Download:
pdf |
pdff
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Authors
Minsun Riddles
Leslie Wallace
Lou Rizzo
David Marker
August 22, 2017
Prepared for:
National Center of Education Statistics
550 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20006
Prepared by:
Westat
An Employee-Owned Research Corporation®
1600 Research Boulevard
Rockville, Maryland 20850-3129
(301) 251-1500
Table of Contents
Chapter
Page
1
Introduction ........................................................................................................
1
2
School Questionnaire Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16 ..................
4
2.1
2.2
5
9
Response Rate .......................................................................................
Follow Up ..............................................................................................
3
Principal Questionnaire Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16 ..............
16
4
Teacher Listing Form Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16..................
18
5
Teacher Questionnaire Response Rate in NTPS 2015-16 ............................
27
6
Teacher Questionnaire Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16 ................
38
7
Experimental Study in NTPS 2015-16 ............................................................
43
8
Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................
46
A
School Control Data File Analysis: Details and Assumptions
Made .....................................................................................................................
A-1
B
Teacher Control Data File Analysis: Details and Assumptions
Made .....................................................................................................................
B-1
C
School Questionnaire Experience: Detailed Tables ......................................
C-1
D
Teacher Questionnaire Response Rates: Detailed Tables ...........................
D-1
E
Teacher Questionnaire Response Experience: Detailed Tables ..................
E-1
F
Experimental Study Detailed Tables................................................................
F-1
2-1.
SASS 2011-12 school response and eligibility rates .......................................
4
2-2.
NTPS 2015-16 school response and eligibility rates .....................................
4
Appendixes
Tables
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates
and Field Collection Experience
iii
Contents (continued)
Tables (continued)
Page
2-3.
NTPS 2015-16 school eligibility and response rates, major
domains ................................................................................................................
6
2-4.
SASS 2011-12 Linear regression parameter estimates, standard
errors, t-statistics, p-values for school completion rates...............................
8
2-5.
NTPS 2015-16 Linear regression parameter estimates, standard
errors, t-statistics, p-values for school completion rates...............................
9
2-6.
Number of schools by priority status and by survey coordinator
status, NTPS 2015-16 ........................................................................................
11
2-7.
Response follow-up experience with school interview final
respondents, among non-priority schools with a survey
coordinator, NTPS 2015-16 ..............................................................................
12
Response follow-up experience with school interview final
respondents, among non-priority schools without a survey
coordinator ..........................................................................................................
13
2-9.
Response follow-up experience with school interview final
respondents, among priority schools ...............................................................
13
2-10.
Response follow-up experience with school interview final
respondents, among priority schools with a survey coordinator .................
13
2-11.
Response follow-up experience with school interview final
respondents, among priority schools without a survey
coordinator ..........................................................................................................
14
3-1.
NTPS 2015-16 principal eligibility and response rates, major
domains ................................................................................................................
17
4-1.
NTPS 2015-16 TLF eligibility and response rates, major domains.............
19
4-2.
Response follow-up experience for final TLF respondents among
non-priority schools with a survey coordinator, NTPS 2015-16.................
20
4-3.
Response follow-up experience for final TLF respondents among
non-priority schools without a survey coordinator, NTPS 201516 ...........................................................................................................................
20
2-8.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates
and Field Collection Experience
iv
Contents (continued)
Tables (continued)
Page
4-4.
Response follow-up experience for final TLF respondents among
priority schools, NTPS 2015-16 .......................................................................
21
4-5.
Response follow-up experience for final TLF respondents among
priority schools with a survey coordinator, NTPS 2015-16 .........................
21
4-6.
Response follow-up experience for final TLF respondents among
priority schools without a survey coordinator, NTPS 2015-16 ...................
21
4-7.
Weighted distribution of number of days after initial school mailout for initially fielding teacher questionnaires for SASS 2011-12
and NTPS 2015-16. ............................................................................................
23
4-8.
Regression coefficients for number of eligible teachers ...............................
25
4-9.
Regression coefficients for teacher eligibility rate..........................................
26
5-1.
SASS 2011-12 public school teacher response and eligibility rates .............
27
5-2.
NTPS 2015-16 public school teacher response and eligibility rates............
27
5-3.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher weighted response rates, with and without
alternative TLFs included ..................................................................................
28
5-4.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates, major school
domains ................................................................................................................
30
5-5.
NTPS 2015-16 public school teacher wave and initial mailout
date........................................................................................................................
31
5-6.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates for early
teacher wave group, major school domains....................................................
33
5-7.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates for middle
teacher wave group, major school domains....................................................
34
5-8.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates for late
teacher wave group, major school domains....................................................
35
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates
and Field Collection Experience
v
Contents (continued)
Tables (continued)
5-9.
Page
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates by
nonresponse follow-up experimental group, major school
domains ................................................................................................................
37
6-1.
Response follow-up experience with teacher interview final
respondents .........................................................................................................
38
6-2.
Response follow-up experience with teacher interview final
respondents in early teacher wave group ........................................................
38
6-3.
Response follow-up experience with teacher interview final
respondents in middle teacher wave group ....................................................
39
6-4.
Response follow-up experience with teacher interview final
respondents in late teacher wave group ..........................................................
39
6-5.
Response follow-up experience with teacher interview final
respondents from non-priority schools without a survey
coordinator ..........................................................................................................
40
6-6.
Response follow-up experience with teacher interview final
respondents from non-priority schools with a survey coordinator.............
40
6-7.
Response follow-up experience with teacher interview final
respondents from priority schools without a survey coordinator ...............
40
6-8.
Response follow-up experience with teacher interview final
respondents from priority schools with a survey coordinator .....................
41
6-9.
Response follow-up experience with teacher-interview final
respondents by nonresponse experimental group, NTPS 2015-16.............
42
7-1.
Response rate comparison by experimental group and by
questionnaire, NTPS 2015-16 ...........................................................................
44
A-1.
Relevant stages of data collection by type of case .........................................
A-4
A-2.
Setting the “in” flags for each process.............................................................
A-4
A-3.
Rules for assigning follow-up experience flags by type of case ...................
A-6
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates
and Field Collection Experience
vi
Contents (continued)
Tables (continued)
Page
B-1.
Relevant stages of data collection for teachers ...............................................
B-2
B-2.
Setting the “in” flags for each process.............................................................
B-3
B-3.
Rules for assigning follow-up experience flag by flag value, all
teachers .................................................................................................................
B-4
C-1.
Percentage of school respondents that received no/limited
follow-up by school domain, among non-priority schools with a
survey coordinator ..............................................................................................
C-3
Percentage of school respondents that received survey
coordinator follow-up (telephone reminder) and mailout by
school domain, among non-priority schools with a survey
coordinator ..........................................................................................................
C-4
Percentage of school respondents that received telephone and
mail follow-up by school domain, among non-priority schools
with a survey coordinator ..................................................................................
C-5
Percentage of school respondents that received field follow-up by
school domain, among non-priority schools with a survey
coordinator ..........................................................................................................
C-6
C-5.
Percentage of school respondents that received no/limited
follow-up by school domain, among priority schools ...................................
C-8
C-6.
Percentage of school respondents that received phase 1 follow-up
by school domain, among priority schools .....................................................
C-9
C-7.
Percentage of school respondents that received further follow-up
after phase 1 by school domain, among priority schools .............................
C-10
C-8.
Percentage of school respondents that received no/limited
follow-up by school domain, among non-priority schools without
a survey coordinator ...........................................................................................
C-12
Percentage of school respondents that received phase 1 follow-up
by school domain, among non-priority schools without a survey
coordinator ..........................................................................................................
C-13
C-2.
C-3.
C-4.
C-9.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates
and Field Collection Experience
vii
Contents (continued)
Tables (continued)
C-10.
Page
Percentage of school respondents that received further follow-up
after phase 1 by school domain, among non-priority schools
without a survey coordinator ............................................................................
C-14
D-1.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates, teacher
domains ................................................................................................................
D-3
D-2.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates for teacher
early wave group, teacher domains ..................................................................
D-5
D-3.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates for middle
teacher wave group, teacher domains ..............................................................
D-7
D-4.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates for late
teacher wave group, teacher domains ..............................................................
D-9
D-5A.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates by
nonresponse follow-up experimental group, major school
domains ................................................................................................................
D-12
D-5B.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates by
nonresponse follow-up experimental group, teacher domains ....................
D-14
E-1A.
Percentage of teacher respondents with no/limited follow-up by
school domain by teacher wave group, NTPS 2015-16 ................................
E-3
E-1B.
Percentage of teacher respondents with no/limited follow-up by
teacher domain by teacher wave group, NTPS 2015-16...............................
E-4
E-2A.
Percentage of teacher respondents with telephone/mail follow-up
by school domain by teacher wave group, NTPS 2015-16 ..........................
E-6
E-2B.
Percentage of teacher respondents with telephone/mail follow-up
by teacher domain by teacher wave group, NTPS 2015-16 ........................
E-7
E-3A.
Percentage of teacher respondents with field follow-up by school
domain by teacher wave group, NTPS 2015-16 ............................................
E-9
E-3B.
Percentage of teacher respondents with telephone/mail follow-up
by teacher domain by teacher wave group, NTPS 2015-16 ........................
E-10
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates
and Field Collection Experience
viii
Contents (continued)
Tables (continued)
E-4.
Page
Percentage of teacher respondents with telephone or mail followup by nonresponse follow-up experimental group by
school/teacher domain, NTPS 2015-16..........................................................
E-13
F-1.
School response rate comparison by experimental group and by
school domain, NTPS 2015-16 ........................................................................
F-3
F-2.
Principal response rate comparison by experimental group and by
school domain, NTPS 2015-16 ........................................................................
F-4
F-3.
Teacher listing form response rate comparison by experimental
group and by school domain, NTPS 2015-16 ................................................
F-5
1-1.
2015-16 NTPS production data collection operations..................................
3
2-1.
Follow-up required prior to response with school-interview final
respondents by survey coordinator status and by priority status,
NTPS 2015-16.....................................................................................................
14
Follow-up required prior to response with TLF final respondents
by survey coordinator status and by priority status, NTPS 201516 ...........................................................................................................................
22
5-1.
NTPS 2015-16 public school teacher response rate by teacher
wave group...........................................................................................................
32
6-1.
Follow-up required prior to response with teacher-interview final
respondents by teacher wave group, NTPS 2015-16 ....................................
39
6-2.
Follow-up required prior to response with teacher-interview final
respondents by survey coordinator status and by priority status,
NTPS 2015-16.....................................................................................................
41
Figures
4-1.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates
and Field Collection Experience
ix
Introduction
1
The National Teachers and Principals Survey (NTPS) has an active program in adaptive design.
Response rates to federal surveys have been dropping almost universally, and the Schools and
Staffing Survey (SASS) has not been immune from this long-term secular decline in response rates.
The National Center of Education Statistics has been committed to overcoming this decline and
ameliorating the effects of this decline (where it can’t be overcome) through aggressive, systematic
adjustments in its field data collection. This effort includes changes in fielding procedures and
experimentation with new methods. For the 2015-16 NTPS, the following changes were made:
School survey coordinators were recruited within as many schools as possible, given the
good experience with this collection approach in SASS 2011-12.
Schools were defined as priority schools and non-priority schools, based on their
relative importance and our understanding of how difficult it would be to recruit them
for NTPS 2015-16. Among the factors which lead to a definition of a school as a
priority school is that it is in a ‘special district’ (a district which requires specialized
recruitment), it is a school with a large weight (making it important in estimates), and/or
it has a low propensity to respond based on its characteristics (e.g., it is a city school, a
high poverty school, a high school).
Priority schools received more aggressive data collection efforts in NTPS 2015-16, including a field
visit fairly early in the data collection process, bypassing telephone and mail reminder phases. Nonpriority schools with no school coordinator recruited also received these more aggressive data
collection efforts. Figure 1-1 below presents graphically the 2015-16 NTPS production data
collection operations. Results are presented in Sections 2 through 6, with details in Appendices A
through E.
Another change from SASS 2011-12 was the use of alternative methods for collecting Teacher
Listing Forms (TLFs). The only purpose of collecting TLFs is to provide a frame for teacher
sampling, with the teacher samples being selected for receiving teacher questionnaires. Any delay in
receiving TLFs from the schools leads to late teacher samples being drawn for the school, which
compresses the time period for teacher data collection. This in turn reduces teacher response rates.
Receiving late TLFs may be no better ultimately than receiving none at all if little time is left for
follow-up teacher questionnaire data collection. In NPTS 2015-16, two alternative methods were put
into place for collecting TLFs from non-cooperative schools: the collection of TLFs from
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
1
Introduction
1
commercial vendors, and clerical operations utilizing school websites. In the former case, a
commercial vendor of teacher lists was utilized to provide teacher lists to NCES from schools that
did not return TLFs quickly. This was found to be successful in the Pilot Test in the 2014-15 school
year (the lists were found to compare well to TLFs also collected from the school itself, and the
whole process was found to be much less expensive than direct TLF collection from the schools). In
the latter case, Census personnel went onto publicly accessible school or district websites to collect
teacher lists, where those were available online. Results of this experiment are presented in Sections
5 and 6, and Appendices D and E.
A field collection experiment was carried out for teacher questionnaire data collection. In this field
experiment teachers who were assigned to telephone nonresponse follow-up (excluding those who
sent in their questionnaires before this phase) were randomly assigned to either receive the regular
series of reminder telephone calls, or to receive a special series of late afternoon telephone calls. The
regular series of telephone cells are done throughout the school day before 2:00 pm, with further
later afternoon telephone calls between 2:00 pm and 5:00 pm. This was done on the theory that
teachers might be easier to reach at this point in the school day than at other times. Results of this
are presented in Section 6, with details in Appendix E.
In SASS 2011-12, an experiment was carried out on doing much of the data collection through the
internet. Internet data collection, if successful, can considerably reduce costs, so that even if
response rate outcomes and the characteristics of respondents through the internet mode are
equivalent to direct data collection, there would be a strong argument for this data collection regime.
Unfortunately, the experience in SASS 2011-12 was not positive: while the respondent
characteristics were similar regardless of the data collection mode, response rates from the internet
data collection branch were significantly lower. Internet data collection was dropped from the main
data collection all together, but NCES decided to at least try this branch with some modifications in
the data collection as a stand-alone experiment with 1,000 schools (beyond the 8,300 schools in the
main 2015-16 NTPS sample). The results of this experiment are provided in Section 7 and Appendix
F.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
2
Introduction
Figure 1-1.
2015-16 NTPS production data collection operations
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
3
1
School Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
2
We begin with a comparison of SASS 2011-12 and NTPS 2015-16 in the overall school
questionnaire response experience, and by domain. Some of this difference is the difference between
years (changes in response “environment”), and some will be due to shifts in data collection between
the two cycles. Differences in sample design (differing oversampling rates between SASS 2011-12
and NTPS 2015-16) can be eliminated by utilizing weighted response rates.
Table 2-1 below presents unweighted and weighted counts from the SASS 2011-12 school sample.
The weighted counts utilize the school base weight (the sum of the weighted counts is an estimate of
the total number of schools).
Table 2-1.
SASS 2011-12 school response and eligibility rates1
SASS 2011-12
School outcomes
Completes
Nonrespondents
Ineligible
Total sample
Survey count
7,481
2,874
645
11,000
Survey unweighted
percent
68.01%
26.13%
5.86%
100.00%
Weighted survey
count
64,960
24,825
5,595
95,380
Survey weighted
percent
68.11%
26.03%
5.87%
100.00%
Table 2-2 presents the same information from the NTPS 2015-16 school sample.
Table 2-2.
NTPS 2015-16 school response and eligibility rates2
NTPS 2015-16
School outcomes
Completes
Nonrespondents
Ineligible
Total sample
Survey count
5,765
2,262
273
8,300
Survey unweighted
percent
69.46%
27.25%
3.29%
100.00%
Weighted survey
count
66,058
25,036
3,738
94,832
Survey weighted
percent
69.66%
26.40%
3.94%
100.00%
1
This is the same as Table E-1A in the report “NTPS 2017-18 Public School Sample Design Including State-Level
Estimates,” dated March 3, 2017.
2
This is the same as Table E-1B in the report “NTPS 2017-18 Public School Sample Design Including State-Level
Estimates,” dated March 3, 2017.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
4
School Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
2.1
2
Response Rate
The percentages of nonrespondents for SASS 2011-12 and NTPS 2015-16 are broadly comparable,
though the percentage of ineligible schools has dropped in NTPS 2015-16 as compared to SASS
2011-12. One can say that NTPS 2015-16 school questionnaire response is about the same as SASS
2011-12 school questionnaire response overall.
Eligibility and response rates for NTPS 2015-16 school questionnaires are presented in Table 2-3.
Both rates were computed unweighted and weighted. Table 2-3 also includes the standard errors and
95% confidence intervals for the weighted response rates. The school base full sample and replicate
weights are used for any statistics for weighted rates. The response rates for domains with a
statistically significant difference in response rate are in bold and italic. Rao-Scott Chi-Square tests
are conducted to detect any differences. Response rates for school questionnaires differ by special
district flag, school span, urbanicity, Census region, poverty level, and school size. Response rates
are lower for schools in special districts, city and suburban schools, Northeastern schools, low
poverty schools (percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch less than 34%), and
high poverty schools (percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch equal to or
greater than 75%). Response rates are higher for combined schools, Midwestern schools, and those
with an enrollment of 100-199 students in NTPS 2015-16.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
5
Special district
Not special district
1,449
6,851
1,421
6,608
822
4,952
98.1%
96.5%
57.8%
74.9%
97.2%
95.9%
58.3%
75.6%
1.2%
0.5%
56.0%
74.5%
60.6%
76.7%
Charter
Non-charter
1,173
7,127
1,094
6,935
783
4,991
93.3%
97.3%
71.6%
72.0%
92.5%
96.4%
73.1%
72.6%
1.4%
0.5%
70.3%
71.5%
75.9%
73.6%
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
3,708
1,441
2,054
1,097
3,626
1,420
1,981
1,002
2,607
1,003
1,377
787
97.8%
98.5%
96.4%
91.3%
71.9%
70.6%
69.5%
78.5%
97.8%
98.3%
93.8%
87.5%
72.7%
72.1%
70.6%
78.8%
0.7%
1.2%
1.3%
1.4%
71.2%
69.9%
68.0%
76.0%
74.1%
74.4%
73.1%
81.6%
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
2,507
2,585
1,201
2,007
2,395
2,520
1,161
1,953
1,564
1,715
930
1,565
95.5%
97.5%
96.7%
97.3%
65.3%
68.1%
80.1%
80.1%
94.9%
96.7%
95.7%
96.9%
65.3%
69.3%
79.5%
80.7%
1.1%
0.9%
1.4%
0.9%
63.2%
67.5%
76.8%
78.8%
67.4%
71.1%
82.1%
82.5%
6
NTPS 2015-16 school eligibility and response rates, major domains
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
1,352
1,924
3,200
1,824
1,332
1,849
3,087
1,761
890
1,434
2,181
1,269
98.5%
96.1%
96.5%
96.5%
66.8%
77.6%
70.7%
72.1%
98.1%
94.8%
96.0%
96.2%
67.3%
77.9%
71.3%
72.7%
1.3%
1.0%
0.9%
1.2%
64.8%
75.9%
69.6%
70.4%
69.8%
79.9%
73.0%
75.1%
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
2,416
1,395
2,331
2,158
2,323
1,357
2,270
2,079
1,621
1,023
1,703
1,427
96.2%
97.3%
97.4%
96.3%
69.8%
75.4%
75.0%
68.6%
95.9%
96.7%
95.9%
96.2%
69.7%
75.8%
76.1%
70.0%
1.1%
1.2%
1.0%
1.2%
67.5%
73.4%
74.1%
67.7%
71.8%
78.2%
78.1%
72.4%
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1,000+
404
551
2,820
2,151
1,035
1,339
342
512
2,733
2,098
1,022
1,322
262
428
2,027
1,519
692
846
84.7%
92.9%
96.9%
97.5%
98.7%
98.7%
76.6%
83.6%
74.2%
72.4%
67.7%
64.0%
80.5%
94.7%
97.5%
97.9%
98.9%
99.0%
73.6%
84.0%
74.2%
71.9%
67.8%
64.3%
3.0%
1.8%
0.9%
1.0%
1.5%
1.3%
67.6%
80.4%
72.3%
69.9%
64.7%
61.6%
79.6%
87.5%
76.0%
73.9%
70.8%
67.0%
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
7,641
158
111
390
7,485
125
99
320
5,392
89
74
219
98.0%
79.1%
89.2%
82.1%
72.0%
71.2%
74.7%
68.4%
97.9%
74.8%
92.1%
78.8%
73.0%
72.2%
74.7%
66.3%
0.5%
5.4%
5.9%
3.5%
72.0%
61.5%
63.1%
59.4%
73.9%
82.9%
86.4%
73.2%
Domain
All
Sample
size
8,300
Number of
Eligible
schools
Completes
8,029
5,774*
Unweighted
Eligibility
Response
rate
rate
96.7%
71.9%
Eligibility
rate
96.1%
Response
rate
72.6%
Weighted
Std.
error
0.5%
Lower
bound CI
71.6%
Upper
bound CI
73.6%
2
* The numbers of eligible cases and completed cases are different from the numbers presented in Table 2-2. The discrepancy is caused by the discrepancy between the status on the school
control data file and the ISR on the final school DOC file.
School Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table 2-3.
School Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
2
Our approach was to use as our base analysis a fit of a weighted linear regression model on the
completion status variable (1 if complete, 0 if nonrespondent or ineligible) as a dependent variable,
with class predictor variables by urbanicity, school size, school span, and poverty status. We chose a
linear regression model rather than a logistic regression model as we wanted the predicted
propensity estimates values to have the same mean within each domain as the completion status
variable. This only occurs with linear regression; logistic regression has a nonlinear ‘link’ function,
and the completion propensities derived from the nonlinear model will not be fully consistent with
the actual completion rates.3 Table 2-4 presents the results from this weighted linear regression
model on the SASS 2011-12 school sample. The weights are the school base weights, and the
standard errors are based on the replicate base weights from SASS 2011-12 (PROC SURVEYREG
on SAS was utilized to do this fit). For all domain sets, the parameter estimates are in terms of the
“last” level (rural for urbanicity, high poverty for poverty, greater than 1,000 enrollment for school
size). The F-statistics for testing the null hypothesis of no effect for the domain set as a predictor of
completion rates are highly significant for all domain sets. Table 2-5 presents the same model fitted
to the NTPS 2015-16 school sample (with its weights and replicate weights).
The NTPS 2015-16 differences in Table 2-5 are less than the SASS 2011-12 differences in Table 2-4,
indicating a success in the adaptive design for NTPS 2015-16, which had as its objective the
reduction of differences in response rates across these important school domains. The response
gaps between city and suburban schools on one side, and town and rural schools on the other side,
were smaller in NTPS 2015-16 compared to SASS 2011-12. The response gap between high poverty
(percent students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch greater than 75%) and other schools was
smaller in NPTS 2015-16 compared to SASS 2011-12. The gap between combined schools and
other schools was smaller as well. The current paradigm for reducing response bias stresses the
reduction of differences between response propensities as much as increasing the overall response
rate4, and on this score NTPS 2015-16 was a great success.
