Teacher Professional

Development in

1999–2000

U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2006-305

Statistical Analysis Report

What Teachers, Principals,

and District Staff Report
 
Teacher Professional

Development in

1999–2000

U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2006-305

Statistical Analysis Report

What Teachers, Principals,

and District Staff Report

January 2006

Susan P. Choy

Xianglei Chen

Rosio Bugarin

MPR Associates, Inc.

Stephen P. Broughman

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 2006 

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 

Choy, S.P., Chen, X., and Bugarin, R. (2006). Teacher Professional Development in 1999–2000: What Teachers, Principals, 

and District Staff Report (NCES 2006-305). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics. 

For ordering information on this report, write: 

U.S. Department of Education 

ED Pubs 

P.O. Box 1398 

Jessup, MD 20794-1398 

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

Content Contact: 

Stephen Broughman 

(202) 502-7315 

Stephen.Broughman@ed.gov
iii 

Executive Summary 

For two decades, U.S. schools have been engaged in major reform efforts to improve student learning, 

and they have made teacher professional development an essential component of their plans. “Never 

before in the history of education has there been greater recognition of the importance of professional 

development. Every modern proposal to reform, restructure, or transform schools emphasizes 

professional development as a primary vehicle in efforts to bring about needed change” (Guskey 1995, 

p.1). The federal government, states, districts, schools, and other groups such as subject-matter 

associations; networks of teachers, schools, and districts; and school-university collaboratives are all 

actively engaged in efforts to improve professional development (Corcoran 1995; Hirsch, Koppich, and 

Knapp 2001; Massell 1998; U.S. Department of Education 1996). 

For many years, professional development typically consisted of short, stand-alone workshops on 

topics selected by schools and districts (often without consulting teachers) and college/university 

coursetaking. During the 1990s, some experts began to suggest that these traditional forms of teacher 

professional development lacked the focus, intensity, and continuity needed to change classroom 

practices (Little 1993) and they were inadequate for preparing teachers to meet the educational needs of 

their students. As researchers and organizations have attempted to restructure professional development 

opportunities, there were some key elements for which there appeared a broad consensus. According to 

Hawley and Valli (2001), professional development should reflect student and teacher needs, be part of 

an overall plan for change, involve teachers in planning and developing opportunities, promote 

collaboration at the school level, and be evaluated for its impact on teaching practice and student 

learning. Although there have been relatively few rigorous evaluations to date, there are some suggestive 

findings indicating that professional development that meets the high-quality criteria as described by 

Hawley and Valli (2001) may change teacher learning and classroom practice (Porter et al. 2000) and 

that these changes, in turn, may affect the academic performance of students (Wenglinsky 2002; Cohen 

and Hill 2000). 

In developing the 1999–2000 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), a special effort was made to 

include questions that would help determine the extent to which the characteristics of professional 

development policies and practices were consistent with the emerging consensus on the key features of 

professional development as described by Hawley and Valli (2001). The survey addressed how 

professional development was organized and managed, what kinds of activities were available to 

teachers, and which ones they participated in. This report uses these data to describe what district staff, 

principals, and teachers reported about these important aspects of teacher professional development. The 

SASS data cannot be used to address questions on whether these aspects actually improve the 

effectiveness of teacher professional development activities (i.e., questions regarding associations 

between particular professional development activities and student outcomes). Major topics covered by 
Executive Summary 

iv 

this report include planning and implementation of professional development, selection and evaluation of 

professional development activities, support for teacher professional development, professional 

development topics, and usefulness of professional development activities. 

The SASS is the nation’s most extensive survey of elementary and secondary schools, and the 

teachers and administrators who staff them. The SASS design features parallel questionnaires for 

districts, schools, principals, teachers, and school library media centers. In 1999–2000, interviews were 

obtained from approximately 4,700 school districts, 12,000 schools, 12,300 principals, 52,400 teachers, 

and 9,900 school library media centers. The SASS data are reliable at the state level for public schools 

and at the affiliation level for private schools. For more details on the design of SASS and the 1999–2000 

SASS collection, see the technical notes section (page B-1). 

The Student’s t statistic was used to test the likelihood that the differences between two estimates 

were larger than would be expected due to sampling error. When averages of a continuous variable were 

examined relative to a variable with ordered categories, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test 

for a linear relationship between the two variables. To do this, ANOVA equations included orthogonal 

liner contrasts corresponding to successive levels of the independent variable. The variance between the 

means, and the unweighted sample sizes were used to partition the total sum of squares into within- and 

between-group sums of squares. These were used to create mean squares for the within- and betweengroup variance components and their corresponding F statistics, which were then compared with 

published values of F for a significance level of .05. Logistic regression was used to perform the 

multivariate analysis to determine whether or not a specific teacher, school, or district characteristic was 

associated with teacher participation in professional development, after controlling for the associations 

between teacher participation and all of the other teacher, school, and district characteristics examined in 

this report. All comparisons reported in the text are significant at an alpha level of 5 percent. Details of 

the statistical methodology and the statistical tests used are presented in the technical notes (page B-12). 

Highlights 

Following are some of the findings of this study. 

• According to district staff, primary responsibility for deciding the content of professional 

development activities, designing and planning activities, and conducting activities rests most 

commonly with district staff or principals rather than teachers or outside providers. For 

example, 35 percent of district staff reported that they had primary responsibility for 

designing and planning activities and 37 percent named principals, whereas 24 percent picked 

teachers and 4 percent selected outside providers (table 1).

• Outside providers1 play a larger role in conducting activities than they do at the earlier stages 

(i.e., deciding the content, deciding and planning the activities). Few districts reported that 

 

1 Outside providers might include, for example, university or college faculty or professional organizations. 
 Executive Summary 

v 

outside providers had primary responsibility for deciding the content of the activities (2 

percent) or designing and planning them (4 percent), but 21 percent reported that they had 

primary responsibility for conducting the activities (table 1). 

• Most public school principals reported that they (83 percent), teachers (78 percent), and 

district staff (73 percent) had “a great deal of influence” in determining the content of inservice activities (i.e., they rated their influence as 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) (table 2). 

• Boards had similar amounts of influence in both public and private sectors (although the types 

of boards are obviously different). The percentage of private school principals who thought 

that their governing or diocesan board had “a great deal of influence” (29 percent) in 

determining the content of in-service activities (i.e., they rated their influence as 4 or 5 on a 5-

point scale) was not significantly different from the percentage of public school principals 

who felt that way about their local school board (30 percent) (tables 2 and 3). 

• At the elementary level, teachers’ likelihood of reporting that teachers in their school had “a 

great deal of influence in determining the content of in-service activities” decreased as school 

size increased (table 2). 

• Between 81 and 89 percent of public school principals reported that district-level initiatives 

and improvement plans, school improvement plans, and implementation of academic or skills 

standards were “very important” determinants of professional development activities for 

teachers (figure A).2 

 

2 That is, they rated these activities 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 5. 
Executive Summary 

vi 

Figure A.—Percentage of public school principals who reported that various initiatives, plans, and standards 

Figure A.—were very important in determining in-service professional development opportunities and 

Figure A.—activities for teachers in their school: 1999–2000

NOTE: Principals were asked to specify how important these initatives, plans, and standards were in determining the

professional development opportunities and activities for teachers in their school using a scale of 1–5. “Very important”

means that they chose 4 or 5.

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000. 

52

85

89 87

81

68

0

20

40

60

80

100

Special statelevel initiativesDistrict-level

initiatives or

improvement

plan

School

improvement

plan

Implementation

of state or local

academic

standards

Implementation

of state or local

skills standards

Teacher

preferences

Percent

• In 1999–2000, most schools (92 percent) provided their teachers with time for professional 

development during regular contract hours, with public schools being more likely than private 

schools to do so (95 vs. 82 percent) (table 11). 

• According to teachers’ reports, scheduled time in the contract year for professional 

development was the most common form of support (71 percent received it), especially for 

public school teachers (74 vs. 57 percent for private school teachers) (table 12). 

• The types of professional development activities in which teachers participated varied with 

their teaching experience. In both public and private schools, new teachers (those with 3 years 

of experience or less) were more likely than teachers with 10 years of teaching experience or 

more to take university courses in their main teaching field (table 16). 

• In each topic area, more than one-half of all teachers who had participated thought that the 

activities were very useful (i.e., they rated them as 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) (table 20). 
vii 

Acknowledgments 

Many people contributed to the production of this report, and the authors would like to 

thank several in particular. At NCES, Kathryn Chandler of the Elementary/Secondary and 

Library Studies Division reviewed several drafts of the report and provided valuable guidance 

and feedback. Paula Knepper, Elvira Hausken, and Michael Wiatrowski of NCES, and Aparna 

Sundaram, Nina Emerson, Todd Thomas, and Robin Gurley of the Education Statistics Services 

Institute reviewed the draft manuscript and provided valuable comments and suggestions. Shelley 

Burns of NCES was the statistical standards reviewer for this report. Lisa Bridges of the Institute 

of Education Sciences gathered and mediated comments from two anonymous external reviewers 

that greatly improved this report. 

This report was produced under contract by MPR Associates. Susan Wiley, formerly of 

NCES, was the NCES project officer for the initial stages of the project; Stephen Broughman 

was the NCES project officer for the later stages of the project. Stephen Lew of MPR Associates 

did the programming for the tables in this report. Editing and production help was provided by 

Barbara Kridl, Andrea Livingston, and Francesca Tussing, also of MPR Associates, and by 

Joanna Bujard and Carol Rohr of Pinkerton Computer Consultants, Inc. 

ix 

Contents 

Page 

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

Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................... vii 

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xi 

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................xvii 

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

New Approaches to Professional Development ........................................................................1 

Data and Methodology ..............................................................................................................4 

Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development ..................................7 

Participants in Planning and Implementation ...........................................................................7 

Basis for Selecting and Evaluating Professional Development Activities ..............................18 

School Environment ................................................................................................................21 

Support for Professional Development ...................................................................................31 

Teacher Participation in Professional Development ................................................................43 

Format of Activities ................................................................................................................43 

Topics ......................................................................................................................................59 

Usefulness of Activities ..........................................................................................................69 

Summary ......................................................................................................................................77 

References ....................................................................................................................................79 

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

Appendix B—Technical Notes .................................................................................................B-1 

xi 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

1. Percentage distribution of school districts by district staff reports of who had primary 

responsibility for various aspects of teacher in-service professional development 

activities, by district size: 1999–2000 .................................................................................9 

2. Percentage of public school principals who thought that various groups had a great 

deal of influence in determining the content of teacher in-service professional 

development activities in their schools, by selected school characteristics: 1999–2000...11 

3. Percentage of private school principals who thought that various groups had a great 

deal of influence in determining the content of teacher in-service professional 

development activities in their schools, by selected school characteristics: 1999–2000 ..14 

4. Percentage of teachers who thought that teachers in their school had a great deal of 

influence in determining the content of teacher in-service professional development 

activities in their schools, by sector and selected school characteristics: 1999–2000 ......15 

5. Percentage of public and private school principals who reported that various 

initiatives, plans, and standards were very important in determining the in-service 

professional development opportunities and activities for teachers in their schools, by 

district size and selected school characteristics: 1999–2000 ............................................20 

6. Percentage of principals who reported that teachers’ professional development 

activities were frequently or always evaluated for improvement in teacher classroom 

practice and effects on student achievement, by district size and selected school 

characteristics: 1999–2000 ................................................................................................22 

7. Percentage of teachers who strongly agreed with various statements about withinschool collaboration among teachers and principals, by sector and selected school 

characteristics: 1999–2000 ................................................................................................24 

8. Percentage of principals who reported that teacher professional development 

frequently or always had certain attributes, by selected school or principal 

characteristic: 1999–2000 .................................................................................................27 
List of Tables 

xii 

Table Page 

9. Percentage of principals who had participated in various activities related to 

professional development at least once a week during the last month, by sector and 

selected school or principal characteristic: 1999–2000 ....................................................30 

10. Percentage of school districts that reported using various sources of funding for 

teacher professional development activities in their districts, by district size: 

1999–2000 .........................................................................................................................32 

11. Percentage of principals who reported that their school provided teachers with time 

for professional development during regular contract hours, and of those, percentage 

who reported that their schools used various methods to provide teachers with time, 

by sector, district size, and selected school characteristics: 1999–2000 ...........................34 

12. Percentage of teachers who reported receiving various types of support for 

professional development activities in the past 12 months, by sector, district size, and 

selected school and teacher characteristics: 1999–2000 ...................................................38 

13. Percentage of public school districts that reported using pay incentives to reward 

teachers for certain types of professional development, by district size: 1999–2000 .......40 

14. Percentage of teachers who reported receiving various rewards as a result of 

completing professional development activities, by sector and teacher experience: 

1999–2000 .........................................................................................................................41 

15. Percentage of teachers with fewer than 5 years of teaching experience who had 

participated in a teacher induction program or had worked closely with a master or 

mentor teacher during their first year of teaching, and their experience, by sector, 

district size, and selected school or teacher characteristic: 1999–2000 ............................44 

16. Percentage of teachers who participated in various professional development activities 

related to teaching in the past 12 months, by sector, district size, and selected school 

and teacher characteristics: 1999–2000 ............................................................................49 

17. Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participated in 

various professional development activities in the past 12 months: 1999–2000 ..............52 

18. Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participated in 

professional development programs that focused on various topics in the past 12 

months: 1999–2000 ...........................................................................................................62
 List of Tables 

xiii 

Table Page 

19. Percentage distribution of teachers by their top priority for additional professional 

development, by sector, school level, and teacher experience: 1999–2000 ......................72 

20. Percentage of teachers who thought that various professional development activities 

in which they had participated in the past 12 months were very useful, by sector and 

time spent on the corresponding topic: 1999–2000 ..........................................................73 

21. Percentage of teachers who reported that students used computers during class time, 

and of those, the percentage who reported that their students had used computers for 

various purposes in two or more class meetings during the past 2 weeks, by sector and 

time spent on a professional development program that focused on using computers 

for instruction: 1999–2000 ................................................................................................75 

A1. Standard errors for table 1 and figures A and 1: Percentage distribution of school 

districts by district staff reports of who had primary responsibility for various aspects 

of teacher in-service professional development activities, by district size: 

1999–2000 ...................................................................................................................... A-2 

A2. Standard errors for table 2: Percentage of public school principals who thought that 

various groups had a great deal of influence in determining the content of teacher inservice professional development activities in their schools, by selected school 

characteristics: 1999–2000 ............................................................................................. A-3 

A3. Standard errors for table 3: Percentage of private school principals who thought that 

various groups had a great deal of influence in determining the content of teacher inservice professional development activities in their schools, by selected school 

characteristics: 1999–2000 ............................................................................................. A-4 

A4. Standard errors for table 4: Percentage of teachers who thought that teachers in their 

school had a great deal of influence in determining the content of teacher in-service 

professional development activities in their schools, by sector and selected school 

characteristics: 1999–2000 ............................................................................................. A-5 

A5. Standard errors for table 5 and figure 5: Percentage of public and private school 

principals who reported that various initiatives, plans, and standards were very 

important in determining the in-service professional development opportunities and 

activities for teachers in their schools, by district size and selected school 

characteristics: 1999–2000 ............................................................................................. A-6 

A6. Standard errors for table 6: Percentage of principals who reported that teachers’ 

professional development activities were frequently or always evaluated for 

improvement in teacher classroom practice and effects on student achievement, by 

district size and selected school characteristics: 1999–2000 ......................................... A-7 
List of Tables 

xiv 

Table Page 

A7. Standard errors for table 7: Percentage of teachers who strongly agreed with various 

statements about within-school collaboration among teachers and principals, by sector 

and selected school characteristics: 1999–2000 ............................................................. A-8 

A8. Standard errors for table 8: Percentage of principals who reported that teacher 

professional development frequently or always had certain attributes, by selected 

school or principal characteristic: 1999–2000 ............................................................. A-10 

A9. Standard errors for table 9: Percentage of principals who had participated in various 

activities related to professional development at least once a week during the last 

month, by sector and selected school or principal characteristic: 1999–2000 ............. A-12 

A10. Standard errors for table 10: Percentage of school districts that reported using various 

sources of funding for teacher professional development activities in their districts, by 

district size: 1999–2000 ............................................................................................... A-13 

A11. Standard errors for table 11 and figure 7: Percentage of principals who reported that 

their schools provided teachers with time for professional development during regular 

contract hours, and of those, percentage who reported that their school used various 

methods to provide teachers with time, by sector, district size, and selected school 

characteristics: 1999–2000 ........................................................................................... A-14 

A12. Standard errors for table 12 and figure 8: Percentage of teachers who reported 

receiving various types of support for professional development activities in the past 

12 months, by sector, district size, and selected school and teacher characteristics: 

1999–2000 .................................................................................................................... A-15 

A13. Standard errors for table 13: Percentage of public school districts that reported using 

pay incentives to reward teachers for certain types of professional development, by 

district size: 1999–2000 ............................................................................................... A-16 

A14. Standard errors for table 14: Percentage of teachers who reported receiving various 

rewards as a result of completing professional development activities, by sector and 

teacher experience: 1999–2000 .................................................................................... A-17 

A15. Standard errors for table 15: Percentage of teachers with fewer than 5 years of 

teaching experience who had participated in a teacher induction program or had 

worked closely with a master or mentor teacher during their first year of teaching, and 

their experience, by sector, district size, and selected school or teacher characteristic: 

1999–2000 .................................................................................................................... A-18 
 List of Tables 

xv 

Table Page 

A16. Standard errors for table 16 and figure 10: Percentage of teachers who participated in 

various professional development activities related to teaching in the past 12 months, 

by sector, district size, and selected school and teacher characteristics: 1999–2000 ... A-20 

A17. Standard errors for table 17: Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting 

whether teachers participated in various professional development activities in the 

past 12 months: 1999–2000 ......................................................................................... A-23 

A18. Standard errors for table 18: Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting 

whether teachers participated in professional development programs that focused on 

various topics in the past 12 months: 1999–2000 ........................................................ A-28 

A19. Standard errors for table 19 and figure 13: Percentage distribution of teachers by their 

top priority for additional professional development, by sector, school level, and 

teacher experience: 1999–2000 .................................................................................... A-33 

A20. Standard errors for table 20: Percentage of teachers who thought that various 

professional development activities in which they had participated in the past 12 

months were very useful, by sector and time spent on the corresponding topic: 

1999–2000 .................................................................................................................... A-34 

A21. Standard errors for table 21: Percentage of teachers who reported that students used 

computers during class time, and of those, the percentage who reported that their 

students had used computers for various purposes in two or more class meetings 

during the past 2 weeks, by sector and time spent on a professional development 

program that focused on using computers for instruction: 1999–2000 ....................... A-35 

A22. Standard errors for figure 2: Percentage of public school principals who thought that 

various groups had a great deal of influence in determining the content of teacher inservice professional development activities in their school: 1993–94 and 

1999–2000 .................................................................................................................... A-36 

A23. Standard errors for figure 3: Percentage of teachers who reported that teachers in their 

school had a great deal of influence in determining the content of teacher in-service 

professional development activities, by sector and school level: 1993–94 and 

1999–2000 .................................................................................................................... A-37 

A24. Standard errors for figure 4: Percentage distributions of teachers and principals by the 

amount of influence they thought that teachers in their schools had in determining the 

content of in-service professional development programs, by sector and staff: 

1999–2000 .................................................................................................................... A-38 
List of Tables 

xvi 

Table Page 

A25. Standard errors for figure 6: Percentage of teachers who strongly agreed with various 

statements about within-school collaboration between teachers and principals, by 

sector: 1993–94 and 1999–2000 ................................................................................... A-39 

A26. Standard errors for figure 9: Percentage of teachers with fewer than 5 years of 

teaching experience who participated in a teacher induction program during their first 

year of teaching, by sector: 1993–94 and 1999–2000................................................... A-40 

A27. Standard errors for figure 11: Percentage of teachers who participated in professional 

development programs that focused on various topics in the past 12 months, by 

sector: 1999–2000......................................................................................................... A-41 

A28. Standard errors for figure 12: Percentage distribution of teachers by the amount of 

time they spend on professional development programs, by sector and topic: 

1999–2000 .................................................................................................................... A-42 

B1. Number of cases and weighted response rates, by sector: 1999–2000 ...........................B-4 

B2. Items used in this report with weighted response rates of less than 95 percent, by 

survey: 1999–2000 ..........................................................................................................B-5
xvii 

List of Figures 

Figure Page 

A. Percentage of public school principals who reported that various initiatives, plans, and 

standards were very important in determining in-service professional development 

opportunities and activities for teachers in their school: 1999–2000................................. vi 

1. Percentage distribution of school districts by district staff reports of who had primary 

responsibility for various aspects of teacher in-service professional development 

activities: 1999–2000...........................................................................................................8 

2. Percentage of public school principals who thought that various groups had a great 

deal of influence in determining the content of teacher in-service professional 

development activities in their schools: 1993–94 and 1999–2000 ....................................12 

3. Percentage of teachers who reported that teachers in their schools had a great deal of 

influence in determining the content of teacher in-service professional development 

activities, by sector and school level: 1993–94 and 1999–2000........................................16 

4. Percentage distributions of teachers and principals by the amount of influence they 

thought that teachers in their schools had in determining the content 

of in-service professional development programs, by sector and staff: 1999–2000..........17 

5. Percentage of public school principals who reported that various initiatives, 

plans, and standards were very important in determining in-service professional 

development opportunities and activities for teachers in their schools: 1999–2000 .........19 

6. Percentage of teachers who strongly agreed with various statements about withinschool collaboration between teachers and principals, by sector: 1993–94 and 

1999–2000..........................................................................................................................26 

7. Percentage of principals who reported that their school provided teachers with time 

for professional development during regular contract hours, and of these principals, 

percentage who reported that their school used various methods to provide their 

teachers with time, by sector: 1999–2000..........................................................................33 

8. Percentage of teachers who reported receiving various types of support for 

professional development activities in which they had participated during the past 

12 months, by sector: 1999–2000 ......................................................................................37 
List of Figures 

xviii 

Figure Page 

9. Percentage of teachers with fewer than 5 years of teaching experience who 

participated in a teacher induction program during their first year of teaching, 

by sector: 1993–94 and 1999–2000 ...................................................................................46 

10. Percentage of teachers who participated in various professional development 

activities related to teaching in the past 12 months, by sector: 1999–2000.......................48 

11. Percentage of teachers who participated in professional development programs 

that focused on various topics in the past 12 months, by sector: 1999–2000 ....................60 

12. Percentage distribution of teachers by the amount of time they spent 

on professional development programs, by sector and topic: 1999–2000 .........................70 

13. Percentage distribution of teachers by their top priority for additional professional 

development, by sector: 1999–2000 ..................................................................................71 
1 

Introduction 

For two decades, U.S. schools have been engaged in major reform efforts to improve 

student learning, and they have made teacher professional development an essential component 

of their plans. “Never before in the history of education has there been greater recognition of the 

importance of professional development. Every modern proposal to reform, restructure, or 

transform schools emphasizes professional development as a primary vehicle in efforts to bring 

about needed change” (Guskey 1995, p.1). 

This report uses data from the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) to describe teacher 

professional development activities in 1999–2000. The first part of the report examines the ways 

in which districts and schools organize and manage professional development, and the second 

part describes the extent to which teachers participate in various types of professional 

development activities. To place the analysis in context, the report begins by summarizing some 

of the predominant views of teacher professional development that emerged during the 1990s. 

New Approaches to Professional Development 

For many years, professional development typically consisted of short, stand-alone 

workshops on topics selected by schools and districts (often without consulting teachers), along 

with college or university coursetaking. During the 1990s, some experts began to suggest that 

these traditional forms of teacher professional development lacked the focus, intensity, and 

continuity needed to change classroom practices (Little 1993) and they were inadequate for 

preparing teachers to meet the educational needs of their students (Corcoran 1995; Miller 1995; 

Sprinthall, Reiman, and Theis-Sprinthall 1996). 

Recognizing the limitations of traditional approaches to professional development, 

educators, researchers, and policymakers began to look at professional development differently. 

Their goal was to restructure teachers’ work so that they could learn together and work 

collaboratively to effect changes in teaching practice and student learning (Corcoran 1995; 

Gilford 1996; Little 1993). As the concept of professional development changed, a new literature 

on “best practices” emerged (Loucks-Horsley et al. 1998), and numerous experts and 
Introduction 

2 

organizations developed guidelines for high-quality professional development programs.1 While 

the lists differed in their specifics, there were some key elements for which there appeared a 

broad consensus (Hawley and Valli 2001; Elmore 2002). Hawley and Valli (2001) summarized 

these elements as follows: 

• Is driven by analysis of the differences between goals and standards for student 

learning and student performance; 

• Is part of a comprehensive change process; 

• Is school based and integrated with school operations; 

• Involves teachers in defining their needs and developing opportunities for professional 

development; 

• Meets individual teachers’ needs but is primarily collaborative; 

• Provides opportunities for teachers to develop a theoretical understanding of the 

knowledge and skills learned; 

• Is continuous and ongoing, with follow-up and support for further learning; and 

• Incorporates an evaluation of the effect on teaching practice and student outcomes. 

Despite the existence of this consensus view, relatively few evaluations have directly linked 

these strategies to improved student achievement (Elmore 2002; Guskey 2003). There are some 

suggestive findings indicating that professional development that meets the high-quality criteria 

as described by Hawley and Valli (2001) may change teacher learning and classroom practice 

(Porter et al. 2000) and that these changes, in turn, may affect the academic performance of 

students (Wenglinsky 2002; Cohen and Hill 2000). However, much additional empirical work is 

needed to address questions of whether particular teacher professional development practices are 

more or less effective than others in improving student academic performance. The current 

report, while providing new information on the extent to which various traditional and newer 

forms of teacher professional development are supported and utilized by teachers, cannot address 

these questions. 

While support for a new approach to professional development strengthened in the early 

1990s, a comprehensive 50-state review of practices in the mid-1990s suggested that professional 

development in many school districts still consisted of primarily one-shot workshops with little 

or no follow-up. Furthermore, the content typically was not linked to teachers’ needs or work 

 

1 Guskey (2003), for example, found 13 different lists of the characteristics of effective professional development in the 

publications of various organizations, including the American Federation of Teachers, Association for Supervision and 

Curriculum Development, Education Development Center, Educational Research Service, Educational Testing Service, 

Eisenhower Professional Development Program, National Governors’ Association, National Institute for Science Education, 

National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching, National Staff Development Council, and the U.S. 

Department of Education. 
Introduction 

3 

assignments and paid little attention to teachers’ subject-matter knowledge (Consortium for 

Policy Research in Education [CPRE] 1997). National surveys of full-time public school teachers 

in 1998 and 2000 found that teacher participation in professional development in seven content 

areas typically lasted 1 to 8 hours, except where it involved in-depth study of the teacher’s 

subject area (Parsad, Lewis, and Farris 2001).2 In addition, teachers were actually less likely in 

2000 than in 1998 to report participating in regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers. 

Nevertheless, teachers were more likely in 2000 than in 1998 to report that they felt “very well 

prepared” in almost all the content areas,3 suggesting that the quality, if not the quantity, of 

professional development may be changing (at least according to teachers’ perceptions). For new 

teachers, it may be that preservice training has improved. 

A longitudinal evaluation of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program (1996 to 

1999) concluded that teachers did not typically receive high-quality professional development on 

a consistent basis (Porter et al. 2000).4 Among teachers participating in the Eisenhower-assisted 

programs nationwide, only 23 percent participated in the kinds of professional development 

recommended by reforms (such as teacher networks or study groups, rather than traditional 

workshops or conferences). In addition, the evaluators found that the professional development 

activities averaged less than a week in length, the average number of contact hours was 25, and 

the activities of half the teachers lasted 15 hours or less. Also, most activities did not involve 

collective participation or emphasize content, had limited content, and offered few active 

learning opportunities. Although the evaluators found many examples of high-quality 

professional development that had a positive effect on teaching practice, these programs were not 

provided consistently enough to produce an overall change in teaching practice during the period 

studied. 

This report contributes yet another perspective on the practice of professional development 

using the 1999–2000 reports of teachers, principals, and district staff. Where possible, it 

compares activities in 1993–94 with those in 1999–2000 to provide an indication of how 

professional development changed (or did not change) in the intervening years. The report also 

examines differences between public and private schools and teachers and describes variation by 

district, school, and teacher characteristics. 

 

2 The content areas were state or district curriculum and performance standards, integration of educational technology in the 

grade or subject taught, new methods of teaching, in-depth study in the main subject area, student performance assessment, 

addressing the needs of students with disabilities, and classroom management (including student discipline). 

3 The one exception was maintaining order and discipline in the classroom. 

4 The evaluators defined high-quality professional development in terms of type (reform vs. traditional), duration, extent of 

collective participation, degree of active learning, extent of content focus, and degree of coherence (consistent with goals and 

aligned with state standards and assessments). 
Introduction 

4 

Data and Methodology 

The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) is a nationally representative, integrated survey of 

districts, schools, principals, and teachers. The 1999–2000 survey is the fourth in a series that 

began in 1987–88. The second and third versions were conducted in 1990–91 and 1993–94. 

Approximately 4,700 public school districts, 12,000 public and private schools, 12,300 public 

and private school principals, and 52,000 public and private school teachers responded to the 

1999–2000 SASS. Charter schools, their principals, and their teachers are included in the public 

totals.5 For information on the survey’s sample design, data collection procedures, and response 

rates, see appendix B of this report and the SASS website (http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/SASS). 

