated by an entity other than a school 

district; 0 = Independent charter school). Digits 7–9: School number (101–999—Schools are 

numbered sequentially starting with “101” within each state and each district). Digit 10: Split 

school indicator (“0” for all schools). Digit 11: Questionnaire identifier (5 = Library media 

center). Digit 12: Check digit—Computed from other parts of control number. 

CNTLNUMP Principal control number. Digits 1–2: State FIPS code. Digits 3–5: District number (101–

899—All public schools except public schools with no districts, state run schools, one school 

districts, and some charter schools, 901–999—Public schools with no districts state run 

schools, one school districts, and some charter schools). Digit 6: Type of school (1 = Regular 

public school; 2 = DoD school; 3 = BIA school; 7 = One school districts; 8 = Charter school 

operated by regular District; 9 = Charter school operated by an entity other than a school 

district; 0 = Independent charter school). Digits 7–9: School number (101–999—Schools are 

numbered sequentially starting with “101” within each state and each District). Digit 10: Split 

school indicator (“0” for all schools). Digit 11: Questionnaire identifier (2 = principal). Digit 

12: Check digit—Computed from other parts of control number. 

Private principal control number. Digit 1–2: State FIPS code. Digit 3–5: District number—

“000” for all private schools. Digit 6: Type of school (4 = Catholic list frame private school; 

5 = Non-Catholic list frame private school; 6 = Area frame private school). Digit 7–9: School 

number (101–999—Schools are numbered sequentially starting with “101” within each state 

and school type). Digit 10: Split school indicator (“0” for all schools). Digit 11: Questionnaire 

identifier (2 = principal). Digit 12: Check digit—Computed from other parts of control 

number. 

CNTLNUMS School control number. Use this number to merge school, principal, teacher, and library 

records. Digits 1–2: State FIPS code. Digits 3–5: District number (101–899—All public 

schools except public schools with no districts, state run schools, one school districts, and 

some charter schools, 901–999—Public schools with no districts, state run schools, one school 

districts, and some charter schools). Digit 6: Type of school (1 = Regular public school; 

2 = DoD school; 3 = BIA school; 7 = One school districts; 8 = Charter school operated by 

regular district; 9 = Charter school operated by an entity other than a school district; 

0 = Independent charter school). Digits 7–9: School number (101–999—Schools are numbered 

sequentially starting with “101” within each state and each District). Digit 10: Split school 

indicator (“0” for all schools). Digit 11: Questionnaire identifier (3 = school). Digit 12: Check 

digit—Computed from other parts of control number. 

Private school control number. Digit 1–2: State FIPS code. Digit 3–5: District number—“000” 

for all private schools. Digit 6: Type of school (4 = Catholic list frame private school; 5 = 

Non-Catholic list frame private school; 6 = Area frame private school). Digit 7–9: School 

number (101–999—Schools are numbered sequentially starting with “101” within each state 

and school type). Digit 10: Split school indicator (“0” for all schools). Digit 11: Questionnaire 

identifier (3 = school). Digit 12: Check digit—Computed from other parts of control number. 
T-6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Variable name Description and specifications 

CNTLNUMT Teacher control number. Digits 1–2: State FIPS code. Digits 3–5: District number (101–899—

All public schools except public schools with no districts, state run schools, one school 

districts, and some charter schools, 901–999—Public schools with no districts, state run 

schools, one school districts, and some charter schools). Digit 6: (1 = Regular public school; 

2 = DoD school; 3 = BIA school; 7 = One school districts; 8 = Charter school operated by a 

regular district; 9 = Charter school operated by an entity other than a school district; 

0 = Independent charter school). Digits 7–9: School number (101–999—Schools are numbered 

sequentially starting with “101” within each state and each district). Digit 10: Split school 

indicator (“0” for all schools). Digit 11–13: Teacher number (Teachers are numbered 

sequentially from “101” to “120” within each school). Digit 14: Check digit—Computed from 

other parts of control number. 

Private teacher control number: Digit 1–2: State FIPS code. Digit 3–5: District number – 

“000” for all private schools. Digit 6: Type of school (4 = Catholic list frame private school; 

5 = Non-Catholic list frame private school; 6 = Area frame private school). Digit 7–9: School 

number (101–999—Schools are numbered sequentially starting with “101” within each type of 

school and each state). Digit 10: Split school indicator (“0” for all schools). Digit 11–13: 

Teacher number (Teachers are numbered sequentially from “101” to “120” within each 

school). Digit 14: Check digit—Computed from other parts of control number. 

CONTEA Number of continuing teachers (i.e., not new hires). 

Calculated as follows: contea = sum(d0065, d0066, d0067, d0068, d0069, -d0077); 

CONTEA_S Number of continuing teachers (i.e., not new hires). Calculated as follows on the BIA school 

file: 

contea_s = sum(s0515, s0516, s0517, s0518, s0519, -s0077); 

CREATE Method by which the public charter school was created. Copied from S0664 on the SASS 

public school and BIA school files. Categories include: 

1 = A newly created school; 

2 = A pre-existing public school; 

3 = A pre-existing Indian/Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) school; 

4 = A pre-existing private school; 

5 = Don’t know. 

CSCCDID1 CCD ID of first school when multiple CCD schools collapsed into single (parent) school per 

SASS school definition. Always filled for a school that has other schools collapsed into it. 

Origin: CGCCDID1 from SASS sampling frame. Applied to public schools only. Parent 

school record is identified with SC_NCSID. 

CSCCDID2 CCD ID of second school when multiple CCD schools collapsed into single (parent) school 

per SASS school definition.. May be filled for a school that has other schools collapsed into it. 

Origin: CGCCDID2 from SASS sampling frame. Applied to public schools only. Parent 

school record is identified with SC_NCSID. 

CSCCDID3 CCD ID of third school when multiple CCD schools collapsed into single (parent) school per 

SASS school definition. May be filled for a school that has other schools collapsed into it. 

Origin: CGCCDID3 from SASS sampling frame. Applied to public schools only. Parent 

school record is identified with SC_NCSID. 

CSCCDID4 CD ID of fourth school when multiple CCD schools collapsed into single (parent) school per 

SASS school definition. May be filled for a school that has other schools collapsed into it. 

Origin: CGCCDID4 from SASS sampling frame. Applied to public schools only. Parent 

school record is identified with SC_NCSID. 
Appendix T. Frame and Created Variables T-7 

Variable name Description and specifications 

CSCCDID5 CCD ID of fifth school when multiple CCD schools collapsed into single (parent) school per 

SASS school definition. May be filled for a school that has other schools collapsed into it. 

Origin: CGCCDID5 from SASS sampling frame. Applied to public schools only. Parent 

school record is identified with SC_NCSID. 

DLOCP_03 2000 Decennial Census locale code from the 2003–04 CCD LEA file. The district locale codes 

were assigned primarily through the use of school locale codes. It is based upon the location of 

the school buildings of the district, and in some cases may not reflect the entire attendance 

area or residences of enrolled students. Micropolitan areas are new, smaller designated 

metropolitan areas with populations as low as 10,000 residents. For more information on Core 

Based Statistical Areas see 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html. Origin: LOCALE03 from 

2003–04 CCD. 

1 = Large City: A central city of a Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) or Consolidated 

Statistical Area (CSA), with the city having a population greater than or equal to 250,000. 

2 = Mid-size City: A central city of a CBSA or CSA, with the city having a population less 

than 250,000. 

3 = Urban Fringe of a Large City: Any incorporated place, Census designated place, or nonplace territory within a CBSA or CSA of a Large City and defined as urban by the Census 

Bureau. 

4 = Urban Fringe of a Mid-size City: Any incorporated place, Census designated place, or 

non-place territory within a CBSA or CSA of a Mid-size City and defined as urban by the 

Census Bureau. 

5 = Large Town: An incorporated place or Census designated place with a population greater 

than or equal to 25,000 and located outside a CBSA or CSA. 

6 = Small Town: An incorporated place or Census designated place with population less than 

25,000 and greater than or equal to 2,500 and located outside a CBSA or CSA. 

7 = Rural, outside CBSA: Any incorporated place, Census designated place, or non-place 

territory not within a CBSA or CSA of a Large or Mid-size City and defined as rural by the 

Census Bureau. 

8 = Rural, inside CBSA: Any incorporated place, Census designated place, or non-place 

territory within a CBSA or CSA of a Large or Mid-size City and defined as rural by the 

Census Bureau. 

DLOCP_99 1990 Decennial Census locale code from the school file. Origin: GLOCALE from SASS 

sampling frame. The district locale codes were assigned primarily through the use of school 

locale codes. It is based upon the location of the school buildings of the district, and in some 

cases may not reflect the entire attendance area or residences of enrolled students. 

Categories include: 

1 = Large central city, 

2 = Mid-size central city, 

3 = Urban fringe of large city, 

4 = Urban fringe of mid-size city, 

5 = Large town, 

6 = Small town, 

7 = Rural, outside MSA, 

8 = Rural, in MSA. 
T-8 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Variable name Description and specifications 

EARNALL Teacher’s total earnings for 12 months from end of 2002–03 school year to end of 2003–04 

school year. Includes base salary for 2003–04 school year, additional compensation from the 

school district, earned income from other school sources, and any pay for teaching summer 

school, working in a non-teaching job in a school, or working at any non-school job. 

Calculated as follows: ARRAY t(394:405) t0394-t0405; do i = 394 to 405; if t(i) = -8 then 

t(i) = .; end; earnall = sum(t0394, t0396, t0398, t0399, t0401, t0403, t0405); ARRAY 

t(394:405) t0394-t0405; do i = 394 to 405; if t(i) = . then t(i) = -8; end; 

EARNSCH Teacher’s total yearly earnings from all school-related jobs. Calculated as follows: ARRAY 

t(394:403) t0394-t0403; do i = 394 to 403; if t(i) = -8 then t(i) = .; end; earnsch = sum(t0394, 

t0396, t0399, t0401, t0403); ARRAY t(394:403) t0394-t0403; do i = 394 to 403; if t(i) = . then 

t(i) = -8; end; 

ENRK12UG Total K–12 and ungraded student enrollment in the school. 

Copied from S0414 from SASS public school and BIA school files and from S0422 from 

SASS private school file. 

ENRLEA Total K–12 and ungraded student enrollment in the district. 

Copied from D0051 on the district file. 

FILE Data file population. Categories include the following: 

1 = Public school district, 

2 = Public school, 

3 = Private school, 

4 = BIA school, 

5 = Public school principal, 

6 = Private school principal, 

7 = BIA school principal, 

8 = Public school teacher 

9 = Private school teacher, 

10 = BIA school teacher, 

11 = Public school library media center, 

12 = BIA school library media center. 

IEP Percentage of students enrolled in the school who have an Individual Education Plan (IEP). 

Calculated as follows: IEP = ROUND (((S0604/ENRK12UG)*100),.0001); 

IEP_T Percentage of students taught in most recent full week who had an Individual Education Plan 

(IEP), for teachers with self-contained or departmentalized classes. 

Calculated as follows: 

if t0066 = 1 then iep_t = round ((100*(t0279/pupils_d)),.0001); 

if t0066 = 3 then iep_t = round ((100*(t0279/pupils_s)),.0001); 

if iep_t gt 100 then iep_t = 100; 

if t0066 not in (1,3) then iep_t = -8; 

IEPREG Percentage of students with an Individual Education Plan (IEP) who spent all day in a regular 

classroom. 

Calculated as follows: 

if s0604 = 0 or s0605 = 1 then IEPREG = -8; 

else if s0605 = 2 then do; 

IEPREG = ROUND (((S0606/S0604)*100),.0001); 

end; 
Appendix T. Frame and Created Variables T-9 

Variable name Description and specifications 

LEP Percentage of students enrolled in the school who were of limited-English proficiency. 

Calculated as follows: LEP = ROUND (((S0611/ENRK12UG)*100),.0001); If S0610 = 2 then 

LEP = 0; 

LEP_T Percentage of students taught by teachers of self-contained or departmentalized classes who 

have limited-English proficiency. 

Calculated as follows: 

if t0066 = 1 then lep_t = round ((100*(t0284/pupils_d)),.0001); 

if t0066 = 3 then lep_t = round ((100*(t0284/pupils_s)),.0001); 

if lep_t gt 100 then lep_t = 100; 

if t0066 not in (1, 3) then lep_t = -8; 

MINENR Percentage of enrolled students who are of a racial/ethnic minority. 

Calculated as follows: MINENR = round (((NMINST_S/ENRK12UG)*100), .0001); 

MINTCH Percentage of teachers at the school who are of a racial/ethnic minority. 

Calculated as follows: MINTCH = round (((sum(S0515, S0517, S0518, S0519)/S0520)*100), 

.0001); 

NEWTCH Teacher has taught a total of 3 years or less, including part-time and full-time teaching. 

Coded as follows: if totexper le 3 then newtch = 1; else newtch = 2; 

NMINST_D Number of students in the district who are of a racial/ethnic minority. 

Calculated as follows: NMINST_D = sum (d0052, d0054, d0055, d0056); 

NMINST_S Number of students in the school who are of a racial/ethnic minority. 

Calculated as follows: NMINST_S = sum(S0417, S0419, S0420, S0421); 

NMINTCH Number of teachers in the district who are of a racial/ethnic minority. 

Calculated as follows: nmintch = sum (d0065, d0067, d0068, d0069); 

NSLAPP_D Of districts that participate in National School Lunch Program, percentage of their K–12 

enrollment that was approved for free or reduced-price lunches. 

Calculated as follows: if d0060 = 2 then nslapp_d = -8 (Valid skip, District does not 

participate in NSLP); else nslapp_d = round(((d0062/d0051)*100), .0001); 

NSLAPP_S Of schools that participate in the National School Lunch Program, the percentage of their K–

12 enrollment that was approved for free or reduced-price lunches. 

Calculated as follows: if S0632 = 2 then nslapp_s = -8 (Valid skip, School does not participate 

in NSLP); else nslapp_s = round(((S0634/ENRK12UG)*100), .0001); if nslapp_s gt 100 then 

nslapp_s = 100; 

NUMTCH Estimated number of full-time equivalent teachers in the school. This variable uses an estimate 

of the average percentage of time part-time teachers taught in the SASS school (.5272); public 

school and BIA school calculation is based on preliminary 2003–04 SASS data using the 

teacher basic weight. 

Calculated as follows: for public and BIA school files, NUMTCH = round(sum(s0513, (.5272 

*s0514)), .0001); for private school file, NUMTCH = round(sum(s0513, (s0791*.875), 

(s0792*.625), (s0793*.375), (s0794*.125)), .0001); 

OCC_CODE 2002 NAICS Occupation Classification. Origin: T5031 on the Teacher Questionnaire and 

Private School Teacher Questionnaire. For details on the occupation descriptions and 

groupings see Appendix B: Occupation Classification at 

http://www.census.gov/apsd/techdoc/cps/cpsmar05.pdf
T-10 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Variable name Description and specifications 

OP_YRS Number of years school has operated as a public charter school. 

Calculated as follows: if charflag = 2 then op_yrs = -8; else OP_YRS = sum(2003, -S0662); 

PGMTYPE School program type. Categories include: 

1 = Regular; 

2 = Montessori; 

3 = Special program emphasis; 

4 = Special Education; 

5 = Vocational Education; 

6 = Alternative; 

7 = Early Childhood Program/Daycare Center. 

Copied from variable S0441 on SASS public, BIA, and private school files. 

PSFRAME Universe frame for private schools. The 2003–04 SASS private school sample consists of 

schools selected from a list frame and an area frame. For more information on sampling see 

chapter 4. Origin: HFRAME from the SASS sampling frame. 

1 = List frame 

2 = Area frame 

PSSTRATM Private school stratum. Origin: HSTRATUM from SASS sampling frame. 

For List frame schools: Digit 1 = “0.” Digits 2–3: HSTRAFF (Private school religious 

association membership: 01 = Catholic—Parochial, 02 = Catholic—Diocesan, 03 = Catholic—

Private, 04 = Amish, 05 = Assembly of God, 06 = Baptist, 07 = Episcopal, 08 = Jewish, 

09 = Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 10 = Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, 

11 = Mennonite, 12 = Pentecostal, 13 = Seventh—Day Adventist, 14 = Other Religious, 

15 = Nonsectarian—Regular, 16 = Nonsectarian—Special Emphasis, 17 = Nonsectarian—

Special Education). Digit 4 = Grade level (1 = elementary, 2 = secondary, 3 = combined). 

Digit 5 = HREGION (Census region: 1 = Northeast, 2 = Midwest, 3 = South, 4 = West). 

For Area frame schools: Digit 1 = “9.” Digits 2–4: PSS Primary Sampling Units code. Digit 5 

= Grade level (1 = elementary, 2 = secondary, 3 = combined). 

PUPILS_D Total number of students taught by the teacher, for teachers of departmentalized classes. 

Calculated as follows: ARRAY t(79:106) t0079-t0106; do i = 79 to 106; if t(i) = -8 then 

t(i) = .; end; if t0066 = 1 then pupils_d = sum(t0079, t0082, t0085, t0088, t0091, t0094, t0097, 

t0100, t0103, t0106); else pupils_d = -8; ARRAY t(79:106) t0079-t0106; do i = 79 to 106; 

if t(i) = . then t(i) = -8; end; 

PUPILS_S Number of students taught by the teacher, for teachers of self-contained classes. 

Coded as follows: if t0066 = 3 then pupils_s = t0068; else pupils_s = -8; 

RACETH_P Principal’s race/ethnicity. 

Coded as follows: 

Array Races (5) A0260 A0259 A0258 A0257 A0256; 

Racenum = 0; 

Do i = 1 to 5; 

If Races(i) = 1 then Racenum = Racenum + 10**(i-1); 

End; 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 1 then RACETH_P = 1; /* Hispanic, American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 10 then RACETH_P = 2; /* Hispanic, Hawaiian Native */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 11 then RACETH_P = 3; /* Hispanic, Hawaiian Native, 

American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 100 then RACETH_P = 4; /* Hispanic, Asian */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 101 then RACETH_P = 5; /* Hispanic, Asian, American Indian 

*/ 
Appendix T. Frame and Created Variables T-11 

Variable name Description and specifications 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 110 then RACETH_P = 6; /* Hispanic, Asian, Hawaiian Native 

*/ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 111 then RACETH_P = 7; /* Hispanic, Asian, Hawaiian Native, 

American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 1000 then RACETH_P = 8; /* Hispanic, Black */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 1001 then RACETH_P = 9; /* Hispanic, Black, American Indian 

*/ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 1010 then RACETH_P = 10; /* Hispanic, Black, Hawaiian 

Native */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 1011 then RACETH_P = 11; /* Hispanic, Black, Hawaiian 

Native, American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 1100 then RACETH_P = 12; /* Hispanic, Black, Asian */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 1101 then RACETH_P = 13; /* Hispanic, Black, Asian, 

American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 1110 then RACETH_P = 14; /* Hispanic, Black, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 1111 then RACETH_P = 15; /* Hispanic, Black, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 10000 then RACETH_P = 16; /* Hispanic, White */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 10001 then RACETH_P = 17; /* Hispanic, White, American 

Indian */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 10010 then RACETH_P = 18; /* Hispanic, White, Hawaiian 

Native */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 10011 then RACETH_P = 19; /* Hispanic, White, Hawaiian 

Native, American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 10100 then RACETH_P = 20; /* Hispanic, White, Asian */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 10101 then RACETH_P = 21; /* Hispanic, White, Asian, 

American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 10110 then RACETH_P = 22; /* Hispanic, White, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 10111 then RACETH_P = 23; /* Hispanic, White, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 11000 then RACETH_P = 24; /* Hispanic, White, Black */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 11001 then RACETH_P = 25; /* Hispanic, White, Black, 

American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 11010 then RACETH_P = 26; /* Hispanic, White, Black, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 11011 then RACETH_P = 27; /* Hispanic, White, Black, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 11100 then RACETH_P = 28; /* Hispanic, White, Black, Asian 

*/ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 11101 then RACETH_P = 29; /* Hispanic, White, Black, Asian, 

American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 11110 then RACETH_P = 30; /* Hispanic, White, Black, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

If A0255 = 1 and Racenum = 11111 then RACETH_P = 31; /* Hispanic, White, Black, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 1 then RACETH_P = 32; /* non-Hispanic, American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 10 then RACETH_P = 33; /* non-Hispanic, Hawaiian Native */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 11 then RACETH_P = 34; /* non-Hispanic, Hawaiian Native, 

American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 100 then RACETH_P = 35; /* non-Hispanic, Asian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 101 then RACETH_P = 36; /* non-Hispanic, Asian, American 

Indian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 110 then RACETH_P = 37; /* non-Hispanic, Asian, Hawaiian 
T-12 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Variable name Description and specifications 

Native */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 111 then RACETH_P = 38; /* non-Hispanic, Asian, Hawaiian 

Native, American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 1000 then RACETH_P = 39; /* non-Hispanic, Black */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 1001 then RACETH_P = 40; /* non-Hispanic, Black, American 

Indian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 1010 then RACETH_P = 41; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Hawaiian 

Native */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 1011 then RACETH_P = 42; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Hawaiian 

Native, American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 1100 then RACETH_P = 43; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Asian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 1101 then RACETH_P = 44; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Asian, 

American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 1110 then RACETH_P = 45; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 1111 then RACETH_P = 46; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 10000 then RACETH_P = 47; /* non-Hispanic, White */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 10001 then RACETH_P = 48; /* non-Hispanic, White, 

American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 10010 then RACETH_P = 49; /* non-Hispanic, White, Hawaiian 

Native */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 10011 then RACETH_P = 50; /* non-Hispanic, White, Hawaiian 

Native, American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 10100 then RACETH_P = 51; /* non-Hispanic, White, Asian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 10101 then RACETH_P = 52; /* non-Hispanic, White, Asian, 

American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 10110 then RACETH_P = 53; /* non-Hispanic, White, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 10111 then RACETH_P = 54; /* non-Hispanic, White, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 11000 then RACETH_P = 55; /* non-Hispanic, White, Black */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 11001 then RACETH_P = 56; /* non-Hispanic, White, Black, 

American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 11010 then RACETH_P = 57; /* non-Hispanic, White, Black, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 11011 then RACETH_P = 58; /* non-Hispanic, White, Black, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 11100 then RACETH_P = 59; /* non-Hispanic, White, Black, 

Asian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 11101 then RACETH_P = 60; /* non-Hispanic, White, Black, 

Asian, American Indian */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 11110 then RACETH_P = 61; /* non-Hispanic, White, Black, 

Asian, Hawaiian Native */ 

If A0255 = 2 and Racenum = 11111 then RACETH_P = 62; /* non-Hispanic, White, Black, 

Asian, Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

drop i; 

drop racenum; 

RACETH_T Teacher’s race/ethnicity. 

Coded as follows: 

Array Races (5) T0414 T0413 T0412 T0411 T0410; 

Racenum = 0; 

Do i = 1 to 5; 

If Races(i) = 1 then Racenum = Racenum + 10**(i-1); 
Appendix T. Frame and Created Variables T-13 

Variable name Description and specifications 

End; 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 1 then RACETH_T = 1; /* Hispanic, American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 10 then RACETH_T = 2; /* Hispanic, Hawaiian Native */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 11 then RACETH_T = 3; /* Hispanic, Hawaiian Native, 

American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 100 then RACETH_T = 4; /* Hispanic, Asian */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 101 then RACETH_T = 5; /* Hispanic, Asian, American Indian 

*/ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 110 then RACETH_T = 6; /* Hispanic, Asian, Hawaiian Native 

*/ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 111 then RACETH_T = 7; /* Hispanic, Asian, Hawaiian Native, 

American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 1000 then RACETH_T = 8; /* Hispanic, Black */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 1001 then RACETH_T = 9; /* Hispanic, Black, American Indian 

*/ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 1010 then RACETH_T = 10; /* Hispanic, Black, Hawaiian 

Native */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 1011 then RACETH_T = 11; /* Hispanic, Black, Hawaiian 

Native, American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 1100 then RACETH_T = 12; /* Hispanic, Black, Asian */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 1101 then RACETH_T = 13; /* Hispanic, Black, Asian, 

American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 1110 then RACETH_T = 14; /* Hispanic, Black, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 1111 then RACETH_T = 15; /* Hispanic, Black, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 10000 then RACETH_T = 16; /* Hispanic, White */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 10001 then RACETH_T = 17; /* Hispanic, White, American 

Indian */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 10010 then RACETH_T = 18; /* Hispanic, White, Hawaiian 

Native */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 10011 then RACETH_T = 19; /* Hispanic, White, Hawaiian 

Native, American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 10100 then RACETH_T = 20; /* Hispanic, White, Asian */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 10101 then RACETH_T = 21; /* Hispanic, White, Asian, 

American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 10110 then RACETH_T = 22; /* Hispanic, White, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 10111 then RACETH_T = 23; /* Hispanic, White, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 11000 then RACETH_T = 24; /* Hispanic, White, Black */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 11001 then RACETH_T = 25; /* Hispanic, White, Black, 

American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 11010 then RACETH_T = 26; /* Hispanic, White, Black, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 11011 then RACETH_T = 27; /* Hispanic, White, Black, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 11100 then RACETH_T = 28; /* Hispanic, White, Black, Asian 

*/ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 11101 then RACETH_T = 29; /* Hispanic, White, Black, Asian, 

American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 11110 then RACETH_T = 30; /* Hispanic, White, Black, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

If T0409 = 1 and Racenum = 11111 then RACETH_T = 31; /* Hispanic, White, Black, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 
T-14 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Variable name Description and specifications 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1 then RACETH_T = 32; /* non-Hispanic, American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10 then RACETH_T = 33; /* non-Hispanic, Hawaiian Native */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 11 then RACETH_T = 34; /* non-Hispanic, Hawaiian Native, 

American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 100 then RACETH_T = 35; /* non-Hispanic, Asian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 101 then RACETH_T = 36; /* non-Hispanic, Asian, American 

Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 110 then RACETH_T = 37; /* non-Hispanic, Asian, Hawaiian 

Native */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 111 then RACETH_T = 38; /* non-Hispanic, Asian, Hawaiian 

Native, American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1000 then RACETH_T = 39; /* non-Hispanic, Black */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1001 then RACETH_T = 40; /* non-Hispanic, Black, American 

Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1010 then RACETH_T = 41; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Hawaiian 

Native */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1011 then RACETH_T = 42; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Hawaiian 

Native, American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1100 then RACETH_T = 43; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Asian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1101 then RACETH_T = 44; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Asian, 

American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1110 then RACETH_T = 45; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1111 then RACETH_T = 46; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10000 then RACETH_T = 47; /* non-Hispanic, White */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10001 then RACETH_T = 48; /* non-Hispanic, White, 

American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 111 then RACETH_T = 38; /* non-Hispanic, Asian, Hawaiian 

Native, American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1000 then RACETH_T = 39; /* non-Hispanic, Black */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1001 then RACETH_T = 40; /* non-Hispanic, Black, American 

Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1010 then RACETH_T = 41; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Hawaiian 

Native */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1011 then RACETH_T = 42; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Hawaiian 

Native, American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 111 then RACETH_T = 38; /* non-Hispanic, Asian, Hawaiian 

Native, American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1000 then RACETH_T = 39; /* non-Hispanic, Black */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1001 then RACETH_T = 40; /* non-Hispanic, Black, American 

Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1010 then RACETH_T = 41; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Hawaiian 

Native */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1011 then RACETH_T = 42; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Hawaiian 

Native, American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1100 then RACETH_T = 43; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Asian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1101 then RACETH_T = 44; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Asian, 

American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1110 then RACETH_T = 45; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 1111 then RACETH_T = 46; /* non-Hispanic, Black, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10000 then RACETH_T = 47; /* non-Hispanic, White */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10001 then RACETH_T = 48; /* non-Hispanic, White, 
Appendix T. Frame and Created Variables T-15 

Variable name Description and specifications 

American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10010 then RACETH_T = 49; /* non-Hispanic, White, Hawaiian 

Native */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10011 then RACETH_T = 50; /* non-Hispanic, White, Hawaiian 

Native, American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10100 then RACETH_T = 51; /* non-Hispanic, White, Asian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10101 then RACETH_T = 52; /* non-Hispanic, White, Asian, 

American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10110 then RACETH_T = 53; /* non-Hispanic, White, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 10111 then RACETH_T = 54; /* non-Hispanic, White, Asian, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 11000 then RACETH_T = 55; /* non-Hispanic, White, Black */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 11001 then RACETH_T = 56; /* non-Hispanic, White, Black, 

American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 11010 then RACETH_T = 57; /* non-Hispanic, White, Black, 

Hawaiian Native */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 11011 then RACETH_T = 58; /* non-Hispanic, White, Black, 

Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 11100 then RACETH_T = 59; /* non-Hispanic, White, Black, 

Asian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 11101 then RACETH_T = 60; /* non-Hispanic, White, Black, 

Asian, American Indian */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 11110 then RACETH_T = 61; /* non-Hispanic, White, Black, 

Asian, Hawaiian Native */ 

If T0409 = 2 and Racenum = 11111 then RACETH_T = 62; /* non-Hispanic, White, Black, 

Asian, Hawaiian Native, American Indian */ 

drop i; 

drop racenum; 

RECSRCE Source of school record. For more information on the California and Pennsylvania additions to 

the SASS sampling frame, see chapter 4 on sampling. Origin: GSORCE from SASS sampling 

frame. 

1 = 2001–02 School CCD file; 

2 = 2001–02 LEA CCD file; 

3 = California sub-district addition to the SASS sampling frame; 

4 = Pennsylvania Intermediate Unit addition to the SASS sampling frame. 

REGION Census Region where district is located. Origin: for public and BIA sector, GCENRG from the 

SASS sampling frame and for the private sector, HREGION from the SASS sampling frame. 

Categories include: 

1 = Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont; 

2 = Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North 

Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin; 

3 = South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Texas, Virginia, West Virginia; 

4 = West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New 

Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming. 
T-16 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Variable name Description and specifications 

RELIG Three-level private school typology. Categories include: 

1 = Catholic; 

2 = Other religious; 

3 = Nonsectarian. 

Coded as follows: if typology in (1, 2, 3) then relig = 1; if typology in (4, 5, 6) then relig = 2; 

if typology gt 6 then relig = 3; For cases where the school was a noninterview, sample file data 

were used, if available. 

SC_NCSID NCES school identification number. Origin: for public and BIA schools, GCCDID on the 

SASS sampling frame. Char 1–2: FIPS state code. Char 3–7: District code. Char 8–12: School 

code. The district code reflects cases in New England where the CCD definition of a school 

district did not match the SASS definition of a school district. For some New England schools, 

district level data were collected from supervisory unions. For a complete list of FIPS codes, 

reference http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/fip5-2.htm. Origin: for private schools, SCHOOLID 

on the 2001–02 PSS. 

SC_NEID Original NCES school ID for select New England schools. Digits 1–7 refer to the district as 

identified by the CCD rather than the supervisory union interviewed in SASS. A valid skip 

(-8) is applied if no changes were made to the NCES ID. Origin: NCESSCH on 2001–02 

CCD. Char 1–2: FIPS state code. Char 3–7: District code. Char 8–12: School code. 

SC_ZIP Five-digit ZIP code for the school. Origin: for public schools and BIA schools, GCLZIP on 

SASS sampling frame; for private schools, ZIP5 on the Teacher Listing Form computerassisted personal interviewing instrument (Blaise/CAPI). 

SCDISTID Identifies single-school districts that received the Unified School Questionnaire. Origin: 

SCHDIST from SASS sampling frame. 

1 = Single-school district 

2 = Not a single-school district 

SCH_ISR Interview status of school where principal/teacher/library was selected for sample. Categories 

include: 

1 = Interview; 

2 = Noninterview; 

3 = Out-of-scope. 

SCHLEVE2 Four-category level of school based on grade levels offered as reported by the school. 

Categories include: 1 = primary: schools with at least one grade lower than 5 and no grade 

higher than 8; 2 = middle: schools with no grade lower than 5 and no grade higher than 8; 3 = 

high: schools with no grade lower than 7 and at least one grade higher than 8; and 4 = 

combined: schools with at least one grade lower than 7 and at least one grade higher than 8. 

Schools with only ungraded classes were included with combined schools. Coded as follows: 

SCHLEVE2 = 1 if the lowest grade is any of grades K–4 and the highest grade is any of 

grades 1–8; SCHLEVE2 = 2 if the lowest grade is any of grades 5–8 and the highest is any of 

grades 5–8; SCHLEVE2 = 3 if the lowest grade is any of grades 7–12 and the highest grade is 

any of grades 9–12; SCHLEVE2 = 4 for all other cases (e.g., all ungraded, K–12, 5–12, etc.). 