3
One drawback to a linear regression model is that the predicted propensity values can be less than 0 or greater than 1.
A logistic regression model avoids this. But this did not occur in this model fit.
4
See for example Schouten, B., Cobben, F., and Bethlehem, J. (2009), Indicators for the Representativeness of Survey
Response,” Survey Methodology 35, 101-113.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
7
School Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
Table 2-4.
2
SASS 2011-12 Linear regression parameter estimates, standard errors, t-statistics,
p-values for school completion rates5
Domain
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
Percent FRPL* < 35%
35% <= Percent FRPL < 50%
50% <= Percent FRPL < 75%
75% <= Percent FRPL
Enrollment < 100
100 <= Enrollment < 200
200 <= Enrollment < 500
500 <= Enrollment < 750
750 <= Enrollment < 1000
1000 <= Enrollment
Parameter estimate
(percentage completion)
11.40%
12.64%
7.13%
0.00%
-24.58%
-15.05%
-2.32%
0.00%
5.63%
5.08%
5.77%
0.00%
-11.18%
-5.51%
2.23%
0.26%
-1.00%
0.00%
Standard error
of estimate
3.13%
3.49%
3.13%
0.00%
1.84%
1.67%
2.49%
0.00%
2.13%
2.06%
1.62%
0.00%
2.94%
3.41%
1.85%
2.79%
2.59%
0.00%
T-statistic
3.64
3.63
2.27
.
-13.34
-8.99
-0.93
.
2.64
2.46
3.56
.
-3.80
-1.61
1.21
0.09
-0.39
.
P-value
0.0005
0.0005
0.0254
.
<.0001
<.0001
0.3551
.
0.0098
0.0158
0.0006
.
0.0003
0.1101
0.2313
0.9254
0.6991
.
* Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
5
Note that this is identical to Table E-2A in our “NTPS 2017-18 Public School Sample Design Including State-Level
Estimates” report dated March 3, 2017.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
8
School Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
Table 2-5.
NTPS 2015-16 Linear regression parameter estimates, standard errors, t-statistics,
p-values for school completion rates6
Domain
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
Percent FRPL* < 35%
35% <= Percent FRPL < 50%
50% <= Percent FRPL < 75%
75% <= Percent FRPL
Enrollment < 100
100 <= Enrollment < 200
200 <= Enrollment < 500
500 <= Enrollment < 750
750 <= Enrollment < 1000
1000 <= Enrollment
*
2
Parameter estimate
(percentage completion)
3.63%
3.59%
-0.25%
0.00%
-16.09%
-10.83%
-2.13%
0.00%
-2.40%
1.95%
2.03%
0.00%
-9.06%
8.80%
3.08%
2.97%
0.66%
0.00%
Standard error
of estimate
1.86%
2.13%
2.21%
0.00%
1.70%
1.65%
1.88%
0.00%
1.84%
1.90%
1.71%
0.00%
3.71%
2.47%
1.96%
1.90%
2.24%
0.00%
T-statistic
1.95
1.68
-0.11
.
-9.47
-6.57
-1.13
.
-1.3
1.03
1.19
.
-2.44
3.56
1.57
1.56
0.3
.
P-value
0.0528
0.0936
0.9112
.
<.0001
<.0001
0.258
.
0.1936
0.3063
0.2373
.
0.0154
0.0005
0.1175
0.1196
0.7667
.
Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
2.2
Follow Up
Among the schools that responded to the school questionnaire, the degree of follow-up necessary to
achieve a positive response outcome (i.e., a completed interview) is studied. In NTPS 2015-16,
schools received different follow-up depending on whether the school had a survey coordinator or
not, and whether the school is a priority school.
Table 2-6 presents the number of sampled schools by priority status and by survey coordinator
status. The priority status was determined based on the response rates for SASS 2011-12. School
domains with lower response rates got priority in terms of follow-up effort in order to boost the
response rates of the low-responding domains for this cycle. Most of the schools in special districts
are priority schools while almost all non-special district schools are non-priority ones. City schools,
high poverty schools, large schools, and alternative schools have higher percentages of priority
schools than other types of schools. The survey coordinator status also varies by school domain.
The domains with higher percentages of priority schools coincide with the domains with lower
6
Note that this is identical to Table E-2Bd in our “NTPS 2017-18 Public School Sample Design Including State-Level
Estimates” report dated March 3, 2017.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
9
School Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
2
percentages of schools with a survey coordinator (a survey coordinator was recruited at each school:
those schools without a coordinator were self-selected as such). This can be evidence that these
domains are still less cooperative than others. These domains are shaded in the table.
Among the final school-interview respondents that are non-priority schools with a survey
coordinator, we break out weighted percentages to the following four categories (every final school
interview falls into one of these follow-up-level categories):
School interview completed before third school mailout (no or limited follow-up);
School interview completed before telephone follow-up (survey coordinator telephone
reminder and third or fourth mailout);
School interview completed before Phase 2 field follow-up (follow-up including all
telephone and mailout phases, no field); or
School interview completed after Phase 2 field follow-up (follow-up including field
follow-up).
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
10
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table 2-6.
Number of schools by priority status and by survey coordinator status, NTPS 2015-16
Domain
Special district
Not special district
Sampled schools
1,449
6,851
Non-priority
schools
267
6,809
Priority
schools
1,182
42
Percent
priority
schools
81.6%
0.6%
Schools without a
survey
coordinator
927
3,398
Schools with a
survey
coordinator
522
3,453
Percent
schools
with a survey
coordinator
36.0%
50.4%
11
1,010
6,066
163
1,061
13.9%
14.9%
641
3,684
532
3,443
45.4%
48.3%
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
3,708
1,441
2,054
1,097
3,112
1,230
1,753
981
596
211
301
116
16.1%
14.6%
14.7%
10.6%
1,862
754
1,143
566
1,846
687
911
531
49.8%
47.7%
44.4%
48.4%
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
2,507
2,585
1,201
2,007
1,725
2,196
1,174
1,981
782
389
27
26
31.2%
15.0%
2.2%
1.3%
1,526
1,358
560
881
981
1,227
641
1,126
39.1%
47.5%
53.4%
56.1%
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
1,352
1,924
3,200
1,824
1,131
1,803
2,642
1,500
221
121
558
324
16.3%
6.3%
17.4%
17.8%
733
880
1,729
983
619
1,044
1,471
841
45.8%
54.3%
46.0%
46.1%
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
2,416
1,395
2,331
2,158
2,188
1,251
2,058
1,579
228
144
273
579
9.4%
10.3%
11.7%
26.8%
1,186
664
1,164
1,311
1,230
731
1,167
847
50.9%
52.4%
50.1%
39.2%
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
404
551
2,820
2,151
1,035
1,339
339
502
2,463
1,830
851
1,091
65
49
357
321
184
248
16.1%
8.9%
12.7%
14.9%
17.8%
18.5%
217
268
1,418
1,092
573
757
187
283
1,402
1,059
462
582
46.3%
51.4%
49.7%
49.2%
44.6%
43.5%
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
7,641
158
111
390
6,543
133
97
303
1,098
25
14
87
14.4%
15.8%
12.6%
22.3%
3,914
91
57
263
3,727
67
54
127
48.8%
42.4%
48.6%
32.6%
2
1,173
7,127
School Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
Charter
Non-charter
School Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
2
These categories are ordered by the level of follow-up that was required for responding schoolinterviews. Appendix A provides details regarding the assumption and analyses based on the
available paradata that led to defining each responding school questionnaire to one of these four
categories. Table 2-7 presents the distribution of four response follow-up categories among the nonpriority schools with a survey coordinator that completed the school-interview. Table 2-7 shows that
almost three fourths of the responding schools participated in the survey with no or limited followup and almost 90% of the responding schools responded before any telephone or field follow-up
phases. The table also suggests that up to about 7% of the school respondents would have been lost
without field follow-up. It should be noted that since some of them might have eventually
responded without field follow-up, the potential lost could have been smaller than 7%.
Table 2-7.
Response follow-up experience with school interview final respondents, among nonpriority schools with a survey coordinator, NTPS 2015-16
Response follow-up category
No or limited follow-up
Survey coordinator telephone reminder & mailout
Telephone and mail follow-up, no field
Field follow-up
Total respondents
Unweighted
respondent
count
2,202
552
164
209
3,127
Unweighted
respondent
percent
70.42%
17.65%
5.24%
6.68%
100.00%
Weighted
respondent
count
34,421
8,424
2,328
3,041
48,213
Weighted
respondent
percent
71.39%
17.47%
4.83%
6.31%
100.00%
Standard
error
0.88%
0.75%
0.42%
0.47%
For the final school-interview respondents that are priority schools or non-priority schools without a
survey coordinator, we break out weighted percentages to the following three categories.
School interview completed before Phase 1 field follow-up (no or limited follow-up);
School interview completed after Phase 1 field follow-up (follow-up with Phase 1 field
follow-up); and
School interview completed after further follow-up after Phase 1 field follow-up
(follow-up including all phases);
Tables 2-8 and 2-9 show the response follow-up experience for non-priority schools without a
survey coordinator and for priority schools, respectively. Due to low response rate from these
schools in the past cycle, these schools received field follow-up more promptly than the non-priority
school with a survey coordinator.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
12
School Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
Table 2-8.
Response follow-up experience with school interview final respondents, among nonpriority schools without a survey coordinator
Response follow-up category
No or limited follow-up
Phase 1 field follow-up
Further follow-up after phase 1
Total respondents
Table 2-9.
2
Unweighted
respondent
count
561
1,139
248
1,948
Unweighted
respondent
percent
28.80%
58.47%
12.73%
100.00%
Weighted
respondent
count
9,067
17,180
3,750
29,997
Weighted
respondent
percent
30.23%
57.27%
12.50%
100.00%
Standard
error
1.18%
1.23%
0.89%
Response follow-up experience with school interview final respondents, among
priority schools
Response follow-up category
No or limited follow-up
Phase 1 field follow-up
Further follow-up after phase 1
Total respondents
Unweighted
respondent
count
315
299
85
699
Unweighted
respondent
percent
45.06%
42.78%
12.16%
100.00%
Weighted
respondent
count
5,315
5,437
1,442
12,195
Weighted
respondent
percent
43.59%
44.59%
11.83%
100.00%
Standard
error
1.89%
1.86%
1.32%
Almost 90% of non-priority schools without a survey coordinator completed the survey without
further follow-up after phase 1 field follow-up, and only about 30% of non-priority schools without
a survey coordinator completed the survey before any field follow-up.
Similar to non-priority schools without a survey coordinator almost 90% of priority schools
completed the survey without further follow-up after phase 1 field follow-up. However, about 45%
of responding priority schools completed the survey before any filed follow-up.
As mentioned earlier, some priority schools had a survey coordinator and the others did not.
Although the data collection procedure was the same for priority schools in NTPS 2015-16
regardless of whether a survey coordinator is recruited or not, we looked at the follow-up experience
of priority schools by survey coordinator status in Tables 2-10 and 2-11. This was done in an effort
not only to see the relationship between having a survey coordinator and degree of follow-up
necessary to achieve a positive response outcome among priority schools, but also to control a
possible confounding effect of having a survey coordinator when priority schools are compared to
non-priority schools.
Table 2-10.
Response follow-up experience with school interview final respondents, among
priority schools with a survey coordinator
Response follow-up category
Unweighted
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Unweighted
13
Weighted
Weighted
Standard
2
School Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
No or limited follow-up
Phase 1 field follow-up
Further follow-up after phase 1
Total respondents
Table 2-11.
respondent
count
238
97
28
363
respondent
percent
65.56%
26.72%
7.71%
100.00%
respondent
count
3,985
1,663
475
6,123
respondent
percent
65.08%
27.16%
7.76%
100.00%
error
2.54%
2.40%
1.32%
Response follow-up experience with school interview final respondents, among
priority schools without a survey coordinator
Response follow-up category
No or limited follow-up
Phase 1 field follow-up
Further follow-up after phase 1
Total respondents
Unweighted
respondent
count
77
202
57
336
Unweighted
respondent
percent
22.92%
60.12%
16.96%
100.00%
Weighted
respondent
count
153
240
142
535
Weighted
respondent
percent
21.91%
62.16%
15.93%
100.00%
Standard
error
2.31%
2.79%
2.15%
Figure 2-1 presents the unweighted number of school respondents and weighted percentage for
follow-up experience summarizing Tables 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, and 2-11.
Figure 2-1.
Follow-up required prior to response with school-interview final respondents by
survey coordinator status and by priority status, NTPS 2015-16
Among responding priority schools, schools with a survey coordinator are more likely to respond
with lower degree follow-up effort than schools without one, which is consistent with our findings
from SASS 2011-2012. About 66% of responding priority schools with a survey coordinator sent
their completed questionnaire before Phase 1 field follow-up (consistent timing with the third
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
14
School Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
2
mailout) and this is not too far from the figure for non-priority schools with a survey coordinator
(71%, see Table 2-7). Even for schools that have very low response propensities historically, schools
with a survey coordinator require a lot less follow-up effort before they respond. Although it is not
possible to find whether this is because survey coordinators play a role in schools responding more
promptly or schools’ willingness and ability to find a survey coordinator shows their willingness to
participate, the survey coordinator status is a good indicator for the school’s cooperation again in
NTPS 2015-16.
As expected, non-priority schools with a survey coordinator were more likely to respond without
much follow-up effort than were priority schools or non-priority schools without a survey
coordinator. Regardless of priority status, schools had different follow-up experience depending on
whether the school had a survey coordinator.
Appendix C provides further detailed tables.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
15
Principal Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
3
Table 3-1 presents eligibility and response rates for NTPS 2015-16 principal questionnaires. The
statistics are the same as those in Table 2-3. The principal base full sample and replicate weights are
used for any statistics for weighted rates. The response rates for domains with a statistically
significant difference in response rate are in bold and italic. Rao-Scott Chi-Square tests are
conducted to detect any differences. Similar to the results for school questionnaires, response rates
for principal questionnaires differ by special district flag, school span, urbanicity, Census region,
poverty level, and school size. Response rates are lower for principals in special districts, city and
suburban schools, Northeastern schools, low poverty schools (percentage of students eligible for
free or reduced-price lunch less than 34%), and high poverty schools (percentage of students eligible
for free or reduced-price lunch equal to or greater than 75%). Response rates are higher for
combined schools, Midwestern schools, and those with an enrollment of 100-199 students in NTPS
2015-16.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
16
1,449
6,851
1,420
6,605
814
4,943
98.0%
96.4%
57.3%
74.8%
97.0%
95.8%
57.8%
75.3%
1.2%
0.6%
55.5%
74.2%
60.0%
76.4%
Charter
Non-charter
1,173
7,127
1,093
6,932
775
4,982
93.2%
97.3%
70.9%
71.9%
92.5%
96.3%
72.6%
72.3%
1.4%
0.5%
69.8%
71.2%
75.3%
73.4%
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
3,708
1,441
2,054
1,097
3,622
1,420
1,981
1,002
2,575
1,004
1,396
782
97.7%
98.5%
96.4%
91.3%
71.1%
70.7%
70.5%
78.0%
97.7%
98.3%
93.8%
87.5%
71.9%
72.2%
71.3%
78.2%
0.7%
1.2%
1.3%
1.4%
70.4%
69.8%
68.8%
75.5%
73.4%
74.6%
73.9%
81.0%
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
2,507
2,585
1,201
2,007
2,394
2,519
1,159
1,953
1,544
1,707
940
1,566
95.5%
97.4%
96.5%
97.3%
64.5%
67.8%
81.1%
80.2%
94.8%
96.6%
95.5%
96.9%
64.5%
68.6%
81.2%
80.4%
1.1%
0.9%
1.3%
0.9%
62.4%
66.7%
78.7%
78.6%
66.6%
70.4%
83.7%
82.2%
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
1,352
1,924
3,200
1,824
1,331
1,849
3,087
1,758
878
1,435
2,185
1,259
98.4%
96.1%
96.5%
96.4%
66.0%
77.6%
70.8%
71.6%
98.0%
94.8%
96.0%
96.0%
66.4%
77.7%
71.5%
72.0%
1.3%
1.0%
0.9%
1.2%
63.9%
75.7%
69.8%
69.7%
68.9%
79.6%
73.2%
74.2%
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
2,416
1,395
2,331
2,158
2,321
1,357
2,270
2,077
1,624
1,024
1,699
1,410
96.1%
97.3%
97.4%
96.2%
70.0%
75.5%
74.8%
67.9%
95.8%
96.7%
95.8%
96.1%
69.8%
75.7%
75.6%
69.3%
1.1%
1.2%
1.0%
1.2%
67.8%
73.3%
73.7%
67.0%
71.9%
78.1%
77.6%
71.5%
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
404
551
2,820
2,151
1,035
1,339
343
512
2,731
2,096
1,022
1,321
258
427
2,013
1,501
695
863
84.9%
92.9%
96.8%
97.4%
98.7%
98.7%
75.2%
83.4%
73.7%
71.6%
68.0%
65.3%
80.6%
94.7%
97.4%
97.8%
98.9%
99.0%
73.1%
83.8%
73.6%
71.1%
68.0%
65.5%
2.8%
1.8%
1.0%
1.0%
1.5%
1.4%
67.6%
80.3%
71.7%
69.1%
65.0%
62.8%
78.6%
87.4%
75.5%
73.2%
70.9%
68.2%
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
7,641
158
111
390
7,480
125
99
321
5,372
89
76
220
97.9%
79.1%
89.2%
82.3%
71.8%
71.2%
76.8%
68.5%
97.8%
74.8%
92.1%
78.8%
72.5%
71.0%
76.2%
68.2%
0.5%
5.6%
5.9%
3.3%
71.5%
60.0%
64.5%
61.7%
73.5%
82.0%
87.9%
74.7%
Domain
All
Sample
size
8,300
Number of
Eligible
schools
Completes
8,025
5,757
Unweighted
Eligibility
Response
rate
rate
96.7%
71.7%
Eligibility
rate
96.0%
Response
rate
72.3%
Weighted
Std.
error
0.5%
Lower
bound CI
71.3%
Upper
bound CI
73.3%
3
Special district
Not special district
17
NTPS 2015-16 principal eligibility and response rates, major domains
Principal Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table 3-1.
Teacher Listing Form
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
4
Table 4-1 presents eligibility and response rates for NTPS 2015-16 teacher listing forms (TLFs). The
statistics are the same as those in Tables 2-3 and 3-1. Any school with a completed TLF was
considered a respondent regardless of the data collection method: completed by the school, through
a vendor list, or through clerical research. The school base full sample and replicate weights are used
for any statistics for weighted rates. The response rates for domains with a statistically significant
difference in response rate are in bold and italic. Rao-Scott Chi-Square tests are conducted to detect
any differences. Similar to the results for school and principal questionnaires, response rates for
TLFs differ by special district flag, urbanicity, Census region, poverty level, and school size. Unlike
those questionnaires, TLF response rates also differ by charter and type of school, and do not differ
by school span. Response rates are lower for TLFs in special districts, charter schools, city and
suburban schools, and low poverty schools (percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price
lunch less than 34%). Response rates for TLFs from alternative schools were lower than for regular
schools. Response rates are higher for Midwestern schools and those with an enrollment of 100-199
students in NTPS 2015-16.
Note that the overall TLF response rate of 83.6% is statistically significantly higher than the
corresponding SASS 2011-12 response rate of 82.2%. This reflects the benefits of allowing the
alternative methods of collecting TLFs used in NTPS 2015-16, as mentioned above.
Among the schools that completed a TLF, we break out weighted percentages to the following four
categories (every completed TLF falls into one of these follow-up-level categories):
TLF sent in by school before phase 1 field follow-up or third school mailout (no or
limited follow-up);
TLF sent in by school before vendor file matching or clerical research (during phase 1
field or third school mailout);
TLF obtained through vendor file matching or clerical research (vendor/clerical followup) and no TLF from school; or
TLF sent in by school after vendor/clerical processes failed (follow-up after
vendor/clerical failed).
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
18
Teacher Listing Form
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
Table 4-1.
NTPS 2015-16 TLF eligibility and response rates, major domains
Number of
Domain
4
Sample
Eligible
size
schools
Completes
Unweighted
Weighted
Eligibility
Response
Eligibility
Response
Std.
Lower
Upper
bound
bound
rate
rate
rate
rate
error
CI
CI
All
8,300
8,025
6,659
96.7%
83.0%
96.0%
83.6%
0.4%
82.7%
84.4%
Special district
Not special district
1,449
6,851
1,421
6,604
998
5,661
98.1%
96.4%
70.2%
85.7%
97.2%
95.8%
69.9%
86.4%
1.1%
0.5%
67.7%
85.5%
72.1%
87.3%
Charter
Non-charter
1,173
7,127
1,093
6,932
832
5,827
93.2%
97.3%
76.1%
84.1%
92.4%
96.3%
77.3%
84.0%
1.4%
0.5%
74.6%
83.1%
80.0%
84.9%
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
3,708
1,441
2,054
1,097
3,624
1,420
1,979
1,002
3,001
1,179
1,644
835
97.7%
98.5%
96.3%
91.3%
82.8%
83.0%
83.1%
83.3%
97.7%
98.3%
93.6%
87.8%
83.7%
84.0%
82.9%
83.4%
0.6%
1.1%
1.2%
1.4%
82.5%
81.9%
80.6%
80.6%
85.0%
86.1%
85.2%
86.1%
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
2,507
2,585
1,201
2,007
2,393
2,517
1,161
1,954
1,895
2,003
1,038
1,723
95.5%
97.4%
96.7%
97.4%
79.2%
79.6%
89.4%
88.2%
94.9%
96.5%
95.7%
97.0%
79.4%
80.4%
88.9%
88.9%
0.9%
0.7%
1.0%
0.8%
77.7%
79.0%
86.9%
87.4%
81.1%
81.9%
90.8%
90.4%
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
1,352
1,924
3,200
1,824
1,332
1,850
3,085
1,758
1,064
1,601
2,555
1,439
98.5%
96.2%
96.4%
96.4%
79.9%
86.5%
82.8%
81.9%
98.1%
94.9%
95.9%
96.1%
80.0%
86.9%
83.3%
82.9%
1.1%
0.8%
0.7%
0.9%
77.8%
85.3%
82.0%
81.2%
82.2%
88.6%
84.7%
84.6%
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
2,416
1,395
2,331
2,158
2,318
1,358
2,270
2,079
1,851
1,159
1,956
1,693
95.9%
97.3%
97.4%
96.3%
79.9%
85.3%
86.2%
81.4%
95.6%
96.8%
95.9%
96.3%
79.5%
85.8%
86.8%
83.1%
0.9%
1.1%
0.8%
0.9%
77.7%
83.6%
85.2%
81.4%
81.3%
87.9%
88.3%
84.9%
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
404
551
2,820
2,151
1,035
1,339
342
512
2,731
2,097
1,022
1,321
278
446
2,305
1,769
813
1,048
84.7%
92.9%
96.8%
97.5%
98.7%
98.7%
81.3%
87.1%
84.4%
84.4%
79.5%
79.3%
80.5%
94.7%
97.4%
97.9%
98.9%
98.9%
79.0%
88.3%
85.0%
84.2%
79.9%
80.2%
2.8%
1.5%
0.8%
0.8%
1.3%
1.2%
73.6%
85.4%
83.5%
82.6%
77.3%
77.9%
84.5%
91.3%
86.5%
85.7%
82.5%
82.5%
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
7,641
158
111
390
7,480
125
98
322
6,246
98
79
236
97.9%
79.1%
88.3%
82.6%
83.5%
78.4%
80.6%
73.3%
97.8%
74.8%
91.3%
79.5%
84.3%
82.1%
78.2%
72.6%
0.4%
3.7%
5.9%
3.4%
83.5%
74.9%
66.6%
65.8%
85.1%
89.4%
89.7%
79.3%
While all the schools received the same sequence of follow-up, we present the weighted percentages
to the four categories for three separate groups of schools, non-priority schools with a survey
coordinator, non-priority schools without a survey coordinator, and priority schools, in Tables 4-2
through 4-4. The priority schools are then broken out by survey coordinator status in Tables 4-5 and
4-6. They show differences in follow-up effort required, comparable to the findings of Tables 2-7
through 2-9.
