|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. APPENDIXES
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 291
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
APPENDIXES
OCR for page 292
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page 293
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
A
Conference Agenda and Attendees
TEACHER SUPPLY, DEMAND, AND QUALITY CONFERENCE ON POLICY ISSUES, MODELS, AND DATA BASES
March 21–23, 1991
National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council
2001 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. — Green Building
Washington, D.C.
AGENDA
Thursday, March 21, 1991
Green Building, Room 130
6:00
Reception
7:00
Dinner
8:00
Opening Session
Lee Shulman, Chair
Welcome
Emerson Elliott
After dinner speaker
Albert Shanker
Friday, March 22, 1991
Green Building, Room 130
8:30 a.m.
Continental breakfast
9:00
Opening remarks
Lee Shulman, Chair
9:05
The OERI Perspective on Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality
Christopher Cross
OCR for page 294
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
9:20
What NCES Hopes to Learn from the Conference
Paul Planchon
9:30
Paper: On the Problem of Improving Teacher Quality While Balancing Supply and Demand
Mary Kennedy
Invited discussants
James Stedman
Arthur Wise
Open discussion
12:00
Luncheon
1:00 p.m.
Paper: The State of the Art in Projecting Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality
Stephen Barro
Invited discussants
Gus Haggstrom
Ronald Kutscher
Open discussion
3:15
Paper: National Data Bases Relevant to Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality Models and Projection Methods
Ross Brewer
Stephen Coelen
James Wilson
Invited discussants
Alan Fechter
Thomas Hilton
Open discussion
5:30
Adjourn
Saturday, March 23, 1991
Green Building, Room 130
8:30 a.m.
Continental breakfast
9:00
Opening remarks
Lee Shulman, Chair
9:05
Panel on State Data
OCR for page 295
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
Who Will Teach?
Richard Murnane
Developing a Regional Database for the Northeast: Problems, Products, and Prospects
James Wilson
A Cooperative Project to Develop Teacher Supply/Demand Information in the Southern States
Robert Stoltz
State Data on Teacher Quality, Supply, and Demand
Rolf Blank
Open discussion
11:30
Summary of Conference Findings
Lee Shulman
12:00 noon
Roundtable Discussion of Important Next Steps
12:55 p.m.
Last Word
Dorothy Gilford
1:00
Adjourn
Buffet Luncheon
ATTENDEES
Chair
Lee S. Shulman. Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Education, School of Education, Stanford University
Speakers and Discussants
Stephen M. Barro, President, SMB Economic Research, Inc.
Rolf K. Blank, Project Director, Science/Mathematics Indicators Project, Council of Chief State School Officers
W. Ross Brewer, Director of Planning and Policy Development, Vermont Department of Education
Stephen P. Coelen, Director, Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research (MISER) and Data and Decision Analysis, Inc.
Christopher T. Cross, Assistant Secretary, Office of Educational Research and Improvement
Emerson J. Elliott. Acting Commissioner, National Center for Education Statistics
OCR for page 296
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
Alan Fechter, Executive Director, Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council
Gus W. Haggstrom, Senior Statistician, Economics Department, The RAND Corporation
Thomas L. Hilton, Senior Research Scientist, Educational Testing Service
Mary M. Kennedy, Professor of Education and Director, National Center for Research on Teacher Education, Michigan State University
Ronald E. Kutscher, Associate Commissioner, Office of Employment Projections. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Richard J. Murnane, Professor, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University
Paul Planchon, Associate Commissioner, Elementary/Secondary Education Statistics Division, National Center for Education Statistics
James B. Stedman, Specialist in Social Legislation, Education and Public Welfare Division. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress
Robert P. Stoltz, Vice President and Director for Education Policy, Southern Regional Education Board
James M. Wilson, Senior Project Analyst, Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research (MISER) and Data and Decision Analysis, Inc.