The 1993–94 SASS was the first to address professional development. The items focused 

almost exclusively on teacher participation, with limited attention to organizational and 

management issues. In 1999–2000, SASS expanded its coverage of professional development, 

adding items to the district, principal, and teacher questionnaires. These questions were designed 

to provide more information about how professional development is organized and managed at 

the district and school levels and to discover to what extent professional development reflects the 

approaches now being recommended. 

In cases where comparable data exist, the report describes changes that have occurred since 

the previous administration of SASS in 1993–94. However, the more limited coverage of 

organization and management issues in that school year means that not much can be discerned 

about how these aspects of professional development changed in the interim period. Changes in 

teacher participation are also difficult to determine, not only because the coverage of various 

types of activities changed but also because of differences in wording between the two surveys. 

In 1993–94, teachers were asked about the extent to which they had participated in various 

activities since the end of the last school year. Because teachers completed their surveys at 

different times during the school year, the periods covered were not uniform. To overcome this 

problem, teachers participating in 1999–2000 were asked to report their activities during the 

previous 12 months, thus making the time period covered identical for all teachers. Although the 

new approach to collecting information on participation provides a more complete picture of 

professional development activities, it limits the opportunity to make meaningful comparisons 

over time. 

The Student’s t statistic was used to test the likelihood that the differences between two 

estimates were larger than would be expected due to sampling error. When averages of a 

 

5 While the data related to charter schools are included in the public estimates in this report, they can, with the 1999–2000 SASS, 

be analyzed separately for the first time. 
Introduction 

5 

continuous variable were examined relative to a variable with ordered categories, Analysis of 

Variance (ANOVA) was used to test for a linear relationship between the two variables. To do 

this, ANOVA equations included orthogonal liner contrasts corresponding to successive levels of 

the independent variable. The variance between the means, and the unweighted sample sizes 

were used to partition the total sum of squares into within- and between-group sums of squares. 

These were used to create mean squares for the within- and between-group variance components 

and their corresponding F statistics, which were then compared with published values of F for a 

significance level of .05. Logistic regression was used to perform the multivariate analysis to 

determine whether or not a specific teacher, school, or district characteristic was associated with 

teacher participation in professional development, after controlling for the associations between 

teacher participation and all of the other teacher, school, and district characteristics examined in 

this report. All comparisons reported in the text are significant at an alpha level of 5 percent. 

Details of the statistical methodology and the statistical tests used are presented in the technical 

notes (page B-12). 

7 

Organization and Management of Teacher Professional 

Development 

The commonly held view of effective professional development described earlier 

emphasizes issues related to the organization and management of professional development for 

teachers. It stipulates that effective professional development should reflect student needs, be 

part of an overall plan for change, involve teachers in planning and developing opportunities, 

promote collaboration at the school level, and be evaluated for its impact on teacher practice and 

student learning. 

This section describes how professional development is organized in both the public and 

private sectors and managed at the school and district level (public school only) by addressing 

several important questions: Who plans and implements professional development activities? 

How are activities selected and evaluated? Does the school environment promote collaboration? 

Are principals actively involved? What kinds of support are provided? 

Participants in Planning and Implementation 

In the 1999–2000 SASS, public school district staff were asked who had primary 

responsibility for each of three aspects of in-service professional development activities for 

teachers in their districts: deciding the content of the activities, designing and planning these 

activities, and conducting them. In addition, principals and teachers were asked to describe the 

amount of influence they thought various groups and individuals had in determining the content 

of in-service professional development activities in their schools. These data paint a broad 

picture of how various actors influence and currently share responsibility for teacher professional 

development. 

Primary Responsibility for Planning and Conducting Activities 

According to public school district staff, primary responsibility for planning and conducting 

in-service professional development activities for public school teachers rests most commonly 

with district staff or principals. For each of the three stages shown in figure 1, district staff were 

more likely to name themselves or principals as having primary responsibility than they were to 

pick teachers or outside providers. For example, 35 percent of district staff reported that they had 
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

8 

primary responsibility for designing and planning activities and 37 percent named principals, 

whereas 24 percent picked teachers and 4 percent selected outside providers.

Teachers’ roles decline moving from planning to implementation. District staff were most likely 

to report that teachers had primary responsibility for deciding the content of in-service 

professional development activities (29 percent) and least likely to report that they had primary 

responsibility for conducting them (20 percent). Outside providers6 played a larger role in 

conducting activities than they do at the earlier stages. Few districts reported that outside 

providers had primary responsibility for deciding the content of the activities (2 percent) or 

designing and planning them (4 percent), but 21 percent reported that they had primary 

responsibility for conducting the activities.

For each stage of developing and implementing professional development activities, the 

likelihood that district staff had primary responsibility increased with district size (table 1). 

District staff had primary responsibility in roughly half (47 to 51 percent) of the largest districts 

 

6 Outside providers might include, for example, university or college faculty or professional organizations. 

Figure 1.—Percentage distribution of school districts by district staff reports of who had primary

Figure 1.—responsibility for various aspects of teacher in-service professional development activities:

Figure 1.—1999–2000

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), 

“School District Survey,” 1999–2000.

30

35

33

30

37

36

20

24

29

21

4

2

0 20 40 60 80 100

Conducting the

activities

Designing and planning

the activities

Deciding the content

Percent

District staff Principals Teachers Outside providers

Aspect of professional development
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

9 

(10,000 or more students), compared with 22 to 30 percent of the districts with fewer than 1,000 

students. 

Table 1.—Percentage distribution of school districts by district staff reports of who had primary 

Table 1.—responsibility for various aspects of teacher in-service professional development activities, by

Table 1.—district size: 1999–2000

District size District staff Principals Teachers Outside providers

Total 33.3 36.1 29.0 1.7

District size

Less than 450 25.3 39.3 31.4 4.0

450–999 29.6 43.4 26.2 0.8

1,000–4,999 36.0 33.5 29.7 0.8

5,000–9,999 48.8 24.5 26.5 0.2

10,000 or more 48.3 27.2 24.3 0.3

Total 35.1 37.0 23.7 4.2

District size

Less than 450 25.7 39.5 25.3 9.5

450–999 28.7 46.5 23.2 1.6

1,000–4,999 39.7 33.8 23.8 2.6

5,000–9,999 53.4 24.6 21.2 0.8

10,000 or more 50.9 28.9 19.5 0.6

Total 29.5 29.8 19.6 21.1

District size

Less than 450 22.1 30.9 19.8 27.2

450–999 23.2 41.5 17.9 17.4

1,000–4,999 33.6 25.6 18.8 22.0

5,000–9,999 41.5 22.8 23.6 12.0

10,000 or more 46.7 21.8 24.4 7.1

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), 

“School District Survey,” 1999–2000.

Conducting the activities

Designing and planning the activities

Deciding the content
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

10 

Principals’ Perceptions of the Influence of Various Groups 

Although the data just described suggest that district staff and principals have primary 

responsibility for deciding the content of in-service professional development activities for public 

school teachers, other groups or persons may influence content decisions, such as state-level 

bodies, school boards, teachers, school site councils, parent associations, and college and 

university partners. In the private sector, governing or diocesan boards assume the roles that 

state-level bodies and school boards play in the public sector. 

Public Schools 

Most public school principals (between 73 and 83 percent) thought that they, teachers, and 

district staff had “a great deal of influence” in determining the content of in-service activities 

(i.e., they rated their influence as 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) (table 2). In contrast, about 30 percent 

thought that state departments of education (or other state-level bodies, such as state boards of 

education), local school boards, curriculum specialists, and school site councils or parent 

associations had a great deal of influence. As school size increased, principals were more likely 

to indicate that curriculum specialists and school site councils or parent associations had a great 

deal of influence. This pattern applied in both elementary and secondary schools and may reflect 

the prevalence of these types of staff and groups in large schools.

As described earlier, states became increasingly involved in teacher professional 

development in the 1990s, at the same time that teachers were asked to assume an active role in 

their own professional development. Consequently, one might expect to see changes in the 

amount of influence that various groups had in 1999–2000 versus 1993–94. Although principals 

were asked a similar question in both administrations of SASS, they were asked to rate the 

amount of influence on a scale of 0 to 5 the first time, and on a scale of 1 to 5 the second. Thus, it 

would not be valid to compare the percentage of principals choosing 4 or 5 in 1999–2000 (as 

shown in table 2) with the percentage using that rating in 1993–94. Comparing the percentages 

selecting only 5, the highest possible rating, can be more easily justified, although caution must 

still be used in drawing definitive conclusions. Using this measure (i.e., a rating of 5), the 

percentage of principals who thought that they had a great deal of influence increased (from 35 to 

41 percent), while there were no statistically significant changes in the percentages who thought 

that school district staff or teachers had such influence (figure 2). The observed increase in the 

percentage reporting a great deal of influence at the state level may be due to state policy changes 

but also could be at least partly due to a change in the wording of the 1999–2000 survey to 

include “other state level bodies (e.g., state board of education).” 
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

11 

Table 2.—Percentage of public school principals who thought that various groups had a great deal of 

Table 2.—influence in determining the content of teacher in-service professional development activities in 

Table 2.—their schools, by selected school characteristics: 1999–2000

State

department School site College

of education/ Local School council or and

School other state- school district Curriculum parent university

characteristic level bodies board staff Principal Teachers specialists association partners

Total 29.2 30.4 73.3 83.4 77.5 30.3 27.8 12.5

School level

Elementary 29.2 30.4 73.8 83.3 77.8 31.0 28.3 12.7

Secondary 28.1 30.2 72.8 83.5 76.9 29.4 25.8 11.9

Combined 36.7 32.2 67.2 84.2 76.1 24.7 30.5 13.6

School size

Elementary schools

Less than 150 25.7 24.5 74.0 88.9 79.2 11.8 19.1 12.2

150–499 29.9 29.1 72.8 81.8 78.2 26.0 26.7 13.1

500 or more 29.7 32.7 74.3 83.8 77.8 34.2 32.3 12.8

Secondary schools

Less than 400 30.6 27.8 71.1 81.9 77.1 15.7 19.4 13.5

400–749 25.4 29.1 73.8 83.6 75.4 31.9 26.3 9.5

750 or more 26.8 33.8 74.6 84.8 77.7 35.9 30.6 11.0

Combined schools

Less than 150 42.1 35.2 66.8 83.3 77.3 17.4 36.8 15.5

150–499 35.8 29.5 67.0 86.2 72.5 27.4 27.3 11.4

500 or more 30.4 35.6 70.1 86.9 80.8 28.1 24.3 13.6

NOTE: Principals were asked how much actual influence they thought that various groups or persons had on decisions about

determining the content of in-service professional development programs for teachers in their school. “A great deal of 

influence” means that principals rated their influence as 4 or 5 on a scale of 1–5.

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

Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

12 

Figure 2.—Percentage of public school principals who thought that various groups had a great deal of 

Figure 2.—influence in determining the content of teacher in-service professional development activities in 

Figure 2.—their schools: 1993–94 and 1999–2000

1 In 1999–2000, the wording was extended to include “other state-level bodies (e.g., state board of education).”

NOTE: Principals were asked how much actual influence they thought that various groups or persons had on decisions

about determining the content of in-service professional development programs for teachers in their school. “A great deal

of influence” means that they rated their influence as 5 on a scale of 0–5 in 1992–93 and as 5 on a scale of 1–5 in

1999–2000. This differs from the definition used in table 2 and was adopted to ensure better comparability between the 2

years.

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

“Public School Principal Surveys,” 1993–94 and “Public and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.

7

32 35 35

10

32

41

37

0

20

40

60

80

100

State department of

education

School district staff Principal Teachers

Percent

1993–94 1999–2000

1
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

13 

Private Schools 

Compared with their public school counterparts, private school principals were more likely 

to indicate that they themselves had a great deal of influence in determining the content of 

teacher in-service professional development activities in their school (rating it 4 or 5) (92 vs. 83 

percent), and less likely to report that teachers did (73 vs. 78 percent) (tables 2 and 3). Boards 

were reported by principals to have similar amounts of influence in both sectors (although the 

types of boards are obviously different). The percentage of private school principals who thought 

that their governing or diocesan board had a great deal of influence (29 percent) was not 

significantly different from the percentage of public school principals who felt that way about 

their local school board (30 percent). 

Catholic school principals were more likely than nonsectarian principals to report that their 

board had a great deal of influence (43 vs. 13 percent). Compared with their counterparts at all 

non-Catholic religious schools,7 Catholic school principals were more likely to think that they, 

their board (43 vs. 28 percent), and the teachers (80 vs. 65 percent) in their school had a great 

deal of influence in determining the content of in-service activities, and less likely to think that 

parents did (5 vs. 11 percent). Compared with principals at nonsectarian schools, those at nonCatholic religious schools were more likely to think that their board had a great deal of influence 

(28 vs. 13 percent) and less likely to think that their teachers did (65 vs. 81 percent). 

In the private sector, principals’ reports of influence varied by school level. For example, 

elementary school principals were more likely than secondary or combined school principals to 

indicate that their boards had a great deal of influence (34 percent vs. 19 and 23 percent, 

respectively). In addition, combined school principals were less likely than elementary or 

secondary school principals to report that teachers had a great deal of influence (63 percent vs. 77 

and 80 percent, respectively). 

Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Own Influence 

About one-third (33 percent) of teachers thought that the teachers at their school had a great 

deal of influence in determining the content of in-service professional development activities for 

teachers (table 4). At the elementary level, teacher influence varied with school size. As school 

size increased, teachers’ likelihood of reporting that teachers in their school had a great deal of 

influence decreased.

 

7 “Other religious schools” include conservative Christian schools, schools affiliated with an established religious group or 

denomination, and other religious schools not affiliated with any established religious group or denomination. 
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

14 

Table 3.—Percentage of private school principals who thought that various groups had a great deal of 

Table 3.—influence in determining the content of teacher in-service professional development activities in 

Table 3.—their schools, by selected school characteristics: 1999–2000

Governing Principals

School or diocesan or school Curriculum Parent 

characteristic board head specialists Teachers association

Total 29.3 91.5 42.0 72.9 8.1

School level

Elementary 34.1 91.8 40.8 76.5 8.4

Secondary 19.0 93.2 55.5 79.7 7.1

Combined 23.0 90.4 40.1 63.4 8.1

Affiliation

Catholic 42.5 94.8 43.0 79.7 5.4

Other religious 27.9 89.3 39.0 64.9 10.5

Nonsectarian 13.2 91.8 47.7 81.3 6.8

School size

Elementary schools

Less than 150 34.2 86.5 33.7 75.1 11.2

150–499 32.3 95.9 43.9 78.9 5.2

500 or more 43.9 95.5 48.7 76.5 5.6

Secondary schools

Less than 400 19.3 90.8 51.2 77.9 10.1

400–749 21.0 95.7 60.8 84.0 2.0

750 or more 12.9 100.0 61.5 76.8 1.4

Combined schools

Less than 150 28.6 88.9 34.6 60.3 10.0

150–499 17.5 94.7 43.6 64.0 6.0

500 or more 11.1 92.4 53.0 78.8 2.2

NOTE: Principals were asked how much actual influence they thought that various groups or persons had on decisions 

about determining the content of in-service professional development programs for teachers in their school. “A great 

deal of influence” means that principals rated their influence as 4 or 5 on a scale of 1–5.

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

15 

Given the recent emphasis on involving teachers in developing their own professional 

development activities, one might expect to find an increase over time in the percentage of 

teachers who thought that they had a great deal of influence, but this does not appear to be the 

case. Comparing teachers’ views over time presents the same difficulty as that found for 

principals: different scales were used to measure influence in 1993–94 (0 to 5) and in 1999–2000 

(1 to 5). Nevertheless, when the comparison is limited to those who selected the top value (5); in 

both years 10 percent of teachers thought that teachers in their school had a great deal of 

influence (figure 3). 

Table 4.—Percentage of teachers who thought that teachers in their school had a great deal of influence in

Table 4.—determining the content of teacher in-service professional development activities in their schools, 

Table 4.—by sector and selected school characteristics: 1999–2000

School

characteristic Total Public Private

Total 32.9 32.5 35.6

School level

Elementary 33.9 33.4 37.6

Secondary 30.8 30.5 33.5

Combined 33.4 32.5 33.8

School size

Elementary schools

Less than 150 42.4 41.1 43.6

150–499 35.6 35.3 37.5

500 or more 32.3 32.3 29.5

Secondary schools

Less than 400 32.9 32.3 35.4

400–749 31.5 31.2 34.7

750 or more 29.8 29.8 30.4

Combined schools

Less than 150 35.1 30.2 37.7

150–499 34.0 35.4 33.4

500 or more 30.8 30.3 31.0

NOTE: Teachers were asked how much actual influence they thought that teachers at their school had in determining the 

content of in-service professional development programs. “A great deal of influence” means that teachers rated their

influence as 4 or 5 on a scale of 1–5.

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000.
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

16 

Principals and teachers did not agree about the amount of influence teachers in their school 

had on determining the content of in-service professional development activities. Principals were 

more likely than teachers to think that teachers had a great deal of influence at both public (77 vs. 

33 percent) and private (73 vs. 36 percent) schools (figure 4). Although this result might reflect 

Figure 3.—Percentage of teachers who reported that teachers in their schools had a great deal of influence

Figure 3.—in determining the content of teacher in-service professional development activities, by sector

Figure 3.—and school level: 1993–94 and 1999–2000

NOTE: Teachers were asked how much actual influence they thought that teachers at their school had in

determining the content of in-service professional development programs. “A great deal of influence” means

that teachers rated their influence as 5 on a scale of 0–5 in 1992–93 and as 5 on a scale of 1–5 in 1999–2000.

This differs from the definition used in table 4 and was adopted to ensure better comparability between the 2

years.

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

(SASS), “Public and Private School Teacher Surveys,” 1993–94 and “Public, Private, and Charter School

Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000. 

12

10

14

13

11

8

11

10

11

8

11

10

14

12

13

14

12

9

11

10

12

9

11

10

0 10 20 30 40 50

Combined

Secondary

Elementary

Total

Combined

Secondary

Elementary

Total

Combined

Secondary

Elementary

Total

Percent

1993–94

1999–2000

Public

Private

All schools
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

17 

real differences in opinion, it should be noted that the context in which teachers and principals 

were asked the question differed. Teachers were asked about their influence on the content of 

professional development as part of a series of questions about their influence over various 

school policies, whereas principals were asked about teachers’ influence as part of a series of 

questions about the influence of various groups with respect to professional development alone. 

In addition, teachers’ perceptions may be influenced by whether they personally had a role in 

determining the content. For example, if a principal consulted some teachers, the principal and 

those particular teachers might think that teachers had a great deal of influence, but other teachers 

in the school might not. Although teachers in SASS are representative of teachers both nationally 

and in their state (in the case of public school teachers), they are not necessarily representative of 

teachers in their schools because only a few teachers in each school participated in the survey. 

Figure 4.—Percentage distributions of teachers and principals by the amount of influence they thought 

Figure 4.—that teachers in their schools had in determining the content of in-service professional 

Figure 4.—development programs, by sector and staff: 1999–2000

NOTE: Teachers and principals were asked how much actual influence they thought that teachers at their school had in 

determining the content of in-service professional development programs. “Little or none” means that teachers and

and principals rated teacher influence as 1 or 2; “Some” means they rated their influence as 3; and “A great deal” means 

they rated their influence as 4 or 5. 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),

“School District Survey,” 1999–2000. 

73

36

77

33

18

28

17

29

9

36

6

38

0 20 40 60 80 100

Principals

Teachers

Principals

Teachers

Percent

A great deal Some Little or none

Public

Private
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

18 

Basis for Selecting and Evaluating Professional Development Activities 

As described earlier, critics faulted old professional development models for lacking focus 

and systematic links to district or school goals for student improvement (Corcoran 1995; Miller 

1995; Sprinthall, Reiman, and Thies-Sprinthall 1996). The newer models, on the other hand, call 

for professional development activities that are driven by a coherent long-term plan for school 

improvement and evaluated for their effects on teaching practice and student outcomes. In SASS, 

principals were asked two sets of questions regarding the extent to which these newer approaches 

are taking hold. The first set addressed the importance of various initiatives, plans, and standards 

in determining professional development activities for teachers, and the second set asked about 

evaluation practices.

Importance of Initiatives, Plans, and Standards 

Between 81 and 89 percent of public school principals reported that district-level initiatives 

and improvement plans, school improvement plans, and implementation of academic or skills 

standards were “very important” determinants of professional development activities for teachers 

(figure 5 and table 5).8 Overall, special state initiatives were less important, with about half (52 

percent) of public school principals reporting that they were very important (figure 5). According 

to public school principals, teachers’ preferences (68 percent) were less important than plans (89 

percent) or standards (87 percent), but, on average, more important than special state initiatives 

(52 percent) (figure 5 and table 5). The importance of certain factors was related to district size. 

As school district size increased, so did the percentage of principals who reported that school 

improvement plans, academic standards, and skills standards were very important in determining 

the content of professional development opportunities and activities (table 5).9

Among the various determinants, private school principals were most likely to rate 

academic standards as very important (81 percent), followed by teacher preferences (75 percent) 

(table 5). Religious affiliation accounted for some differences among private schools. Principals 

at Catholic schools were more likely than those at other types of private schools to indicate that 

school improvement plans, implementation of academic standards, and teacher preferences were 

very important factors in determining the content of professional development opportunities and 

activities.

 

8 That is, they rated them 4 or 5 on a scale of 1 to 5. 

9 No relationship was found between district size and principals’ reports that teacher preference was very important. 
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

19 

Figure 5.—Percentage of public school principals who reported that various initiatives, plans, and standards 

Figure 5.—were very important in determining in-service professional development opportunities and 

Figure 5.—activities for teachers in their schools: 1999–2000

NOTE: Principals were asked to specify how important these initatives, plans, and standards were in determining the

professional development opportunities and activities for teachers in their school using a scale of 1–5. “Very important” 

means that they chose 4 or 5.

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000. 

52

85

89 87

81

68

0

20

40

60

80

100

Special statelevel initiativesDistrict-level

initiatives or

improvement

plan

School

improvement

plan

Implementation

of state or local

academic

standards

Implementation

of state or local

skills standards

Teacher

preferences

Percent
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

20 

Table 5.—Percentage of public and private school principals who reported that various initiatives, plans, 

Table 5.—and standards were very important in determining the in-service professional development 

Table 5.—opportunities and activities for teachers in their schools, by district size and selected school 

Table 5.—characteristics: 1999–2000

District/

Special private school 

District size state organization School Implementation Implementation

or school level or association improvement of academic of skills Teacher

characteristic initiatives initiatives1 plan standards2 standards2 preferences

All schools 51.9 76.2 84.6 85.9 80.5 69.9

Total 51.9 84.9 89.3 87.4 80.5 68.4

District size

Less than 450 49.2 78.8 80.7 76.7 67.7 69.4

450–999 50.2 83.2 86.5 83.7 75.7 64.3

1,000–4,999 50.5 86.9 88.1 87.7 78.0 66.3

5,000–9,999 50.3 83.8 89.1 89.3 84.7 69.8

10,000 or more 54.7 85.5 92.4 90.0 84.2 72.4

School level

Elementary 53.8 86.4 90.7 88.9 82.7 69.7

Secondary 46.3 82.2 86.3 84.6 75.5 65.1

Combined 50.6 74.9 83.1 76.5 70.1 65.1

Total † 48.2 69.6 81.2 † 74.8

School level

Elementary † 48.1 71.3 82.6 † 79.4

Secondary † 43.8 68.2 83.3 † 76.6

Combined † 50.0 66.4 77.8 † 64.8

Affiliation

Catholic † 44.9 82.5 90.1 † 86.1

Other religious † 50.9 63.2 76.5 † 65.6

Nonsectarian † 47.1 65.2 79.0 † 79.0

† Not applicable.

1 For public schools, includes district improvement plan. 

2 These standards could be either state or local.

NOTE: Principals were asked to specify how important these initiatives, plans, and standards were in determining the

professional development opportunities and activities for teachers in their school. “Very important” means that they

chose 4 or 5 on a scale of 1–5.

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Public 

Private
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

 

21 

Evaluating Professional Development Activities 

To gather information on how professional development is evaluated at the school level, 

SASS asked principals how often professional development activities at their school were 

evaluated for evidence of improvement in teacher classroom practice and student achievement. 

The response categories were “never,” “rarely,” “sometimes,” “frequently,” or “always.” 

In 1999–2000, 54 percent of school principals reported that professional development 

activities were frequently or always evaluated for evidence of improvement in teacher classroom 

practice, and 59 percent reported the same for evidence of effects on student achievement10 (table 

6). In public schools, the likelihood that principals would report that these evaluation activities 

were conducted frequently or always increased with district size. In both sectors, these activities 

were more common in elementary than in secondary schools, and in public elementary schools, 

they were more common as school size increased.

School Environment 

Current models of professional development emphasize the collegial nature of effective 

professional development, with the expectation that teachers and administrators will work 

together to develop common goals, share ideas, and achieve their goals (Friedkin and Slater 

1994; Louis, Marks, and Kruse 1996). To determine the extent that this was happening, teachers 

were asked to report their perceptions about the amount of collaboration in their schools, and 

principals were asked about several aspects of teachers’ and their own involvement in teacher 

professional development. 

Teachers’ Perspectives on Collaboration 

In both 1993–94 and 1999–2000, the SASS teacher surveys addressed teachers’ perceptions 

of the amount of collaboration in their schools, thus providing an opportunity to observe any 

change over time. Teachers were asked how often the principal talked with them about their 

instructional practices, how much coordination took place among teachers concerning class 

content, and how much cooperation existed among staff members. Teachers could “strongly” or 

“somewhat” agree or disagree with a series of statements. 

 

10 Principals were simply asked to indicate how frequently professional development activities were evaluated for evidence of 

improvement in teacher classroom practice or evaluated for evidence of effects on student achievement. Principals were not 

asked to describe these evaluation activities in any way. 
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

22 

Table 6.—Percentage of principals who reported that teachers’ professional development activities were 

Table 6.—frequently or always evaluated for improvement in teacher classroom practice and effects on 

Table 6.—student achievement, by district size and selected school characteristics: 1999–2000

District size 

or school

characteristic Total Public Private Total Public Private

Total 54.2 54.1 54.4 59.1 60.4 54.8

District size

Less than 450 45.9 45.9 † 51.2 51.2 †

450–999 45.9 45.9 † 54.0 54.0 †

1,000–4,999 49.9 49.9 † 53.0 53.0 †

5,000–9,999 55.0 55.0 † 61.9 61.9 †

10,000 or more 61.5 61.5 † 69.9 69.9 †

School level

Elementary 56.1 55.9 56.9 61.7 62.9 57.3

Secondary 48.8 49.3 45.2 53.2 54.0 46.7

Combined 52.1 51.0 52.6 53.4 55.4 52.5

School size

Elementary schools

Less than 150 51.5 45.8 55.7 54.7 53.6 55.6

150–499 53.9 53.6 55.1 60.0 61.0 56.1

500 or more 59.8 59.0 57.1 66.1 66.3 62.6

Secondary schools

Less than 400 48.6 48.8 47.8 53.5 54.0 51.3

400–749 46.6 47.2 40.8 51.6 52.4 41.4

750 or more 49.9 50.2 43.6 53.2 54.0 32.5

Combined schools

Less than 150 55.2 56.6 54.7 58.1 58.5 58.0

150–499 51.6 48.9 52.8 50.5 53.8 49.0

500 or more 46.9 46.2 47.4 48.3 52.2 45.7

† Not applicable.

NOTE: Principals were asked to indicate how often professional development activities were evaluated for evidence of 

improvement in classroom practice and effects on student learning: “never,” “rarely,” “sometimes,” “frequently,” or

“always.”

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Improvement in classroom practice Effects on student achievement
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

23 

In 1999–2000, 12 percent of all teachers strongly agreed that their principal talked with 

them frequently about their instructional practices, 38 percent reported that they themselves made 

a conscious effort to coordinate their course content with other teachers, and 37 percent reported 

that there was a great deal of cooperative effort among the staff members (table 7). Private school 

teachers were more likely than their public school counterparts to strongly agree that there was a 

great deal of cooperative effort among the staff members (56 vs. 34 percent). 

In both sectors, teachers in elementary and combined schools were more likely than those 

in secondary schools to perceive their schools as collaborative places in which to work. School 

size was also a factor. Across sector and level, as school size increased teachers generally were 

less likely to strongly agree that there was a great deal of cooperative effort among the staff 

members and that the principal talked with them frequently about their instructional practices.11

On these three measures of collaboration, no significant change was observed among public 

school teachers between 1993–94 and 1999–2000 (figure 6). 

 

11 The two exceptions were that the apparent declines for public combined schools and private elementary schools in the 

percentages reporting that their principal talked with them frequently about their instructional practices were not statistically 

significant. 
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

24 

Table 7.—Percentage of teachers who strongly agreed with various statements about within-school 

Table 7.—collaboration among teachers and principals, by sector and selected school characteristics: 

Table 7.—1999–2000 

The principal talks with I make a conscious There is a great deal

me frequently about effort to coordinate the of cooperative effort

School my instructional content of my course among the staff

characteristic practices with other teachers members

All schools 11.6 38.1 36.8

Total 11.0 38.0 33.9

School level

Elementary 12.6 42.0 37.9

Secondary 7.9 30.3 26.2

Combined 11.8 32.7 33.8

School size

Elementary school

Less than 150 15.0 45.7 53.7

150–499 15.3 44.1 41.6

500 or more 11.1 40.5 34.2

Secondary school

Less than 400 13.0 25.6 33.5

400–749 9.6 28.7 28.1

750 or more 6.4 31.6 24.0

Combined school

Less than 150 12.1 30.6 36.2

150–499 13.0 31.7 36.5

500 or more 9.7 34.6 29.5

See notes at end of table.