Among non-priority schools with a survey coordinator that completed a TLF (Table 4-2), more than
70% of schools completed a TLF before vendor or clerical research, almost all of them didn’t need
much follow-up effort, and only about 17% of TLFs were obtained through vendor or clerical
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
19
Teacher Listing Form
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
4
research. Considerably less intensive follow-up effort was required for TLF completion for nonpriority schools with a survey coordinator, which is consistent with the results for other
questionnaires.
Table 4-2.
Response follow-up experience for final TLF respondents among non-priority schools
with a survey coordinator, NTPS 2015-16
Response follow-up category
No or limited follow-up
Phase 1 field or mailout
Through vendor or clerical research
After vendor/clerical process
Total respondents
Unweighted
respondent
count
2,260
170
572
318
3,320
Unweighted
respondent
percent
68.07%
5.12%
17.23%
9.58%
100.00%
Weighted
respondent
count
30,919
2,118
7,473
4,329
44,841
Weighted
respondent
percent
68.95%
4.72%
16.67%
9.66%
100.00%
Standard
error
0.89%
0.39%
0.72%
0.58%
For non-priority schools without a survey coordinator that completed a TLF (Table 4-3), two thirds
of schools completed before vendor or clerical research but more than half of those schools
required phase 1 or mailout follow-up effort. About one third of the TLFs were found through
vendor or clerical research. There were only a few TLFs completed after the vendor or clerical
research procedure.
Table 4-3.
Response follow-up experience for final TLF respondents among non-priority schools
without a survey coordinator, NTPS 2015-16
Response follow-up category
No or limited follow-up
Phase 1 field or mailout
Through vendor or clerical research
After vendor/clerical process
Total respondents
Unweighted
respondent
count
542
1106
811
16
2,475
Unweighted
respondent
percent
21.90%
44.69%
32.77%
0.65%
100.00%
Weighted
respondent
count
7,583
14,703
10,677
138
33,101
Weighted
respondent
percent
22.91%
44.42%
32.26%
0.42%
100.00%
Standard
error
0.94%
1.10%
1.03%
0.10%
Table 4-4 shows for priority schools that one half of schools that completed a TLF submitted it
before the vendor or clerical research procedure started and about 40% of TLFs were obtained
through vendor or clerical research.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
20
Teacher Listing Form
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
Table 4-4.
4
Response follow-up experience for final TLF respondents among priority schools,
NTPS 2015-16
Response follow-up category
No or limited follow-up
Phase 1 field or mailout
Through vendor or clerical research
After vendor/clerical process
Total respondents
Unweighted
respondent
count
297
146
347
74
864
Unweighted
respondent
percent
34.38%
16.90%
40.16%
8.56%
100.00%
Weighted
respondent
count
4,066
2,124
4,914
1,041
12,145
Weighted
respondent
percent
33.48%
17.49%
40.46%
8.57%
100.00%
Standard
error
1.58%
1.40%
1.65%
1.01%
Similar to Tables 2-10 and 2-11 for the school analyses, Tables 4-5 and 4-6 show the TLF follow-up
effort for priority schools by survey coordinator status. While responding priority schools with a
survey coordinator require more follow-up effort than non-priority schools with a survey
coordinator (40% versus 31% in terms of percent respondents that responded after phase 1 field or
mailout started), the differences were much smaller than the differences between priority schools
with and without a survey coordinator (40% verses 87%).
Table 4-5.
Response follow-up experience for final TLF respondents among priority schools
with a survey coordinator, NTPS 2015-16
Response follow-up category
No or limited follow-up
Phase 1 field or mailout
Through vendor or clerical research
After vendor/clerical process
Total respondents
Table 4-6.
Unweighted
respondent
count
229
32
84
30
375
Unweighted
respondent
percent
61.07%
8.53%
22.40%
8.00%
100.00%
Weighted
respondent
count
3,171
447
1,236
395
5,249
Weighted
respondent
percent
60.42%
8.52%
23.54%
7.52%
100.00%
Standard
error
2.66%
1.58%
2.44%
1.51%
Response follow-up experience for final TLF respondents among priority schools
without a survey coordinator, NTPS 2015-16
Response follow-up category
No or limited follow-up
Phase 1 field or mailout
Through vendor or clerical research
After vendor/clerical process
Total respondents
Unweighted
respondent
count
68
114
263
44
489
Unweighted
respondent
percent
13.91%
23.31%
53.78%
9.00%
100.00%
Weighted
respondent
count
895
1,677
3,678
647
6,897
Weighted
respondent
percent
12.98%
24.32%
53.33%
9.38%
100.00%
Standard
error
1.44%
2.12%
2.27%
1.42%
Figure 4-1 presents the number of TLF unweighted respondents and weighted percentage for
follow-up experience summarizing Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-5, and 4-6.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
21
Teacher Listing Form
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
Figure 4-1.
4
Follow-up required prior to response with TLF final respondents by survey
coordinator status and by priority status, NTPS 2015-16
Another aspect of the NTPS 2015-16 design beyond TLF response rates was the desire to accelerate
the process of getting the teacher samples out to the field. This allows more time for collecting
teacher questionnaires and should improve teacher questionnaire response rates. Table 4-7 presents
a distribution of the number of days to field teacher questionnaire samples, using the initial teacher
mailing date7 as the date for the fielded teacher questionnaires. The weighted means and percentiles
are of the number of days from the initial school mail-out (October 11, 2011 for SASS 2011-12 and
September 4, 2015 for NTPS 2015-16), weighted by the number of teacher questionnaires that went
out that date (regardless of their ultimate status: completed questionnaire, nonrespondent, ineligible).
The initial school mail-out did not occur until October 11, 2011 for SASS 2011-12 due to delays in
receiving OMB clearance to conduct the data collection. The SASS initial school mail-out was 5
weeks after it was for NTPS 2015-16, so NTPS 2015-2016 would have more time for follow up with
late wave teachers even without any change. Consequently, the first initial teacher packages were also
sent out later for SASS 2011-12 than for NTPS 2015-16 (November 17, 2011 versus October 1,
2015). For an analysis independent of the delay in receiving OMB clearance, we used the initial
school mail-dates as starting points.
7
In some cases, this initial teacher mailing date was missing for some ineligible cases and nonresponding teachers in
SASS 2011-12 and for some LEA refusal or hard refusal cases in NTPS 2015-16. In these cases, if there was only one
initial teacher mailing date for the teacher wave, then that mailing date is used. If there are multiple teacher mailing
dates for the teacher wave (only happened in SASS 2011-12), then a mean value is computed (weighted by the number
of teacher questionnaires associated with the particular initial teacher mailing date).
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
22
Teacher Listing Form
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
Table 4-7.
4
Weighted distribution of number of days after initial school mail-out for initially
fielding teacher questionnaires for SASS 2011-12 and NTPS 2015-16.
Distribution of first mail day
Minimum
5th percentile
10th percentile
25th percentile
50th percentile
75th percentile
90th percentile
95th percentile
Maximum
Mean
SASS
days after Oct 11, 2011
37
51
66
66
102
120
185
198
218
108.2
NTPS
days after Sep 4, 2015
27
39
54
102
143
158
192
192
209
130.3
The mean value for SASS 2011-12 is about 20 days earlier: a mean value of 130.3 days (January 13,
2015 with an initial school mail-out date of September 4, 2015) vs. a mean value of 108.2 days
(January 28, 2012 with an initial school mail-out date October 11, 2011). While the teacher mail-out
process went faster in SASS 2011-12 for most of the data teacher mailout period up through the 90th
percentile of the teacher mailouts, the new procedures implemented for the NTPS allowed the last
five percent to get out about a week earlier. The overall process in SASS 2011-12 might have been
expedited without a month delay in data collection, which reduced the difference between fixed
dates across SASS 2011-12 and NTPS 2015-16 for the earlier period. The new TLF procedures have
increased the TLF response rate and reduced the number of days necessary to get the teacher
questionnaire samples into the field for teachers that were sampled very late in the data collection
period. However, this is not a clean test though because of the OMB problems in SASS 2011-12.
The last issue is the quality of the TLFs. In order to evaluate the quality of the teacher listing by the
source of the list, we conducted weighted regression analysis. The dependent variables are the
estimated number of eligible teachers on the teacher list and the estimated eligibility rate; the
explanatory variables are the school domain variables, the full-time equivalent teacher (FTE) count,
and TLF source variables; the full-sample and replicate weights adjusted for the TLF nonresponse
are used. Since the teacher eligibility status is only known for sampled teachers, the eligibility rate for
each school was estimated from the teacher file assuming that the eligibility rate for the teachers that
were not sampled is similar to the eligibility rate for the sampled teachers. The eligibility rate was
unweighted because the teacher sample is a simple random sample of the teachers from the listing
form within a school. The number of eligible teachers on the teacher listing form is estimated by the
product of the number of teachers on the form and the estimated eligibility rate from the teacher
file. For the explanatory variables, a set of school domain variables were selected through the
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
23
Teacher Listing Form
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
4
stepwise method (provided by SAS PROC GLMSELECT) for each regression model, and the
selected variables and the TLF source variable were included in the final model.
There are two sets of analyses presented in Tables 4-8 and 4-9. The analyses on the left-hand side
combine clerical search and vendor canvassing into one indicator. The analyses on the right-hand
side separate clerical search and vendor canvassing as two separate indicators.
In terms of the number of eligible teachers, the quality of the respondent-filled TLFs was not better
than the TLFs listed clerically or through vendors. The respondent-filled TLFs had about 0.7 more
eligible teachers than the TLFs listed through vendors on average. Although the difference is
statistically significant in the regression model, the difference does not appear large enough to make
a practical difference. Comparing the TLFs listed clerically to the TLFs listed through vendors, the
difference itself is about 9 teachers, which is considerably large, but the difference is not statistically
significant given that there were only 83 TLFs listed clerically. It is possible that further use of
clerical methods would increase the number of eligible teachers, but a larger number of TLFs would
have to be developed clerically to test this. Thus, it is difficult to conclude that any of these data
collection method was superior to the others with respect to the number of eligible teachers on the
list.
The regression analysis for eligibility rates shows that the quality of the TLFs listed through vendors
is poorer than the TLFs from other sources. Vendor-supplied TLFs had 6% lower eligibility rates
than those filled out by the school. Clerically-supplied TLFs were half-way in between vendor and
school-supplied.
To summarize, the new TLF data collection methodology in NTPS 2015-16 increased marginally the
TLF response rate (82.2% to 83.6%), reduced the number of days necessary to get the teacher
questionnaire samples into the field by a week for teachers that were sampled very late in the data
collection period with a slight drop in list quality (slightly higher ineligibility rates) for the 26% (1,730
out of 6,659 completed TLFs) not supplied by the schools.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
24
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table 4-8.
Regression coefficients for number of eligible teachers
Parameter
Intercept
FTE
Respondent-filled
Clerical or Vendor
Coefficient
8.35
0.8
0.34
0
Std
error
3.76
0.06
0.45
0
25
2.43
2.24
0.41
0
0.81
0.35
0.32
0
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
1.51
-0.1
-0.66
0
0.86
0.66
0.8
0
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
2.64
1.23
0.93
0
0.51
0.47
0.6
0
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
-7.24
-8.73
-8.65
-7.1
-5.74
0
4.2
3.76
3.27
2.58
2.26
0
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
3.61
-5.54
1.43
0
1.27
3.1
3.99
0
.
3.02
6.45
1.28
.
1.75
-0.15
-0.82
.
5.2
2.64
1.55
.
-1.72
-2.32
-2.64
-2.76
-2.54
.
2.84
-1.78
0.36
.
Coefficient
7.86
0.8
0.69
9.01
0
Std
error
3.72
0.06
0.3
7.39
0
City
Suburb
Town
Rural
2.32
2.22
0.44
0
0.69
0.34
0.32
0
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
1.43
-0.14
-0.68
0
0.89
0.66
0.79
0
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
2.64
1.23
0.92
0
0.5
0.45
0.55
0
0.086
0.021
0.009
0.006
0.012
.
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
-7.49
-8.84
-8.63
-7.07
-5.73
0
4.09
3.77
3.28
2.59
2.27
0
0.005
0.076
0.721
.
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
3.79
-5.23
1.34
0
1.14
2.86
4.16
0
Pr > |t|
0.028
<.0001
0.451
.
0.003
<.0001
0.203
.
0.081
0.877
0.411
.
<.0001
0.009
0.123
.
Parameter
Intercept
FTE
Respondent-filled
Clerical
Vendor
t Value
2.11
14.14
2.31
1.22
Pr > |t|
0.036
<.0001
0.022
0.224
.
3.36
6.59
1.37
0.001
<.0001
0.172
.
1.62
-0.21
-0.86
0.107
0.836
0.391
.
5.27
2.74
1.68
<.0001
0.007
0.095
.
-1.83
-2.34
-2.63
-2.73
-2.53
0.069
0.02
0.009
0.007
0.012
.
3.32
-1.83
0.32
0.001
0.068
0.747
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Teacher Listing Form
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
City
Suburb
Town
Rural
t Value
2.22
14.14
0.75
4
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table 4-9.
Regression coefficients for teacher eligibility rate
Parameter
Intercept
Respondent-filled
Clerical or Vendor
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
Coefficient
0.9
0.05
0
0.02
0.01
0.01
0
Std
error
0.01
0.01
0
0.01
0
0
0
t Value
156.32
9.53
.
2.95
3.3
2.03
.
Pr > |t|
<.0001
<.0001
.
0.004
0.001
0.043
.
Parameter
Intercept
Respondent-filled
Clerical
Vendor
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
Coefficient
0.9
0.06
0.03
0
Std
error
0.01
0.01
0.02
0
0.02
0.01
0.01
0
0.01
0
0
0
t Value
152.38
9.49
1.64
Pr > |t|
<.0001
<.0001
0.103
.
2.97
3.32
2.06
0.003
0.001
0.041
.
.
.
26
Teacher Listing Form
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
4
Teacher Questionnaire
Response Rate in NTPS 2015-16
5
Tables 5-1 and 5-2 below present unweighted and weighted teacher counts from the SASS 2011-12
and the NTPS 2015-16 teacher samples, respectively. The NTPS teacher counts by the source of
TLFs are also shown in Table 5-2. The weighted counts utilize the teacher base weight (the sum of
the weighted counts are an estimate of the total number of teachers). The unweighted and weighted
percentages are quite similar for both SASS and NTPS.
Table 5-1.
SASS 2011-12 public school teacher response and eligibility rates8
2011-12
SASS Teacher Outcomes
Completes
Nonrespondents
Ineligible
Total sample
Table 5-2.
Teacher
Sample Size
37,497
11,332
2,233
51,062
Unweighted
Percent
73.43%
22.19%
4.37%
100.00%
Weighted Teacher
Count
1,837,847
528,644
104,312
2,470,803
Weighted Percent
74.38%
21.40%
4.22%
100.00%
NTPS 2015-16 public school teacher response and eligibility rates9
2015-16
Teacher sample
NTPS Teacher outcomes
size
All teachers
Completes
31,945
Nonrespondents
14,784
Ineligible
2,258
Total sample
48,987
From respondent-filled TLFs
Completes
26,859
Nonrespondents
7,718
Ineligible
1,194
Total sample
35,771
TLFs from vendors or through clerical research
Completes
5,086
Nonrespondents
7,066
Ineligible
1,064
Total sample
13,216
Unweighted
percent
Weighted
teacher count
Weighted
percent
65.21%
30.18%
4.61%
100.00%
1,795,587
840,840
127,322
2,763,749
64.97%
30.42%
4.61%
100.00%
75.09%
21.58%
3.34%
100.00%
1,493,366
421,106
65,828
1,980,300
75.41%
21.26%
3.32%
100.00%
38.48%
53.47%
8.05%
100.00%
302,222
419,733
61,495
783,449
38.58%
53.58%
7.85%
100.00%
8
This table is the same as Table F-1A in “NTPS 2017-2018 Public School Sample Design Including State-Level
Estimates,” March 3, 2017.
9
This table is the same as Table F-1B in “NTPS 2017-2018 Public School Sample Design Including State-Level
Estimates,” March 3, 2017.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
27
Teacher Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
5
As can be seen, the conditional response rate for teachers is considerably lower for NTPS 2015-16
than for SASS 2011-12 (68.1% versus 77.7%). However, the response rates by the source of TLFs
are very different. The conditional response rate for teachers sampled from TLFs that were filled out
by their schools in NTPS 2015-16 (78.0%) is comparable to the response rate for SASS 2011-12
(77.7%). On the other hand, the conditional response rate for teachers sampled from TLFs through
clerical research or vendor file matching is significantly lower (41.9%). We suspect that this is an
artifact of these schools being much less cooperative, leading to lower response rates among their
teachers. There is no sensible direct causal link between the TLF being collected in a certain way and
the teacher’s response propensity for the questionnaire. It is also worth noting that teachers listed on
TLFs obtained through alternative sources had more than double the ineligibility rate compared to
teachers listed on TLFs that were filled out by their schools. There are certainly good reasons for
these alternative TLFs having a higher prevalence of ineligible teachers.
Table 5-3 shows the impact of including the alternative TLF collection methods on the teacher
response rates. These alternative collection methods increased the sample yield, the TLF response
rate, and the overall teacher response rate (despite teachers from the alternative source schools being
less cooperative), provided information on teachers from schools that did not send TLFs, and gave a
chance to participate in the survey to some teachers who would have not been in the teacher frame
through the traditional listing method.
Table 5-3.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher weighted response rates, with and without alternative TLFs
included
Including TLFs from vendors or through clerical research
Excluding TLFs from vendors or through clerical research
TLF
response
rate
83.56%
62.25%
Teacher
response
rate
conditional
on TLF
completion
68.11%
78.00%
Overall
teacher
response
rate
56.91%
48.56%
Table 5-4 presents eligibility and response rates for NTPS 2015-16 teacher questionnaires by major
school domains. The rows and columns are the same as those in Table 2-3. The teacher base full
sample and replicate weights are used for any statistics for weighted rates. The response rates for
teacher domains with a statistically significant difference in response rate are in bold and italic. RaoScott Chi-Square tests are conducted to detect any differences. The response rates for teacher
questionnaires vary by special district flag, charter school flag, urbanicity, Census region, poverty
level, and school size. Response rates in NTPS 2015-16 are lower for teachers from schools in
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
28
Teacher Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
5
special districts, charter schools, city and suburban schools, and high poverty schools (percentage of
students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 75% or more). Teacher response rates are higher for
Midwestern schools and schools with 100-199 students.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
29
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table 5-4.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates, major school domains
Domain
All
Sample
size
48,987
Number of
Eligible
teachers
Completes
46,458
32,753
Unweighted
Eligibility
Response
rate
rate
94.8%
70.5%
Eligibility
rate
94.8%
Response
rate
70.3%
Weighted
Std.
error
0.4%
Lower
bound CI
69.5%
Upper
bound CI
71.1%
30
7,849
38,609
4,863
27,890
95.1%
94.8%
62.0%
72.2%
95.1%
94.7%
62.3%
72.0%
1.1%
0.4%
60.2%
71.1%
64.4%
72.8%
Charter
Non-charter
5,313
43,674
5,034
41,424
3,438
29,315
94.7%
94.8%
68.3%
70.8%
94.7%
94.8%
68.1%
70.4%
1.2%
0.4%
65.8%
69.6%
70.4%
71.3%
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
19,149
9,480
15,121
5,237
18,060
9,035
14,395
4,968
13,041
6,332
9,686
3,694
94.3%
95.3%
95.2%
94.9%
72.2%
70.1%
67.3%
74.4%
94.4%
95.3%
95.1%
94.8%
72.3%
69.9%
66.4%
74.5%
0.6%
0.9%
0.9%
1.0%
71.2%
68.2%
64.6%
72.4%
73.5%
71.7%
68.1%
76.6%
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
14,753
16,520
6,886
10,828
13,930
15,725
6,501
10,302
8,964
10,804
5,071
7,914
94.4%
95.2%
94.4%
95.1%
64.4%
68.7%
78.0%
76.8%
94.2%
95.2%
94.2%
95.1%
64.0%
68.7%
77.8%
77.0%
0.8%
0.7%
0.9%
0.7%
62.5%
67.2%
76.0%
75.6%
65.6%
70.2%
79.6%
78.4%
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
8,762
11,021
19,251
9,953
8,366
10,444
18,130
9,518
5,522
8,146
12,702
6,383
95.5%
94.8%
94.2%
95.6%
66.0%
78.0%
70.1%
67.1%
95.3%
94.7%
94.0%
95.8%
65.6%
77.6%
70.3%
66.6%
0.9%
0.7%
0.7%
0.9%
63.8%
76.1%
69.0%
64.8%
67.5%
79.0%
71.6%
68.3%
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
14,735
8,536
13,628
12,088
14,131
8,097
12,875
11,355
10,071
5,852
9,368
7,462
95.9%
94.9%
94.5%
93.9%
71.3%
72.3%
72.8%
65.7%
95.9%
94.7%
94.5%
93.7%
70.9%
71.8%
72.2%
66.1%
0.8%
1.0%
0.9%
0.8%
69.3%
69.9%
70.5%
64.5%
72.5%
73.7%
74.0%
67.7%
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
1,089
2,229
13,927
12,850
6,990
11,902
1,035
2,109
13,174
12,164
6,638
11,338
750
1,580
9,604
8,786
4,609
7,424
95.0%
94.6%
94.6%
94.7%
95.0%
95.3%
72.5%
74.9%
72.9%
72.2%
69.4%
65.5%
95.7%
93.9%
94.5%
94.7%
94.9%
95.1%
69.3%
77.7%
73.1%
72.0%
68.9%
64.8%
3.3%
1.5%
0.7%
0.7%
1.0%
1.0%
62.9%
74.7%
71.8%
70.5%
66.9%
62.9%
75.8%
80.7%
74.4%
73.5%
70.9%
66.8%
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
46,803
539
496
1,149
44,405
498
465
1,090
31,331
374
341
707
94.9%
92.4%
93.8%
94.9%
70.6%
75.1%
73.3%
64.9%
94.8%
92.5%
93.6%
95.2%
70.4%
73.3%
71.8%
64.2%
0.4%
4.7%
2.7%
3.4%
69.6%
64.0%
66.4%
57.5%
71.2%
82.6%
77.2%
70.9%
5
8,254
40,733
Teacher Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
Special district
Not special district
Teacher Questionnaire
Response Rate in NTPS 2015-16
5
Teachers had a different amount of time to respond depending on when their schools sent their
TLFs because a teacher sample of a school can be drawn only after a TLF from the school was
received. In SASS 2011-12, the data collection was not very successful for teachers that belong to
schools that sent the TLF later in the field period. In NTPS 2015-16, there were 24 teacher waves.