Arthur E. Wise, President, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
Invited Participants
Susan Ahmed, Mathematical Statistician, Statistical Standards and Methodology Division, National Center for Education Statistics
Nabeel Alsalam, Chief, Indicators and Reports Branch, Data Development Division, National Center for Education Statistics
Elizabeth Ashburn, Schools and School Professionals Division. Office of Research, Office of Educational Research and Improvement
Sharon Bobbitt, Statistician, Elementary/Secondary Education Statistics Division, National Center for Education Statistics
Teresa Bunsen, Project Officer, Division of Personnel Preparation, Office of Special Education Programs
John G. Chapman, Program Analyst, Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Education
Joseph Conaty, Education Research Specialist, Office of Research, Office of Educational Research and Improvement
Lynne Cook, Director, National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education
C. Emily Feistritzer, President, Feistritzer Publications and Director, National Center for Education Information
OCR for page 297
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
David Florio, Director of Policy Studies, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Office of Educational Research and Improvement
Debra Gerald, Mathematical Statistician, Statistical Standards and Methodology Division, National Center for Education Statistics
Milton Goldberg, Director, Office of Research, Office of Educational Research and Improvement
Jewell Gould, Director of Research, American Federation of Teachers
Jeanne E. Griffith, Associate Commissioner, Data Development Division, National Center for Education Statistics
David W. Grissmer, Deputy Director, Defense Manpower Research Center, The RAND Corporation
Ron Hall, Acting Associate Commissioner, Postsecondary Education Statistics Division, National Center for Education Statistics
Suzann R. Harrison, Executive Secretary, Georgia Professional Standards Commission
David Haselkorn, President, Recruiting New Teachers, Inc.
Terrence L. Hibpshman, Manager, Research Branch, Division of Research, Kentucky Department of Education
Edward Hurley, Research Specialist, National Education Association
Joseph S. Johnston, Jr., Vice President for Programs, Association of American Colleges
Daniel Levine, Study Director, Committee on Postsecondary Education and Training for the Workplace, National Academy of Sciences / National Research Council
Paul Lauritzen, Professor of Special Education, University of Wisconsin
David Mandel, Vice President for Policy Development, National Board of Professional Teachers
Marilyn M. McMillen, Statistician, Elementary/Secondary Education Statistics Division, National Center for Education Statistics
Jeffrey Owings, Chief, Longitudinal and Household Studies Branch, Elementary/Secondary Education Statistics Division, National Center for Education Statistics
John Ralph, Chief, Policy and Review Branch, Data Development Division, National Center for Education Statistics
Mary Rollefson, Acting Chief, Special Surveys and Analysis Branch, National Center for Education Statistics
Paul M. Siegel, Senior Education Analyst, Population Division, Bureau of the Census
John J. Stiglmeier. Director, Information Center on Education, New York State Education Department
Peter Stowe, Statistician, Postsecondary Education Statistics Division, National Center for Education Statistics
OCR for page 298
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
Miron L. Straf, Director, Committee on National Statistics, National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council
Larry E. Suter, Program Director, Assessments and Indicators, Office of Studies and Program Assessment, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation
Bayla White, Senior Budget Examiner, Office of Management and Budget
Staff
Dorothy M. Gilford, Project Director, Conference on Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality
Laura Lathrop, Research Assistant
Jane Phillips, Administrative Assistant
Consultant:
Erling E. Boe, Professor, Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania
OCR for page 299
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
B
National Data Bases Related to Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality
The American Freshman
Association of American Colleges Curriculum Database
Common Core of Data
Current Population Survey
Graduate Record Examination (GRE)
High School and Beyond (HS&B)
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)
Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY)
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS-88)
The National Longitudinal Study (NLS-72)
National Surveys of Science and Mathematics Education
The Private School Survey
Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS)
Status of the American Public School Teacher
Surveys of Recent College Graduates
THE AMERICAN FRESHMAN
The American Freshman survey is conducted annually by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP). of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). CIRP and UCLA's Higher Education Research Institute survey all incoming freshmen in full-time study in a sample of
These summaries rely heavily on descriptions in Precollege Science and Mathematics Teachers (Dorothy M. Gilford and Ellen Tenenbaum, Editors, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1990) and on material provided by various sponsors of data bases.