Public
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

25 

Table 7.—Percentage of teachers who strongly agreed with various statements about within-school 

Table 7.—collaboration among teachers and principals, by sector and selected school characteristics: 

Table 7.—1999–2000—Continued

The principal talks with I make a conscious There is a great deal

me frequently about effort to coordinate the of cooperative effort

School my instructional content of my course among the staff

characteristic practices with other teachers members

Total 15.3 39.2 56.0

School level

Elementary 17.0 41.6 59.0

Secondary 8.3 29.2 41.5

Combined 16.2 40.7 58.9

School size

Elementary school

Less than 150 19.3 40.6 63.4

150–499 16.1 41.8 59.1

500 or more 16.3 45.1 54.5

Secondary school

Less than 400 10.5 23.4 45.2

400–749 7.1 32.1 40.7

750 or more 5.0 33.6 36.0

Combined school

Less than 150 24.7 39.8 65.6

150–499 15.2 37.0 57.1

500 or more 11.0 42.5 54.3

NOTE: Teachers were asked whether they “strongly agreed,” “somewhat agreed,” “somewhat disagreed,” or “strongly 

disagreed” with the statements.

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Private
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

26 

Figure 6.—Percentage of teachers who strongly agreed with various statements about within-school 

Figure 6.—collaboration between teachers and principals, by sector: 1993–94 and 1999–2000

NOTE: Teachers were asked whether they “strongly agreed,” “somewhat agreed,” “somewhat disagreed,” or “strongly 

disagreed” with the statements.

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

“Public and Private School Teacher Surveys,” 1993–94 and “Public, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 

1999–2000. 

11 10

17

39 38 42 37 34

58

12 11 15

38 38 39 37 34

56

0

20

40

60

80

100

All

schools

Public Private All

schools

Public Private All

schools

Public Private

Percent

1993–94 1999–2000

The principal talks with me 

frequently about my 

instructional practices

I make a conscious effort to 

coordinate the content of my 

courses with that of other 

teachers

There is a great deal of 

coopertive effort among the 

staff members

Characteristics of Teachers’ Professional Development 

Principals were asked several questions about how teachers’ professional development was 

treated in their schools. Seventy-two percent of principals reported that professional development 

was frequently or always considered part of teachers’ regular work, 58 percent indicated that 

teachers in their school or district frequently or always planned professional development 

activities, and 46 percent reported that teachers in their school or district frequently or always 

presented the professional development activities (table 8). 

Private school principals were less likely than their public school counterparts to indicate 

that teachers frequently or always planned (47 vs. 62 percent) or presented professional 

development (31 vs. 51 percent). 
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

27 

Table 8.—Percentage of principals who reported that teacher professional development frequently or 

Table 8.—always had certain attributes, by selected school or principal characteristic: 1999–2000 

Accompanied

by resources

Considered part Planned Presented teachers need to

School or principal of teachers’ by teachers by teachers make changes in

characteristic regular work in the school in the school the classroom1

All schools 72.1 58.1 46.1 53.4

Total 71.1 61.6 50.8 53.1

School level

Elementary 72.0 62.3 52.4 53.7

Secondary 68.1 60.0 47.1 51.1

Combined 73.6 59.0 44.2 53.0

School size

Elementary school

Less than 150 64.0 58.9 34.7 38.6

150–499 71.5 60.9 47.7 53.5

500 or more 73.6 64.8 59.8 57.0

Secondary school

Less than 400 70.3 56.0 36.6 50.0

400–749 67.3 58.9 47.2 51.5

750 or more 66.6 63.8 57.5 50.1

Principal years of experience

3 or fewer 69.5 57.3 47.5 52.0

4–9 71.2 62.8 51.0 53.7

10–19 71.3 63.5 52.5 53.1

20 or more 74.7 65.3 54.8 54.0

See notes at end of table.

Public
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

 

28 

Table 8.—Percentage of principals who reported that teacher professional development frequently or 

Table 8.—always had certain attributes, by selected school or principal characteristic: 1999–2000—

Table 8.—Continued

Accompanied

by resources

Considered part Planned Presented teachers need to

School or principal of teachers’ by teachers by teachers make changes in

characteristic regular work in the school in the school the classroom1

Total 75.0 46.6 31.1 54.4

School level

Elementary 76.0 47.6 28.6 56.6

Secondary 74.0 51.4 37.3 53.7

Combined 73.4 43.1 34.1 50.2

School size

Elementary school

Less than 150 72.2 48.7 28.3 56.6

150–499 79.3 46.7 25.7 55.2

500 or more 79.5 43.6 24.1 61.1

Secondary school

Less than 400 71.9 50.4 34.2 54.5

400–749 79.1 49.8 42.4 57.7

750 or more 74.4 48.5 35.7 49.7

Principal years of experience

3 or fewer 71.9 40.9 29.4 54.0

4–9 74.8 48.8 32.6 56.0

10–19 74.8 48.9 30.3 50.2

20 or more 81.3 49.2 33.1 59.6

1 For example, time and materials.

NOTE: Principals were asked how often professional development for teachers at their school had certain attributes:

“never,” “rarely,” “sometimes,” “frequently,” or “always.”

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Private
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

29 

Principals’ reports were related to their years of experience. In both public and private 

schools, new principals (i.e., those in their first 3 years as a principal) were less likely than the 

most experienced principals (those with 20 or more years of experience) to regard professional 

development as part of teachers’ regular work (public: 70 vs. 75 percent, private: 72 vs. 81 

percent). In public schools, new principals were also less likely than principals with more 

experience to report that teachers in their school frequently or always planned or presented 

professional development at their school (48 vs. 55 percent).

School size also mattered in public schools, where the percentage of principals reporting 

that teachers in their school frequently or always planned or presented professional development 

activities increased with school size. 

Approximately half (53 percent) of all principals thought that professional development 

was frequently or always accompanied by the resources teachers need (e.g., time and materials) 

to make changes in the classroom. Principals in small public elementary schools (fewer than 150 

students) were less likely than those in larger elementary schools to think that needed resources 

were frequently or always available (39 vs. 54 and 57 percent). 

Principals’ Involvement in Teachers’ Professional Development 

In the 1999−2000 SASS, principals were asked how often they engaged in various activities 

related to teachers’ professional development. The response categories were “never,” “once or 

twice a month,” “once or twice a week,” or “every day.” Overall, 36 percent of principals 

reported that they had provided and engaged staff in professional development activities at least 

once a week in the past month, and 66 percent reported that they made efforts to build 

professional community among faculty and other staff that often (table 9). Public school 

principals were more likely than private school principals to have reported that they had provided 

and engaged staff in professional development activities at least once a week in the past month 

(38 vs. 29 percent) or that they made efforts to build professional community among faculty and 

other staff that often (68 vs. 60). 

In both public and private schools, as principals’ years of experience increased, so did their 

likelihood of providing and engaging staff in professional development activities at least once a 

week. This relationship however was not found with regard to principals’ efforts to build 

professional community. 
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

30 

Table 9.—Percentage of principals who had participated in various activities related to professional 

Table 9.—development at least once a week during the last month, by sector and selected school or 

Table 9.—principal characteristic: 1999–2000 

School or principal Provided and engaged staff in Built professional community

characteristic professional development activities among faculty and other staff

All schools 36.1 66.3

Total 38.3 68.3

School level

Elementary 39.0 69.7

Secondary 36.8 64.9

Combined 34.3 62.4

School size

Elementary school

Less than 150 32.2 58.0

150–499 36.3 69.6

500 or more 42.8 71.9

Secondary school

Less than 400 32.4 62.1

400–749 36.6 61.9

750 or more 40.9 69.2

Principal years of experience

3 or fewer 36.2 68.2

4–9 38.4 70.2

10–19 37.9 67.1

20 or more 44.3 66.1

Total 29.3 60.2

School level

Elementary 28.7 61.8

Secondary 27.2 60.9

Combined 31.2 56.8

School size

Elementary school

Less than 150 24.9 54.7

150–499 32.0 65.2

500 or more 42.4 78.4

Secondary school

Less than 400 28.7 58.1

400–749 24.9 69.4

750 or more 26.3 73.5

Principal years of experience

3 or fewer 26.9 60.2

4–9 26.1 58.8

10–19 29.6 61.6

20 or more 38.1 60.1

NOTE: Principals were asked how often they had engaged in certain activities in the last month in their roles as principal:

“never,” “once or twice a month,” “once or twice a week,” or “every day.”

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

Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Private

Public
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

31 

 Principal involvement in professional development was also related to school size. In 

both sectors, principals were generally more likely to engage in these activities at least weekly as 

school size increased. Private secondary schools provided an exception to this pattern: size did 

not seem to be related to providing and engaging staff in professional development in these 

schools. 

Support for Professional Development 

This section examines several aspects of support for professional development, including 

sources of funding, the types of support and incentives districts offer teachers for participating, 

and the types of support and rewards teachers actually receive for completing professional 

development activities. Whether teachers actually receive support or rewards depends on several 

factors, including whether their schools or districts offer them; whether teachers have 

opportunities to participate in activities qualifying for support; and whether they are required to, 

choose to, or decline to take advantage of these opportunities when they are offered. For 

example, a district may offer reimbursement of travel expenses for attending conferences, but not 

all teachers in that district would necessarily choose to attend a conference in any given year. 

Sources of Funding 

Funding for teacher professional development in the public sector comes from a variety of 

sources. Almost all public school districts (94 percent) used general district operating funds, and 

80 percent used general school operating funds (table 10). A majority received funding from their 

state (72 percent) and from various federal programs (the percentage varying with the program), 

and 35 percent received private sector grants. While almost all districts had district operating 

funds allocated for professional development, the likelihood of receiving funds from any of the 

other sources increased with district size. 
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

32 

Table 10.—Percentage of school districts that reported using various sources of funding for teacher 

Table 10.—professional development activities in their districts, by district size: 1999–2000 

General General State School

district school professional Special improve- Eisen- Private

District operating operating development project ment hower Other sector

size funds funds funds budgets funds Title 1 program federal grants

Total 94.2 79.8 72.0 69.0 62.9 76.9 86.8 79.9 35.0

District size

Less than 450 92.4 78.2 62.9 51.1 53.1 60.0 75.5 71.5 19.6

450–999 95.4 80.4 70.3 68.3 57.0 73.1 86.9 81.0 25.7

1,000–4,999 94.6 79.3 76.6 76.7 67.9 86.0 93.4 82.3 42.3

5,000–9,999 95.6 82.8 80.3 85.2 74.2 91.2 91.3 87.9 55.7

10,000 or more 93.9 85.7 82.4 90.0 84.3 95.9 92.9 92.5 69.9

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

District Survey,” 1999–2000.

Making Time for Professional Development 

Teachers need blocks of time to take advantage of the kinds of opportunities envisioned by 

the newer models of professional development, especially those that require concentrated work 

and collaboration with other teachers (Renyi 1996). However, school schedules in the United 

States are generally inflexible and allow teachers little time for preparation, planning, 

cooperation, or professional growth (National Education Commission on Time and Learning 

[NECTL] 1994). 

A number of options exist for providing time for teachers to collaborate or attend 

professional development activities. Examples include setting aside days at the beginning of, 

during, or end of the school year, hiring substitutes to cover classes while teachers attend 

professional development activities, or restructuring teachers’ schedules so that they spend less 

time in the classroom or on noninstructional duties. The SASS data show that most schools 

currently use one or more of these methods to provide teachers with time (although they do not 

indicate how much time teachers are allotted). 

In 1999–2000, most schools (92 percent) provided their teachers with time for professional 

development during regular contract hours, with public schools being more likely than private 

schools to do so (95 vs. 82 percent) (figure 7 and table 11). Within the private sector, Catholic 

schools were more likely than either other religious or nonsectarian schools to provide teachers 

with this kind of time for professional development (95 percent vs. 74 and 81 percent, 

respectively). 
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

33 

Figure 7.—Percentage of principals who reported that their school provided teachers with time for 

Figure 7.—professional development during regular contract hours, and of these principals, percentage 

Figure 7.—who reported that their school used various methods to provide their teachers with time, by 

Figure 7.—sector: 1999–2000

1 Examples of reduced teacher workloads are less time in the classroom with students or less time on assigned

noninstructional duties.

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000. 

35

50

55

65

83

83

91

82

29

54

60

73

87

92

91

95

30

53

59

71

86

90

91

92

0 20 40 60 80 100

Reduced teacher workloads

Professional days built in after school year

Early dismissal or late start for students

Common planning time for teachers

Professional days built in during school year

Substitute teachers to cover teachers’ classes

Professional days built in before school year

School provided teachers with time for professional

development during regular contract hours

Percent

All schools

Public

Private

Of principals who reported that

their school provided teachers with time

1
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

34 

Table 11.—Percentage of principals who reported that their school provided teachers with time for 

Table 11.—professional development during regular contract hours, and of those, percentage who reported

Table 11.—that their schools used various methods to provide teachers with time, by sector, district size, 

Table 11.—and selected school characteristics: 1999–2000 

School

provided

teachers

with time Substitute

during Professional teachers Professional Common Early Professional

District size regular days built to cover days built planning dismissal days built Reduced

or school contract in before teachers’ in during time for or late start in after teacher

characteristic hours school year classes school year teachers for students school year workloads1

All schools 91.7 91.0 90.1 86.2 71.4 59.0 52.9 30.4

Total 94.8 91.1 92.1 87.0 73.2 60.0 53.8 29.2

District size

Less than 450 95.8 92.3 94.2 83.1 55.8 70.5 48.5 23.9

450–999 95.4 90.6 95.7 87.0 66.0 75.5 53.5 27.3

1,000–4,999 96.0 93.1 93.4 89.5 69.9 66.2 52.8 28.2

5,000–9,999 94.4 88.9 93.2 86.0 76.9 55.8 54.3 28.6

10,000 or more 93.4 91.2 90.0 86.8 79.9 51.2 55.7 30.9

School level

Elementary 94.7 90.4 92.3 87.3 78.8 57.9 54.2 28.6

Secondary 95.1 93.0 92.2 86.5 57.3 65.5 52.5 30.2

Combined 94.9 91.6 87.5 85.3 69.5 63.3 53.4 34.5

Total 82.0 90.5 82.6 83.1 65.0 55.3 49.6 34.5

School level

Elementary 83.4 91.7 86.2 83.6 64.2 53.6 47.8 32.6

Secondary 85.7 87.2 80.4 81.0 56.2 71.2 47.1 32.0

Combined 77.8 89.1 75.4 82.9 70.0 53.3 54.4 39.7

Affiliation

Catholic 95.4 95.5 89.1 90.1 55.0 65.0 43.7 29.4

Other religious 73.9 89.4 79.3 79.2 68.5 52.4 53.6 35.2

Nonsectarian 80.8 84.1 78.1 79.2 75.1 44.6 51.3 42.1

1 Examples of reduced teacher workloads are less time in the classroom with students or less time on assigned noninstructional

duties.

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Of these principals, percentage who reported that their school used

Public

Private

the following methods to provide teachers with time:
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

35 

Schools that provided teachers with time for professional development used various 

methods, including setting aside days for professional development before the beginning of the 

school year (91 percent), during the school year (86 percent), or after it (53 percent). In addition, 

many schools freed up teachers’ time during the school day by hiring substitute teachers to cover 

their classes (90 percent), setting aside common planning time for teachers (71 percent), or 

adjusting the length of the school day by dismissing students early or starting them late (59 

percent). Reducing teachers’ workloads was less common (30 percent). 

Public schools were more likely than private schools to use most of these methods to 

provide time for teacher professional development. The two exceptions were setting aside 

professional days before the school year began, where no difference between sectors was found, 

and reducing teachers’ workloads, a method that private schools were more likely to use than 

public schools. 

In both sectors, elementary schools were more likely than secondary schools to use 

common planning time for teachers (public: 79 vs. 57 percent, private: 64 vs. 56 percent) and 

less likely to dismiss students early or start them late (public: 58 vs. 66 percent, private: 54 vs.71 

percent). In the private sector, elementary schools were more likely than secondary or combined 

schools to hire substitute teachers to cover teachers’ classes (86 vs. 80 and 75 percent), and 

combined schools were more likely than elementary and secondary schools to reduce teachers’ 

workloads (40 vs. 33 and 32 percent). 

As district size increased, public schools were more likely to set aside common planning 

time for teachers and reduce teacher workloads. However, they were less likely to hire substitute 

teachers to cover teachers’ classes or adjust the length of the school day. 

In the private sector, Catholic schools were more likely than other religious and 

nonsectarian schools to use most of the methods shown in table 11 to provide teachers with 

professional development time. The exceptions were that Catholic schools were less likely than 

the other two types of private schools to build in professional days after the school year, use 

common planning time for teachers, or reduce teacher workloads. 

Types of Support Teachers Receive 

This section describes the specific kinds of time and monetary support teachers actually 

receive. Examples of the former include release time from teaching or time built into teachers’ 

schedules for professional development. Monetary support could take the form of stipends for 

participating in professional development activities outside regular work hours or reimbursement 
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

36 

for expenses such as college tuition, conference or workshop fees, or travel-related expenses. In 

the 1999–2000 SASS, teachers were asked to identify which types of support they had received 

during the previous 12 months. 

According to teachers’ reports, scheduled time in the contract year for professional 

development was the most common form of support (71 percent received it), especially for 

public school teachers (74 vs. 57 percent for private school teachers) (figure 8 and table 12). The 

next most common forms of support were release time from teaching, received by 53 percent of 

all teachers, then reimbursement for conference or workshop fees (50 percent received it). 

Teachers were less likely to receive stipends for professional development activities that took 

place outside regular work hours (39 percent) and reimbursement for travel or daily expenses (34 

percent). Least common was full or partial reimbursement of college tuition and fees (15 

percent). Overall, 93 percent of teachers had received at least one of these types of support during 

the previous 12 months (94 percent of public school teachers and 85 percent of private school 

teachers). 
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

37 

Figure 8.—Percentage of teachers who reported receiving various types of support for professional 

Figure 8.—development activities in which they had participated during the past 12 months, by sector: 

Figure 8.—1999–2000 

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000. 

19

32

22

59

47

57

85

14

34

42

48

54

74

94

15

34

39

50

53

71

92

0 20 40 60 80 100

Full or partial reimbursement 

of college tuition

Reimbursement for travel 

and/or daily expenses

Stipend for professional development 

activities outside regular work hours

Reimbursement for conference 

or workshop fees

Release time from teaching

Scheduled time in the contract year 

for professional development

Any of these

Percent

All schools

Public

Private
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

38 

Table 12.—Percentage of teachers who reported receiving various types of support for professional 

Table 12.—development activities in the past 12 months, by sector, district size, and selected school and

Table 12.—teacher characteristics: 1999–2000 

Scheduled Stipend for Full

 time in the Reimburse- professional Reimburse- or partial

District size Any contract Release ment for development ment for reimburseand school of these year for time conference or activities out- travel and/or ment of

or teacher types of professional from workshop side regular daily college

characteristic support development teaching fees work hours expenses tuition

All schools 92.5 71.4 53.3 49.8 39.1 33.8 15.1

Total 93.6 73.6 54.3 48.5 41.6 34.1 14.4

District size

Less than 450 93.9 72.3 61.5 61.3 38.0 55.5 17.5

450–999 96.5 76.0 62.2 63.5 41.6 54.8 21.7

1,000–4,999 95.2 75.3 57.8 59.2 39.1 45.2 17.7

5,000–9,999 93.7 74.9 55.4 50.8 39.4 37.2 14.5

10,000 or more 92.0 72.2 50.6 37.6 44.5 21.9 11.1

School level

Elementary 94.4 74.9 56.4 47.5 44.7 30.7 14.4

Secondary 92.1 71.2 49.6 50.4 35.9 40.3 14.6

Combined 92.6 72.1 59.3 48.5 36.0 40.2 14.0

Years of teaching experience

3 or fewer 91.3 68.3 54.6 44.6 40.4 28.2 15.4

4–9 94.0 73.3 55.0 50.8 43.9 35.8 16.9

10–19 94.3 75.4 55.4 50.7 42.1 35.5 15.3

20 or more 93.9 74.9 52.7 47.1 40.3 34.5 11.7

Total 84.8 56.6 46.9 58.7 22.3 32.3 19.2

School level

Elementary 85.6 57.7 46.6 59.0 23.0 26.5 16.6

Secondary 84.1 53.8 46.7 56.1 20.1 32.0 23.6

Combined 84.0 56.4 47.5 59.6 22.4 40.5 20.7

Affiliation

Catholic 85.5 57.4 45.9 54.1 21.5 18.7 17.3

Other religious 83.9 57.6 45.3 60.4 22.0 41.2 18.5

Nonsectarian 85.1 53.9 51.2 63.0 24.1 38.5 23.2

Years of teaching experience

3 or fewer 77.7 49.9 44.3 50.9 20.3 27.0 16.6

4–9 84.6 56.3 47.6 59.7 24.5 32.4 21.9

10–19 86.8 59.8 48.9 61.9 22.1 34.2 20.3

20 or more 89.2 59.6 46.5 61.2 22.2 34.7 17.5

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

Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Public

Private
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

39 

 In the public sector, teachers’ receipt of scheduled time during the contract year for 

professional development (the most common form of support) was not consistently related to 

district size, but teachers’ receipt of several other types of support declined as district size 

increased. Specifically, as district size increased, public school teachers were less likely to 

receive release time from teaching or reimbursement for college tuition, conference or workshop 

fees, or travel expenses. 

School level was a factor as well. In the public sector, elementary school teachers were 

more likely than secondary school teachers to receive stipends for participating in professional 

development activities that took place outside regular work hours. On the other hand, secondary 

school teachers were more likely than elementary school teachers to receive reimbursement for 

college tuition (in the private sector) and travel expenses (in both sectors). 

In the private sector, teachers in Catholic schools were less likely than nonsectarian school 

teachers to receive release time from teaching (46 vs. 51 percent) or college tuition 

reimbursement (17 vs. 23 percent) and less likely than other religious and nonsectarian school 

teachers to receive reimbursement for conference or workshop fees (54 vs. 60 and 63 percent) or 

travel expenses (19 vs. 41 and 39 percent). 

Whether teachers received various types of support for professional development was also 

related to the length of their teaching experience, with more experienced teachers more likely 

than new teachers (i.e., those in their first 3 years of teaching) to receive support. In both sectors, 

new teachers were less likely than more experienced ones to report receiving any of the kinds of 

support mentioned above. This does not necessarily mean that school or district policies are 

discriminatory, but may reflect the types of professional development teachers choose as their 

careers develop. For example, less experienced teachers may want to focus on accumulating 

college credits to earn advanced degrees, while more experienced ones may want to attend 

conferences and workshops to update their skills. Public school teachers with 20 or more years of 

experience were less likely than other teachers to have received tuition reimbursement, and new 

teachers in both sectors were less likely than others to have received reimbursement for 

conference or workshop fees or for travel or daily expenses. 

Pay Incentives Provided for Completing Professional Development Activities 

Some districts offer pay incentives such as cash bonuses, salary increases, or advancement 

to a higher step on the salary schedule to encourage teachers to participate in professional 

development activities. In 1999–2000, about one-quarter of public school districts (26 percent) 

used one or more of these mechanisms to reward teachers for completing in-service professional 
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

40 

development activities (table 13). The use of these pay incentives tended to increase with district 

size.

Table 13.—Percentage of public school districts that reported using pay incentives to reward teachers for

Table 13.—certain types of professional development, by district size: 1999–2000 

Completion of in-service Attainment of 

District size professional development NBPTS1

 certification

Total 26.4 8.3

District size

Less than 450 16.7 3.6

450–999 21.0 6.1

1,000–4,999 32.2 9.4

5,000–9,999 38.9 15.3

10,000 or more 38.9 23.9

1 National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

NOTE: Examples of pay incentives are cash bonuses, salary increases, or different steps on the salary schedule.

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

“School District Survey,” 1999–2000.

In addition, 8 percent of districts reported using pay incentives to reward teachers who 

attained National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) certification. The 

likelihood of districts using this incentive also increased with district size. However, districts 

may support teachers’ efforts to attain this certification in other ways such as fee support, license 

renewal or credits, and license portability. In 2002, 46 states used licensure incentives and 40 

provided financial incentives for teachers to earn NBPTS certification (Quality Counts 2003). 

Rewards Teachers Received for Completing Activities 

Teachers were asked about various rewards they may have received for completing 

professional development activities, including credits toward recertification or advanced 

certification in their main teaching field, salary or other pay increases, and recognition or higher 

ratings on an annual teacher evaluation. As with all types of support, the percentage of teachers 

who actually receive rewards depends first on whether the districts offer them and second on 

whether teachers take advantage of them in the particular year under study. Although almost all 

teachers (98 percent) participated in some type of professional development activities in 

1999−2000 (see table 16), a smaller percentage (54 percent) received any of these three rewards 

for completing them (table 14).12 The most common reward was credit toward recertification or 

advanced certification in their main teaching field (42 percent). In addition, 18 percent received 

 

12 This does not mean that teachers who did not receive the rewards did not complete professional development programs. 
Organization and Management of Teacher Professional Development 

41 

recognition or a higher rating on their annual evaluation, and 13 percent received salary or other 

pay increases. 

Table 14.—Percentage of teachers who reported receiving various rewards as a result of completing 

Table 14.—professional development activities, by sector and teacher experience: 1999–2000 

Credits toward

recertification Recognition

or advanced Increase or higher

certification in the in salary ratings on an

Teacher Any of these main or other or other pay annual teacher

experience rewards teaching field increases evaluation

All schools 54.2 41.6 12.9 17.6

Total 55.3 42.7 13.6 17.3

Years of teaching experience

3 or fewer 53.1 41.5 10.7 16.4

4–9 61.8 49.3 17.7 19.2

10–19 57.3 44.8 15.0 17.0

20 or more 50.5 37.2 11.2 16.7

Total 46.8 34.1 8.0 19.4

Years of teaching experience

3 or fewer 37.6 27.5 5.9 15.4

4–9 50.3 37.9 9.9 20.9

10–19 49.7 37.0 8.6 19.4

20 or more 48.1 32.9 7.3 21.4

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Public

Private

Public school teachers were more likely than private school teachers to be rewarded for 

completing professional development activities (55 vs. 47 percent). They were more likely to 

have received credits toward certification (43 vs. 34 percent) (private school teachers are not 

required by the state to be certified) and salary or other pay increases (14 vs. 8 percent).

 

43 

Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

Almost all teachers participate in professional development activities during the course of a 

year, in some cases teachers are mandated by their districts or states to do so, while in other cases 

their participation is voluntarily. As indicated earlier, professional development was once 

achieved primarily through district- or school-sponsored workshops and college coursework, but 

newer approaches consider other activities to be important vehicles for teachers to develop 

professionally and improve their teaching practice. This section describes the extent to which 

teachers are using these other formats as well as the more traditional ones. It also describes 

teachers’ participation in professional development on certain topics, including the amount of 

time they spend on activities on these topics, their assessments of the usefulness of the activities, 

and their priorities for future professional development. 

Format of Activities 

Induction and Mentoring Programs for New Teachers 

At one time, new teachers were typically sent into the classroom with little or no support 

from more experienced teachers, but now this practice is believed to contribute to high turnover 

and less effective teaching (NCTAF 2003). Consequently, many schools provide formal 

induction or mentoring programs to help new teachers adjust to their teaching responsibilities 

and to familiarize them with school programs, policies, and resources. In 2002, 30 states had 

induction programs for new teachers, and 16 states both required and financed induction for all 

new teachers. Eight states required mentors and teachers to be matched by school, subject, and/or 

grade level, seven required release time for mentors, and nine required compensation for mentors 

(Quality Counts 2003). 

Although teacher induction programs have become more common, they are still not 

universal. Among teachers with fewer than 5 years of teaching experience in 1999–2000, 56 

percent had participated in a teacher induction program during their first year of teaching (60 

percent in the public sector and 34 percent in the private sector) (table 15). This rate of 

participation represents an increase from that in 1993–94, when the participation rates in the 

public and private sectors were 56 and 29 percent, respectively (figure 9). 
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

44 

Table 15.—Percentage of teachers with fewer than 5 years of teaching experience who had participated in a

Table 15.—teacher induction program or had worked closely with a master or mentor teacher during their

Table 15.—first year of teaching, and their experience, by sector, district size, and selected school or 

Table 15.—teacher characteristic: 1999–2000

Percent who Percent whose

District size participated in a Percent who master or mentor

and school teacher worked with a teacher’s subject Percent whose

or teacher induction master or mentor area was the mentor helped to

characteristic program teacher same as theirs a great extent1

All schools 55.7 59.6 74.8 36.6

Total 59.6 62.3 75.0 36.1

District size

Less than 450 37.9 44.3 61.1 30.3

450–999 54.1 57.8 65.6 36.0

1,000–4,999 57.8 63.2 75.2 33.1

5,000–9,999 64.8 68.2 74.7 38.8

10,000 or more 61.1 61.9 77.1 36.7

School size

Elementary school

Less than 150 42.9 52.7 58.6 37.1

150–499 58.8 65.1 75.6 37.3

500 or more 61.1 64.1 74.6 37.0

Secondary school

Less than 400 44.3 48.8 61.0 30.9

400–749 59.8 60.3 70.9 30.2

750 or more 64.4 61.0 79.0 35.3

Main assignment field

K–general elementary 59.9 67.0 80.3 37.2

Math or science 62.1 61.8 70.8 36.6

English or language arts 57.1 58.0 75.3 33.2

Social studies 67.7 59.4 80.6 37.3

Special education 57.9 63.9 76.5 38.3

Bilingual or ESL 51.5 57.6 74.4 29.6

Vocational education 58.0 62.8 63.8 38.7

Other 58.1 55.9 64.6 32.7

See notes at end of table.