Coded as follows. 

Public and BIA Code: 

if S0412 = 1 then LOWEST = 12; 

if S0411 = 1 then LOWEST = 11; 

if S0410 = 1 then LOWEST = 10; 

if S0409 = 1 then LOWEST = 9; 

if S0408 = 1 then LOWEST = 8; 

if S0407 = 1 then LOWEST = 7; 

if S0406 = 1 then LOWEST = 6; 
Appendix T. Frame and Created Variables T-17 

Variable name Description and specifications 

if S0405 = 1 then LOWEST = 5; 

if S0404 = 1 then LOWEST = 4; 

if S0403 = 1 then LOWEST = 3; 

if S0402 = 1 then LOWEST = 2; 

if S0401 = 1 then LOWEST = 1; 

if S0400 = 1 then LOWEST = 0; 

if S0400 = 1 then HIGHEST = 0; 

if S0401 = 1 then HIGHEST = 1; 

if S0402 = 1 then HIGHEST = 2; 

if S0403 = 1 then HIGHEST = 3; 

if S0404 = 1 then HIGHEST = 4; 

if S0405 = 1 then HIGHEST = 5; 

if S0406 = 1 then HIGHEST = 6; 

if S0407 = 1 then HIGHEST = 7; 

if S0408 = 1 then HIGHEST = 8; 

if S0409 = 1 then HIGHEST = 9; 

if S0410 = 1 then HIGHEST = 10; 

if S0411 = 1 then HIGHEST = 11; 

if S0412 = 1 then HIGHEST =12; 

If LOWEST le 4 and HIGHEST le 8 then SCHLEVE2 = 1; 

If LOWEST ge 7 and HIGHEST ge 9 then SCHLEVE2 = 3; 

If LOWEST ge 5 and HIGHEST le 8 then SCHLEVE2 = 2; 

If LOWEST le 6 and HIGHEST ge 9 then SCHLEVE2 = 4; 

if S0413 = 1 and LOWEST lt 1 and HIGHEST lt 1 then SCHLEVE2 = 4; 

Private Code: 

if S0732 = 1 then LOWEST = 12; 

if S0730 = 1 then LOWEST = 11; 

if S0728 = 1 then LOWEST = 10; 

if S0726 = 1 then LOWEST = 9; 

if S0724 = 1 then LOWEST = 8; 

if S0722 = 1 then LOWEST = 7; 

if S0720 = 1 then LOWEST = 6; 

if S0718 = 1 then LOWEST = 5; 

if S0716 = 1 then LOWEST = 4; 

if S0714 = 1 then LOWEST = 3; 

if S0712 = 1 then LOWEST = 2; 

if S0710 = 1 or S0708 = 1 then LOWEST = 1; 

if S0704 = 1 or S0706 = 1 then LOWEST = 0; 

if S0704 = 1 or S0706 = 1 then HIGHEST = 0; 

if S0710 = 1 or s0708 = 1 then HIGHEST = 1; 

if S0712 = 1 then HIGHEST = 2; 

if S0714 = 1 then HIGHEST = 3; 

if S0716 = 1 then HIGHEST = 4; 

if S0718 = 1 then HIGHEST = 5; 

if S0720 = 1 then HIGHEST = 6; 

if S0722 = 1 then HIGHEST = 7; 

if S0724 = 1 then HIGHEST = 8; 

if S0726 = 1 then HIGHEST = 9; 

if S0728 = 1 then HIGHEST = 10; 

if S0730 = 1 then HIGHEST = 11; 

if S0732 = 1 then HIGHEST = 12; 

If LOWEST le 4 and HIGHEST le 8 then SCHLEVE2 = 1; 

If LOWEST ge 7 and HIGHEST ge 9 then SCHLEVE2 = 3; 

If LOWEST ge 5 and HIGHEST le 8 then SCHLEVE2 = 2; 
T-18 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Variable name Description and specifications 

If LOWEST le 6 and HIGHEST ge 9 then SCHLEVE2 = 4; 

if S0700 = 1 and LOWEST lt 1 and HIGHEST lt 1 then SCHLEVE2 = 4; 

SCHLEVEL Three-category level of school based on grade levels offered as reported by the school. 

Categories include: 1 = Elementary, 2 = Secondary, 3 = Combined. Coded as follows: 

SCHLEVEL = 1 if school has any of grades K–6 and none of grades 9–12 (elementary); 

SCHLEVEL = 2 if school has any of grades 7–12 and none of grades K–6 (secondary); 

SCHLEVEL = 3 for all other cases (combined). For cases where the school was a noninterview, the sample file information was used. 

Public and BIA schools: 

ARRAY t(400:413) s0400-s0413; do i = 400 to 413; if t(i) = -8 then t(i) = .; end; 

EDKG6 = SUM(OF s0400 S0401 S0402 S0403 S0404 S0405 S0406); 

ED912 = SUM(OF s0409 s0410 s0411 s0412); 

ED712 = SUM(OF s0407 s0408 s0409 s0410 s0411 s0412); 

IF EDKG6 >= 1 AND ED912 < 1 AND S0413 < 1 THEN SCHLEVEL = 1; 

*ELEMENTARY; 

ELSE IF S0413 = 1 AND EDKG6 >= 1 AND ED912 < 1 THEN SCHLEVEL = 1; 

ELSE IF S0413 < 1 AND EDKG6 < 1 THEN SCHLEVEL = 2; *SECONDARY; 

ELSE IF S0413 = 1 AND EDKG6 < 1 AND ED712 >= 1 THEN SCHLEVEL = 2; 

ELSE SCHLEVEL = 3; *COMBINED; 

ARRAY t(400:413) s0400-s0413; do i = 400 to 413; if t(i) = . then t(i) = -8; end; 

Private schools: 

edkg6 = 0; 

ed912 = 0; 

ed712 = 0; 

Array elem[9] s0704 s0706 s0708 s0710 s0712 s0714 s0716 s0718 s0720; 

do i = 1 to 9; 

If elem [i] = 1 then edkg6 + 1; 

drop i; 

end; 

Array sec[4] s0726 s0728 s0730 s0732; 

do i= 1 to 4; 

if sec[I] = 1 then ed912+1; 

drop i; 

end; 

Array comb[6] s0722 s0724 s0726 s0728 s0730 s0732; 

do i = 1 to 6; 

if comb[i] = 1 then ed712+1; 

drop i; 

end; 

IF EDKG6 >= 1 AND ED912 < 1 AND s0700 = 2 THEN SCHLEVEL = 1; 

*ELEMENTARY; 

ELSE IF s0700 = 1 AND EDKG6 >= 1 AND ED912 < 1 THEN SCHLEVEL = 1; 

ELSE IF s0700 = 2 AND EDKG6 < 1 THEN SCHLEVEL = 2; *SECONDARY; 

ELSE IF s0700 = 1 AND EDKG6 < 1 AND ED712 >= 1 THEN SCHLEVEL = 2; 

ELSE SCHLEVEL = 3; *COMBINED; 

End; 
Appendix T. Frame and Created Variables T-19 

Variable name Description and specifications 

SCHSIZE Categorical measure of the total K–12 and ungraded enrollment in the school. Categories 

include: 

1 = 1–49; 

2 = 50–99; 

3 = 100–149; 

4 = 150–199; 

5 = 200–349; 

6 = 350–499; 

7 = 500–749; 

8 = 750–999; 

9 = 1,000–1,199; 

10 = 1,200–1,499; 

11 = 1,500–1,999; 

12 = 2,000 or more. 

For cases where the school was a noninterview, sample file information was used. Coded as 

follows: 

if 1 le ENRK12UG lt 50 then SCHSIZE = 1; if 50 le ENRK12UG le 99 then SCHSIZE = 2; 

if 100 le ENRK12UG le 149 then SCHSIZE = 3; if 150 le ENRK12UG le 199 then SCHSIZE 

= 4; 

if 200 le ENRK12UG le 349 then SCHSIZE = 5; if 350 le ENRK12UG le 499 then SCHSIZE 

= 6; 

if 500 le ENRK12UG le 749 then SCHSIZE = 7; if 750 le ENRK12UG le 999 then SCHSIZE 

= 8; 

if 1000 le ENRK12UG le 1199 then SCHSIZE = 9; if 1200 le ENRK12UG le 1499 then 

SCHSIZE = 10; 

if 1500 le ENRK12UG le 1999 then SCHSIZE = 11; if ENRK12UG ge 2000 then SCHSIZE = 

12; 

SCHSTRAT Six-digit sampling stratum code for public schools. Origin: GSTRM4 from SASS sampling 

frame. 

Digit 1: School type (1 = Schools with American Indian or Alaskan Native enrollment of at 

least 19.5%, 2 = Bureau of Indian Affairs schools, 3 = Schools with GSBSTR filled (GSBSTR 

is the substratum code, filled for schools in Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Nevada and West 

Virginia), 4 = Charter schools, 5 = Remaining public schools). Digits 2–3: Stratum state. Not 

the same as FIPS state for Native American Indian, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and charter 

schools. Digits 4–5: “00.” Digit 6: Grade level (1 = Elementary, 2 = Secondary, 

3 = Combined). 

SCWT1FLG Schoolwide Title I program eligibility identifier. A program in which all the pupils in a school 

are designated under appropriate state and federal regulations as being eligible for 

participation in programs authorized by Title I of Public Law 103–382. Origin: STITLI01 

from 2001–02 CCD. 

1 = School is eligible for schoolwide Title I program 

2 = School is not eligible for schoolwide Title I program 

SECTOR School sector (1 = Public, 2 = Private, 3 = BIA). Determined by classification on sampling 

frames and/or survey data. 
T-20 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

Variable name Description and specifications 

SLOCP_03 2000 Decennial Census school locale code based on school’s physical location relative to a 

populous area. Micropolitan areas are new, smaller designated metropolitan areas with 

populations as low as 10,000 residents. For more information on Core Based Statistical Areas 

see http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html. Origin: LOCALE03 

from 2003–04 CCD. 

1 = Large City: A central city of a Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) or Consolidated 

Statistical Area (CSA), with the city having a population greater than or equal to 250,000. 

2 = Mid-size City: A central city of a CBSA or CSA, with the city having a population less 

than 250,000. 

3 = Urban Fringe of a Large City: Any incorporated place, Census designated place, or nonplace territory within a CBSA or CSA of a Large City and defined as urban by the Census 

Bureau. 

4 = Urban Fringe of a Mid-size City: Any incorporated place, Census designated place, or 

non-place territory within a CBSA or CSA of a Mid-size City and defined as urban by the 

Census Bureau. 

5 = Large Town: An incorporated place or Census designated place with a population greater 

than or equal to 25,000 and located outside a CBSA or CSA. 

6 = Small Town: An incorporated place or Census designated place with population less than 

25,000 and greater than or equal to 2,500 and located outside a CBSA or CSA. 

7 = Rural, outside CBSA: Any incorporated place, Census designated place, or non-place 

territory not within a CBSA or CSA of a Large or Mid-size City and defined as rural by the 

Census Bureau. 

8 = Rural, inside CBSA: Any incorporated place, Census designated place, or non-place 

territory within a CBSA or CSA of a Large or Mid-size City and defined as rural by the 

Census Bureau. 

SLOCP_99 1990 Decennial Census locale code; physical location relative to a populous area. Origin: for 

public and BIA schools, GLOCALE on the SASS sampling frame; for private schools, 

HLOCALE on the SASS sampling frame. Categories include: 

1 = Large central city, 

2 = Mid-size central city, 

3 = Urban fringe of large city, 

4 = Urban fringe of mid-size city, 

5 = Large town, 

6 = Small town, 

7 = Rural, outside MSA, 

8 = Rural, in MSA. 

STAGID State’s own ID for the district. Origin: STID01 on 2001–02 CCD. 
Appendix T. Frame and Created Variables T-21 

STAT_ABB Two-letter state abbreviation that identifies the state with administrative control over the 

district and the schools within that district. Identical to STATE variable. Origin: for public and 

BIA-funded schools, GFIPST from SASS sampling frame; for private school, FIPS from 

2001–02 PSS. 

 Alabama AL 

Alaska AK 

Arizona AZ 

Arkansas AR 

California CA 

Colorado CO 

Connecticut CT 

Delaware DE 

District of Columbia DC 

Florida FL 

Georgia GA 

Hawaii HI 

Idaho ID 

Illinois IL 

Indiana IN 

Iowa IA 

Kansas KS 

Kentucky KY 

Louisiana LA 

Maine ME 

Maryland MD 

Massachusetts MA 

Michigan MI 

Minnesota MN 

Mississippi MS 

Missouri MO 

Montana MT 

Nebraska NE 

Nevada NV 

New Hampshire NH 

New Jersey NJ 

New Mexico NM 

New York NY 

North Carolina NC 

North Dakota ND 

Ohio OH 

Oklahoma OK 

Oregon OR 

Pennsylvania PA 

Rhode Island RI 

South Carolina SC 

South Dakota SD 

Tennessee TN 

Texas TX 

Utah UT 

Vermont VT 

Virginia VA 

Washington WA 

West Virginia WV 

Wisconsin WI 

Wyoming WY 

STATE FIPS state code that identifies the state with administrative control over the district and the 

schools within that district. Origin: for public and BIA-funded schools, GFIPST on the SASS 

sampling frame; for private schools, FIPS on the 2001–02 PSS. Department of Defense (DoD) 

and BIA-funded school locations are based on the physical location of the school. For a 

complete list of FIPS codes, reference 

http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/fip5-2.htm. 

 Alabama AL 

Alaska AK 

Arizona AZ 

Arkansas AR 

California CA 

Colorado CO 

Connecticut CT 

Delaware DE 

District of Columbia DC 

Florida FL 

Georgia GA 

Hawaii HI 

Idaho ID 

Illinois IL 

Indiana IN 

Iowa IA 

Kansas KS 

Kentucky KY 

Louisiana LA 

Maine ME 

Maryland MD 

Massachusetts MA 

Michigan MI 

Minnesota MN 

Mississippi MS 

Missouri MO 

Montana MT 

Nebraska NE 

Nevada NV 

New Hampshire NH 

New Jersey NJ 

New Mexico NM 

New York NY 

North Carolina NC 

North Dakota ND 

Ohio OH 

Oklahoma OK 

Oregon OR 

Pennsylvania PA 

Rhode Island RI 

South Carolina SC 

South Dakota SD 

Tennessee TN 

Texas TX 

Utah UT 

Vermont VT 

Virginia VA 

Washington WA 

West Virginia WV 

Wisconsin WI 

Wyoming WY 

STCNTY FIPS state/county code for county where district (LEA) is located. Origin: CONUM01 on 

SASS sampling frame. Char 1–2: FIPS State code. Char 3–5: FIPS number for County within 

state. 
T-22 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

STRATA Private school orientation stratum. Categories include: 

1 = Catholic—Parochial; 

2 = Catholic—Diocesan; 

3 = Catholic—Private; 

4 = Amish; 

5 = Assembly of God; 

6 = Baptist; 

7 = Episcopal; 

8 = Jewish; 

9 = Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod; 

10 = Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod; 

11 = Mennonite; 

12 = Pentecostal; 

13 = Seventh-Day Adventist; 

14 = Other Religious; 

15 = Nonsectarian—Regular; 

16 = Nonsectarian—Special Emphasis; 

17 = Nonsectarian—Special Education; 

Coded as follows: If typology = 1 then strata = 1; else if typology = 2 then strata = 2; else if 

typology = 3 then strata = 3; else if s0740 = 3 then strata = 4; else if s0740 = 4 then strata = 5; 

else if s0740 = 5 then strata = 6; else if s0740 = 13 then strata = 7; else if s0740 = 17 then 

strata = 8; else if s0740 = 19 then strata = 9; else if s0740 = 21 then strata = 10; else if s0740 = 

23 then strata = 11; else if s0740 = 25 then strata = 12; else if s0740 = 27 then strata = 13; else 

if s0740 in (2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28) then strata = 14; else if 

typology = 7 then strata = 15; else if typology = 8 then strata = 16; else if typology = 9 then 

strata = 17; 

STU_TCH Estimated number of students per full-time equivalent teacher in the school. 

Calculated as follows: STU_TCH = ROUND((ENRK12UG/NUMTCH),.0001); 

SURVEY Name of questionnaire. District information collected on School District Questionnaire (1A) 

and Unified School Questionnaire (3Y). Categories include: 

1 = School District Questionnaire (1A), 

2 = Principal Questionnaire (2A), 

3 = Private School Principal Questionnaire (2B), 

4 = School Questionnaire (3A), 

5 = Private School Questionnaire (3B), 

6 = Unified School Questionnaire (3Y), 

7 = Teacher Questionnaire (4A), 

8 = Private School Teacher Questionnaire (4B), 

9 = School Library Media Center Questionnaire (LS-1A). 

TCHEXPER Total years of the principal’s experience as a teacher. Calculated as follows: TCHEXPER = 

sum (a0027, a0028); 
Appendix T. Frame and Created Variables T-23 

TEALEV Grade level of students taught by teacher. Used to calculate out-of-field teaching variables. 

Teachers are grouped into four categories based on the grade levels of students taught and the 

teachers’ main assignments. Categories include: 

1 = primary, 

2 = middle, 

3 = high, 

4 = combined; 

Coded as follows: 

ARRAY t(52:65) t0052-t0065; 

do i = 52 to 65; 

if t(i) = -8 then t(i) = .; 

end; 

if T0069 in (101, 102) or T0075 in (101, 102) then e1 = 1; 

else if T0069 = 110 and T0066 = 3 then sp = 1; 

if n(of T0052-T0064) > 0 then do; 

if n(of T0062-T0064) > 0 then tealev = 3; 

else if T0061 = 1 and n(of T0052-T0060 T0062-T0064) = 0 then tealev = 3; 

else if n(of T0052-T0056) > 0 and n(of T0057-T0064) = 0 then tealev = 1; 

else if e1 = 1 then tealev = 1; else if sp = 1 then tealev = 1; else tealev = 2; 

end; 

else do; 

tealev = 4; 

end; 

ARRAY t(52:65) T0052-T0065; 

do i = 52 to 65; 

if t(i) = . then t(i) = -8; 

end; 

TLEV2_03 Divides teachers into elementary or secondary based on a combination of the grades taught, 

main teaching assignment, and the structure of their classes. Those with only ungraded classes 

are categorized as elementary level teachers if their main assignment is Early 

childhood/Prekindergarten or elementary, or they teach either special education in a selfcontained classroom or an elementary enrichment class. All other teachers with ungraded 

classes are classified as secondary level. Among teachers with regularly graded classes, in 

general, elementary level teachers teach any of grades prekindergarten through 5th; report an 

Early childhood/Prekindergarten, Elementary, Self-contained special education, or Elementary 

enrichment main assignment; or teachers whose preponderance of grades taught are 

Kindergarten through 6th. In general, secondary level teachers instruct any of grades 7 through 

12 but usually no grade lower than 5th. They also teach more of grades 7 through 12 than lower 

level grades. 

Categories include: 

1 = elementary, 

2 = secondary. 

Coded as follows: 

ARRAY t(51:75) t0051-t0075; do i = 51 to 75; if t(i) = -8 then t(i) = .; end; 

IF T0065 = 1 AND SUM(OF T0051-T0064) < 1 THEN DO; /* UNGRADED, AND NO PREK - 12 */ 

if ((T0069 = 110 or T0075 = 110) and T0066 = 3) or T0069 in (101,102) or T0075 in 

(101,102) or t0066 = 2 THEN TLEV2_03 = 1; /*ELEMENTARY*/ 

ELSE TLEV2_03 = 2; /*SECONDARY*/ 

END; 

ELSE IF SUM(OF T0051-T0057) > 0 AND /*PRE-K–5TH*/ 

SUM(OF T0062--T0064) < 1 /*NO 10TH–12*/ 

THEN TLEV2_03 = 1; 

ELSE IF SUM(OF T0051-T0057) < 1 AND /*NO PRE-K–5TH*/ 

SUM(OF T0061-T0064) > 0 /*9TH–12TH*/ 
T-24 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

THEN TLEV2_03 = 2; 

ELSE IF T0059 >= 1 OR T0060 >= 1 OR /*7TH OR 8TH*/ 

(SUM(OF T0051-T0058)>0 AND /*OR PRE-K–6TH AND 9TH–12TH*/ 

SUM(OF T0061-T0064)>0) THEN DO; 

IF T0069 in (101,102) or T0075 in (101,102) or T0066 = 2 THEN TLEV2_03 = 1; 

/*PRE-K,KG,GEN.ELEM or ELEM ENRICH*/ 

ELSE IF T0069 = 110 or T0075 = 110 THEN DO; /*SPECIAL ED*/ 

IF T0066 = 3 THEN TLEV2_03 = 1; /*IF SELF-CONTAINED, THEN ELEMENTARY*/ 

ELSE TLEV2_03 = 2; /*ALL OTHERS, SECONDARY*/ 

END; 

ELSE IF SUM(OF T0057-T0061)>0 AND /*5TH–9TH*/ 

SUM(OF T0065,T0051-T0056)<1 THEN TLEV2_03 = 2; /*UG–4TH*/ 

ELSE IF T0066 = 2 THEN TLEV2_03 = 1; /*ELEM ENRICHMENT*/ 

ELSE IF SUM(OF T0059-T0064) = 6 AND /*7TH–12TH*/ 

(T0069 >= 141 or T0075 >= 141) THEN TLEV2_03 = 2; 

ELSE IF SUM(OF T0053-T0058) = 6 AND /*1ST–6TH*/ 

(T0069 in (101,102) or T0075 in (101,102)) THEN TLEV2_03 = 1; 

ELSE IF SUM(OF T0053--T0058) > /*1ST–6TH*/ 

SUM(OF T0059-T0064) THEN TLEV2_03 = 1; /*7TH–12TH*/ 

ELSE IF SUM(OF T0053-T0058) < /*1ST–6TH*/ 

SUM(OF T0059-T0064) THEN TLEV2_03 = 2; /*7TH–12TH*/ 

ELSE IF SUM(OF T0053-T0058) = /*1ST–6TH*/ 

SUM(OF T0059-T0064) THEN DO; /*7TH–12TH*/ 

IF T0069 in (101,102,110) or T0075 in (101,102,110) or t0066 = 2 THEN TLEV2_03 = 1; 

/*ELEMENTARY*/ 

ELSE TLEV2_03 = 2; /*SECONDARY*/ 

END; 

End; 

ELSE IF SUM(OF T0052-T0057) > /*K–5TH*/ 

SUM(OF T0059-T0064) THEN TLEV2_03 = 1; /*7TH–12TH*/ 

ELSE IF SUM(OF T0052-T0057) < /*K–5TH*/ 

SUM(OF T0059-T0064) THEN TLEV2_03 = 2; /*7TH–12TH*/ 

ELSE IF T0069 = 102 or T0075 = 102 THEN TLEV2_03 = 1; /*KG & GENL ELEM*/ 

ELSE IF (T0069 = 110 or T0075 = 110) and /*special ed*/ 

T0066 = 3 then TLEV2_03 = 1; /*self-cont*/ 

Else if T0066 = 2 then TLEV2_03 = 1; /*elem enrich*/ 

Else TLEV2_03 = 2; 

ARRAY t(51:75) t0051-t0075; do i = 51 to 75; if t(i) = . then t(i) = -8; end; 

TOTEXPER Teacher’s total number of years teaching full- or part-time in public, BIA-funded, and private 

schools. 

Calculated as follows: ARRAY t(36:40) t0036-t0040; do i = 36 to 40; if t(i) = -8 then t(i) = .; 

end; totexper = sum (t0036, t0037, t0039, t0040); ARRAY t(36:40) t0036-t0040; do i = 36 to 

40; if t(i) = . then t(i) = -8; end; 

TUITIN Highest tuition charged by private school. 

Coded as follows: if s0803 = 2 then tuitin = 0; else tuitin = s0806; 
Appendix T. Frame and Created Variables T-25 

TYPOLOGY Nine-level private school typology. 

Categories include: 

1 = Catholic—Parochial 

2 = Catholic—Diocesan 

3 = Catholic—Private 

4 = Other religious, Conservative Christian 

5 = Other religious, Affiliated with a Religious School Association 

6 = Other religious, Not Affiliated with a Religious School Association 

7 = Nonsectarian—Regular 

8 = Nonsectarian—Special Emphasis 

9 = Nonsectarian—Special Education 

Coded as follows: 

if s0740 = 1 then do; 

if s0741 = 1 then typology = 1; 

else if s0741 = 2 then typology = 2; 

else if s0741 = 3 then typology = 3; 

end; 

else if s0738 = 1 then do; 

if s0743 = 1 or s0744 = 1 or s0745 = 1 or s0758 = 1 then typology = 4; 

else if s0746 = 1 or s0747 = 1 or s0748 = 1 or s0749 = 1 or s0750 = 1 or s0751 = 1 or 

s0752 = 1 or s0754 = 1 or s0756 = 1 or s0757 = 1 or s0759 = 1 or s0760 = 1 or s0761 = 1 then 

typology = 5; 

else typology = 6; 

end; 

else if s0441 in (1, 7) then typology = 7; 

else if s0441 in (2, 3, 5, 6) then typology = 8; 

else if s0441 in (4) then typology = 9; 

URBAND03 This is a 3-level collapse of DLOCP_03 (district locale code). Code was assigned using 2000 

Decennial Census data. Categories include: 1 = Large or mid-size central city, 2 = Urban 

fringe of large or mid-size central city, 3 = Small town/rural; Coded as follows: if dlocp_03 in 

(1, 2) then urband03 = 1; if dlocp_03 in (3, 4, 5, 8) then urband03 = 2; if dlocp_03 in (6, 7) 

then urband03 = 3. 

URBANS03 This is a 3-level collapse of SLOCP_03 (school locale code). Code was assigned using 2000 

Decennial Census data. Categories include: 1 = Large or mid-size central city, 2 = Urban 

fringe of large or mid-size central city, 3 = Small town/rural. Coded as follows: if slocp_03 in 

(1, 2) then urbans03 = 1; if slocp_03 in (3, 4, 5, 8) then urbans03 = 2; if slocp_03 in (6, 7) then 

urbans03 = 3. 

UNITID NCES identification number for the school where the respondent received his/her bachelor’s 

degree. This variable is provided so that data can be linked to the Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS) or other data sources that use the postsecondary institution 

identifier UNITID. Copied from IPEDS variable “ID” and matched to the name of the college 

or university where the teacher reported receiving their bachelor’s degree (T9002). For more 

information on UNITID codes see http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/. 

 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
U-1 

Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 

1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000, and 2003–04 SASS 

Crosswalks linking items across questionnaires in each Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 

administration are presented in this appendix. The SASS variable crosswalks are presented in the 

following order: 

School District Questionnaire (SASS-1A): 1987–88 through 2003–04.............................................U-2 

Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2A) for public school principals: 1987–88 through 2003–04........U-12 

Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2A) for Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded school 

principals: 1993–94 through 2003–04 .......................................................................................U-19 

Private School Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 ............................U-24 

School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for public schools: 1987–88 through 2003–04 ..........................U-30 

Unified School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools: 

1993–94 through 2003–04 .........................................................................................................U-44 

Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04............................................U-55 

Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4A) for public school teachers: 1987–88 through 2003–04............U-74 

Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4A) for Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded school teachers: 

1993–94 through 2003–04 .........................................................................................................U-83 

Private School Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4B): 1987–88 through 2003–04..............................U-90 

School Library Media Center Questionnaire (LS-1A) for public school libraries: 1993–94 

through 2003–04 ........................................................................................................................U-99 

School Library Media Center Questionnaire (LS-1A) for Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded 

school libraries: 1993–94 through 2003–04.............................................................................U-102 

Within each questionnaire crosswalk, variables are listed in 2003–04 item order. If there is a blank in the 

variable’s name for 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, or 1999–2000, then that particular 2003–04 item did not 

have an equivalent item in earlier years. Variables from 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, and 1999–2000 are 

graded for how closely they “match” the corresponding variable in the 2003–04 questionnaire: 

• Exact. The question wording and format are exactly the same. 

• Near. The question content is the same, but there have been minor changes to the question 

wording or format. 

• Content. The general content of or subject addressed by the item is the same, but the question 

wording or format has been changed significantly. 

In addition, there are four crosswalks that compare similarities and differences across the 2003–04 SASS 

questionnaires given to each type of respondent (i.e., public school district, principal, school, or teacher). 