OCR for page 300
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
colleges and universities. The data are stratified by type of college, public or private control, and selectivity. Longitudinal follow-up studies are conducted each summer to track students two and four years after college entry. Freshman surveys typically involve 300,000 students at 600 institutions; follow-ups are done with probability samples of 25,000 students from each cohort.
The 40-question survey instrument solicits data on high school background, including SAT or ACT scores and grade point average, intended major and educational goals, career plans, financial arrangements, and attitudes. Personal data include race/ethnicity, sex, and parents' income and occupations. Data from The American Freshman can illuminate the beginning stage of the supply pipeline—choosing a major and a career plan. The survey includes education as one of the ''Probable Major Fields of Study.'' This broad category has a number of subcategories, including levels of education, subject matter, and special education. The longitudinal survey can provide some information about the stability of the early preference for teaching as an occupation. Questionnaire data, such as SAT scores and number of honors courses taken in high school, can be used to provide some measure of the qualifications aspects of quality.
Contact:
Alexander W. Astin
Higher Education Research Institute
Graduate school of Education
University of California
405 Hilgard Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90024-1521
310/825-1925
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN COLLEGES CURRICULUM DATABASE
The Association of American Colleges (AAC) expanded what began as a small study in 1985–86 and 1987–88 to a large study that collected transcript data on all spring 1991 graduates from 200 institutions. These data provide the foundation for a curriculum database (CDB). To identify changes and trends, the AAC plans to collect and process such data every two years.
Of the 200 participating institutions, 100 were "friends" of the AAC and 100 were a stratified probability sample of 1,360 B.A.-granting institutions, which can provide national estimates. Twenty-four strata were used based on classifying the sampling frame by: control (public/private): type (liberal arts/comprehensive/doctoral/research); and geographic location (east/ middle/west). The CDB does not use a questionnaire but takes electronic transcript and student record data.
Student data collected include: major/school, gender, ethnicity, date of birth, GPA, scores on the SAT and ACT, advanced placement credits, trans-
OCR for page 301
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
fer credits, and transfer level (when applicable). In addition, data were collected on all course enrollments, including the year, term, campus, grade, and credits of each course. Each institution was asked to map its curriculum to clarify the field or discipline to which courses and majors belonged.
The CDB will provide information on course background as well as student variables that will be useful in longitudinal analysis of teacher preparation.
Contact:
Joseph S. Johnston, Jr.
Association of American Colleges
1818 R Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
202/387-3760
COMMON CORE OF DATA
The Common Core of Data (CCD) is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical data base for all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts. CCD is conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics, and the data base contains data that are comparable across states.
The CCD is comprised of five surveys that are sent to state departments of education. These five data sets can be used separately or in conjunction with one another in addressing issues of teacher supply and demand.
The data collected by the CCD surveys include three categories of information: general descriptive information on schools and school districts and state-level information on students and staff, and finances.
The information on students and staff includes enrollment by grade and race, full-time equivalent staff by major employment, and high school graduates and completers in the previous year.
Contact:
John Sietsema
Elementary and Secondary Education Statistics Division
National Center for Education Statistics
555 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20208-5651
202/219-1335
CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY
The Current Population Survey (CPS) is a continuing cross-sectional survey of a sample of U.S. households. The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides the major funding for the survey. It is conducted monthly by the Census Bureau and collects data on labor force status. The CPS surveys people age 15 or older on their employment status in the week prior to the
OCR for page 319
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
school attributes, and from questionnaires completed by school district personnel about district variables. These different sources provide quite different sets of data. The SASS data base also contains information from questionnaires completed by one sample of teachers in 1988 and another sample in 1991. The contents of these two particular questionnaire sources are quite similar. Likewise, the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) includes information from somewhat different versions of questionnaires for science and for mathematics teachers at the eighth grade level in 1990, each of which can be considered a particular source. Other data bases, such as CCD, amass similar data annually, each installment of which constitutes a particular source.