The waves were based on the time that the TLF was received and processed and a teacher sample
was drawn. The initial mail packages were sent out on a set of days for teachers in one to three
teacher waves. The teacher waves were grouped into three teacher wave groups (early/middle/late).
Table 5-5 shows how the 24 teacher waves were grouped, the initial mailout date of each teacher
wave, and the number of sampled teachers in each teacher wave.
Table 5-5.
NTPS 2015-16 public school teacher wave and initial mailout date
Teacher wave group
Early
Middle
Late
Teacher wave
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
11
12
13
14
15
Total
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Total
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Initial mailout date
10/01/2015
10/13/2015
10/19/2015
10/28/2015
11/02/2015
11/09/2015
11/16/2015
11/23/2015
11/23/2015
12/15/2015
12/15/2015
1/04/2016
1/25/2016
1/25/2016
2/09/2016
2/09/2016
2/09/2016
2/22/2016
3/14/2016
3/14/2016
3/31/2016
3/31/2016
3/31/2016
31
Number of
sampled teachers
1,296
811
1,046
1,850
1,766
1,578
834
1,233
739
11,153
4,141
2,781
1,669
3,302
2,129
14,022
1,249
1,275
10,432
3,755
15
6,887
55
91
53
23,812
Teacher Questionnaire
Response Rate in NTPS 2015-16
5
Figure 5-1 presents the weighted response rates for the three teacher wave groups (TWGs). The
later the TLF was received, the lower the response rate was. The response rate drops dramatically
from the middle teacher wave group to the late teacher wave group, which is consistent with the
results from SASS 2011-12.
Figure 5-1.
NTPS 2015-16 public school teacher response rate by teacher wave group
The eligibility and response rates by teacher wave group are presented in Tables 5-5 through 5-7.
The teachers in the early teacher wave group had sufficient time to respond since their schools sent
their teacher listing forms early, which resulted in higher response rates than for the later teacher
wave groups. The response rate for this group is over 90%. Within the early wave group, teachers
from schools that are not in special districts, teachers from town or rural schools, or schools in the
Midwest region have higher response rates (see Table 5-6).
The response rate for the middle teacher wave group is around 80%. While teachers in the middle
wave group had less time to respond, they had a decent response rate. Within this wave group,
teachers from schools that are not in special districts, non-charter schools, or are in town or rural
schools have higher response rates (see Table 5-7). Regular schools have higher response rates than
alternative or vocational schools. Western schools and those with less than 100 students or more
than 1,000 students are less likely to respond (see Table 5-8).
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
32
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table 5-6.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates for early teacher wave group, major school domains
Domain
All
Sample
size
11,153
Number of
Eligible
Completes
10,823
9,790
teachers
Unweighted
Eligibility
Response
97.0%
90.5%
rate
rate
Eligibility
97.0%
rate
Response
90.6%
rate
Weighted
Std.
0.5%
error
Lower
89.5%CI
bound
Upper
91.6%CI
bound
33
1,604
9,549
1,574
9,249
1,270
8,520
98.1%
96.9%
80.7%
92.1%
98.0%
96.9%
80.9%
92.3%
2.0%
0.5%
76.9%
91.3%
84.8%
93.2%
Charter
Non-charter
1,164
9,989
1,124
9,699
1,006
8,784
96.6%
97.1%
89.5%
90.6%
96.6%
97.0%
89.8%
90.6%
1.7%
0.5%
86.6%
89.5%
93.1%
91.7%
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
4,332
2,261
3,291
1,269
4,177
2,212
3,219
1,215
3,821
2,012
2,854
1,103
96.4%
97.8%
97.8%
95.7%
91.5%
91.0%
88.7%
90.8%
96.5%
97.9%
97.8%
95.5%
91.5%
91.2%
88.5%
90.7%
0.8%
1.2%
1.2%
1.5%
90.0%
88.8%
86.1%
87.6%
93.0%
93.6%
90.8%
93.7%
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
2,403
3,833
1,910
3,007
2,325
3,722
1,861
2,915
2,027
3,306
1,758
2,699
96.8%
97.1%
97.4%
96.9%
87.2%
88.8%
94.5%
92.6%
96.8%
97.0%
97.4%
97.0%
86.9%
89.2%
94.4%
92.9%
1.5%
1.1%
0.8%
0.8%
84.0%
87.0%
92.9%
91.4%
89.9%
91.4%
95.9%
94.4%
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
1,746
3,068
4,298
2,041
1,700
2,978
4,147
1,998
1,499
2,794
3,770
1,727
97.4%
97.1%
96.5%
97.9%
88.2%
93.8%
90.9%
86.4%
97.3%
97.0%
96.4%
98.2%
88.3%
94.3%
90.9%
85.8%
1.5%
0.7%
0.8%
1.5%
85.3%
92.8%
89.3%
82.8%
91.4%
95.7%
92.5%
88.8%
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
3,895
2,118
3,235
1,905
3,783
2,069
3,132
1,839
3,431
1,854
2,886
1,619
97.1%
97.7%
96.8%
96.5%
90.7%
89.6%
92.1%
88.0%
97.0%
97.7%
96.8%
96.8%
91.0%
90.0%
92.3%
87.4%
0.9%
1.3%
1.0%
1.5%
89.2%
87.4%
90.4%
84.4%
92.8%
92.6%
94.2%
90.4%
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
227
539
3,337
2,928
1,444
2,678
221
523
3,214
2,841
1,407
2,617
204
477
2,965
2,594
1,264
2,286
97.4%
97.0%
96.3%
97.0%
97.4%
97.7%
92.3%
91.2%
92.3%
91.3%
89.8%
87.4%
96.9%
97.4%
96.4%
97.0%
97.4%
97.7%
89.7%
91.8%
92.7%
91.5%
89.2%
87.3%
3.9%
2.1%
0.7%
1.0%
1.7%
1.4%
82.1%
87.6%
91.3%
89.5%
85.9%
84.6%
97.3%
96.1%
94.1%
93.6%
92.5%
90.0%
10,730
121
107
195
10,421
116
101
185
9,428
108
92
162
97.1%
95.9%
94.4%
94.9%
90.5%
93.1%
91.1%
87.6%
97.1%
94.9%
93.8%
95.2%
90.6%
90.1%
92.2%
88.6%
0.5%
4.7%
6.6%
2.9%
89.5%
80.9%
79.2%
83.0%
91.6%
99.3%
100.0%
94.3%
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
Teacher Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
Special district
Not special district
5
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table 5-7.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates for middle teacher wave group, major school domains
Domain
All
Sample
size
14,022
Number of
Eligible
teachers
Completes
13,505
11,011
Unweighted
Eligibility
Response
rate
rate
96.3%
81.5%
Eligibility
rate
96.3%
Response
rate
82.0%
Weighted
Std.
error
0.6%
Lower
bound CI
80.9%
Upper
bound CI
83.2%
34
1,820
11,685
1,304
9,707
96.4%
96.3%
71.6%
83.1%
96.6%
96.3%
73.5%
83.3%
2.1%
0.6%
69.4%
82.1%
77.7%
84.6%
Charter
Non-charter
1,547
12,475
1,478
12,027
1,128
9,883
95.5%
96.4%
76.3%
82.2%
95.6%
96.3%
76.9%
82.3%
2.0%
0.6%
73.1%
81.1%
80.8%
83.5%
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
5,779
2,756
3,884
1,603
5,533
2,670
3,759
1,543
4,618
2,132
2,973
1,288
95.7%
96.9%
96.8%
96.3%
83.5%
79.9%
79.1%
83.5%
95.8%
97.0%
96.9%
96.0%
84.0%
79.9%
79.2%
83.9%
0.8%
1.5%
1.2%
1.4%
82.5%
77.1%
76.9%
81.2%
85.6%
82.8%
81.5%
86.6%
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
3,750
4,801
2,117
3,354
3,591
4,627
2,040
3,247
2,772
3,690
1,777
2,772
95.8%
96.4%
96.4%
96.8%
77.2%
79.7%
87.1%
85.4%
95.9%
96.5%
96.2%
96.6%
77.7%
80.5%
87.5%
86.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1.0%
75.5%
78.4%
85.4%
84.1%
80.0%
82.6%
89.6%
88.1%
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
2,478
3,386
5,202
2,956
2,376
3,262
5,008
2,859
1,867
2,782
4,185
2,177
95.9%
96.3%
96.3%
96.7%
78.6%
85.3%
83.6%
76.1%
96.1%
96.4%
96.2%
96.6%
79.2%
85.3%
84.6%
76.3%
1.5%
1.0%
0.9%
1.3%
76.2%
83.4%
82.9%
73.8%
82.3%
87.2%
86.4%
78.9%
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
4,284
2,465
4,016
3,257
4,152
2,384
3,855
3,114
3,343
1,971
3,214
2,483
96.9%
96.7%
96.0%
95.6%
80.5%
82.7%
83.4%
79.7%
97.0%
96.6%
95.9%
95.7%
80.9%
83.2%
83.8%
80.6%
1.2%
1.3%
1.0%
1.2%
78.6%
80.7%
81.9%
78.2%
83.2%
85.6%
85.7%
83.0%
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
364
726
4,202
3,893
2,062
2,775
335
695
4,028
3,755
1,999
2,693
290
568
3,302
3,152
1,621
2,078
92.0%
95.7%
95.9%
96.5%
96.9%
97.0%
86.6%
81.7%
82.0%
83.9%
81.1%
77.2%
93.0%
96.0%
95.7%
96.5%
97.0%
96.9%
82.6%
85.3%
82.8%
84.1%
81.0%
77.6%
3.7%
2.0%
0.9%
1.0%
1.7%
1.6%
75.2%
81.3%
81.0%
82.1%
77.7%
74.5%
89.9%
89.2%
84.6%
86.1%
84.2%
80.7%
13,358
182
178
304
12,883
166
170
286
10,514
149
130
218
96.4%
91.2%
95.5%
94.1%
81.6%
89.8%
76.5%
76.2%
96.4%
90.0%
95.3%
93.8%
82.2%
91.1%
72.7%
78.6%
0.6%
2.8%
2.8%
3.7%
81.0%
85.6%
67.2%
71.2%
83.4%
96.5%
78.2%
85.9%
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
5
1,887
12,135
Teacher Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
Special district
Not special district
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table 5-8.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates for late teacher wave group, major school domains
Domain
All
Sample
size
23,812
Number of
Eligible
teachers
Completes
22,130
11,952
Unweighted
Eligibility
Response
rate
rate
92.9%
54.0%
Eligibility
rate
92.9%
Response
rate
53.8%
Weighted
Std.
error
0.6%
Lower
bound CI
52.7%
Upper
bound CI
55.0%
35
4,455
17,675
2,289
9,663
93.5%
92.8%
51.4%
54.7%
93.6%
92.7%
51.8%
54.4%
1.3%
0.6%
49.3%
53.1%
54.4%
55.6%
Charter
Non-charter
2,602
21,210
2,432
19,698
1,304
10,648
93.5%
92.9%
53.6%
54.1%
93.4%
92.8%
53.0%
53.9%
1.7%
0.6%
49.8%
52.7%
56.3%
55.1%
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
9,038
4,463
7,946
2,365
8,350
4,153
7,417
2,210
4,602
2,188
3,859
1,303
92.4%
93.1%
93.3%
93.4%
55.1%
52.7%
52.0%
59.0%
92.5%
93.0%
93.3%
93.6%
55.3%
52.8%
51.2%
59.6%
0.9%
1.3%
1.0%
1.7%
53.6%
50.2%
49.2%
56.3%
57.1%
55.5%
53.3%
62.8%
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
8,600
7,886
2,859
4,467
8,014
7,376
2,600
4,140
4,165
3,808
1,536
2,443
93.2%
93.5%
90.9%
92.7%
52.0%
51.6%
59.1%
59.0%
92.9%
93.6%
90.7%
92.6%
51.9%
51.7%
59.3%
58.7%
0.9%
1.0%
1.5%
1.3%
50.1%
49.8%
56.4%
56.2%
53.8%
53.6%
62.2%
61.3%
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
4,538
4,567
9,751
4,956
4,290
4,204
8,975
4,661
2,156
2,570
4,747
2,479
94.5%
92.1%
92.0%
94.0%
50.3%
61.1%
52.9%
53.2%
94.2%
92.0%
91.8%
94.5%
49.9%
60.2%
53.2%
53.1%
1.4%
1.3%
0.9%
1.1%
47.2%
57.5%
51.5%
50.9%
52.6%
62.8%
54.9%
55.3%
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
6,556
3,953
6,377
6,926
6,196
3,644
5,888
6,402
3,297
2,027
3,268
3,360
94.5%
92.2%
92.3%
92.4%
53.2%
55.6%
55.5%
52.5%
94.5%
92.1%
92.6%
92.0%
52.6%
55.2%
54.9%
53.3%
1.1%
1.3%
1.1%
1.1%
50.4%
52.7%
52.7%
51.1%
54.8%
57.8%
57.1%
55.4%
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
498
964
6,388
6,029
3,484
6,449
479
891
5,932
5,568
3,232
6,028
256
535
3,337
3,040
1,724
3,060
96.2%
92.4%
92.9%
92.4%
92.8%
93.5%
53.4%
60.0%
56.3%
54.6%
53.3%
50.8%
97.3%
90.3%
92.8%
92.6%
92.6%
93.4%
52.9%
62.7%
56.0%
54.7%
53.1%
50.3%
3.5%
2.4%
1.0%
1.1%
1.4%
1.2%
46.1%
58.1%
54.0%
52.5%
50.3%
48.0%
59.7%
67.3%
58.0%
56.9%
56.0%
52.6%
22,715
236
211
650
21,101
216
194
619
11,389
117
119
327
92.9%
91.5%
91.9%
95.2%
54.0%
54.2%
61.3%
52.8%
92.8%
93.0%
91.4%
95.7%
53.8%
57.2%
60.6%
53.5%
0.6%
8.1%
5.6%
3.0%
52.6%
41.2%
49.5%
47.7%
54.9%
73.1%
71.6%
59.4%
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
5
4,763
19,049
Teacher Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
Special district
Not special district
Teacher Questionnaire
Response Rate in NTPS 2015-16
5
Teachers in the late wave group have a response rate that is significantly lower than the earlier wave
groups, only 53.4%. It might be because these teachers did have less time to respond than the earlier
groups, but it also might be that teachers from schools that are slower to respond are less likely to
respond. City and suburban school teachers or teachers from larger schools (enrollment 200+) are
less likely to respond. Teachers in combined schools and in the Midwest are more likely to respond.
In contrast to the school domains used in these tables, Tables D-1 through D-4 in Appendix D
provide similar tables for teacher domains. While there are no differences between response rates
for full-time and part-time teachers, those whose teaching status is missing (mostly coming from the
alternative TLF sources) had much lower response rates in the middle and late waves.
Among teachers who were assigned to telephone nonresponse follow-up, an experiment was
conducted to test whether special afternoon calls would help to boost the response rate. About half
of the teachers who were assigned to telephone nonresponse follow-up received special afternoon
calls (experimental group 1) and the rest of them received nonresponse follow-up calls according to
the regular call schedule (experimental group 2). Experimental group 1 received calls between 2:00
and 5:00 pm in the afternoon, and experimental group 2 throughout the school day. Table 5-9
compares the weighted conditional teacher response rates of the two experimental groups. Overall,
the teacher response rates of the two groups are not different, which means that special afternoon
calls were not particularly helpful in terms of boosting the response rate. Tables D-5 and D-6 in the
appendix provide a detailed breakdown by school domain and teacher domain, respectively. The
experiment was most effective with teachers from schools in towns, primary school teachers whose
major subject is other, and high school teachers whose main subject is vocational/technical.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
36
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table 5-9.
Domain
All
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates by nonresponse follow-up experimental group, major school domains
Teacher experimental group 1 special afternoon calls
Number of
Weighted
Sample
Eligible
Response
Std
size
teachers
Completes
rate
error
9,560
9,215
5,124
55.5%
0.7%
Teacher experimental group 2 regular call schedule
Number of
Weighted
Sample
Eligible
Response
Std
size
teachers
Completes
rate
error
9,439
9,104
5,004
54.7%
0.7%
37
Teacher Questionnaire
Response Rate in NTPS 2015-16
5
Teacher Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
6
In this section, we study the response follow-up experience of teachers. Among the teacher
respondents, Tables 6-1 through 6-3 present the distribution of the following response experience
categories:
Teacher interview completed before telephone follow-up (no or limited follow-up);
Teacher interview completed before phase 2 field follow-up (telephone and mailout
follow-up only);
Teacher interview completed after phase 2 field follow-up (follow-up including field
follow-up).
Appendix B provides the definition of these three categories and details regarding the assumptions
that led to the definition.
Table 6-1.
Response follow-up experience with teacher interview final respondents
Response follow-up category
No or limited follow-up
Telephone/mail follow-up, no field
Field follow-up
Total respondents
Unweighted
respondent
count
19,412
6,728
6,613
32,753
Unweighted
respondent
percent
59.27%
20.54%
20.19%
100.00%
Weighted
respondent
count
2,285,853
755,874
784,709
3,826,436
Weighted
respondent
percent
59.74%
19.75%
20.51%
100.00%
Standard
error
0.54%
0.35%
0.49%
Tables 6-2 through 6-4 present the distribution of three response follow-up categories by teacher
wave group.
Table 6-2.
Response follow-up experience with teacher interview final respondents in early
teacher wave group
Response follow-up category
No or limited follow-up
Telephone/mail follow-up, no field
Field follow-up
Total respondents
Unweighted
respondent
count
6,282
3,073
435
9,790
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Unweighted
respondent
percent
64.17%
31.39%
4.44%
100.00%
38
Weighted
respondent
count
707,328
334,260
45,244
1,086,832
Weighted
respondent
percent
65.08%
30.76%
4.16%
100.00%
Standard
error
0.80%
0.71%
0.35%
Teacher Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
Table 6-3.
Response follow-up experience with teacher interview final respondents in middle
teacher wave group
Response follow-up category
No or limited follow-up
Telephone/mail follow-up, no field
Field follow-up
Total respondents
Table 6-4.
6
Unweighted
respondent
count
7,141
1,869
2,001
11,011
Unweighted
respondent
percent
64.85%
16.97%
18.17%
100.00%
Weighted
respondent
count
839,089
217,819
227,233
1,284,141
Weighted
respondent
percent
65.34%
16.96%
17.70%
100.00%
Standard
error
0.89%
0.63%
0.67%
Response follow-up experience with teacher interview final respondents in late
teacher wave group
Response follow-up category
No or limited follow-up
Telephone/mail follow-up, no field
Field follow-up
Total respondents
Unweighted
respondent
count
5,989
1,786
4,177
11,952
Unweighted
respondent
percent
50.11%
14.94%
34.95%
100.00%
Weighted
respondent
count
739,436
203,795
512,232
1,455,463
Weighted
respondent
percent
50.80%
14.00%
35.19%
100.00%
Standard
error
0.84%
0.42%
0.85%
Figure 6-1 presents the unweighted number of teachers and the weighted percentages for follow-up
experience categories by teacher wave group summarizing Tables 6-1 through 6-4.
Figure 6-1.
Follow-up required prior to response with teacher-interview final respondents by
teacher wave group, NTPS 2015-16
Not surprisingly, the early teacher wave group achieved a high response rate (>90%) without much
extensive follow-up effort. Only about 4% of the teacher respondents responded after receiving
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
39
Teacher Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
6
field follow-up. Teachers in later teacher wave group not only had lower response rates but also
received more extensive follow-up. For example, a considerable portion (34%) of respondents in the
late teacher wave group responded after receiving field follow-up. There could be a number of
factors such as
Teachers in the later wave groups didn’t have sufficient time to respond;
Teachers from schools that are slow to send the teacher listing form are less likely to
respond; and
More extensive follow-up procedures started early on for the later wave groups.
Tables 6-5 through 6-8 present the distribution of three response follow-up categories by survey
coordinator status and priority status of teacher respondents’ school.
Table 6-5.
Response follow-up experience with teacher interview final respondents from nonpriority schools without a survey coordinator
Response follow-up category
No or limited follow-up
Telephone/mail follow-up, no field
Field follow-up
Total respondents
Table 6-6.
Unweighted
respondent
percent
65.21%
20.69%
14.10%
100.00%
Weighted
respondent
count
1,389,794
420,694
299,339
1,086,832
Weighted
respondent
percent
65.87%
19.94%
14.19%
100.00%
Standard
error
0.65%
0.45%
0.54%
Response follow-up experience with teacher interview final respondents from nonpriority schools with a survey coordinator
Response follow-up category
No or limited follow-up
Telephone/mail follow-up, no field
Field follow-up
Total respondents
Table 6-7.
Unweighted
respondent
count
12,350
3,919
2,671
9,790
Unweighted
respondent
count
4,989
2,050
2,729
9,768
Unweighted
respondent
percent
51.07%
20.99%
27.94%
100.00%
Weighted
respondent
count
592,710
234,048
313,748
1,140,505
Weighted
respondent
percent
51.97%
20.52%
27.51%
100.00%
Standard
error
0.77%
0.67%
0.78%
Response follow-up experience with teacher interview final respondents from
priority schools without a survey coordinator
Response follow-up category
No or limited follow-up
Telephone/mail follow-up, no field
Field follow-up
Total respondents
Unweighted
respondent
count
1,358
436
424
2,218
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Unweighted
respondent
percent
61.23%
19.66%
19.12%
100.00%
40
Weighted
respondent
count
196,906
58,697
56,353
311,956
Weighted
respondent
percent
63.12%
18.82%
18.06%
100.00%
Standard
error
2.01%
1.45%
1.66%
Teacher Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
Table 6-8.
6
Response follow-up experience with teacher interview final respondents from
priority schools with a survey coordinator
Response follow-up category
No or limited follow-up
Telephone/mail follow-up, no field
Field follow-up
Total respondents
Unweighted
respondent
count
715
323
789
1,827
Unweighted
respondent
percent
39.14%
17.68%
43.19%
100.00%
Weighted
respondent
count
106,443
42,435
115,269
264,147
Weighted
respondent
percent
40.30%
16.06%
43.64%
100.00%
Standard
error
1.84%
1.38%
2.13%
Figure 6-2 summarizes Tables 6-5 through 6-8 (the unweighted counts and weighted percentages are
shown). Teacher respondents from schools with a survey coordinator required considerably less
follow-up effort than teacher respondents from schools without a survey coordinator, regardless of
their priority status, which is consistent with findings from SASS 2011-12 and findings from the
school and TLF analysis of this cycle. The teacher follow-up effort prior to response doesn’t appear
different by priority status for teachers from schools with a survey coordinator. On the other hand,
teachers from priority schools without a survey coordinator were slower to respond than the ones
from non-priority schools without a survey coordinator.