The first crosswalk presents items from the District Questionnaire that are also included on the Unified 

School or Private School Questionnaires (pages U-105 through U-110). The second crosswalk compares 

items that are found on the three school questionnaires: School Questionnaire, Unified School 

Questionnaire, and Private School Questionnaire (pages U-111 through U-114). The third crosswalk 

compares items found on the Principal and Private School Principal Questionnaires (pages U-115 through 

U-140), and the fourth crosswalk compares items found on the Teacher and Private School Teacher 

Questionnaires (pages U-141 through U-148). Comparisons are graded on how well the item matches 

across surveys on the same scale as described above. Items that are found on only one questionnaire 

within a respondent set are noted as being “Unique.” For example, an item that appears on the Private 

School Teacher Questionnaire but not on the Teacher Questionnaire is marked as being unique for private 

school teachers. 
 U-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School District Questionnaire (SASS-1A): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

D0025 

D0026 D0451 Exact D0070 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

EXISTS Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

 

D0027 D0452 Exact 

D0028 D0453 Exact D0065 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

 

D0029 D0455 Near 

D5029 D5455 Near 

D9001 D5455 Near 

D9002 D5455 Near 

D9003 D5455 Near 

D0035 

D0036 

D0037 

D0038 

D0039 

D0040 

D0041 

D0042 

D0043 

D0044 

D0045 

D0046 

D0047 

D0048 

D0049 

D0050 D0456 Exact 

D0051 D0457 Exact D0255 Near 

D0052 D0458 Near D0415 Near HISPDIST Near DSC151 Near 

D0053 D0459 Exact D0425 Near WHTDIST Near DSC153 Near 

D0054 D0460 Exact D0420 Near BLKDIST Near DSC152 Near 

D0055 D0462 Near D0410 Near ASIADIST Near DSC150 Near 

D0056 D0461 Near D0405 Near AMINDIST Near DSC149 Near 

D0057 D0463 Exact 

D0058 

D0059 

D0060 D0467 Exact D1645 Exact 

D0061 D0468 Near D1655 Exact DSC148 Content Combines 

two 

questions 

into one 

D0062 D0469 Near D1660 Exact DSC148 Content Combines 

two 

questions 

into one 

D0063 D0470 Exact D0465 Exact 

D0064 D0476 Exact D1010 Content Sum of 

number of 

teachers for 

each grade 

TTOTK_12 Content Sum of 

number of 

teachers for 

each grade 

DSC047 Content Sum of 

number of 

teachers for 

each grade 

D0065 D0471 Near D1085 Near TCHISPNC Near DSC156 Near 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-3 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School District Questionnaire (SASS-1A): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

D0066 D0472 Near D1095 Near TCHWHITE Near DSC158 Near 

D0067 D0473 Near D1090 Near TCHBLACK Near DSC157 Near 

D0068 D0475 Near D1080 Near TCHASIAN Near DSC155 Near 

D0069 D0474 Near D1075 Near TCHAMIND Near DSC154 Near 

D0070 

D0071 

D0072 

D0077 D0487 Exact D1050 Content Does not use 

name of 

test—Praxis 

NEWHIRES Content Combines 

two 

questions 

into one; 

does not use 

name of 

test—Praxis 

DSC053 Content Combines 

two 

questions 

into one; 

does not use 

name of 

test—Praxis

D0078 D0477 Exact D1225 Exact FULLCERT Exact DSC116 Exact 

D0079 D0479 Exact D1230 Exact EMERCERT Exact DSC117 Exact 

D0080 D0480 Exact D1235 Exact TEACHED Exact DSC118 Exact 

D0081 D0481 Exact D1240 Exact MAJORFLD Exact DSC119 Exact 

D0082 D0482 Near D1245 Exact STABASIC Exact DSC121 Exact 

D0083 D0483 Near D1250 Exact STASUBJ Exact DSC122 Exact 

D0084 D0484 Near D1255 Exact DISTEST Exact DSC120 Exact 

D0085 D0485 Near D1260 Content Does not use 

name of 

test—Praxis 

NTEPASS Content Combines 

two 

questions 

into one; 

does not use 

name of 

test—Praxis 

DSC123 Content Combines 

two 

questions 

into one; 

does not use 

name of 

test—Praxis

D0086 D0486 Near D1265 Content Does not use 

name of 

test—Praxis 

NTEPASS Content Combines 

two 

questions 

into one; 

does not use 

name of 

test—Praxis 

DSC123 Content Combines 

two 

questions 

into one; 

does not use 

name of 

test—Praxis

D0087 

D0088 

D0089 

D0090 

D0091 D0495 Near 

D0092 D0496 Near 

D0093 

D0094 D0497, 

D0498 

Content D0497 & 

D0498 are 

merged in 

2003–04 

survey 

D2085, 

D2090 

Content D2085 & 

D2090 are 

merged in 

2003–04 

survey 

 

D0095 D0499 Exact D2080 Exact LNGTHYR Exact DSC080, 

DSC081 

Content Asks for 

days or 

months 

D0096 

D0097 

D0098 

D0099 
 U-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School District Questionnaire (SASS-1A): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

D0100 

D0101 

D0102 

D0103 

D0104 

D0105 

D0106 

D0107 

D0113 D0500 Exact D2095 Exact SALSCHED Exact 

D0114 D0501 Exact D2100 Exact MINBACH Exact DSC082 Exact 

D0115 D0502 Exact 

D0116 

D0117 D0503 Exact D2105 Exact MINMASTR Exact DSC083 Exact 

D0118 

D0119 D0505 Near D2115 Near MAXMASTR DSC084 Near 

D0120 

D0121 D0506 Exact D2120 Exact HIGHSAL Exact 

D0122 D0507 Exact D2125 Exact MINSALRY Exact 

D0123 D0508 Exact D2130 Exact MAXSALRY Exact 

D0124 D0517 Near 

D0125 D0518 Near 

D0126 D0519 Near 

D0127 

D0128 

D0129 D0520 Near 

D0130 D0521 Near 

D0131 D0522 Near 

D0137 D0524 Near 

D0138 D0525 Near 

D0139 D0526 Near 

D0140 D0527 Near 

D0141 D0528 Near 

D0142 D0529 Near 

D0143 D0530 Near 

D0144 D0531 Near 

D0145 D0532 Near 

D0146 

D0147 D0533 Near 

D0148 D0534 Near 

D0149 D0535 Near 

D0150 D0536 Near 

D0151 D0537 Near 

D0152 D0539 Near 

D0153 

D0154 

D0155 

D0156 

D0157 

D0158 

D0159 

D0160 

D0161 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-5 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School District Questionnaire (SASS-1A): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

D0162 

D0163 

D0164 

D0165 

D0166 

D0167 

D0168 

D0169 

D0170 

D0171 

D0172 

D0173 

D0174 

D0175 

D0176 

D0177 

D0178 

D0179 

D0180 

D0181 

D0182 

D0183 

D0184 

D0185 

D0186 

D0187 

D0188 

D0189 

D0190 

D0191 

D0192 

D0193 

D0194 

D0195 

D0196 

D0197 

D0198 

D0199 

D0200 

D0201 

D0202 

D0203 

D0204 

D0205 

D0206 

D0207 

D0208 

D0209 

D0210 

D0211 

D0212 

D0213 
 U-6 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School District Questionnaire (SASS-1A): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

D0214 

D0215 

D0216 

D0217 D0542 Content Contents of 

D0542 & 

D0540 are 

merged in 

2003–04 

survey 

 

D0218 

D0219 D0540, 

D0542 

Content Content of 

D0540 & 

D0542 are 

merged in 

2003–04 

survey 

 

D0220 D0544 Content D0544 asks 

how many 

schools in 

district 

received cash 

or resource 

awards 

 

D0221 D0544 Content D0544 asks 

how many 

schools in 

district 

received cash 

or resource 

awards 

 

D0222 D0545 Content D0545 asks 

how many 

schools 

“received 

other 

recognition 

award” 

 

D5222 

D0223 D0541, 

D0543 

Content Content of 

D0541 & 

D0543 are 

merged in 

2003–04 

survey 

 

D0224 D0551 Content D0551 asks 

whether 

district has 

“received 

warnings for 

not meeting 

state student 

achievement 

goals” 

 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-7 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School District Questionnaire (SASS-1A): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

D0225 D0541, 

D0543 

Content Content of 

D0541 & 

D0543 are 

merged in 

2003–04 

survey 

 

D0226 

D0227 

D0228 

D0229 

D0230 D0547 Content D0547 asks 

how many 

schools in 

district “had 

the principal 

reassigned or 

released” 

 

D0231 D0548 Content D0548 asks 

how many 

schools in 

district “were 

taken over by 

a higher level 

governing 

body” 

 

D0232 

D0233 

D0239 D0553 Near 

D0240 D0554 Exact 

D0241 D0555 Exact D1710 Content Specifies no 

justification 

is needed for 

choice; only 

asked of 

those with a 

choice 

program 

 

D0242 D0557 Exact D1720 Content Specifies no 

justification 

is needed for 

choice; only 

asked of 

those with a 

choice 

program; 

does not 

specify no 

tuition cost 

 

D0243 
 U-8 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School District Questionnaire (SASS-1A): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

D0244 D0559 Near D1730 Content Specifies no 

justification 

is needed for 

choice; only 

asked of 

those with a 

choice 

program; 

does not 

specify no 

tuition cost 

 

D0245 D0560 Near D1735 Content Specifies no 

justification 

is needed for 

choice; only 

asked of 

those with a 

choice 

program; 

does not 

specify no 

tuition cost 

 

D0246 D0561 Exact D1700 Content Specifies no 

justification 

is needed for 

choice; only 

asked of 

those with a 

choice 

program 

 

D0247 D0562 Exact 

D0248 

D0249 

D0255 

D0256 

D0257 

D0258 

D0259 

D0260 

D0261 

D0262 

D0263 

D0264 D0566 Exact 

D0265 D0568 Exact 

D0266 D0569 Exact 

D0267 D0570 Near 

D0268 D0571 Near 

D0269 D0572 Exact 

D0270 D0573 Exact 

D0276 D0574 Exact D1760 Near 

D0277 D0575 Near D1765 Near YRSENGL Near DSC132 Near 

D0278 D0576 Near D1770 Near YRSMATH, 

YRSCOMP 

Content Combines 

two 

questions 

into one 

DSC134 Content Combines 

two 

questions 

into one 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-9 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School District Questionnaire (SASS-1A): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

D0279 D0577 Near D1775 Near YRSMATH, 

YRSCOMP 

Content Combines 

two 

questions 

into one 

DSC134 Content Combines 

two 

questions 

into one 

D0280 D0578 Near D1780 Near YRSSOC Near DSC136 Near 

D0281 D0579 Near D1785 Near YRSSCI Near DSC138 Near 

D0282 D0580 Near D1790 Near YRSLANG Near DSC140 Near 

D0283 D0583 Near D1805 Near 

D0284 D0584 Exact D1810 Exact 

D0285 D0585 Exact D1815 Near 

D0286 D0586 Near 

D0292 D0587 Exact D2350 Near ADMINRGM Near 

D0293 D0588 Exact 

D0294 D0589 Exact 

D0295 D0590 Near 

D0296 D0591 Near 

D0297 D0592 Near 

D0298 D0593 Exact 

D0299 D0594 Near 

D0300 D0595 Exact 

D0301 D0596 Exact 

D0302 D0597 Exact 

D0303 D0598 Near 

D0304 D0599 Exact 

D0305 D0600 Near 

D0306 D0601 Exact 

D0307 D0602 Exact 

D0308 D0603 Exact 

D0309 D0604 Exact 

D0310 D0605 Near 

D0311 D0606 Exact 

D0312 D0607 Exact 

D0313 D0609 Exact 

D0314 D0610 Exact 

D0315 D0611 Exact D2295 Content Asks about 

pay 

incentives 

for “other” 

purposes 

 

D0316 D0612 Exact D2295 Content Asks about 

pay 

incentives 

for “other” 

purposes 

 

D0317 D0613 Exact D2275 Content Asks about 

in-service 

training or 

college 

credits 

 
 U-10 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School District Questionnaire (SASS-1A): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

D0318 D0614 Exact D2190 Near INCENTIV Near DSC090 Content Includes to 

recruit or 

retain 

teachers to 

teach in less 

desirable 

locations 

OR in fields 

of shortage 

D0319 D0615 Exact D2210 Near SHORTAGE Near DSC090 Content Includes to 

recruit or 

retain 

teachers to 

teach in less 

desirable 

locations 

OR in fields 

of shortage 

D0320 D0616 Exact 

D0321 D0617 Exact D2230 Near SHRTSPEC Near DSC099 Near 

D0322 D0618 Exact 

D0323 D0619 Exact 

D0324 D0620 Exact D2240 Near SHRTCOMP Near DSC101 Near 

D0325 D0621 Exact D2235 Near SHRTMATH Near DSC100 Near 

D0326 D0622 Exact D2245 Near SHRTPHYS Near DSC102 Near 

D0327 D0623 Exact D2250 Near SHRTBIO Near DSC103 Near 

D0328 D0624 Exact D2255 Near SHRTESOL Near DSC104 Near 

D0329 D0625 Exact D2260 Near SHRTLANG Near DSC105 Near 

D0330 D0626 Exact 

D0331 D0627 Exact D2265 Near SHRTVOC Near 

D0332 D0628 Near D2300 Near RETRAING Near DSC107 Near 

D0333 D0629 Near 

D0334 D0630 Near D2305 Near RESPECL Near DSC108 Near 

D0335 D0631 Near 

D0336 D0632 Near 

D0337 D0633 Near D2315 Near RECOMP Near DSC110 Near 

D0338 D0634 Near D2310 Near REMATH Near DSC109 Near 

D0339 D0635 Near D2320 Near REPHYS Near DSC111 Near 

D0340 D0636 Near D2325 Near REBIO Near DSC112 Near 

D0341 D0637 Near D2330 Exact RESOL Exact DSC113 Exact 

D0342 D0638 Near D2335 Near RELANG Near DSC114 Near 

D0343 D0639 Near 

D0344 D0640 Near D2340 Near REVOTEC Near 

D0350 D0641 Near 

D0351 D0643 Content D0643 is 

combined 

total 

enrollment of 

migrant 

students 

during 

regular 

school year 

& summer 

session 

 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-11 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School District Questionnaire (SASS-1A): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

D0352 D0644 Near 

D0353 D0652 Near 

D0354 D0653 Near 

D0355 D0654 Near 

D0356 D0642 Near 

D0357 D0643 Content D0643 is 

combined 

total 

enrollment of 

migrant 

students 

during 

regular 

school year 

& summer 

session 

 

D0358 D0657 Exact 

D0359 D0668 Near D2360 Near SRVYMINS Near 

D0360 D0669 Near D2365 Near 

D0361 D0669 Near D2365 Near 

D0362 D0669 Near D2365 Near 
 U-12 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2A) for public school principals: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

A0025 A0053, 

A0054 

Content A0053 & 

A0054 show 

total years as 

principal at 

current & 

previous 

schools 

separately 

A325, 

A330 

Content A325 & 

A330 show 

total years as 

principal at 

current & 

previous 

schools 

separately 

ASC044, 

ASC045 

Content ASC044 & 

ASC045 

show total 

years as 

principal at 

current & 

previous 

schools 

separately 

ASC051, 

ASC052 

Content ASC051 & 

ASC052 

show total 

years as 

principal at 

current & 

previous 

schools 

separately 

A0026 A0053 Near A325 Near ASC044 Near ASC051 Near 

A0027 A0055 Near A205 Near ASC030 Near ASC039 Near 

A0028 A0056 Exact A210 Near ASC031 Near 

A0029 A0057 Near A220 Near 

A0030 A0058 Exact A230 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC034 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC045 Content Asked only of 

those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

A0031 A0059 Exact A240 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC034 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC045 Content Asked only of 

those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

A0032 A0060 Exact A250 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC035 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC046 Content Asked only of 

those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

A0033 A0061 Exact A260 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC036 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC047 Content Asked only of 

those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

A0034 A0062 Exact A270 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

 

A0035 A0063 Exact A280 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC037 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC048 Content Asked only of 

those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-13 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2A) for public school principals: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

A0036 A0064 Exact A290 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC038 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC049 Content Asked only of 

those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

A0037 A0065 Exact A310 Exact ASPIRING Exact 

A0038 A0066 Exact A315 Exact TRAININD Exact 

A0039 A0225 Exact A060-

A0190 

Content Asks a set a 

questions 

about 

degrees 

earned 

ASC012–

ASC027 

Content Asks a set a 

questions 

about degrees

earned 

ASC012–

ASC030, 

ASC033 

Content Asks a set a 

questions 

about degrees 

earned 

A0040 

A0041 

A0042 

A0043 

A0044 

A0045 

A0046 

A0047 

A0048 

A0049 

A0056 A0067 Near A875 Near ASC115 Near 

A0057 A0068 Near A880 Near ASC116 Near 

A0058 A0069 Near A885 Near ASC117 Near 

A0059 A0076 Near 

A0060 A0077 Near 

A0061 A0078 Near 

A0062 A0079 Near 

A0063 A0081 Near 

A0064 A0080 Near 

A0065 A0083 Near 

A0066 A0084 Near A680 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

SEACURRC Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

 

A0067 A0085 Near A690 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

BRDCURRC Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

ASC102 Content Combines 

school district 

& governing 

board; rated 

on a 6-point 

scale 

A0068 A0086 Near A685 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

 ASC102 Content Combines 

school district 

& governing 

board; rated 

on a 6-point 

scale 

A0069 A0087 Near A695 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

PRNCURRC Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

ASC103 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

A0070 A0089 Near A700 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

TEACURRC Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

ASC104 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

A0071 A0088 Near A705 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

 
 U-14 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2A) for public school principals: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

A0072 A0091 Near A715 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

PARCURRC Content Rated on a 6-

point scale 

 

A0073 A0092 Near A815 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

 

A0074 A0093 Near A825 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0075 A0094 Near A820 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0076 A0095 Near A830 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0077 A0097 Near Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0078 A0096 Near A835 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0079 A0100 Near A840 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0080 A0098 Near 

A0081 A0101 Near A845 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

 

A0082 A0102 Near A855 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0083 A0103 Near A850 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0084 A0104 Near A860 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0085 A0105 Near A865 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0086 

A0087 A0107 Near A870 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

 

A0088 A0108 Near A720 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0089 A0109 Near A730 Content Rated on a 6-

point scale 

BRDHIRNG Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

ASC105 Content Combines 

school district 

& governing 

board; rated 

on a 6-point 

scale 

A0090 A0110 Near A725 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

 ASC105 Content Combines 

school district 

& governing 

board; rated 

on a 6-point 

scale 

A0091 A0111 Near A735 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

PRNHIRNG Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

ASC106 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

A0092 A0112 Near A740 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

TEAHIRNG Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

ASC107 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

A0093 

A0094 A0114 Near A745 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

PARHIRNG Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

 

A0095 A0115 Near A750 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

SEADISPL Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-15 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2A) for public school principals: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

A0096 A0116 Near A760 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

BRDDISPL Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

ASC108 Content Combines 

school district 

& governing 

board; rated 

on a 6-point 

scale 

A0097 A0117 Near A755 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

 ASC108 Content Combines 

school district 

& governing 

board; rated 

on a 6-point 

scale 

A0098 A0118 Near A765 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

PRNDISPL Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

ASC109 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

A0099 A0119 Near A770 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

TEADISPL Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

ASC110 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

A0100 

A0101 A0121 Near A775 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

PARDISPL Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

 

A0102 A0122 Near A780 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

 

A0103 A0123 Near A790 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0104 A0124 Near A785 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0105 A0125 Near A795 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0106 A0127 Near A800 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0107 

A0108 A0129 Near A810 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

 

A0115 A0172 Near 

A0116 

A0117 A0164 Exact 

A0118 A0165 Exact 

A0119 A0166 Exact 

A0120 A0167 Near 

A0121 A0168 Near 

A0122 A0169 Near 

A0123 A0170 Near 

A0124 A0171 Near 

A0125 A0154 Exact 

A0126 A0155 Exact 

A0127 A0156 Exact 

A0128 A0157 Exact 

A0129 A0158 Exact 

A0130 A0159 Exact 

A0131 A0160 Exact 

A0132 A0161 Exact 

A0133 A0162 Exact 

A0134 A0180 Near 

A0135 A0181 Near 

A0136 A0182 Near 
 U-16 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2A) for public school principals: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

A0137 A0183 Near 

A0138 A0184 Near 

A0139 A0185 Near 

A0140 

A0141 A0173 Exact 

A0142 

A0149 A0173 Near 

A0150 A0174 Near 

A0151 A0175 Near 

A0152 

A0153 

A0154 

A0155 A0177 Near 

A0156 A0178 Near 

A0157 A0179 Near 

A0158 

A0159 

A0160 A0221 Near 

A0161 A0222 Near 

A0162 A0223 Near 

A0163 A0224 Near 

A0164 A0207 Near 

A0165 

A0166 

A0167 A0210 Near 

A0168 A0211 Near 

A0169 A0212 Near 

A5169 A5212 Near 

A0170 A0214 Near 

A0171 A0215 Near 

A0172 A0217 Near 

A0173 A0220 Near 

A0174 A0218 Near 

A0175 A0219 Near 

A0176 

A0177 

A0185 

A0186 

A0187 

A0188 

A0189 

A0190 

A0191 

A0192 

A0193 

A0194 

A0195 

A0196 

A0197 

A0198 

A0199 

A0200 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-17 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2A) for public school principals: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

A0201 

A0202 

A0203 

A0204 A0134 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A580 Content 4-point 

rating scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC073 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC091 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A0205 A0135 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A585 Content 4-point 

rating scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC074 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC092 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A0206 A0136 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A590 Content 4-point 

rating scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC075 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC093 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A0207 A0138 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A600 Content 4-point 

rating scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC077 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC095 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A0208 A0139 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A605 Content 4-point 

rating scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC078 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC096 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A0209 A0140 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A610 Content 4-point 

rating scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC079 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC097 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A0210 

A0211 

A0212 

A0213 

A0214 

A0215 A0141 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A620 Content 4-point 

rating scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC080 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

 

A0216 

A0217 A0130 Near A560 Near ASC068 Near ASC087 Near 

A0218 A0131 Near A565 Near ASC069 Near ASC088 Near 

A0219 A0133 Near A575 Near ASC070 Near ASC090 Near 

A0220 A0132 Near A570 Near ASC067 Near ASC089 Near 

A0221 A0137 Near A595 Near ASC076 Near ASC094 Near 

A0222 A0142 Near A625 Near ASC071 Near 

A0223 A0143 Near A630 Near ASC072 Near 

A0224 A0144 Near A640 Near ASC084 Near 

A0225 A0145 Near A650 Near ASC086 Near 

A0226 A0146 Near A660 Near 

A0227 A0147 Near A670 Near 
 U-18 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2A) for public school principals: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

A0234 

A0235 

A0236 

A0237 

A0238 

A0239 

A0240 

A0241 

A0242 

A0243 

A0244 

A0245 

A0246 

A0247 

A0254 A0227 Exact A890 Exact ASC121 Exact ASC072 Exact 

A0255 A0230 Near A905 Exact ASC124 Exact ASC074 Exact 

A0256 A0228 Near A895 Exact ASC122 Exact ASC073 Exact 

A0257 A0228 Near A895 Exact ASC122 Exact ASC073 Exact 

A0258 A0228 Near A895 Exact ASC122 Exact ASC073 Exact 

A0259 A0228 Near A895 Exact ASC122 Exact ASC073 Exact 

A0260 A0228 Near A895 Exact ASC122 Exact ASC073 Exact 

A0261 A0229 Exact A900 Exact ASC123 Exact 

A0262 A0231 Exact A910 Exact ASC125 Exact ASC075 Exact 

A0263 A0226 Near A495 Near ASC055 Near ASC060 Near 

A0264 A0232 Exact A915 Near 

A0265 A0233 Near 

A0266 A0233 Near 

A0267 A0233 Near 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-19 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded school principals: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

A0025 A0053, 

A0054 

Content A0053 & A0054 show total 

years as principal at current & 

previous schools separately 

A325, A330 Content A325 & A330 show total 

years as principal at current & 

previous schools separately 

A0026 A0053 Near A325 Near 

A0027 A0055 Near A205 Near 

A0028 A0056 Exact A210 Near 

A0029 A0057 Near A220 Near 

A0030 A0058 Exact A230 Content Asked only of those who held 

a school position before 

becoming principal 

A0031 A0059 Exact A240 Content Asked only of those who held 

a school position before 

becoming principal 

A0032 A0060 Exact A250 Content Asked only of those who held 

a school position before 

becoming principal 

A0033 A0061 Exact A260 Content Asked only of those who held 

a school position before 

becoming principal 

A0034 A0062 Exact A270 Content Asked only of those who held 

a school position before 

becoming principal 

A0035 A0063 Exact A280 Content Asked only of those who held 

a school position before 

becoming principal 

A0036 A0064 Exact A290 Content Asked only of those who held 

a school position before 

becoming principal 

A0037 A0065 Exact A310 Exact 

A0038 A0066 Exact A315 Exact 

A0039 A0225 Exact A060–A0190 Content Asks a set a questions about 

degrees earned 

A0040 

A0041 

A0042 

A0043 

A0044 

A0045 

A0046 

A0047 

A0048 

A0049 

A0056 A0067 Near A875 Near 

A0057 A0068 Near A880 Near 

A0058 A0069 Near A885 Near 

A0059 

A0060 A0077 Near 

A0061 

A0062 A0079 Near 

A0063 A0081 Near 

A0064 A0080 Near 

A0065 A0083 Near 

A0066 
 U-20 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded school principals: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

A0067 A0085 Near A690 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0068 

A0069 A0087 Near A695 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0070 A0089 Near A700 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0071 A0088 Near A705 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0072 A0091 Near A715 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0073 

A0074 A0093 Near A825 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0075 

A0076 A0095 Near A830 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0077 A0097 Near Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0078 A0096 Near A835 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0079 A0100 Near A840 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0080 A0098 Near 

A0081 

A0082 A0102 Near A855 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0083 

A0084 A0104 Near A860 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0085 A0105 Near A865 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0086 

A0087 A0107 Near A870 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0088 

A0089 A0109 Near A730 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0090 

A0091 A0111 Near A735 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0092 A0112 Near A740 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0093 

A0094 A0114 Near A745 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0095 

A0096 A0116 Near A760 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0097 

A0098 A0118 Near A765 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0099 A0119 Near A770 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0100 

A0101 A0121 Near A775 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0102 

A0103 A0123 Near A790 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0104 

A0105 A0125 Near A795 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0106 A0127 Near A800 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0107 

A0108 A0129 Near A810 Content Rated on a 6-point scale 

A0115 A0172 Near 

A0116 

A0117 A0164 Exact 

A0118 A0165 Exact 

A0119 A0166 Exact 

A0120 A0167 Near 

A0121 A0168 Near 

A0122 A0169 Near 

A0123 A0170 Near 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-21 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded school principals: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

A0124 A0171 Near 

A0125 A0154 Exact 

A0126 A0155 Exact 

A0127 A0156 Exact 

A0128 A0157 Exact 

A0129 A0158 Exact 

A0130 A0159 Exact 

A0131 A0160 Exact 

A0132 A0161 Exact 

A0133 A0162 Exact 

A0134 A0180 Near 

A0135 A0181 Near 

A0136 A0182 Near 

A0137 A0183 Near 

A0138 A0184 Near 

A0139 A0185 Near 

A0140 

A0141 A0163 Exact 

A0142 

A0149 A0173 Near 

A0150 A0174 Near 

A0151 A0175 Near 

A0152 

A0153 

A0154 

A0155 A0177 Near 

A0156 A0178 Near 

A0157 A0179 Near 

A0158 

A0159 

A0160 A0221 Near 

A0161 A0222 Near 

A0162 A0223 Near 

A0163 A0224 Near 

A0164 

A0165 

A0166 

A0167 

A0168 

A0169 

A5169 

A0170 

A0171 

A0172 

A0173 

A0174 

A0175 

A0176 

A0177 

A0185 

A0186 
 U-22 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded school principals: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

A0187 

A0188 

A0189 

A0190 

A0191 

A0192 

A0193 

A0194 

A0195 

A0196 

A0197 

A0198 

A0199 

A0200 

A0201 

A0202 

A0203 

A0204 A0134 Content 4-point rating scale; question 

phrased differently 

A580 Content 4-point rating scale; question 

phrased differently 

A0205 A0135 Content 4-point rating scale; question 

phrased differently 

A585 Content 4-point rating scale; question 

phrased differently 

A0206 A0136 Content 4-point rating scale; question 

phrased differently 

A590 Content 4-point rating scale; question 

phrased differently 

A0207 A0138 Content 4-point rating scale; question 

phrased differently 

A600 Content 4-point rating scale; question 

phrased differently 

A0208 A0139 Content 4-point rating scale; question 

phrased differently 

A605 Content 4-point rating scale; question 

phrased differently 

A0209 A0140 Content 4-point rating scale; question 

phrased differently 

A610 Content 4-point rating scale; question 

phrased differently 

A0210 

A0211 

A0212 

A0213 

A0214 

A0215 A0141 Content 4-point rating scale; question 

phrased differently 

A620 Content 4-point rating scale; question 

phrased differently 

A0216 

A0217 A0130 Near A560 Near 

A0218 A0131 Near A565 Near 

A0219 A0133 Near A575 Near 

A0220 A0132 Near A570 Near 

A0221 A0137 Near A595 Near 

A0222 A0142 Near A625 Near 

A0223 A0143 Near A630 Near 

A0224 A0144 Near A640 Near 

A0225 A0145 Near A650 Near 

A0226 A0146 Near A660 Near 

A0227 A0147 Near A670 Near 

A0234 

A0235 

A0236 

A0237 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-23 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded school principals: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

A0238 

A0239 

A0240 

A0241 

A0242 

A0243 

A0244 

A0245 

A0246 

A0247 

A0254 A0227 Exact A890 Exact 

A0255 A0230 Near A905 Exact 

A0256 A0228 Near A895 Exact 

A0257 A0228 Near A895 Exact 

A0258 A0228 Near A895 Exact 

A0259 A0228 Near A895 Exact 

A0260 A0228 Near A895 Exact 

A0261 A0229 Exact A900 Exact 

A0262 A0231 Exact A910 Exact 

A0263 A0226 Near A495 Near 

A0264 A0232 Exact A915 Near 

A0265 A0233 Near 

A0266 A0233 Near 

A0267 A0233 Near 
 U-24 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

A0025 A0053, 

A0054 

Content A0053 & 

A0054 show 

total years as 

principal at 

current & 

previous 

schools 

separately 

A325, 

A330 

Content A325 & 

A330 show 

total years as 

principal at 

current & 

previous 

schools 

separately 

ASC044, 

ASC045 

Content ASC044 & 

ASC045 

show total 

years as 

principal at 

current & 

previous 

schools 

separately 

ASC051, 

ASC052 

Content ASC051 & 

ASC052 

show total 

years as 

principal at 

current & 

previous 

schools 

separately 

A0026 A0053 Near A325 Near ASC044 Near ASC051 Near 

A0027 A0055 Near A205 Near ASC030 Near ASC039 Near 

A0028 A0056 Exact A210 Near ASC031 Near 

A0029 A0057 Near A220 Near 

A0030 A0058 Exact A230 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC034 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC045 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

A0031 A0059 Exact A240 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC034 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC045 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

A0032 A0060 Exact A250 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC035 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC046 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

A0033 A0061 Exact A260 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC036 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC047 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

A0034 A0062 Exact A270 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

 

A0035 A0063 Exact A280 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC037 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC048 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-25 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

A0036 A0064 Exact A290 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC038 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

ASC049 Content Asked only 

of those who 

held a school 

position 

before 

becoming 

principal 

A0037 A0065 Exact A310 Exact ASPIRING Exact 

A0039 A0225 Exact A060–

A0190 

Content Asks a set a 

questions 

about 

degrees 

earned 

ASC012–

ASC027 

Content Asks a set a 

questions 

about degrees 

earned 

ASC012–

ASC030, 

ASC033 

Content Asks a set of 

questions 

about degrees 

earned 

A0040 

A0041 

A0042 

A0043 

A0044 

A0045 

A0046 

A0047 

A0048 

A0049 

A0056 A0067 Near A875 Near ASC115 Near 

A0057 A0068 Near A880 Near ASC116 Near 

A0058 A0069 Near A885 Near ASC117 Near 

A0060 A0077 Near 

A0062 A0079 Near 

A0063 A0081 Near 

A0064 A0080 Near 

A0065 A0083 Near 

A0067 A0085 Near A690 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

BRDCURRC Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

ASC102 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

A0069 A0087 Near A695 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

PRNCURRC Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

ASC103 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

A0070 A0089 Near A700 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

TEACURRC Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

ASC104 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

A0071 A0088 Near A705 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

 

A0072 A0091 Near A715 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

PARCURRC Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

 

A0074 A0093 Near A825 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

 

A0076 A0095 Near A830 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0077 A0097 Near A835 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0078 A0096 Near 

A0079 A0100 Near A840 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

 

A0080 A0098 Near 

A0082 A0102 Near A855 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

 
 U-26 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

A0084 A0104 Near A860 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

 

A0085 A0105 Near A865 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0086 

A0087 A0107 Near A870 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

 

A0089 A0109 Near A730 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

BRDHIRNG Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

ASC105 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

A0091 A0111 Near A735 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

PRNHIRNG Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

ASC106 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

A0092 A0112 Near A740 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

TEAHIRNG Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

ASC107 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

A0093 

A0094 A0114 Near A745 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

PARHIRNG Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

 

A0096 A0116 Near A760 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

BRDDISPL Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

ASC108 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

A0098 A0118 Near A765 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

PRNDISPL Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

ASC109 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

A0099 A0119 Near A770 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

TEADISPL Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

ASC110 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

A0100 

A0101 A0121 Near A775 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

PARDISPL Content Rated on a 

6-point scale 

 

A0103 A0123 Near A790 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

 

A0105 A0125 Near A795 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0106 A0127 Near A800 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

A0107 A0126 Near 

A0108 A0129 Near A810 Content Rated on a 

6-point scale

 

A0115 

A0116 

A0117 A0164 Exact 

A0118 A0165 Exact 

A0119 A0166 Exact 

A0120 A0167 Exact 

A0121 A0168 Exact 

A0122 A0169 Exact 

A0123 A0170 Exact 

A0124 A0171 Exact 

A0125 A0154 Exact 

A0127 A0156 Exact 

A0128 A0157 Exact 

A0129 A0158 Exact 

A0130 A0159 Exact 

A0131 A0160 Exact 

A0132 A0161 Exact 

A0133 A0162 Exact 

A0134 A0180 Near 

A0135 A0181 Near 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-27 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

A0136 A0182 Near 

A0137 A0183 Near 

A0138 A0184 Near 

A0139 A0185 Near 

A0140 

A0141 A0163 Exact 

A0142 

A0149 A0173 Near 

A0150 A0174 Near 

A0151 A0175 Near 

A0152 

A0153 

A0154 

A0155 A0177 

A0156 A0178 

A0157 A0179 

A0158 

A0159 

A0185 

A0186 

A0187 

A0188 

A0189 

A0190 

A0191 

A0192 

A0193 

A0194 

A0195 

A0196 

A0197 

A0198 

A0199 

A0200 

A0201 

A0202 

A0203 

A0204 A0134 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A580 Content 4-point 

rating scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC073 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC091 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A0205 A0135 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A585 Content 4-point 

rating scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC074 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC092 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A0206 A0136 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A590 Content 4-point 

rating scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC075 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC093 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 
 U-28 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

A0207 A0138 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A600 Content 4-point 

rating scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC077 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC095 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A0208 A0139 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A605 Content 4-point 

rating scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC078 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC096 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A0209 A0140 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A610 Content 4-point 

rating scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC079 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC097 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A0210 

A0211 

A0212 

A0213 

A0214 

A0215 A0141 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

A620 Content 4-point 

rating scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

ASC080 Content 4-point rating 

scale; 

question 

phrased 

differently 

 

A0216 

A0217 A0130 Near A560 Near ASC068 Near ASC087 Near 

A0218 A0131 Near A565 Near ASC069 Near ASC088 Near 

A0219 A0133 Near A575 Near ASC070 Near ASC090 Near 

A0220 A0132 Near A570 Near ASC067 Near ASC089 Near 

A0221 A0137 Near A595 Near ASC076 Near ASC094 Near 

A0222 A0142 Near A625 Near ASC071 Near 

A0223 A0143 Near A630 Near ASC072 Near 

A0224 A0144 Near A640 Near ASC084 Near 

A0225 A0145 Near A650 Near ASC086 Near 

A0226 A0146 Near A660 Near 

A0227 A0147 Near A670 Near 

A0234 

A0235 

A0236 

A0237 

A0238 

A0239 

A0240 

A0241 

A0242 

A0243 

A0244 

A0245 

A0246 

A0247 

A0254 A0227 Exact A890 Exact ASC121 Exact ASC072 Exact 

A0255 A0230 Near A905 Exact ASC124 Exact ASC074 Exact 

A0256 A0228 Near A895 Exact ASC122 Exact ASC073 Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-29 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Principal Questionnaire (SASS-2B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