The five tables of this appendix were developed to provide helpful guidance for researchers, modelers, data base managers, and others interested in identifying sources of national data about variables relevant to analyses of teacher supply and demand issues. However, data bases are too complex internally to serve as the optimal unit of analysis for the purpose of providing helpful guidance. On the other hand, particular sources within data bases are too numerous to serve as a manageable unit of analysis, and, in any event, many particular sources contain a great deal of overlapping content.
In view of these considerations, an intermediate unit of analysis was devised—a unit more particular than a data base but broader than a particular source. This intermediate unit of analysis is a cluster of particular sources within a data base. To define such clusters, particular sources of data within data bases were analyzed to identify those sources that contained substantially overlapping information. For example, the teacher questionnaires of SASS for 1988 and 1991 were clustered together because there was a high degree of overlap of information collected. Similarly, the school questionnaires of SASS for 1988 and 1991 formed another cluster because of overlapping content. However, the differences between the teacher and school questionnaires were sufficiently great that they were treated as different clusters of particular sources. As a result of this type of analysis, the 15 national data bases were broken down into a total of 29 clusters of particular data sources. The particular sources contained within these 29 clusters are listed in the section preceding Table 1.
Though useful, the strategy of consolidating particular data sources into 29 clusters was adopted at the cost of obscuring certain differences among sources included in a cluster. These differences are not revealed in the five tables of this appendix. For example, variations in similar questionnaires collected on two different occasions are not reported here, such as the differences between the teacher questionnaires of SASS for 1988 and 1991. Likewise, variations between similar questionnaires collected from different groups of teachers at a particular time (such as from eighth grade mathematics teachers and science teachers in 1990 for the NAEP) are not re-
OCR for page 320
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
ported here. Interested users must review questionnaire forms to determine the specific information contained in each data base.
Although the rows of Tables 1 through 5 are termed variables and are intentionally very specific, different definitions of each variable may be used in different data bases, and sometimes for particular data sources within a data base. For example, the numbers of employed teachers are based on different operational definitions of a teacher and may be reported as either the number of full-time equivalent teachers, the number of full-time teachers only, or the number of full-time plus part-time teachers. Therefore, users of TSDQ data must review the original questionnaires and related documentation to determine specific definitions of TSDQ variables used.
In addition, some variables included in the tables are not recorded as such in their designated data base sources. These are derived variables. For example, combinations of questionnaire items included in the teacher questionnaires of SASS provide a basis for computing the percentage of teachers who transfer from primary teaching assignments in special education to general education from one year to the next even though there is no particular questionnaire item about such cross-field transfer. Of course, data users can generate many other useful derived variables.
Finally, some national data bases (such as SASS) have been structured to provide national estimates of TSDQ variables, while other data bases do not because they are not derived from national probability samples. For example, some teacher samples (e.g., from NELS:88, NAEP, and LSAY) have been formed by selecting teachers linked to national probability samples of students. Therefore, these teacher samples are not representative of the national teaching force. In another example, data on entering teachers from the Surveys of College Graduates are limited to graduates at the baccalaureate level. Since new teachers graduating at the masters level are not included, these surveys are not representative of all recently graduated new teachers. Therefore, users of data bases must determine the population represented in the TSDQ data.
For the several reasons described above, entries in Tables 1 through 5 should be viewed only as promising leads to data base sources of TSDQ variables. Users of this information should review the specific contents of data elements in each relevant data base before concluding whether needed information about particular variables is either available or is not available.
