• Providing an Overview of the Data
• Exploring the Qualifications of Public School Teachers
• Conclusion
• References

• critical components of teacher supply, demand, and attrition, with attention to critical shortage areas and the policies and practices at all levels enacted to meet the demand in those areas;
• the professional characteristics, preparation, and experience of teachers and administrators, plus their perceptions of school conditions, professional responsibilities, decisionmaking, and compensation policies;
• the conditions and characteristics of the school as a work place and learning place, including characteristics of the student body, curriculum, special programs, and organizational structure;
• the implementation of school programs and policies such as English as a second language [ESL], bilingual education, diagnostic and prescriptive services, and programs for the gifted and talented. (Excerpted from Mullens and Kasprzyk 1997.)

Although some policymakers and researchers have criticized SASS because it provides no link to student outcome data, others have noted that SASS's importance lies in the fact that it does focus on collecting teacher- and school-level data, whereas most other NCES K–12 programs focus on collecting student-level data (Mullens and Kasprzyk 1997). Clearly, both policymakers and researchers have come to depend on SASS as a way to measure (1) the current status of schools, administrators, and teachers; and (2) changes over time in schools and the professionals who work in them, which take place as this country's demographics, public policies, and state and national economies change.

Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999–2000: Overview of the Data for Public, Private, Public Charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs Elementary and Secondary Schools provides 60 tables of data, in order to "present a synopsis of the types of information that can be produced with the [SASS] data" (Gruber et al. 2002). Separate tables are presented for each school sector; and, within each sector, findings are broken out by community type, region, school level, and school enrollment. In addition, findings on public schools are broken out by state. Among the topics explored are school safety, class size, programs in elementary schools, programs in secondary and combined schools, teacher salary schedules, the teaching experience of principals, professional development, and school libraries and media centers.

A variety of interesting findings are highlighted in the Overview report, illustrating the breadth of the SASS data on the status of schools and staffing in 1999–2000. Examples include the following:

• Teachers in private schools were less likely to report being threatened with injury (4 percent) than teachers in BIA schools (13 percent), public charter schools (11 percent), and traditional public schools (10 percent).
• Extended day programs at elementary schools existed at 65 percent of private schools, 63 percent of public charter schools, 47percent of traditional public schools, and 40 percent of BIA schools.
• Teachers in self-contained classes in traditional public elementary schools and public charter elementary schools had similar class sizes of 21.2 and 21.4 students, respectively, while private elementary schools had an average class size of 20.3 students and BIA elementary schools had an average class size of 18.0 students.
• Approximately 96 percent of public school districts used salary schedules to determine base salaries for teachers, while 66 percent of private schools and 62 percent of public charter schools used salary schedules. (Data on salary schedules were not available for BIA schools.)

In contrast to the Overview report, Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce: Prevalence of Out-of-Field Teaching 1987–88 to 1999–2000 (Seastrom et al. 2002) hones in on one issue: out-of-field teaching (teachers are teaching out-of-field if there is a mismatch between their training and the subject they teach). The report's findings on this key issue will be examined with new urgency, because "teacher quality" is currently being touted by researchers and policymakers as, if not the most important factor, one of the most important factors influencing school quality. Besides the training that teachers receive, other key determinants of teacher quality include years of teaching experience, academic ability, participation (as new teachers) in induction programs, and extent of exposure to high-quality professional development programs (Mayer, Mullens, and Moore 2001). Although researchers and policymakers are not in agreement about how certification programs should be structured, there is, nevertheless, a great desire to know more about the certification profile of today's teaching corps (e.g., what percentage of teachers have full certification, probationary certification, alternative certification, emergency certification, or no certification?) and how this profile is changing over time. Each of these teacher-quality issues can be explored from a variety of vantage points using SASS data.^*

The Qualifications report focuses on the extent to which teachers teach courses they were not trained to teach. Previous research has shown that out-of-field teaching adversely affects student achievement. Goldhaber and Brewer (1996) and Monk and King (1994) looked at the subjects teachers studied in college and graduate school and found that subject matter preparation is related to student achievement even after controlling for relevant teacher and student background and contextual variables.