Of those who worked with

a master or mentor teacher,

Public
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

45 

Table 15.—Percentage of teachers with fewer than 5 years of teaching experience who had participated in a

Table 15.—teacher induction program or had worked closely with a master or mentor teacher during their

Table 15.—first year of teaching, and their experience, by sector, district size, and selected school or 

Table 15.—teacher characteristic: 1999–2000—Continued

Percent who Percent whose

District size participated in a Percent who master or mentor

and school teacher worked with a teacher’s subject Percent whose

or teacher induction master or mentor area was the mentor helped to

characteristic program teacher same as theirs a great extent1

Total 34.4 44.8 73.0 40.1

School size

Elementary school

Less than 150 23.5 43.7 80.7 43.0

150–499 37.1 49.9 69.7 41.4

500 or more 36.2 52.4 68.3 51.1

Secondary school

Less than 400 35.3 32.2 73.2 36.1

400–749 41.7 48.5 81.3 43.0

750 or more 59.5 49.7 77.2 30.1

Main assignment field

K–general elementary 35.1 52.1 82.7 47.7

Math or science 36.2 43.8 55.6 31.7

English or language arts 35.5 47.9 72.7 30.4

Social studies 38.7 51.4 58.1 32.5

Special education 26.6 34.5 94.8 43.5

Bilingual or ESL ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

Vocational education ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

Other 32.6 35.4 66.1 36.9

‡ Reporting standards not met. Too few cases for reliable estimate.

1 Teachers who had a master or mentor teacher in their first year were asked to what extent that teacher helped them on a

scale of 1–5. Teachers who chose 4 or 5 were considered to have been helped to a great extent.

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Private

Of those who worked with

a master or mentor teacher,
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

46 

Figure 9.—Percentage of teachers with fewer than 5 years of teaching experience who participated in a

Figure 9.—teacher induction program during their first year of teaching, by sector: 1993–94 and

Figure 9.—1999–2000

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

“Public and Private School Teacher Surveys,” 1993–94 and “Public, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 

1999–2000. 

51

56

29

56

60

34

0

20

40

60

80

100

All schools Public Private

Percent

1993–94 1999–2000

In addition, 60 percent of teachers with fewer than 5 years of teaching experience had 

worked closely with a master or mentor teacher in their first year (table 15). Of those who had 

done so, 75 percent had been assigned to a teacher in their own subject area, and 37 percent 

thought that their mentor had helped them to a great extent.13

Teachers in the smallest schools in both sectors (fewer than 150 students at the elementary 

level and fewer than 400 at the secondary level) had lower participation rates in formal induction 

programs than those at larger schools. 

Ongoing Professional Development Activities 

Teachers were asked whether they had participated in various types of professional 

development activities related to their teaching in the previous 12 months, including summer as 

well as school-year activities. The questions covered not only the more traditional types of 

professional development activities, such as workshops, conferences, or training and university 

 

13 Teachers who had a master or mentor teacher in their first year were asked to what extent that teacher helped them on a scale 

of 1–5. Teachers who chose 4 or 5 were considered to have been helped to a great extent. 
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

47 

coursetaking, but other activities such as observational visits to other schools, individual or 

collaborative research on a topic of interest, regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers 

on instructional issues, mentoring or peer observation and coaching, and participation in teacher 

networks (Gilford 1996). 

In 1999−2000, virtually all teachers (99 percent of public school teachers and 96 percent of 

private school teachers) reported that in the last 12 months they had participated in one or more 

of the types of professional development activities about which they were asked (figure 10 and 

table 16). Teachers were most likely to have participated in workshops, conferences, or training 

(95 percent of public school teachers and 87 percent of private school teachers). In addition, 

about three-quarters (73 percent) of all teachers had engaged in regularly scheduled collaboration 

with other teachers on instructional issues during the past 12 months. 

Less than half of all teachers had participated in the other types of professional 

development activities during the previous 12 months: 46 percent had conducted individual or 

collaborative research on a topic of interest to them professionally, 42 percent had participated in 

mentoring or peer observation and coaching arranged by their schools or districts, 34 percent had 

made observational visits to other schools, 30 percent had taken university courses for 

recertification or advanced certification, 25 percent had joined a teacher network organized by an 

outside agency or available through the Internet, and 23 percent had taken university courses to 

keep current in their main teaching field. Although participation in workshops, conferences, or 

training was high (94 percent), teachers’ participation in such activities as a presenter was 

substantially lower (21 percent). 

Participation rates in most types of professional development activities were higher for 

public school teachers than private school teachers. The only two exceptions to this pattern were 

observational visits to other schools and mentoring or peer observation and coaching, for which 

no sector differences were observed. 

Factors Related to Participation 

The extent to which teachers participate in various types of professional development 

activities is related to the characteristics of the schools in which they teach and to their own 

characteristics. A multivariate analysis of each of the nine types of professional development 

activities described above was conducted to identify the separate effects of various teacher and 

school characteristics. Because the outcome variable is dichotomous (i.e., teachers either 

participated or did not participate), a logistic regression model was used to analyze the 

association between an individual independent variable and a dependent variable, controlling for 
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

48 

the associations that both have with other independent variables in the model. Data for public and 

private school teachers were analyzed separately because of the different ways in which 

professional development is structured in the public and private sectors. The results of 

multivariate analyses are displayed in table 17. 

Figure 10.—Percentage of teachers who participated in various professional development activities related 

Figure 10.—to teaching in the past 12 months, by sector: 1999–2000 

1 Refers to instruction; administrative meetings are excluded.

2 As part of a formal arrangement that is recognized or supported by the school or district.

3 Excludes courses taken for initial certification in main or other teaching field.

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000. 

15

18

22

21

35

41

45

60

87

96

22

23

25

32

34

42

47

74

95

99

0 20 40 60 80 100

Workshops, conferences, or training as a 

presenter

University courses in the main assignment 

field

Participation in a network of teachers

University courses for recertification or 

advanced certification

Observational visits to other schools

Mentoring and/or peer observation and 

coaching

Individual or collaborative research on a 

topic of interest

Regularly scheduled collaboration with 

other teachers on issues of instruction

Workshops, conferences, or training

Any of these activities

Percent

Public

Private

1

2

3
Teacher Participation in Pr

49 

Table 16.—Percentage of teachers who participated in various professional development activities related to teaching in the pa

Table 16.—sector, district size, and selected school and teacher characteristics: 1999–2000 

Regularly Individual or Mentoring Observa- University 

scheduled collaborative and/or peer tional courses for 

District size and Any Workshops, collaboration research observa- visits recertification school or of these conferences with other on a topic tion and to other or advanced Network

teacher characteristic activities or training teachers1 of interest coaching2 schools certification3 of teacher

All schools 98.3 93.8 72.6 46.5 41.9 34.4 30.3 24.

Total 98.7 94.8 74.4 46.7 42.1 34.4 31.6 25.0 

District size

Less than 450 98.4 94.5 62.7 37.8 31.5 31.6 36.2 27.450–999 98.7 95.1 68.1 43.4 34.8 31.7 35.3 26.1,000–4,999 98.8 94.2 73.3 47.2 41.0 32.9 30.7 24.5,000–9,999 98.3 94.0 75.3 48.3 44.9 35.6 30.1 24.10,000 or more 98.8 95.4 76.6 46.7 43.8 35.2 32.1 25.

School level

Elementary 99.1 95.9 78.0 47.1 42.5 35.8 32.3 24.Secondary 98.0 92.7 67.9 46.1 41.7 31.7 30.4 26.4 Combined 98.4 93.9 69.1 45.9 36.3 35.1 29.0 26.

Employment status

Full-time 98.8 95.0 74.8 46.6 42.5 33.9 31.6 24.

Part-time 97.8 92.6 70.5 48.1 37.4 40.4 31.3 29.4 

Years of teaching experience

3 or fewer 98.7 93.3 63.4 38.8 50.7 31.1 37.0 20.4–9 99.4 95.5 73.7 50.2 42.5 32.9 44.5 25.10–19 98.8 95.8 77.9 48.9 40.8 36.4 30.7 27.20 or more 98.2 94.2 77.5 46.5 38.8 35.5 21.2 25.

Highest degree earned

Bachelor’s degree or lower 98.8 94.5 73.8 45.1 42.5 33.3 35.6 22.Master’s degree 98.6 95.0 75.0 47.9 41.2 35.2 27.1 26.

Doctoral/first-professional degree 98.9 95.4 76.0 53.7 44.6 39.2 28.6 30.

See notes at end of table.

Public
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

50 

Table 16.—Percentage of teachers who participated in various professional development activities related to teaching in the pa

Table 16.—sector, district size, and selected school and teacher characteristics: 1999–2000—Continued 

Regularly Individual or Mentoring Observa- University 

scheduled collaborative and/or peer tional courses for 

District size and Any Workshops, collaboration research observa- visits recertification school or of these conferences with other on a topic tion and to other or advanced Network

teacher characteristic activities or training teachers1 of interest coaching2 schools certification3 of teacher

Main assignment field

K–general elementary 99.4 96.9 80.7 46.4 43.8 35.9 33.5 22.Math or science 98.2 93.2 70.6 41.8 40.3 25.3 29.9 26.English or language arts 98.8 95.3 75.9 50.4 44.2 31.1 29.4 27.Social studies 98.8 93.6 72.4 49.4 45.1 29.1 30.5 23.Special education 98.7 95.4 72.5 44.6 41.2 38.3 31.3 22.Bilingual or ESL 99.4 97.9 75.1 51.5 39.7 37.3 33.9 28.

Vocational education 96.8 92.3 66.6 47.0 37.2 42.2 34.1 29.Other 98.1 92.0 68.4 48.8 40.0 36.8 30.3 28.4 

Total 95.8 87.2 60.1 44.6 40.9 34.6 21.4 22.

School level

Elementary 96.9 91.0 61.7 42.1 36.1 34.6 23.5 21.0 Secondary 96.0 83.8 61.1 48.9 46.9 33.2 21.8 25.0 Combined 94.1 83.7 57.4 46.0 44.7 35.3 18.3 22.

Affiliation

Catholic 97.8 91.5 62.3 43.3 39.0 30.9 25.7 21.7 Other religious 94.7 85.7 55.9 42.6 38.6 32.7 17.9 20.7 Nonsectarian 94.5 83.3 63.3 49.8 47.6 43.3 20.4 25.0 

Employment status

Full-time 96.5 89.0 61.5 43.5 42.2 34.2 22.6 21.

Part-time 92.7 79.6 53.7 49.6 35.4 36.5 16.0 25.7 

Years of teaching experience

3 or fewer 93.4 78.9 49.9 37.7 38.7 28.5 20.3 14.4–9 96.0 86.6 59.2 47.1 39.0 35.4 26.2 22.4 10–19 96.7 91.2 62.6 45.8 41.7 33.9 22.0 24.

20 or more 96.7 91.1 67.7 47.0 44.2 40.4 16.5 26.

See notes at end of table.

Private
Teacher Participation in Pr

51 

Table 16.—Percentage of teachers who participated in various professional development activities related to teaching in the pa

Table 16.—sector, district size, and selected school and teacher characteristics: 1999–2000—Continued 

Regularly Individual or Mentoring Observa- University 

scheduled collaborative and/or peer tional courses for 

District size and Any Workshops, collaboration research observa- visits recertification 

school or of these conferences with other on a topic tion and to other or advanced Network

teacher characteristic activities or training teachers1 of interest coaching2 schools certification3 of teacher

Highest degree earned

Bachelor’s degree or lower 95.4 86.1 58.3 41.7 39.0 32.4 22.8 18.7 Master’s degree 96.9 90.5 63.2 48.6 43.8 37.6 18.6 27.Doctoral/first-professional degree 94.1 82.4 64.2 58.0 48.8 45.6 20.3 33.

Main assignment field

K–general elementary 96.4 91.6 63.3 41.2 38.4 35.0 23.2 17.4 Math or science 94.5 84.9 55.1 39.3 41.9 32.0 18.4 23.English or language arts 98.9 87.9 61.0 45.6 43.5 31.0 20.2 21.4 Social studies 97.4 89.8 64.3 47.7 49.9 30.8 21.3 20.Special education 98.5 92.5 65.9 51.5 42.8 41.8 27.0 27.Bilingual or ESL ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡ 

Vocational education 93.7 84.1 55.1 51.1 34.0 23.5 19.0 22.7 Other 93.6 80.5 55.9 50.0 40.7 36.7 20.2 27.4 

‡ Reporting standards not met. Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

1 Refers to instruction; administrative meetings are excluded.2 As part of a formal arrangement that is recognized or supported by the school or district.3 Excludes courses taken for initial certification in main or other teaching field.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public, Private, and Charte1999–2000.
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

52 

Table 17.—Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participated in various professional develo

Table 17.—past 12 months: 1999–2000

District, school,principal, orteacher characteristic Public Private PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate 

Intercept 1.21 0.03* 0.51* 0.11* 0.36* 0.44 0.46* 0.25* 0.50* 0.50 0.53* 0.18* 0.15* 0.07* District characteristic

District size 

Less than 450 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 450–999 1.15 † 0.89 † 1.15 † 1.29* † 1.12 † 1.06 † 0.93 † 1,000–4,999 0.98 † 0.87 † 1.25* † 1.45* † 1.41* † 1.32* † 0.81* † 5,000–9,999 1.01 † 0.78 † 1.39* † 1.43* † 1.44* † 1.49* † 0.84 † 10,000 or more 1.08 † 0.80 † 1.35* † 1.33* † 1.50* † 1.30* † 0.88 † 

School characteristics

School level 

Elementary 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Secondary 0.93 0.82* 1.01 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.87* 1.14 0.68* 0.96 1.04 1.33* 0.95 0.89 Combined 0.78* 0.75* 0.84* 0.76* 0.98 0.85 1.03 1.08 0.79* 0.80* 0.80* 1.21* 0.94 0.84 

School size 

Less than 150 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 150–499 0.72* 0.99 0.90 0.92 0.78* 0.98 0.88 0.95 1.32* 1.14 1.09 1.26* 0.95 0.91 500–999 0.61* 0.99 0.77* 1.07 0.77* 1.09 0.79* 1.09 1.33* 1.37* 1.20 1.60* 0.92 1.09 1,000 or more 0.64* 1.16 0.81 1.08 0.70* 1.04 0.90 1.03 1.36* 1.31* 1.13 1.56* 0.91 1.15 

Percent minority 

 enrollmentNone 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1–10 1.03 1.23 1.26 1.14 0.99 1.09 1.04 1.16 0.99 1.39* 0.87 1.13 0.97 1.27 11–30 0.87 1.10 1.23 1.14 1.05 1.21 1.19 1.06 1.13 1.45* 0.98 1.37* 1.00 1.29* 31–50 0.82 1.32 1.14 1.34 1.00 1.18 1.24* 1.20 1.10 1.09 0.96 1.33 1.14 1.20 More than 50 0.87 1.43* 1.40* 1.33 1.09 1.24 1.22* 1.23 1.15 1.23 1.07 1.50* 1.13 1.21 

See notes at end of table. 

Participating

in a network

of teachers

Mentoring

and/or peer

observation

 of interest and coaching

Regularly

scheduled

collaboration

with other

teachers

Individual/

collaborative

research

on a topic

teaching field

Observationalvisits to other

schools

University

courses

in the main

certification

University

courses for

recertification/

advanced
Teacher Participation in Pr

53 

Table 17.—Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participated in various professional develo

Table 17.—past 12 months: 1999–2000—Continued

District, school,principal, orteacher characteristic Public Private PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate 

Percent eligible for free/ 

 reduced-price lunch 0–5 1.00 ( 1 ) 1.00 ( 1 ) 1.00 ( 1 ) 1.00 ( 1 ) 1.00 ( 1 ) 1.00 ( 1 ) 1.00 ( 1 ) 

6–20 1.14* (1) 0.94 (1) 0.81* (1) 0.85* (1) 0.98 (1) 0.84* (1) 1.06 (1) 

21–40 0.98 (1) 0.92 (1) 0.89 (1) 0.81* (1) 0.95 (1) 0.85* (1) 1.05 (1) More than 40 0.98 (1) 0.86* (1) 0.92 (1) 0.69* (1) 0.86* (1) 0.86* (1) 0.96 (1) 

Affiliation 

Catholic † 1.35* † 1.18 † 0.55* † 0.81* † 0.83* † 0.71* † 0.85 Other religious † 0.91 † 0.83* † 0.68* † 0.84* † 0.83* † 0.85* † 0.99 Nonsectarian † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 

School has own 

 professional

 development budget Yes 1.10* † 1.04 † 1.10 † 1.12* † 1.18* † 0.99 † 1.02 † No 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 

Professional 

 development at this school was accompanied by the resources that teachers needNever/rarely 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Sometimes 0.81* 1.14 0.88 0.94 1.11 0.88 0.92 1.01 1.10 0.91 0.97 0.99 1.00 0.81* Frequently/always 0.80* 0.95 0.85 0.99 1.03 0.97 0.91 1.07 1.11 0.97 0.95 1.17 0.98 0.76* 

See notes at end of table. 

certification teaching field schools of interest teachers and coaching

of teachers 

Participating 

advanced in the main visits to other on a topic with other observation in a network

Observational research collaboration and/or peer

courses for University collaborative scheduled Mentoring 

University Individual/ Regularly

recertification/ courses
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

54 

Table 17.—Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participated in various professional develo

Table 17.—past 12 months: 1999–2000—Continued

District, school,principal, orteacher characteristic Public Private PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate 

School provided 

 teachers with time

 for professional development during regular contract hoursYes 0.92 0.92 0.83 1.03 1.13 1.06 1.05 1.09 1.29* 1.26* 1.15 1.07 1.14 1.31* No 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Principal characteristics

Years of experience as 

 principal

3 or fewer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4–9 0.98 0.93 1.08 1.19 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.84* 1.08 0.93 0.93 0.87 1.05 0.86 10–19 1.10 0.97 1.16* 0.97 0.97 0.88 1.09 0.94 0.97 0.86 0.98 0.89 1.00 0.87 20 or more 0.99 1.24* 1.17 1.32* 0.90 0.74* 0.95 0.86 1.03 0.95 0.86* 0.77* 0.98 0.77* 

Principal influence in 

 determining the content of in-service professional development programsNo/little 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Somewhat 0.89 1.26 1.10 1.14 1.11 0.77 1.00 1.08 0.87 0.86 0.83 0.76 1.02 0.90 A great deal 0.95 1.01 1.15 0.73 1.05 0.60 1.01 0.89 0.91 0.85 0.87 0.62 1.16 0.77 

Principal provided 

 professional

 development activities  and engaged staff in them Never 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 or 2 times a month 1.57* 2.44* 1.87* 1.49* 1.36 1.45 1.35 1.33 1.55* 1.18 1.14 1.42* 1.27 1.25 1 or 2 times a week/daily 1.58* 2.07* 1.98* 1.35 1.43 1.51 1.39 1.33 1.45* 1.24 1.07 1.57* 1.35 1.45 

See notes at end of table. 

certification teaching field schools of interest teachers and coaching of teachers 

advanced in the main visits to other on a topic with other observation in a network 

University Individual/ Regularly 

courses for University collaborative scheduled Mentoring 

recertification/ courses Observational research collaboration and/or peer Participating 
Teacher Participation in Pr

55 

Table 17.—Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participated in various professional develop

Table 17.—past 12 months: 1999–2000—Continued

District, school,principal, orteacher characteristic PublicPrivate Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private P

Principal built professional 

 community among  faculty and other staffNever 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 or 2 times a month 1.02 1.32 0.91 1.09 1.05 1.24 0.83 1.12 1.01 1.02 1.17 1.01 1.19 1.17 01 or 2 times a week/daily 0.99 1.35 0.87 1.17 1.02 1.41 0.84 1.27 1.11 1.21 1.25 1.18 1.16 1.19 0

Teacher influence in 

 determining the content of in-service professional

 development programsNo/little 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1Somewhat 1.03 0.84 0.99 1.44 0.84 1.00 1.03 1.40 0.95 0.88 0.95 1.15 0.83* 1.09 1A great deal 1.02 0.86 1.03 1.56* 0.98 1.33 1.11 1.50* 1.08 1.19 1.03 1.33* 0.98 1.23 1

Professional development 

 at this school was planned by teachersNever/rarely 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1Sometimes 0.87 1.14 0.96 0.84 1.08 1.11 0.97 1.00 0.89 0.94 0.94 1.03 0.92 0.96 1Frequently/always 0.88 1.21 0.97 0.77* 1.09 1.02 1.01 1.05 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.12 0.88 1.09 1

Professional development 

 at this school was presented by teachersNever/rarely 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1Sometimes 0.87 1.29* 0.96 1.24* 0.98 0.95 1.03 1.18* 1.20* 1.17* 1.18* 1.28* 1.01 1.27* 1Frequently/always 0.87 1.14 0.99 1.25 0.95 1.01 1.07 1.14 1.15 1.19 1.15* 1.12 0.97 1.18 1

Professional development 

 was considered part of teachers’ regular work

Never/rarely 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1Sometimes 1.00 1.34 0.96 1.13 0.97 1.03 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.10 1.25 1.06 0.90 1Frequently/always 0.87 1.34 0.84* 1.28 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.98 0.96 1.15 1.06 1.16 1.03 1.20 0

See notes at end of table. 

teaching field schools of interest teachers

in the main visits to other

and coaching of teachers 

observation in a network c

courses Observational research collaboration and/or peer Participating w

courses for University collaborative scheduled Mentoring 

Individual/ Regularly

on a topic with other

University

recertification/

advanced

certification
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

56 

Table 17.—Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participated in various professional develo

Table 17.—past 12 months: 1999–2000—Continued

District, school,principal, orteacher characteristic Public Private PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate 

Teacher characteristics

Years of teaching experience 

3 or fewer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4–9 1.37* 1.47* 0.93 0.83* 1.09 1.38* 1.63* 1.45* 1.64* 1.44* 0.73* 1.01 1.33* 1.59* 10–19 0.81* 1.07 0.65* 0.61* 1.29* 1.28* 1.54* 1.32* 2.21* 1.61* 0.69* 1.11 1.44* 1.86* 20 or more 0.48* 0.78* 0.43* 0.48* 1.23* 1.77* 1.30* 1.45* 2.15* 1.98* 0.63* 1.21* 1.21* 1.97* 

Highest degree earned 

Bachelor’s degree or

 lower 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Master’s degree 0.81* 0.80* 0.91* 0.82* 1.04 1.14* 1.10* 1.11 0.90* 1.01 1.02 0.99 1.25* 1.32* Doctoral/

 first-professional/

 education specialist 0.91 0.89 0.98 0.80 1.25* 1.67* 1.36* 1.61* 0.93 1.19 1.14 1.23 1.54* 1.65* 

Employment status 

Full-time 0.99 1.49* 1.04 1.13 0.81* 0.85* 0.99 0.85* 1.08 1.15 1.15 1.20* 0.90 0.91 

Part-time 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Main assignment field 

K–general elementary 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Math or science 0.87* 0.91 0.70* 1.24* 0.67* 0.80* 0.81* 0.84* 0.71* 0.69* 0.84* 0.97 1.33* 1.49* English or language arts 0.93 0.95 0.67* 1.08 0.87 0.73* 1.17* 1.01 0.86 0.84 0.97 1.08 1.37* 1.18 Social studies 0.88 1.05 0.62* 0.85 0.79* 0.66* 1.19* 1.09 0.83* 0.84 1.02 1.19 1.11 1.03 Special education 0.91 1.64* 0.84* 1.33 1.09 0.98 0.93 1.25* 0.76* 1.15 0.86* 1.01 1.13 1.52* Bilingual education or ESL 0.97 ‡ 0.77* ‡ 1.04 ‡ 1.14 ‡ 0.62* ‡ 0.73* ‡ 1.30* ‡ Vocational education 1.12 0.97 0.82* 0.74 1.34* 0.68 1.01 1.18 0.61* 0.76 0.77* 0.85 1.64* 1.41 Other field 0.89* 1.09 0.68* 1.02 1.08 0.95 1.11 1.33* 0.60* 0.77* 0.90 1.04 1.46* 1.70* 

† Not applicable.‡ Reporting standards not met. Too few cases for a reliable estimate.* p < .05.

1 Too few private schools participated to provide sufficient variation for analysis.

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

and “Public, Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Individual/ Regularly 

courses for University collaborative scheduled Mentoring 

University

recertification/ courses Observational research collaboration and/or peer Participating 

advanced in the main visits to other on a topic with other observation in a network 

certification teaching field schools of interest 

teachers and coaching of teachers 
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

 

57 

The results are presented as odds ratios, which indicate the relative odds of having 

participated in a particular type of professional development activity in relation to a comparison 

group (in italics). Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences. An odds ratio that is less 

than 1.0 means the odds for a particular group are lower than the odds of the comparison group, 

while those that are greater than 1.0 mean the opposite. Take, for example, the row representing 

“Teaching experience” and the first column representing public school teachers who took 

“University courses for recertification/advanced certification.” The odds ratio for teachers with 

20 or more years of teaching experience is .48. This means that the odds of teachers with 20 or 

more years experience for taking university courses for recertification or advanced certification 

are .48 times the odds for teachers in the comparison group (3 or fewer years of experience). In 

other words, the odds of teachers with 20 or more years of experience taking university courses 

for recertification or advanced certification were 52 percent lower than the odds of teachers with 

3 years of experience or less. 

District and School Characteristics 

For public school teachers, participation in some types of professional activities was related 

to the size of their school districts. For example, public school teachers in larger school districts 

(5,000 or more students) were more likely than their colleagues in the smallest districts (with 

enrollments of fewer than 450 students) to make observational visits to other schools, conduct 

individual or collaborative research, collaborate regularly with other teachers, participate in 

mentoring or peer observation and coaching, and present at workshops, conferences, or training 

sessions. 

School size was related to teacher participation in professional development activities 

(independent of district size and other factors). In the public sector, teachers in the smallest 

schools (fewer than 150 students) were more likely than teachers in larger schools to enroll in 

college courses for certification or to visit other schools, but were less likely to collaborate 

regularly with other teachers. In the private sector, teachers in the smallest schools, in general, 

were less likely than teachers in schools with more than 500 students to collaborate regularly 

with other teachers, participate in mentoring or peer observation and coaching, or attend 

workshops, conferences, or training sessions. 

Teacher participation in some activities was also related to school level and, in the private 

sector, affiliation. A pattern common to both sectors was that secondary school teachers were less 

likely than elementary school teachers to attend or present at workshops, conferences, or training 

sessions. Catholic school teachers were more likely than teachers in nonsectarian schools to 

participate in the more traditional forms of professional development: taking university courses 
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

58 

for recertification or advancement and attending workshops, conferences, or training. They were 

less likely, however, to make observational visits to other schools, conduct research, collaborate 

regularly with other teachers, participate in mentoring or peer observation and coaching, or 

present at workshops, conferences, or training sessions. 

School resources for professional development and teacher participation in some 

professional development activities were also related. In the public sector, teachers who taught in 

schools with their own professional development budgets were more likely than those who taught 

in schools without such budgets to take university courses for certification,14 conduct research, 

collaborate regularly with other teachers, and present at workshops, conferences, or training 

sessions. In addition, teachers in schools that provided time for professional development during 

regular contract hours were more likely than those in schools that did not provide this time to 

have collaborated regularly with other teachers, and in the private sector, to have participated in a 

teacher network and presented at workshops, conferences, or training sessions. 

Principal Characteristics 

When principals reported providing and engaging staff in professional development 

activities at least monthly, public school teachers were more likely to report that they had 

collaborated regularly with other teachers, and private school teachers were more likely to report 

that they had participated in mentoring or peer observation and coaching than teachers whose 

principals reported never providing and engaging staff in professional development activities. In 

addition, when private school teachers thought they had a great deal of influence in determining 

the content of in-service professional development activities, they were more likely than those 

who thought they had little or no influence to have taken university courses in their main 

teaching field, conducted research on a topic of interest, and participated in mentoring or peer 

observation and coaching. 

Teacher Characteristics 

The types of professional development activities in which teachers participated varied with 

their teaching experience. In both public and private sectors, new teachers (those with 3 years of 

experience or less) were more likely than teachers with 10 or more years of teaching experience 

to take university courses in their main teaching field. In addition, new teachers in public schools 

were more likely than their more experienced colleagues to have participated in mentoring or 

peer observation and coaching. However, in both sectors, new teachers were generally less likely 

 

14 However, schools might not have paid for their college tuition. 
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

59 

than other teachers to visit other schools, conduct research, collaborate regularly with other 

teachers, participate in a network of teachers, and attend or present at workshops, conferences, or 

training sessions. 

The highest degree earned was also associated with the types of professional development 

activities in which teachers were involved. Teachers with a bachelor’s degree or less were more 

likely than those with a master’s degree to have taken university courses to obtain full or 

advanced certification or enroll in college courses in their main teaching field. They were 

generally less likely than teachers with a master’s or more advanced degree to visit other schools, 

conduct research, participate in a teacher network, or present at workshops, conferences, or 

training sessions. 

