DOI: 10.3886/icpsr39072.v1
title: Mathematics Teachers and Teaching Survey, United States, 2005-2006, and 2015-2016
title: Version 1

description: This study includes a nationally representative survey designed to estimate middle school teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching (MKT), curriculum use, and professional development. The questionnaire and sample were built on a similar study conducted in 2005-06, Learning Mathematics for Teaching (LMT): Survey of Middle School Mathematics (Hill, 2007; ICPSR 33421).
The connection between the studies and the nationally representative nature of the data allow for the comparison of teachers' curriculum use and MKT across time periods. Recruitment and data collection for the present study occurred during the 2015-2016 school year. Video capture in U.S. middle school mathematics classrooms was also conducted as part of this study; however, the low response rate to that component of the study led us to exclude it from this data repository.
This study was conducted by researchers at the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University (CEPR) and the University of Michigan's Survey Research Operations (SRO) at the Institute for Social Research (ISR), with funding from the National Science Foundation.
description: The purpose of this study is to address three research questions:

To what extent did teachers' MKT change between the 2005 and 2016 samples? Can any observed changes be linked to the teacher characteristics targeted by No Child Left Behind?
Has the distribution of teacher MKT become more equitable with regard to student socioeconomic status and race over this time period?
Do teachers report greater use of standards-based curriculum materials over this time period?
description: The Teacher Level Data contains variables about teacher demographics. The Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching Survey - 2005-06 Data and Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching Survey - 2015-16 Data contain variables from the MTK survey administered in 2005-2006 and 2015-2016. The Formal Training in Mathematics Data - 2006 Follow-up Survey contains variables about teachers background information regarding their training. Teacher Curriculum and Material Use Data contains variables about the textbooks that teachers used. The Two Sample Test Data contains data categorizing teachers' prior math education used to compute t tests on teachers MKT score against educational background.
description: A weight variable is included and must be used in order for claims of national representativeness to apply, and to replicate researchers' analyses. Final weights reflect sampling and non-response weights, combined. Please see the user guides for more information.
description: Response Rates: Teachers in 58% of rostered schools returned surveys for the 2015-2016 surveys.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Mathematical knowledge for teaching is measured in a multiple choice format; the answer key documentation can be used to convert these to correct/incorrect answers. Other items (e.g., teachers' use of various resources; teachers' educational background) used Likert or other data collection formats.
description: In the 2005-2006 survey, SRO decided with University of Michigan School of Education (SOE) researchers to select a nationally representative sample for the
mail surveys, using stratified probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling. The target
population was all currently operating public schools in the fifty US states and the
District of Columbia that had at least ten students in each of the 6th and 7th grades or in
each of the 7th and 8th grades.
A total of 21,219 schools from the Common Core of Data (CCD) database met the above requirements and were
included in the sampling frame. The frame was stratified by geographic region,
according to US Census Bureau regions, and by urbanicity, according to a locale code which is assigned by the US Census Bureau based on geographic location and population
attributes. Schools within each stratum were then sorted by zip code prior to sample
selection in order to achieve a finer level of geographic stratification.
An initial sample of 1,202 schools was then drawn, in which sample size was allocated to
each stratum using a proportionate allocation. Within strata, schools were selected using
systematic PPS sampling. The measure of size used was the total number of students in
eligible grade levels, as obtained from the CCD. This sample distribution is summarized
in Section 5.2.2. For many of these 1,202 schools, QED teacher data provided initial
teacher rosters that were confirmed or edited as needed by telephone calls to each school.
After telephone verification of teacher lists was conducted, a final LMT Year 1 stratified
sample of 1,000 schools was drawn, from which one teacher per school was randomly
selected to be included in the mail survey.
In the 2015-2016 survey, a nationally representative sample of teachers was obtained by first selecting a nationally representative sample of schools. The target population was all currently operating public schools in the fifty US states and the District of Columbia that had at least ten students in each of the 6th and 7th grades or in each of the 7th and 8th grades. A total of 24,270 schools from the CCD database met the above requirements and were included in the sampling frame. The frame was stratified by geographic region, according to US Census Bureau regions, and by urbanicity (for a total of 16 strata). An initial sample of 1,822 schools was then drawn, in which sample size was allocated to each stratum using a proportionate allocation. Within strata, schools were selected using systematic probability proportional to size (PPS) sampling. The measure of size used was the total number of students in eligible grade levels, as obtained from the CCD. 
A base roster for each school was built using a combination of data from MCH Strategic Data, a commercial vendor, and individual reviews of school websites. This base roster was then confirmed with each school. Final rosters (i.e. rosters confirmed by the schools) were obtained from 1,584 schools (87%). Rosters were not obtained from schools that refused participation or did not respond. Within the 1,584 rostered schools, teachers were selected at random to participate. The goal was to obtain a completed survey from one teacher per school. If the initial teacher selected refused or did not complete the survey, another teacher within the same school was selected when available. Overall, we obtained 916 completed surveys (57.86% of all rostered schools or 50.2% of all selected schools). 
The achieved sample was weighted to account for the probabilities of selection of schools and teachers. This base weight was then adjusted to account for non-response of both schools and teachers. Magnet schools and charter schools were included as part of the target population, but special education schools, vocational schools, and other/alternative settings were excluded. Department of Defense and Bureau of Indian Affairs schools were also excluded as part of the public school target population.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Teacher Level Data
DS2: Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching Survey - 2005-2006 Data
DS3: Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching Survey - 2015-2016 Data
DS4: Formal Training in Mathematics Data - 2006 Follow-up Survey
DS5: Teacher Curriculum and Material Use Data
DS6: Two Sample Test Data
description: Middle school mathematics teachers in the United States teaching in the 2015-2016 school year.
description: mixed mode; paper and pencil interview (PAPI); web-based surveyThis study is related to ICPSR 33421.For additional information, please see the study website.