There are a variety of valid ways in which to define out-of-field teaching. Some measures set a high threshold or standard, while others set a lower one. In this report, for example, the highest threshold is one that requires in-field teachers to have both a major and certification in the subject they are teaching, whereas the most lenient threshold requires only that a teacher have a major, a minor, or certification. Using the highest standard, 30 percent of English, 31 percent of mathematics, 27 percent of science, and 28 percent of social science students in high school were being taught by out-of-field teachers during the 1999–2000 school year. Using the lower standard, 6 percent of English, 9 percent of mathematics, 6 percent of science, and 6 percent of social science students in high school were being taught by out-of-field teachers. By either standard, the numbers are dramatically higher in middle schools. For example, using the major and certification standard, 58 percent of English, 69 percent of mathematics, 57 percent of science, and 51 percent of social science students in middle school were being taught by out-of-field teachers during the 1999–2000 school year. Using the more lenient major, minor, or certification standard, 17 percent of English, 22 percent of mathematics, 14 percent of science, and 13 percent of social science students in middle school were being taught by out-of-field teachers.

While the middle school versus high school differential is not surprising, it is surprising that there was a great decrease in out-of-field teaching in high schools between 1987–88 and 1999–2000. The decrease is most evident when applying the major, minor, or certification standard, although it is also evident when applying the major and certification standard. For example, between 1987–88 and 1999–2000, the percentages of high school students being taught by teachers without a major, a minor, or certification dropped by almost one-third to over one-half in the following subjects: physical science (dropped from 31 percent of students in 1987–88 to 16 percent of students in 1999–2000), geology (51 percent to 36 percent), physics (40 percent to 17 percent), ESL/bilingual education (54 percent to 31 percent), and English (13 percent to 6 percent). In examining tables B–9 and B–18 from the report (reproduced here), it is clear that the downward shift in out-of-field rates occurred between the 1990–91 and 1993–94 SASS. This finding is surprising in light of news reports throughout the 1990s announcing significant teacher shortages in the nation's largest school districts. If these shortages really did exist nationwide, it would seem likely that out-of-field teaching would have increased during that period. However, NCES not only has nationally representative data on trends in teaching preparedness but also notes that "methodological differences, including differences in survey formats over the years, do not appear to have a major impact on change over time in the estimates." As a result, researchers will want to use the SASS data to determine what really happened in the teacher labor market in the 1990s, so that we can learn from that experience. For example, researchers might want to explore whether the shortages were confined to particular types of districts or schools, regions of the country, or types of communities.

The 1999–2000 SASS data and the Overview and Qualifications reports are important for the education field. There is much to be learned from them about schools, administrators, and teachers at the turn of this century. There is no question that there were important changes in schools and how they were staffed throughout the 1990s and that these changes are likely to persist into the next decade. The past two decades have seen a sea change in how teachers are trained in the United States. Twenty years ago, only a few states offered alternative certification routes for prospective teachers, and few candidates took this path. Today, 45 states offer such alternatives, which are supplying approximately one-third of the newly hired teachers each year (Feistritzer 2002). In the future, as the current administration focuses its attention and resources squarely on teacher training and quality, the importance of SASS will be elevated to a new level. As the debate rages and begins to sway the teacher-training policies of the federal government and the states, SASS is certain to become an indispensable tool for assessing change. Knowing who comprises the nation's teaching corps, how teachers are allocated among schools (e.g., rich vs. poor, private vs. public, public charter vs. traditional public, BIA vs. traditional public), and how various aspects of school staffing change over time will become more important than ever.

Feistritzer, E.C. (2002). Alternative Teacher Certification: A State-by-State Analysis, 2002. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information.

Goldhaber, D.D., and Brewer, D.J. (1996). Evaluating the Effect of Teacher Degree Level on Educational Performance. In W. Fowler, Jr. (Ed.), Developments in School Finance, 1996 (NCES 97–535). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

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). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Mayer, D.P., Mullens, J.E., and Moore, M.T. (2001). Monitoring School Quality: An Indicators Report (NCES 2001–030). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Monk, D.H., and King, J. (1994). Multi-Level Teacher Resource Effects on Pupil Performance in Secondary Mathematics and Science: The Role of Teacher Subject Matter Preparation. In R. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Contemporary Policy Issues: Choices and Consequences in Education. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Mullens, J.E., and Kasprzyk, D. (Eds.). (1997). The Schools and Staffing Survey: Recommendations for the Future (NCES 97–596). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Seastrom, M.M., Gruber, K.J., Henke, R., McGrath, D.J., and Cohen, B.A. (2002). Qualifications of the Public School Teacher Workforce: Prevalence of Out-of-Field Teaching, 1987–88 to 1999–2000 (NCES 2002–603). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wiley, S.D., Reynolds, K.A., Cobb, A., and Luekens, M.T. (1999). Secondary Use of the Schools and Staffing Survey Data (NCES 1999–17). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.