Topics 

Many believe that, to complement current reform initiatives, in-service professional 

development activities should address topics that enable teachers to expand their expertise in 

subject content, teaching strategies, uses of technologies, and other elements essential to teaching 

to high standards (Gilford 1996). The SASS questions focus on teachers’ participation in these 

types of activities: in-depth study of the content in their main teaching field, content and 

performance standards in their main teaching field, teaching methods, uses of computers for 

instruction, student assessment, and student discipline and classroom management. 

Participation Rates by Topic 

Almost all teachers (97 percent) reported that they had participated in professional 

development activities on at least one of these topics during the previous 12 months (figure 11). 

About 70 percent of all teachers reported that they had participated in activities that focused on 

teaching methods (71 percent), content and performance standards in their main teaching field 

(69 percent), or using computers for instruction (67 percent). More than one-half participated in 

activities that focused on student assessment15 (60 percent) and in-depth study of content in their 

main teaching field (57 percent). Forty-one percent participated in professional development 

activities focused on student discipline and classroom management. Public school teachers were 

more likely than private school teachers to participate in professional development activities on 

each of these topics. 

 

15 Examples given were testing, evaluation, and performance assessment. 
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

60 

Figure 11.—Percentage of teachers who participated in professional development programs that focused on

Figure 11.—various topics in the past 12 months, by sector: 1999–2000 

1 Such as methods of testing, evaluation, or performance assessment.

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000. 

39

42

37

50

46

61

89

41

59

63

70

73

73

98

41

57

60

67

69

71

97

0 20 40 60 80 100

Student discipline and 

classroom management

In-depth study of content in

main teaching field

Student assessment

Uses of computers for instruction

Content and performance

standards in main teaching field

Methods of teaching

Any of these topics

Percent

All schools

Public

Private

1

In the 1993–94 SASS, teachers were asked about their participation in professional 

development activities on some of the same topics, and the percentages were reported in a 

previous publication (Choy and Chen 1998). When comparing the percentages of teachers who 

participated in these activities in 1993–94 and in 1999–2000, it appears that there was an increase 

in participation in professional development activities on these topics. However, these data 

should not be compared because in 1993–94 teachers were asked about their participation since 

the end of the last school year, and in 1999–2000 they were asked about their participation within 

the past 12 months (a longer period of time). 
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

61 

Factors Related to Participation 

Multivariate analysis (logistic regression) was conducted on participation in each of six 

professional development topic areas to identify the unique associations of various teacher, 

principal, and school characteristics with participation in professional development activities 

focused on each of the six topic areas (table 18). Again, public and private school teachers were 

analyzed separately. 

Teacher Characteristics 

Experience was an important factor relating to teachers’ participation in professional 

development activities in different content areas after controlling for the many school, principal, 

and teacher characteristics listed in table 18. In both public and private schools, participation in 

each topic was generally higher among more experienced teachers than new teachers (those with 

3 years experience or less). The one exception was found in public schools, where more 

experienced teachers were less likely than new teachers to have attended professional 

development on student discipline and classroom management. 

In addition to experience, teachers’ participation was generally associated with their 

employment status, with full-time teachers in both sectors being more likely than part-time 

teachers to have participated in professional development in almost all the content areas.16 The 

differences between full- and part-time teachers may reflect different levels of commitment and 

interest, but may also be related to variations in district or school requirements and support for 

participation. 

School and District Characteristics 

In both sectors, elementary school teachers were more likely than other teachers to have 

engaged in professional development related to their main teaching field, content and 

performance standards in their main teaching field, and uses of computers for instruction. In 

addition, in the public sector, secondary school teachers were less likely than elementary school 

teachers to have addressed teaching methods and student assessment in their professional 

development. Private secondary school teachers were less likely than their elementary school 

counterparts to have had training on student discipline and classroom management.

 

16 The one exception was in-depth study of the content in the main teaching field in public schools, where no significant 

difference between full- and part-time teachers was detected. 
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

62 

Table 18.—Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participated in professional development p

Table 18.—various topics in the past 12 months: 1999–2000

In-depth study of Content and performance 

District, school, content in the standards in the Methods of Uses of computers Student principal, or main teaching field main teaching field teaching for instruction assessment teacher characteristic Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public PriIntercept 0.69 0.17* 1.41 0.26* 0.49* 0.28* 1.15 0.03* 0.75 0.District characteristic

District size

Less than 450 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 450–999 0.91 † 0.95 † 0.91 † 1.07 † 1.14 1,000–4,999 0.88 † 1.03 † 1.25* † 1.06 † 1.10 5,000–9,999 1.01 † 1.09 † 1.34* † 1.09 † 1.22 10,000 or more 1.20 † 1.26* † 1.50* † 0.88 † 1.29* 

School characteristics

School level

Elementary 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.Secondary 0.75* 0.76* 0.77* 0.86* 0.83* 0.91 0.96 0.75* 0.83* 1.Combined 0.78* 0.71* 0.78* 0.80* 0.91 0.87 0.81* 0.70* 0.92 1.

School size

Less than 150 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.150–499 1.22* 1.18* 1.10 1.15* 1.14 1.09 0.81 1.43* 1.03 0.500–999 1.20 1.35* 1.08 1.26* 1.10 1.26* 0.85 1.95* 0.92 0.1,000 or more 1.13 1.62* 1.07 1.20 1.02 0.81 0.77* 2.66* 0.87 0.

Percent minority enrollment 

None 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.1–10 1.15 1.22 0.89 1.21* 1.17 1.08 0.71* 1.51* 1.02 1.11–30 1.25* 1.16 0.93 1.27* 1.34* 1.08 0.81 1.21 1.10 1.31–50 1.29* 1.22 0.97 1.21 1.39* 1.07 0.81 1.03 1.09 1.More than 50 1.49* 1.46* 1.04 1.52* 1.54* 1.29* 0.72* 1.39* 1.21 1.

See notes at end of table.
Teacher Participation in Pr

63 

Table 18.—Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participated in professional development p

Table 18.—various topics in the past 12 months: 1999–2000—Continued

In-depth study of Content and performance 

District, school, content in the standards in the Methods of Uses of computers Student principal, or main teaching field main teaching field teaching for instruction assessment teacher characteristic Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Pri

Percent eligible for free/ 

 reduced-price lunch 0–5 1.00 ( 1 ) 1.00 ( 1 ) 1.00 ( 1 ) 1.00 ( 1 ) 1.00 

6–20 0.96 (1) 0.97 (1) 1.01 (1) 0.91 (1) 0.98 

21–40 0.99 (1) 1.01 (1) 0.99 (1) 0.85 (1) 0.97 More than 40 0.94 (1) 0.95 (1) 1.05 (1) 0.77* (1) 1.01 

Affiliation 

Catholic † 0.88 † 1.51* † 1.18 † 1.46* † 1.Other religious † 0.86 † 1.10 † 1.20* † 0.71* † 1.Nonsectarian † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.

 School has own 

 professional  development budgetYes 1.07* † 1.12* † 1.14* † 1.05 † 1.20* No 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 † 1.00 

Professional development at 

 this school was accompanied by the  resources that teachers needNever/rarely 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.Sometimes 1.01 1.28* 1.06 1.44* 1.02 0.87 1.07 1.08 1.01 0.Frequently/always 1.07 1.37* 1.07 1.54* 1.11 0.97 1.11 1.24* 1.04 1.

School provided teachers 

 with time for professional development  during regular contract hoursYes 1.23* 1.11 1.09 1.33* 1.15 1.26 1.12 1.85* 1.14 1.No 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.

See notes at end of table.
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

64 

Table 18.—Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participated in professional development p

Table 18.—various topics in the past 12 months: 1999–2000—Continued

In-depth study of Content and performance 

District, school, content in the standards in the Methods of Uses of computers Student principal, or main teaching field main teaching field teaching for instruction assessment teacher characteristic Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public PriPrincipal characteristics

Years of experience as 

 principal3 or fewer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.4–9 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.80* 1.02 0.85 1.09 0.85 0.92 0.10–19 0.99 0.95 0.96 0.77* 1.03 0.89 1.04 1.14 1.04 0.20 or more 0.81* 0.83* 0.79* 0.88 0.91 0.86 1.13 0.94 0.89 0.

Principal influence in 

 determining the content  of in-service professional

 development programsNo/little 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.Somewhat 0.93 0.78 0.83 0.43* 1.17 0.96 1.11 1.42 1.15 0.A great deal 0.93 0.85 0.86 0.40* 1.17 0.95 1.20 1.32 1.09 0.

Principal provided 

 professional development activities and engaged  staff in them Never 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.1 or 2 times a month 1.23* 1.12 1.66* 1.12 1.46* 1.47 1.09 1.20 1.22 1.1 or 2 times a week/daily 1.20 1.30 1.62* 1.23 1.43* 1.56* 1.05 1.27 1.20 1.

Principal built professional 

 community among  faculty and other staffNever 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.1 or 2 times a month 1.01 0.95 0.93 1.20 0.95 1.16 0.88 1.23 0.83 0.1 or 2 times a week/daily 1.03 0.99 1.07 1.26 0.93 1.15 0.85 1.31 0.81 0.

See notes at end of table.
Teacher Participation in Pr

65 

Table 18.—Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participated in professional development p

Table 18.—various topics in the past 12 months: 1999–2000—Continued

In-depth study of Content and performance 

District, school, content in the standards in the Methods of Uses of computers Student principal, or main teaching field main teaching field teaching for instruction assessment teacher characteristic Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Pri

Teacher influence in

 determining the content of in-service professional

 development programsNo/little 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.Somewhat 0.91 1.20 0.84 1.31 0.93 0.97 0.99 1.32 0.75* 0.A great deal 0.94 1.44* 0.84 1.48* 1.07 1.24 1.03 1.43* 0.87 1.

Professional development at 

 this school was planned  by teachersNever/rarely 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.Sometimes 0.89 1.02 1.02 1.03 0.95 1.13 1.04 1.00 1.03 0.Frequently/always 0.95 1.07 0.96 1.04 0.94 1.04 1.06 1.19 0.96 0.

Professional development at 

 this school was presented  by teachersNever/rarely 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.Sometimes 1.26* 1.34* 1.16* 1.13 1.07 1.30* 1.03 1.14 1.21* 1.Frequently/always 1.25* 1.20 1.14 0.92 1.01 1.11 1.13 0.97 1.27* 1.

Professional development 

 was considered part of  teachers’ regular workNever/rarely 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.Sometimes 1.00 1.03 1.13 0.91 1.22* 1.21 1.10 1.02 1.06 1.Frequently/always 1.02 1.11 1.14 1.01 1.24* 1.38* 1.18* 0.97 1.09 1.

See notes at end of table.
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

66 

Table 18.—Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participated in professional development p

Table 18.—various topics in the past 12 months: 1999–2000—Continued

In-depth study of Content and performance 

District, school, content in the standards in the Methods of Uses of computers Student principal, or main teaching field main teaching field teaching for instruction assessment teacher characteristic Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public PrivTeacher characteristics

Years of teaching experience 

3 or fewer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.4–9 1.34* 1.36* 1.44* 1.36* 1.27* 1.38* 1.64* 1.80* 1.41* 1.10–19 1.48* 1.26* 1.65* 1.76* 1.26* 1.34* 2.20* 2.29* 1.66* 1.20 or more 1.28* 1.43* 1.55* 1.81* 1.09 1.42* 2.39* 2.50* 1.72* 1.

Highest degree earned 

Bachelor’s degree

 or lower 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.

Master’s degree 1.07 1.07 1.06 1.22* 0.97 0.96 0.99 1.11 0.97 1.Doctoral/first-professional/

 education specialist 1.15 1.45* 1.13 1.02 1.28* 0.96 0.99 1.38* 1.09 1.

Employment status 

Full-time 0.96 1.23* 1.17* 1.31* 1.22* 1.22* 1.26* 1.63* 1.19* 1.

Part-time 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.

Main assignment field 

K–general elementary 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.Math or science 0.58* 0.80* 0.55* 0.59* 0.73* 0.80* 0.95 1.34* 0.60* 1.English or language arts 0.80* 0.94 0.63* 0.66* 0.88 0.91 0.96 1.33* 0.90 1.Social studies 0.49* 0.64* 0.51* 0.52* 0.99 0.84 1.07 1.32 0.67* 0.Special education 0.65* 1.70* 0.42* 1.72* 0.81* 1.56* 0.87* 1.24 0.67* 2.Bilingual education or ESL 0.86 ‡ 0.80 ‡ 1.16 ‡ 0.99 ‡ 1.00 Vocational education 0.70* 0.94 0.40* 0.42* 0.61* 0.47* 1.31* 1.19 0.53* 0.Other field 0.60* 1.04 0.41* 0.68* 0.71* 0.79* 0.87* 1.01 0.56* 0.

† Not applicable.‡ Reporting standards not met. Too few cases for a reliable estimate.* p < .05.

1 Too few private schools participated to provide sufficient variation for analysis.

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

and “Public, Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

 

67 

After controlling for all other variables, teachers’ participation in professional development 

on some topics was associated with district size. For example, teachers’ participation rates in 

professional development on teaching methods, activities related to content and performance 

standards in the main teaching field, and student assessment were greater in districts with 1,000 

students or more than in districts with fewer than 450 students. 

School size was associated with teachers’ participation in professional development in 

some topic areas; in public schools district size may be more relevant than school size. Private 

school teachers in schools with 150 or more students were generally more likely than those in the 

smallest schools (fewer than 150 students) to have participated in activities related to in-depth 

study, standards, and uses of computers, but were less likely to have had training in student 

discipline and classroom management. In the public sector, teachers who taught in the larger 

schools were also less likely than those in smaller schools to have addressed student discipline 

and classroom management. 

The minority enrollment of the school in which a teacher taught was positively related to 

participation in professional development on various topics after controlling for the other school, 

principal, and teacher characteristics included in the analyses. Teachers in private schools with a 

minority enrollment of more than 50 percent were more likely than those in schools with no 

minority students to have attended professional development on each of the topics. Teachers in 

public schools with a minority enrollment of 11 percent or more were more likely than their 

colleagues in schools with no minority students to have participated in professional development 

involving in-depth study, teaching methods, and student discipline and classroom management. 

The proportion of low-income students in a public school (as measured by the proportion of 

students in school who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) was related to teacher 

participation in programs on student discipline and classroom management and uses of 

computers for instruction. Compared with teachers in schools that enrolled relatively smaller 

proportions of low-income students (5 percent or less), teachers in schools with larger 

proportions of low-income students (21 percent or more) were more likely to report that they had 

attended a program on student discipline and classroom management. Teachers in schools with 

more than 40 percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch were less likely than 

those in schools enrolling relatively smaller proportions of such students (5 percent or less) to 

have had training on uses of computers. 

After controlling for all other variables, Catholic school teachers were more likely than 

those in nonsectarian schools to have had professional training on the topics of standards, uses of 

computers, student assessment, and student discipline and classroom management. Teachers in 
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

68 

other religious schools were more likely than nonsectarian school teachers to have participated in 

programs on teaching methods and student discipline and classroom management, but were less 

likely to have participated in programs on uses of computers. 

School resources to conduct teacher professional development were also associated with 

teachers’ participation in certain topic areas. In the public sector, teachers were more likely to 

have attended programs on in-depth study of content, standards, teaching methods, student 

assessment, and student discipline and classroom management if their school had its own budget 

for professional development. In the private sector, teachers were more likely to participate in 

programs on in-depth study of content, content and performance standards, and uses of 

computers if the principal at their school reported that teacher professional development was 

“frequently/always” accompanied by resources rather than “never/rarely” accompanied by them. 

Teachers were more likely to have participated in various professional development 

activities if their school provided time for them. For example, when they were given time for 

professional development during contract hours, public school teachers were more likely to 

engage in in-depth study of content, and private school teachers were more likely to participate in 

professional development activities on standards and uses of computers. 

Teachers’ participation was not positively associated with principals’ experience, their 

amount of influence in determining the content of in-service professional development programs, 

or the frequency with which they tried to build professional community among faculty and other 

staff after controlling for other variables. However, in both sectors, teachers’ participation was 

positively associated with the frequency with which the principal engaged school staff in 

professional development activities. In the public sector, teachers were more likely to have 

participated in activities related to in-depth study of content in their main teaching field, content 

and performance standards in their main teaching field, and teaching methods if the principals 

said that they provided and engaged the school staff in professional development activities at 

least once or twice a month. Similarly, private school teachers were more likely to have 

participated in programs on teaching methods, student assessment, and student discipline and 

classroom management if the principals provided and engaged the school staff in professional 

development activities at least once a week. 

Duration of Participation 

In 1999−2000, teachers who had participated in professional development activities on the 

topics described above were asked about the amount of time they had spent on activities related 

to each topic: 8 hours or less, 9−32 hours, or 33 hours or more. The question referred to the total 
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

69 

amount of time they had spent on the topic in the last 12 months, not the duration of any 

particular program. 

In four of the six topic areas covered, between 25 and 35 percent of all teachers reported 

they had spent 9 to 32 hours in professional development: standards (35 percent), teaching 

methods (31 percent), in-depth study of content (28 percent), and uses of computers (25 percent) 

(figure 12). On these four topics, an additional 8 to 17 percent of teachers reported that they had 

participated in activities lasting 33 hours or more. Teachers were less likely to have spent more 

than 8 hours on student assessment and discipline and classroom management. Public school 

teachers were generally more likely than private school teachers to report that they had spent 

more than 8 hours on all of the topics except student discipline and classroom management.17

Teachers’ Priorities 

Teachers were asked to pick their top priorities for their own future professional 

development from a list of seven topics. They were most likely to pick their main subject field 

(24 percent) and use of technology in instruction (21 percent) (figure 13 and table 19) and were 

least likely to choose student assessment. 

Public and private school teachers had somewhat different priorities, although the 

differences typically were not very large. Private school teachers were more likely than public 

school teachers to choose their main subject field or teaching methods. 

Usefulness of Activities 

Teachers who participated in professional development activities on various topics were 

asked to rate the usefulness of these activities on a 5-point scale, ranging from “not useful at all” 

to “very useful.” In each topic area, more than one-half of all teachers who had participated 

thought that the activities were very useful (i.e., they rated them as 4 or 5 on the scale of 1–5) 

(table 20). Among all the topics, teachers who undertook in-depth study in their main teaching 

field were the most likely to think that this topic was very useful (71 percent). With one 

exception, no differences were observed between the percentages of public and private school 

teachers who judged their professional development activities to be very useful. The exception 

was that private school teachers were more likely than public school teachers to indicate that the 

activities related to student discipline and classroom management were very useful (62 vs. 56 

percent). 

 

17 The one exception was that there was no difference between sectors in the percentages of teachers spending 33 hours or more 

on professional development related to student discipline and classroom management. 
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

70 

Figure 12.—Percentage distribution of teachers by the amount of time they spent on professional 

Figure 12.—development programs, by sector and topic: 1999–2000 

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, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000. 

61

63

50

39

54

58

59

37

30

27

27

41

59

40

33

29

31

43

29

26

29

32

20

11

28

39

36

30

25

11

28

37

35

30

24

11

9

10

16

22

21

19

11

21

26

32

37

29

10

19

25

31

35

28

2

2

5

6

6

11

2

4

8

10

11

18

2

4

8

10

11

17

0 20 40 60 80 100

Student discipline and classroom management

Student assessment

Uses of computer for instruction

Methods of teaching

Content and performance standards

In-depth study of content in the main teaching field

Student discipline and classroom management

Student assessment

Uses of computer for instruction

Methods of teaching

Content and performance standards

In-depth study of content in the main teaching field

Student discipline and classroom management

Student assessment

Uses of computer for instruction

Methods of teaching

Content and performance standards

In-depth study of content in the main teaching field

Percent

None Some to 8 hours 9–32 hours 33 hours or more

Public

Private

All schools
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

71 

Figure 13.—Percentage distribution of teachers by their top priority for additional professional 

Figure 13.—development, by sector: 1999–2000

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, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000. 

9 8

12

12 9

13 14 11

16 17

15

21 21

19

24 23

29

4 4 5

13

0

20

40

60

80

100

All schools Public Private

Percent

Main subject field

Use of technology in instruction

Student discipline/behavior

problems

Teaching students with special

needs

Content and performance standards

Methods of teaching

Student assessment
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

 

72 

Table 19.—Percentage distribution of teachers by their top priority for additional professional development, 

Table 19.—by sector, school level, and teacher experience: 1999-2000

Content

Student Teaching and

Uses of discipline students performance

Sector and Main computers and with standards Methods

school or teacher subject for behavior special in subject of Student

characteristic field instruction problems needs1 area teaching assessment

All schools 23.8 20.8 16.5 13.4 12.4 8.9 4.3

Total 22.9 21.1 16.7 13.8 12.8 8.5 4.2

School level

Elementary 21.0 19.0 17.2 16.0 13.4 8.6 4.8

Secondary 26.7 25.4 15.6 9.3 11.6 8.3 3.0

Combined 22.6 20.6 19.1 15.5 12.6 5.9 3.8

Years of teaching experience

3 or fewer 21.6 9.4 24.9 16.0 11.8 11.5 4.9

4–9 23.5 16.7 16.1 15.1 13.1 10.9 4.4

10–19 24.6 22.5 13.8 14.1 12.7 7.7 4.5

20 or more 21.9 28.5 15.4 11.6 13.1 6.0 3.5

Total 29.3 18.8 15.0 11.2 9.4 11.6 4.7

School level

Elementary 25.4 20.0 17.5 11.4 9.3 11.8 4.5

Secondary 31.8 23.9 8.8 8.1 10.7 12.6 4.2

Combined 33.6 14.7 14.6 12.3 8.8 10.8 5.3

Years of teaching experience

3 or fewer 27.5 11.6 20.3 11.0 8.7 15.4 5.5

4–9 31.0 15.3 15.5 11.9 8.4 12.7 5.1

10–19 32.7 18.9 12.4 10.8 10.1 10.6 4.5

20 or more 25.1 29.4 12.6 11.0 10.2 7.9 3.8

1 For example, limited-English-proficient, special education students.

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,

Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Public

Private
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

73 

The amount of time teachers spent on professional development activities in a particular 

content area and their perceptions of the usefulness of these activities were strongly related.18 For 

each of the six topics covered, the more time teachers spent in professional development, the 

more likely they were to indicate that it was very useful. This pattern held for both public and 

private school teachers. 

Among both public and private school teachers, the more time that the teachers spent on 

professional development related to uses of computers for instruction, the more likely they were 

 

18 This finding is consistent with those from another national survey of teacher professional development (Parsad, Lewis, and 

Farris 2001). 

Table 20.—Percentage of teachers who thought that various professional development activities in which 

Table 20.—they had participated in the past 12 months were very useful, by sector and time spent on the

Table 20.—corresponding topic: 1999–2000 

Content and In-depth

performance study of Student

standards Uses of content in discipline

in main computer main and

Sector and time Methods of teaching for Student teaching classroom

spent on topic teaching field instruction assessment1 field management

All schools 61.2 57.2 63.3 52.5 71.4 56.3

Total 61.2 56.7 63.6 52.4 71.3 55.5

Time spent on the

 corresponding topic

8 hours or less 46.5 40.5 49.5 42.8 53.0 47.7

9–16 hours 63.9 55.5 72.0 61.5 65.1 68.1

17–32 hours 75.0 67.9 81.6 72.6 75.9 77.0

33 hours or more 83.8 81.0 89.1 79.0 84.7 86.8

Total 60.8 62.7 60.7 54.1 72.7 62.1

Time spent on the

 corresponding topic

8 hours or less 48.3 49.2 47.6 45.8 53.4 55.8

9–16 hours 68.8 66.4 71.2 67.9 66.6 75.2

17–32 hours 77.7 74.5 82.6 77.2 80.3 80.5

33 hours or more 86.2 87.2 92.1 86.6 91.2 91.0

1 Such as methods of testing, evaluation, or performance assessment.

NOTE: Teachers were asked about the usefulness of their professional development activities on these topics. “Very

useful” means they rated their usefulness as 4 or 5 on a scale of 1–5.

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Public

Private
Teacher Participation in Professional Development 

74 

to report that their students used computers during class time (table 21). Considering only 

teachers whose students had used computers during class time, the more time teachers reported 

spending on professional development on this topic during the past 12 months, the more likely 

they were to report that their students used computers in the classroom for the following 

purposes: practice and master skills; to learn about course subject matter; work collaboratively 

with other students; solve problems; do word processing; produce multimedia or video reports or 

projects; or correspond with experts, authors, or students from other schools via e-mail or the 

Internet. This pattern was true for both public and private school teachers. The direction of 

causality is not known, however. While it is possible that participating in professional 

development activities encourages teachers to use computers for instruction, it is also possible 

that being required to use computers in the classroom (or just having them available) encourages 

teachers to seek professional development in this area.
Teacher Participation in Pr

75 

Table 21.—Percentage of teachers who reported that students used computers during class time, and of those, the percentage wTable 21.—their students had used computers for various purposes in two or more class meetings during the past 2 weeks, by 

Table 21.—spent on a professional development program that focused on using computers for instruction: 1999–2000 

Percent of Learning Working 

teachers Practicing about collabora- 

whose and course tively with Doing w

Sector and time spent on students used mastering subject other Solving word Producing professional development computers skills matter students problems processing multimedia tAll schools 59.3 66.7 59.5 51.4 46.3 44.7 15.7 

Total 61.6 67.2 60.1 51.7 47.0 45.2 15.5 

Time spent on uses of

 computer for instructionNone 48.7 64.9 52.7 47.1 40.5 39.5 10.9 Some to 8 hours 62.3 66.6 58.5 50.2 45.5 42.2 12.7 9–16 hours 70.0 67.8 62.6 52.9 49.9 48.6 16.5 17–32 hours 71.3 68.8 67.4 57.2 51.3 49.9 21.1 33 hours or more 77.8 71.7 69.8 59.3 56.1 56.1 27.8 

Total 43.9 61.7 53.0 48.0 40.3 40.6 17.1 

Time spent on uses of

 computer for instructionNone 33.3 62.3 46.6 40.2 36.6 36.2 13.0 Some to 8 hours 49.2 60.2 53.4 49.9 38.8 40.4 14.2 9–16 hours 60.7 56.5 55.1 55.2 38.8 44.0 24.3 17–32 hours 62.6 66.7 61.9 50.0 46.6 49.2 23.6 33 hours or more 64.9 70.7 69.2 60.8 62.0 47.4 26.8 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public, Private, and Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Among teachers whose students used computers, percentage who u

Public

Private

 

77 

Summary 

In developing the 1999–2000 SASS, a special effort was made to include questions 

covering all types of professional development activities, including both tradition forms (e.g., 

workshops, university or college courses), and more recently-developed innovations for which 

there appeared to be a broad consensus among educators, researchers, and policy makers (Hawley 

and Valli 2001). The survey addressed how professional development was organized and 

managed, what kinds of activities were available to teachers, and which ones they participated in. 

Organization and Management of Professional Development 

Recent views of professional development frequently emphasize the importance of 

involving teachers in defining their needs and developing opportunities for their own 

professional development. According to public school districts, primary responsibility for 

planning and conducting professional development activities rests more commonly with district 

staff and principals than with teachers, especially in large districts. At the same time, however, 

most public school principals thought that teachers, as well as principals and district staff, had “a 

great deal of influence” in determining the content of in-service activities. Nevertheless, the 

proportion of teachers who thought that teachers in their school had a great deal of influence was 

about one-third. 

Recent views of professional development also frequently call for it to be part of a 

comprehensive change process, integrated with school operations and evaluated for its impact on 

teaching practice and student learning. In 1999–2000, a large majority of public school principals 

reported that district initiatives, school improvement plans, and academic or skills standards were 

“very important” determinants of professional development activities for teachers. Roughly onehalf of all principals said that professional development was evaluated for evidence of 

improvement in classroom practice and student achievement (more so in public schools than in 

private schools). In the public sector, the likelihood that principals would report that these 

evaluations activities were conducted frequently or always increased with district size. 

Recent models of professional development often emphasize the importance of a 

collaborative school environment. In such an environment, one would expect to find teachers 

working with each other and the school principal. About one-third of teachers “strongly agreed” 
Summary 

78 

that there was a great deal of cooperative effort among staff at their schools. When comparing 

1993–94 and 1999–2000 data, no difference could be found in the percentage of teachers who 

felt this way. Nevertheless, about three-quarters of principals thought that professional 

development was “frequently” or “always” part of teachers’ regular work, and roughly half of 

them reported that teachers frequently or always planned and presented professional development 

activities. About one-third of all principals reported that they had provided and engaged teachers 

in professional development at least once a week in the last month, and about two-thirds reported 

that they had tried to build a professional community in their school that often. 

Almost all schools (9 out of 10) provided teachers with time for professional development 

during regular contract hours, either at the beginning or end of the school year or during the year. 

The majority of schools also found ways to free-up time during the school day, either by hiring 

substitutes to cover classes or adjusting the length of the school day. Reducing teachers’ 

workloads was a less common practice. 

Teacher Participation in Professional Development Activities 

Virtually all teachers reported participating in some type of in-service professional 

development during the previous year. Nine out of 10 teachers attended workshops, conferences, 

or training sessions. In addition, some teachers participated in more innovative types of 

professional development activities that were identified by numerous educational, research, and 

policy groups as being high quality. However, except for regularly collaborating with other 

teachers (which about three-quarters of teachers reported doing), less than half of all teachers had 

participated in any of these more innovative types of activities during the previous year. 