A0257 A0228 Near A895 Exact ASC122 Exact ASC073 Exact 

A0258 A0228 Near A895 Exact ASC122 Exact ASC073 Exact 

A0259 A0228 Near A895 Exact ASC122 Exact ASC073 Exact 

A0260 A0228 Near A895 Exact ASC122 Exact ASC073 Exact 

A0261 A0229 Exact A900 Exact ASC123 Exact 

A0262 A0231 Exact A910 Exact ASC125 Exact ASC075 Exact 

A0263 A0226 Near A495 Near ASC055 Near ASC060 Near 

A0264 A0232 Exact A915 Near 

A0265 A0233 Near 

A0266 A0233 Near 

A0267 A0233 Near 
 U-30 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for public schools: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0400 S0060 Near S0125 Exact OFFERKG Exact SSC102 Exact 

S0401 S0066 Near S0135 Near OFFER1 Near SSC104 Near 

S0402 S0068 Near S0145 Near OFFER2 Near SSC106 Near 

S0403 S0070 Near S0155 Near OFFER3 Near SSC108 Near 

S0404 S0072 Near S0165 Near OFFER4 Near SSC110 Near 

S0405 S0074 Near S0175 Near OFFER5 Near SSC112 Near 

S0406 S0076 Near S0185 Near OFFER6 Near SSC114 Near 

S0407 S0078 Near S0195 Near OFFER7 Near SSC116 Near 

S0408 S0080 Near S0205 Near OFFER8 Near SSC118 Near 

S0409 S0082 Near S0215 Near OFFER9 Near SSC120 Near 

S0410 S0084 Near S0225 Near OFFER10 Near SSC122 Near 

S0411 S0086 Near S0235 Near OFFER11 Near SSC124 Near 

S0412 S0088 Near S0245 Near OFFER12 Near SSC126 Near 

S0413 S0090 Near S0115 Near OFFERUG Near SSC132 Near 

S0414 S0092 Near S0255 Near ENRK12UG Near 

S0415 S0093 Near 

S0416 S0095 Near S0455 Near PCTMALE Content Asks for 

percent instead

of number 

SSC016 Content Asks for percent 

instead of 

number 

S0417 S0096 Near S0415 Near HISPNSTU Near SSC054 Near 

S0418 S0097 Exact S0425 Near WHITESTU Near SSC056 Near 

S0419 S0098 Exact S0420 Near BLACKSTU Near SSC055 Near 

S0420 S0100 Near S0410 Near ASIANSTU Near SSC053 Near 

S0421 S0099 Near S0405 Near AMINDSTU Near SSC052 Near 

S0422 S0101 Exact 

S0423 S0107 Near 

S0424 S0102 Exact S0470 Exact NUMHOURS Exact SSC049 Content Refers to 

students in the 

highest grade 

S0425 S0103 Exact S0475 Exact NUMMNTE Exact SSC050 Content Refers to 

students in the 

highest grade 

S0426 

S0427 

S0428 

S0429 S0108 Near 

S0430 

S0431 S0109 Near 

S0432 

S0433 

S0434 

S0441 S0110 Near S0760 Near PGMTYPE Near SSC014 Content Response 

options differ 

S5441 S5110 

S0442 

S5442 

S0443 S0111 Exact 

S0444 S0112 Exact 

S0445 S0113 Exact 

S0446 S0114 Exact 

S0447 S0115 Exact S0700 Exact ADMITREQ Exact SSC099 Content Response 

options differ 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-31 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for public schools: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0448 S0116 Exact S0705 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

ADMITEST Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SSC091 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

S0449 S0117 Exact S0710 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

ACHVTEST Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SSC092 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

S0450 S0118 Exact S0715 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

RECORDS Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SSC093 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

S0451 S0119 Exact S0720 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SPECIAL Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SSC094 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

S0452 S0120 Exact S0725 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

TALENT Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SSC095 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

S0453 S0121 Exact S0730 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

INTRVIEW Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SSC096 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

S0454 S0122 Exact S0735 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

RECMNDS Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SSC097 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

S0455 S0135 Near 

S0456 

S0457 S0136 Near 

S0458 S0137 Near 

S0459 S0138 Near 

S0460 S0139 Near 

S0461 S0140 Near 

S0462 S0125 Near 

S0463 S0126 Near S1390 Content Does not 

specify that 

students need to 

be identified as 

gifted/talented 

GIFTDPGM Content Does not 

specify that 

students need 

to be 

identified as 

gifted/talented 

SSC072 Content Does not specify 

that students 

need to be 

identified as 

gifted/talented 

S0464 S0127 Near 

S0465 S0128 Near 

S0466 S0129 Near 

S0467 S0130 Near 

S0468 

S0469 

S0470 

S0471 

S0472 

S0473 

S0474 

S0475 S0132 Near 

S0476 S0133 Near S1435 Content Asks about 

programs inside 

& outside of 

regular school 

hours 

 
 U-32 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for public schools: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0477 S0134 Near S1400 Content Asks about 

programs inside 

& outside of 

regular school 

hours 

AFTERPGM Content Asks about 

programs 

inside & 

outside of 

regular school 

hours 

SSC078 Content Asks about 

programs inside 

& outside of 

regular school 

hours 

S0478 S0134 Near 

S0479 S0148 Near 

S0480 

S0481 S0149 Near 

S0482 

S0489 S0141 Near 

S0490 S0142 Near 

S0491 S0143 Near 

S0492 S0144 Near 

S0493 S0145 Near 

S0494 S0146 Near 

S0495 S0150 Near 

S0496 S0151 Near 

S0497 S0152 Exact 

S0498 S0155 Exact 

S0499 S0157 Near 

S0500 S0158 Near 

S0501 S0159 Near 

S0502 S0160 Near 

S0503 S0161 Exact S1820 Near 

S0504 S0164 Exact 

S0505 S0165 Near 

S0506 S0166 Near 

S0513 S0228 Near S0910 Near SSC157 Content Question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0514 S0227 Near S0850 Near Near SSC157 Content Question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0515 S0249 Near S0975 Near HISPNTCH Near SSC059 Near 

S0516 S0250 Exact S0985 Near WHITETCH Near SSC061 Near 

S0517 S0251 Exact S0980 Near BLACKTCH Near SSC060 Near 

S0518 S0253 Near S0970 Near ASIANTCH Near SSC058 Near 

S0519 S0252 Near S0965 Near AMINDTCH Near SSC057 Near 

S0520 S0254 Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-33 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for public schools: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0521 S0206 Near S0875 Near FTHEADS Near SSC156 Content Includes both 

principals & 

assistant 

principals; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90 & 93 

S0522 S0205 Near S0815 Near PTHEADS Near SSC156 Content Includes both 

principals & 

assistant 

principals; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90 & 93 

S0523 S0208 Near S0880 Near FTASSIST Near 

S0524 S0207 Near S0820 Near PTASSIST Near 

S0525 S0212 Near S0890 Near FTPROSTF Near SSC162 Content Question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0526 S0211 Near S0830 Near PTPROSTF Near SSC162 Content Question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0527 S0214 Near S0900 Near FTLIBRNS Near SSC161 Content Question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0528 S0213 Near S0840 Near PTLIBRNS Near SSC161 Content Question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0529 S0216 Near S0895 Near FTGUIDES, 

FTVTCOUN

Near SSC160 Content Question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 
 U-34 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for public schools: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0530 S0215 Near S0835 Near PTGUIDES, 

PTVTCOUN

Near SSC160 Content Question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0531 S0218 Near S0905 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0533 S0220 Near S0905 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0535 S0222 Near S0905 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0537 S0224 Near S0905 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0539 S0226 Near S0905 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-35 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for public schools: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0532 S0217 Near S0845 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0534 S0219 Near S0845 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0536 S0221 Near S0845 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0538 S0223 Near S0845 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0540 S0225 Near S0845 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0541 S0234 Near S0920 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

e staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 
 U-36 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for public schools: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0543 S0236 Near S0920 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0545 S0232 Content 99 shows 

general 

category 

“Special 

education 

aides,” while 

2003–04 

differentiates 

between 

“Special 

education 

instructional 

aides” & 

“Special 

education noninstructional 

aides” 

S0920 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0547 S0232 Content 99 shows 

general 

category 

“Special 

education 

aides,” while 

2003–04 

differentiates 

between 

“Special 

education 

instructional 

aides” & 

“Special 

education noninstructional 

aides” 

S0920 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-37 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for public schools: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0549 S0230 Content 99 shows 

general 

category 

“Library media 

center aides,” 

while 2003–04 

differentiates 

between 

“Library media 

center 

instructional 

aides” & 

“Library media 

center noninstructional 

aides” 

S0920 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0551 S0230 Content 99 shows 

general 

category 

“Library media 

center aides,” 

while 2003–04 

differentiates 

between 

“Library media 

center 

instructional 

aides” & 

“Library media 

center noninstructional 

aides” 

S0920 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0553 S0238 Content 99 shows 

category 

“Other teacher 

aides such as 

kindergarten 

aides,” while 

2003–04 shows 

“Other 

classroom 

instructional 

aides” 

S0920 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0555 S0240 Near S0920 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 
 U-38 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for public schools: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0542 S0233 Near S0860 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0544 S0235 Near S0860 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0546 S0231 Content 99 shows 

general 

category 

“Special 

education 

aides,” while 

2003–04 

differentiates 

between 

“Special 

education 

instructional 

aides” & 

“Special 

education noninstructional 

aides” 

S0860 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0548 S0231 Content 99 shows 

general 

category 

“Special 

education 

aides,” while 

2003–04 

differentiates 

between 

“Special 

education 

instructional 

aides” & 

“Special 

education noninstructional 

aides” 

S0860 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-39 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for public schools: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0550 S0229 Content 99 shows 

general 

category 

“Library media 

center aides,” 

while 2003–04 

differentiates 

between 

“Library media 

center 

instructional 

aides” & 

“Library media 

center noninstructional 

aides” 

S0860 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0552 S0229 Content 99 shows 

general 

category 

“Library media 

center aides,” 

while 2003–04 

differentiates 

between 

“Library media 

center 

instructional 

aides” & 

“Library media 

center noninstructional 

aides” 

S0860 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0554 S0237 Content 99 shows 

category 

“Other teacher 

aides such as 

kindergarten 

aides,” while 

2003–04 shows 

“Other 

classroom 

instructional 

aides” 

S0860 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0556 S0239 Near S0860 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 
 U-40 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for public schools: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0557 S0242 Near S0925 Near FTALLOTH Near SSC166 Content Question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0558 S0241 Near S0865 Near PTALLOTH Near SSC166 Content Question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0559 S0244 Near S0930 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTALLOTH Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC166 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0561 S0246 Near S0930 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTALLOTH Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC166 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0563 S0248 Near S0930 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTALLOTH Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC166 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0560 S0243 Near S0870 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTALLOTH Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC166 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0562 S0245 Near S0870 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTALLOTH Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC166 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-41 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for public schools: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0564 S0247 Near S0870 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTALLOTH Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC166 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks for 

full-time 

equivalents in 87 

& full-/part-time 

staff separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0565 

S0566 S0256 Near S1100 Near VACNCY Near 

S0567 S0265 Near S1150 Exact GENLVAC Exact 

S0568 S0266 Near S1155 Exact SPECLVAC Exact 

S0569 S0267 Near S1160 Exact ENGLVAC Exact 

S0570 S0268 Near 

S0571 S0269 Near 

S0572 S0270 Near S1165 Exact MATHVAC Exact 

S0573 S0271 Near S1175 Exact BIOSVAC Exact 

S0574 S0272 Near S1170 Exact PHYSVAC Exact 

S0575 S0273 Near S1180 Exact ESOLVAC Exact 

S0576 S0274 Near S1185 Exact FORGNVAC Exact 

S0577 S0275 Near S1190 Exact 

S0578 S0276 Near S1210, 

S1200 

Content Options not 

collapsed into 

one category 

 

S0579 S0257 Near S1105 Near 

S0580 S0258 Near S1110 Near LESSQUAL 

S0581 S0264 Near S1140 Near SUBTEACH 

S0582 S0259 Near S1115 Near CANCEL 

S0583 S0260 Near S1120 Near EXPANDSZ 

S0584 S0261 Near S1125 Near ADDSCTN 

S0585 S0262 Near S1130 Near REASSIGN 

S0586 S0263 Near S1135 Near 

S0593 S0277 Exact 

S0594 S0278 Exact 

S0595 

S0596 S0279 Near 

S0597 S0280 Near 

S5597 S5280 Near 

S0604 S0315 Near 

S0605 

S0606 S0316 Near 

S0607 S0317 Near 

S0608 S0318 Near 

S0609 S0319 Near 

S0610 S0320 Exact S1290 Near 

S0611 S0321 Exact S1295 Content Asks for 

number 

identified as 

limited-English 

proficient 

around 10/1 

 
 U-42 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for public schools: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0612 S0322 Exact S1300 Content Asks if school 

uses 

“recommendation by parent” 

 

S0613 S0323 Exact S1305 Near 

S0614 S0324 Exact S1310 Near 

S0615 S0325 Exact S1320 Content Specifies 

interview in 

student’s native 

language 

 

S0616 S0326 Exact S1325 Near 

S0617 S0327 Exact S1330 Near 

S0618 S0328 Exact S1315 Content Specifies 

written 

language test 

 

S0619 S0329 Exact 

S0620 S0330 Near S1335 Content Asked of all 

respondents 

Specifies 

program is 

designed to 

teach English 

 

S0621 S0332 Near 

S0622 S0333 Exact S1345 Content Combines three 

questions 

 

S0623 S0334 Exact S1345 Content Combines three 

questions 

S0624 S0335 Exact S1345 Content Combines three 

questions 

S0625 

S0626 

S0627 S0339 Exact 

S0628 S0340 Exact 

S0629 S0341 Exact 

S0630 

S0631 

S0632 S0285 Near S1645 Exact NOLUNCH Exact SSC087 Exact 

S0633 S0286 Near S1655 Exact Exact SSC085 Content Asks how many 

students are 

eligible 

S0634 S0287 Near S1660 Exact Exact SSC085 Content Asks how many 

students are 

eligible 

S0635 S0288 Exact S1600 Near CHPTRONE Near SSC081 Near 

S0636, 

S0637 

S0290 Content Combines 

prekindergarten

& all other 

students into 

one category 

S1605, 

S1610 

Near ONESVPK, 

ONESVK12 

Near SSC083 Near 

S0638 S0291 Exact 

S0639 S0292 Exact 

S0640 S0293 Exact 

S0641 S0294 Exact 

S0642 S0295 Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-43 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for public schools: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0643 S0296 Exact 

S0644 S0297 Exact 

S0645 S0298 Exact 

S0646 S0299 Exact 

S0647 S0300 Exact 

S0648 S0301 Exact 

S0649 S0302 Exact 

S0650 S0303 Exact 

S0651 S0304 Exact 

S0652 S0305 Exact 

S0653 S0306 Exact 

S0654 S0307 Exact 

S0655 S0308 Exact 

S0656 S0309 Exact S1625 Near ONETEACH Near 

S0661 

S0662 

S0663 

S5663 

S0664 

S0665 

S0666 

S0667 

S5667 

S9001 S9001 Near 

S9002 S9002 Near 

S9003 S9003 Near 

S0668 S0349 Exact S2355, 

S2360 

Content Hours & 

minutes 

reported 

separately 

 

S0669 S0350 Near S2365 Near Year reported as 

two digits 

 

S0670 S0350 Near S2365 Near Year reported as 

two digits 

S0671 S0350 Near S2365 Near Year reported as 

two digits 
 U-44 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Unified School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments Variable name Match Comments 

S0063 

S0077 

S0078 S0477 Exact S1225 Near 

S0079 S0479 Exact S1230 Exact 

S0080 S0480 Exact S1235 Exact 

S0081 S0481 Exact S1240 Exact 

S0082 S0482 Near S1245 Near 

S0083 S0483 Near S1250 Near 

S0084 S0484 Near S1255 Near 

S0085 S0485 Near S1260 Content Does not use term Praxis, 

only core battery test 

S0086 S0486 Near S1265 Content Does not use term Praxis, 

only core battery test 

S0087 

S0088 

S0089 

S0090 

S0091 

S0092 

S0093 

S0095 

S0103 

S0104 

S0105 

S0106 

S0107 

S0113 S0500 Exact S2095 Near 

S0114 S0501 Exact S2100 Exact 

S0115 S0502 Exact 

S0116 

S0117 S0503 Exact S2105 Exact 

S0118 

S0119 S0505 Near S2115 Exact 

S0120 

S0121 S0506 Exact S2120 Exact 

S0122 S0507 Near S2125 Near 

S0123 S0508 Near S2130 Near 

S0124 S0517 Near 

S0125 S0518 Near 

S0126 S0519 Near 

S0127 

S0128 

S0129 S0520 Near 

S0130 S0521 Near 

S0131 S0522 Near 

S0152 

S0153 

S0154 

S0155 

S0156 

S0157 

S0158 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-45 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Unified School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments Variable name Match Comments 

S0159 

S0160 

S0161 

S0162 

S0163 

S0164 

S0165 

S0166 

S0167 

S0168 

S0169 

S0170 

S0171 

S0172 

S0173 

S0174 

S0175 

S0176 

S0177 

S0178 

S0179 

S0180 

S0181 

S0182 

S0183 

S0184 

S0185 

S0186 

S0187 

S0188 

S0189 

S0190 

S0191 

S0192 

S0193 

S0194 

S0195 

S0196 

S0197 

S0198 

S0199 

S0200 

S0201 

S0202 

S0203 

S0204 

S0205 

S0206 

S0207 

S0208 

S0209 

S0210 
 U-46 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Unified School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments Variable name Match Comments 

S0211 

S0212 

S0213 

S0214 

S0215 

S0216 

S0217 

S0218 

S0219 

S0220 

S0221 

S0222 

S0223 

S0224 

S0225 

S0226 

S0227 

S0228 

S0229 

S0230 

S0231 

S0232 

S0233 

S0248 

S0257 

S0258 

S0259 

S0260 

S0261 

S0262 

S0263 

S0264 

S0265 

S0266 

S0267 

S0268 

S0269 

S0270 

S0276 S0574 Exact S1760 Near 

S0277 S0575 Near S1765 Near 

S0278 S0576 Near S1770 Near 

S0279 S0577 Near S1775 Near 

S0280 S0578 Near S1780 Near 

S0281 S0579 Near S1785 Near 

S0282 S0580 Near S1790 Near 

S0283 S0583 Near S1795 Near 

S0284 S0584 Exact S1800 Exact 

S0285 S0585 Exact S1805 Near 

S0286 S0586 Near S1810 Near 

S0304 S0599 Exact 

S0305 S0600 Near 

S0306 S0601 Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-47 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Unified School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments Variable name Match Comments 

S0308 S0603 Exact 

S0309 S0604 Exact 

S0310 S0605 Exact 

S0311 S0606 Exact 

S0312 S0607 Exact 

S0313 S0609 Exact 

S0314 S0610 Exact 

S0315 S0611 Exact S1815 Near 

S0316 S0612 Exact 

S0317 S0613 Exact 

S0319 S0615 Exact S2210 Content Specifies pay incentives as 

cash bonuses, different step 

on salary scale, or other 

salary increase; asks about 

organization school is 

affiliated with, as well as 

school 

S0320 S0616 Exact 

S0321 S0617 Exact S2230 Content Options are mark all that 

apply 

S0322 S0618 Exact 

S0323 S0619 Exact 

S0324 S0620 Exact S2240 Options are mark all that 

apply 

S0325 S0621 Exact S2235 Options are mark all that 

apply 

S0326 S0622 Exact S2245 Options are mark all that 

apply 

S0327 S0623 Exact S2250 Options are mark all that 

apply 

S0328 S0624 Exact S2255 Options are mark all that 

apply 

S0329 S0625 Exact S2260 Options are mark all that 

apply 

S0330 S0626 Exact 

S0331 S0627 Exact S2265 Options are mark all that 

apply 

S0332 

S0333 

S0334 

S0335 

S0336 

S0337 

S0338 

S0339 

S0340 

S0341 

S0342 

S0343 

S0344 

S0400 S0060 Near S0125 Exact 

S0401 S0066 Near S0135 Near 

S0402 S0068 Near S0145 Near 
 U-48 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Unified School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments Variable name Match Comments 

S0403 S0070 Near S0155 Near 

S0404 S0072 Near S0165 Near 

S0405 S0074 Near S0175 Near 

S0406 S0076 Near S0185 Near 

S0407 S0078 Near S0195 Near 

S0408 S0080 Near S0205 Near 

S0409 S0082 Near S0215 Near 

S0410 S0084 Near S0225 Near 

S0411 S0086 Near S0235 Near 

S0412 S0088 Near S0245 Near 

S0413 S0090 Near S0115 Near 

S0414 S0092 Near S0255 Near 

S0415 S0093 Near 

S0416 S0095 Near S0455 Near 

S0417 S0096 Near S0415 Near 

S0418 S0097 Exact S0425 Near 

S0419 S0098 Exact S0420 Near 

S0420 S0100 Near S0410 Near 

S0421 S0099 Near S0405 Near 

S0422 S0101 Exact 

S0423 S0107 Near 

S0424 S0102 Exact S0470 Exact 

S0425 S0103 Exact S0475 Exact 

S0426 

S0427 

S0428 

S0429 S0108 Near 

S0430 

S0431 S0109 Near 

S0432 

S0433 

S0434 

S0441 S0110 Near S0760 Near 

S5441 S5110 

S0442 

S5442 

S0443 S0111 Exact 

S0444 

S0445 

S0446 

S0447 S0115 Exact S0700 Exact 

S0448 S0116 Exact S0705 Content Options are mark all that 

apply 

S0449 S0117 Exact S0710 Content Options are mark all that 

apply 

S0450 S0118 Exact S0715 Content Options are mark all that 

apply 

S0451 S0119 Exact S0720 Content Options are mark all that 

apply 

S0452 S0120 Exact S0725 Content Options are mark all that 

apply 

S0453 S0121 Exact S0730 Content Options are mark all that 

apply 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-49 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Unified School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments Variable name Match Comments 

S0454 S0122 Exact S0735 Content Options are mark all that 

apply 

S0455 S0793 Near 

S0457 S0136 Exact 

S0458 S0137 Exact 

S0459 S0138 Exact 

S0460 S0139 Exact 

S0461 S0140 Exact 

S0462 S0125 Exact 

S0463 S0126 Near S1390 Content Does not specify that 

students need to be 

identified as gifted/talented

S0464 S0127 Near 

S0465 S0128 Near 

S0466 S0129 Near 

S0467 S0130 Near 

S0468 

S0469 

S0470 S0700 S1445 Exact 

S0471 S0701 S1450 Exact 

S0472 S0702 S1455 Exact 

S0473 S0703 S1460 Exact 

S0474 S0704 S1465 Exact 

S0475 S0132 Near 

S0476 S0133 Near S1435 Content Asks about programs inside 

& outside of regular school 

hours 

S0477 S0134 Near S1400 Content Asks about programs inside 

& outside of regular school 

hours 

S0478 

S0479 S0148 Near 

S0480 

S0481 S0149 Near 

S0482 

S0489 S0141 Near 

S0490 S0142 Near 

S0491 S0143 Near 

S0492 S0144 Near 

S0493 S0145 Near 

S0494 

S0495 

S0496 

S0497 

S0498 S0155 Exact 

S0499 S0157 Near 

S0500 S0158 Near 

S0501 S0159 Near 

S0502 S0160 Near 

S0503 S0161 Exact S1820 Near 

S0504 S0164 Exact 

S0505 S0165 Near 

S0506 S0166 Near 
 U-50 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Unified School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments Variable name Match Comments 

S0513 S0228 Near S0910 Near 

S0514 S0227 Near S0850 Near 

S0515 S0249 Near S0975 Near 

S0516 S0250 Exact S0985 Near 

S0517 S0251 Exact S0980 Near 

S0518 S0253 Near S0970 Near 

S0519 S0252 Near S0965 Near 

S0520 S0254 Exact 

 S0521 S0206 Near S0875 Near 

S0522 S0205 Near S0815 Near 

S0523 S0208 Near S0880 Near 

S0524 S0207 Near S0820 Near 

S0525 S0212 Near S0890 Near 

S0526 S0211 Near S0830 Near 

S0527 S0214 Near S0900 Near 

S0528 S0213 Near S0840 Near 

S0529 S0216 Near S0895 Near 

S0530 S0215 Near S0835 Near 

S0531 S0218 Near S0905 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0533 S0220 Near S0905 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0535 S0222 Near S0905 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0537 S0224 Near S0905 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0539 S0226 Near S0905 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0532 S0217 Near S0845 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0534 S0219 Near S0845 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0536 S0221 Near S0845 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0538 S0223 Near S0845 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0540 S0225 Near S0845 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0541 S0234 Near S0920 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0543 S0236 Near S0920 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0545 S0232 Content 99 shows general 

category “Special 

education aides,” while 

2003–04 differentiates 

between “Special 

education instructional 

aides” & “Special 

education noninstructional aides” 

S0920 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-51 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Unified School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments Variable name Match Comments 

S0547 S0232 Content 99 shows general 

category “Special 

education aides,” while 

2003–04 differentiates 

between “Special 

education instructional 

aides” & “Special 

education noninstructional aides” 

S0920 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0549 S0230 Content 99 shows general 

category “Library media 

center aides,” while 

2003–04 differentiates 

between “Library media 

center instructional 

aides” & “Library 

media center noninstructional aides” 

S0920 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0551 S0230 Content 99 shows general 

category “Library media 

center aides,” while 

2003–04 differentiates 

between “Library media 

center instructional 

aides” & “Library 

media center noninstructional aides” 

S0920 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0553 S0238 Content 99 shows category 

“Other teacher aides 

such as kindergarten 

aides,” while 2003–04 

shows “Other classroom 

instructional aides” 

S0920 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0555 S0240 Near S0920 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0542 S0233 Near S0860 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0544 S0235 Near S0860 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0546 S0231 Content 99 shows general 

category “Special 

education aides,” while 

2003–04 differentiates 

between “Special 

education instructional 

aides” & “Special 

education noninstructional aides” 

S0860 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0548 S0231 Content 99 shows general 

category “Special 

education aides,” while 

2003–04 differentiates 

between “Special 

education instructional 

aides” & “Special 

education noninstructional aides” 

S0860 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 
 U-52 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Unified School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments Variable name Match Comments 

S0550 S0229 Content 99 shows general 

category “Library media 

center aides,” while 

2003–04 differentiates 

between “Library media 

center instructional 

aides” & “Library 

media center noninstructional aides” 

S0860 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0552 S0229 Content 99 shows general 

category “Library media 

center aides,” while 

2003–04 differentiates 

between “Library media 

center instructional 

aides” & “Library 

media center noninstructional aides” 

S0860 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0554 S0237 Content 99 shows category 

“Other teacher aides 

such as kindergarten 

aides,” while 2003–04 

shows “Other classroom 

instructional aides” 

S0860 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0556 S0239 Near S0860 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0557 S0242 Near S0925 Near 

S0558 S0241 Near S0865 Near 

S0559 S0244 Near S0930 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0561 S0246 Near S0930 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0563 S0248 Near S0930 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0560 S0243 Near S0870 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0562 S0245 Near S0870 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0564 S0247 Near S0870 Content Options collapsed into one 

category 

S0565 

S0566 S0256 Near S1100 Near 

S0567 S0265 Near S1150 Exact 

S0568 S0266 Near S1155 Exact 

S0569 S0267 Near S1160 Exact 

S0570 S0268 Near 

S0571 S0269 Near 

S0572 S0270 Near S1165 Exact 

S0573 S0271 Near S1175 Exact 

S0574 S0272 Near S1170 Exact 

S0575 S0273 Near S1180 Exact 

S0576 S0274 Near S1185 Exact 

S0577 S0275 Near S1190 Exact 

S0578 S0276 Near S1210, S1200 Content Options not collapsed into 

one category 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-53 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Unified School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments Variable name Match Comments 

S0579 S0257 Near S1105 Near 

S0580 S0258 Near S1110 Near 

S0581 S0264 Near S1140 Near 

S0582 S0259 Near S1115 Near 

S0583 S0260 Near S1120 Near 

S0584 S0261 Near S1125 Near 

S0585 S0262 Near S1130 Near 

S0586 S0263 Near S1135 Near 

S0593 S0277 Exact 

S0594 S0278 Exact 

S0595 

S0596 S0279 Near 

S0597 S0280 Near 

S5597 S5280 Near 

S0604 S0315 Near 

S0605 

S0606 S0316 Near 

S0607 S0317 Near 

S0608 S0318 Near 

S0609 S0319 Near 

S0610 S0320 Exact S1290 Near 

S0611 S0321 Exact S1295 Content Asks for number identified 

as limited-English 

proficient around 10/1 

S0612 S0322 Exact S1300 Content Asks if school uses 

“recommendation by 

parent” 

S0613 S0323 Exact S1305 Near 

S0614 S0324 Exact S1310 Near 

S0615 S0325 Exact S1320 Content Specifies interview in 

student’s native language 

S0616 S0326 Exact S1325 Near 

S0617 S0327 Exact S1330 Near 

S0618 S0328 Exact S1315 Content Specifies written language 

test 

S0619 S0329 Exact 

S0620 S0330 Near S1335 Content Asked of all respondents; 

specifies program is 

designed to teach English 

S0621 S0332 Near 

S0622, S0623, 

S0624 

S0333, S0334, 

S0335 

Exact S1345 Content Combines three questions 

S0625 

S0626 

S0627 S0339 Exact 

S0628 S0340 Exact 

S0629 S0341 Exact 

S0630 

S0631 

S0632 S0285 Near S1645 Exact 

S0633 S0286 Near S1655 Exact 

S0634 S0287 Near S1660 Exact 

 S0288 Exact S1600 Near 
 U-54 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Unified School Questionnaire (SASS-3A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments Variable name Match Comments 

S0636, S0637 S0290 Content Combines 

prekindergarten & all 

other students into one 

category 

S1605, S1610 Near 

S0638 S0291 Exact 

S0639 S0292 Exact 

S0640 S0293 Exact 

S0641 S0294 Exact 

S0642 S0295 Exact 

S0643 S0296 Exact 

S0644 S0297 Exact 

S0645 S0298 Exact 

S0646 S0299 Exact 

S0647 S0300 Exact 

S0648 S0301 Exact 

S0649 S0302 Exact 

S0650 S0303 Exact 

S0651 S0304 Exact 

S0652 S0305 Exact 

S0653 S0306 Exact 

S0654 S0307 Exact 

S0655 S0308 Exact 

S0656 S0309 Exact S1625 Near 

S0661 

S0662 

S0663 

S5663 

S0664 

S0665 

S0666 

S0667 

S5667 

S9001 

S9002 

S9003 

S0668 S0349 Exact S2355, S2360 Content Hours & minutes reported 

separately 

S0669 S0350 S2365 Content Year reported as two digits

S0670 S0350 S2365 Content Year reported as two digits

S0671 S0350 S2365 Content Year reported as two digits

S0950 S0124 Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-55 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0700 S0090 Near S0115 Near OFFERUG Near SSC132 Near 