Data Sources Reported in Tables 1 through 5
Schools and Staffing Survey: Public School Teacher Questionnaire (1988 and 1991) (Sponsor: National Center for Education Statistics)
Schools and Staffing Survey: Public School Questionnaire (1988 and 1991) (Sponsor: National Center for Education Statistics)
OCR for page 321
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
Schools and Staffing Survey: Teacher Demand and Shortage Questionnaire for Public School Districts (1988 and 1991) (Sponsor: National Center for Education Statistics)
Schools and Staffing Survey: Public School Administrator Questionnaire (1988 and 1991) (Sponsor: National Center for Education Statistics)
Teacher Followup Survey: Questionnaire for Current Teachers (1989) (Sponsor: National Center for Education Statistics)
Teacher Followup Survey: Questionnaire for Former Teachers (1989) (Sponsor: National Center for Education Statistics)
Common Core of Data (1989–90) (Sponsor: National Center for Education Statistics)
National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988: Teacher Questionnaire (Base Questionnaire of 1988 and Following), Questionnaire for History, English, Mathematics, and Science Versions of 1990) (Sponsor: National Center for Education Statistics)
National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988: School Questionnaire (Base 1988 and 1990 Followup) (Sponsor: National Center for Education Statistics)
National Assessment of Educational Progress: Teacher Questionnaire for Grade 3, Grade 7, and Grade 11 (1986) (Sponsor: National Center for Education Statistics)
National Assessment of Educational Progress: Teacher Questionnaire for Grade 4 and Grade 8 (1988) (Sponsor: National Center for Education Statistics)
National Assessment of Educational Progress: Teacher Questionnaires for Math Teachers and For Science Teachers, both for Grade 8 (1990) (Sponsor: National Center for Education Statistics)
National Assessment of Educational Progress: Teacher Questionnaires for Grade 4, Mathematics Teachers and Writing Teachers, both for Grade 8 (1991–92) (Sponsor: National Center for Education Statistics)
National Longitudinal Study (NLS-72) (1972, 1973–74, 1974–75, 1976–77, 1978–80, and 1986) (Sponsor: National Center for Education Statistics)
High School and Beyond: Administrator and Teacher Surveys (1984) (Sponsor: National Center for Education Statistics)
Current Population Survey (March, May, and October 1991 and January 1992) (Sponsor: Bureau of the Census)
National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education: Teacher Questionnaire in (a) Elementary, (b) Elementary Mathematics, (c) Secondary, and (d) Secondary Mathematics (1985) (Sponsor: National Science Foundation)
OCR for page 322
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
National Surveys of Science and Mathematics Education: Principal Questionnaire (1985) (Sponsor: National Science Foundation)
Status of the American Public School Teacher (1991) (Sponsor: National Education Association)
American Freshman Survey (1990) (Sponsor: Cooperative Institutional Research Program. University of California, Los Angeles)
American Freshman Followup Survey (1991) (Sponsor: Cooperative Institutional Research Program, University of California, Los Angeles)
Association of American Colleges: Curriculum Data Base (1991) (Sponsor: Association of American Colleges)
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Base (1991) (Sponsor: National Center for Education Statistics)
Survey of 1989–90 College Graduates (1991) (Sponsor: National Center for Education Statistics)
Survey of 1985–86 College Graduates (1987) (Sponsor: National Center for Education Statistics)
Graduate Record Examination (1991) (Sponsor: Educational Testing Service)
Longitudinal Survey of American Youth: Teacher Questionnaires (1987, 89, and 90) (Sponsor: National Science Foundation)