In terms of content, about one-half to two-thirds of all teachers participated in professional 

development activities related to reforms, including programs covering content and performance 

standards in their main teaching field, student assessment, using computers for instruction, and 

in-depth study of content in their main teaching field. Many of these activities lasted a day or 

less. When asked to pick their top priorities for additional professional development, teachers 

were most likely to pick their main subject field and the use of computers for instruction, choices 

that are consistent with a focus on improving teachers’ knowledge of the subjects they teach. 

More than one-half of all teachers rated their professional development activities as “very 

useful.” Among the topic areas covered in the survey, teachers who undertook in-depth study in 

their fields were the most likely to judge their professional development activities as very useful 

(about three-quarters did so). For each of the six topic areas, the more time teachers spent in 

professional development, the more likely they were to consider it very useful.
 

79 

References 

Bokossa, M., Salvucci, S., and Ghosh, D. (forthcoming). Nonresponse Bias Analysis for the 

1999–2000 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). U.S. Department of Education, National 

Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Broughman, S.P., and Colaciello, L.A. (1999). Private School Universe Survey, 1997–98 (NCES 

1999-319). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Choy, S.P., and Chen, X. (1998). Toward Better Teaching: Professional Development in 1993–

94 (NCES 98-230). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Cohen, D., and Hill, H. (2000). Instructional Policy and Classroom Performance: The 

Mathematics Reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2): 294–343. 

Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE). (1997). Policies and Programs for 

Professional Development for Teachers: Profiles of the States. Philadelphia: University of 

Pennsylvania. 

Corcoran, T.C. (1995). Transforming Professional Development for Teachers: A Guide for State 

Policymakers. Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association. 

Elmore, R.F. (2002). Bridging the Gap Between Standards and Achievement: The Imperative for 

Professional Development in Education. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute. 

Friedkin, N.E., and Slater, M.R. (1994). School Leadership and Performance: A Social Network 

Approach. Sociology of Education, 67: 139–157. 

Gilford, D. (1996). Measures of Inservice Professional Development: Suggested Items for the 

1998–99 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 96-25). U.S. Department of Education. 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics Working Paper. 

Gruber, K.J., Wiley, S.D., Broughman, S.P., Strizek, G.A., and Burian-Fitzgerald, M. (2002). 

Schools and Staff Survey, 1999−2000: Overview of the Data for Public, Private, Public 
References 

80 

Charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs Elementary and Secondary Schools (NCES 2002-313). 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Guskey, T.R. (1995). Results-Oriented Professional Development: In Search of an Optimal Mix 

of Effective Practices. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Education Laboratory. 

Retrieved June 26, 2003, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/rpl_esys/pdlitrev.htm. 

Guskey, T.R. (2003, June). What Makes Professional Development Effective. Phi Delta Kappan, 

84(10): 748–750. 

Hawley, W.D., and Valli, L. (2001). The Essentials of Effective Professional Development: A 

New Consensus. In D. Boesel (Ed.), Continuing Professional Development (pp 1–17). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Library of Education. 

Hirsch, E., Koppich, J.E., and Knapp, M.S. (1999, December). State Action to Improve Teaching. 

Policy Brief. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. 

Hirsch, E., Koppich, J.E., and Knapp, M.S. (2001, February). Revisiting What States Are Doing 

to Improve the Quality of Teaching: An Update on Patterns and Trends. Seattle: Center for 

the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. 

Little, J.W. (1993). Teachers’ Professional Development in a Climate of Educational Reform. 

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2): 129–152. 

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P.W., Love, N., and Stiles, K.E. (1998). Designing Professional 

Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 

Louis, K.S., Marks, H.M., and Kruse, S. (1996, Winter). Teachers’ Professional Community in 

Restructuring Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4): 757–798. 

Massell, D. (1998). State Strategies for Building Local Capacity: Addressing the Needs of 

Standards-Based Reform. Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) Research 

Report. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. 

Menard, S. (1995). Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. Sage University Paper series on 

Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences (07-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Miller, E. (1995, January/February). The Old Model of Professional Development Survives in a 

World Where Everything Else Has Changed. Harvard Education Letter, 11(1). 
References 

81 

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF). (1997). Doing What Matters 

Most: Investing in Quality Teaching. New York: Author. 

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF). (2003). No Dream Denied: 

A Pledge to America’s Children. New York: Author. 

National Education Commission on Time and Learning (NECTL). (1994). Prisoners of Time. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved March 25, 2003, from 

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/PrisonersOfTime. 

Parsad, B., Lewis, L., and Farris, E. (2001). Teacher Preparation and Professional Development: 

2000 (NCES 2001-088). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Porter, A., Garet, M.S., Desimone, L., Yoon, K.S., and Birman, B.F. (2000). Does Professional 

Development Change Teaching Practice? Results From a Three-Year Study. U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of the Undersecretary, Planning and Evaluation Service. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Quality Counts. (2003, January 9). Education Week, 22(17). 

Raywid, M.A. (1993). Finding Time for Collaboration. Educational Leadership, 51(1): 30–34. 

Renyi, J. (1996). Teachers Take Charge of Their Learning. Washington, DC: National 

Foundation for the Improvement of Education. 

Richardson, V. (1990, October). Significant and Worthwhile Change in Teaching Practice. 

Educational Researcher, 19(7): 10–18. 

Snedecor, G.W., and Cochran, W.G. (1980). Statistical Methods (7th ed.). Ames, IA: The Iowa 

State University Press. 

Sprinthall, N.A., Reiman, A.J., and Theis-Sprinthall, L. (1996). Teacher Professional 

Development. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, and E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of Research on 

Teacher Education. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. 

U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Building Bridges: The Mission and Principles of 

Professional Development (pamphlet). Washington, DC: Author. 
References 

82 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). 1999–2000 

Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) Data File User’s Manual (NCES 2004-303). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How Schools Matter: The Link Between Teacher Classroom Practices 

and Student Academic Performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12). 
A-1 

Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-2 

 

Table A1.—Standard errors for table 1 and figures A and 1: Percentage distribution of school districts by

Table A1.—district staff reports of who had primary responsibility for various aspects of teacher in-service

Table A1.—professional development activities, by district size: 1999–2000

District size District staff Principals Teachers Outside providers

Total 0.85 0.76 0.84 0.41

District size

Less than 450 2.42 2.37 2.23 1.38

450–999 2.08 2.23 2.16 0.25

1,000–4,999 1.30 1.23 1.29 0.17

5,000–9,999 1.45 1.12 1.39 0.12

10,000 or more 0.88 0.78 0.77 0.00

Total 0.92 0.87 0.75 0.54

District size

Less than 450 2.29 2.70 2.28 1.76

450–999 1.91 2.08 1.81 0.48

1,000–4,999 1.13 1.10 0.96 0.49

5,000–9,999 1.49 1.14 1.39 0.17

10,000 or more 0.84 0.66 0.77 0.01

Total 0.91 0.82 0.67 0.99

District size

Less than 450 2.20 2.43 1.94 2.68

450–999 1.92 2.45 1.51 1.61

1,000–4,999 1.11 1.14 1.01 1.07

5,000–9,999 1.53 1.57 1.52 0.89

10,000 or more 0.75 0.71 0.79 0.40

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

“School District Survey,” 1999–2000.

Conducting the activities

Designing and planning the activities

Deciding the content
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-3 

Table A2.—Standard errors for table 2 and figure 2: Percentage of public school principals who thought that

Table A2.—various groups had a great deal of influence in determining the content of teacher in-service

Table A2.—professional development activities in their schools, by selected school characteristics:

Table A2.—1999–2000

State

department School site College

of education/ Local School council or and

School other state- school district Curriculum parent university

characteristic level bodies board staff Principal Teachers specialists association partners

Total 0.63 0.61 0.59 0.55 0.56 0.61 0.54 0.43

School level

Elementary 0.83 0.77 0.78 0.72 0.73 0.79 0.70 0.53

Secondary 0.90 0.81 0.78 0.72 0.81 0.78 0.71 0.60

Combined 2.55 2.52 2.04 1.59 1.57 1.81 2.27 1.69

School size

Elementary schools

Less than 150 3.02 2.82 2.08 1.81 2.37 2.69 2.90 2.18

150–499 1.33 1.22 1.22 1.12 1.06 1.23 1.00 0.83

500 or more 1.15 1.14 1.23 1.10 1.13 1.28 1.27 0.86

Secondary schools

Less than 400 1.63 1.61 1.33 1.59 1.43 1.13 1.22 0.95

400–749 1.54 1.56 1.71 1.35 1.60 1.67 1.65 1.04

750 or more 1.10 1.11 1.16 0.89 0.96 1.07 1.20 0.70

Combined schools

Less than 150 4.52 4.46 3.82 3.17 2.94 3.50 4.17 3.11

150–499 3.30 2.48 2.90 1.83 3.11 2.72 2.48 1.47

500 or more 3.66 4.01 3.74 1.84 2.51 3.48 3.60 3.04

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

Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-4 

Table A3.—Standard errors for table 3: Percentage of private school principals who thought that various

Table A3.—groups had a great deal of influence in determining the content of teacher in-service 

Table A3.—professional development activities in their schools, by selected school characteristics:

Table A3.—1999–2000

Governing Principals

School or diocesan or school Curriculum Parent 

characteristic board head specialists Teachers association

Total 1.11 0.66 1.18 1.08 0.79

School level

Elementary 1.42 0.84 1.56 1.41 1.20

Secondary 2.63 2.63 2.83 2.40 2.22

Combined 2.00 1.44 2.16 2.05 1.53

Affiliation

Catholic 1.60 0.76 1.55 1.22 0.64

Other religious 1.81 1.09 1.46 1.61 1.37

Nonsectarian 2.13 1.53 3.72 2.31 1.57

School size

Elementary schools

Less than 150 2.78 1.87 2.56 2.69 2.47

150–499 1.85 0.63 2.07 1.46 0.66

500 or more 4.16 1.62 3.81 3.93 2.08

Secondary schools

Less than 400 3.74 4.04 3.94 3.51 3.47

400–749 2.89 1.29 2.90 2.60 0.84

750 or more 2.05 0.00 2.82 2.95 0.87

Combined schools

Less than 150 3.25 2.30 3.87 3.45 2.91

150–499 2.42 1.27 2.90 2.83 1.54

500 or more 2.71 2.30 3.66 3.40 0.74

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-5 

Table A4.—Standard errors for table 4: Percentage of teachers who thought that teachers in their school

Table A4.—had a great deal of influence in determining the content of teacher in-service professional 

Table A4.—development activities in their schools, by sector and selected school characteristics: 1999–2000

School

characteristic Total Public Private

Total 0.31 0.33 0.62

School level

Elementary 0.42 0.45 0.89

Secondary 0.39 0.41 1.01

Combined 0.82 1.29 1.09

School size

Elementary schools

Less than 150 1.90 3.16 2.53

150–499 0.69 0.83 1.14

500 or more 0.78 0.79 2.41

Secondary schools

Less than 400 0.86 1.02 1.95

400–749 0.62 0.67 2.11

750 or more 0.59 0.60 1.73

Combined schools

Less than 150 2.58 3.30 3.35

150–499 1.32 2.14 1.63

500 or more 1.21 1.57 1.65

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000.
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-6 

Table A5.—Standard errors for table 5 and figure 5: Percentage of public and private school principals who

Table A5.—reported that various initiatives, plans, and standards were very important in determining the

Table A5.—in-service professional development opportunities and activities for teachers in their schools, by

Table A5.—district size and selected school characteristics: 1999–2000

District/

Special private school 

District size state organization School Implementation Implementation

or school level or association improvement of academic of skills Teacher

characteristic initiatives initiatives plan standards standards preferences

All schools 0.60 0.45 0.40 0.39 0.49 0.50

Total 0.60 0.47 0.38 0.44 0.49 0.58

District size

Less than 450 2.46 1.85 2.04 1.93 2.14 2.06

450–999 2.21 1.78 1.72 1.89 2.11 2.59

1,000–4,999 1.16 0.84 0.78 0.75 1.02 1.14

5,000–9,999 2.10 1.40 1.18 1.08 1.30 1.97

10,000 or more 1.13 0.86 0.73 0.61 0.76 0.94

School level

Elementary 0.77 0.61 0.51 0.54 0.58 0.78

Secondary 0.93 0.73 0.75 0.66 0.77 0.86

Combined 2.51 1.59 1.48 2.15 2.23 2.02

Total † 1.02 1.09 0.93 † 1.09

School level

Elementary † 1.48 1.40 1.10 † 1.38

Secondary † 2.99 2.62 2.31 † 2.88

Combined † 2.02 2.32 1.74 † 2.26

Affiliation

Catholic † 1.49 0.97 0.94 † 1.11

Other religious † 1.55 1.85 1.40 † 1.77

Nonsectarian † 3.43 3.29 2.71 † 2.38

† Not applicable.

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Public

Private
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-7 

Table A6.—Standard errors for table 6: Percentage of principals who reported that teachers’ professional 

Table A6.—development activities were frequently or always evaluated for improvement in teacher 

Table A6.—classroom practice and effects on student achievement, by district size and selected school 

Table A6.—characteristics: 1999–2000

District size 

or school

characteristic Total Public Private Total Public Private

Total 0.51 0.54 1.22 0.58 0.63 1.13

District size

Less than 450 2.23 2.23 † 2.42 2.42 †

450–999 2.52 2.52 † 2.59 2.59 †

1,000–4,999 1.29 1.29 † 1.35 1.35 †

5,000–9,999 1.89 1.89 † 1.81 1.81 †

10,000 or more 1.11 1.11 † 1.02 1.02 †

School level

Elementary 0.59 0.63 1.57 0.73 0.76 1.56

Secondary 0.95 0.94 3.21 0.85 0.89 3.19

Combined 1.67 2.32 2.17 1.59 2.46 1.97

School size

Elementary schools

Less than 150 2.36 3.24 2.92 2.41 3.61 2.94

150–499 0.95 1.10 1.77 0.97 1.12 1.86

500 or more 1.43 1.48 4.25 1.18 1.22 4.20

Secondary schools

Less than 400 1.61 1.68 4.54 1.54 1.65 4.68

400–749 2.25 2.41 3.38 2.00 2.16 3.75

750 or more 1.20 1.23 3.65 0.99 1.00 3.26

Combined schools

Less than 150 2.77 4.01 3.54 2.79 4.59 3.34

150–499 2.27 2.72 3.20 2.32 2.88 3.31

500 or more 2.79 4.82 3.62 2.88 4.84 3.85

† Not applicable.

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Improvement in classroom practice Effects on student achievement
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-8 

Table A7.—Standard errors for table 7: Percentage of teachers who strongly agreed with various statements

Table A7.—about within-school collaboration among teachers and principals, by sector and selected school

Table A7.—characteristics: 1999–2000 

The principal talks with I make a conscious There is a great deal

me frequently about effort to coordinate the of cooperative effort

School my instructional content of my course among the staff 

characteristic practices with other teachers members

All schools 0.21 0.33 0.39

Total 0.24 0.37 0.43

School level

Elementary 0.36 0.53 0.60

Secondary 0.22 0.38 0.45

Combined 0.79 1.13 1.18

School size

Elementary school

Less than 150 2.74 2.57 2.77

150–499 0.59 0.76 0.83

500 or more 0.48 0.78 0.74

Secondary school

Less than 400 0.59 0.81 1.10

400–749 0.52 0.68 0.87

750 or more 0.28 0.55 0.59

Combined school

Less than 150 1.60 3.22 2.99

150–499 1.56 1.73 2.27

500 or more 0.90 1.39 1.46

See notes at end of table.

Public
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-9 

Table A7.—Standard errors for table 7: Percentage of teachers who strongly agreed with various statements

Table A7.—about within-school collaboration among teachers and principals, by sector and selected school

Table A7.—characteristics: 1999–2000—Continued 

The principal talks with I make a conscious There is a great deal

me frequently about effort to coordinate the of cooperative effort

School my instructional content of my course among the staff 

characteristic practices with other teachers members

Total 0.49 0.63 0.70

School level

Elementary 0.63 0.86 0.89

Secondary 0.69 1.01 1.29

Combined 0.92 1.20 1.20

School size

Elementary school

Less than 150 1.69 2.25 2.31

150–499 0.80 1.07 1.16

500 or more 2.05 2.07 2.37

Secondary school

Less than 400 1.25 1.56 2.53

400–749 0.91 1.67 2.08

750 or more 0.68 1.79 1.71

Combined school

Less than 150 2.55 2.79 3.32

150–499 1.43 1.95 1.61

500 or more 1.25 2.44 2.54

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Private
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-10 

Table A8.—Standard errors for table 8: Percentage of principals who reported that teacher professional 

Table A8.—development frequently or always had certain attributes, by selected school or principal 

Table A8.—characteristic: 1999–2000 

Accompanied

by resources

Considered part Planned Presented teachers need to

School or principal of teachers’ by teachers by teachers make changes in

characteristic regular work in the school in the school the classroom

All schools 0.53 0.63 0.57 0.60

Total 0.61 0.70 0.71 0.71

School level

Elementary 0.80 0.89 0.97 0.88

Secondary 0.91 1.03 1.03 0.86

Combined 2.02 2.14 2.28 2.26

School size

Elementary school

Less than 150 3.48 3.58 3.26 3.64

150–499 1.19 1.27 1.33 1.30

500 or more 1.15 1.41 1.43 1.33

Secondary school

Less than 400 1.72 1.73 1.82 1.78

400–749 1.90 1.99 2.02 1.94

750 or more 1.18 1.26 1.36 1.31

Principal years of experience

3 or fewer 1.21 1.11 1.19 1.15

4–9 1.04 1.06 1.03 1.33

10–19 1.16 1.29 1.28 1.36

20 or more 1.64 2.09 2.06 1.72

See notes at end of table.

Public
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-11 

Table A8.—Standard errors for table 8: Percentage of principals who reported that teacher professional 

Table A8.—development frequently or always had certain attributes, by selected school or principal 

Table A8.—characteristic: 1999–2000—Continued

Accompanied

by resources

Considered part Planned Presented teachers need to

School or principal of teachers’ by teachers by teachers make changes in

characteristic regular work in the school in the school the classroom

Total 1.11 1.26 1.12 1.04

School level

Elementary 1.39 1.64 1.59 1.46

Secondary 2.40 2.51 2.92 3.13

Combined 2.02 2.24 1.87 2.04

School size

Elementary school

Less than 150 2.60 2.78 2.85 2.71

150–499 1.63 1.92 1.80 1.77

500 or more 3.51 4.03 4.07 3.17

Secondary school

Less than 400 3.65 3.93 3.86 4.27

400–749 3.23 4.27 3.53 3.65

750 or more 3.04 3.09 2.84 3.66

Principal years of experience

3 or fewer 2.29 2.36 2.19 2.45

4–9 1.96 2.42 2.43 2.10

10–19 1.83 2.17 2.19 2.02

20 or more 2.04 2.74 2.50 2.55

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Private
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-12 

Table A9.—Standard errors for table 9: Percentage of principals who had participated in various activities

Table A9.—related to professional development at least once a week during the last month, by sector and 

Table A9.—selected school or principal characteristic: 1999–2000 

School or principal Provided and engaged staff in Built professional community

characteristic professional development activities among faculty and other staff

All schools 0.54 0.58

Total 0.66 0.63

School level

Elementary 0.85 0.78

Secondary 0.79 0.86

Combined 2.25 2.19

School size

Elementary school

Less than 150 3.37 3.15

150–499 1.11 1.18

500 or more 1.25 1.42

Secondary school

Less than 400 1.64 1.81

400–749 1.51 1.74

750 or more 1.29 1.09

Principal years of experience

3 or fewer 1.21 1.19

4–9 1.29 1.06

10–19 1.48 1.20

20 or more 2.00 1.69

Total 1.01 1.27

School level

Elementary 1.28 1.64

Secondary 2.25 3.35

Combined 1.80 2.20

School size

Elementary school

Less than 150 2.51 3.11

150–499 1.86 2.04

500 or more 3.38 3.64

Secondary school

Less than 400 3.25 4.72

400–749 2.64 2.65

750 or more 2.74 3.21

Principal years of experience

3 or fewer 2.07 2.51

4–9 1.54 2.06

10–19 1.67 2.22

20 or more 2.72 2.43

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

Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Private

Public
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-13 

Table A10.—Standard errors for table 10: Percentage of school districts that reported using various sources

Table A10.—of funding for teacher professional development activities in their districts, by district size: 

Table A10.—1999–2000 

General General State School

district school professional Special improve- Eisen- Private

District operating operating development project ment hower Other sector

size funds funds funds budgets funds Title 1 program federal grants

Total 0.50 0.90 0.94 1.06 0.86 0.96 0.89 0.92 0.79

District size

Less than 450 1.57 2.48 2.63 2.54 2.69 2.45 2.62 2.63 1.67

450–999 0.94 1.53 2.05 2.29 1.99 1.74 1.26 1.67 1.62

1,000–4,999 0.62 1.00 0.95 1.13 1.04 1.00 0.57 1.07 1.10

5,000–9,999 0.61 1.29 1.30 1.12 1.30 0.95 1.06 1.10 1.63

10,000 or more 0.59 0.66 0.67 0.72 0.59 0.42 0.55 0.65 0.96

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

District Survey,” 1999–2000.
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-14 

Table A11.—Standard errors for table 11 and figure 7: Percentage of principals who reported that their

Table A11.—schools provided teachers with time for professional development during regular contract hours,

Table A11.—and of those, percentage who reported that their school used various methods to provide teachers

Table A11.—with time, by sector, district size, and selected school characteristics: 1999–2000 

School

provided

teachers

with time Substitute

during Professional teachers Professional Common Early Professional

District size regular days built to cover days built planning dismissal days built Reduced

or school contract in before teachers’ in during time for or late start in after teacher

characteristic hours school year classes school year teachers for students school year workloads

All schools 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.43 0.44 0.58 0.60 0.54

Total 0.31 0.41 0.36 0.51 0.52 0.69 0.66 0.64

District size

Less than 450 0.82 1.73 1.40 2.40 3.00 2.43 2.64 2.30

450–999 1.01 1.74 0.69 1.80 2.07 2.07 2.39 2.34

1,000–4,999 0.47 0.62 0.69 1.00 1.13 1.17 1.33 1.05

5,000–9,999 1.16 1.51 1.01 1.38 1.55 1.90 1.82 1.65

10,000 or more 0.68 0.72 0.69 0.90 0.95 1.06 1.18 1.06

School level

Elementary 0.42 0.59 0.47 0.70 0.65 0.87 0.87 0.81

Secondary 0.37 0.55 0.55 0.61 0.84 0.84 0.99 0.87

Combined 0.91 1.61 1.34 2.05 2.27 2.05 2.49 2.70

Total 1.05 0.84 0.80 0.99 1.01 1.11 1.26 1.09

School level

Elementary 1.41 1.08 0.98 1.35 1.37 1.47 1.59 1.36

Secondary 2.56 2.16 1.84 2.64 2.53 2.34 2.66 2.52

Combined 1.94 2.13 2.16 1.86 1.79 1.90 2.18 2.01

Affiliation

Catholic 0.71 0.52 0.97 0.84 1.54 1.45 1.72 1.55

Other religious 1.48 1.43 1.43 1.74 1.67 1.75 1.93 1.75

Nonsectarian 3.83 2.30 2.48 2.49 2.26 2.66 3.10 3.33

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

Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Of these principals, percentage who reported that their school used

Public

Private

the following methods to provide teachers with time:
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-15 

Table A12.—Standard errors for table 12 and figure 8: Percentage of teachers who reported receiving

Table A12.—various types of support for professional development activities in the past 12 months, by sector,

Table A12.—district size, and selected school and teacher characteristics: 1999–2000 

Scheduled Stipend for Full

 time in the Reimburse- professional Reimburse- or partial

District size Any contract Release ment for development ment for reimburseand school of these year for time conference or activities out- travel and/or ment of

or teacher types of professional from workshop side regular daily college

characteristic support development teaching fees work hours expenses tuition

All schools 0.15 0.31 0.36 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.23

Total 0.15 0.34 0.40 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.25

District size

Less than 450 0.89 1.78 1.63 1.52 2.23 1.92 1.32

450–999 0.54 1.16 1.47 1.45 1.41 1.45 1.43

1,000–4,999 0.28 0.73 0.65 0.71 0.75 0.93 0.65

5,000–9,999 0.49 1.09 1.13 1.18 1.22 1.31 0.92

10,000 or more 0.30 0.55 0.69 0.64 0.65 0.59 0.38

School level

Elementary 0.19 0.47 0.60 0.54 0.55 0.60 0.35

Secondary 0.21 0.41 0.34 0.43 0.39 0.44 0.32

Combined 0.50 0.97 1.21 1.41 1.13 1.23 0.84

Years of teaching experience

3 or fewer 0.44 0.70 0.87 0.73 0.87 0.81 0.65

4–9 0.34 0.76 0.77 0.79 0.79 0.84 0.46

10–19 0.27 0.60 0.75 0.68 0.67 0.74 0.47

20 or more 0.29 0.51 0.57 0.64 0.60 0.51 0.37

Total 0.53 0.70 0.61 0.70 0.51 0.62 0.55

School level

Elementary 0.68 0.85 1.01 0.91 0.71 0.80 0.63

Secondary 0.87 1.06 1.05 1.09 0.95 1.03 1.17

Combined 1.08 1.37 1.20 1.28 1.06 1.27 1.07

Affiliation

Catholic 0.55 0.73 0.89 0.85 0.70 0.65 0.80

Other religious 1.03 1.16 1.07 1.38 0.91 1.22 0.72

Nonsectarian 1.16 1.84 1.52 1.48 0.98 1.32 1.27

Years of teaching experience

3 or fewer 1.21 1.24 1.28 1.26 1.08 1.19 0.95

4–9 1.04 1.15 1.29 1.35 1.11 1.30 0.95

10–19 0.93 1.42 1.15 1.12 1.10 1.06 1.01

20 or more 0.75 1.17 1.04 1.17 0.98 1.10 0.96

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

Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Public

Private
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-16 

Table A13.—Standard errors for table 13: Percentage of school districts that reported using pay incentives 

Table A13.—to reward teachers for certain types of professional development, by district size: 1999–2000 

Completion of in-service Attainment of 

District size professional development NBPTS certification

Total 0.38 0.70

District size

Less than 450 0.83 1.57

450–999 1.10 1.84

1,000–4,999 0.61 1.02

5,000–9,999 0.99 1.61

10,000 or more 0.59 0.82

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

“School District Survey,” 1999–2000.
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-17 

Table A14.—Standard errors for table 14: Percentage of teachers who reported receiving various rewards

Table A14.—as a result of completing professional development activities, by sector and teacher experience: 

Table A14.—1999–2000 

Credits toward

recertification Recognition

or advanced Increase or higher

certification in the in salary ratings on an

Teacher Any of these main or other or other pay annual teacher

experience rewards teaching field increases evaluation

All schools 0.37 0.30 0.26 0.27

Total 0.41 0.34 0.29 0.30

Years of teaching experience

3 or fewer 0.83 0.75 0.60 0.61

4–9 0.75 0.68 0.60 0.61

10–19 0.72 0.68 0.46 0.54

20 or more 0.62 0.57 0.45 0.47

Total 0.68 0.69 0.33 0.45

Years of teaching experience

3 or fewer 1.33 1.19 0.57 0.98

4–9 1.30 1.32 0.74 0.92

10–19 1.24 1.04 0.64 0.86

20 or more 1.16 1.05 0.59 0.88

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Public

Private
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-18 

Table A15.—Standard errors for table 15: Percentage of teachers with fewer than 5 years of teaching 

Table A15.—experience who had participated in a teacher induction program or had worked closely with a 

Table A15.—master or mentor teacher during their first year of teaching, and their experience, by sector, 

Table A15.—district size, and selected school or teacher characteristic: 1999–2000

Percent who Percent whose

District size participated in a Percent who master or mentor

and school teacher worked with a teacher’s subject Percent whose

or teacher induction master or mentor area was the mentor helped to

characteristic program teacher same as theirs a great extent

All schools 0.62 0.63 0.74 0.72

Total 0.70 0.70 0.81 0.81

District size

Less than 450 3.77 3.34 4.64 5.75

450–999 3.58 3.31 3.47 4.66

1,000–4,999 1.34 1.56 1.59 1.72

5,000–9,999 1.86 2.14 2.15 2.77

10,000 or more 1.08 1.26 1.10 1.29

School size

Elementary school

Less than 150 5.30 4.56 8.25 8.26

150–499 1.98 1.80 1.77 2.22

500 or more 1.44 1.39 1.71 1.54

Secondary school

Less than 400 2.10 2.09 2.61 2.65

400–749 1.96 2.20 2.03 2.03

750 or more 1.08 1.04 1.01 1.08

Main assignment field

K–general elementary 1.40 1.49 1.25 1.63

Math or science 1.50 1.48 2.04 1.98

English or language arts 1.78 2.28 2.30 2.35

Social studies 2.40 2.05 2.27 3.14

Special education 2.20 2.18 2.24 2.82

Bilingual or ESL 5.55 4.84 5.15 5.48

Vocational education 2.32 2.58 2.94 3.13

Other 1.76 1.64 2.32 2.11

See notes at end of table.