Figure 6-2.
Follow-up required prior to response with teacher-interview final respondents by
survey coordinator status and by priority status, NTPS 2015-16
We also looked at the response follow-up experience by experimental group in Table 6-9. Overall,
the special afternoon reminder call did not help in terms of reducing the follow-up effort.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
41
Teacher Questionnaire
Response Experience in NTPS 2015-16
Table 6-9.
6
Response follow-up experience with teacher-interview final respondents by
nonresponse experimental group, NTPS 2015-16
Unweighted
respondent
Response follow-up category
count
Teacher experimental group 1 special afternoon calls
Telephone and mail follow-up, no field
1,787
Field follow-up
3,337
Total respondents
5,124
Teacher experimental group 2 regular call schedule
Telephone and mail follow-up, no field
1,728
Field follow-up
3,276
Total respondents
5,004
Unweighted
respondent
percent
Weighted
respondent
count
Weighted
respondent
percent
34.88%
65.12%
100.00%
201,692
392,807
594,499
33.93%
66.07%
100.00%
0.93%
0.93%
34.53%
65.47%
100.00%
198,112
391,902
590,014
33.58%
66.42%
100.00%
0.91%
0.91%
Appendix E provides further details by school and teacher domains.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
42
Standard
error
Experimental Study in NTPS 2015-16
7
In the 2014-15 NTPS pilot study, an experiment was conducted comparing the paper questionnaire
mode and the internet questionnaire mode for all school-level survey components (school
questionnaire; principal questionnaire; teacher listing form) and it was found that the response rate
of the internet mode group was considerably lower than that of the paper mode group. NPTS 201516 had a similar experimental study testing whether offering an internet questionnaire mode for the
school questionnaire, principal questionnaire, and teacher listing form with improved contact
materials at the onset of data collection altered the response rates at the school level. One thousand
schools were assigned to an experimental group receiving an internet questionnaire mode. During
the data collection period, the follow-up effort for the experimental group ended after the third
school mailing. For that reason, the response rate comparison is based on schools that responded
before the third mailout. Completed cases with no or limited follow-up effort in Section 2 are
considered completed for this comparison. Only response rate comparisons at the school level are
available since teachers were not sampled from the teacher listing forms of the experimental group
schools. Since there were no school weights created for the experimental group, we carry out
unweighted analyses for the experiment.
For the school questionnaire and teacher listing form, the overall response rate is significantly lower
for the internet mode experimental group than the main study group. However, the difference in
principal response rate between the two groups is minimal (<1%) and not statistically significant.
Table 7-1 shows the response rate for the school questionnaire, principal questionnaire, and teacher
listing form.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
43
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table 7-1.
Response rate comparison by experimental group and by questionnaire, NTPS 2015-16
Main Study
Questionnaire
School
Principal
TLF
Sample
Size
8,300
8,300
8,300
Eligible
schools
8,029
8,025
8,025
Completes
3,078
3,169
3,099
Response
rate
38.3%
39.5%
38.6%
Standard
error
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
Sample
Size
1,000
1,000
1,000
Experimental Group
Eligible
Response
schools
Completes
rate
980
288
29.4%
978
380
38.9%
980
291
29.7%
Standard
error
1.4%
1.5%
1.4%
44
Experimental Study in NTPS 2015-16
7
Experimental Study in NTPS 2015-16
7
We analyzed for significant differences between the main study group and the experimental group in
terms of response rates using a logistic regression model with one of the response status variables as
a dependent variable and the experimental group variable (main study vs. experimental group) and
other school domain variables (up to two-way interaction terms). The logistic regression analysis was
conducted unweighted assuming an independent, identically distributed with replacement
distribution. Firstly, we selected a set of explanatory variables for the response propensity model for
each questionnaire by including all of the school domain variables and their two-way interaction
terms and finding variables that are selected by three model selection methods (forward, backward,
and stepwise). Then, we included the experimental status in addition to the selected variables in the
logistic regression in order to find out if initial internet contacts affected the response rate for any
questionnaire conditional on school domains. Detailed tables are included in Appendix F.
Conditional on school domains, the school response rate and the teacher listing form response rate
are lower for the experimental group than the for main study group, which is consistent with the
findings from the pilot study. However, the experimental group variable is not significant in the
logistic regression model for the principal questionnaire.
We also conducted chi-square tests to test independence of the school characteristics and the data
collection modes among school-interview respondents, and found that only the distribution by
special district status differed by mode. In particular, the percentage of special district schools is
lower with the internet mode than with the paper mode among responding schools.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
45
Summary and Conclusions
8
Much has been learned in this NTPS 2015-16 cycle as to methodology for data collection. The
accelerated field collection efforts for priority schools and for non-priority schools which do not
designate a school coordinator was very successful in reducing the gap in response rates for many
of the school domains which have had traditionally lower response rates (city and suburban schools,
high-poverty schools, high and combined schools). The overall response rates were not improved,
but on the other hand they did not decrease from the previous cycle, which had happened quite
often in SASS. This improvement is certainly in the right direction, and these policies should be
continued and further developed in future cycles.
It is still the case that schools with a survey coordinator are likely to have higher response rates, and
lower levels of needed follow-up operations. We do not know how much of is because of the survey
coordinator’s efforts, and how much is because schools that designate survey coordinators are
generally more cooperative in all phases of data collection. Probably both factors contribute to the
difference, but it is unknown how much can be attributed quantitatively to each without some type
of experiment being carried out explicitly.
The new methods to collect teacher listing forms from alternative sources (from a commercial
vendor; through clerical searches of the internet) were generally successful. The teacher listing form
response rate was marginally increased (SASS 2011-12 was 82.2%; NTPS 2015-16 was 83.6%). The
TLFs from the vendor and/or clerical search have a somewhat higher ineligibility rate. On the
negative side, the teacher questionnaire response rate was much lower in NTPS 2015-16 than in
SASS 2011-12 (for unit response rate, SASS 2011-12 was 77.7% vs. NTPS 2015-16 was 68.1%; for
overall response rate, SASS 2011-12 was 63.9% vs. NTPS 2015-16 was 56.9%). However, the
alternative sources allowed to collect more TLFs and provided information on teachers that would
not have been available through the traditional method. In addition, the overall teacher response rate
is higher than what it would have been without the alternative sources. We believe these methods
should continue to be explored in future cycles of NTPS.
A small experimental study was done for teachers who required a telephone nonresponse follow-up
(so that teachers who responded before this scheduled telephone follow-up would not be part of
this experiment). The experimental treatment was receiving the telephone calls in the afternoon
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
46
Summary and Conclusions
8
rather than the regular call schedule. This experiment showed a very small (but not statistically
significant) increase in response rate among those who received the special afternoon calls.
A larger experimental study was done of 1,000 schools that were asked to respond by internet. This
is less expensive in terms of data collection costs if it is even neutral in terms of cooperation levels.
In NTPS 2015-16 as in NTPS 2014-15 pilot study, the school questionnaire response rates and the
teacher listing form response rates were all significantly lower in the experimental group: about 10
percentage points lower. Intriguingly, the same was not true of the principal questionnaire response
rates. We have not found any significant difference in distribution of school-interview respondents
between the main study schools and the experimental group schools except for the distribution by
special district status. The principal questionnaire response rates in the experimental group were
about the same as for the main study.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
47
Appendix A
School Control Data File Analysis:
Details and Assumptions Made
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
A-1
School Control Data File Analysis:
Details and Assumptions Made
A
This appendix documents the procedures used and assumptions made for the creation of the followup experience flags used in the paradata analyses. Each completed school questionnaire (SQ),
principal questionnaire (PQ), and teacher listing form (TLF) was assigned a flag indicating the extent
of follow-up that was needed before the case was coded as complete. The School Control Database
(SCD) file was processed for this work.
For the SQ, PQ, and TLF, the school domains of interest are:
Special District Flag;
Charter Status;
School Span (primary, middle, high, combined);
Urbanicity (city, suburban, town, rural);
Census Region (Northeast, Central, South, West);
Percentage students eligible for free or reduced price lunch (FRPL: 0 to 35%, 35% to
50%, 50% to 75%, 75% to 100%, not participating);
School Size (enrollment 0 to 99, 100 to 199, 200 to 499, 500 to 749, 750 to 999, 1000 or
more); and
School Type (regular, special education, vocational, alternative).
The first two school domains listed above were already on the SCD file, but the rest were not. They
were recreated using the same logic that was used during frame development. During this process,
the following issues and decisions arose:
School Span: Low grade and high grade variables had been revised at some point
during the data collection, and both the original and revised version of the variables
were on the SCD file. A few revised low grade values were “DC” or “K,” which are
invalid values. We used the original low grade value (instead of “DC”) and “KG”
(instead of “K”) in these cases;
FRPL: We could not assign any schools to the “not participating” category because
missing data (both truly missing and inapplicable) had been fully imputed on the SCD
file. Also, during the process of computing FRPL, the ratio of number of free or
reduced price lunch students to total enrollment is computed. For three schools, this
ratio was equal to or greater than 1. For two of these schools, the ratio was 1 and so not
a concern, but for one school, the ratio was 40.31. A ratio of 1 was used for all three
schools, i.e., assuming that all students were eligible for free or reduced price lunch;
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
A-2
School Control Data File Analysis:
Details and Assumptions Made
A
School Type: 15 schools on the SCD had missing school type, and were assumed to be
regular schools;
Follow-up experience flags were defined as follows. For the operational study SQ and PQ, nonpriority schools with a survey coordinator were assigned as follows:
NPSC1: Interview completed before third school mailout (Limited or No Follow-up);
NPSC2: Interview completed before telephone follow-up (Follow-up with Survey
Coordinator and Mailouts);
NPSC3: Interview completed before Phase 2 field follow-up (Follow-up Including All
Telephone and Mailout Phases);
NPSC4: Interview completed after Phase 2 field follow-up (Follow-up including Field
Follow-up).
For the operational study SQ and PQ, priority schools and non-priority schools without survey
coordinators were assigned as follows:
OTH1: Interview completed before Phase 1 Field Follow-up (Limited or No Followup);
OTH2: Interview completed after Phase 1 Field Follow-up (Follow-up with Phase 1
Field Follow-up);
OTH3: Interview completed after further follow-up after Phase 1 Field Follow-up
(Follow-up Including All Phases);
For the experimental study SQ and PQ, all schools were assigned as follows:
NPSC1: Interview completed before third school mailout (Limited or No Follow-up);
NPSC2: Interview completed after third school mailout (Follow-up with Survey
Coordinator and Mailouts)
For the operational and experimental studies TLF, all schools were assigned as follows:
TLF1: TLF sent in by school before Phase 1 Field Follow-up or Third School Mailout
(Limited or No Follow-up);
TLF2: TLF sent in by school before Vendor File Matching (Phase 1 Field or Third
School Mailout);
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
A-3
School Control Data File Analysis:
Details and Assumptions Made
A
TLF3: TLF obtained through Vendor File Matching or Clerical Research
(Vendor/Clerical Follow-up) and no TLF from school;
TLF4: TLF sent in by school after Vendor/Clerical processes failed (Follow-up after
Vendor/Clerical failed).
Interviews were considered complete if STATUS_SQ was “01” or “02,” STATUS_PQ was “01” or
“02,” or STATUS_TLF was “01,” for the SQ, PQ, and TLF respectively.
In order to assign the follow-up experience flags, “in” flags for each stage of data collection were
assigned first. The “in” flags identified completed cases that were considered to have gone through
that stage of data collection. All of these flags were set for completed cases only; this analysis is only
for completed cases. Different stages of data collection were relevant to different types of cases as
shown in Table A-1.
Table A-1.
Relevant stages of data collection by type of case
Type of case
Operational study SQ and PQ, non-priority schools
with a survey coordinator
Operational study SQ and PQ, priority schools and
non-priority schools without survey coordinators
Experimental study SQ and PQ, all schools
Operational study TLF, all schools
Experimental study TLF, all schools
Relevant stages of data collection
MAIL3, FFU1, REMIND, MAIL4, NRFU, FFU2
FFU1, REMIND, MAIL4, NRFU, FFU2
MAIL3, REMIND
MAIL3, FFU1, VENDOR, RSRCH, REMIND, MAIL4
MAIL3, VENDOR, RSRCH, REMIND
Notes: MAIL3 is Third School Mailout, FFU1 is Phase 1 Field Follow-up, REMIND is Survey Coordinator Reminder Operation, MAIL4 is
Fourth School Mailout including FedEx, NRFU is Telephone Follow-up, FFU2 is Phase 2 Field Follow-up, VENDOR is vendor file matching,
and RSRCH is clerical research operation. We did not expect non-priority schools with survey coordinators to go through FFU1, but
some did. We did not expect priority schools and non-priority schools without survey coordinators to go through REMIND because most
of these don’t even have a survey coordinator, but some did. For the TLF, all operational schools, regardless of survey coordinator
status or priority status, went through the same processes. Follow-up for the experimental schools was limited.
The “in” flags for each stage of data collection were set as shown in Table A-2.
Table A-2.
Setting the “in” flags for each process
Stage of data collection
MAIL3
FFU1
REMIND
MAIL4, PQ or SQ
MAIL4, TLF
NRFU
FFU2
VENDOR
RSRCH
Completed cases counted as “in” if:
Flagged for MAIL3 and no LMR date
Flagged for FFU1 and (no LMR date or LMR date is after 11/9/2015)
Flagged for REMIND
Flagged for MAIL4 and no LMR date, or flagged for FedEx
Flagged for FedEx
Flagged for NRFU and no LMR date or LMR date is after 2/16/2016
Flagged for FFU2 and no LMR date or LMR date is after 3/21/2016
Flagged for VENDOR
Flagged for RSRCH and not pulled due to receipt of paper questionnaire
[i.e., not (LMR date of 11/19/2015 and TLF source is paper)]
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
A-4
School Control Data File Analysis:
Details and Assumptions Made
A
Notice that cases with LMR dates were handled differently (i.e., counted as “in” or not) depending
on the stage of data collection. These decisions had to do with the actual LMR dates as they related
to the process start dates, and how far apart the processes were from each other. For example, only
cases with no LMR date were considered “in” MAIL3 because the LMR date was 11/9/15 and the
process started on 11/15/15. Similarly, only cases with no LMR date were considered “in” MAIL4
because the LMR date was 1/20/16, nearly a month before that process started. On the other hand,
cases were considered “in” REMIND regardless of the LMR date. This was because the LMR date
was 1/4/16, which was in the middle of the REMIND process that ran from 12/1/15 – 12/18/15,
took a break and then resumed from 1/4/16 – 1/22/16. The FFU1, NRFU, and FFU2 processes
had LMR cutoff dates. Only cases with no LMR date or LMR dates after the cutoff were considered
“in” the process.
There were 49 SQ records and 48 PQ records with the FFU2 flag missing and an LMR date filled in.
These records were treated as not in FFU2.
The information in Tables A-1 and A-2 was based on patterns and details observed in the actual
data. These may be different than the data collection plans outlined in the Operations Overview
dated 5/19/2015.
The follow-up experience flags were assigned as shown in Table A-3.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
A-5
School Control Data File Analysis:
Details and Assumptions Made
Table A-3.
A
Rules for assigning follow-up experience flags by type of case
Type of case
Operational study SQ
and PQ, non-priority
schools with a survey
coordinator
Operational study SQ
and PQ, priority
schools and nonpriority schools
without survey
coordinators
Experimental study
SQ and PQ, all
schools
Operational study
TLF, all schools
Experimental study
TLF, all schools
Follow-up experience
flag value
NPSC1
(Limited or no follow-up)
NPSC2
(Follow-up with survey
coordinator and mailouts)
NPSC3
(Follow-up including all
telephone and mailout
phases)
NPSC4
(Follow-up including field
follow-up)
OTH1
(Limited or no follow-up)
OTH2
(Follow-up with Field Followup Only or Phone/Mail
Follow up Only)
OTH3
(Follow-up Including All
Phases)
NPSC1
(Limited or no follow-up)
NPSC2
(Follow-up with Survey
Coordinator and Mailouts)
TLF1
(Limited or no follow-up)
TLF2
(Phase 1 Field or Third
School Mailout)
TLF3
(Vendor/Clerical Follow-up)
TLF4
(Follow-up After
Vendor/Clerical Failed)
TLF1
(Limited or no follow-up)
TLF2
(Phase 1 Field or Third
School Mailout)
TLF3
(Vendor/Clerical Follow-up)
TLF4
(Follow-up After
Vendor/Clerical Failed)
Rules
Not in MAIL3, FFU1, REMIND, MAIL4, NRFU, or FFU2
In MAIL3 or REMIND and not in NRFU or FFU1 or FFU2
In NRFU and not in FFU1 or FFU2
In FFU1 or FFU2
Not in FFU1, REMIND, MAIL4, NRFU, or FFU2
In FFU1 or FFU2 and not in REMIND, MAIL4, or NRFU,
OR
Not in FFU1 or FFU2 and in REMIND, MAIL4, or NRFU
In FFU1 or FFU2 and in REMIND, MAIL4, or NRFU
Not in MAIL3 or REMIND
In MAIL3 or REMIND
Not in MAIL3 or FFU1
Not in VENDOR, OR
In VENDOR and source of TLF is not vendor or clerical
and not in RSRCH or REMIND or MAIL4
Source of TLF is vendor or clerical
In VENDOR and source of TLF is not vendor or clerical
and in REMIND or MAIL4 OR
In RSRCH and source of TLF is not vendor or clerical
Not in MAIL3
Not in VENDOR, OR
In VENDOR and source of TLF is not vendor or clerical
and not in RSRCH or REMIND
Source of TLF is vendor or clerical
In VENDOR and REMIND and source of TLF is not
vendor or clerical OR
In RSRCH and source of TLF is not vendor or clerical
Note: The terms “not in” or “in” above reference use of the “in” flags.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
A-6
Appendix B
Teacher Control Data File Analysis:
Details and Assumptions Made
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
B-1
Teacher Control Data File Analysis:
Details and Assumptions Made
B
This appendix documents the procedures used and assumptions made for the creation of the followup experience flags used in the paradata analyses. Each completed teacher questionnaire (TQ) was
assigned a flag indicating the extent of follow-up that was needed before the case was coded as
complete. The Teacher Control Database (TCD) file was processed for this work.
For the TQ, the school domains described in Appendix A were brought over to the teacher file. In
addition to these, the teacher domain Teacher Subject within School Span was created by crossing
School Span (primary, middle, high, combined) with Teacher Subject (special ed, general elementary,
math, science, English/language arts, social studies, vocational/technical, other). The “high schoolgeneral elementary” category was combined with “high school-other,” and the “primaryvocational/technical” category was combined with “primary-other,” yielding 30 distinct categories.
The follow-up experience flag was defined as follows:
TQ1: Interview completed before telephone follow-up (Limited or No Follow-up);
TQ2: Interview completed before Phase 2 field follow-up (Telephone and Mailout
Follow-up Only);
TQ3: Interview completed after Phase 2 field follow-up (Follow-up including Field
Follow-up).
Interviews were considered complete if STATUS_TCH was “01” or “02”.
In order to assign the follow-up experience flags, “in” flags for each stage of data collection were
assigned first. The “in” flags identified completed cases that were considered to have gone through
that stage of data collection. All of these flags were set for completed cases only; this analysis is only
for completed cases. Teachers went through the same stages of data collection regardless of school
survey coordinator status, teacher treatment (whether the initial contact was by email, mail, or
paper), or other factors. The stages of data collection relevant to teachers are shown in Table B-1.
Table B-1.
Relevant stages of data collection for teachers
Type of case
All teachers
Relevant stages of data collection
MAIL, EMAIL, REMIND, NRFU, FFU2, RMDEXT
Notes: MAIL is the three Teacher Follow-up Mailouts, EMAIL is the three Teacher Follow-up Emails, REMIND is the Survey Coordinator
Reminder Operation, NRFU is Telephone Follow-up, FFU2 is Phase 2 Field Follow-up, RMDEXT is the Phase 2 Reminder Operation.
Cases that went through REMIND or FFU2 did not also go through RMDEXT, and vice versa. The RMDEXT process was for teacher waves
19-24 only.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
B-2
Teacher Control Data File Analysis:
Details and Assumptions Made
B
The “in” flags for each stage of data collection were set as shown in Table B-2.
Table B-2.
Setting the “in” flags for each process
Stage of data collection
MAIL
EMAIL
REMIND
NRFU
FFU2
RMDEXT
Completed cases counted as “in” if:
Flagged for any of the three follow-up mailouts
Flagged for any of the three follow-up emails
Flagged for REMIND
Flagged for NRFU and no LMR date or LMR date is after 2/16/2016
Flagged for FFU2 and no LMR date or LMR date is after 3/21/2016
Flagged for RMDEXT and no LMR date or LMR date is after 6/5/2016
Notice that cases with LMR dates were handled differently (i.e., counted as “in” or not) depending
on the stage of data collection. These decisions had to do with the actual LMR dates as they related
to the process start dates, and how far apart the processes were from each other. One complication
regarding LMR dates that arose with teachers that didn’t happen with the schools, principals, or
TLFs is that the teachers were sampled and their data were collected on a flow basis. This meant
that while the start dates for each process were appropriately staggered, the end date for one process
often was well after the start date for the next process. This made identifying cases that were
completed before the next process began difficult. Cases were considered “in” MAIL regardless of
the LMR date. Cases were also considered “in” REMIND regardless of the LMR date. This was
because the earliest LMR date was 1/4/16, which was in the middle of the REMIND process that
ran from 12/1/15 – 12/18/15, took a break and then resumed from 1/4/16 – 1/22/16. The
NRFU, FFU2, and MDEXT processes had LMR cutoff dates. Only cases with no LMR date or
LMR dates after the cutoff were considered “in” the process.
The information in Tables B-1 and B-2 was based on patterns and details observed in the actual
data. These may be different than the data collection plans outlined in the Operations Overview
dated 5/19/2015.
The follow-up experience flag was assigned as shown in Table B-3.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
B-3
Teacher Control Data File Analysis:
Details and Assumptions Made
Table B-3.
Rules for assigning follow-up experience flag by flag value, all teachers
Follow-up experience flag value
TQ1
(Limited or no follow-up)
TQ2
(Telephone and Mailout Follow-up Only)
TQ3
(Follow-up including Field Follow-up)
Rules
Not in REMIND, NRFU, FFU2, or RMDEXT
In REMIND, NRFU, or RMDEXT and not in FFU2
In FFU2
Note: The terms “not in” or “in” above reference use of the “in” flags.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
B-4
B
Appendix C
School Questionnaire Experience:
Detailed Tables
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
C-1
School Questionnaire Experience:
Detailed Tables
C
Tables C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4 show the rates of responding non-priority schools with a survey
coordinator by response follow-up category (no/limited follow-up; survey coordinator telephone
reminder and mailout; telephone and mail follow-up, no field; field follow-up) as a percentage of all
responding non-priority schools with a survey coordinator across the school domains (special
district flag, charter school status, school span, urbanicity, Census region, poverty level, school size,
and school type). The tables presents the number of completed school interviews; the number,
unweighted percentage and weighted percentage of completed school interviews with one of levels
of follow-up; and the standard error of the weighted percentage. We used the Rao-Scott Chi-Square
statistic for testing independence between response follow-up experience and school domain. The
statistic takes into consideration design effects from the complex survey design. Its p-value is also
presented in the tables. Any significant difference in response follow-up experience by domain is
shaded in the tables in Appendix C.