S0701 S0091 Near S0120 Near NUMBRUG Near SSC133 Near 

S0702 S0058 Near 

S0703 S0059 Near 

S0704 S0060 Near S0125 Exact OFFERKG Exact SSC102 Exact 

S0705 S0061 Near S0130 Exact NUMBRKG Exact SSC103 Exact 

S0706 S0062 Near 

S0707 S0063 Near 

S0708 S0064 Near 

S0709 S0065 Near 

S0710 S0066 Near S0135 Near OFFER1 Near SSC104 Near 

S0711 S0067 Near S0140 Near NUMBR1 Near SSC105 Near 

S0712 S0068 Near S0145 Near OFFER2 Near SSC106 Near 

S0713 S0069 Near S0150 Near NUMBR2 Near SSC107 Near 

S0714 S0070 Near S0155 Near OFFER3 Near SSC108 Near 

S0715 S0071 Near S0160 Near NUMBR3 Near SSC109 Near 

S0716 S0072 Near S0165 Near OFFER4 Near SSC110 Near 

S0717 S0073 Near S0170 Near NUMBR4 Near SSC111 Near 

S0718 S0074 Near S0175 Near OFFER5 Near SSC112 Near 

S0719 S0075 Near S0180 Near NUMBR5 Near SSC113 Near 

S0720 S0076 Near S0185 Near OFFER6 Near SSC114 Near 

S0721 S0077 Near S0190 Near NUMBR6 Near SSC115 Near 

S0722 S0078 Near S0195 Near OFFER7 Near SSC116 Near 

S0723 S0079 Near S0200 Near NUMBR7 Near SSC117 Near 

S0724 S0080 Near S0205 Near OFFER8 Near SSC118 Near 

S0725 S0081 Near S0210 Near NUMBR8 Near SSC119 Near 

S0726 S0082 Near S0215 Near OFFER9 Near SSC120 Near 

S0727 S0083 Near S0220 Near NUMBR9 Near SSC121 Near 

S0728 S0084 Near S0225 Near OFFER10 Near SSC122 Near 

S0729 S0085 Near S0230 Near NUMBR10 Near SSC123 Near 

S0730 S0086 Near S0235 Near OFFER11 Near SSC124 Near 

S0731 S0087 Near S0240 Near NUMBR11 Near SSC125 Near 

S0732 S0088 Near S0245 Near OFFER12 Near SSC126 Near 

S0733 S0089 Near S0250 Near NUMBR12 Near SSC127 Near 

S0734 S0900 Near 

S0735 S0901 Exact S0450 Exact COEDSCHL Exact SSC015 Exact 

S0416 S0095 Near S0455 Near PCTMALE Content Question asks 

for percent 

instead of 

number 

SSC016 Content Question asks 

for percent 

instead of 

number 

S0417 S0096 Near S0415 Near HISPNSTU Near SSC054 Near 

S0418 S0097 Exact S0425 Near WHITESTU Near SSC056 Near 

S0419 S0098 Exact S0420 Near BLACKSTU Near SSC055 Near 

S0420 S0100 Near S0410 Near ASIANSTU Near SSC053 Near 

S0421 S0099 Near S0405 Near AMINDSTU Near SSC052 Near 

S0422 S0101 Exact 

S0423 S0107 Near 

S0424 S0102 Exact S0470 Exact NUMHOURS Exact SSC049 Content Refers to 

students in the 

highest grade 

S0425 S0103 Exact S0475 Exact NUMMNTE Exact SSC050 Content Refers to 

students in the 

highest grade 
 U-56 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0063 S0470 Exact S0465 Exact NUMDAYS Exact SSC048 Content Refers to 

students in the 

highest grade 

S0426 

S0427 S0903 Near 

S0428 S0904 Near 

S0429 S0108 Near 

S0430 

S0431 S0109 Near 

S0432 

S0433 

S0434 S0798 Exact S1440 Near OWNLIBRY Near 

S0441 S0110 Near S0760 Near PGMTYPE Near SSC014 Content Response 

options differ 

S5441 S5110 Exact 

S0736 S0905 Exact S0765 Content Asked only of 

alternative 

schools 

 

S0737 S0906 Exact S0775 Exact FAMLYRES Exact SSC019 Exact 

S0738 S0907 Exact S0485 Near AFFILPUR Near SSC020* Content Combines 

orientation, 

purpose, or 

affiliation; & 

religious 

denomination 

S0739 S0908 Exact S0490 Near RELIGDEN Near SSC020* Content Combines 

orientation, 

purpose, or 

affiliation; & 

religious 

denomination 

S0740 S0909 Exact S0495 Near AFFILIAT Near SSC021* Content Response 

options differ 

S0741 S0910 Near S0500 Near CATHTYPE Near SSC022 Near 

S5740 S5909 Exact 

S0742 S0911 Exact 

S0743 S0912 Exact S0505 Near ACE Near SSC023 Near 

S0744 S0913 Exact S0520 Near AACS Near SSC024 Near 

S0745 S0914 Exact S0535 Near ACSI Near SSC026 Near 

S0746 S0915 Exact 

S0747 S0916 Exact S0560 Near CSI Near SSC029 Near 

S0748 S0917 Exact S0580 Near 

S0749 S0918 Exact 

S0750 S0919 Exact S0605 Near FRIENDS Near SSC031 Near 

S0751 S0920 Exact S0610 Near SVNTHDAY Near SSC032 Near 

S0752 

S0753 S0921 Exact S0645 Near JESUITS Near SSC033 Near 

S0754 S0922 Exact S0615 Near EPISCPLS Near SSC035 Near 

S0755 S0923 Exact S0640 Near NCEA Near SSC038 Near 

S0756 S0924 Exact 

S0757 S0925 Exact S0660 Near HBREWDAY Near SSC043 Near 

S0758 S0926 Exact S0675 Near ORALRBTS Near SSC044 Near 

S0759 S0927 Exact S0665 Near SCHECHTR Near SSC045 Near 

S0760 S0928 Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-57 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0761 S0929 Exact 

S5761 S5929 Exact 

S0762 S0930 Exact S0525 Near AMONTSRI Near SSC025 Near 

S0763 S0931 Exact S0530 Near OTHMTSRI Near 

S0764 S0932 Exact S0540 Near MLTRYSCH Near SSC027 Near 

S0765 S0933 Exact 

S0766 S0934 Exact S0545 Near BILNGSCH Near 

S0767 S0935 Exact S0550 Near CBE Near 

S0768 S0936 Exact S0565 Near CEC Near 

S0769 S0937 Exact S0570 Near NAPEC Near SSC037 Near 

S0770 S0938 Exact S0575 Near OTHXPCHL Near 

S0771 S0939 Exact S0595 Near ECIS Near 

S0772 S0940 Exact 

S0773 S0941 Exact 

S0774 S0942 Exact S0635 Near LABSCHLS Near 

S0775 S0943 Exact 

S0776 S0944 Exact 

S5776 S5944 Exact 

S0777 S0945 Exact S0510 Near ASN Near 

S0778 S0946 Exact 

S0779 S0947 Exact S0620 Near NAIS Near SSC036 Near 

S0780 S0948 Exact 

S0781 S0949 Exact S0515 Near NCACS Near SSC040 Near 

S0782 S0950 Exact S0625 Near NIPSA Near SSC042 Near 

S0783 S0951 Exact 

S0784 S0952 Exact 

S5784 S5952 Exact 

S0785 S0953 Exact 

S0786 S0954 Exact 

S0787 S0955 Exact 

S0788 S0956 Exact 

S0789 S0957 Exact 

S0790 S0958 Exact 

S5790 S5958 Exact 

S0513 S0228 Exact S0935 Near FULTEACH Near SSC174 Content 

S0791 S0959 Exact S0940 Near 

S0792 S0960 Exact S0945 Near 

S0793 S0961 Exact S0950 Near 

S0794 S0962 Exact S0955 Near 

S0795 S0963 Exact S0960 Near TOTTEACH Near 

S0515 S0249 Near S0975 Near HISPNTCH Near SSC059 Near 

S0516 S0250 Exact S0985 Near WHITETCH Near SSC061 Near 

S0517 S0251 Exact S0980 Near BLACKTCH Near SSC060 Near 

S0518 S0253 Near S0970 Near ASIANTCH Near SSC058 Near 

S0519 S0252 Near S0965 Near AMINDTCH Near SSC057 Near 

S0520 S0254 Exact 
 U-58 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0521 S0206 Near S0875 Near FTHEADS Near SSC156 Near Includes both 

principals & 

assistant 

principals; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime separately 

in 90, 93, & 99 

S0522 S0205 Near S0815 Near PTHEADS Near SSC156 Near Includes both 

principals & 

assistant 

principals; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0523 S0208 Near S0880 Near FTASSIST Near 

S0524 S0207 Near S0820 Near PTASSIST Near 

S0796 S0210 Near S0885 Near 

S0797 S0209 Near S0825 Near 

S0525 S0212 Near S0890 Near FTPROSTF Near SSC162 Content Question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0526 S0211 Near S0830 Near PTPROSTF Near SSC162 Content Question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0527 S0214 Near S0900 Near FTLIBRNS Near SSC161 Content Question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0528 S0213 Near S0840 Near PTLIBRNS Near SSC161 Content Question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-59 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0529 S0216 Near S0895 Near FTGUIDES, 

FTVTCOUN 

Near SSC160 Content Question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0530 S0215 Near S0835 Near PTGUIDES, 

PTVTCOUN 

Near SSC160 Content Question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0531 S0218 Near S0905 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0533 S0220 Near S0905 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0535 S0222 Near S0905 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0537 S0224 Near S0905 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 
 U-60 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0539 S0226 Near S0905 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0532 S0217 Near S0845 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0534 S0219 Near S0845 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0536 S0221 Near S0845 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0538 S0223 Near S0845 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-61 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0540 S0225 Near S0845 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTPROSTF Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC162 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0541 S0234 Near S0920 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0543 S0236 Near S0920 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime e staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0545 S0232 Content 99 shows 

general 

category 

“Special 

education 

aides,” while 

2003–04 

differentiates 

between 

“Special 

education 

instructional 

aides” & 

“Special 

education noninstructional 

aides” 

S0920 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 
 U-62 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0547 S0232 Content 99 shows 

general 

category 

“Special 

education 

aides,” while 

2003–04 

differentiates 

between 

“Special 

education 

instructional 

aides” & 

“Special 

education noninstructional 

aides” 

S0920 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0549 S0230 Content 99 shows 

general 

category 

“Library 

media center 

aides,” while 

2003–04 

differentiates 

between 

“Library 

media center 

instructional 

aides” & 

“Library 

media center 

noninstructional 

aides” 

S0920 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0551 S0230 Content 99 shows 

general 

category 

“Library 

media center 

aides,” while 

2003–04 

differentiates 

between 

“Library 

media center 

instructional 

aides” & 

“Library 

media center 

noninstructional 

aides” 

S0920 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-63 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0553 S0238 Content 99 shows 

category 

“Other teacher 

aides such as 

kindergarten 

aides,” while 

2003–04 

shows “Other 

classroom 

instructional 

aides” 

S0920 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0555 S0240 Near S0920 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0542 S0233 Near S0860 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0544 S0235 Near S0860 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 
 U-64 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0546 S0231 Content 99 shows 

general 

category 

“Special 

education 

aides,” while 

2003–04 

differentiates 

between 

“Special 

education 

instructional 

aides” & 

“Special 

education noninstructional 

aides” 

S0860 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0548 S0231 Content 99 shows 

general 

category 

“Special 

education 

aides,” while 

2003–04 

differentiates 

between 

“Special 

education 

instructional 

aides” & 

“Special 

education noninstructional 

aides” 

S0860 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0550 S0229 Content 99 shows 

general 

category 

“Library 

media center 

aides,” while 

2003–04 

differentiates 

between 

“Library 

media center 

instructional 

aides” & 

“Library 

media center 

noninstructional 

aides” 

S0860 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-65 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0552 S0229 Content 99 shows 

general 

category 

“Library 

media center 

aides,” while 

2003–04 

differentiates 

between 

“Library 

media center 

instructional 

aides” & 

“Library 

media center 

noninstructional 

aides” 

S0860 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0554 S0237 Content 99 shows 

category 

“Other teacher 

aides such as 

kindergarten 

aides,” while 

2003–04 

shows “Other 

classroom 

instructional 

aides” 

S0860 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0556 S0239 Near S0860 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTAIDES Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC165 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0557 S0242 Near S0925 Near FTALLOTH Near SSC166 Content Question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0558 S0241 Near S0865 Near PTALLOTH Near SSC166 Content Question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 
 U-66 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0559 S0244 Near S0930 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTALLOTH Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC166 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0561 S0246 Near S0930 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTALLOTH Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC166 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0563 S0248 Near S0930 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

FTALLOTH Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC166 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0560 S0243 Near S0870 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTALLOTH Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC166 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0562 S0245 Near S0870 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTALLOTH Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC166 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-67 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0564 S0247 Near S0870 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

PTALLOTH Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category 

SSC166 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one category; 

question asks 

for full-time 

equivalents in 

87 & full-/parttime staff 

separately in 90, 

93, & 99 

S0565 

S0276 S0574 Exact S1760 Near 

S0277 S0575 Near S1765 Near YRSENGL Near 

S0278 S0576 Near S1770 Near YRSMATH Near 

S0279 S0577 Near S1775 Near YRSCOMP Near 

S0280 S0578 Near S1780 Near YRSSOC Near 

S0281 S0579 Near S1785 Near YRSSCI Near 

S0282 S0580 Near S1790 Near YRSLANG Near 

S0283 S0583 Near S1805 Near 

S0284 S0584 Exact S1810 Near 

S0285 S0585 Exact S1815 Near 

S0503 S0161 Exact S1820 Near 

S0798 S0162 Exact S1825 Near ENROL12 Near SSC139 Near 

S0799 S0163 Near S1835 Near GRADNUM Near SSC140 Near 

S0505 S0165 Near 

S0506 S0166 Near 

S0800 S0965 Exact S0780 Exact 

S0801 S0966 Exact S0785 Near ALLBOARD Near 

S0802 S0967 Exact S0790 Near BOARDNUM Near SSC017 Content Asks for 

percent instead 

of number 

S0803 S0968 Exact S0795 Exact CHARGETU Exact SSC088 Exact 

S0804 S0969 Exact S0800 Exact DISCOUNT Exact SSC089 Exact 

S0805 

S0806 S0970 Exact S0805 Exact TUITIN Exact SSC090 Exact 

S0443 S0111 Exact 

S0447 S0115 Exact S0700 Exact ADMITREQ Exact SSC099 Content Response 

options differ 

S0448 S0116 Exact S0705 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

ADMITEST Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SSC091 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

S0449 S0117 Exact S0710 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

ACHVTEST Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SSC092 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

S0450 S0118 Exact S0715 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

RECORDS Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SSC093 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

S0451 S0119 Exact S0720 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SPECIAL Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SSC094 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

S0452 S0120 Exact S0725 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

TALENT Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SSC095 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 
 U-68 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0453 S0121 Exact S0730 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

INTRVIEW Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SSC096 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

S0454 S0122 Exact S0735 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

RECMNDS Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SSC097 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

S0807 S0123 Exact S0740 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

RELIGAFF Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

 

S0489 S0141 Near 

S0490 S0142 Near 

S0491 S0143 Near 

S0492 S0144 Near 

S0493 S0145 Near 

S0494 S0146 Near 

S0496 S0151 Near 

S0497 S0152 Near 

S0498 S0155 Exact 

S0499 S0157 Near 

S0500 S0158 Near 

S0501 S0159 Near 

S0502 S0160 Near 

S0462 S0125 Exact 

S0463 S0126 Near S1390 Content Does not 

specify that 

students need 

to be 

identified as 

gifted/talented

GIFTDPGM Content Does not 

specify that 

students need 

to be 

identified as 

gifted/talented 

SSC072 Content Does not 

specify that 

students need to 

be identified as 

gifted/talented 

S0464 S0127 Near 

S0465 S0128 Near 

S0466 S0129 Near 

S0467 S0130 Near 

S0468 

S0475 S0132 Near 

S0476 S0133 Near S1435 Content Asks about 

programs 

inside & 

outside of 

regular school 

hours 

 

S0477 S0134 Near S1400 Content Asks about 

programs 

inside & 

outside of 

regular school 

hours 

AFTERPGM Content Different 

lead-in 

question: 93 

asks about 

programs 

inside & 

outside of 

regular school 

hours 

SSC078 Content Asks about 

programs inside 

& outside of 

regular school 

hours 

S0478 S0134 Near 

S0479 S0148 Near 

S0481 S0149 Near 

S0077 S0487 Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-69 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0078 S0477 Exact S1225 Near FULLCERT Near 

S0808 S0478 Exact S1220 Near PVTCERT Near 

S0079 S0479 Exact S1230 Exact EMERCERT Exact 

S0080 S0480 Exact S1235 Exact TEACHED Exact 

S0081 S0481 Exact S1240 Exact MAJORFLD Exact 

S0082 S0482 Near S1245 Exact STABASIC Exact 

S0083 S0483 Near S1250 Exact STASUBJ Exact 

S0084 S0484 Near S1255 Near DISTEST Near 

S0085 S0485 Near S1260 Content Does not use 

term Praxis, 

only core 

battery test 

NTEPASS Content Does not use 

term Praxis, 

only core 

battery test 

 

S0086 S0486 Near S1265 Content Does not use 

term Praxis, 

only national 

teachers 

exam, 

specialty area 

test 

NTEPASS Content Does not use 

term Praxis, 

only national 

teachers 

exam, 

specialty area 

test 

 

S0566 S0256 Near S1100 Near VACNCY Near 

S0567 S0265 Near S1150 Exact GENLVAC Exact 

S0568 S0266 Near S1155 Exact SPECLVAC Exact 

S0569 S0267 Near S1160 Exact ENGLVAC Exact 

S0570 S0268 Near 

S0571 S0269 Near 

S0572 S0270 Near S1165 Exact MATHVAC Exact 

S0573 S0271 Near S1175 Exact BIOSVAC Exact 

S0574 S0272 Near S1170 Exact PHYSVAC Exact 

S0575 S0273 Near S1180 Exact ESOLVAC Exact 

S0576 S0274 Near S1185 Exact FORGNVAC Exact 

S0577 S0275 Near S1190 Exact 

S0578 S0276 Near S1210, 

S1200 

Content Options not 

collapsed into 

one category 

 

S0579 S0257 Near S1105 Near 

S0580 S0258 Near S1110 Near LESSQUAL 

S0581 S0264 Near S1140 Near SUBTEACH 

S0582 S0259 Near S1115 Near CANCEL 

S0583 S0260 Near S1120 Near EXPANDSZ 

S0584 S0261 Near S1125 Near ADDSCTN 

S0585 S0262 Near S1130 Near REASSIGN 

S0586 S0263 Near S1135 Near 

S0091 S0495 Near 

S0092 S0496 Near 

S0093 S0493 Content 99 presents 

item as one 

response 

option among 

three others, 

2003–04 

presents item 

on its own 

 

S0095 S0499 Near S2080 Exact LNGTHYR Exact 

S0103 
 U-70 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0104 

S0105 

S0106 

S0107 

S0113 S0500 Exact S2095 Near SALSCHED Near 

S0114 S0501 Exact S2100 Exact MINBACH Exact 

S0115 S0502 Exact 

S0116 

S0117 S0503 Exact S2105 Exact MINMASTR Exact 

S0118 

S0119 S0505 Near S2115 Exact MAXMASTR Exact 

S0120 

S0121 S0506 Exact S2120 Exact HIGHSAL Exact 

S0122 S0507 Exact S2125 Near MINSALRY Near 

S0123 S0508 Exact S2130 Near MAXSALRY Near 

S0124 S0517 Near 

S0125 S0518 Near 

S0126 S0519 Near 

S0127 

S0128 

S0129 S0520 Near 

S0130 S0521 Near 

S0131 S0522 Near 

S0315 S0611 Exact 

S0316 S0612 Exact 

S0317 S0613 Exact 

S0319 S0615 Exact S2210 Content Specifies pay 

incentives as 

cash bonuses, 

different step 

on salary 

scale, or other 

salary 

increase; asks 

about 

organization 

school is 

affiliated with

SHORTAGE Content Specifies pay 

incentives as 

cash bonuses, 

different step 

on salary 

scale, or other 

salary 

increase; asks 

about 

organization 

school is 

affiliated with 

 

S0320 S0616 Exact 

S0321 S0617 Exact S2230 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SHRTSPEC Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

 

S0322 S0618 Exact 

S0323 S0619 Exact 

S0324 S0620 Exact S2240 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SHRTCOMP Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

 

S0325 S0621 Exact S2235 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SHRTMATH Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

 

S0326 S0622 Exact S2245 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SHRTPHYS Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-71 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0327 S0623 Exact S2250 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SHRTBIO Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

 

S0328 S0624 Exact S2255 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SHRTESOL Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

 

S0329 S0625 Exact S2260 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SHRTLANG Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

 

S0330 S0626 Exact 

S0331 S0627 Exact S2265 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

SHRTVOC Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply 

 

S0292 S0587 Exact S2350 Near ADMINPGM Near 

S0293 S0588 Exact 

S0294 S0589 Exact 

S0295 S0590 Near 

S0296 S0591 Near 

S0297 S0592 Near 

S0298 S0593 Near 

S0299 S0594 Near 

S0300 S0595 Exact 

S0301 S0596 Exact 

S0302 S0597 Exact 

S0303 S0598 Exact 

S0304 S0599 Exact 

S0305 S0600 Exact 

S0306 S0601 Exact 

S0308 S0603 Exact 

S0310 S0605 Exact 

S0311 S0606 Exact 

S0312 S0607 Exact 

S0313 S0609 Exact 

S0314 S0610 Exact 

S0332 S0628 Near S2300 Exact RETRAING Exact 

S0333 S0629 Near 

S0334 S0630 Near S2305 Near RESPECL Near 

S0335 S0631 Near 

S0336 S0632 Near 

S0337 S0633 Near S2315 Near RECOMP Near 

S0338 S0634 Near S2310 Near REMATH Near 

S0339 S0635 Near S2320 Near REPHYS Near 

S0340 S0636 Near S2325 Near REBIO Near 

S0341 S0637 Near S2330 Near RESOL Near 

S0342 S0638 Near S2335 Near RELANG Near 

S0343 S0639 Near 

S0344 S0640 Near S2340 Near REVOTEC Near 

S0593 S0277 Exact 

S0594 S0278 Exact 

S0595 

S0596 S0279 Near 

S0597 S0280 Near 

S5597 S5280 Near 
 U-72 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0604 S0315 Near 

S0605 

S0606 S0316 Near 

S0607 S0317 Near 

S0608 S0318 Near 

S0609 S0319 Near 

S0610 S0320 Exact S1290 Near 

S0611 S0321 Exact S1295 Content Asks for 

number 

identified as 

limitedEnglish 

proficient 

around 10/1 

 

S0612 S0322 Exact S1300 Content Asks if school 

uses 

“recommendat

ion by parent”

 

S0613 S0323 Exact S1305 Near 

S0614 S0324 Exact S1310 Near 

S0615 S0325 Exact S1320 Content Specifies 

interview in 

student’s 

native 

language 

 

S0616 S0326 Exact S1325 Near 

S0617 S0327 Exact S1330 Near 

S0618 S0328 Exact S1315 Content Specifies 

written 

language test 

 

S0619 S0329 Exact 

S0620 S0330 Near S1335 Content Asked of all 

respondents; 

specifies 

program is 

designed to 

teach English 

 

S0621 S0332 Near 

S0622, 

S0623, 

S0624 

S0333, 

S0334, 

S0335 

Exact S1345 Content Combines 

three 

questions 

 

S0625 

S0626 

S0627 S0339 Exact 

S0628 S0340 Exact 

S0629 S0341 Exact 

S0632 S0285 Near S1645 Exact SSC087 Exact 

S0633 S0286 Near S1655 Exact SSC085 Content Asks how many 

students are 

eligible 

S0634 S0287 Near S1660 Exact SSC085 Content Asks how many 

students are 

eligible 

S0635 S0288 Exact S1600 Near CHPTRONE Near 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-73 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Questionnaire (SASS-3B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

S0636 S0290 Content Combines prekindergarten &

K–12 students 

into one 

number 

S1605, 

S1610 

Near ONESVPK, 

ONESVK12 

Near SSC083 Content Included both 

prekindergarten & 

K–12 

S0637 S0290 Content Combines prekindergarten &

K–12 students 

into one 

number 

S1605, 

S1610 

Near ONESVPK, 

ONESVK12 

Near SSC083 Content Included both 

prekindergarten & 

K–12 

S0638 S0291 Exact 

S0639 S0292 Exact 

S0640 S0293 Exact 

S0641 S0294 Exact 

S0642 S0295 Exact 

S0643 S0296 Exact 

S0644 S0297 Exact 

S0645 S0298 Exact 

S0646 S0299 Exact 

S0647 S0300 Exact 

S0648 S0301 Exact 

S0649 S0302 Exact 

S0650 S0303 Exact 

S0651 S0304 Exact 

S0652 S0305 Exact 

S0653 S0306 Exact 

S0654 S0307 Exact 

S0655 S0308 Exact 

S0657 S0311 Exact 

S0658 S0312 Exact 

S0659 S0313 Exact 

S0660 S0314 Exact 

S5660 S5314 Exact 

S9001 S9001 Near 

S9002 S9002 Near 

S9003 S9003 Near 

S0668 S0349 Near 

S0669 S0350 Near S2365 Content Year reported 

as two digits 

 

S0670 S0350 Near S2365 Content Year reported 

as two digits 

S0671 S0350 Near S2365 Content Year reported 

as two digits 
 U-74 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

U 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4A) for public school teachers: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

T0026 T0051 Near T0020 Near TSC011 Near TSC010* Response 

options differ

T0027 T0052 Exact 

T0028 T0053 Exact T0025 Exact 

T0029 T0054 Exact T0030 Exact TSC012 Exact TSC012 Exact 

T0030 T0059 Exact T0150, 

T0160 

Content Options were 

grouped into 

3 questions 

TSC039 Content Options 

collapsed into 

one question’ 

in 87 & 93, 

options were 

grouped into 

3 questions 

TSC032, 

TSC034 

Content Options 4 & 

5 from 87 

crosswalk; 

response 

options differ

T5030 T5059 Exact 

T0031 T0060 Exact 

T5031 T5061 Near 

T9001 T9061 Near 

T0032 T0062 Near 

T0033 T0063 Exact 

T5033 T5063 Exact 

T0034 T0064 Exact T0145 Exact TSC038 Exact TSC031 Exact 

T0035 

T0036 T0065 Near T0105 Exact FTPUB Exact TSC023 Exact 

T0037 T0066 Near T0110 Exact PTPUB Exact TSC024 Exact 

T0038 T0067 Exact T0090 Exact TSC028 Exact 

T0039 T0068 Exact T0095 Near FTPVT Near TSC025 Near 

T0040 T0069 Exact T0100 Near PTPVT Near TSC026 Near 

T0051 T0192 Near T0715 Exact TSC113 Exact TSC140 Exact 

T0052 T0193 Near T0720 Exact TSC114 Exact TSC141 Exact 

T0053 T0194 Near T0725 Exact TSC115 Exact TSC142 Exact 

T0054 T0195 Near T0730 Exact TSC116 Exact TSC143 Exact 

T0055 T0196 Near T0735 Exact TSC117 Exact TSC144 Exact 

T0056 T0197 Near T0740 Exact TSC118 Exact TSC145 Exact 

T0057 T0198 Near T0745 Exact TSC119 Exact TSC146 Exact 

T0058 T0199 Near T0750 Exact TSC120 Exact TSC147 Exact 

T0059 T0200 Near T0755 Exact TSC121 Exact TSC148 Exact 

T0060 T0201 Near T0760 Exact TSC122 Exact TSC149 Exact 

T0061 T0202 Near T0765 Exact TSC123 Exact TSC150 Exact 

T0062 T0203 Near T0770 Exact TSC124 Exact TSC151 Exact 

T0063 T0204 Near T0775 Exact TSC125 Exact TSC152 Exact 

T0064 T0205 Near T0780 Exact TSC126 Exact TSC153 Exact 

T0065 T0191 Near T0710 Near TSC112 Near TSC156 Near 

T0066 T0206 Near T0790 Exact TSC128 Exact TSC157 Content Response 

options differ

T0067 T0207 Exact 

T0068 T0208 Exact T0795 Near TSC129 Near TSC158 Near 

T0069 T0102 Near 

T5069 T5102 Near 

T0070 T0209 Near T0800 Exact TSC130 Exact TSC159 Exact 

T0071 

T0072 T0210 Near T0805 Exact TSC131 Exact TSC160 Exact 

T0073 T0211 Near T0810 Exact TSC132 Exact TSC161 Exact 

T0074 T0212 Near T0815 Exact TSC133 Exact TSC162 Exact 

T0075 T0102 Near T0315 Near TSC058 Near TSC075 Near 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-75 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4A) for public school teachers: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

T5075 T5102 Near 

T0076 T0213 Near 

T0077, 

T0080, 

T0083, 

T0086, 

T0089, 

T0092, 

T0095, 

T0098, 

T0101, 

T0104 

T0214, 

T0216, 

T0218, 

T0220, 

T0222, 

T0224, 

T0226, 

T0228, 

T0230, 

T0232, 

T0234, 

T0236, 

T0238, 

T0240, 

T0242 

Content Allowed for 

15 responses 

T0825, 

T0835, 

T0845, 

T0855, 

T0865, 

T0875, 

T0885, 

T0895, 

T0905, 

T0915, 

T0925, 

T0935, 

T0945, 

T0955, 

T0965 

Content Allowed for 

15 responses

TSC137, 

TSC145, 

TSC153, 

TSC161, 

TSC169, 

TSC177, 

TSC185, 

TSC193, 

TSC201, 

TSC209 

Near Allowed for 

10 responses 

TSC166, 

TSC173, 

TSC180, 

TSC187, 

TSC194, 

TSC201, 

TSC208, 

TSC215, 

TSC222 

Content Allowed for 

9 responses 

T0079, 

T0082, 

T0085, 

T0088, 

T0091, 

T0094, 

T0097, 

T0100, 

T0103, 

T0106 

T0215, 

T0217, 

T0219, 

T0221, 

T0223, 

T0225, 

T0227, 

T0229, 

T0231, 

T0233, 

T0235, 

T0237, 

T0239, 

T0241, 

T0243 

Content Allowed for 

15 responses 

T0830, 

T0840, 

T0850, 

T0860, 

T0870, 

T0880, 

T0890, 

T0900, 

T0910, 

T0920, 

T0930, 

T0940, 

T0950, 

T0960, 

T0970 

Content Allowed for 

15 responses

TSC140, 

TSC148, 

TSC156, 

TSC164, 

TSC172, 

TSC180, 

TSC188, 

TSC196, 

TSC204, 

TSC212 

Near Allowed for 

10 responses 

TSC169, 

TSC176, 

TSC183, 

TSC190, 

TSC197, 

TSC204, 

TSC211, 

TSC218, 

TSC225 

Content Allowed for 

9 responses 

T0078 

T0081 

T0084 

T0087 

T0090 

T0093 

T0096 

T0099 

T0102 

T0105 

T0116 T0070 Exact T0170 Exact TSC040 Exact TSC043 Exact 

T0117 T0071 Exact T0180 Exact TSC042 Exact TSC046 Exact 

T0118 

T0119 T0072 Exact T0175 Near TSC041 Near TSC044 Near 

T0120 T0073 Exact T0185 Exact TSC043 Content Second major 

or a minor 

field of study 

combined 

 

T0121 T0074 Exact T0190 Near TSC044 Content Second major 

or a minor 

field of study 

combined 

TSC045 Near 

T5121 T5072 Exact 
 U-76 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4A) for public school teachers: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

T9002 T0077 Exact 

T9003 T5078 Near Separated 

city & state 

 

T9004 T5078 Near Separated 

city & state 

T0122 T0079 Exact T0215 Exact 

T0123 T0080 Exact T0235 Exact TSC045 Exact TSC051 Exact 

T0124 T0082 Exact T0245 Exact TSC047 Exact TSC054 Exact 

T0125 

T0126 T0081 Exact T0240 Near TSC046 Near TSC052 Near 

T0127 T0083 Near 

T0128 

T0129 

T5128 

T0130 T0085 Near T0275 Near TSC050 Near TSC040 Near 

T0131 T0086 Near T0280 Exact TSC051 Exact TSC042 Exact 

T5130 T5085 Exact 

T0132 T0088 Near T0225 Near TSC048 Near 

T0133 

T0134 T0089 Near T0230 Exact TSC050 Exact 

T5132 T5088 Exact 

T0135 T0091 Near T0255 Near TSC056 Near 

T0136 

T0137 T0092 Near T0260 Exact TSC058 Exact 

T5135 T5091 Exact 

T0138 T0094 Near T0290 Near TSC053 Near TSC060 Near 

T0139 T0095 Near T0295 Exact TSC054 Exact TSC062 Exact 

T5138 T5094 Exact 

T0140 T0097 Near 

T0141 T0098 Near 

T5140 T5097 Exact 

T0142 T0100 Near T0305 Near TSC056 Near TSC064, 

TSC068 

Near 

T0143 

T0144 T0101 Near T0310 Exact TSC057 Exact TSC066, 

TSC070 

Exact 

T5142 T5100 Exact 

T0145 

T0146 

T0147 

T0148 

T0149 

T0150 

T0151 T0124 Near 

T0152 T0125 Exact 

T0153 T0126 Exact 

T0154 T0127 Near 

T0155 T0128 Near 

T0156 

T0157 

T0158 

T0159 

T5159 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-77 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4A) for public school teachers: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