Of those who worked with

a master or mentor teacher,

Public
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-19 

Table A15.—Standard errors for table 15: Percentage of teachers with fewer than 5 years of teaching 

Table A15.—experience who had participated in a teacher induction program or had worked closely with a 

Table A15.—master or mentor teacher during their first year of teaching, and their experience, by sector, 

Table A15.—district size, and selected school or teacher characteristic: 1999–2000—Continued

Percent who Percent whose

District size participated in a Percent who master or mentor

and school teacher worked with a teacher’s subject Percent whose

or teacher induction master or mentor area was the mentor helped to

characteristic program teacher same as theirs a great extent

Total 1.06 1.08 1.29 1.60

School size

Elementary school

Less than 150 3.12 3.93 4.57 5.32

150–499 2.04 2.14 2.81 2.57

500 or more 3.76 5.23 4.25 6.12

Secondary school

Less than 400 3.66 3.90 4.94 5.56

400–749 3.16 3.88 3.48 4.81

750 or more 4.11 3.66 3.93 5.94

Main assignment field

K–general elementary 1.59 1.99 1.63 2.47

Math or science 2.87 2.35 3.94 3.57

English or language arts 3.66 3.67 4.40 5.17

Social studies 3.86 5.02 5.66 4.88

Special education 4.19 5.25 3.69 7.31

Bilingual or ESL ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

Vocational education ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

Other 2.15 2.05 2.72 3.61

‡ Reporting standards not met. Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Private

Of those who worked with

a master or mentor teacher,
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-20 

Table A16.—Standard errors for table 16 and figure 10: Percentage of teachers who participated in various professional develTable A16.—to teaching in the past 12 months, by sector, district size, and selected school and teacher characteristics: 1999–

Regularly Individual or Mentoring Observa- University 

scheduled collaborative and/or peer tional courses for 

District size and Any Workshops, collaboration research observa- visits recertification school or of these conferences with other on a topic tion and to other or advanced Networkteacher characteristic activities or training teachers of interest coaching schools certification of teacherAll schools 0.07 0.15 0.28 0.37 0.33 0.31 0.29 0.2

Total 0.07 0.16 0.30 0.41 0.38 0.35 0.32 0.3

District size

Less than 450 0.55 1.01 1.59 1.44 1.75 1.60 1.60 1.5450–999 0.23 0.60 1.32 1.50 1.46 1.14 1.27 1.31,000–4,999 0.15 0.36 0.60 0.65 0.80 0.68 0.61 0.55,000–9,999 0.28 0.48 0.88 1.09 1.23 1.02 1.00 0.910,000 or more 0.11 0.20 0.50 0.62 0.64 0.57 0.51 0.4

School level

Elementary 0.10 0.23 0.43 0.59 0.57 0.55 0.45 0.4Secondary 0.10 0.18 0.38 0.34 0.38 0.34 0.32 0.3Combined 0.20 0.40 1.05 1.28 1.32 0.76 1.00 0.9

Employment status

Full-time 0.07 0.17 0.30 0.42 0.39 0.36 0.35 0.3

Part-time 0.39 0.58 1.14 1.13 1.37 1.19 1.14 1.2

Years of teaching experience

3 or fewer 0.14 0.42 0.83 0.80 0.91 0.86 0.92 0.74–9 0.12 0.31 0.62 0.74 0.77 0.68 0.67 0.610–19 0.18 0.26 0.64 0.65 0.70 0.67 0.53 0.620 or more 0.13 0.26 0.47 0.67 0.64 0.65 0.43 0.4

Highest degree earned

Bachelor’s degree or lower 0.10 0.23 0.42 0.54 0.52 0.50 0.48 0.4Master’s degree 0.13 0.22 0.47 0.57 0.51 0.49 0.43 0.5

Doctoral/first-professional degree 0.27 0.61 1.25 1.65 1.56 1.45 1.31 1.3

See notes at end of table.

Public
Appendix A—

A-21 

Table A16.—Standard errors for table 16 and figure 10: Percentage of teachers who participated in various professional devel

Table A16.—to teaching in the past 12 months, by sector, district size, and selected school and teacher characteristics: 1999–

Regularly Individual or Mentoring Observa- University 

scheduled collaborative and/or peer tional courses for 

District size and Any Workshops, collaboration research observa- visits recertification school or of these conferences with other on a topic tion and to other or advanced Networkteacher characteristic activities or training teachers of interest coaching schools certification of teacherMain assignment field

K–general elementary 0.09 0.26 0.50 0.76 0.69 0.65 0.57 0.5Math or science 0.21 0.43 0.68 0.83 0.78 0.75 0.71 0.7English or language arts 0.23 0.36 0.87 1.10 1.12 0.99 0.97 0.9Social studies 0.21 0.53 0.97 1.02 1.30 1.20 0.98 1.0Special education 0.25 0.47 0.88 1.06 0.97 1.26 0.80 1.0Bilingual or ESL 0.26 0.49 2.59 2.22 2.30 2.17 2.25 2.1

Vocational education 0.65 0.89 1.17 1.10 1.18 1.06 1.25 1.0Other 0.21 0.46 0.70 0.73 0.77 0.70 0.67 0.6

Total 0.28 0.47 0.63 0.55 0.59 0.64 0.50 0.5

School level

Elementary 0.36 0.56 0.86 0.88 0.86 0.93 0.74 0.6Secondary 0.44 0.83 0.94 0.90 1.17 1.00 0.85 0.8Combined 0.58 0.91 1.31 1.04 1.23 1.19 0.92 1.0

Affiliation

Catholic 0.23 0.46 0.86 0.71 0.79 0.76 0.73 0.6Other religious 0.54 0.87 1.13 1.05 1.07 1.11 0.77 0.7Nonsectarian 0.62 1.05 1.29 1.20 1.35 1.54 1.06 1.1

Employment status

Full-time 0.31 0.52 0.67 0.62 0.66 0.69 0.58 0.5

Part-time 0.83 1.17 1.53 1.50 1.36 1.29 0.94 1.0

Years of teaching experience

3 or fewer 0.64 1.20 1.22 1.01 1.19 1.26 0.95 0.84–9 0.61 0.93 1.45 1.28 1.20 1.24 1.01 0.910–19 0.50 0.75 0.99 1.08 1.10 1.12 0.82 1.0

20 or more 0.44 0.62 1.11 1.07 1.33 1.10 0.82 1.0

See notes at end of table.

Private
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-22 

Table A16.—Standard errors for table 16 and figure 10: Percentage of teachers who participated in various professional devel

Table A16.—to teaching in the past 12 months, by sector, district size, and selected school and teacher characteristics: 1999–

Regularly Individual or Mentoring Observa- University 

scheduled collaborative and/or peer tional courses for 

District size and Any Workshops, collaboration research observa- visits recertification school or of these conferences with other on a topic tion and to other or advanced Networkteacher characteristic activities or training teachers of interest coaching schools certification of teacherHighest degree earned

Bachelor’s degree or lower 0.39 0.64 0.76 0.77 0.69 0.74 0.67 0.6Master’s degree 0.36 0.56 0.86 0.95 1.10 1.04 0.74 0.8Doctoral/first-professional degree 1.40 2.14 2.44 2.47 2.48 2.14 2.19 2.3

Main assignment field

K–general elementary 0.46 0.73 1.03 0.99 1.00 1.03 0.92 0.7Math or science 0.68 0.95 1.45 1.27 1.32 1.15 1.01 1.1English or language arts 0.33 1.47 2.00 1.93 2.05 1.90 1.38 1.6Social studies 0.71 1.22 1.92 1.87 2.27 1.69 1.62 1.6Special education 0.59 1.39 2.93 2.95 2.78 3.13 2.72 2.8Bilingual or ESL ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡‡ ‡

Vocational education 2.44 3.74 5.07 5.38 5.14 3.79 4.51 4.0Other 0.55 0.88 1.09 1.08 1.19 0.94 0.85 1.0

‡ Reporting standards not met. Too few cases for a reliable estimate.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public, Private, and Charte1999–2000.
Appendix A—

A-23 

Table A17.—Standard errors for table 17: Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participate

Table A17.—development activities in the past 12 months: 1999–2000

District, school,principal, orteacher characteristic Public Private PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate 

Intercept 0.29 0.47 0.26 0.42 0.32 0.50 0.26 0.36 0.24 0.39 0.29 0.42 0.25 0.40 District characteristic

District size 

Less than 450 † † † † † † † † † † † † † † 450–999 0.10 † 0.12 † 0.10 † 0.10 † 0.10 † 0.11 † 0.10 † 1,000–4,999 0.09 † 0.12 † 0.10 † 0.09 † 0.10 † 0.10 † 0.10 † 5,000–9,999 0.12 † 0.13 † 0.11 † 0.10 † 0.11 † 0.11 † 0.10 † 10,000 or more 0.10 † 0.12 † 0.12 † 0.10 † 0.11 † 0.11 † 0.11 † 

School characteristics

School level 

Elementary † † † † † † † † † † † † † † Secondary 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.09 Combined 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.10 

School size 

Less than 150 † † † † † † † † † † † † † † 150–499 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.09 500–999 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.10 1,000 or more 0.10 0.18 0.11 0.16 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.18 

Percent minority 

 enrollmentNone † † † † † † † † † † † † † † 1–10 0.10 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.10 0.13 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.12 11–30 0.10 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.15 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.13 31–50 0.11 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.10 0.15 0.11 0.15 0.12 0.16 0.13 0.16 More than 50 0.11 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.11 0.15 0.09 0.14 0.10 0.16 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.17 

See notes at end of table. 

certification

University

courses for

recertification/

advanced

University

courses

in the main

teaching field

Observationalvisits to other

schools of interest

Regularly

scheduled

collaboration

with other

teachers

Individual/

collaborative

research

on a topic

Mentoring

and/or peer

observation

and coaching of teachers

Participating

in a network
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-24 

Table A17.—Standard errors for table 17: Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participate

Table A17.—development activities in the past 12 months: 1999–2000—Continued

District, school,principal, orteacher characteristic PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate 

Percent eligible for free/ 

 reduced-price lunch 0–5 † ( 1 ) † ( 1 ) † ( 1 ) † ( 1 ) † ( 1 ) † ( 1 ) † ( 1 ) 

6–20 0.07 (1) 0.07 (1) 0.07 (1) 0.06 (1) 0.06 (1) 0.06 (1) 0.06 (1) 

21–40 0.07 (1) 0.08 (1) 0.07 (1) 0.07 (1) 0.07 (1) 0.07 (1) 0.06 (1) More than 40 0.07 (1) 0.07 (1) 0.07 (1) 0.07 (1) 0.07 (1) 0.07 (1) 0.07 (1) 

Affiliation 

Catholic † 0.10 † 0.11 † 0.09 † 0.09 † 0.08 † 0.09 † 0.09 Other religious † 0.10 † 0.09 † 0.10 † 0.08 † 0.08 † 0.08 † 0.08 Nonsectarian † (†) † (†) † (†) † (†) † (†) † (†) † (†) 

School has own 

 professional

 development budget Yes 0.04 † 0.04 † 0.05 † 0.04 † 0.05 † 0.04 † 0.05 † No † † † † † † † † † † † † † † 

Professional 

 development at this school was accompanied by the resources that teachers needNever/rarely † † † † † † † † † † † † † † Sometimes 0.06 0.12 0.07 0.13 0.07 0.12 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.12 0.06 0.11 Frequently/always 0.06 0.13 0.08 0.13 0.06 0.13 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.13 0.06 0.11 

See notes at end of table. 

Individual/ Regularly

recertification/ courses

courses for University collaborative scheduled Mentoring 

University

Observational research collaboration and/or peer Participating 

advanced in the main visits to other on a topic with other observation in a network 

certification teaching field schools of interest teachers and coaching of teachers 
Appendix A—

A-25 

Table A17.—Standard errors for table 17: Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participate

Table A17.—development activities in the past 12 months: 1999–2000—Continued

District, school,principal, orteacher characteristic Public Private PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate 

School provided 

 teachers with time

 for professional development during regular contract hoursYes 0.09 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.14 No † † † † † † † † † † † † † † 

Principal characteristics

Years of experience as 

 principal

3 or fewer † † † † † † † † † † † † † † 4–9 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.09 10–19 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.08 20 or more 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.10 

Principal influence in 

 determining the content of in-service professional development programsNo/little † † † † † † † † † † † † † † Somewhat 0.15 0.32 0.14 0.29 0.15 0.42 0.09 0.26 0.15 0.36 0.13 0.40 0.15 0.33 A great deal 0.13 0.30 0.13 0.24 0.15 0.41 0.10 0.22 0.13 0.36 0.12 0.37 0.13 0.28 

Principal provided 

 professional

 development activities  and engaged staff in them Never † † † † † † † † † † † † † † 1 or 2 times a month 0.16 0.24 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.18 0.16 0.10 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.18 1 or 2 times a week/daily 0.16 0.23 0.20 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.15 0.20 

See notes at end of table. 

recertification/ courses Observational research collaboration and/or peer Participating

courses for University collaborative scheduled Mentoring

University Individual/ Regularly 

advanced in the main visits to other on a topic with other observation in a network 

certification teaching field schools of interest teachers and coaching of teachers 
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-26 

Table A17.—Standard errors for table 17: Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participate

Table A17.—development activities in the past 12 months: 1999–2000—Continued

District, school,principal, orteacher characteristic Public Private PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate 

Principal built professional 

 community among  faculty and other staffNever † † † † † † † † † † † † † † 1 or 2 times a month 0.13 0.26 0.13 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.11 0.19 0.10 0.21 0.11 0.20 0.14 0.22 1 or 2 times a week/daily 0.13 0.26 0.13 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.11 0.18 0.09 0.20 0.12 0.20 0.13 0.22 

Teacher influence in 

 determining the content of in-service professional

 development programsNo/little † † † † † † † † † † † † † † Somewhat 0.11 0.16 0.11 0.23 0.13 0.20 0.07 0.18 0.12 0.19 0.12 0.14 0.09 0.19 A great deal 0.11 0.17 0.10 0.22 0.11 0.20 0.07 0.17 0.12 0.19 0.12 0.15 0.09 0.20 

Professional development 

 at this school was planned by teachersNever/rarely † † † † † † † † † † † † † † Sometimes 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.14 Frequently/always 0.09 0.13 0.10 0.12 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.14 

Professional development 

 at this school was presented by teachersNever/rarely † † † † † † † † † † † † † † Sometimes 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.09 Frequently/always 0.09 0.12 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.11 

Professional development 

 was considered part of teachers’ regular workNever/rarely † † † † † † † † † † † † † † Sometimes 0.08 0.23 0.09 0.21 0.08 0.16 0.06 0.13 0.07 0.12 0.08 0.13 0.09 0.15 Frequently/always 0.08 0.21 0.08 0.21 0.08 0.13 0.05 0.13 0.07 0.13 0.07 0.12 0.09 0.14 

See notes at end of table. 

University

recertification/

advanced

certification

Regularly

on a topic with other

courses for University collaborative scheduled Mentoring 

Individual/

courses Observational research collaboration and/or peer Participating 

in the main visits to other

and coaching of teachers 

observation in a network 

teaching field schools of interest teachers
Appendix A—

A-27 

Table A17.—Standard errors for table 17: Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participate

Table A17.—development activities in the past 12 months: 1999–2000—Continued

District, school,principal, orteacher characteristic Public Private PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate PublicPrivate 

Teacher characteristics

Years of teaching experience 

3 or fewer † † † † † † † † † † † † † † 4–9 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.09 10–19 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.09 20 or more 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.10 

Highest degree earned 

Bachelor’s degree or

 lower † † † † † † † † † † † † † † 

Master’s degree 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.07 Doctoral/

 first-professional/

 education specialist 0.08 0.15 0.09 0.14 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.12 0.08 0.12 0.07 0.12 0.08 0.13 

Employment status 

Full-time 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 

Part-time † † † † † † † † † † † † † † 

Main assignment field 

K–general elementary † † † † † † † † † † † † † † Math or science 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.10 English or language arts 0.08 0.13 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.07 0.11 0.08 0.14 Social studies 0.07 0.12 0.09 0.13 0.08 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.12 0.09 0.12 Special education 0.05 0.19 0.07 0.18 0.07 0.14 0.07 0.15 0.07 0.14 0.06 0.13 0.08 0.17 Bilingual education or ESL 0.97 ‡ 0.77 ‡ 1.04 ‡ 1.14 ‡ 0.62 ‡ 0.73 ‡ 1.30 ‡ Vocational education 0.08 0.31 0.08 0.34 0.07 0.21 0.07 0.21 0.08 0.19 0.09 0.22 0.08 0.29 Other field 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.09 

† Not applicable.‡ Reporting standards not met. Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

1 Too few private schools participated to provide sufficient variation for analysis.

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Individual/ Regularly 

courses for University collaborative scheduled Mentoring 

University

recertification/ courses Observational research collaboration and/or peer Participating 

advanced in the main visits to other on a topic with other observation in a network 

certification teaching field schools of interest 

teachers and coaching of teachers 
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-28 

Table A18.—Standard errors for table 18: Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participate

Table A18.—development programs that focused on various topics in the past 12 months: 1999–2000

In-depth study of Content and performance 

District, school, content in the standards in the Methods of Uses of computers Student principal, or main teaching field main teaching field teaching for instruction assessment teacher characteristic Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public PriIntercept 0.21 0.33 0.31 0.32 0.25 0.37 0.30 0.39 0.28 0District characteristic

District size

Less than 450 † † † † † † † † † 450–999 0.11 † 0.11 † 0.13 † 0.15 † 0.12 1,000–4,999 0.09 † 0.08 † 0.11 † 0.12 † 0.11 5,000–9,999 0.10 † 0.11 † 0.13 † 0.14 † 0.13 10,000 or more 0.10 † 0.10 † 0.12 † 0.14 † 0.13 

School characteristics

School level

Elementary † † † † † † † † † Secondary 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.10 0.06 0Combined 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.07 0

School size

Less than 150 † † † † † † † † † 150–499 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.10 0500–999 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.10 01,000 or more 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.21 0.13 0.17 0.11 0

Percent minority enrollment 

None † † † † † † † † † 1–10 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.14 0.10 011–30 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.10 031–50 0.10 0.15 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.19 0.10 0More than 50 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.16 0.11 0.16 0.10 0

See notes at end of table.
Appendix A—

A-29 

Table A18.—Standard errors for table 18: Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participate

Table A18.—development programs that focused on various topics in the past 12 months: 1999–2000—Continued

In-depth study of Content and performance 

District, school, content in the standards in the Methods of Uses of computers Student principal, or main teaching field main teaching field teaching for instruction assessment teacher characteristic Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Pri

Percent eligible for free/ 

 reduced-price lunch 0–5 † ( 1 ) † ( 1 ) † ( 1 ) † ( 1 ) † 

6–20 0.06 (1) 0.05 (1) 0.07 (1) 0.08 (1) 0.06 

21–40 0.06 (1) 0.06 (1) 0.06 (1) 0.09 (1) 0.07 More than 40 0.06 (1) 0.06 (1) 0.06 (1) 0.09 (1) 0.06 

Affiliation 

Catholic † 0.10 † 0.08 † 0.10 † 0.10 † 0Other religious † 0.10 † 0.08 † 0.09 † 0.10 † 0Nonsectarian † † † † † † † † † 

 School has own 

 professional development budget Yes 0.04 † 0.05 † 0.04 † 0.04 † 0.04 No † † † † † † † † † 

Professional development at 

 this school was accompanied by the resources that teachers need Never/rarely † † † † † † † † † Sometimes 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.13 0.07 0.12 0.07 0Frequently/always 0.06 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.12 0.07 0

School provided teachers 

 with time for professional development during regular contract hours Yes 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.09 0No † † † † † † † † † 

See notes at end of table.
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-30 

Table A18.—Standard errors for table 18: Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participate

Table A18.—development programs that focused on various topics in the past 12 months: 1999–2000—Continued

In-depth study of Content and performance 

District, school, content in the standards in the Methods of Uses of computers Student principal, or main teaching field main teaching field teaching for instruction assessment teacher characteristic Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public PriPrincipal characteristics

Years of experience as 

 principal3 or fewer † † † † † † † † † 4–9 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.10 0.05 010–19 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.05 020 or more 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.07 0

Principal influence in 

 determining the content  of in-service professional

 development programsNo/little † † † † † † † † † Somewhat 0.11 0.30 0.13 0.35 0.11 0.33 0.15 0.30 0.14 0A great deal 0.10 0.26 0.12 0.31 0.11 0.27 0.16 0.31 0.14 0

Principal provided 

 professional development activities and engaged  staff in them Never † † † † † † † † † 1 or 2 times a month 0.09 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.12 0.20 0.19 0.21 0.18 01 or 2 times a week/daily 0.09 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.12 0.21 0.19 0.22 0.19 0

Principal built professional 

 community among  faculty and other staffNever † † † † † † † † † 1 or 2 times a month 0.09 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.20 0.17 0.22 0.14 01 or 2 times a week/daily 0.10 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.13 0.21 0.17 0.20 0.13 0

See notes at end of table.
Appendix A—

A-31 

Table A18.—Standard errors for table 18: Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participate

Table A18.—development programs that focused on various topics in the past 12 months: 1999–2000—Continued

In-depth study of Content and performance 

District, school, content in the standards in the Methods of Uses of computers Student principal, or main teaching field main teaching field teaching for instruction assessment teacher characteristic Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Pri

Teacher influence in

 determining the content of in-service professional

 development programs No/little † † † † † † † † † Somewhat 0.09 0.16 0.11 0.16 0.11 0.16 0.15 0.18 0.10 0A great deal 0.09 0.16 0.11 0.16 0.09 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.10 0

Professional development at 

 this school was planned by teachers Never/rarely † † † † † † † † † Sometimes 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.09 0Frequently/always 0.07 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.12 0.10 0

Professional development at 

 this school was presented by teachers Never/rarely † † † † † † † † † Sometimes 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0Frequently/always 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.08 0

Professional development 

 was considered part of  teachers’ regular workNever/rarely † † † † † † † † † Sometimes 0.07 0.13 0.09 0.13 0.08 0.15 0.09 0.18 0.08 0Frequently/always 0.07 0.12 0.09 0.13 0.08 0.14 0.08 0.16 0.07 0

See notes at end of table.
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-32 

Table A18.—Standard errors for table 18: Logistic regression results (in odds ratios) predicting whether teachers participate

Table A18.—development programs that focused on various topics in the past 12 months: 1999–2000—Continued

In-depth study of Content and performance 

District, school, content in the standards in the Methods of Uses of computers Student principal, or main teaching field main teaching field teaching for instruction assessment teacher characteristic Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public PriTeacher characteristics

Years of teaching experience 

3 or fewer † † † † † † † † † 4–9 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.05 010–19 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.06 020 or more 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.06 0

Highest degree earned 

Bachelor’s degree

 or lower † † † † † † † † † 

Master’s degree 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.04 0Doctoral/first-professional/

 education specialist 0.07 0.12 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.07 0

Employment status 

Full-time 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.06 0

Part-time † † † † † † † † † 

Main assignment field 

K–general elementary † † † † † † † † † Math or science 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.07 0English or language arts 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.07 0Social studies 0.08 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.14 0.07 0Special education 0.07 0.15 0.08 0.14 0.06 0.15 0.07 0.17 0.06 0Bilingual education or ESL 0.11 ‡ 0.15 ‡ 0.15 ‡ 0.12 ‡ 0.12 Vocational education 0.07 0.22 0.07 0.19 0.09 0.22 0.09 0.28 0.08 0Other field 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.07 0

† Not applicable.‡ Reporting standards not met. Too few cases for a reliable estimate.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public, Private, and Charteand “Public, Private, and Charter School Principal Surveys,” 1999–2000.
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

 

A-33 

Table A19.—Standard errors for table 19 and figure 13: Percentage distribution of teachers by their top

Table A19.—priority for additional professional development, by sector, school level, and teacher experience:

Table A19.—1999-2000

Content

Student Teaching and

Uses of discipline students performance

Sector and Main computers and with standards Methods

school or teacher subject for behavior special in subject of Student

characteristic field instruction problems needs area teaching assessment

All schools 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.13

Total 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.26 0.24 0.18 0.14

School level

Elementary 0.44 0.41 0.43 0.37 0.36 0.29 0.20

Secondary 0.28 0.31 0.25 0.22 0.28 0.21 0.12

Combined 1.04 0.80 0.75 0.62 0.81 0.35 0.40

Years of teaching experience

3 or fewer 0.64 0.53 0.67 0.67 0.60 0.51 0.41

4–9 0.62 0.62 0.57 0.62 0.46 0.41 0.30

10–19 0.55 0.61 0.46 0.53 0.44 0.43 0.28

20 or more 0.49 0.59 0.46 0.40 0.46 0.30 0.19

Total 0.66 0.46 0.50 0.39 0.32 0.39 0.33

School level

Elementary 0.79 0.68 0.63 0.54 0.45 0.59 0.42

Secondary 0.90 0.76 0.72 0.83 0.60 0.65 0.41

Combined 1.33 0.83 0.88 0.86 0.65 0.60 0.57

Years of teaching experience

3 or fewer 1.17 0.81 1.06 0.76 0.67 0.82 0.56

4–9 1.16 0.73 1.00 0.71 0.63 0.77 0.71

10–19 1.30 0.93 0.80 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.59

20 or more 0.95 0.98 0.71 0.71 0.79 0.56 0.46

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

Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Public

Private
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-34 

Table A20.—Standard errors for table 20: Percentage of teachers who thought that various professional 

Table A20.—development activities in which they had participated in the past 12 months were very useful,

Table A20.—by sector and time spent on the corresponding topic: 1999–2000 

Content and In-depth

performance study of Student

standards Uses of content in discipline

in main computer main and

Sector and time Methods of teaching for Student teaching classroom

spent on topic teaching field instruction assessment field management

All schools 0.42 0.47 0.37 0.42 0.45 0.53

Total 0.46 0.52 0.40 0.46 0.49 0.59

Time spent on the

 corresponding topic

8 hours or less 0.62 0.75 0.53 0.51 1.19 0.68

9–16 hours 0.76 0.95 0.80 0.95 0.95 1.20

17–32 hours 0.87 0.99 1.03 1.41 0.83 1.72

33 hours or more 0.80 0.82 0.86 1.40 0.61 1.43

Total 0.67 0.79 0.74 1.01 0.78 1.01

Time spent on the

 corresponding topic

8 hours or less 1.04 1.38 0.94 1.13 1.66 1.07

9–16 hours 1.19 1.33 1.58 2.28 1.56 2.16

17–32 hours 1.55 1.73 1.92 3.14 1.55 2.78

33 hours or more 1.59 1.63 1.35 3.14 0.91 3.35

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000.

Public

Private
Appendix A—

A-35 

Table A21.—Standard errors for table 21: Percentage of teachers who reported that students used computers during class time, and of 

Table A22.—percentage who reported that their students had used computers for various purposes in two or more class meetings durin

Table A21.—weeks, by sector and time spent on a professional development program that focused on using computers for instruction: 1

Percent of Learning Working Corr

teachers Practicing about collabora- pond

whose students and course tively with Doing with expe

Sector and time spent on used mastering subject other Solving word Producing via e-mprofessional development computers skills matter students problems processing multimedia the InterAll schools 0.34 0.42 0.48 0.40 0.47 0.46 0.30 0

Total 0.37 0.46 0.52 0.43 0.51 0.49 0.32 0

Time spent on uses of

 computer for instructionNone 0.67 0.95 1.08 1.21 1.01 1.13 0.53 0Some to 8 hours 0.59 0.80 0.88 0.66 0.89 0.82 0.51 09–16 hours 0.78 0.99 1.03 1.02 1.12 1.17 0.76 017–32 hours 1.04 1.65 1.49 1.63 1.54 1.57 1.26 033 hours or more 0.95 1.35 1.41 1.58 1.44 1.43 1.19 0

Total 0.72 0.96 1.02 0.97 1.05 0.89 0.80 0

Time spent on uses of

 computer for instructionNone 0.95 1.57 1.62 1.66 1.73 1.39 1.32 0Some to 8 hours 1.13 1.43 1.59 1.77 1.60 1.41 1.12 09–16 hours 1.67 2.84 2.72 2.43 2.60 2.48 2.65 117–32 hours 2.39 2.83 3.11 3.25 3.12 3.00 2.61 133 hours or more 2.41 2.38 2.68 2.92 3.08 3.50 2.68 2

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public, Private, and Charter SSurveys,” 1999–2000.

Among teachers whose students used computers, percentage who used them 

Public

Private
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

 

A-36 

Table A22.—Standard errors for figure 2: Percentage of public school principals who

Table A23.—thought that various groups had a great deal of influence in determining the

Table A23.—content of teacher in-service professional development activities in their school:

Table A23.—1993–94 and 1999–2000

Groups with influence on 

professional development 1993–94 1999–2000

Total

State department of education 0.30 0.46

School district staff 0.59 0.70

Principal 0.67 0.68

Teachers 0.60 0.62

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

Survey (SASS), “Public School Principal Surveys,” 1993–94 and “Public and Charter School Principal

Surveys,” 1999–2000.
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-37 

Table A23.—Standard errors for figure 3: Percentage of teachers who reported that teachers in their

Table A23.—schools had a great deal of influence in determining the content of teacher in-service

Table A23.—professional development activities, by sector and school level: 1993–94 and 1999–2000

Sector and school level 1993–94 1999–2000

Total 0.20 0.24

Elementary 0.31 0.33

Secondary 0.21 0.23

Combined 0.80 0.70

Total 0.23 0.25

Elementary 0.34 0.36

Secondary 0.21 0.24

Combined 1.30 0.71

Total 0.39 0.52

Elementary 0.59 0.73

Secondary 0.75 0.76

Combined 1.02 0.95

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

“Public and Private Teacher Surveys,” 1993–94 and “Public, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000. 