At a significance level of 0.05, the four tables show that among responding non-priority schools with
a survey coordinator,
The percentage of schools that received no to limited follow-up varies by charter school
status, urbanicity, Census region, and poverty status;
The percentage of schools that received survey coordinator follow-up or mailout varies
by poverty status;
The percentage of schools that received telephone and mail follow-up varies by charter
school status and Census region; and
The percentage of schools that received field follow-up varies by charter school status,
urbanicity, and poverty status.
The following schools tend to require more follow-up to achieve final response: charter schools, city
schools, schools in the Northeast region, and schools where 75% of more of the students are eligible
for free or reduced price lunch.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
C-2
C
School Questionnaire Experience:
Detailed Tables
Table C-1.
Percentage of school respondents that received no/limited follow-up by school
domain, among non-priority schools with a survey coordinator
Weighted percent
Weighted
percent
no or limited
Standard
follow-up
error
Pvalue
79.3%
4.6% 0.1214
71.2%
0.9%
Number of
completes
95
3,032
Number of
completes with
no or limited
follow-up
74
2,128
Unweighted
percent
no or
limited
follow-up
77.9%
70.2%
Charter
Non-charter
408
2,719
246
1,956
60.3%
71.9%
59.8%
72.2%
2.8%
0.9%
0.0000
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
1,435
551
708
433
997
404
500
301
69.5%
73.3%
70.6%
69.5%
71.3%
73.7%
70.1%
70.7%
1.3%
1.9%
2.0%
2.3%
0.6089
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
617
921
579
1,010
391
660
419
732
63.4%
71.7%
72.4%
72.5%
64.6%
71.5%
73.2%
74.4%
1.9%
1.6%
1.9%
1.6%
0.0005
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
480
910
1,142
595
329
686
768
419
68.5%
75.4%
67.3%
70.4%
70.3%
76.5%
68.4%
70.3%
2.2%
1.6%
1.5%
2.1%
0.0032
975
606
963
583
729
432
677
364
74.8%
71.3%
70.3%
62.4%
76.4%
72.1%
71.2%
63.0%
1.5%
2.1%
1.8%
2.3%
0.0000
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
141
244
1,160
825
349
408
98
171
821
572
255
285
69.5%
70.1%
70.8%
69.3%
73.1%
69.9%
73.4%
72.7%
71.8%
69.8%
72.9%
69.8%
4.1%
3.0%
1.5%
1.6%
2.6%
2.4%
0.8477
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
2,961
45
40
81
2,091
31
29
51
70.6%
68.9%
72.5%
63.0%
71.7%
72.3%
69.3%
65.1%
0.9%
7.4%
8.4%
5.6%
0.6066
Domain
Special district
Not special district
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
C-3
C
School Questionnaire Experience:
Detailed Tables
Table C-2.
Percentage of school respondents that received survey coordinator follow-up
(telephone reminder) and mailout by school domain, among non-priority schools
with a survey coordinator
Weighted percent
Weighted
percent
coordinator
follow-up
Standard
mailout
error
13.9%
3.9%
17.6%
0.8%
Number of
completes
95
3,032
Number of
completes
with
coordinator
follow-up
/mailout
12
540
Unweighted
percent
coordinator
follow-up
mailout
12.6%
17.8%
Charter
Non-charter
408
2,719
82
470
20.1%
17.3%
21.3%
17.2%
2.4%
0.8%
0.0883
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
1,435
551
708
433
268
87
119
78
18.7%
15.8%
16.8%
18.0%
17.9%
15.8%
17.5%
17.7%
1.1%
1.5%
1.6%
2.0%
0.7663
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
617
921
579
1,010
128
152
104
168
20.7%
16.5%
18.0%
16.6%
20.9%
17.3%
17.9%
15.4%
1.7%
1.2%
1.7%
1.2%
0.0532
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
480
910
1,142
595
81
148
221
102
16.9%
16.3%
19.4%
17.1%
17.4%
15.8%
18.9%
17.4%
1.9%
1.2%
1.3%
1.7%
0.4147
975
606
963
583
150
100
172
130
15.4%
16.5%
17.9%
22.3%
14.7%
16.8%
17.3%
22.9%
1.2%
1.8%
1.5%
1.9%
0.0038
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
141
244
1,160
825
349
408
27
46
199
157
52
71
19.1%
18.9%
17.2%
19.0%
14.9%
17.4%
15.2%
17.2%
17.2%
19.1%
16.1%
17.5%
2.7%
2.6%
1.1%
1.4%
2.4%
2.0%
0.8040
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
2,961
45
40
81
517
7
7
21
17.5%
15.6%
17.5%
25.9%
17.3%
13.9%
19.3%
23.8%
0.8%
6.0%
7.0%
4.8%
0.4107
Domain
Special district
Not special district
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
C-4
Pvalue
0.4077
School Questionnaire Experience:
Detailed Tables
Table C-3.
C
Percentage of school respondents that received telephone and mail follow-up by
school domain, among non-priority schools with a survey coordinator
Weighted percent
Weighted
percent
telephone
and phone
Standard
follow-up
error
Pvalue
4.2%
2.0% 0.7819
4.8%
0.4%
Number of
completes
95
3,032
Number of
completes
with
telephone and
phone followup
5
159
Unweighted
percent
telephone
and phone
follow-up
5.3%
5.2%
Charter
Non-charter
408
2,719
30
134
7.4%
4.9%
7.5%
4.6%
1.4%
0.4%
0.0201
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
1,435
551
708
433
71
25
46
22
4.9%
4.5%
6.5%
5.1%
4.6%
4.2%
6.3%
4.1%
0.6%
0.9%
1.0%
0.9%
0.2903
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
617
921
579
1,010
40
42
31
51
6.5%
4.6%
5.4%
5.0%
5.5%
4.6%
5.2%
4.5%
0.9%
0.8%
0.9%
0.8%
0.8075
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
480
910
1,142
595
28
32
70
34
5.8%
3.5%
6.1%
5.7%
5.1%
2.7%
5.9%
5.7%
1.0%
0.5%
0.7%
1.1%
0.0079
975
606
963
583
41
33
57
33
4.2%
5.4%
5.9%
5.7%
3.7%
4.9%
6.1%
4.5%
0.7%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.1568
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
141
244
1,160
825
349
408
9
11
65
42
14
23
6.4%
4.5%
5.6%
5.1%
4.0%
5.6%
6.4%
3.5%
4.7%
5.0%
4.1%
5.9%
2.6%
1.0%
0.6%
0.8%
1.2%
1.4%
0.7695
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
2,961
45
40
81
154
4
2
4
5.2%
8.9%
5.0%
4.9%
4.8%
6.7%
4.8%
4.9%
0.4%
3.4%
3.5%
3.0%
0.9764
Domain
Special district
Not special district
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
C-5
School Questionnaire Experience:
Detailed Tables
Table C-4.
C
Percentage of school respondents that received field follow-up by school domain,
among non-priority schools with a survey coordinator
Weighted percent
Weighted
percent
field followStandard
up
error
Pvalue
2.6%
1.6% 0.1119
6.4%
0.5%
Number of
completes
95
3,032
Number of
completes
with
field follow-up
4
205
Unweighted
percent
field followup
4.2%
6.8%
Charter
Non-charter
408
2,719
50
159
12.3%
5.8%
11.4%
6.0%
1.7%
0.5%
0.0003
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
1,435
551
708
433
99
35
43
32
6.9%
6.4%
6.1%
7.4%
6.2%
6.3%
6.1%
7.5%
0.7%
1.2%
1.0%
1.2%
0.8807
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
617
921
579
1,010
58
67
25
59
9.4%
7.3%
4.3%
5.8%
9.0%
6.6%
3.7%
5.7%
1.2%
0.8%
0.8%
0.9%
0.0064
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
480
910
1,142
595
42
44
83
40
8.8%
4.8%
7.3%
6.7%
7.3%
5.0%
6.8%
6.5%
1.2%
0.8%
0.8%
1.3%
0.4182
975
606
963
583
55
41
57
56
5.6%
6.8%
5.9%
9.6%
5.2%
6.3%
5.4%
9.6%
0.8%
1.0%
0.8%
1.4%
0.0082
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
141
244
1,160
825
349
408
7
16
75
54
28
29
5.0%
6.6%
6.5%
6.5%
8.0%
7.1%
5.0%
6.6%
6.3%
6.2%
6.9%
6.8%
1.8%
1.8%
0.8%
0.9%
1.4%
1.3%
0.9749
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
2,961
45
40
81
199
3
2
5
6.7%
6.7%
5.0%
6.2%
6.3%
7.1%
6.6%
6.3%
0.5%
4.3%
4.7%
2.6%
0.9978
Domain
Special district
Not special district
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
Tables C-5, C-6, and C-7 show the rates of responding priority schools by response follow-up
category (no/limited follow-up, phase 1 field follow-up, further follow-up after phase 1) as a
percentage of all responding priority schools across the school domains (special district flag, charter
school status, school span, urbanicity, Census region, poverty level, school size, and school type).
The statistics of the tables are identical to the ones in Tables C-1 through C-4.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
C-6
School Questionnaire Experience:
Detailed Tables
C
At a significant level of 0.05, the three tables show that among priority schools,
The percentage of schools that received no to limited follow-up varies by urbanicity,
Census region, and poverty status;
The percentage of schools that received phase 1 field follow-up varies by urbanicity and
Census region;
The percentage of schools that received further follow-up after phase 1 varies by
urbanicity, Census region, poverty status, and school type.
The following schools tend to require more follow-up to achieve final response: city schools, town
schools, schools in the Northeast, Midwest, and South regions (i.e., only the West stands out with
less followup needed), and schools where 50%-75% are eligible for free or reduced price lunch and
more strongly schools were 75% of more of the students are eligible for free or reduced price lunch.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
C-7
C
School Questionnaire Experience:
Detailed Tables
Table C-5.
Percentage of school respondents that received no/limited follow-up by school
domain, among priority schools
Weighted percent
Weighted
percent
no or limited
Standard
follow-up
error
Pvalue
44.2%
1.9%
0.1356
27.2%
10.7%
Number of
completes
675
24
Number of
completes
with
no or limited
follow-up
309
6
Unweighted
percent
no or limited
follow-up
45.8%
25.0%
Charter
Non-charter
101
598
48
267
47.5%
44.6%
48.6%
43.2%
5.1%
2.0%
0.3348
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
352
126
152
69
165
55
63
32
46.9%
43.7%
41.4%
46.4%
46.2%
41.9%
36.8%
44.7%
2.6%
4.9%
4.7%
6.4%
0.2774
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
433
223
24
19
171
122
9
13
39.5%
54.7%
37.5%
68.4%
39.0%
53.3%
30.9%
62.4%
2.4%
3.5%
10.1%
13.6%
0.0039
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
121
65
295
218
36
23
138
118
29.8%
35.4%
46.8%
54.1%
28.2%
34.9%
46.0%
52.9%
4.7%
6.6%
3.2%
3.5%
0.0007
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
128
76
167
328
76
41
71
127
59.4%
53.9%
42.5%
38.7%
59.8%
54.5%
39.9%
37.8%
4.9%
6.8%
4.3%
2.8%
0.0007
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
35
27
213
193
96
135
15
11
88
92
48
61
42.9%
40.7%
41.3%
47.7%
50.0%
45.2%
34.4%
33.8%
41.6%
47.4%
50.2%
43.4%
10.1%
10.7%
3.4%
3.5%
5.3%
4.7%
0.4837
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
627
16
7
49
286
8
4
17
45.6%
50.0%
57.1%
34.7%
44.8%
41.8%
48.1%
32.4%
2.0%
13.7%
27.4%
7.9%
0.4967
Domain
Special district
Not special district
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
C-8
School Questionnaire Experience:
Detailed Tables
Table C-6.
C
Percentage of school respondents that received phase 1 follow-up by school
domain, among priority schools
Weighted percent
Weighted
percent
coordinator
follow-up
Standard
mailout
error
Pvalue
43.9%
1.8%
0.0851
63.3%
11.4%
Number of
completes
675
24
Number of
completes
with
coordinator
follow-up
mailout
284
15
Unweighted
percent
Phase 1 field
follow-up
42.1%
62.5%
Charter
Non-charter
101
598
36
263
35.6%
44.0%
35.9%
45.2%
4.9%
2.0%
0.1046
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
352
126
152
69
153
53
70
23
43.5%
42.1%
46.1%
33.3%
43.8%
43.0%
51.1%
34.3%
2.7%
4.8%
5.4%
6.3%
0.3019
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
433
223
24
19
208
75
10
6
48.0%
33.6%
41.7%
31.6%
49.5%
34.0%
46.8%
37.6%
2.4%
3.5%
11.7%
13.6%
0.0099
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
121
65
295
218
79
29
110
81
65.3%
44.6%
37.3%
37.2%
64.9%
47.7%
37.8%
39.5%
5.3%
6.3%
2.7%
3.6%
0.0001
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
128
76
167
328
47
28
70
154
36.7%
36.8%
41.9%
47.0%
37.6%
37.0%
45.7%
47.8%
4.9%
6.7%
4.5%
2.9%
0.2512
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
35
27
213
193
96
135
12
11
105
76
37
58
34.3%
40.7%
49.3%
39.4%
38.5%
43.0%
42.9%
46.0%
49.7%
40.0%
41.0%
44.3%
10.0%
11.0%
3.5%
3.2%
5.3%
4.4%
0.6172
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
627
16
7
49
273
6
3
17
43.5%
37.5%
42.9%
34.7%
45.0%
50.7%
51.9%
37.9%
2.0%
14.2%
27.4%
8.5%
0.8018
Domain
Special district
Not special district
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
C-9
C
School Questionnaire Experience:
Detailed Tables
Table C-7.
Percentage of school respondents that received further follow-up after phase 1 by
school domain, among priority schools
Weighted percent
Number of
completes
675
24
Number of
completes
with
telephone
and phone
follow-up
82
3
Unweighted
percent
further
follow-up
after
phase 1
12.1%
12.5%
Weighted
percent
telephone
and phone
follow-up
11.9%
9.4%
Standard
error
1.4%
5.4%
Charter
Non-charter
101
598
17
68
16.8%
11.4%
15.6%
11.5%
3.9%
1.4%
0.2911
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
352
126
152
69
34
18
19
14
9.7%
14.3%
12.5%
20.3%
10.0%
15.1%
12.2%
21.0%
1.7%
3.3%
3.2%
5.4%
0.1500
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
433
223
24
19
54
26
5
-
12.5%
11.7%
20.8%
0.0%
11.5%
12.7%
22.3%
0.0%
1.7%
2.6%
9.8%
0.0%
0.0000
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
121
65
295
218
6
13
47
19
5.0%
20.0%
15.9%
8.7%
6.9%
17.3%
16.2%
7.6%
3.0%
4.6%
2.3%
2.0%
0.0206
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
128
76
167
328
5
7
26
47
3.9%
9.2%
15.6%
14.3%
2.6%
8.5%
14.4%
14.4%
1.4%
3.7%
3.0%
2.1%
0.0072
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
35
27
213
193
96
135
8
5
20
25
11
16
22.9%
18.5%
9.4%
13.0%
11.5%
11.9%
22.7%
20.1%
8.7%
12.6%
8.8%
12.3%
8.2%
8.8%
1.9%
2.4%
2.8%
3.0%
0.1154
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
627
16
7
49
68
2
15
10.8%
12.5%
0.0%
30.6%
10.2%
7.5%
0.0%
29.6%
1.3%
5.7%
0.0%
7.1%
0.0000
Domain
Special district
Not special district
Pvalue
0.6883
Tables C-8, C-9, and C-10 show the rates of responding non-priority schools without a survey
coordinator by response follow-up category (no/limited follow-up, phase 1 field follow-up, further
follow-up after phase 1) as a percentage of all responding non-priority schools without a survey
coordinator across the school domains (special district flag, charter school status, school span,
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
C-10
School Questionnaire Experience:
Detailed Tables
C
urbanicity, Census region, poverty level, school size, and school type). The statistics of the tables are
identical to the ones in Tables C-1 through C-4.
At a significance level of 0.05, the three tables show that among non-priority schools without a
survey coordinator,
The percentage of schools that received no to limited follow-up varies by charter status;
The percentage of schools that received phase 1 field follow-up varies by Census region;
and
The percentage of schools that received further follow-up after phase 1 varies by
Census region.
The following schools tend to require more follow-up to achieve final response: charter schools and
schools in the Southern region (more phase 1 field follow-up).
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
C-11
C
School Questionnaire Experience:
Detailed Tables
Table C-8.
Percentage of school respondents that received no/limited follow-up by school
domain, among non-priority schools without a survey coordinator
Weighted percent
Weighted
percent
no or limited
Standard
follow-up
error
Pvalue
45.4%
8.5% 0.0553
29.8%
1.2%
Number of
completes
52
1,896
Number of
completes
with
no or limited
follow-up
17
544
Unweighted
percent
no or limited
follow-up
32.7%
28.7%
274
1,674
61
500
22.3%
29.9%
22.1%
30.8%
2.8%
1.2%
0.0070
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
820
326
517
285
248
85
142
86
30.2%
26.1%
27.5%
30.2%
31.4%
25.6%
30.7%
29.9%
1.8%
2.4%
2.7%
3.0%
0.3444
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
514
571
327
536
138
150
106
167
26.8%
26.3%
32.4%
31.2%
30.3%
28.6%
32.0%
31.2%
2.6%
2.1%
2.7%
2.4%
0.7822
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
289
459
744
456
70
159
205
127
24.2%
34.6%
27.6%
27.9%
27.2%
36.0%
28.4%
29.6%
3.0%
2.5%
1.9%
2.8%
0.0963
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
518
341
573
516
136
103
188
134
26.3%
30.2%
32.8%
26.0%
29.6%
28.8%
33.7%
28.0%
2.6%
2.8%
2.2%
2.3%
0.3275
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
86
157
654
501
247
303
32
46
192
155
57
79
37.2%
29.3%
29.4%
30.9%
23.1%
26.1%
40.3%
30.4%
29.7%
32.0%
23.6%
25.8%
6.4%
4.1%
2.0%
2.1%
2.9%
2.7%
0.0656
1,804
28
27
89
522
10
6
23
28.9%
35.7%
22.2%
25.8%
29.9%
36.1%
33.8%
33.0%
1.2%
13.0%
12.1%
6.8%
0.9161
Domain
Special district
Not special district
Charter
Non-charter
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
C-12
School Questionnaire Experience:
Detailed Tables
Table C-9.
C
Percentage of school respondents that received phase 1 follow-up by school
domain, among non-priority schools without a survey coordinator
Weighted percent
Weighted
percent
coordinator
follow-up
Standard
mailout
error
Pvalue
43.6%
8.6%
0.1176
57.6%
1.2%
Number of
completes
52
1,896
Number of
completes
with
coordinator
follow-up
mailout
28
1,111
Unweighted
percent
Phase 1 field
follow-up
53.8%
58.6%
274
1,674
174
965
63.5%
57.6%
63.3%
56.8%
3.2%
1.3%
0.0701
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
820
326
517
285
460
205
312
162
56.1%
62.9%
60.3%
56.8%
55.6%
63.1%
57.4%
56.6%
1.8%
2.9%
2.6%
3.5%
0.1735
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
514
571
327
536
317
352
178
292
61.7%
61.6%
54.4%
54.5%
58.2%
60.7%
52.8%
54.6%
2.6%
2.3%
2.9%
2.7%
0.1484
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
289
459
744
456
197
251
416
275
68.2%
54.7%
55.9%
60.3%
65.2%
52.3%
55.4%
59.6%
3.1%
2.6%
2.0%
2.9%
0.0179
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
518
341
573
516
325
188
320
306
62.7%
55.1%
55.8%
59.3%
60.5%
56.9%
54.0%
57.9%
2.5%
3.0%
2.6%
2.4%
0.3315
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
86
157
654
501
247
303
44
84
382
284
164
181
51.2%
53.5%
58.4%
56.7%
66.4%
59.7%
48.7%
52.9%
58.5%
55.9%
65.4%
59.5%
6.5%
4.6%
2.1%
2.3%
3.5%
3.1%
0.1098
1,804
28
27
89
1,048
17
18
56
58.1%
60.7%
66.7%
62.9%
57.1%
61.3%
57.5%
58.7%
1.3%
13.4%
12.0%
6.9%
0.9866
Domain
Special district
Not special district
Charter
Non-charter
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
C-13
School Questionnaire Experience:
Detailed Tables
Table C-10.
C
Percentage of school respondents that received further follow-up after phase 1 by
school domain, among non-priority schools without a survey coordinator
Weighted percent
Weighted
percent
further
follow-up
after
Standard
phase 1
error
11.0%
4.6%
12.5%
0.9%
Number of
completes
52
1,896
Number of
completes
with further
follow-up
after
phase 1
7
241
Unweighted
percent
further
follow-up
after
phase 1
13.5%
12.7%
274
1,674
39
209
14.2%
12.5%
14.6%
12.3%
2.3%
1.0%
0.3446
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
820
326
517
285
112
36
63
37
13.7%
11.0%
12.2%
13.0%
13.0%
11.3%
11.9%
13.5%
1.3%
1.9%
1.7%
2.4%
0.8319
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
514
571
327
536
59
69
43
77
11.5%
12.1%
13.1%
14.4%
11.5%
10.7%
15.3%
14.2%
1.5%
1.4%
2.3%
2.1%
0.2369
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
289
459
744
456
22
49
123
54
7.6%
10.7%
16.5%
11.8%
7.6%
11.7%
16.3%
10.8%
1.9%
1.7%
1.5%
1.9%
0.0073
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
518
341
573
516
57
50
65
76
11.0%
14.7%
11.3%
14.7%
9.9%
14.3%
12.3%
14.1%
1.3%
2.2%
1.9%
1.7%
0.2319
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
86
157
654
501
247
303
10
27
80
62
26
43
11.6%
17.2%
12.2%
12.4%
10.5%
14.2%
11.1%
16.7%
11.8%
12.1%
11.0%
14.7%
5.2%
3.4%
1.3%
1.5%
2.2%
2.2%
0.7090
1,804
28
27
89
234
1
3
10
13.0%
3.6%
11.1%
11.2%
13.1%
2.6%
8.7%
8.3%
1.0%
2.7%
6.4%
3.3%
0.2758
Domain
Special district
Not special district
Charter
Non-charter
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
C-14
Pvalue
0.7566
School Questionnaire Experience:
Detailed Tables
C
In summary, school response rates are significantly lower for schools in special districts, high
schools, city schools, suburban schools, schools in the Northeast region, low or high poverty
schools, and larger schools. School response rates are significantly higher for combined schools,
town and rural schools, Midwest schools, and schools with enrollment 100-199.