T0166 T0104 Near T0340 Near TSC102 Content Response 

options differ 

TSC132 Content Response 

options differ

T0167 

T5167 

T0168 

T0169 

T0170 

T0171 

T5171 

T0172 

T0173 

T0174 

T0175 

T5175 

T0176 

T0177 

T0178 

T0179 

T5179 

T0180 

T0181 

T0182 

T0183 

T5183 

T0184 

T0185 

T0186 

T0187 T0113 Content T0365 Near 

T0188 

T0189 T0114 Content T0370 Near 

T5189 

T0190 

T0191 

T0192 

T0193 T0115 Content T0375 Near 

T5193 

T0194 

T0195 

T0196 

T0197 T0116 Content T0380 Near 

T0198 

T0199 

T0200 

T0201 T0117 Content T0385 Near 

T5201 

T0202 

T0203 

T0204 

T0205 T0118 Content T0390 Near 

T5205 

T0206 

T0207 
 U-78 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4A) for public school teachers: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

T0208 

T0209 T0123 Near 

T0210 T0129 Exact 

T0211 T0130 Exact 

T0212 T0131 Exact 

T0213 T0132 Exact 

T0214 T0134 Exact 

T0215 T0135 Exact 

T0216 T0136 Exact T0700 Content Specifies to 

not include 

student 

teaching & 

asks about a 

formal 

program 

TSC110 Content Specifies to 

not include 

student 

teaching & 

asks about a 

formal 

program 

 

T0217 T0137 Exact 

T0218 T0138 Exact 

T0219 T0139 Exact 

T0220 T0140 Exact 

T0221 T0141 Exact 

T0222 T0142 Exact 

T0223 T0143 Exact 

T0224 T0144 Exact 

T0225 T0145 Exact 

T0226 T0147 Exact 

T0227 T0148 Exact 

T0228 T0149 Near 

T0235 T0150 Near 

T0236 

T0237 T0152 Near 

T0238 

T0239 T0158 Near 

T0240 

T0241 T0157 Near 

T0242 

T0243 T0159 Near T0610 Content Different 

timeframe 

 

T0244 T0160 Near T0615 Content Different 

timeframe; 

different 

scale 

T0245 T0161 Near 

T0246 T0168 Exact T0590 Content Different 

timeframe 

 

T0247 T0169 Exact T0595 Content Different 

timeframe; 

different 

scale 

T0248 T0170 Near 

T0249 

T0250 

T0251 

T0252 T0174 Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-79 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4A) for public school teachers: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

T0253 T0175 Exact 

T0254 T0176 Near 

T0255 T0177 Exact 

T5255 T5177 Exact 

T0256 T0179 Exact T0665 Exact 

T0257 T0180 Exact T0670 Exact 

T0258 T0181 Exact 

T0259 T0182 Exact T0680 Content Asks about 

tuition & 

fees; options 

are mark all 

that apply 

 

T0260 T0183 Exact 

T0261 T0184 Exact T0675 Exact 

T0262 T0185 Near T0685 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply; asks 

about 

support, not 

rewards 

 

T0263 T0186 Near 

T0264 T0187 Near 

T0265 T0153 Near 

T0266 T0154 Near 

T0267 T0152 Content 

T0268 T0155 Content 

T9005 

T0269 T0188 Near 

T0270 T0189 Near 

T0271 T0190 Near 

T0279 T0244 Near 

T0280 T0245 Exact 

T0281 T0246 Exact 

T0282 T0247 Near 

T0283 T0248 Exact 

T0284 T0249 Near T1585, 

T1590 

Content Asks for 

percentage 

instead of 

number 

 

T0285 T0250 Exact T1580 Content Only of those 

who teach 

limitedEnglishproficient 

students 

 

T0286 T0255 Near 

T0287 T0256 Near 

T0288 T0257 Near 

T0289 T0258 Near 

T0290 T0252 Near 
 U-80 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4A) for public school teachers: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

T0297 T0276, 

T0277 

Content Does not 

include 

teaching 

hours, 

combines 

two 

categories 

into one 

T0995, 

T1000 

Content Does not 

include 

teaching 

hours, 

combines two 

categories 

into one 

TSC220, 

TSC221 

Content Does not 

include 

teaching 

hours, 

combines two 

categories 

into one 

TSC235, 

TSC236 

Content Does not 

include 

teaching 

hours, 

combines 

two 

categories 

into one 

T0298 T0273 T0990 Exact TSC219 Exact TSC234 Exact 

T0299 

T0300 

T0301 

T0302 

T0303 

T0304 

T0311 T0286 Near 

T0312 T0287 Near T1040 Near TSC247 Near TSC278 Near 

T0313 T0288 Near T1020 Near TSC245 Near TSC276 Near 

T0314 T0289 Near T1035 Near 

T0315 T0290 Near T1025 Near 

T0316 T0291 Near T1015 Near TSC244 Near TSC275 Near 

T0317 T0292 Near T1030 Near 

T0318 T0293 Near T1045 Near TSC248 Near TSC279 Near 

T0319 T0294 Near T1050 Near TSC249 Near TSC280 Near 

T0320 T0295 Near T1055 Near TSC250 Near TSC281 Near 

T0321 T0296 Near T1060 Near TSC251 Near 

T0322 T0297 Near T1065 Near TSC252 Near TSC282 Near 

T0323 T0298 Near T1070 Near TSC253 Near TSC283 Near 

T0330 T0299 Near T1200 Near TSC239 Near 

T0331 T0300 Near T1205 Near TSC240 Near 

T0332 T0301 Near T1210 Near TSC241 Near 

T0333 T0302 Near T1215 Near TSC226 Near TSC242 Near 

T0334 T0303 Near T1225 Near TSC244 Near 

T0335 T0304 Near T1230 Near TSC245 Near 

T0336 T0305 Near T1240 Near TSC247 Near 

T0337 T0306 Near T1245 Near TSC227 Near TSC248 Near 

T0338 T0308 Near T1255 Near TSC228 Near TSC250 Near 

T0339 T0309 Near T1260 Near TSC251 Near 

T0340 T0310 Near 

T0341 T0311 Near T1270 Near TSC253 Near 

T0342 T0312 Near T1275 Near TSC254 Near 

T0343 T0313 Near 

T0344 

T0345 T0315 Near T1285 Near TSC256 Near 

T0346 T0314 Near 

T0347 T0316 Near T1290 Near TSC257 Near 

T0348 T0317 Near T1300 Near TSC259 Near 

T0349 T0318 Near T1305 Near TSC260 Near 

T0350 T0320 Near T1310 Near TSC234 Exact 

T0351 T0325 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T1095 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC258 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC266 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-81 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4A) for public school teachers: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

T0352 T0326 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T1100 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC259 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC267 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T0353 T0327 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T1105 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC260 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC268 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T0354 T0329 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T1115 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC262 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC270 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T0355 T0330 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T1120 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC263 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC271 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T0356 T0331 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T1125 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC264 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC272 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T0357 

T0358 

T0359 

T0360 

T0361 

T0362 T0332 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T1135 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC267 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

 

T0363 

T0364 T0321 Near T1075 Near TSC254 Near TSC262 Near 

T0365 T0322 Near T1080 Near TSC255 Near TSC263 Near 

T0366 T0324 Near T1090 Near TSC257 Near TSC265 Near 

T0367 T0323 Near T1085 Near TSC256 Near TSC264 Near 

T0368 T0328 Near T1110 Near TSC261 Near TSC269 Near 

T0369 T0333 Near T1140 Near TSC268 Near 

T0370 T0334 Near T1145 Near TSC269 Near 

T0371 T0335 Near T1155 Near TSC271 Near 

T0372 T0336 Near T1165 Near TSC273 Near 

T0373 T0337 Near T1175 Near 

T0374 T0338 Near T1185 Near 

T0375 

T0376 

T0377 

T0378 

T0379 

T0380 

T0381 

T0382 T0339 Exact T1320 Exact TSC236 Exact TSC261 Exact 

T0383 T0340 Exact T1370 Exact TSC276 Exact TSC288 Exact 

T0384 T0280 Exact T1325 Exact 

T0385 T0281 Near T1330 Near 

T0386 T0282 Near T1335 Near 

T0387 T0283 Exact T1340 Exact 

T0388 T0284 Near T1345 Near 

T0389 T0285 Near T1350 Near 

T0393 T0341 Exact T1390 Exact TSC286 Exact 

T0394 T0342 Exact T1395 Exact TSC287 Exact TSC304 Exact 

T0395 T0343 Exact T1400 Exact TSC288 Exact 
 U-82 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4A) for public school teachers: 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

T0396 T0344 Exact T1405 Exact TSC289 Exact TSC305 Exact 

T0397 T0345 Exact T1410 Exact TSC290 Exact 

T0398 T0346 Exact T1415 Exact TSC291 Exact TSC306 Exact 

T0399 T0347 Near T1420 Near TSC292 Near TSC307 Near 

T0400 T0348 Near T1425 Near TSC293 Near 

T0401 T0349 Near T1430 Near TSC294 Near TSC308 Near 

T0402 T0350 Near T1450 Near TSC298 Near 

T0403 T0351 Near T1455 Near TSC299 Near 

T0404 T0352 Near T1435 Exact TSC295 Exact 

T0405 T0353 Near T1440 Near TSC296 Near TSC309 Near 

T0406 T0354 Exact T1445 Exact TSC297 Exact 

T0407 T0355 Exact T0695 Exact 

T0408 T0356 Exact T1525 Exact SEX Exact TSC319 Exact 

T0409 T0359 Near T1540 Near HISPANIC Near TSC321 Near 

T0410 T0357 Near T1530 Near RACE Near TSC320 Near 

T0411 T0357 Near T1530 Near RACE Near TSC320 Near 

T0412 T0357 Near T1530 Near RACE Near TSC320 Near 

T0413 T0357 Near T1530 Near RACE Near TSC320 Near 

T0414 T0357 Near T1530 Near RACE Near TSC320 Near 

T0415 T0358 Exact T1535 Exact TRIBE Exact 

T0416 T0360 Exact T1545 Exact BIRTHYR Exact TSC322 Exact 

T0417 T0361 Exact T1610 Near SURVMINS Near 

T0418 T0362 Near 

T0419 T0362 Near 

T0420 T0362 Near 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-83 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded school teachers: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments Variable name Match Comments 

T0026 T0051 Near T0020 Near 

T0027 T0052 Exact 

T0028 T0053 Exact T0025 Exact 

T0029 T0054 Exact T0030 Exact 

T0030 T0059 Exact T0150, T0160 Content Options were grouped into 

3 questions 

T5030 T5059 

T0031 T0060 Exact 

T5031 T5061 Near 

T9001 T9061 Near 

T0032 T0062 Near 

T0033 T0063 Exact 

T5033 T5063 Exact 

T0034 T0064 Exact T0145 Exact 

T0035 

T0036 T0065 Near T0105 Exact 

T0037 T0066 Near T0110 Exact 

T0038 T0067 Exact T0090 Exact 

T0039 T0068 Exact T0095 Near 

T0040 T0069 Exact T0100 Near 

T0051 T0192 Near T0715 Exact 

T0052 T0193 Near T0720 Exact 

T0053 T0194 Near T0725 Exact 

T0054 T0195 Near T0730 Exact 

T0055 T0196 Near T0735 Exact 

T0056 T0197 Near T0740 Exact 

T0057 T0198 Near T0745 Exact 

T0058 T0199 Near T0750 Exact 

T0059 T0200 Near T0755 Exact 

T0060 T0201 Near T0760 Exact 

T0061 T0202 Near T0765 Exact 

T0062 T0203 Near T0770 Exact 

T0063 T0204 Near T0775 Exact 

T0064 T0205 Near T0780 Exact 

T0065 T0191 Near T0710 Near 

T0066 T0206 Near T0790 Exact 

T0067 T0207 Exact 

T0068 T0208 Exact T0795 Near 

T0069 

T5069 

T0070 T0209 Near T0800 Exact 

T0071 

T0072 T0210 Near T0805 Exact 

T0073 T0211 Near T0810 Exact 

T0074 T0212 Near T0815 Exact 

T0075 T0102 Near T0315 Near 

T5075 T5102 Near 
 U-84 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded school teachers: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments Variable name Match Comments 

T0077, T0080, 

T0083, T0086, 

T0089, T0092, 

T0095, T0098, 

T0101, T0104 

T0214, T0216, 

T0218, T0220, 

T0222, T0224, 

T0226, T0228, 

T0230, T0232, 

T0234, T0236, 

T0238, T0240, 

T0242 

Content Allowed for 15 responses T0825, T0835, 

T0845, T0855, 

T0865, T0875, 

T0885, T0895, 

T0905, T0915, 

T0925, T0935, 

T0945, T0955, 

T0965 

Content Allowed for 15 responses 

T0079, T0082, 

T0085, T0088, 

T0091, T0094, 

T0097, T0100, 

T0103, T0106 

T0215, T0217, 

T0219, T0221, 

T0223, T0225, 

T0227, T0229, 

T0231, T0233, 

T0235, T0237, 

T0239, T0241, 

T0243 

Content Allowed for 15 responses T0830, T0840, 

T0850, T0860, 

T0870, T0880, 

T0890, T0900, 

T0910, T0920, 

T0930, T0940, 

T0950, T0960, 

T0970 

Content Allowed for 15 responses 

T0078 

T0081 

T0084 

T0087 

T0090 

T0093 

T0096 

T0099 

T0102 

T0105 

T0116 T0070 Exact T0170 Exact 

T0117 T0071 Exact T0180 Exact 

T0118 

T0119 T0072 Exact T0175 Near 

T0120 T0073 Exact T0185 Exact 

T0121 T0074 Exact T0190 Near 

T0122 T0079 Exact T0215 Exact 

T0123 T0080 Exact T0235 Exact 

T0124 T0082 Exact T0245 Exact 

T0125 

T0126 T0081 Exact T0240 Near 

T0127 T0083 Near 

T0128 

T0129 

T0130 T0085 Near T0275 Near 

T0131 T0086 Near T0280 Exact 

T0132 T0088 Near T0225 Near 

T0133 

T0134 T0089 Near T0230 Exact 

T0135 T0091 Near T0255 Near 

T0136 

T0137 T0092 Near T0260 Exact 

T0138 T0094 Near T0290 Near 

T0139 T0095 Near T0295 Exact 

T0140 T0097 Near 

T0141 T0098 Near 

T0142 T0100 Near T0305 Near 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-85 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded school teachers: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments Variable name Match Comments 

T0143 

T0144 T0101 Near T0310 Exact 

T0145 

T0146 

T0147 

T0148 

T0149 

T0150 

T0151 T0124 Near 

T0152 T0125 Exact 

T0153 T0126 Exact 

T0154 T0127 Near 

T0155 T0128 Near 

T0156 

T0157 

T0158 

T0159 

T0166 T0104 Near T0340 Near 

T0167 

T0168 

T0169 

T0170 

T0171 

T0172 

T0173 

T0174 

T0175 

T0176 

T0177 

T0178 

T0179 

T0180 

T0181 

T0182 

T0183 

T0184 

T0185 

T0186 

T0187 T0113 Near T0365 Near 

T0188 

T0189, T0190, 

T0191, T0192, 

T0193, T0194, 

T0195, T0196, 

T0197, T0198, 

T0199, T0200, 

T0201, T0202, 

T0203, T0204, 

T0205, T0206, 

T0207, T0208 

T0114, T0115, 

T0116, T0117, 

T0118, T0119 

Content Allows for respondents to 

enter teaching assignment 

codes for numerous other 

certificates 

T0370, T0375, 

T0380, T0385, 

T0390, T0395 

Content Allows for respondents to 

enter teaching assignment 

codes for numerous other 

certificates 

T0209 T0123 Near 

T0210 T0129 Exact 

T0211 T0130 Exact 
 U-86 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded school teachers: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments Variable name Match Comments 

T0212 T0131 Exact 

T0213 T0132 Exact 

T0214 T0134 Exact 

T0215 T0135 Exact 

T0216 T0136 Exact T0700 Content Specifies to not include 

student teaching & asks 

about a formal program 

T0217 T0137 Exact 

T0218 T0138 Exact 

T0219 T0139 Exact 

T0220 T0140 Exact 

T0221 T0141 Exact 

T0222 T0142 Exact 

T0223 T0143 Exact 

T0224 T0144 Exact 

T0225 T0145 Exact 

T0226 T0147 Exact 

T0227 T0148 Exact 

T0228 T0149 Near 

T0235 T0150 Near 

T0236 

T0237 T0152 Near 

T0238 

T0239 T0158 Near 

T0240 

T0241 T0157 Near 

T0242 

T0243 T0159 Near T0610 Content Different timeframe 

T0244 T0160 Near T0615 Content Different timeframe; 

different scale 

T0245 T0161 Near 

T0246 T0168 Exact T0590 Content Different timeframe 

T0247 T0169 Exact T0595 Content Different timeframe; 

different scale 

T0248 T0170 Near 

T0249 

T0250 

T0251 

T0252 T0174 Exact 

T0253 T0175 Exact 

T0254 T0176 Near 

T0255 T0177 Exact 

T0256 T0179 Exact T0665 Exact 

T0257 T0180 Exact T0670 Exact 

T0258 T0181 Exact 

T0259 T0182 Exact T0680 Content Asks about tuition & fees; 

options are mark all that 

apply 

T0260 T0183 Exact 

T0261 T0184 Exact T0675 Exact 

T0262 T0185 Near T0685 Content Options are mark all that 

apply; asks about support, 

not rewards 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-87 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded school teachers: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments Variable name Match Comments 

T0263 T0186 Near 

T0264 T0187 Near 

T0265 

T0266 

T0267 

T0268 

T0269 T0188 Near 

T0270 T0189 Near 

T0271 T0190 Near 

T0279 T0244 Near 

T0280 T0245 Exact 

T0281 T0246 Exact 

T0282 T0247 Near 

T0283 T0248 Exact 

T0284 T0249 Near T1585, T1590 Content Asks for percentage instead 

of number 

T0285 T0250 Exact T1580 Content Only of those who teach 

limited-English-proficient 

students 

T0286 T0255 Near 

T0287 T0256 Near 

T0288 T0257 Near 

T0289 T0258 Near 

T0290 T0252 Near 

T0297 T0276, T0277 Content Does not include teaching 

hours, combines two 

categories into one 

T0995, T1000 Content Does not include teaching 

hours, combines two 

categories into one 

T0298 T0273 T0990 Exact 

T0299 

T0300 

T0301 

T0302 

T0303 

T0304 

T0311 T0286 Near 

T0312 T0287 Near T1040 Near 

T0313 T0288 Near T1020 Near 

T0314 T0289 Near T1035 Near 

T0315 T0290 Near T1025 Near 

T0316 T0291 Near T1015 Near 

T0317 T0292 Near T1030 Near 

T0318 T0293 Near T1045 Near 

T0319 T0294 Near T1050 Near 

T0320 T0295 Near T1055 Near 

T0321 T0296 Near T1060 Near 

T0322 T0297 Near T1065 Near 

T0323 T0298 Near T1070 Near 

T0330 T0299 Near T1200 Near 

T0331 T0300 Near T1205 Near 

T0332 T0301 Near T1210 Near 

T0333 T0302 Near T1215 Near 

T0334 T0303 Near T1225 Near 

T0335 T0304 Near T1230 Near 
 U-88 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded school teachers: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments Variable name Match Comments 

T0336 T0305 Near T1240 Near 

T0337 T0306 Near T1245 Near 

T0338 T0308 Near T1255 Near 

T0339 T0309 Near T1260 Near 

T0340 T0310 Near 

T0341 T0311 Near T1270 Near 

T0342 T0312 Near T1275 Near 

T0343 T0313 Near 

T0344 

T0345 T0315 Near T1285 Near 

T0346 T0314 Near 

T0347 T0316 Near T1290 Near 

T0348 T0317 Near T1300 Near 

T0349 T0318 Near T1305 Near 

T0350 T0320 Near T1310 Near 

T0351 T0325 Content Uses a different rating scale T1095 Content Uses a different rating scale

T0352 T0326 Content Uses a different rating scale T1100 Content Uses a different rating scale

T0353 T0327 Content Uses a different rating scale T1105 Content Uses a different rating scale

T0354 T0329 Content Uses a different rating scale T1115 Content Uses a different rating scale

T0355 T0330 Content Uses a different rating scale T1120 Content Uses a different rating scale

T0356 T0331 Content Uses a different rating scale T1125 Content Uses a different rating scale

T0357 

T0358 

T0359 

T0360 

T0361 

T0362 T0332 Content Uses a different rating scale T1135 Content Uses a different rating scale

T0363 

T0364 T0321 Near T1075 Near 

T0365 T0322 Near T1080 Near 

T0366 T0324 Near T1090 Near 

T0367 T0323 Near T1085 Near 

T0368 T0328 Near T1110 Near 

T0369 T0333 Near T1140 Near 

T0370 T0334 Near T1145 Near 

T0371 T0335 Near T1155 Near 

T0372 T0336 Near T1165 Near 

T0373 T0337 Near T1175 Near 

T0374 T0338 Near T1185 Near 

T0375 

T0376 

T0377 

T0378 

T0379 

T0380 

T0381 

T0382 T0339 Exact T1320 Exact 

T0383 T0340 Exact T1370 Exact 

T0384 T0280 Exact T1325 Exact 

T0385 T0281 Near T1330 Near 

T0386 T0282 Near T1335 Near 

T0387 T0283 Exact T1340 Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-89 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded school teachers: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable name Variable name Match Comments Variable name Match Comments 

T0388 T0284 Near T1345 Near 

T0389 T0285 Near T1350 Near 

T0393 T0341 Exact T1390 Exact 

T0394 T0342 Exact T1395 Exact 

T0395 T0343 Exact T1400 Exact 

T0396 T0344 Exact T1405 Exact 

T0397 T0345 Exact T1410 Exact 

T0398 T0346 Exact T1415 Exact 

T0399 T0347 Near T1420 Near 

T0400 T0348 Near T1425 Near 

T0401 T0349 Near T1430 Near 

T0402 T0350 Near T1450 Near 

T0403 T0351 Near T1455 Near 

T0404 T0352 Near T1435 Exact 

T0405 T0353 Near T1440 Near 

T0406 T0354 Exact T1445 Exact 

T0407 T0355 Exact T0695 Exact 

T0408 T0356 Exact T1525 Exact 

T0409 T0359 Near T1540 Near 

T0410 T0357 Near T1530 Near 

T0411 T0357 Near T1530 Near 

T0412 T0357 Near T1530 Near 

T0413 T0357 Near T1530 Near 

T0414 T0357 Near T1530 Near 

T0415 T0358 Exact T1535 Exact 

T0416 T0360 Exact T1545 Exact 

T0417 T0361 Exact T1610 Near 

T0418 T0362 Near 

T0418 T0362 Near 

T0418 T0362 Near 
 U-90 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

T0026 T0051 Near T0020 Near TSC011 Near TSC010* Response 

options differ

T0027 T0052 Exact 

T0028 T0053 Exact T0025 Exact 

T0029 T0054 Exact T0030 Exact TSC012 Exact TSC012 Exact 

T0030 T0059 Exact T0150, 

T0160 

Content Options were 

grouped into 

3 questions 

TSC039 Content Options 

collapsed 

into one 

question; in 

87 & 93, 

options were 

grouped into 

3 questions 

TSC032, 

TSC034 

Content Options 4 & 

5 from 87 

crosswalk; 

response 

options differ

T5030 T5059 

T0031 T0060 Exact 

T5031 T5061 Near 

T9001 T9061 Near 

T0032 T0062 Near 

T0033 T0063 Exact 

T5033 T5063 Exact 

T0034 T0064 Exact T0145 Exact TSC038 Exact TSC031 Exact 

T0035 

 T0065 T0105 Exact FTPVT Exact TSC025 Exact 

 T0066 T0110 Exact PTPVT Exact TSC026 Exact 

T0038 T0067 Exact T0090 Exact TSC028 Exact 

 T0068 T0095 Near FTPUB Near TSC023 Near 

 T0069 T0100 Near PTPUB Near TSC024 Near 

T0051 T0192 Near T0715 Exact TSC113 Exact TSC140 Exact 

T0052 T0193 Near T0720 Exact TSC114 Exact TSC141 Exact 

T0053 T0194 Near T0725 Exact TSC115 Exact TSC142 Exact 

T0054 T0195 Near T0730 Exact TSC116 Exact TSC143 Exact 

T0055 T0196 Near T0735 Exact TSC117 Exact TSC144 Exact 

T0056 T0197 Near T0740 Exact TSC118 Exact TSC145 Exact 

T0057 T0198 Near T0745 Exact TSC119 Exact TSC146 Exact 

T0058 T0199 Near T0750 Exact TSC120 Exact TSC147 Exact 

T0059 T0200 Near T0755 Exact TSC121 Exact TSC148 Exact 

T0060 T0201 Near T0760 Exact TSC122 Exact TSC149 Exact 

T0061 T0202 Near T0765 Exact TSC123 Exact TSC150 Exact 

T0062 T0203 Near T0770 Exact TSC124 Exact TSC151 Exact 

T0063 T0204 Near T0775 Exact TSC125 Exact TSC152 Exact 

T0064 T0205 Near T0780 Exact TSC126 Exact TSC153 Exact 

T0065 T0191 Near T0710 Near TSC112 Near TSC156 Near 

T0066 T0206 Near T0790 Exact TSC128 Exact TSC157 Content Response 

options differ

T0067 T0207 Exact 

T0068 T0208 Exact T0795 Near TSC129 Near TSC158 Near 

T0069 

T5069 

T0070 T0209 Near T0800 Exact TSC130 Exact TSC159 Exact 

T0071 

T0072 T0210 Near T0805 Exact TSC131 Exact TSC160 Exact 

T0073 T0211 Near T0810 Exact TSC132 Exact TSC161 Exact 

T0074 T0212 Near T0815 Exact TSC133 Exact TSC162 Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-91 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

T0075 T0102 Near T0315 Near TSC058 Near TSC075 Near 

T5075 T5102 Near 

T0077, 

T0080, 

T0083, 

T0086, 

T0089, 

T0092, 

T0095, 

T0098, 

T0101, 

T0104 

T0214, 

T0216, 

T0218, 

T0220, 

T0222, 

T0224, 

T0226, 

T0228, 

T0230, 

T0232, 

T0234, 

T0236, 

T0238, 

T0240, 

T0242 

Content Allowed for 

15 responses 

T0825, 

T0835, 

T0845, 

T0855, 

T0865, 

T0875, 

T0885, 

T0895, 

T0905, 

T0915, 

T0925, 

T0935, 

T0945, 

T0955, 

T0965 

Content Allowed for 

15 responses 

TSC137, 

TSC145, 

TSC153, 

TSC161, 

TSC169, 

TSC177, 

TSC185, 

TSC193, 

TSC201, 

TSC209 

Near Allowed for 

10 responses 

TSC166, 

TSC173, 

TSC180, 

TSC187, 

TSC194, 

TSC201, 

TSC208, 

TSC215, 

TSC222 

Content Allowed for 

9 responses 

T0079, 

T0082, 

T0085, 

T0088, 

T0091, 

T0094, 

T0097, 

T0100, 

T0103, 

T0106 

T0215, 

T0217, 

T0219, 

T0221, 

T0223, 

T0225, 

T0227, 

T0229, 

T0231, 

T0233, 

T0235, 

T0237, 

T0239, 

T0241, 

T0243 

Content Allowed for 

15 responses 

T0830, 

T0840, 

T0850, 

T0860, 

T0870, 

T0880, 

T0890, 

T0900, 

T0910, 

T0920, 

T0930, 

T0940, 

T0950, 

T0960, 

T0970 

Content Allowed for 

15 responses 

TSC140, 

TSC148, 

TSC156, 

TSC164, 

TSC172, 

TSC180, 

TSC188, 

TSC196, 

TSC204, 

TSC212 

Near Allowed for 

10 responses 

TSC169, 

TSC176, 

TSC183, 

TSC190, 

TSC197, 

TSC204, 

TSC211, 

TSC218, 

TSC225 

Content Allowed for 

9 responses 

T0078 

T0081 

T0084 

T0087 

T0090 

T0093 

T0096 

T0099 

T0102 

T0105 

T0116 T0070 Exact T0170 Exact TSC040 Exact TSC043 Exact 

T0117 T0071 Exact T0180 Exact TSC042 Exact TSC046 Exact 

T0118 

T0119 T0072 Exact T0175 Near TSC041 Near TSC044 Near 

T0120 T0073 Exact T0185 Exact TSC043 Content Second major 

or a minor 

field of study 

combined 

 

T0121 T0074 Exact T0190 Near TSC044 Content Second major 

or a minor 

field of study 

combined 

TSC045 Near 

T0122 T0079 Exact T0215 Exact 
 U-92 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

T0123 T0080 Exact T0235 Exact TSC045 Exact TSC051 Exact 

T0124 T0082 Exact T0245 Exact TSC047 Exact TSC054 Exact 

T0125 

T0126 T0081 Exact T0240 Near TSC046 Near TSC052 Near 

T0127 T0083 Near 

T0128 

T0129 

T0130 T0085 Near T0275 Near TSC050 Near TSC040 Near 

T0131 T0086 Near T0280 Exact TSC051 Exact TSC042 Exact 

T0132 T0088 Near T0225 Near TSC048 Near 

T0133 

T0134 T0089 Near T0230 Exact TSC050 Exact 

T0135 T0091 Near T0255 Near TSC056 Near 

T0136 

T0137 T0092 Near T0260 Exact TSC058 Exact 

T0138 T0094 Near T0290 Near TSC053 Near TSC060 Near 

T0139 T0095 Near T0295 Exact TSC054 Exact TSC062 Exact 

T0140 T0097 Near 

T0141 T0098 Near 

T0142 T0100 Near T0305 Near TSC056 Near TSC064, 

TSC068 

Near 

T0143 

T0144 T0101 Near T0310 Exact TSC057 Exact TSC066, 

TSC070 

Exact 

T0145 

T0146 

T0147 

T0148 

T0149 

T0150 

T0151 T0124 Near 

T0152 T0125 Exact 

T0153 T0126 Exact 

T0154 T0127 Near 

T0155 T0128 Near 

T0156 

T0157 

T0158 

T0159 

T0166 T0104 Near T0340 Near TSC102 Content Response 

options differ 

TSC132 Content Response 

options differ

T0167 

T0168 

T0169 

T0170 

T0171 

T0172 

T0173 

T0174 

T0175 

T0176 

T0177 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-93 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

T0178 

T0179 

T0180 

T0181 

T0182 

T0183 

T0184 

T0185 

T0186 

T0187 T0113 Near T0365 Near 

T0188 

T0189, 

T0190, 

T0191, 

T0192, 

T0193, 

T0194, 

T0195, 

T0196, 

T0197, 

T0198, 

T0199, 

T0200, 

T0201, 

T0202, 

T0203, 

T0204, 

T0205, 

T0206, 

T0207, 

T0208 

T0114, 

T0115, 

T0116, 

T0117, 

T0118, 

T0119 

Content Allows for 

respondents to

enter teaching 

assignment 

codes for 

numerous 

other 

certificates 

T0370, 

T0375, 

T0380, 

T0385, 

T0390, 

T0395 

Content Allows for 

respondents to

enter teaching 

assignment 

codes for 

numerous 

other 

certificates 

 

T0209 T0123 Near 

T0210 T0129 Exact 

T0211 T0130 Exact 

T0212 T0131 Exact 

T0213 T0132 Exact 

T0214 T0134 Exact 

T0215 T0135 Exact 

T0216 T0136 Exact T0700 Content Specifies to 

not include 

student 

teaching & 

asks about a 

formal 

program 

TSC110 Content Specifies to 

not include 

student 

teaching & 

asks about a 

formal 

program 

 

T0217 T0137 Exact 

T0218 T0138 Exact 

T0219 T0139 Exact 

T0220 T0140 Exact 

T0221 T0141 Exact 

T0222 T0142 Exact 

T0223 T0143 Exact 

T0224 T0144 Exact 

T0225 T0145 Exact 

T0226 T0147 Exact 
 U-94 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

T0227 T0148 Exact 

T0228 T0149 Near 

T0235 T0150 Near 

T0236 

T0237 T0152 Near 

T0238 

T0239 T0158 Near 

T0240 

T0241 T0157 Near 

T0242 

T0243 T0159 Near T0610 Content Different 

timeframe 

 