All schools

Public

Private
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-38 

Table A24.—Standard errors for figure 4: Percentage distributions of teachers and principals by the

Table A24.—amount of influence they thought that teachers in their schools had in determining the 

Table A24.—content of in-service professional development programs, by sector and staff: 1999–2000

Sector and staff A great deal Some Little or none

Teachers 0.33 0.35 0.35

Principals 0.56 0.46 0.32

Teachers 0.62 0.60 0.66

Principals 1.07 0.86 0.81

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

“School District Survey,” 1999–2000. 

Public

Private
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-39 

Table A25.—Standard errors for figure 6: Percentage of teachers who strongly agreed with various 

Table A25.—statements about within-school collaboration between teachers and principals, by sector: 

Table A25.—1993–94 and 1999–2000

Sector 1993–94 1999–2000 1993–94 1999–2000 1993–94 1999–2000

All schools 0.23 0.21 0.34 0.33 0.40 0.39

Public 0.26 0.24 0.38 0.37 0.45 0.43

Private 0.44 0.49 0.51 0.63 0.57 0.70

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

“Public and Private Teacher Surveys,” 1993–94 and “Public, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000. 

There is a great deal

among the staff members

of my courses with of cooperative effort

The principal talks with

instructional practices

I make a conscious effort

to coordinate the content

that of other teachers

me frequently about my
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-40 

Table A26.—Standard errors for figure 9: Percentage of teachers with fewer than 5 years of teaching 

Table A31.—experience who participated in a teacher induction program during their first year of teaching, 

Table A31.—by sector: 1993–94 and 1999–2000

Sector 1993–94 1999–2000

All schools 1.05 0.62

Public 1.09 0.70

Private 1.01 1.06

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

“Public and Private Teacher Surveys,” 1993–94 and “Public, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000. 
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-41 

Table A27.—Standard errors for figure 11: Percentage of teachers who participated in professional 

Table A32.—development programs that focused on various topics in the past 12 months, by sector: 

Table A32.—1999–2000 

Topic All schools Public Private

Any of these topics 0.11 0.11 0.44

Methods of teaching 0.30 0.32 0.61

Content and performance

 standards in main teaching field 0.29 0.31 0.55

Use of technology 

 in instruction 0.34 0.37 0.81

Student assessment 0.34 0.36 0.61

In-depth study of content

 in main teaching field 0.28 0.30 0.61

Student discipline and

 classroom management 0.36 0.39 0.68

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

“Public, Private, and Charter School Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000. 
Appendix A—Standard Error Tables 

A-42 

Table A28.—Standard errors for figure 12: Percentage distribution of teachers by the amount of time they spend on professionTable A28.—programs, by sector and topic: 1999–2000Sector and topic None Some to 8 hours 9–32 hours In-depth study of content in the main teaching field 0.28 0.21 0.29 Content and performance standards 0.29 0.27 0.32 Methods of teaching 0.30 0.32 0.31 Uses of computer for instruction 0.34 0.30 0.30 Student assessment 0.34 0.32 0.26 Student discipline and classroom management 0.36 0.33 0.22 In-depth study of content in the main teaching field 0.30 0.24 0.33 Content and performance standards 0.31 0.31 0.36 Methods of teaching 0.32 0.36 0.34 Uses of computer for instruction 0.37 0.34 0.33 Student assessment 0.36 0.35 0.29 Student discipline and classroom management 0.39 0.36 0.26 In-depth study of content in the main teaching field 0.61 0.39 0.51 Content and performance standards 0.55 0.48 0.51 Methods of teaching 0.61 0.56 0.56 Uses of computer for instruction 0.81 0.61 0.40 Student assessment 0.61 0.52 0.38 Student discipline and classroom management 0.68 0.62 0.43 

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, PSchool Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000. 

All schools

Public

Private
 

B-1 

Appendix B—Technical Notes 

The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) 

The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) is an integrated set of surveys sponsored by the 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) that is collected from public, private, public 

charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools nationwide. SASS provides information 

about teachers and administrators and the general condition of America’s elementary and 

secondary schools. NCES initiated SASS in the mid-1980s in response to the need for 

information about critical aspects of teacher supply and demand, the qualifications and working 

conditions of teacher and principals, and the basic conditions in schools as workplaces and 

learning environments. SASS has been conducted four times: in school years 1987–88, 1990–91, 

1993–94, and 1999–2000 by the United States Census Bureau. SASS was most recently 

conducted in 2003–04 and is on a four-year schedule in the future. Results from the 2003–04 

SASS are scheduled to be released in the summer of 2006. For each administration of SASS, 

NCES has reviewed the content to expand, retain, or eliminate topics covered in the previous 

administration. In this way, the survey’s capability for trend analysis is maintained, yet at the 

same time new topics are added to address current concerns. 

The 1999–2000 SASS consisted of the following six survey components: the School 

District Survey, the Principal Survey, the School Survey, the Teacher Survey, the School Library 

Media Center Survey, and the Teacher Followup Survey. The Teacher Followup Survey, 

administered the year following the administration of the other five components, will be the 

subject of a future report and will not be discussed further in this report. The questionnaires were 

modified slightly to meet the needs of public, private, public charter, and BIA schools. This 

report uses items from the public school district survey; public and private school principal 

surveys; and public, charter, and private school teacher surveys. 

Copies of the 1999–2000 SASS questionnaires may be obtained on the Internet at 

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass or by e-mail to SASSdata@ed.gov. 

Sample Design 

The SASS sample design is described in detail in the data file user’s manual (U.S. 

Department of Education 2004). The sampling frame and sample selection procedures are 

summarized briefly here. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes 

B-2 

Sampling Frame 

The SASS was designed to support estimates at the national, regional, and state levels for 

public school districts, schools, principals, teachers, and school library media centers. The public 

school sampling frame was based on the 1997–98 school year Common Core of Data (CCD), a 

file of information collected annually by NCES from all state education agencies and believed to 

be the most complete public school listing available at the time of sample selection. The public 

school frame included 88,266 schools. 

The universe of 1,122 public charter schools was identified from a list provided by the 

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) as described in The State of Charter 

Schools 2000 (2000), which included public charter schools open during the 1998–99 school 

year; there were 1,122 schools on the public charter school frame. Deleting schools not open in 

1999–2000 left 1,010 in-scope public charter schools. 

The sampling frame for private schools was the 1997–98 Private School Survey (PSS), 

updated with more current information from 1998–99 private school association lists 

(Broughman and Colaciello 1999). A list frame consisting of 28,164 schools was the primary 

private school frame. An area frame was used to identify schools not included on the list frame 

and thereby compensate for the undercoverage of the list frame. The area frame consisted of 140 

schools drawn from a sample of 3,142 counties throughout the nation, representing an estimated 

1,760 schools. 

Sample Selection 

Schools are the primary sampling unit in SASS. Once schools were selected, school 

districts associated with the selected public schools were included in the sample as well. School 

districts associated with the public charter schools were not included in the sample, unless they 

were also associated with a public school in the sample. Hence, the sample consisted of the set of 

school districts that were associated with the SASS public school sample. Once schools were 

selected, principals were included in the sample. 

Each selected school was asked to provide a list of their teachers and teacher assignments. 

These lists made up the teacher sampling frame. Based on the information collected on teachers 

from schools, teachers were assigned to strata depending on the following teacher characteristics: 

(1) teacher’s race is reported as Asian or Pacific Islander; (2) teacher’s race is reported as 

American Indian or Alaska Native; (3) teachers who teach classes designed for students with 

Limited-English Proficiency; (4) teachers in their first, second, or third year of teaching; or (5) 

teachers not classified in any of the above groups. This mutually exclusive assignment was done 
Appendix B—Technical Notes 

B-3 

in the order of priority from 1 to 5. The probability of selection of teachers within these strata 

varied, depending upon the number of teachers within each sector. 

Data Collection Procedures 

Data collection took place during the 1999–2000 school year. District office staff 

designated the respondents for the district questionnaire. School questionnaires were addressed 

to the “principal,” but may have been completed by other staff. The principal and teacher 

questionnaires were sent to the sampled individuals. Questionnaires were mailed, followed by a 

second mailing and telephone follow-up if necessary. Field staff contacted the remaining 

nonrespondents and attempted to obtain interviews by phone or in person. 

Response Rates 

Table B-1 shows the number of cases in each sample, the number of in-scope cases, the 

number of interviews, and the weighted response rates. A nonresponse bias analysis to evaluate 

the extent of potential bias introduced by school district nonresponse, school nonresponse, school 

principal nonresponse, teacher nonresponse, and school library nonresponse was conducted.1

When considering unit nonresponse, even at levels below 75 percent, there is no evidence to 

point to a substantial bias in SASS estimates. 

The potential bias could also be a result of item nonresponse (i.e., eligible sample members 

chose not to respond to a survey item). For SASS, the item response rates ranged from 10 

percent to 100 percent. None of the items presented in this report had a response rate below 70 

percent.2 Table B-2 shows the number items used that had response rates of less than 75 percent 

or between 76 and 95 percent. 

 

1 The detailed results of these bias analyses are reported in Bokossa, Salvucci, and Ghosh forthcoming. 

2 For more information about item response rates, see U.S. Department of Education 2004. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes 

B-4 

Table B1.—Number of cases and weighted response rates, by sector: 1999–2000

Sector District School Principal Teacher

Sample

Public 5,465 9,893 9,893 56,354

Private † 3,558 3,558 10,760

Charter † 1,122 1,122 4,438

In-scope cases

Public 5,386 9,527 9,404 51,811

Private † 3,233 3,185 9,472

Charter † 1,010 988 3,617

Interviews

Public 4,690 8,432 8,524 42,086

Private † 2,611 2,734 7,098

Charter † 870 891 2,847

Weighted response rates

Public 88.6 88.5 90.0 83.1

Private † 79.8 84.8 77.2

Charter † 86.1 90.2 78.6

Weighted overall response rates

1

Public † † † 76.6

Private † † † 67.2

Charter † † † 71.8

† Not applicable.

1

 Weighted teacher response rate times the rate of cooperation with the teacher listing operation.

NOTE: The number of in-scope cases in sample excludes out-of-scope or ineligible cases. Reasons for an out-of-scope 

designation include a school closure or a principal or teacher no longer employed by the school. Response rates weighted

using inverse of the probability of selection.

SOURCE: Gruber, K.J., Wiley, S.D., Broughman, S.P., Strizek, G.A., and Burian-Fitzgerald, M. (2002). 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), tables B-2, B-3, B-4, and B-5.
Appendix B—Technical Notes 

B-5 

Table B2.—Items used in this report with weighted response rates of less than 95 percent, by survey:

Table B2.—1999–2000

Survey item Description Sector

Response rate less than 75 percent

School

8B Number of White, not Hispanic students Private

9A Number of Hispanic students Charter

9B Number of White, not Hispanic students Public, charter

School principal

10C(5) Amount of influence that curriculum specialists Public, charter

had in determining the content of in-service professional 

development programs for teachers in the school

Teacher

50E(8) Number of class meetings in the past 2 weeks in which Public, charter, private

 students had used computers for "other" purposes

(among teachers whose classes used computers).

Response rate 76–95 percent

School

8A,C,D,E Number of students who were Hispanic; Black, not Hispanic; Private

American Indian/Alaska Native; or Asian/Pacific Islander

9A,C,D,E Number of students who were Hispanic; Black, not Hispanic; Public

American Indian/Alaska Native; or Asian/Pacific Islander

9C,D,E Number of students who were Black, not Hispanic; Charter

American Indian/Alaska Native; or Asian/Pacific Islander

39B Number eligible for free or reduced-price lunch Public, charter

Teacher Survey

2 Employment status (full or part time teacher) Public, charter, private

6A,B Years of teaching experience in private schools Private

7A,B Years of teaching experience in private schools Charter

30A–F Types of support received for professional development Private

activities

31A,B,C Rewards received for completing professional development Private

activities

50E(1–7) Number of class meetings in the past 2 weeks in which Public, charter, private

 students had used computers for various purposes

(among teachers whose classes used computers)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). 1999–2000 Schools and

Staffing Survey (SASS) Data File User's Manual (NCES 2004-303), tables C-15 to C-17, C19 to C-21, C-23 to C-25, 

and C-27.
Appendix B—Technical Notes 

B-6 

Imputation Procedures 

For questionnaire items that should have been answered but were not, values were imputed 

by (1) using data from other items on the questionnaire; (2) extracting data from a related 

component of the SASS; (3) imputing data from the Office of Educational Research and 

Improvement (OERI) charter school list and the National Charter School Directory (NCSD) for 

public charter schools only; (4) extracting data from the sample frame file; and (5) extracting 

data from a respondent with similar characteristics, using a sequential hot-deck imputation 

procedure.3 

Definitions of Measures 

The study focuses on seven sets of outcome measures relevant to teachers’ professional 

development and six sets of predictor measures describing characteristics of teachers, principals, 

and schools. The specifics of how these measures were constructed, along with the SASS items 

from which they were drawn, are described below. 

Outcome measures. Seven sets of outcome measures describing teachers’ professional 

development were examined in the study. They are: (1) participants in planning and 

implementation of professional development (D0599, A0076 to A0083, T0288);4 (2) basis for 

selecting and evaluating professional development activities (A0148 to A0153, A0157, A0158); 

(3) school environment for professional development (T0307, T0311, T0316, A0159 to A0162, 

A0201, A0202); (4) support for teacher professional development (D0602 to D0610, A0164, 

A0165 to A0171, T0179 to T0184, D0611, D0613, T0185 to T0187); (5) delivery of professional 

development activities (T0136, T0147 to T0149, T0150 to T0158); (6) content or topics of 

programs and duration of programs on various topics (T0159, T0162, T0165, T0168, T0171, 

T0174, T0160, T0163, T0166, T0169, T0172, T0175, T0188); and (7) teachers’ perceived 

usefulness of activities (T0161, T0164, T0167, T0170, T0173, T0176). These outcome measures 

were the focus of this study. 

Predictor measures. These measures were used as classification variables in bivariate 

tabulations of the outcome measures described above or as predictor variables in the multivariate 

analyses of the outcome measures: 

 

3 For more information about item response rates, see U.S. Department of Education 2004. 

4 Numbers in parentheses refer to variable names corresponding to the 1999−2000 SASS Questionnaire items. Variable names 

beginning with “D” come from the District Questionnaire; those beginning with “A “come from the school or principal 

questionnaire; and those beginning with “T” come from the teacher questionnaire. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes 

B-7 

Teacher Characteristics 

Main Assignment field. Teachers’ responses to items asking for their main assignment 

fields (T0102) were aggregated into eight categories as follows: 

• Kindergarten/general elementary–Kindergarten or general elementary (T0102 = 2 or 3) 

• Mathematics or science–Computer science, mathematics, physical science, biology/life 

science, chemistry, geology/earth science/space science, physics, general or all other 

science (T0102 = 9, 16, 32 to 38) 

• English/language arts–English/language arts or reading (T0102 = 23 or 25) 

• Social studies–Social studies/social science (including history) (T0102 = 22) 

• Special education–Special education, general, emotionally disturbed, mentally 

retarded, speech/language impaired, deaf and hard-of-hearing, visually handicapped, 

orthopedically impaired, mildly handicapped, severely handicapped, specific learning 

disabilities, or other special education (T0102 = 49 to 63) 

• Bilingual/ESL–Bilingual education or English as a second language (T0102 = 8 or 12) 

• Vocational education–Accounting, agriculture, business, marketing, health 

occupations, home economics, industrial arts, technical, or other vocational/technical 

education (T0102 = 39 to 48) 

• Other–American Indian/Native American studies, architecture/environmental design, 

art, basic skills and remedial education, dance, drama/theater, gifted, health education, 

journalism, family and consumer science, military science, music, philosophy, 

physical education, health education, religion, French, German, Latin, Russian, 

Spanish, other foreign language, or all others (T0102 = 4 to 7, 10, 11, 13 to 15, 17 to 

21, 24, 26 to 31, or 64). 

Teaching status. Teachers were classified into two categories—part-time and full-time—

based on their responses to items asking them about their main assignment at the school (T0051) 

and the amount of time they worked as a teacher (T0054). Regular teachers, itinerant teachers, 

and long-term substitutes were included in the survey, but not short-term substitutes, student 

teachers, and teachers aides. Individuals who reported a main assignment of administrator, 

library or media specialist, other professional staff (e.g. counselor, curriculum coordinator, social 

worker), or support staff but who taught regularly scheduled classes were considered teachers. 

(Approximately 2 percent of all teachers had a nonteaching main assignment, primarily as other 

professional staff.) Part-time teachers were those who reported working less than full time as a 

teacher at their school. 

Teaching experience. This measure was a sum of total number of years that teachers had 

taught full time and part time in public and private schools (T0065 to T0069). The measure was 

classified into four categories: 3 or fewer years, 4−9 years, 10−19 years, and 20 years or more. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes 

B-8 

Highest degree earned. This measure was drawn from teachers’ responses to items asking 

them about the type of degrees they had earned (T0070, T0080, T0084, T0087, T0090, T0093, 

T0096, and T0099). Three categories were used: bachelor’s degree or less; master’s degree or 

educational specialist or professional diploma (at least one year beyond a master’s degree); and 

doctorate or first-professional degree. 

School Structure 

Schools were categorized according to sector, level, district size (public schools only), 

school size, percent minority enrollment, percent eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (public 

schools only), and affiliation (private schools only). The categories are described below. 

Sector. This measure identified public schools and private schools. A public school was 

defined as an institution that provides educational services for at least one of grades 1–12 (or 

comparable ungraded classes), has one or more teachers who provide instruction, is located in 

one or more buildings, receives public funds as primary support, has an assigned administrator, 

and is operated by an education agency. Schools in juvenile detention centers and schools 

located on military bases and operated by the Department of Defense were included. For this 

report, charter schools, although surveyed separately, were included with public schools. 

A private school was defined as an institution not in the public system that provided 

educational services for at least one of grades 1–12 (or comparable ungraded levels), had one or 

more teachers to give instruction, and was located in one or more buildings. The instruction must 

have been given in a building that was not used primarily as a private home. If it could not be 

determined whether a school operated in a private home, it had to have at least 10 students or 

more than one teacher to be included in SASS. Schools that taught only prekindergarten, 

kindergarten, or adult education were not included. 

School level: School level was classified as elementary, secondary, or combined on the 

basis of the grades the school offered (S0058 to S0090). Elementary schools were defined as 

those with one or more grades K–6 and no grade higher than the 8th grade. Secondary schools 

have grades 7 or higher and no grade lower than the 7th grade. Combined schools have grades 

higher than the 8th and lower than the 7th grade. 

District size. Public school district size categories were based on the number of students 

(by head count) who were enrolled in the district on or about October 1, 1999 (D0457). Five 

categories were classified: below 450, 450−999, 1,000−4,999, 5,000−9,999, and 10,000 or more. 

School size. Size categories were based on the number of students (in head count) who 

were enrolled in grades K–12 in the school on or about October 1, 1999 (ENRK12UG). Four 
Appendix B—Technical Notes 

B-9 

categories were classified for elementary and combined schools: less than 150, 150−499, 500 or 

more; and four for secondary schools: less than 400, 400–749, and 750 or more. 

Percent minority enrollment. This measure was the proportion of a school’s total 

enrollment who were American Indian or Alaskan Native (S0099); Asian or Pacific Islander 

(S0100); Hispanic, regardless of race (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South 

American, or other culture or origin) (S0096); and Black (not of Hispanic origin) (S0098). Five 

categories were classified: None, 1−10 percent, 11−30 percent, 31−50 percent, and more than 50 

percent. 

Percent eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. The proportion of students who were 

eligible for free or reduced-price lunch was computed for public schools (S0284). Four 

categories were classified: None, 6−20 percent, 21−40 percent, and more than 40 percent. This 

variable was not computed for private schools because very few private schools participate in the 

National School Lunch Program. 

Private school affiliation. This measure was drawn from the SASS School Survey. It has 

three categories: Catholic, other religious, and nonsectarian (RELIG). 

School Resources for Professional Development 

School had own professional development budget. This measure was created for public 

schools only and based on an item in the School Principal Survey that asked principals to 

indicate whether their school had its own budget for professional development (A0172). This 

question was not asked of private school principals. 

Professional development at the school was accompanied by the resources that teachers 

need. This measure was recoded from an item in the School Principal Survey that asked 

principals to indicate how often professional development for teachers at their schools was 

accompanied by the resources that teachers need (A0162). Three categories were classified: 

frequently or always, sometimes, and never or rarely. 

School Support for Professional Development 

School provides teachers with time for professional development during regular contract 

hours. This measure was based on an item in the School Principal Survey that asked principals 

to indicate whether their school provides teachers with time for professional development during 

regular contract hours (A0164). 
Appendix B—Technical Notes 

B-10 

Principal Experience, Influence, and Engagement 

Years of experience as a principal. This measure was a sum of the total number of years 

that principals reported serving as a principal in their current school and in other schools (A0053 

and A0054). Four categories were classified: 0−3 years, 4−9 years, 10−19 years, and 20 years or 

more. 

Principal influence in determining the content of in-service professional development 

programs. This measure was drawn from an item in the School Principal Survey that asked 

principals to indicate the extent to which they had influence in determining the content of inservice professional development programs for teachers at their schools (A0095). The measure 

was classified into three categories: a great deal if they rated their influence as 4 or 5 on a 5-point 

scale, somewhat if they rated their influence as 3, and no or little if they rated their influence as 1 

or 2. 

Principal provided and engaged staff in professional development activities. This 

measure was recoded from an item in the School Principal Survey that asked principals to 

indicate how often they provided and engaged staff in professional development activities 

(A0201). Three categories were classified: daily or once or twice a week, once or twice a month, 

and never. 

Principal built professional community among faculty and other staff. This measure was 

recoded from an item in the School Principal Survey that asked principals to indicate how often 

they built professional community among faculty and other staff (A0202). Three categories were 

classified: daily or once or twice a week, once or twice a month, and never. 

Teacher Influence and Engagement 

Teacher influence in determining the content of in-service professional development 

programs. This measure was drawn from an item in the Teacher Survey that asked teachers to 

indicate the extent to which they had influence in determining the content of in-service 

professional development programs (T0288). The measure was classified into three categories: a 

great deal if they rated their influence as 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale, somewhat if they rated their 

influence as 3, and no or little if they rated their influence as 1 or 2. 

Professional development at the school was planned by teachers. This measure was 

recoded from an item in the School Principal Survey that asked principals to indicate how often 

professional development for teachers was planned by teachers at their schools or districts 

(A0160). Three categories were classified: frequently or always, sometimes, and never or rarely. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes 

B-11 

Professional development at the school was presented by teachers. This measure was 

recoded from an item in the School Principal Survey that asked principals to indicate how often 

professional development for teachers was presented by teachers at their schools or districts 

(A0161). Three categories were classified: frequently or always, sometimes, and never or rarely. 

Professional development was considered part of teachers’ regular work. This measure 

was recoded from an item in the School Principal Survey that asked principals to indicate how 

often professional development for teachers was considered part of teachers’ regular work 

(A0159). Three categories were classified: frequently or always, sometimes, and never or rarely. 

Accuracy of Estimates 

The estimates in this report are derived from a survey sample and are subject to two 

broad classes of error—nonsampling and sampling errors. Nonsampling errors occur not only in 

sample surveys but also in complete censuses of entire populations. Nonsampling errors can be 

attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain complete information about all schools, 

teachers, and principals in the sample (for example, some teachers refused to participate, or 

teachers participated but answered only certain items); ambiguous definitions; differences in 

interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to give correct information; mistakes in 

recording or coding data; and other errors of collecting, processing, sampling, and imputing 

missing data. Although nonsampling errors due to questionnaire and item nonresponse can be 

reduced somewhat by the adjustment of sample weights and imputation procedures, correcting 

nonsampling errors or gauging the effects of these errors is usually difficult. 

The samples selected for SASS are just one of many possible samples that could have been 

selected. Therefore, estimates produced from the SASS samples may differ from estimates that 

would have been produced from other samples. This type of variability is called sampling error. 

The standard error is a measure of the variability due to sampling when estimating a 

statistic. Standard errors can be used as a measure of the precision expected from a particular 

sample. The probability that a complete census count would be 1 standard error above and below 

the sample estimate is about 68 percent. The chance that a complete census count would be 1.96 

standard errors above and below the sample estimate is about 95 percent. Standard errors for 

tables and figures are presented in appendix A. 

Complex sample designs, like that used in the SASS, typically result in sampling errors of 

the estimates larger than would be expected if the sample was a simple random sample and the 

observations were independent and identically distributed random variables. For this study, 
Appendix B—Technical Notes 

B-12 

standard errors were estimated using the jackknife replication method in SUDAAN software that 

incorporates the design features of the complex survey sample design. 

Statistical Tests 

The Student’s t statistic was used to test the likelihood that the differences between the 

two estimates were larger than would be expected due to sampling error. The Student’s t values 

can be computed for comparisons using the estimates in the tables with the following formula: 

t = E1− E2

(se1)

2 + (se2 )2 (1) 

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding 

standard errors. This formula is valid only for independent estimates. When the estimates are not 

independent (for example, when comparing any estimates that are parts of a percentage 

distribution to the whole), a covariance term must be added to the denominator of the t-test 

formula. Because the actual covariances were not known, it was assumed that the estimates were 

perfectly negatively correlated. Assuming perfectly negative correlation maximizes the 

covariance of two correlated variables. This is a very conservative approach and may miss some 

differences, but it also helps avoid finding differences that are not “true.” Consequently, 

2*(se1*se2) was added to the denominator of the t-test formula for dependent estimates. 

( ) ( ) ( ) 2( * ) 1 2

2

2

2

1

1 2

se se se se

E E

t

+ +

− = (2) 

Generally, whether a difference is considered statistically significant is determined by 

calculating a t value for the difference between a pair of proportions or means, and comparing 

this value to published tables of values at certain critical levels, called alpha levels. The alpha

level is an a priori statement of the probability of inferring that a difference exists when, in fact, 

it does not. The alpha level used in this report is .05; differences discussed in the text have been 

tested and found significant at this level. For proportions, this report has adopted the simple 

convention of reporting differences only if they are 5 percentage points or more. 

In order to make proper inferences and interpretations from the statistics, several points 

must be kept in mind. First, comparisons resulting in large t statistics may appear to merit special 

note. However, this is not always the case, because the size of the t statistic depends not only on 

the observed differences in the two estimates being compared, but also on the standard error of 

the difference. Thus, a small difference between two groups with a much smaller standard error 
Appendix B—Technical Notes 

B-13 

could result in a large t statistic, but this small difference is not necessarily substantively 

noteworthy. 

Second, when multiple statistical comparisons are made, it becomes increasingly likely 

that a finding of a statistically significant difference is erroneous. Even when there is no 

difference in the population, at an alpha level of .05, there is still a 5 percent chance of 

concluding that an observed t value representing one comparison in the sample is large enough to 

be statistically significant. As the number of comparisons increases, so does the risk of making 

such an error in inference. 

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

When averages of a continuous variable were examined relative to a variable with ordered 

categories, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test for a linear relationship between the 

two variables. To do this, ANOVA equations included orthogonal linear contrasts corresponding 

to successive levels of the independent variable. The variance between the means, and the 

unweighted sample sizes were used to partition total sum of squares into within- and betweengroup sums of squares. These were used to create mean squares for the within- and betweengroup variance components and their corresponding F statistics, which were then compared with 

published values of F for a significance level of .05.5 Significant values of both the overall F and 

the F associated with the linear contrast term were required as evidence of a linear relationship 

between the two variables. 

Multivariate Analysis 

Many of the independent variables included in the analyses in this report are interrelated, 

and to some extent, the pattern of differences found in the descriptive analyses reflects this 

covariation. To take into account the interrelationship of the independent variables, a 

multivariate analysis was performed to examine the independent contributions of various teacher, 

school, and principal variables to the prediction of teacher participation in professional 

development. Because all outcome variables of interest are dichotomous variables (1 = 

participated and 0 = did not participate), a logistic regression was used for the multivariate 

analysis. In order to take into account the complex sampling of SASS, the Taylor series 

approximation method in SUDAAN was used for the logistic regressions. Examining the 

correlation coefficients among all the independent variables revealed that multicollinearity did 

not appear to be a problem. The highest correlation observed was between professional 

 

5 More information about ANOVA and significance testing using the F statistic can be found in any standard textbook on 

statistical methods in the social and behavioral sciences. See, for example, Snedecor and Cochran 1980. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes 

B-14 

development planned by teachers and professional development presented by teachers (r = 0.54 

among public school teachers and 0.55 among private school teachers). 

The odds ratio (the odds are produced by exponentiation of the estimated logistic 

regression coefficients) generated by a logistic regression can be used to estimate the probability 

of some types of individuals having an outcome (e.g., teachers who participated in professional 

development) compared to a control group of people (e.g., teachers who did not participate). 

Odds ratios of greater than 1 mean that those in the noncontrol group are more likely to have the 

outcome than those in the control group and odds ratios of less than 1 mean those in the 

noncontrol group are less likely to have the outcome than those in the control group. For 

example, table 17 shows the odds ratios for teachers participating in various professional 

development activities. The first column shows that teachers with 4–9 years of teaching 

experience had an odds ratio of 1.37, meaning they were more likely than those in the control 

group—teachers with 3 years of experience or less—to take university courses for recertificaiton 

or advanced certification. Another interpretation is that the odds of teachers with 4–9 years of 

experience taking university courses for recertification or advanced certification were 37 percent 

higher than the odds of teachers with 3 years of experience or less (Menard 1995).