Longitudinal Survey of American Youth: Student Questionnaire (1987, 88, 89, and 90) (Sponsor: National Science Foundation)
Longitudinal Survey of American Youth: Principal Questionnaire (1988–89) (Sponsor: National Science Foundation)
OCR for page 323
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
TABLE 1 Supply of Teachers for Public Education: Dependent Variables and Data Sources
Teacher Flow Variables
Key to Data Sourcesa
1. Entering leachers hired into positions (inflow): Numbers of entering teachers disaggregated by
A. Recent college graduates hired, disaggregated by
1. Grade level
1
24
25
2. Major teaching field
1
24
25
3. Subject matter specialty
1
24
25
4. Total recent college graduates hired
1
24
25
B. Entering teachers hired from the reserve pool, disaggregated by
1. Grade level
1
2. Major teaching field
1
3. Subject matter specialty
1
4. Total leachers hired from the reserve pool
1
C. Total entering teachers hired into positions disaggregated by
1. Grade level
1
10
11
2. Major teaching field
1
3. Subject matter specialty
1
10
11
4. Total entering teachers hired
1
2
8
10
11
12
17
II. Retained teachers in public education classified by type of position shift from one year to the next (withinflow): Numbers of retained teachers disaggretated by
A. Stable retention/no transfer (same school and teaching assignment): Numbers of teachers disaggregated by
1. Grade level
1
5
8
10
11
2. Major teaching field
1
5
3. Subject matter specialty
1
5
10
4. Total teachers retained in same school and teaching assignment
1
5
8
10
11
B. Transfer retention within public education, disaggregated by type of transfer supply to different positions in public education: Numbers of teachers transferring to different positions disaggregated by
1. Different school (school migration), same primary assignment dissaggregated by
a. Grade level
1
5
b. Major teaching field
1
5
c. Subject matter specialty
1
5
d. Total migrating teachers
1
5
2. Same school, different primary assignment (reassignment) disaggretated by
a. Grade level
1
5
b. Major teaching field
1
5
c. Subject matter specially
1
5
d. Total teachers reassigned
1
5
OCR for page 324
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
Teacher Flow Variables
Key to Data Sourcesa
3. Different school, different primary assignment disaggregated by
a. Grade level
1
5
b. Major teaching field
1
5
c. Subject matter specialty
1
5
d. Total teachers migrating and reassigned
1
5
C. School transfer supply within public education: Numbers of teachers transferring to a different school (school migration) whether or not changing primary teaching assignment (sum of categories II.B.1. and 3. above), disaggregated by
1. Grade level
1
5
8
10
11
2. Major teaching field
1
5
3. Subject matter specialty
1
5
10
4. Total migrating teachers
1
2
5
8
10
11
D. Total teachers retained in public education from one year to the next: Numbers of teachers retained disaggregated by
1. Grade level
1
5
8
10
11
2. Major teaching field
1
5
3. Subject matter specialty
1
5
10
12
13
4. Total teachers retained in public education
1
5
8
10
11
12
13
17
III. Total teachers employed in public education in any one year (sum of I.C. and II.D.): Numbers of teachers employed disaggregated by
A. Grade level
1
3
B. Major teaching field
1
C. Total teachers employed in public education
1
9
13
D. Total teachers employed in public education
1
2
3
8
9
13
17
27
29
IV. Attrition of teachers from public education from one year to the next (i.e., outflow): Numbers of exiting teachers disaggregated by
A. Grade level
6
B. Major teaching field
6
C. Subject matter specialty
6
D. Total exiting teachers
6
V. Reserve pool component: Former teachers unemployed since leaving teaching
A. Number of years out of work
16
B. Intention to look for work in next 12 months
16
aNumbers refer to preceding list of data source clusters.