For city schools, suburban schools, Northeastern schools, low poverty schools, and high poverty
schools, this lower cooperativeness also translated into a need for more field activity to capture the
respondents that were gained. For charter schools, city schools, and high poverty schools, this
reduced cooperativeness showed up in lower rates for no or limited follow-up and high rates for
extensive field follow-up.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
C-15
Appendix D
Teacher Questionnaire Response Rates:
Detailed Tables
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
D-1
Teacher Questionnaire Response Rates:
Detailed Tables
D
Table D-1 presents eligibility and response rates for NTPS 2015-16 teacher questionnaires by
teacher domain. Rao-Scott Chi-Square tests are conducted to detect any differences. While there is
no significant difference in response rate for full-time teachers and for part-time teachers, teachers
with a missing status on the teacher listing form (mainly from the alternative TLF sources) have a
lower response rate. The response rates are lower for English teachers in primary schools, general
teachers in middle schools, and teachers with a missing subject or other subject in high or combined
schools.
The eligibility and response rates by teacher wave group are presented for teacher domains in Tables
D-2 through D-4. The response rates for teacher domains with a statistically significant difference in
response rate are in bold and italic in Tables D-1 through D-4.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
D-2
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table D-1.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates, teacher domains
Number of
Weighted
D-3
Response
rate
69.5%
76.8%
Eligibility
rate
94.9%
92.4%
Response
rate
69.1%
76.9%
Std.
error
4.4%
1.2%
Lower
bound
CI
60.3%
74.6%
Upper
bound
CI
77.9%
79.2%
10,836
567
245
933
117
3,325
7,922
441
184
599
85
2,258
96.0%
96.8%
97.2%
93.2%
95.9%
89.8%
73.1%
77.8%
75.1%
64.2%
72.6%
67.9%
96.2%
96.4%
97.1%
93.0%
97.2%
89.7%
73.1%
80.4%
77.0%
64.3%
71.6%
68.2%
0.7%
1.9%
3.1%
1.8%
4.9%
0.9%
71.8%
76.6%
70.9%
60.8%
62.0%
66.4%
74.3%
84.1%
83.1%
67.8%
81.3%
70.0%
157
1,152
152
1,104
89
848
96.8%
95.8%
58.6%
76.8%
96.5%
95.8%
62.5%
76.7%
8.1%
1.4%
46.6%
73.8%
78.4%
79.5%
426
1,191
917
1,812
778
208
2,839
403
1,166
895
1,727
765
204
2,619
224
906
674
1,186
592
165
1,648
94.6%
97.9%
97.6%
95.3%
98.3%
98.1%
92.3%
55.6%
77.7%
75.3%
68.7%
77.4%
80.9%
62.9%
94.7%
98.0%
97.5%
95.3%
98.4%
97.9%
92.3%
55.4%
77.6%
75.4%
68.7%
77.4%
80.5%
62.6%
3.0%
1.2%
1.5%
1.2%
1.5%
2.8%
1.3%
49.5%
75.3%
72.5%
66.3%
74.5%
75.0%
60.1%
61.4%
80.0%
78.4%
71.2%
80.4%
86.0%
65.1%
273
1,663
1,933
1,772
2,425
1,602
1,092
4,361
250
1,572
1,870
1,717
2,334
1,561
1,057
4,034
152
1,169
1,303
1,171
1,510
1,066
817
2,498
91.6%
94.5%
96.7%
96.9%
96.2%
97.4%
96.8%
92.5%
60.8%
74.4%
69.7%
68.2%
64.7%
68.3%
77.3%
61.9%
92.0%
94.6%
96.7%
96.6%
96.1%
97.4%
96.7%
92.5%
60.7%
73.8%
69.0%
67.3%
63.4%
68.4%
76.5%
60.5%
4.8%
1.4%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.5%
1.5%
1.2%
51.3%
71.0%
66.4%
64.8%
60.8%
65.4%
73.6%
58.1%
70.1%
76.5%
71.6%
69.9%
66.0%
71.4%
79.5%
62.9%
Eligible
teachers
177
1,860
11,285
586
252
1,001
122
3,703
Middle - Missing
Middle - Special ed
Middle - General
elementary
Middle - Math
Middle - Science
Middle - English
Middle - Social
Middle - Vo/Tech
Middle - Other
High - Missing
High - Special ed
High - Math
High - Science
High - English
High - Social
High - Vo/Tech
High - Other
Teacher Questionnaire Response Rates:
Detailed Tables
Completes
123
1,429
Eligibility
rate
95.2%
92.4%
Sample
size
186
2,014
Domain
Primary - Missing
Primary - Special ed
Primary - General
elementary
Primary - Math
Primary - Science
Primary - English
Primary - Social
Primary - Other
Unweighted
D
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table D-1.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates, teacher domains (continued)
Number of
Domain
Combined - Missing
Combined - Special ed
Combined - General
elementary
Combined - Math
Combined - Science
Combined - English
Combined - Social
Combined - Vo/Tech
Combined - Other
D-4
Full-time teachers
Part-time teachers
Status missing
Unweighted
Weighted
Completes
80
615
Eligibility
rate
96.5%
94.0%
Response
rate
57.6%
80.1%
Eligibility
rate
96.8%
93.4%
Response
rate
55.8%
79.7%
Std.
error
5.9%
2.2%
Lower
bound
CI
44.1%
75.3%
Upper
bound
CI
67.5%
84.1%
940
503
399
579
349
214
1,077
739
387
303
422
264
174
710
95.3%
96.5%
96.6%
95.9%
98.6%
98.6%
91.2%
78.6%
76.9%
75.9%
72.9%
75.6%
81.3%
65.9%
95.2%
96.7%
96.8%
95.8%
98.7%
98.9%
91.1%
77.8%
77.5%
76.9%
73.7%
76.0%
83.8%
65.6%
1.6%
1.8%
2.4%
2.2%
2.6%
2.9%
2.0%
74.6%
73.9%
72.3%
69.5%
70.8%
78.1%
61.7%
81.1%
81.2%
81.5%
78.0%
81.1%
89.6%
69.6%
30,601
2,182
13,675
24,568
1,732
6,453
97.0%
92.0%
90.7%
80.3%
79.4%
47.2%
97.0%
91.8%
90.8%
80.6%
80.2%
47.0%
0.4%
1.1%
0.7%
79.8%
78.1%
45.6%
81.4%
82.3%
48.5%
Sample
size
144
817
Eligible
teachers
139
768
986
521
413
604
354
217
1,181
31,544
2,373
15,070
Teacher Questionnaire Response Rates:
Detailed Tables
D
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table D-2.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates for teacher early wave group, teacher domains
Domain
Primary - Missing
Primary - Special ed
Primary - General
elementary
Primary - Math
Primary - Science
Primary - English
Primary - Social
Primary - Other
Sample
size
43
472
2,690
Number of
Eligible
teachers
Completes
41
33
435
394
2,630
2,388
Unweighted
Eligibility
Response
rate
rate
95.3%
80.5%
92.2%
90.6%
97.8%
90.8%
Eligibility
rate
95.1%
92.2%
98.0%
Response
rate
81.7%
90.7%
90.9%
Weighted
Std.
error
5.8%
1.6%
0.9%
Lower
bound CI
70.2%
87.5%
89.1%
Upper
bound CI
93.2%
93.8%
92.6%
D-5
141
55
168
23
684
137
54
153
23
639
97.2%
100.0%
96.6%
95.8%
93.8%
97.2%
98.2%
91.1%
100.0%
93.4%
97.0%
100.0%
96.5%
98.2%
93.5%
97.4%
97.4%
91.7%
100.0%
93.3%
1.4%
2.6%
2.2%
0.0%
1.0%
94.7%
92.2%
87.3%
100.0%
91.3%
100.0%
100.0%
96.1%
100.0%
95.3%
Middle - Missing
Middle - Special ed
Middle - General
elementary
Middle - Math
Middle - Science
Middle - English
Middle - Social
Middle - Vo/Tech
Middle - Other
23
309
44
23
300
44
22
276
41
100.0%
97.1%
100.0%
95.7%
92.0%
93.2%
100.0%
97.2%
100.0%
96.1%
91.9%
92.8%
4.4%
1.8%
4.3%
87.5%
88.5%
84.4%
100.0%
95.4%
100.0%
348
271
434
221
85
526
346
268
427
217
82
505
313
243
379
205
78
455
99.4%
98.9%
98.4%
98.2%
96.5%
96.0%
90.5%
90.7%
88.8%
94.5%
95.1%
90.1%
99.4%
99.0%
98.4%
98.5%
96.1%
96.0%
90.3%
90.8%
89.7%
94.4%
94.8%
90.4%
1.8%
1.8%
2.0%
1.6%
2.6%
1.6%
86.8%
87.2%
85.9%
91.2%
89.7%
87.2%
93.8%
94.4%
93.6%
97.6%
99.8%
93.6%
High - Missing
High - Special ed
High - Math
High - Science
High - English
High - Social
High - Vo/Tech
High - Other
17
391
435
410
491
381
330
836
15
383
432
405
489
379
322
794
15
353
379
374
433
333
287
680
88.2%
98.0%
99.3%
98.8%
99.6%
99.5%
97.6%
95.0%
100.0%
92.2%
87.7%
92.3%
88.5%
87.9%
89.1%
85.6%
88.7%
97.9%
99.6%
98.9%
99.5%
99.4%
97.5%
94.8%
100.0%
91.9%
87.1%
92.2%
88.0%
87.7%
89.5%
85.5%
0.0%
1.6%
2.0%
1.6%
1.6%
1.8%
2.0%
1.5%
100.0%
88.8%
83.2%
89.2%
85.0%
84.3%
85.6%
82.5%
100.0%
95.1%
91.0%
95.3%
91.1%
91.2%
93.4%
88.5%
Teacher Questionnaire Response Rates:
Detailed Tables
145
55
174
24
729
D
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table D-2.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates for teacher early wave group, teacher domains (continued)
Domain
Combined - Missing
Combined - Special ed
Combined - General
elementary
Combined - Math
Combined - Science
Combined - English
Combined - Social
Combined - Vo/Tech
Combined - Other
D-6
Full-time teachers
Part-time teachers
Status missing
Sample
size
15
225
243
Number of
Eligible
teachers
Completes
14
13
213
201
231
219
Unweighted
Eligibility
Response
rate
rate
93.3%
92.9%
94.7%
94.4%
95.1%
94.8%
Eligibility
rate
92.8%
93.8%
95.1%
Response
rate
92.3%
93.3%
94.8%
Weighted
Std.
error
8.0%
3.0%
1.9%
Lower
bound CI
76.5%
87.3%
91.1%
Upper
bound CI
100.0%
99.2%
98.5%
136
113
127
96
63
251
134
108
126
95
61
233
124
98
118
81
56
193
98.5%
95.6%
99.2%
99.0%
96.8%
92.8%
92.5%
90.7%
93.7%
85.3%
91.8%
82.8%
98.7%
95.6%
99.2%
99.1%
97.4%
92.0%
93.3%
91.9%
94.3%
85.9%
92.2%
81.8%
2.1%
2.5%
2.4%
3.5%
3.6%
4.0%
89.1%
87.0%
89.6%
78.9%
85.0%
74.0%
97.5%
96.9%
98.9%
92.9%
99.4%
89.7%
10,123
743
287
9,854
691
278
8,928
616
246
97.3%
93.0%
96.9%
90.6%
89.1%
88.5%
97.4%
92.4%
97.0%
90.7%
90.0%
88.3%
0.5%
1.5%
4.0%
89.6%
87.1%
80.4%
91.7%
92.8%
96.1%
Teacher Questionnaire Response Rates:
Detailed Tables
D
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table D-3.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates for middle teacher wave group, teacher domains
Domain
Primary - Missing
Primary - Special ed
Primary - General
elementary
Primary - Math
Primary - Science
Primary - English
Primary - Social
Primary - Other
D-7
High - Missing
High - Special ed
High - Math
High - Science
High - English
High - Social
High - Vo/Tech
High - Other
Number of
Eligible
teachers
Completes
47
40
622
534
3,419
2,879
Unweighted
Eligibility
Response
rate
rate
90.4%
85.1%
92.7%
85.9%
97.2%
84.2%
Eligibility
rate
90.1%
92.6%
97.4%
Response
rate
84.0%
86.4%
84.6%
Weighted
Std.
error
6.3%
1.5%
0.8%
Lower
bound CI
71.5%
83.5%
82.9%
Upper
bound CI
96.5%
89.4%
86.2%
201
86
219
47
987
197
84
213
47
904
157
68
169
35
736
98.0%
97.7%
97.3%
100.0%
91.6%
79.7%
81.0%
79.3%
74.5%
81.4%
98.5%
98.0%
97.5%
100.0%
91.7%
82.6%
82.2%
81.2%
70.3%
81.9%
2.9%
4.7%
2.9%
8.0%
1.5%
76.8%
73.0%
75.5%
54.5%
79.0%
88.3%
91.4%
86.9%
86.1%
84.7%
51
392
56
48
378
53
36
304
43
94.1%
96.4%
94.6%
75.0%
80.4%
81.1%
93.5%
96.4%
95.6%
74.7%
80.4%
82.7%
9.0%
2.7%
5.7%
56.9%
75.2%
71.4%
92.5%
85.7%
94.0%
430
329
503
282
81
632
419
325
488
279
81
599
348
254
392
222
60
473
97.4%
98.8%
97.0%
98.9%
100.0%
94.8%
83.1%
78.2%
80.3%
79.6%
74.1%
79.0%
97.7%
98.7%
97.1%
99.0%
100.0%
94.9%
83.6%
78.1%
80.7%
79.6%
73.3%
78.6%
1.7%
2.5%
1.9%
2.5%
5.2%
2.2%
80.2%
73.3%
77.0%
74.6%
63.1%
74.3%
87.0%
83.0%
84.4%
84.5%
83.5%
83.0%
63
443
527
447
551
451
397
1,005
51
423
521
442
541
444
388
949
39
356
415
349
429
343
308
734
81.0%
95.5%
98.9%
98.9%
98.2%
98.4%
97.7%
94.4%
76.5%
84.2%
79.7%
79.0%
79.3%
77.3%
79.4%
77.3%
82.3%
95.7%
98.8%
98.1%
98.4%
98.5%
97.8%
94.8%
77.2%
83.7%
79.9%
79.4%
79.5%
78.5%
79.0%
77.0%
10.1%
1.9%
1.9%
2.1%
1.9%
2.4%
2.6%
1.9%
57.3%
80.0%
76.1%
75.2%
75.7%
73.7%
73.8%
73.3%
97.1%
87.4%
83.6%
83.5%
83.3%
83.3%
84.3%
80.8%
Teacher Questionnaire Response Rates:
Detailed Tables
Middle - Missing
Middle - Special ed
Middle - General
elementary
Middle - Math
Middle - Science
Middle - English
Middle - Social
Middle - Vo/Tech
Middle - Other
Sample
size
52
671
3,516
D
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table D-3.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates for middle teacher wave group, teacher domains (continued)
Domain
Combined - Missing
Combined - Special ed
Combined - General
elementary
Combined - Math
Combined - Science
Combined - English
Combined - Social
Combined - Vo/Tech
Combined - Other
D-8
Full-time teachers
Part-time teachers
Status missing
Sample
size
32
257
299
Number of
Eligible
teachers
Completes
31
20
244
214
287
253
Unweighted
Eligibility
Response
rate
rate
96.9%
64.5%
94.9%
87.7%
96.0%
88.2%
Eligibility
rate
97.7%
93.8%
95.5%
Response
rate
55.7%
87.3%
88.6%
Weighted
Std.
error
11.1%
2.3%
2.0%
Lower
bound CI
33.7%
82.6%
84.5%
Upper
bound CI
77.6%
91.9%
92.6%
172
133
177
118
97
318
164
132
175
116
97
297
133
114
139
95
82
238
95.3%
99.2%
98.9%
98.3%
100.0%
93.4%
81.1%
86.4%
79.4%
81.9%
84.5%
80.1%
95.6%
99.2%
98.9%
98.4%
100.0%
93.1%
82.0%
88.3%
80.9%
82.7%
87.1%
79.7%
3.0%
2.7%
3.2%
3.8%
4.2%
2.9%
76.0%
83.0%
74.6%
75.2%
78.8%
74.0%
88.0%
93.6%
87.1%
90.2%
95.4%
85.3%
12,657
1,004
361
12,254
913
338
10,016
723
272
96.8%
90.9%
93.6%
81.7%
79.2%
80.5%
96.8%
90.9%
93.5%
82.2%
80.3%
81.1%
0.6%
1.7%
3.2%
81.0%
77.0%
74.7%
83.4%
83.6%
87.5%
Teacher Questionnaire Response Rates:
Detailed Tables
D
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table D-4.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates for late teacher wave group, teacher domains
Domain
Primary - Missing
Primary - Special ed
Primary - General
elementary
Primary - Math
Primary - Science
Primary - English
Primary - Social
Primary - Other
Sample
size
91
871
5,079
Number of
Eligible
teachers
Completes
89
50
803
501
4,787
2,655
Unweighted
Eligibility
Response
rate
rate
97.8%
56.2%
92.2%
62.4%
94.3%
55.5%
Eligibility
rate
97.7%
92.3%
94.5%
Response
rate
54.9%
62.4%
55.5%
Weighted
Std.
error
5.9%
2.0%
1.0%
Lower
bound CI
43.3%
58.4%
53.4%
Upper
bound CI
66.6%
66.4%
57.6%
240
111
608
51
1,987
229
106
552
47
1,737
147
62
277
27
883
95.4%
95.5%
90.8%
92.2%
87.4%
64.2%
58.5%
50.2%
57.4%
50.8%
94.1%
95.0%
90.5%
93.9%
87.3%
66.6%
62.4%
49.9%
60.3%
51.6%
3.6%
5.5%
2.5%
8.1%
1.4%
59.5%
51.6%
45.0%
44.3%
48.9%
73.7%
73.3%
54.9%
76.4%
54.3%
D-9
83
451
326
81
426
306
31
268
140
97.6%
94.5%
93.9%
38.3%
62.9%
45.8%
97.6%
94.2%
93.8%
44.0%
62.9%
45.7%
10.0%
2.5%
3.1%
24.4%
58.0%
39.6%
63.7%
67.8%
51.8%
413
317
875
275
42
1,681
401
302
812
269
41
1,515
245
177
415
165
27
720
97.1%
95.3%
92.8%
97.8%
97.6%
90.1%
61.1%
58.6%
51.1%
61.3%
65.9%
47.5%
97.1%
95.1%
92.8%
97.6%
97.5%
90.3%
60.9%
59.0%
51.4%
61.5%
66.7%
47.6%
2.6%
3.0%
1.8%
3.1%
7.3%
1.7%
55.8%
53.1%
47.8%
55.3%
52.3%
44.3%
66.0%
64.9%
55.0%
67.7%
81.1%
50.9%
High - Missing
High - Special ed
High - Math
High - Science
High - English
High - Social
High - Vo/Tech
High - Other
193
829
971
915
1,383
770
365
2,520
184
766
917
870
1,304
738
347
2,291
98
460
509
448
648
390
222
1,084
95.3%
92.4%
94.4%
95.1%
94.3%
95.8%
95.1%
90.9%
53.3%
60.1%
55.5%
51.5%
49.7%
52.8%
64.0%
47.3%
95.1%
92.5%
94.5%
95.0%
94.0%
95.8%
94.9%
90.9%
53.1%
59.8%
55.3%
51.0%
48.5%
53.3%
62.3%
46.0%
5.3%
2.2%
2.0%
1.8%
1.8%
2.1%
2.7%
1.5%
42.6%
55.5%
51.4%
47.5%
45.0%
49.2%
56.9%
43.0%
63.6%
64.2%
59.2%
54.6%
52.1%
57.3%
67.7%
48.9%
Teacher Questionnaire Response Rates:
Detailed Tables
Middle - Missing
Middle - Special ed
Middle - General
elementary
Middle - Math
Middle - Science
Middle - English
Middle - Social
Middle - Vo/Tech
Middle - Other
D
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table D-4.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates for late teacher wave group, teacher domains (continued)
Domain
Combined - Missing
Combined - Special ed
Combined - General
elementary
Combined - Math
Combined - Science
Combined - English
Combined - Social
Combined - Vo/Tech
Combined - Other
D-10
Full-time teachers
Part-time teachers
Status missing
Sample
size
97
335
444
Number of
Eligible
teachers
Completes
94
47
311
200
422
267
Unweighted
Eligibility
Response
rate
rate
96.9%
50.0%
92.8%
64.3%
95.0%
63.3%
Eligibility
rate
97.1%
92.8%
95.0%
Response
rate
50.7%
65.7%
62.8%
Weighted
Std.
error
6.3%
3.8%
2.6%
Lower
bound CI
38.2%
58.3%
57.7%
Upper
bound CI
63.2%
73.1%
68.0%
213
167
300
140
57
612
205
159
278
138
56
547
130
91
165
88
36
279
96.2%
95.2%
92.7%
98.6%
98.2%
89.4%
63.4%
57.2%
59.4%
63.8%
64.3%
51.0%
96.3%
95.7%
92.5%
98.7%
98.4%
89.7%
64.3%
57.5%
60.1%
63.6%
68.0%
51.2%
3.5%
4.1%
3.7%
4.6%
6.5%
2.9%
57.4%
49.3%
52.8%
54.5%
55.3%
45.4%
71.1%
65.7%
67.5%
72.8%
80.7%
56.9%
8,764
626
14,422
8,493
578
13,059
5,624
393
5,935
96.9%
92.3%
90.5%
66.2%
68.0%
45.4%
96.9%
92.4%
90.6%
66.7%
68.1%
45.5%
0.9%
2.4%
0.7%
65.0%
63.4%
44.0%
68.4%
72.8%
46.9%
Teacher Questionnaire Response Rates:
Detailed Tables
D
Teacher Questionnaire Response Rates:
Detailed Tables
D
Tables D-5A and D-5B compare the weighted conditional teacher response rates of two
experimental groups for the major school domains and teacher domains respectively. There are
three domains with a significant difference in response rate between two experimental groups, with
higher response rates for teachers in the experimental groups: teachers from schools in towns,
primary school teachers whose major subject is other and high school teachers whose main subject
is vocational/technical (bold in Tables D-5A and D-5B).