T0244 T0160 Near T0615 Content Different 

timeframe; 

different scale

T0245 T0161 Near 

T0246 T0168 Exact T0590 Content Different 

timeframe 

 

T0247 T0169 Exact T0595 Content Different 

timeframe; 

different scale

T0248 T0170 Near 

T0249 

T0250 

T0251 

T0252 T0174 Exact 

T0253 T0175 Exact 

T0254 T0176 Near 

T0255 T0177 Exact 

T0256 T0179 Exact T0665 Exact 

T0257 T0180 Exact T0670 Exact 

T0258 T0181 Exact 

T0259 T0182 Exact T0680 Content Asks about 

tuition & fees; 

options are 

mark all that 

apply 

 

T0260 T0183 Exact 

T0261 T0184 Exact T0675 Exact 

T0262 T0185 Near T0685 Content Options are 

mark all that 

apply; asks 

about support, 

not rewards 

 

T0263 T0186 Near 

T0264 T0187 Near 

T0265 

T0266 

T0267 

T0268 

T0269 T0188 Near 

T0270 T0189 Near 

T0271 T0190 Near 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-95 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

T0279 T0244 Near 

T0280 T0245 Exact 

T0281 T0246 Exact 

T0282 T0247 Near 

T0283 T0248 Exact 

T0284 T0249 Near T1585, 

T1590 

Content Asks for 

percentage 

instead of 

number 

 

T0285 T0250 Exact T1580 Content Only of those 

who teach 

limitedEnglishproificient 

students 

 

T0286 T0255 Near 

T0287 T0256 Near 

T0288 T0257 Near 

T0289 T0258 Near 

T0290 T0252 Near 

T0297 T0276, 

T0277 

Content Does not 

include 

teaching 

hours, 

combines two 

categories 

into one 

T0995, 

T1000 

Content Does not 

include 

teaching 

hours, 

combines two 

categories 

into one 

TSC220, 

TSC221 

Content Does not 

include 

teaching 

hours, 

combines 

two 

categories 

into one 

TSC235, 

TSC236 

Content Does not 

include 

teaching 

hours, 

combines 

two 

categories 

into one 

T0298 T0273 T0990 Exact TSC219 Exact TSC234 Exact 

T0299 

T0300 

T0301 

T0302 

T0303 

T0304 

T0311 T0286 Near 

T0312 T0287 Near T1040 Near TSC247 Near TSC278 Near 

T0313 T0288 Near T1020 Near TSC245 Near TSC276 Near 

T0314 T0289 Near T1035 Near 

T0315 T0290 Near T1025 Near 

T0316 T0291 Near T1015 Near TSC244 Near TSC275 Near 

T0317 T0292 Near T1030 Near 

T0318 T0293 Near T1045 Near TSC248 Near TSC279 Near 

T0319 T0294 Near T1050 Near TSC249 Near TSC280 Near 

T0320 T0295 Near T1055 Near TSC250 Near TSC281 Near 

T0321 T0296 Near T1060 Near TSC251 Near 

T0322 T0297 Near T1065 Near TSC252 Near TSC282 Near 

T0323 T0298 Near T1070 Near TSC253 Near TSC283 Near 

T0330 T0299 Near T1200 Near TSC239 Near 

T0331 T0300 Near T1205 Near TSC240 Near 

T0332 T0301 Near T1210 Near TSC241 Near 

T0333 T0302 Near T1215 Near TSC226 Near TSC242 Near 

T0334 T0303 Near T1225 Near TSC244 Near 

T0335 T0304 Near T1230 Near TSC245 Near 
 U-96 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

T0336 T0305 Near T1240 Near TSC247 Near 

T0337 T0306 Near T1245 Near TSC227 Near TSC248 Near 

T0338 T0308 Near T1255 Near TSC228 Near TSC250 Near 

T0339 T0309 Near T1260 Near TSC251 Near 

T0340 T0310 Near 

T0341 T0311 Near T1270 Near TSC253 Near 

T0342 T0312 Near T1275 Near TSC254 Near 

T0343 T0313 Near 

T0344 

T0345 T0315 Near T1285 Near TSC256 Near 

T0346 T0314 Near 

T0347 T0316 Near T1290 Near TSC257 Near 

T0348 T0317 Near T1300 Near TSC259 Near 

T0349 T0318 Near T1305 Near TSC260 Near 

T0350 T0320 Near T1310 Near TSC234 Exact 

T0351 T0325 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T1095 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC258 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC266 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T0352 T0326 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T1100 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC259 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC267 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T0353 T0327 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T1105 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC260 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC268 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T0354 T0329 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T1115 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC262 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC270 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T0355 T0330 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T1120 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC263 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC271 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T0356 T0331 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T1125 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC264 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC272 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T0357 

T0358 

T0359 

T0360 

T0361 

T0362 T0332 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

T1135 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

TSC267 Content Uses a 

different 

rating scale 

 

T0363 

T0364 T0321 Near T1075 Near TSC254 Near TSC262 Near 

T0365 T0322 Near T1080 Near TSC255 Near TSC263 Near 

T0366 T0324 Near T1090 Near TSC257 Near TSC265 Near 

T0367 T0323 Near T1085 Near TSC256 Near TSC264 Near 

T0368 T0328 Near T1110 Near TSC261 Near TSC269 Near 

T0369 T0333 Near T1140 Near TSC268 Near 

T0370 T0334 Near T1145 Near TSC269 Near 

T0371 T0335 Near T1155 Near TSC271 Near 

T0372 T0336 Near T1165 Near TSC273 Near 

T0373 T0337 Near T1175 Near 

T0374 T0338 Near T1185 Near 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-97 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

T0375 

T0376 

T0377 

T0378 

T0379 

T0380 

T0381 

T0382 T0339 Exact T1320 Exact TSC236 Exact TSC261 Exact 

T0383 T0340 Exact T1370 Exact TSC276 Exact TSC288 Exact 

T0384 T0280 Exact T1325 Exact 

T0385 T0281 Near T1330 Near 

T0386 T0282 Near T1335 Near 

T0387 T0283 Exact T1340 Exact 

T0388 T0284 Near T1345 Near 

T0389 T0285 Near T1350 Near 

T0393 T0341 Exact T1390 Exact TSC286 Exact 

T0394 T0342 Exact T1395 Exact TSC287 Exact TSC304 Exact 

T0395 T0343 Exact T1400 Exact TSC288 Exact 

T0396 T0344 Exact T1405 Exact TSC289 Exact TSC305 Exact 

T0397 T0345 Exact T1410 Exact TSC290 Exact 

T0398 T0346 Exact T1415 Exact TSC291 Exact TSC306 Exact 

T0399 T0347 Near T1420 Near TSC292 Near TSC307 Near 

T0400 T0348 Near T1425 Near TSC293 Near 

T0401 T0349 Near T1430 Near TSC294 Near TSC308 Near 

T0402 T0350 Near T1450 Near TSC298 Near 

T0403 T0351 Near T1455 Near TSC299 Near 

T0404 T0352 Near T1435 Exact TSC295 Exact 

T0405 T0353 Near T1440 Near TSC296 Near TSC309 Near 

T0406 T0354 Exact T1445 Exact TSC297 Exact 

T0407 T0355 Exact T0695 Exact 

T0408 T0356 Exact T1525 Exact SEX Exact TSC319 Exact 

T0409 T0359 Near T1540 Near HISPANIC Near TSC321 Near 

T0410 T0357 Near T1530 Near RACE Near TSC320 Near 

T0411 T0357 Near T1530 Near RACE Near TSC320 Near 

T0412 T0357 Near T1530 Near RACE Near TSC320 Near 

T0413 T0357 Near T1530 Near RACE Near TSC320 Near 

T0414 T0357 Near T1530 Near RACE Near TSC320 Near 

T0415 T0358 Exact T1535 Exact TRIBE Exact 

T0416 T0360 Exact T1545 Exact BIRTHYR Exact TSC322 Exact 

T0417 T0361 Exact T1610 Near SURVMINS Near 

T0418 T0362 Near 

T0418 T0362 Near 

T0418 T0362 Near 

T0421 

T0422 

T0423 

T0424 

T0425 

T0426 

T0427 

T0428 

T0429 
 U-98 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—Private School Teacher Questionnaire (SASS-4B): 1987–88 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 1990–91 (90) 1987–88 (87) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

T0430 

T0431 

T0433 

T0434 

T0435 

T0436 

T0437 

T0438 

T0439 

T0440 

T0441 

T0442 T0103 Near 

T0443 T0104 Near 

T0444 

T0445 

T0446 

T0447 

T0448 

T0449 

T0450 

T0451 

T0452 

T0453 

T0454 

T0455 

T0456 

T0457 

T0458 

T0459 

T0460 

T0461 

T0462 

T0463 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-99 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Library Media Center Questionnaire (LS-1A) for public school libraries: 

1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–1994 (93) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

M0025 M0052 Exact M130 Exact 

M0026 M0053 Exact M131 Exact 

M0027 M0054 Exact M132 Near 

M0028 M0055 Exact M133 Near 

M0029 M0056 Exact M134 Near 

M0030 M0057 Exact M139 Near 

M0031 M0058 Exact M135, 

M136 

Content Production areas for teachers 

only 

M0032 M0059 Exact M137 Near Production areas for teachers 

only 

M0033 M0060 Exact M138 Near 

M0040 M0082 Near M011 Content Asked of all respondents 

M0041 M0083 Exact M012 Near 

M0042 M0084, 

M0085, 

M0086 

Content Questions differentiated 3/4-, 

1/2-, & less than 1/2-time 

M013, 

M014, 

M015, 

M016 

Content M015 & M016 asks different 

questions for 1/4-, 1/2-, & 

less than 1/4-time 

M0043 M0087 Near M017 Near 

M0044 M0076 Near M018 Content Asked of all respondents 

M0045 M0077 Exact M019 Near 

M0046 M0078, 

M0079, 

M0080 

Content Questions differentiated 3/4-, 

1/2-, & less than 1/2-time 

M020, 

M021, 

M022, 

M023 

Content M022 & M023 ask different 

questions for 1/4-, 1/2-, & 

less than 1/4-time 

M0047 M0081 Near M024 Near 

M0048 M0070 Near 

M0049 M0071 Exact 

M0050 M0072, 

M0073, 

M0074 

Content Questions differentiated 3/4-, 

1/2-, & less than 1/2-time 

 

M0051 M0075 Exact 

M0052 M0088 Near 

M0053 M0089 Near M043 Near 

M0054 M0091, 

M0092, 

M0093 

Content Differentiated type & number 

of master’s degree 

M044, 

M045 

Content Asked only if they reported 

staff members with master’s 

or doctoral degrees 

M0055 M0094 Near M041 Near 

M0056 M0095 Near M040 Near 

M0057 M0091, 

M0092, 

M0093 

Content Differentiated type & number 

of master’s degree 

M044, 

M045 

Content Asked only if they reported 

staff members with master’s 

or doctoral degrees 

M0058 M0096 Near M047 Near 

M0059 M0097 Exact M048 Near 

M0060 M0098 Near M049 Near 

M0061 M0099 Exact 

M0068 M0102 Exact M108 Near 

M0069 M0103 Exact M109 Near 

M0070 M0104 Exact M112 Near 

M0071 M0107, 

M0108, 

M0109, 

M0110, 

M0111 

Content Also asked for types of network

configurations 

 
 U-100 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Library Media Center Questionnaire (LS-1A) for public school libraries: 

1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–1994 (93) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

M0072 M0105 Near M116 Content Asks only of video laser disc 

M0073 

M0074 M0106 Near 

M0075 

M0076 

M0077 M0144 Exact 

M0084 M0166 Exact 

M0085 M0165 Near M072 Content Asks one question for all 

reference books 

M0086 M0168 Exact 

M0087 M0167 Near M072 Content Asks one question for all 

reference books 

M0088 

M0089 M0149 Near M051 Near 

M0090 M0150 Near M050 Near 

M0091 M0151 Near M052 Content Includes only locally 

budgeted expenditures 

M0092 M0152 Content Excluded duplicate copies M057 Content Does not include DVD 

M0093 M0153 Content Excluded duplicate copies M056 Content Does not include DVD 

M0094 M0154 Content Excluded duplicate copies M058 Content Includes only locally 

budgeted expenditures; does 

not include DVD 

M0095 M0155 Content Excluded duplicate copies M066 Near 

M0096 M0156 Content Excluded duplicate copies M065 Near 

M0097 M0157 Content Excluded duplicate copies M067 Content Includes only locally 

budgeted expenditures 

M0098 M0158, 

M0161 

Content Electronic & print/microfilm 

separate 

M054 Near 

M0099 M0159, 

M0162 

Content Electronic & print/microfilm 

separate 

M053 Near 

M0100 M0160, 

M0163 

Content Electronic & print/microfilm 

separate 

M055 Content Includes only locally 

budgeted expenditures 

M0101 

M0102 M0161 Near 

M0103 M0163 Near 

M0104 M0164 Near M068 Near 

M0105 

M0106 

M0107 

M0108 

M0113 M0176 Exact M143 Exact 

M0114 M0177 Near M144 Content Includes “other” option 

M0115 M0179 Content Yes/No question M146 Content Question is mark all that 

apply 

M0116 M0183 Content Yes/No question M147 Content Question is mark all that 

apply 

M0117 M0178 Content Yes/No question M145 Content Question is mark all that 

apply 

M0118 M0182 Content Yes/No question M148 Content Options are mark all that 

apply; included in “other” 

option 

M0119 M0192 Near 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-101 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Library Media Center Questionnaire (LS-1A) for public school libraries: 

1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–1994 (93) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

M0120 M0185 Content Before or after school a single 

option 

 

M0121 M0185 Content Before or after school a single 

option 

 

M0122 M0186, 

M0187, 

M0188 

Content Question asked about different 

parts of regular day 

 

M0123 M0061 Exact 

M0124 M0062 Exact 

M0125 

M0126 M0197 Exact M157 Content Asks how many students are 

allowed to borrow 

M0127 M0198 Exact M158 Content Asks how many students are 

allowed to borrow 

M0128 M0199 Exact M159 Content Asks how many students are 

allowed to borrow 

M0129 M0200 Exact M160 Content Asks how many students are 

allowed to borrow 

M0130 M0201 Exact M161 Content Asks how many students are 

allowed to borrow 

M0131 M0202 Exact 

M0132 M0204 Exact M162 Exact 

M0133 M0205 Exact M163 Exact 

M0134 M0206 Exact M164 Exact 

M0135 M0218 Near 

M0136 M0220 Near 

M0137 

M0138 M0221 Exact 

M0145 

M0146 

M0147 

M0148 

M0149 

M0150 

M0151 M0209, 

M0210, 

M0211, 

M0212, 

M0213, 

M0214, 

M0215, 

M0216, 

M0217 

Content Questions differentiated 

subjects & frequency 

 

M0152 M0222 M167 Near 
 U-102 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Library Media Center Questionnaire (LS-1A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded school libraries: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

M0025 M0052 Exact M130 Exact 

M0026 M0053 Exact M131 Exact 

M0027 M0054 Exact M132 Near 

M0028 M0055 Exact M133 Near 

M0029 M0056 Exact M134 Near 

M0030 M0057 Exact M139 Near 

M0031 M0058 Exact M135, 

M136 

Content Production areas for teachers 

only 

M0032 M0059 Exact M137 Near Production areas for teachers 

only 

M0033 M0060 Exact M138 Near 

M0040 M0082 Near M011 Content Asked of all respondents 

M0041 M0083 Exact M012 Near 

M0042 M0084, 

M0085, 

M0086 

Content Questions differentiated 3/4-, 

1/2-, & less than 1/2-time 

M013, 

M014, 

M015, 

M016 

Content M015 & M016 asks different 

questions for 1/4-, 1/2, & less 

than 1/4-time 

M0043 M0087 Near M017 Near 

M0044 M0076 Near M018 Content Asked of all respondents 

M0045 M0077 Exact M019 Near 

M0046 M0078, 

M0079, 

M0080 

Content Questions differentiated 3/4-, 

1/2-, & less than 1/2-time 

M020, 

M021, 

M022, 

M023 

Content M022 & M023 ask different 

questions for 1/4-, 1/2, & less 

than 1/4-time 

M0047 M0081 Near M024 Near 

M0048 M0070 Near 

M0049 M0071 Exact 

M0050 M0072, 

M0073, 

M0074 

Content Questions differentiated 3/4-, 

1/2-, & less than 1/2-time 

 

M0051 M0075 Exact 

M0052 M0088 Near 

M0053 M0089 Near M043 Near 

M0054 M0091, 

M0092, 

M0093 

Content Differentiated type & number 

of master’s degree 

M044, 

M045 

Content Asked only if they reported 

staff members with master’s 

or doctoral degrees 

M0055 M0094 Near M041 Near 

M0056 M0095 Near M040 Near 

M0057 M0091, 

M0092, 

M0093 

Content Differentiated type & number 

of master’s degree 

M044, 

M045 

Content Asked only if they reported 

staff members with master’s 

or doctoral degrees 

M0058 M0096 Near M047 Near 

M0059 M0097 Exact M048 Near 

M0060 M0098 Near M049 Near 

M0061 M0099 Exact 

M0068 M0102 Exact M108 Near 

M0069 M0103 Exact M109 Near 

M0070 M0104 Exact M112 Near 

M0071 M0107, 

M0108, 

M0109, 

M0110, 

M0111 

Content Also asked for types of network

configurations 

 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-103 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Library Media Center Questionnaire (LS-1A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded school libraries: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

M0072 M0105 Near M116 Content Asks only of video laser disc 

M0073 

M0074 M0106 Near 

M0075 

M0076 

M0077 M0144 Exact 

M0084 M0166 Exact 

M0085 M0165 Near M072 Content Asks one question for all 

reference books 

M0086 M0168 Exact 

M0087 M0167 Near M072 Content Asks one question for all 

reference books 

M0088 

M0089 M0149 Near M051 Near 

M0090 M0150 Near M050 Near 

M0091 M0151 Near M052 Content Includes only locally 

budgeted expenditures 

M0092 M0152 Content Excluded duplicate copies M057 Content Does not include DVD 

M0093 M0153 Content Excluded duplicate copies M056 Content Does not include DVD 

M0094 M0154 Content Excluded duplicate copies M058 Content Includes only locally 

budgeted expenditures; does 

not include DVD 

M0095 M0155 Content Excluded duplicate copies M066 Near 

M0096 M0156 Content Excluded duplicate copies M065 Near 

M0097 M0157 Content Excluded duplicate copies M067 Content Includes only locally 

budgeted expenditures 

M0098 M0158, 

M0161 

Content Electronic & print/microfilm 

separate 

M054 Near 

M0099 M0159, 

M0162 

Content Electronic & print/microfilm 

separate 

M053 Near 

M0100 M0160, 

M0163 

Content Electronic & print/microfilm 

separate 

M055 Content Includes only locally 

budgeted expenditures 

M0101 

M0102 M0161 Near 

M0103 M0163 Near 

M0104 M0164 Near M068 Near 

M0105 

M0106 

M0107 

M0108 

M0113 M0176 Exact M143 Exact 

M0114 M0177 Near M144 Content Includes “other” option 

M0115 M0179 Content Yes/No question M146 Content Question is mark all that 

apply 

M0116 M0183 Content Yes/No question M147 Content Question is mark all that 

apply 

M0117 M0178 Content Yes/No question M145 Content Question is mark all that 

apply 

M0118 

M0119 M0192 Near 

M0120 M0185 Content Before or after school a single 

option 

 
 U-104 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk—School Library Media Center Questionnaire (LS-1A) for 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded school libraries: 1993–94 through 2003–04 

2003–04 1999–2000 (99) 1993–94 (93) 

Variable 

name 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

Variable 

name Match Comments 

M0121 M0185 Content Before or after school a single 

option 

 

M0122 M0186, 

M0187, 

M0188 

Content Question asked about different 

parts of regular day 

 

M0123 

M0124 

M0125 

M0126 M0197 Exact M157 Content Asks how many students are 

allowed to borrow 

M0127 M0198 Exact M158 Content Asks how many students are 

allowed to borrow 

M0128 M0199 Exact M159 Content Asks how many students are 

allowed to borrow 

M0129 M0200 Exact M160 Content Asks how many students are 

allowed to borrow 

M0130 M0201 Exact M161 Content Asks how many students are 

allowed to borrow 

M0131 M0202 Exact 

M0132 M0204 Exact M162 Exact 

M0133 M0205 Exact M163 Exact 

M0134 M0206 Exact M164 Exact 

M0135 

M0136 

M0137 

M0138 M0221 Exact 

M0145 

M0146 

M0147 

M0148 

M0149 

M0150 

M0151 M0209, 

M0210, 

M0211, 

M0212, 

M0213, 

M0214, 

M0215, 

M0216, 

M0217 

Content Questions differentiated 

subjects & frequency 

 

M0152 M0222 M167 Near 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-105 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Unified or Private School Questionnaires and on the School District Questionnaire 

School District 

Questionnaire 

variable name 

Unified School 

Questionnaire 

variable name 

Unified School/ 

School District 

Questionnaires 

match 

Private School 

Questionnaire 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School District 

Questionnaires 

Match Comments 

D0036 S0400 Exact S0704 Near Private specifies kindergarten 

D0037 S0401 Exact S0710 Near 

D0038 S0402 Exact S0712 Near 

D0039 S0403 Exact S0714 Near 

D0040 S0404 Exact S0716 Near 

D0041 S0405 Exact S0718 Near 

D0042 S0406 Exact S0720 Near 

D0043 S0407 Exact S0722 Near 

D0044 S0408 Exact S0724 Near 

D0045 S0409 Exact S0726 Near 

D0046 S0410 Exact S0728 Near 

D0047 S0411 Exact S0730 Near 

D0048 S0412 Exact S0732 Near 

D0049 S0413 Exact S0700 Near 

D0050 S0734 Near 

D0051 S0414 Near 

D0052 S0417 Exact S0417 Exact 

D0053 S0418 Exact S0418 Exact 

D0054 S0419 Exact S0419 Exact 

D0055 S0420 Exact S0420 Exact 

D0056 S0421 Exact S0421 Exact 

D0057 S0422 Exact S0422 Exact 

D0058 S0630 Near S0630 Near 

D0059 S0631 Near S0631 Near 

D0060 S0632 Near S0632 Near 

D0061 S0633 Near S0633 Near 

D0062 S0634 Near S0634 Near 

D0063 S0063 Near S0063 Near 

D0064 S0791–S0795, 

S0513, S0514 

Content S0791–S0795, 

S0513, S0514 

Content School asks for headcounts, split out 

in 3/4-, 1/2-, 1/4-time; District asks 

for full-time equivalent (FTE) 

D0065 S0515 Near S0515 Near 

D0066 S0516 Near S0516 Near 

D0067 S0517 Near S0517 Near 

D0068 S0518 Near S0518 Near 

D0069 S0519 Near S0519 Near 

D0077 S0077 Near S0077 Near 

D0078 S0078 Exact S0078 Exact 

D0079 S0079 Exact S0079 Exact 

D0080 S0080 Exact S0080 Exact 

D0081 S0081 Exact S0081 Exact 

D0082 S0082 Exact S0082 Exact 

D0083 S0083 Exact S0083 Exact 

D0084 S0084 Exact S0084 Exact 

D0085 S0085 Exact S0085 Exact 

D0086 S0086 Exact S0086 Exact 

D0087 S0087 Exact 

D0088 S0088 Exact 

D0089 S0089 Exact 

D0090 S0090 Exact 
 U-106 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Unified or Private School Questionnaires and on the School District Questionnaire 

School District 

Questionnaire 

variable name 

Unified School 

Questionnaire 

variable name 

Unified School/ 

School District 

Questionnaires 

match 

Private School 

Questionnaire 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School District 

Questionnaires 

Match Comments 

D0091 S0091 Exact S0091 Exact 

D0092 S0092 Exact S0092 Exact 

D0093 S0093 Exact S0093 Exact 

D0094 S0094 Exact S0094 Exact 

D0095 S0095 Exact S0095 Exact 

D0097 S0097 Exact 

D0098 S0098 Exact 

D0099 S0099 Exact 

D0100 S0100 Exact 

D0101 S0101 Exact 

D0103 S0103 Exact S0103 Exact 

D0104 S0104 Exact S0104 Exact 

D0105 S0105 Exact S0105 Exact 

D0106 S0106 Exact S0106 Exact 

D0107 S0107 Exact S0107 Exact 

D0113 S0113 Exact S0113 Exact 

D0114 S0114 Exact S0114 Exact 

D0115 S0115 Exact S0115 Exact 

D0116 S0116 Exact S0116 Exact 

D0117 S0117 Exact S0117 Exact 

D0118 S0118 Exact S0118 Exact 

D0119 S0119 Exact S0119 Exact 

D0120 S0120 Exact S0120 Exact 

D0121 S0121 Exact S0121 Exact 

D0122 S0122 Exact S0122 Exact 

D0123 S0123 Exact S0123 Exact 

D0124 S0124 Exact S0124 Exact 

D0125 S0125 Exact S0125 Exact 

D0126 S0126 Exact S0126 Exact 

D0127 S0127 Exact S0127 Exact 

D0128 S0128 Exact S0128 Exact 

D0129 S0129 Exact S0129 Exact 

D0130 S0130 Exact S0130 Exact 

D0131 S0131 Exact S0131 Exact 

D0152 S0152 Near 

 

 No charter option on Unified School 

Questionnaire 

D0153 S0153 Exact 

D0154 S0154 Exact 

D0155 S0155 Exact 

D0156 S0156 Exact 

D0157 S0157 Exact 

D0158 S0158 Exact 

D0159 S0159 Exact 

D0160 S0160 Exact 

D0161 S0161 Exact 

D0162 S0162 Exact 

D0163 S0163 Exact 

D0164 S0164 Exact 

D0165 S0165 Exact 

D0166 S0166 Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-107 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Unified or Private School Questionnaires and on the School District Questionnaire 

School District 

Questionnaire 

variable name 

Unified School 

Questionnaire 

variable name 

Unified School/ 

School District 

Questionnaires 

match 

Private School 

Questionnaire 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School District 

Questionnaires 

Match Comments 

D0167 S0167 Exact 

D0168 S0168 Exact 

D0169 S0169 Exact 

D0170 S0170 Exact 

D0171 S0171 Exact 

D0172 S0172 Exact 

D0173 S0173 Exact 

D0174 S0174 Exact 

D0175 S0175 Exact 

D0176 S0176 Exact 

D0177 S0177 Exact 

D0178 S0178 Exact 

D0179 S0179 Exact 

D0180 S0180 Exact 

D0181 S0181 Exact 

D0182 S0182 Exact 

D0183 S0183 Exact 

D0184 S0184 Exact 

D0185 S0185 Exact 

D0186 S0186 Exact 

D0187 S0187 Exact 

D0188 S0188 Exact 

D0189 S0189 Exact 

D0190 S0190 Exact 

D0191 S0191 Exact 

D0192 S0192 Exact 

D0193 S0193 Exact 

D0194 S0194 Exact 

D0195 S0195 Exact 

D0196 S0196 Exact 

D0197 S0197 Exact 

D0198 S0198 Exact 

D0199 S0199 Exact 

D0200 S0199 Exact 

D0201 S0201 Exact 

D0202 S0202 Exact 

D0203 S0203 Exact 

D0204 S0204 Exact 

D0205 S0205 Exact 

D0206 S0206 Exact 

D0207 S0207 Exact 

D0208 S0208 Exact 

D0209 S0209 Exact 

D0210 S0210 Exact 

D0211 S0211 Exact 

D0212 S0212 Exact 

D0213 S0213 Exact 

D0214 S0214 Exact 

D0215 S0215 Exact 

D0216 S0216 Exact 
 U-108 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Unified or Private School Questionnaires and on the School District Questionnaire 

School District 

Questionnaire 

variable name 

Unified School 

Questionnaire 

variable name 

Unified School/ 

School District 

Questionnaires 

match 

Private School 

Questionnaire 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School District 

Questionnaires 

Match Comments 

D0217 S0217 Exact 

D0218 S0218 Exact 

D0219 S0219 Exact 

D0220 S0220 Exact 

D0221 S0221 Exact 

D0222 S0222 Exact 

D5222 S5222 Exact 

D0223 S0223 Exact 

D0224 S0224 Exact 

D0225 S0225 Exact 

D0226 S0226 Exact 

D0227 S0227 Exact 

D0228 S0228 Exact 

D0229 S0229 Exact 

D0230 S0230 Exact 

D0231 S0231 Exact 

D0232 S0232 Exact 

D0233 S0233 Exact 

D0239 S0661 Near 

D0248 S0248 Near 

D0255 S0665 Near 

D0256 S0666 Content 

 

 District asks for headcounts, school 

for percentages 

D0257 S0257 Near 

D0258 S0258 Near 

D0259 S0259 Near 

D0260 S0260 Near 

D0261 S0261 Near 

D0262 S0262 Near 

D0263 S0263 Near 

D0264 S0264 Near 

D0265 S0265 Near 

D0266 S0266 Near 

D0267 S0267 Exact 

D0268 S0268 Exact 

D0269 S0269 Exact 

D0270 S0270 Exact 

D0276 S0276 Near S0276 Near 

D0277 S0277 Exact S0277 Exact 

D0278 S0278 Exact S0278 Exact 

D0279 S0279 Exact S0279 Exact 

D0280 S0280 Exact S0280 Exact 

D0281 S0281 Exact S0281 Exact 

D0282 S0282 Exact S0282 Exact 

D0283 S0283 Exact S0283 Exact 

D0284 S0284 Exact S0284 Exact 

D0285 S0285 Exact 

D0286 S0286 Exact 

D0292 S0292 Near 

D0293 S0293 Near 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-109 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Unified or Private School Questionnaires and on the School District Questionnaire 

School District 

Questionnaire 

variable name 

Unified School 

Questionnaire 

variable name 

Unified School/ 

School District 

Questionnaires 

match 

Private School 

Questionnaire 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School District 

Questionnaires 

Match Comments 

D0294 S0294 Near 

D0295 S0295 Near 

D0296 S0296 Near 

D0297 S0297 Near 

D0298 S0298 Near 

D0299 S0299 Near 

D0300 S0300 Near 

D0301 S0301 Near 

D0302 S0302 Near 

D0303 S0303 Near 

D0304 S0304 Near S0304 Near School does not include “District 

staff” as option 

D0305 S0305 Near S0305 Near School does not include “District 

staff” as option 

D0306 S0306 Near S0306 Near School does not include “District 

staff” as option 

D0308 S0308 Exact S0308 Exact 

D0309 S0309 Exact 

D0310 S0310 Exact S0310 Exact 

D0311 S0311 Exact S0311 Exact 

D0312 S0312 Exact S0312 Exact 

D0313 S0313 Exact S0313 Exact 

D0314 S0314 Exact S0314 Exact 

D0315 S0315 Exact S0315 Exact 

D0316 S0316 Exact S0316 Exact 

D0317 S0317 Exact S0317 Exact 

D0319 S0319 Exact S0319 Exact 

D0320 S0320 Exact S0320 Exact 

D0321 S0321 Exact S0321 Exact 

D0322 S0322 Exact S0322 Exact 

D0323 S0323 Exact S0323 Exact 

D0324 S0324 Exact S0324 Exact 

D0325 S0325 Exact S0325 Exact 

D0326 S0326 Exact S0326 Exact 

D0327 S0327 Exact S0327 Exact 

D0328 S0328 Exact S0328 Exact 

D0329 S0329 Exact S0329 Exact 

D0330 S0330 Exact S0330 Exact 

D0331 S0331 Exact S0331 Exact 

D0332 S0332 Exact S0332 Exact 

D0333 S0333 Exact S0333 Exact 

D0334 S0334 Exact S0334 Exact 

D0335 S0335 Exact S0335 Exact 

D0336 S0336 Exact S0336 Exact 

D0337 S0337 Exact S0337 Exact 

D0338 S0338 Exact S0338 Exact 

D0339 S0339 Exact S0339 Exact 

D0340 S0340 Exact S0340 Exact 

D0341 S0341 Exact S0341 Exact 

D0342 S0342 Exact S0342 Exact 
 U-110 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Unified or Private School Questionnaires and on the School District Questionnaire 

School District 

Questionnaire 

variable name 

Unified School 

Questionnaire 

variable name 

Unified School/ 

School District 

Questionnaires 

match 

Private School 

Questionnaire 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School District 

Questionnaires 

Match Comments 

D0343 S0343 Exact S0343 Exact 

D0344 S0344 Exact S0344 Exact 

D0359 S0668 Exact S0668 Exact 

D0360 S0669 Exact S0669 Exact 

D0361 S0670 Exact S0670 Exact 

D0362 S0671 Exact S0671 Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-111 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School Principal Questionnaire and on the Principal Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School Principal Questionnaire/ 