OCR for page 325
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
TABLE 2 Supply of Teachers for Public Education: Independent Variables and Data Sources
Predictor Variables
Key to Data Sourcesa
I. Year of
A. Most recent entry into teaching
1
14
B. Exit attrition (last year in teaching)
6
14
II. Employment Status
A. Type of position
1. Regular: Full time
1
8
10
11
15
2. Regular: Part time
1
8
3. Substitute
1
8
10
11
25
4. Itinerant
1
B. Percent of full time
1
2
5
14
24
25
III. Teacher characteristics: Demographic
A. Age
1
8
10
11
14
15
16
17
19
24
25
B. Gender
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
24
25
C. Race/ethnicity
1
2
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
24
25
D. Marital/family status
1
5
6
14
15
16
19
24
25
E. Number of dependent children
1
5
6
24
25
VI. Teacher characteristics: Qualifications
A. Degree(s) earned by
1. Subject matter
(1) Major
1
5
6
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
24
25
27
(2) Minor
1
5
6
8
11
12
14
15
25
27
2. Level
1
2
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
16
17
19
27
3. Year
1
5
6
14
15
19
24
25
27
B. Type of teaching certification held
1
3
5
6
8
10
11
12
13
15
17
19
24
25
C. Nonteaching experience
1
6
14
D. Prior teaching experience
1. Any prior teaching experience
1
24
25
2. Number of years taught
a. In public sector
1
15
b. In private sector
1
15
c. Both sectors combined
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
19
27
3. Last year taught
14
15
4. Grade level(s) taught
1
10
15
5. Major teaching field(s)
1
15
6. Subject matter specialty(s)
1
E. Teacher competence ratings
18
F. Inservice training
1
8
12
13
17
19
27
G. College GPA
24
25
H. Tested ability score(s)
—
V. Teaching practice variables
1
8
10
11
12
13
17
27
OCR for page 326
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
Predictor Variables
Key to Data Sourcesa
VI. Financial Variables
A. Teacher compensation (current year)
1. Annual base teaching salary
1
3
5
19
24
25
29
2. Benefits provided
3
17
3. Salary/bonus inducements
1
5
9
19
4. Supplemental earnings opportunities
1
5
19
5. Extended contract
18
6. Subsidized retraining
17
18
B. Total family income
1
5
6
C. Relative wages by occupation
1. Local
—
2. State
—
3. National
16
D. Former earned income
6
14
15
E. Income earned in year after leaving teaching
6
F. Local employment rates
—
G. District (LEA) financial variables
—
H. Retirement financial incentives
—
VII. School Variables
A. Urbanicity
2
5
9
18
19
24
B. Total enrollment
2
9
18
C. Enrollment trends
2
D. Distance from high school home to school of employment
25
VIII. School transfer variable (from prior year)
A. Different school, same district
1
5
B. Different school, different district within same state
1
5
C. Different school in contiguous slate
1
5
D. Different school in noncontiguous state
1
5
XI. Distance from residence to school of employment
19
X. Working conditions
A. Teaching load
1. Number of teaching contact hours per week
1
10
13
19
27
2. Average number of students per contact hour
1
10
13
19
27
B. Availability of teaching assistant(s)
2
13
19
C. Adequacy of
1. Instructional materials
1
11
12
13
27
2. Instructional equipment
1
5
12
19
27
3. Administrative support
1
5
8
27
4. Teacher authority over
a. Instruction and marking
1
5
8
10
11
12
13
27
b. Student conduct
1
5
8
10
11
13
27
D. School safety
1
5
8
9
E. Student variables
1. Academic performance
1
11
12
13
17
27
2. SES
2
9
18
29
3. Race/ethnicity
2
9
17
18
29
aNumbers refer to preceding list of data source clusters.