Principal Questionnaire match Comments 

A0025 Exact 

A0026 Exact 

A0027 Exact 

A0028 Exact 

A0029 Exact 

A0030 Exact 

A0031 Exact 

A0032 Exact 

A0033 Exact 

A0034 Exact 

A0035 Exact 

A0036 Exact 

A0037 Exact 

A0038 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0039 Exact 

A0040 Exact 

A0041 Exact 

A0042 Exact 

A0043 Exact 

A0044 Exact 

A0045 Exact 

A0046 Exact 

A0047 Exact 

A0048 Exact 

A0049 Exact 

A0056 Exact 

A0057 Exact 

A0058 Exact 

A0059 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0060 Content Public & private questionnaires refer to different entities 

A0061 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0062 Exact 

A0063 Exact 

A0064 Exact 

A0065 Exact 

A0066 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0067 Content Public & private questionnaires refer to different entities 

A0068 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0069 Exact 

A0070 Exact 

A0071 Exact 

A0072 Exact 

A0073 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0074 Content Public & private questionnaires refer to different entities 

A0075 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0076 Exact 

A0077 Exact 

A0078 Exact 

A0079 Exact 

A0080 Exact 

A0081 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0082 Content Public & private questionnaires refer to different entities 
 U-112 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School Principal Questionnaire and on the Principal Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School Principal Questionnaire/ 

Principal Questionnaire match Comments 

A0083 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0084 Exact 

A0085 Exact 

A0086 Exact 

A0087 Exact 

A0088 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0089 Content Public & private questionnaires refer to different entities 

A0090 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0091 Exact 

A0092 Exact 

A0093 Exact 

A0094 Exact 

A0095 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0096 Content Public & private questionnaires refer to different entities 

A0097 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0098 Exact 

A0099 Exact 

A0100 Exact 

A0101 Exact 

A0102 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0103 Content Public & private questionnaires refer to different entities 

A0104 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0105 Exact 

A0106 Exact 

A0107 Exact 

A0108 Exact 

A0115 Exact 

A0116 Exact 

A0117 Exact 

A0118 Exact 

A0119 Exact 

A0120 Exact 

A0121 Exact 

A0122 Exact 

A0123 Exact 

A0124 Exact 

A0125 Exact 

A0126 Exact 

A0127 Exact 

A0128 Exact 

A0129 Exact 

A0130 Exact 

A0131 Exact 

A0132 Exact 

A0133 Exact 

A0134 Exact 

A0135 Exact 

A0136 Exact 

A0137 Exact 

A0138 Exact 

A0139 Exact 

A0140 Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-113 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School Principal Questionnaire and on the Principal Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School Principal Questionnaire/ 

Principal Questionnaire match Comments 

A0141 Exact 

A0142 Exact 

A0149 Exact 

A0150 Exact 

A0151 Exact 

A0152 Exact 

A0153 Exact 

A0154 Exact 

A0155 Exact 

A0156 Exact 

A0157 Exact 

A0158 Exact 

A0159 Exact 

A0160 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0161 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0162 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0163 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0164 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0165 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0166 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0167 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0168 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0169 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A5169 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0170 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0171 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0172 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0173 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0174 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0175 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0176 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0177 No match Appears on the Principal Questionnaire only 

A0185 Exact 

A0186 Exact 

A0187 Exact 

A0188 Exact 

A0189 Exact 

A0190 Exact 

A0191 Exact 

A0192 Exact 

A0193 Exact 

A0194 Exact 

A0195 Exact 

A0196 Exact 

A0197 Exact 

A0198 Exact 

A0199 Exact 

A0200 Exact 

A0201 Exact 

A0202 Exact 

A0203 Exact 

A0204 Exact 
 U-114 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School Principal Questionnaire and on the Principal Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School Principal Questionnaire/ 

Principal Questionnaire match Comments 

A0205 Exact 

A0206 Exact 

A0207 Exact 

A0208 Exact 

A0209 Exact 

A0210 Exact 

A0211 Exact 

A0212 Exact 

A0213 Exact 

A0214 Exact 

A0215 Exact 

A0216 Exact 

A0217 Exact 

A0218 Exact 

A0219 Exact 

A0220 Exact 

A0221 Exact 

A0222 Exact 

A0223 Exact 

A0224 Exact 

A0225 Exact 

A0226 Exact 

A0227 Exact 

A0234 Exact 

A0235 Exact 

A0236 Exact 

A0237 Exact 

A0238 Exact 

A0239 Exact 

A0240 Exact 

A0241 Exact 

A0242 Exact 

A0243 Exact 

A0244 Exact 

A0245 Exact 

A0246 Exact 

A0247 Exact 

A0254 Exact 

A0255 Exact 

A0256 Exact 

A0257 Exact 

A0258 Exact 

A0259 Exact 

A0260 Exact 

A0261 Exact 

A0262 Exact 

A0263 Exact 

A0264 Exact 

A0265 Exact 

A0266 Exact 

A0267 Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-115 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0063 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0077 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0078 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0079 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0080 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0081 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0082 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0083 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0084 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0085 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0086 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0087 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0088 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0089 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0090 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0091 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0092 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0093 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 
 U-116 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0095 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0103 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0104 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0105 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0106 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0107 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0113 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0114 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0115 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0116 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0117 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0118 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0119 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0120 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0121 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0122 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0123 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0124 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-117 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0125 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0126 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0127 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0128 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0129 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0130 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0131 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0152 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0153 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0154 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0155 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0156 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0157 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0158 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0159 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0160 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0161 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0162 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 
 U-118 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0163 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0164 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0165 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0166 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0167 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0168 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0169 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0170 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0171 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0172 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0173 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0174 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0175 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0176 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0177 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0178 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0179 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0180 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-119 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0181 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0182 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0183 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0184 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0185 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0186 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0187 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0188 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0189 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0190 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0191 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0192 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0193 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0194 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0195 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0196 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0197 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0198 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 
 U-120 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0199 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0200 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0201 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0202 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0203 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0204 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0205 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0206 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0207 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0208 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0209 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0210 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0211 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0212 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0213 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0214 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0215 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0216 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-121 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0217 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0218 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0219 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0220 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0221 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0222 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0223 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0224 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0225 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0226 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0227 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0228 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0229 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0230 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0231 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0232 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0233 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0248 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 
 U-122 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0257 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0258 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0259 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0260 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0261 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S262 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0263 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0264 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0265 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0266 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0267 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0268 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0269 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0270 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0276 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0277 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0278 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0279 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-123 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0280 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0281 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0282 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0283 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0284 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0285 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0286 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 

S0292 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0293 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0294 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0295 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0296 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0297 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0298 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0299 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0300 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0301 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0302 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 
 U-124 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0303 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0304 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0305 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0306 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0308 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0310 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0311 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0312 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0313 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0314 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0315 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0316 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0317 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0319 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0320 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0321 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0322 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0323 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-125 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0324 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0325 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0326 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0327 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0328 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0329 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0330 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0331 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0332 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0333 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0334 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0335 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0336 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0337 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0338 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0339 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0340 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0341 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 
 U-126 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0342 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0343 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0344 No match No match Exact Appears on the Unified 

School & Private School 

Questionnaires only 

S0400 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0401 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0402 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0403 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0404 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0405 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0406 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0407 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0408 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0409 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0410 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-127 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0411 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0412 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0413 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0414 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0415 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0416 Exact Exact Exact 

S0417 Exact Exact Exact 

S0418 Exact Exact Exact 

S0419 Exact Exact Exact 

S0420 Exact Exact Exact 

S0421 Exact Exact Exact 

S0422 Exact Exact Exact 

S0423 Exact Exact Exact 

S0424 Exact Exact Exact 

S0425 Exact Exact Exact 

S0426 Exact Exact Exact 

S0427 Exact Exact Exact 

S0428 Exact Exact Exact 

S0429 Exact Exact Exact 

S0430 Exact Exact Exact 

S0431 Exact Exact Exact 

S0432 Exact Exact Exact 

S0433 Exact Exact Exact 

S0434 Exact Exact Exact 

S0441 near Exact near 

S5441 Exact Exact Exact 

S0442 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S5442 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0443 Exact Exact Exact 
 U-128 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0444 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0445 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0446 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0447 Exact Exact Exact 

S0448 Exact Exact Exact 

S0449 Exact Exact Exact 

S0450 Exact Exact Exact 

S0451 Exact Exact Exact 

S0452 Exact Exact Exact 

S0453 Exact Exact Exact 

S0454 Exact Exact Exact 

S0455 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0456 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0457 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0458 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0459 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0460 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0461 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0462 Exact Exact Exact 

S0463 Exact Exact Exact 

S0464 Exact Exact Exact 

S0465 Exact Exact Exact 

S0466 Exact Exact Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-129 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0467 Exact Exact Exact 

S0468 Exact Exact Exact 

S0469 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0470 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0471 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0472 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0473 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0474 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0475 Exact Exact Exact 

S0476 Exact Exact Exact 

S0477 Exact Exact Exact 

S0478 Exact Exact Exact 

S0479 Exact Exact Exact 

S0480 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0481 Exact Exact Exact 

S0482 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0489 Exact Exact Exact 

S0490 Exact Exact Exact 

S0491 Exact Exact Exact 

S0492 Exact Exact Exact 

S0493 Exact Exact Exact 

S0494 Exact Exact Exact 

S0495 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0496 Exact Exact Exact 

S0497 Exact Exact Exact 

S0498 Exact Exact Exact 
 U-130 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0499 Exact Exact Exact 

S0500 Exact Exact Exact 

S0501 Exact Exact Exact 

S0502 Exact Exact Exact 

S0503 Exact Exact Exact 

S0504 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0505 Exact Exact Exact 

S0506 Exact Exact Exact 

S0513 Exact Exact Exact 

S0514 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0515 Exact Exact Exact 

S0516 Exact Exact Exact 

S0517 Exact Exact Exact 

S0518 Exact Exact Exact 

S0519 Exact Exact Exact 

S0520 Exact Exact Exact 

S0521 Exact Exact Exact 

S0522 Exact Exact Exact 

S0523 Exact Exact Exact 

S0524 Exact Exact Exact 

S0525 Exact Exact Exact 

S0526 Exact Exact Exact 

S0527 Exact Exact Exact 

S0528 Exact Exact Exact 

S0529 Exact Exact Exact 

S0530 Exact Exact Exact 

S0531 Exact Exact Exact 

S0532 Exact Exact Exact 

S0533 Exact Exact Exact 

S0534 Exact Exact Exact 

S0535 Exact Exact Exact 

S0536 Exact Exact Exact 

S0537 Exact Exact Exact 

S0538 Exact Exact Exact 

S0539 Exact Exact Exact 

S0540 Exact Exact Exact 

S0541 Exact Exact Exact 

S0542 Exact Exact Exact 

S0543 Exact Exact Exact 

S0544 Exact Exact Exact 

S0545 Exact Exact Exact 

S0546 Exact Exact Exact 

S0547 Exact Exact Exact 

S0548 Exact Exact Exact 

S0549 Exact Exact Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-131 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0550 Exact Exact Exact 

S0551 Exact Exact Exact 

S0552 Exact Exact Exact 

S0553 Exact Exact Exact 

S0554 Exact Exact Exact 

S0555 Exact Exact Exact 

S0556 Exact Exact Exact 

S0557 Exact Exact Exact 

S0558 Exact Exact Exact 

S0559 Exact Exact Exact 

S0560 Exact Exact Exact 

S0561 Exact Exact Exact 

S0562 Exact Exact Exact 

S0563 Exact Exact Exact 

S0564 Exact Exact Exact 

S0565 Exact Exact Exact 

S0566 Exact Exact Exact 

S0567 Exact Exact Exact 

S0568 Exact Exact Exact 

S0569 Exact Exact Exact 

S0570 Exact Exact Exact 

S0571 Exact Exact Exact 

S0572 Exact Exact Exact 

S0573 Exact Exact Exact 

S0574 Exact Exact Exact 

S0575 Exact Exact Exact 

S0576 Exact Exact Exact 

S0577 Exact Exact Exact 

S0578 Exact Exact Exact 

S0579 Exact Exact Exact 

S0580 Exact Exact Exact 

S0581 Exact Exact Exact 

S0582 Exact Exact Exact 

S0583 Exact Exact Exact 

S0584 Exact Exact Exact 

S0585 Exact Exact Exact 

S0586 Exact Exact Exact 

S0593 Exact Exact Exact 

S0594 Exact Exact Exact 

S0595 Exact Exact Exact 

S0596 Exact Exact Exact 

S0597 Exact Exact Exact 

S5597 Exact Exact Exact 

S0604 Exact Exact Exact 

S0605 Exact Exact Exact 

S0606 Exact Exact Exact 

S0607 Exact Exact Exact 

S0608 Exact Exact Exact 

S0609 Exact Exact Exact 

S0610 Exact Exact Exact 
 U-132 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0611 Exact Exact Exact 

S0612 Exact Exact Exact 

S0613 Exact Exact Exact 

S0614 Exact Exact Exact 

S0615 Exact Exact Exact 

S0616 Exact Exact Exact 

S0617 Exact Exact Exact 

S0618 Exact Exact Exact 

S0619 Exact Exact Exact 

S0620 Exact Exact Exact 

S0621 Exact Exact Exact 

S0622, S0623, 

S0624 

Exact Exact Exact 

S0625 Exact Exact Exact 

S0626 Exact Exact Exact 

S0627 Exact Exact Exact 

S0628 Exact Exact Exact 

S0629 Exact Exact Exact 

S0630 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0631 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0632 Exact Exact Exact 

S0633 Exact Exact Exact 

S0634 Exact Exact Exact 

S0635 Exact Exact Exact 

S0636, S0637 Exact Exact Exact 

S0638 Exact Exact Exact 

S0639 Exact Exact Exact 

S0640 Exact Exact Exact 

S0641 Exact Exact Exact 

S0642 Exact Exact Exact 

S0643 Exact Exact Exact 

S0644 Exact Exact Exact 

S0645 Exact Exact Exact 

S0646 Exact Exact Exact 

S0647 Exact Exact Exact 

S0648 Exact Exact Exact 

S0649 Exact Exact Exact 

S0650 Exact Exact Exact 

S0651 Exact Exact Exact 

S0652 Exact Exact Exact 

S0653 Exact Exact Exact 

S0654 Exact Exact Exact 

S0655 Exact Exact Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-133 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0656 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0657 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0658 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0659 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0660 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S5660 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0661 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0662 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0663 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S5663 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0664 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0665 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0666 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S0667 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 
 U-134 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S5667 No match Exact Appears on the 

Unified School & 

School 

Questionnaires only 

No match 

S9001 Exact Exact Exact 

S9002 Exact Exact Exact 

S9003 Exact Exact Exact 

S0668 Exact Exact Exact 

S0669 Exact Exact Exact 

S0670 Exact Exact Exact 

S0671 Exact Exact Exact 

S0700 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0701 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0702 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0703 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0704 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0705 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0706 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0707 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0708 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0709 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0710 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0711 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0712 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0713 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-135 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0714 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0715 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0716 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0717 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0718 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0719 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0720 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0721 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0722 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0723 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0724 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0725 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0726 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0727 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0728 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0729 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0730 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0731 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 
 U-136 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0732 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0733 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0734 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0735 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0736 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0737 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0738 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0739 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0740 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0741 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0742 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0743 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0744 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S7045 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0746 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0747 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0748 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0749 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-137 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0750 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0751 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0752 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0753 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0754 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0755 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0756 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0757 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0758 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0759 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0760 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0761 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S5761 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0762 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0763 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0764 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0765 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0766 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 
 U-138 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0767 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0768 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0769 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0770 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0771 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0772 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0773 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0774 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0775 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0776 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S5776 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0777 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0778 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0779 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0780 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0781 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0782 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0783 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-139 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0784 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S5784 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0785 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0786 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0787 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0788 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0789 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0790 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S5791 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0791 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0792 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0793 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0794 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0795 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0796 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0797 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0798 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0799 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 
 U-140 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items appearing on the Private School and Unified School Questionnaires and on the School Questionnaire 

2003–04 

variable name 

Private School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

Unified School/ 

Private School 

Questionnaires 

match Comments 

S0800 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0801 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0802 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0803 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0804 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0805 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0806 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0807 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0808 Unique Appears on the 

Private School 

Questionnaire only 

No match No match 

S0950 No match Unique Appears on the 

Unified School 

Questionnaire only 

No match 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-141 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items Appearing on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire and on the Teacher Questionnaire 

2003–04 variable name 

Private School Teacher/ 

Teacher Questionnaires match Comments 

T0026 Exact 

T0027 Exact 

T0028 Exact 

T0029 Exact 

T0030 Exact 

T5030 Exact 

T0031 Exact 

T5031 Exact 

T9001 Exact 

T0032 Exact 

T0033 Exact 

T5033 Exact 

T0034 Exact 

T0035 Exact 

T0036 Near 

T0037 Near 

T0038 Near 

T0039 Near 

T0040 Near 

T0051 Exact 

T0052 Exact 

T0053 Exact 

T0054 Exact 

T0055 Exact 

T0056 Exact 

T0057 Exact 

T0058 Exact 

T0059 Exact 

T0060 Exact 

T0061 Exact 

T0062 Exact 

T0063 Exact 

T0064 Exact 

T0065 Exact 

T0066 Exact 

T0067 Exact 

T0068 Exact 

T0069 Exact 

T5069 Exact 

T0070 Exact 

T0071 Exact 

T0072 Exact 

T0073 Exact 

T0074 Exact 

T0075 Exact 

T5075 Exact 

T0077 Exact 

T0078 Exact 

T0079 Exact 

T0080 Exact 

T0081 Exact 

T0082 Exact 
 U-142 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items Appearing on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire and on the Teacher Questionnaire 

2003–04 variable name 

Private School Teacher/ 

Teacher Questionnaires match Comments 

T0083 Exact 

T0084 Exact 

T0085 Exact 

T0086 Exact 

T0087 Exact 

T0088 Exact 

T0089 Exact 

T0090 Exact 

T0091 Exact 

T0092 Exact 

T0093 Exact 

T0094 Exact 

T0095 Exact 

T0096 Exact 

T0097 Exact 

T0098 Exact 

T0099 Exact 

T0100 Exact 

T0101 Exact 

T0102 Exact 

T0103 Exact 

T0104 Exact 

T0105 Exact 

T0106 Exact 

T0116 Exact 

T0117 Exact 

T0118 Exact 

T0119 Exact 

T0120 Exact 

T0121 Exact 

T0122 Exact 

T0123 Exact 

T0124 Exact 

T0125 Exact 

T0126 Exact 

T0127 Exact 

T0128 Exact 

T0129 Exact 

T0130 Exact 

T0131 Exact 

T0132 Exact 

T0133 Exact 

T0134 Exact 

T0135 Exact 

T0136 Exact 

T0137 Exact 

T0138 Exact 

T0139 Exact 

T0140 Exact 

T0141 Exact 

T0142 Exact 

T0143 Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-143 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items Appearing on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire and on the Teacher Questionnaire 

2003–04 variable name 

Private School Teacher/ 

Teacher Questionnaires match Comments 

T0144 Exact 

T0145 Exact 

T0146 Exact 

T0147 Exact 

T0148 Exact 

T0149 Exact 

T0150 Exact 

T0151 Exact 

T0152 Exact 

T0153 Exact 

T0154 Exact 

T0155 Exact 

T0156 Exact 

T0157 Exact 

T0158 Exact 

T0159 Exact 

T0166 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0167 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0168 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0169 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0170 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0171 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0172 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0173 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0174 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0175 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0176 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0177 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0178 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0179 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0180 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0181 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0182 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0183 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0184 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0185 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0186 No match Appears only on the Teacher Questionnaire 

T0187 Near 

T0188 Near 

T0189 Near 

T0190 Near 

T0191 Near 

T0192 Near 

T0193 Near 

T0194 Near 

T0195 Near 

T0196 Near 

T0197 Near 

T0198 Near 

T0199 Near 

T0200 Near 

T0201 Near 
 U-144 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items Appearing on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire and on the Teacher Questionnaire 

2003–04 variable name 

Private School Teacher/ 

Teacher Questionnaires match Comments 

T0202 Near 

T0203 Near 

T0204 Near 

T0205 Near 

T0206 Near 

T0207 Near 

T0208 Near 

T0209 Exact 

T0210 Exact 

T0211 Exact 

T0212 Exact 

T0213 Exact 

T0214 Exact 

T0215 Exact 

T0216 Exact 

T0217 Exact 

T0218 Exact 

T0219 Exact 

T0220 Exact 

T0221 Exact 

T0222 Exact 

T0223 Exact 

T0224 Exact 

T0225 Exact 

T0226 Exact 

T0227 Exact 

T0228 Exact 

T0235 Exact 

T0236 Exact 

T0237 Exact 

T0238 Exact 

T0239 Exact 

T0240 Exact 

T0241 Exact 

T0242 Exact 

T0243 Exact 

T0244 Exact 

T0245 Exact 

T0246 Exact 

T0247 Exact 

T0248 Exact 

T0249 Exact 

T0250 Exact 

T0251 Exact 

T0252 Exact 

T0253 Exact 

T0254 Exact 

T0255 Exact 

T0256 Exact 

T0257 Exact 

T0258 Exact 

T0259 Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-145 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items Appearing on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire and on the Teacher Questionnaire 

2003–04 variable name 

Private School Teacher/ 

Teacher Questionnaires match Comments 

T0260 Exact 

T0261 Exact 

T0262 Exact 

T0263 Exact 

T0264 Exact 

T0265 Exact 

T0266 Exact 

T0267 Exact 

T0268 Exact 

T0269 Exact 

T0270 Exact 

T0271 Exact 

T0279 Exact 

T0280 Exact 

T0281 Exact 

T0282 Exact 

T0283 Exact 

T0284 Exact 

T0285 Exact 

T0286 Exact 

T0287 Exact 

T0288 Exact 

T0289 Exact 

T0290 Exact 

T0297 Exact 

T0298 Exact 

T0299 Exact 

T0300 Exact 

T0301 Exact 

T0302 Exact 

T0303 Exact 

T0304 Exact 

T0311 Exact 

T0312 Exact 

T0313 Exact 

T0314 Exact 

T0315 Exact 

T0316 Exact 

T0317 Exact 

T0318 Exact 

T0319 Exact 

T0320 Exact 

T0321 Exact 

T0322 Exact 

T0323 Exact 

T0330 Exact 

T0331 Exact 

T0332 Exact 

T0333 Exact 

T0334 Exact 

T0335 Exact 

T0336 Exact 
 U-146 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items Appearing on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire and on the Teacher Questionnaire 

2003–04 variable name 

Private School Teacher/ 

Teacher Questionnaires match Comments 

T0337 Exact 

T0338 Exact 

T0339 Exact 

T0340 Exact 

T0341 Exact 

T0342 Exact 

T0343 Exact 

T0344 Exact 

T0345 Exact 

T0346 Exact 

T0347 Exact 

T0348 Exact 

T0349 Exact 

T0350 Exact 

T0351 Exact 

T0352 Exact 

T0353 Exact 

T0354 Exact 

T0355 Exact 

T0356 Exact 

T0357 Exact 

T0358 Exact 

T0359 Exact 

T0360 Exact 

T0361 Exact 

T0362 Exact 

T0363 Exact 

T0364 Exact 

T0365 Exact 

T0366 Exact 

T0367 Exact 

T0368 Exact 

T0369 Exact 

T0370 Exact 

T0371 Exact 

T0372 Exact 

T0373 Exact 

T0374 Exact 

T0375 Exact 

T0376 Exact 

T0377 Exact 

T0378 Exact 

T0379 Exact 

T0380 Exact 

T0381 Exact 

T0382 Exact 

T0383 Exact 

T0384 Exact 

T0385 Exact 

T0386 Exact 

T0387 Exact 

T0388 Exact 
Appendix U. Crosswalk Among Items in the 1987–88, 1990–91, 1993–94, 1999–2000 and 2003–04 SASS U-147 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items Appearing on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire and on the Teacher Questionnaire 

2003–04 variable name 

Private School Teacher/ 

Teacher Questionnaires match Comments 

T0389 Exact 

T0393 Exact 

T0394 Exact 

T0395 Exact 

T0396 Exact 

T0397 Exact 

T0398 Exact 

T0399 Exact 

T0400 Exact 

T0401 Exact 

T0402 Exact 

T0403 Exact 

T0404 Exact 

T0405 Exact 

T0406 Exact 

T0407 Exact 

T0408 Exact 

T0409 Exact 

T0410 Exact 

T0411 Exact 

T0412 Exact 

T0413 Exact 

T0414 Exact 

T0415 Exact 

T0416 Exact 

T0417 Exact 

T0418 Exact 

T0419 Exact 

T0420 Exact 

T0421 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0422 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0423 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0424 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0425 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0426 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0427 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0428 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0429 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0430 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0431 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0433 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0434 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0435 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0436 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0437 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0438 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0439 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0440 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0441 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0442 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0443 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0444 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 
 U-148 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey 

SASS Variable Crosswalk Across 2003–04 Questionnaires: 

Items Appearing on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire and on the Teacher Questionnaire 

2003–04 variable name 

Private School Teacher/ 

Teacher Questionnaires match Comments 

T0445 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0446 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0447 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0448 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0449 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0450 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0451 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0452 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0453 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0454 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0455 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0456 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0457 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0458 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0459 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0460 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0461 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0462 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 

T0463 No match Appears only on the Private School Teacher Questionnaire 
V-1 

Appendix V. Main Teaching Assignment Variable 

In the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) teacher questionnaires, teachers are asked to identify what 

classes or subjects they teach, including their main teaching assignment. To answer these items, teachers 

are referred to a table containing a list of teaching assignment codes to identify what subjects or classes 

they teach. In the 2003–04 SASS, changes were made to the organization of and categories contained in 

the table concerning teaching assignment and subject matter codes (i.e., table 1 in the Teacher 

Questionnaire and Private School Teacher Questionnaire). The changes to this table led to changes in the 

construction of the created variable that identifies the respondent’s main teaching assignment. The main 

teaching assignment variable found on the 2003–04 SASS files is named ASSIGN03. It is named 

ASSIGN on the 1999–2000 SASS data files. The changes in how teaching assignment fields were 

grouped to produce the variable are outlined in the crosswalk below. 

Crosswalk of changes in the main teaching assignment variable from 1999–2000 to 2003–04 

1999–2000 SASS: ASSIGN 2003–04 SASS: ASSIGN03 

Value 

Assignment 

field 

Teaching 

assignment 

field codes Value 

Assignment 

field 

Teaching 

assignment 

and subject 

matter codes Description of changes 

1 Prekindergarten, 

Kindergarten, 

& General 

Elementary 

T0102 = 1, 2, 3 1 Early 

Childhood/ 

General 

Elementary 

T0069 or 

T0075 = 101, 

102 

In 2003–04, the General 

Education heading 

combined kindergarten 

teachers with elementary 

teachers. 

2 Math & 

Science 

T0102 = 16, 32, 

33, 34, 35, 36, 

37, 38 

8 Mathematics T0069 or 

T0075 = 191, 

192, 193, 194, 

195, 196, 198, 

199, 200, 201 

In 1999–2000, mathematics 

was listed as a single field 

code under the Special 

Areas heading. In 2003–04, 

it was a separate heading 

that included: algebra 

(elementary, intermediate, 

and advanced), general 

math, geometry, calculus, 

statistics, and trigonometry.

 9 Natural Science T0069 or 

T0075 = 210, 

211, 212, 213, 

215, 216, 217 

Mathematics and natural 

science teachers had 

separate headings in 2003–

04 and were given separate 

categories in ASSIGN03. 

3 English/ 

Language Arts 

T0102 = 23, 24, 

25 

4 English/ 

Language Arts 

T0069 or 

T0075 = 151, 

152, 153, 154, 

155, 158, 159 

In 2003–04, the English/ 

Language Arts heading had 

more subfields 

(communications, 

composition, and speech) 

and provided separate 

subfields for English and 

language arts. The existing 

subfields of reading and 

journalism were retained. 
V-2 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Crosswalk of changes in the main teaching assignment variable from 1999–2000 to 2003–04 

1999–2000 SASS: ASSIGN 2003–04 SASS: ASSIGN03 

Value 

Assignment 

field 

Teaching 

assignment 

field codes Value 

Assignment 

field 

Teaching 

assignment 

and subject 

matter codes Description of changes 

4 Social Science T0102 = 22 10 Social Sciences T0069 or 

T0075 = 220, 

221, 225, 226, 

227, 228, 231, 

233, 234 

In 2003–04, social science 

was a new heading and 

added the following 

subfields: general social 

studies, anthropology, 

economics, geography, 

government and civics, 

history, Native American 

studies, psychology, and 

sociology. In 1999–2000, 

Native American studies 

was a field under the 

Special Areas heading and 

was grouped in the “other” 

category. 

5 Special 

Education 

T0102 = 49, 50, 

51, 52, 53, 54, 

55, 56, 57, 58, 

59, 60, 61, 62, 

63 

2 Special 

Education 

T0069 or 

T0075 = 110 

In 2003–04, Special 

Education was collapsed 

into a single field code. 

6 Foreign 

Languages 

T0102 = 26, 27, 

28, 29, 30, 31 

6 Foreign 

Languages 

T0069 or 

T0075 = 171, 

172, 173, 174, 

175 

In 2003–04, Russian was 

deleted as a subfield under 

Foreign Languages. 

7 Bilingual/ESL 

Education 

T0102 = 8, 12 5 ESL/ Bilingual 

Education 

T0069 or 

T0075 = 160, 

161, 162 

In 2003–04, the 

ESL/Bilingual education 

field was divided into 

ESL/Bilingual general, 

ESL/Bilingual Spanish, and 

ESL/Bilingual other 

languages. In 1999–2000, 

the options were only 

bilingual education or ESL. 
Appendix V. Main Teaching Assignment Variable V-3 

Crosswalk of changes in the main teaching assignment variable from 1999–2000 to 2003–04 

1999–2000 SASS: ASSIGN 2003–04 SASS: ASSIGN03 

Value 

Assignment 

field 

Teaching 

assignment 

field codes Value 

Assignment 

field 

Teaching 

assignment 

and subject 

matter codes Description of changes 

8 Vocational/ 

Technical 

Education 

T0102 = 39, 40, 

41, 42, 43, 44, 

45, 46, 47, 48 

11 Vocational/ 

Technical 

Education 

T0069 or 

T0075 = 241, 

242, 243, 244, 

245, 246, 247, 

248, 249, 250, 

251, 252, 253, 

254, 255, 256 

In 2003–04, subfields were 

added under the Vocational/ 

Technical Education 

heading: construction, 

drafting, woods/metals/ 

plastic production, child 

care, and marketing. The 

family and consumer 

sciences education field 

was under the Special 

Areas heading in 1999–

2000 and included in the 

“other” category for 

ASSIGN. In 2003–04 the 

field was moved to 

Vocational/Technical 

Education. 

9 All others T0102 = 4, 5, 6, 

7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 

14, 15, 17, 18, 

19, 20, 21, 64 

3 Arts & Music T0069 or 

T0075 = 141, 

143, 144, 145 

In 1999–2000, art was a 

field under the Special 

Areas heading and was 

included in the ASSIGN 

category of “other.” In 

2003–04, Arts & Music was 

a heading that included the 

following subfields: 

arts/arts or crafts, dance, 

drama/ theater, and music. 

 7 Health/ 

Physical 

Education 

T0069 or 

T0075 = 181, 

182 

In 1999–2000, health 

education and physical 

education were categorized 

as “other.” In 2003–04, 

Health Education was a 

heading with health 

education and physical 

education as separate 

subfields. 
V-4 Documentation for the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey

Crosswalk of changes in the main teaching assignment variable from 1999–2000 to 2003–04 

1999–2000 SASS: ASSIGN 2003–04 SASS: ASSIGN03 

Value 

Assignment 

field 

Teaching 

assignment 

field codes Value 

Assignment 

field 

Teaching 

assignment 

and subject 

matter codes Description of changes 

 12 All others T0069 or 

T0075 = 197, 

262, 264, 265, 

266, 267, 268 

Religion, philosophy, 

computer science, and 

military sciences still fall 

under “other.” New field 

codes were added to 

“other” in 2003–04: 

driver’s education and 

library/information science. 

Several field codes counted 

as “other” for ASSIGN 

were included in different 

values or given their own 

value for ASSIGN03: 

family and consumer 

sciences, Native American 

studies, arts/music, and 

health/ physical education.