OCR for page 327
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
TABLE 3 Demand for Teachers in Public Education: Dependent Variables and Data Sources
Teacher Demand Variables
Key to Data Sourcesa
1. Funded positions for teachers disaggregated by status from prior year: Numbers of funded full-time (FTE) positions by
A. Continued funded FTE positions from prior year: Numbers of continued FTE positions
—
B. Newly created and funded FTE positions for current year (i.e., new positions): Numbers of new FTE positions
—
C. Total funded FTE positions for current year: Numbers of total FTE positions disaggregated by
1. Grade level
—
2. Subject matter specialty
—
3. Total funded FTE positions
3
II. Funded positions for teachers disaggregated by filled vs shortage positions: Numbers of funded full-time equivalent (FTE) positions by
A. Positions filled by employed FTE teachers in current year, disaggregated by
1. Grade level
—
2. Subject matter specialty
—
3. Total employed FTE teachers
3
7
B. Teacher shortage for current year as measured by
1. Retained, but open, FTE positions for current year, disaggregated by
a. Grade level
—
b. Subject matter specialty
—
c. Total open FTE positions
3
2. Unfunded (i.e., discontinued) FTE positions for current year due to inadequate supply of applicants, disaggregated by
a. Grade level
—
b. Subject matter specialty
—
c. Total discontinued FTE positions
3
3. Total teacher shortage for current year, as measured by initially funded, but unfilled, FTE positions, disaggregated by
a. Grade level
—
b. Subject matter specialty
—
c. Total unfilled FTE positions
3
III. Unfunded (i.e., discontinued) positions for teachers from prior year: Numbers of discontinued FTE positions
—
IV. Teacher shortage for current year as measured by: Degree of difficulty in filling funded, but open, positions. disaggregated by
A. Grade level
—
B. Subject matter specialty
18
C. Overall difficulty in filling positions
4
18
aNumbers refer to preceding list of data source clusters.
OCR for page 328
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
TABLE 4 Demand for Teachers in Public Education: Independent Variables and Data Sources
Predictor Variables
Key to Data Sourcesa
I. Teachers required (i.e., needed) variables
A. Student enrollment variables
1. Student/population ratio
—
2. Student K-12 school enrollment
2
3
3. Public/private split of student enrollment
1
7
4. Public school student enrollment: Numbers of students disaggregated by
a. Instructional variables
(1) Level
2
3
7
(2) Subject matter
—
(3) Course
—
b. Student variables
(1) Age
3
(2) Race/ethnicity
2
7
(3) Special needs
(a) Handicap
2
7
(b) Limited English proficiency
2
(4) Free lunch eligible
2
3
7
B. Curriculum requirements
1. Elementary school
—
2. High school graduation
3
C. Work load variables
1. Planned teacher-pupil ratio
—
2. Teaching load: Number of teaching contact hours per week
—
D. Total teachers required (i.e. needed)
—
II. Financial variables
A. Exogenous financial variables
—
B. District (LEA) endogenous financial variable
—
III. Employment obligations to teachers retained from prior year
—
IV. School variables
A. Urbanicity
2
7
B. Student enrollment
2
7
C. Number of teachers
2
7
V. LEA Variables
A. Urbanicity
7
B. Student enrollment
3
7
C. Number of teachers
3
7
D. Number of schools
7
aNumbers refer to preceding list of data source clusters.
OCR for page 329
Teacher Supply, Demand, and Quality: Policy Issues, Models, and Data Bases.
TABLE 5 Student Interest In and Preparation for Teaching Careers
Student Variables
Key to Data Sourcesa
I. Student interest in teaching careers
A. Educational level of interested persons
1. Students in seventh grade
28
2. High school seniors
28
3. College freshmen
20
4. College upperclassmen
21
5. College graduates
26
B. Demographic characteristics of interested persons
1. Age
20
21
22
26
28
2. Gender
20
21
22
26
28
3. Race/ethnicity
21
22
26
C. Tested ability scores of students interested in enrolling in teacher preparation programs
21
22
26
D. Grade point averages
1. High school
28
2. College
26
II. Teacher education enrollments disaggregated by
A. Subject matter specialty
22
B. Degree level
—
C. Total teacher education enrollments
22
III. Teacher education enrollments as a proportion of total higher education enrollments at the baccalaureate level
22
IV. Number of teacher education graduates disaggregated by
A. Grade level
23
B. Major teaching field
23
C. Subject matter specialty
23
D. Degree level
23
E. Total teacher education graduates
23
24
25
V. Year of graduation from teacher education program
8
14
15
24
25
VI. Sources of college funding
24
25
aNumbers refer to preceding list of data source clusters.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
longitudinal study