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
D-11
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table D-5A.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates by nonresponse follow-up experimental group, major school domains
Domain
All
Teacher experimental group 1 special afternoon call
Number of
Weighted
Sample
Eligible
Response
Std
size
teachers
Completes
rate
error
9,560
9,215
5,124
55.5%
0.7%
Teacher experimental group 2 regular call schedule
Number of
Weighted
Sample
Eligible
Response
Std
size
teachers
Completes
rate
error
9,439
9,104
5,004
54.7%
0.7%
D-12
2,051
7,509
1,978
7,237
952
4,172
47.9%
57.6%
1.5%
0.7%
2,038
7,401
1,959
7,145
959
4,045
48.9%
56.3%
1.5%
0.7%
Charter
Non-charter
1,217
8,343
1,162
8,053
662
4,462
56.7%
55.4%
1.6%
0.7%
1,134
8,305
1,074
8,030
594
4,410
55.8%
54.6%
1.8%
0.7%
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
3,721
1,876
2,988
975
3,553
1,799
2,920
943
2,074
956
1,524
570
58.6%
53.0%
51.1%
60.6%
1.0%
1.5%
1.3%
2.0%
3,601
1,834
3,038
966
3,461
1,776
2,946
921
1,975
953
1,502
574
57.3%
53.8%
49.9%
62.6%
1.1%
1.5%
1.3%
1.9%
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
3,288
3,258
1,165
1,849
3,163
3,151
1,113
1,788
1,631
1,660
730
1,103
51.1%
52.6%
66.7%
62.3%
1.2%
1.3%
1.7%
1.6%
3,227
3,247
1,120
1,845
3,098
3,141
1,072
1,793
1,638
1,620
670
1,076
52.5%
51.7%
62.7%
60.0%
1.1%
1.2%
2.0%
1.5%
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
1,913
1,901
3,634
2,112
1,853
1,821
3,498
2,043
935
1,129
1,968
1,092
50.2%
61.3%
56.4%
53.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.0%
1.4%
1,909
1,866
3,605
2,059
1,838
1,786
3,482
1,998
928
1,085
1,922
1,069
50.5%
60.1%
54.8%
53.7%
1.6%
1.5%
1.1%
1.4%
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
2,750
1,601
2,551
2,658
2,678
1,548
2,446
2,543
1,430
881
1,410
1,403
53.6%
56.4%
57.1%
55.4%
1.3%
1.6%
1.2%
1.3%
2,720
1,568
2,516
2,635
2,630
1,517
2,421
2,536
1,367
841
1,395
1,401
51.8%
55.2%
56.8%
55.5%
1.3%
1.4%
1.2%
1.3%
Teacher Questionnaire Response Rates:
Detailed Tables
Special district
Not special district
D
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table D-5A.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates by nonresponse follow-up experimental group, major school domains
(continued)
Domain
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
Teacher experimental group 1 special afternoon call
Number of
Weighted
Sample
Eligible
Response
Std
size
teachers
Completes
rate
error
259
249
150
57.0%
4.8%
432
419
252
63.2%
3.0%
2,702
2,589
1,518
58.5%
1.1%
2,481
2,383
1,368
57.6%
1.4%
1,364
1,313
718
54.9%
1.8%
2,322
2,262
1,118
48.6%
1.4%
9,073
143
101
243
8,748
135
97
235
4,864
82
53
125
55.6%
59.6%
57.9%
48.1%
0.7%
6.5%
4.8%
4.0%
Teacher experimental group 2 regular call schedule
Number of
Weighted
Sample
Eligible
Response
Std
size
teachers
Completes
rate
error
241
228
131
53.3%
3.4%
421
403
247
66.1%
2.9%
2,665
2,562
1,460
56.5%
1.2%
2,432
2,334
1,323
57.0%
1.3%
1,363
1,313
714
54.4%
1.7%
2,317
2,264
1,129
48.9%
1.4%
8,926
129
112
272
8,622
115
105
262
4,735
72
52
145
54.8%
63.6%
47.1%
52.9%
0.7%
9.8%
4.4%
3.1%
D-13
Teacher Questionnaire Response Rates:
Detailed Tables
D
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table D-5B.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates by nonresponse follow-up experimental group, teacher domains
Domain
Primary - Missing
Primary - Special ed
Primary - General
Primary - Math
Primary - Science
Primary - English
Primary - Social
Primary - Other
Teacher experimental group 1 special afternoon call
Number of
Weighted
Sample
Eligible
Response
Std
size
teachers
Completes
rate
error
40
38
22
56.2%
8.1%
347
320
190
59.6%
3.0%
2,152
2,077
1,222
58.8%
1.3%
120
117
77
70.3%
4.6%
59
58
37
68.4%
6.4%
221
213
108
50.5%
3.3%
30
28
14
47.9%
9.6%
752
702
404
58.1%
1.9%
Teacher experimental group 2 regular call schedule
Number of
Weighted
Sample
Eligible
Response
Std
size
teachers
Completes
rate
error
39
38
20
53.5%
8.8%
376
358
207
58.6%
3.2%
2,121
2,057
1,223
59.8%
1.2%
104
102
61
61.5%
4.8%
48
47
28
62.4%
7.8%
184
175
90
52.8%
3.9%
17
17
11
61.9%
12.5%
712
667
335
49.5%
2.1%
D-14
26
209
85
267
181
349
156
31
572
25
195
84
259
178
336
153
30
539
11
106
39
157
96
169
94
13
271
44.8%
52.6%
47.5%
60.3%
54.2%
51.2%
62.0%
42.9%
49.8%
8.3%
4.0%
6.4%
2.9%
4.1%
2.8%
3.8%
8.8%
2.5%
24
219
81
204
185
354
160
36
571
23
213
76
199
181
337
157
36
554
15
121
35
115
100
177
92
19
279
66.1%
57.7%
46.1%
57.2%
55.5%
52.8%
58.3%
52.5%
50.4%
14.0%
3.6%
5.9%
3.5%
3.6%
2.8%
3.6%
9.0%
2.5%
High - Missing
High - Special ed
High - Math
High - Science
High - English
High - Social
High - Vo/Tech
High - Other
72
275
387
329
493
304
238
890
68
269
380
329
483
301
231
859
38
141
217
164
237
161
144
422
57.9%
52.5%
56.9%
50.6%
47.2%
54.0%
62.3%
46.1%
7.1%
2.9%
2.7%
3.4%
2.6%
3.3%
3.6%
2.2%
64
288
377
369
453
349
216
922
57
276
372
361
440
343
209
888
29
158
193
208
212
169
109
424
50.2%
55.5%
52.4%
55.9%
46.5%
48.7%
50.6%
46.7%
8.4%
2.9%
2.9%
2.6%
2.6%
2.7%
4.2%
2.0%
Teacher Questionnaire Response Rates:
Detailed Tables
Middle - Missing
Middle - Special ed
Middle - General
Middle - Math
Middle - Science
Middle - English
Middle - Social
Middle - Vo/Tech
Middle - Other
D
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table D-5B.
NTPS 2015-16 teacher eligibility and response rates by nonresponse follow-up experimental group, teacher domains
(continued)
Domain
Combined - Missing
Combined - Special ed
Combined - General
elementary
Combined - Math
Combined - Science
Combined - English
Combined - Social
Combined - Vo/Tech
Combined - Other
D-15
Full-time teachers
Part-time teachers
Status missing
Primary - Missing
Teacher experimental group 1 special afternoon call
Number of
Weighted
Sample
Eligible
Response
Std
size
teachers
Completes
rate
error
40
39
19
45.8%
9.4%
141
133
96
73.6%
4.6%
167
163
109
64.3%
4.7%
Teacher experimental group 2 regular call schedule
Number of
Weighted
Sample
Eligible
Response
Std
size
teachers
Completes
rate
error
42
41
19
45.3%
8.5%
154
145
97
65.4%
5.2%
170
162
110
67.6%
4.1%
106
71
103
62
44
241
102
69
102
61
44
230
60
38
58
41
29
120
59.6%
57.2%
60.2%
67.7%
71.1%
49.7%
4.8%
6.2%
5.1%
6.3%
6.4%
3.7%
87
82
105
67
36
223
80
79
102
66
34
212
50
56
65
40
19
118
64.8%
72.5%
63.8%
63.6%
55.1%
56.4%
5.7%
5.1%
4.7%
5.9%
9.1%
3.9%
5,955
457
3,148
40
5,771
420
3,024
38
3,535
253
1,336
22
61.7%
61.4%
43.4%
56.2%
0.8%
2.6%
1.1%
8.1%
5,897
450
3,092
39
5,710
420
2,974
38
3,497
247
1,260
20
61.4%
58.2%
41.9%
53.5%
0.9%
2.5%
1.3%
8.8%
Teacher Questionnaire Response Rates:
Detailed Tables
D
Appendix E
Teacher Questionnaire Response Experience:
Detailed Tables
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
E-1
Teacher Questionnaire Response Experience:
Detailed Tables
E
Tables E-1 through E-3 show the percentages of teacher respondents who received no or limited
follow-up, telephone or mail follow-up, and field follow-up, respectively, before completing the
teacher questionnaire within a teacher wave group. The percentages are based on the teacher final
weights. Part A of each table covers school domains, and Part B covers teacher domains. Given a
follow-up experience group within a teacher wave group, the percentages for teacher domains with a
statistically significant difference are in bold and italic in Tables E-1 through E-3.
Across all teacher wave groups, fewer teachers from schools in the West region responded with no
or limited follow-up (before any of telephone, mail and field follow-up). Other than the West region
domain, the following domains are less likely to respond with no or limited follow-up and required
more extensive follow-up than the other types of schools:
Early TWG: teachers in special districts and teachers from charter schools;
Middle TWG: teachers from city schools, teachers from high poverty schools, and teachers
with a missing teaching status;
Late TWG: teachers in special districts, teachers from charter schools, teachers from high
poverty schools, teachers from small schools, and teachers in special education schools.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
E-2
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table E-1A.
Percentage of teacher respondents with no/limited follow-up by school domain by teacher wave group, NTPS 2015-16
E-3
Early
Wave
Weighted
percent
58.2%
66.4%
Early
Wave
Standard
error
2.5%
0.9%
Middle Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
1,304
9,707
Middle
Wave
Weighted
percent
67.0%
65.1%
Middle
Wave
Standard
error
2.4%
0.9%
Late Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
2,289
9,663
Late
Wave
Weighted
percent
42.2%
53.3%
Late
Wave
Standard
error
1.8%
0.9%
Charter
Non-charter
1,006
8,784
58.5%
65.4%
2.7%
0.9%
1,128
9,883
63.3%
65.4%
2.5%
0.9%
1,304
10,648
43.7%
51.2%
2.1%
0.9%
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
3,821
2,012
2,854
1,103
66.1%
65.2%
63.4%
64.9%
1.2%
1.8%
1.7%
2.5%
4,618
2,132
2,973
1,288
65.4%
66.6%
64.9%
62.9%
1.2%
1.8%
1.9%
2.3%
4,602
2,188
3,859
1,303
50.8%
49.4%
51.5%
51.1%
1.3%
1.8%
1.6%
2.5%
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
2,027
3,306
1,758
2,699
62.2%
65.9%
63.5%
67.4%
1.7%
1.5%
2.1%
1.5%
2,772
3,690
1,777
2,772
61.6%
67.2%
67.7%
65.5%
1.8%
1.4%
1.8%
1.5%
4,165
3,808
1,536
2,443
48.3%
50.8%
55.8%
54.1%
1.3%
1.4%
2.0%
1.8%
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
1,499
2,794
3,770
1,727
67.9%
69.7%
63.9%
58.6%
2.4%
1.6%
1.3%
2.0%
1,867
2,782
4,185
2,177
65.5%
66.7%
66.9%
61.1%
2.1%
1.5%
1.2%
1.8%
2,156
2,570
4,747
2,479
46.8%
54.4%
51.6%
50.1%
1.9%
1.9%
1.2%
1.9%
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
3,431
1,854
2,886
1,619
67.3%
67.1%
63.5%
60.8%
1.6%
2.1%
1.6%
2.0%
3,343
1,971
3,214
2,483
67.6%
67.8%
64.7%
61.0%
1.7%
1.8%
1.5%
1.6%
3,297
2,027
3,268
3,360
53.2%
53.4%
51.6%
46.3%
1.6%
2.0%
1.7%
1.4%
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
204
477
2,965
2,594
1,264
2,286
63.9%
61.4%
65.7%
65.9%
67.1%
63.0%
5.1%
3.4%
1.3%
1.8%
2.6%
1.9%
290
568
3,302
3,152
1,621
2,078
55.4%
63.2%
64.8%
65.0%
65.8%
67.9%
5.9%
3.1%
1.4%
1.6%
2.0%
2.0%
256
535
3,337
3,040
1,724
3,060
32.6%
52.8%
50.7%
50.2%
51.0%
52.5%
4.3%
3.5%
1.5%
1.5%
2.1%
1.6%
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
9,428
108
92
162
65.1%
64.6%
77.3%
54.9%
0.8%
5.3%
7.3%
5.2%
10,514
149
130
218
65.7%
56.5%
50.7%
67.1%
0.9%
7.2%
6.0%
5.3%
11,389
117
119
327
51.2%
24.3%
54.5%
42.3%
0.8%
5.8%
6.6%
5.6%
No/Limited Follow-up
Special district
Not special district
Teacher Questionnaire Response Experience:
Detailed Tables
Early Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
1,270
8,520
E
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table E-1B.
Percentage of teacher respondents with no/limited follow-up by teacher domain by teacher wave group, NTPS 2015-16
E-4
Early
Wave
Weighted
percent
65.5%
74.3%
65.0%
63.2%
66.2%
61.1%
84.8%
66.6%
Early
Wave
Standard
error
10.4%
2.8%
1.5%
4.8%
6.7%
4.4%
9.4%
2.0%
Middle
Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
40
534
2,879
157
68
169
35
736
Middle
Wave
Weighted
percent
70.1%
69.7%
64.5%
60.5%
67.8%
65.3%
63.1%
66.4%
Middle
Wave
Standard
error
11.7%
2.3%
1.3%
4.2%
6.9%
4.1%
9.1%
2.0%
Late Wave
Unweighte
d
respondent
count
50
501
2,655
147
62
277
27
883
Late
Wave
Weighted
percent
50.0%
55.3%
49.7%
54.4%
38.7%
46.2%
48.1%
47.7%
Late
Wave
Standard
error
49.5%
57.9%
50.3%
55.4%
36.2%
47.4%
52.3%
49.8%
Middle - Missing
Middle - Special ed
Middle - General elem.
Middle - Math
Middle - Science
Middle - English
Middle - Social studies
Middle - Vo/Tech
Middle - Other
22
276
41
313
243
379
205
78
455
54.0%
68.6%
54.0%
69.6%
63.0%
67.7%
60.8%
75.8%
61.1%
22.4%
2.9%
13.1%
2.7%
2.9%
2.7%
3.8%
5.3%
2.9%
36
304
43
348
254
392
222
60
473
62.6%
66.6%
74.9%
65.7%
67.6%
64.9%
67.2%
76.6%
66.0%
15.2%
2.9%
7.3%
3.2%
3.5%
2.9%
3.2%
6.0%
2.6%
31
268
140
245
177
415
165
27
720
48.4%
53.0%
50.0%
46.1%
49.7%
50.8%
47.3%
44.4%
46.9%
40.4%
52.8%
49.1%
48.1%
50.2%
50.6%
46.4%
46.6%
48.7%
High - Missing
High - Special ed
High - Math
High - Science
High - English
High - Social studies
High - Vo/Tech
High - Other
15
353
379
374
433
333
287
680
85.3%
68.8%
66.9%
60.6%
65.5%
61.1%
58.5%
61.3%
7.3%
2.7%
2.8%
3.1%
2.3%
2.7%
3.0%
2.4%
39
356
415
349
429
343
308
734
52.7%
70.9%
65.5%
64.9%
63.9%
64.1%
65.7%
62.9%
11.0%
3.8%
2.3%
3.1%
2.9%
2.9%
3.2%
2.9%
98
460
509
448
648
390
222
1,084
44.9%
58.5%
47.9%
50.4%
52.3%
51.5%
53.2%
49.3%
41.0%
59.8%
46.9%
49.3%
53.1%
51.9%
52.8%
50.4%
No/ Limited Follow-up
Primary - Missing
Primary - Special ed
Primary - General elem.
Primary - Math
Primary - Science
Primary - English
Primary - Social studies
Primary - Other
Teacher Questionnaire Response Experience:
Detailed Tables
Early Wave
Unweighte
d
respondent
count
33
394
2,388
137
54
153
23
639
E
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table E-1B.
Percentage of teacher respondents with no/limited follow-up by teacher domain by teacher wave group, NTPS 2015-16
(continued)
No/ Limited Follow-up
Combined - Missing
Combined - Special ed
Combined - General elem.
Combined - Math
Combined - Science
Combined - English
Combined - Social studies
Combined - Vo/Tech
Combined - Other
E-5
Status missing
Full-time teachers
Part-time teachers
Early Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
Early
Wave
Weighted
percent
Early
Wave
Standard
error
Middle Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
Middle
Wave
Weighted
percent
Middle
Wave
Standard
error
Late Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
Late
Wave
Weighted
percent
Late
Wave
Standard
error
13
201
219
124
98
118
81
56
193
64.7%
70.5%
67.3%
62.7%
63.9%
65.9%
62.2%
60.8%
59.8%
15.6%
3.7%
4.4%
5.9%
5.2%
4.7%
6.1%
10.5%
4.4%
20
214
253
133
114
139
95
82
238
54.5%
60.0%
62.4%
66.4%
64.5%
65.4%
66.5%
57.7%
63.8%
19.7%
5.7%
3.8%
4.8%
5.0%
4.1%
5.2%
13.1%
3.9%
47
200
267
130
91
165
88
36
279
36.2%
47.0%
53.2%
51.5%
51.6%
55.2%
50.0%
55.6%
49.1%
35.9%
45.1%
52.6%
53.9%
52.9%
55.9%
50.5%
60.4%
51.5%
246
8,928
616
59.0%
65.4%
62.9%
5.3%
0.8%
2.4%
609
10,419
754
65.9%
65.1%
68.5%
3.9%
0.9%
2.1%
5,935
5,624
393
49.1%
51.4%
46.6%
49.9%
51.9%
48.6%
Teacher Questionnaire Response Experience:
Detailed Tables
E
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table E-2A.
Percentage of teacher respondents with telephone/mail follow-up by school domain by teacher wave group, NTPS 2015-16
E-6
Early
Wave
Standard
error
2.0%
0.8%
Middle Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
1,304
9,707
Middle
Wave
Weighted
percent
16.0%
17.1%
Middle
Wave
Standard
error
1.4%
0.7%
Late Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
2,289
9,663
Late
Wave
Weighted
percent
12.2%
14.5%
Late
Wave
Standard
error
0.9%
0.4%
Charter
Non-charter
1,006
8,784
33.9%
30.6%
2.0%
0.8%
1,128
9,883
14.6%
17.1%
1.4%
0.7%
1,304
10,648
15.7%
13.9%
1.6%
0.4%
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
3,821
2,012
2,854
1,103
30.3%
31.1%
31.2%
31.0%
1.1%
1.6%
1.4%
2.2%
4,618
2,132
2,973
1,288
18.2%
14.8%
16.0%
17.0%
0.8%
1.0%
1.6%
1.8%
4,602
2,188
3,859
1,303
13.3%
15.4%
14.4%
13.2%
0.6%
1.0%
0.7%
1.6%
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
2,027
3,306
1,758
2,699
32.4%
30.5%
30.6%
29.6%
1.6%
1.2%
1.9%
1.4%
2,772
3,690
1,777
2,772
18.5%
16.1%
15.2%
17.6%
1.5%
0.9%
1.2%
1.0%
4,165
3,808
1,536
2,443
13.2%
15.0%
14.2%
13.5%
0.7%
0.7%
1.1%
0.8%
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
1,499
2,794
3,770
1,727
28.3%
26.9%
32.1%
35.5%
2.2%
1.4%
1.2%
1.7%
1,867
2,782
4,185
2,177
17.0%
16.2%
15.6%
20.0%
1.3%
0.9%
0.9%
1.9%
2,156
2,570
4,747
2,479
15.9%
14.8%
13.6%
12.2%
1.1%
0.9%
0.7%
0.9%
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
3,431
1,854
2,886
1,619
29.4%
27.4%
32.5%
34.4%
1.5%
1.7%
1.5%
1.8%
3,343
1,971
3,214
2,483
16.7%
15.4%
17.3%
18.1%
1.3%
1.3%
1.0%
1.1%
3,297
2,027
3,268
3,360
15.0%
14.1%
13.0%
13.9%
0.8%
1.1%
0.8%
0.8%
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
204
477
2,965
2,594
1,264
2,286
35.5%
35.6%
30.2%
30.3%
28.0%
32.4%
5.0%
3.3%
1.2%
1.6%
2.1%
1.7%
290
568
3,302
3,152
1,621
2,078
30.6%
17.0%
18.6%
16.9%
16.1%
13.8%
7.0%
2.3%
1.0%
1.0%
1.3%
1.1%
256
535
3,337
3,040
1,724
3,060
8.3%
12.9%
12.8%
14.1%
15.6%
14.6%
2.7%
1.7%
0.7%
0.8%
1.2%
0.8%
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
9,428
108
92
162
30.7%
35.4%
18.6%
38.5%
0.7%
5.3%
5.3%
5.5%
10,514
149
130
218
16.5%
30.2%
34.1%
14.4%
0.5%
6.6%
9.3%
3.3%
11,389
117
119
327
14.2%
12.1%
22.0%
6.5%
0.4%
3.4%
4.4%
2.1%
Telephone/Mail Followup
Special district
Not special district
E
Early
Wave
Weighted
percent
36.8%
29.6%
Teacher Questionnaire Response Experience:
Detailed Tables
Early Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
1,270
8,520
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table E-2B.
Percentage of teacher respondents with telephone/mail follow-up by teacher domain by teacher wave group,
NTPS 2015-16
Telephone/Mail
Follow-up
Primary - Missing
Primary - Special ed
Primary - General elem.
Primary - Math
Primary - Science
Primary - English
Primary - Social studies
Primary - Other
Early Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
Early
Wave
Weighted
percent
Early
Wave
Standard
error
Middle Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
Middle
Wave
Weighted
percent
Middle
Wave
Standard
error
Late Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
Late
Wave
Weighted
percent
Late
Wave
Standard
error
E-7
26.2%
24.2%
31.1%
32.7%
31.4%
33.7%
15.2%
30.3%
9.3%
2.6%
1.4%
4.6%
6.6%
4.1%
9.4%
2.0%
40
534
2,879
157
68
169
35
736
15.5%
17.1%
18.4%
16.4%
16.7%
17.3%
29.7%
18.2%
9.4%
1.8%
0.9%
2.8%
5.7%
3.2%
9.2%
1.6%
50
501
2,655
147
62
277
27
883
16.5%
8.9%
13.5%
14.3%
23.4%
17.6%
8.2%
13.1%
7.5%
1.4%
0.8%
3.3%
6.4%
2.6%
4.9%
1.4%
Middle - Missing
Middle - Special ed
Middle - General elem.
Middle - Math
Middle - Science
Middle - English
Middle - Social studies
Middle - Vo/Tech
Middle - Other
22
276
41
313
243
379
205
78
455
37.9%
31.1%
42.4%
26.7%
33.4%
28.2%
35.1%
17.7%
34.3%
27.5%
2.9%
13.5%
2.6%
2.9%
2.5%
3.7%
4.4%
2.5%
36
304
43
348
254
392
222
60
473
28.1%
16.0%
13.3%
12.1%
16.3%
16.0%
12.7%
9.8%
15.0%
9.3%
2.4%
4.8%
1.9%
2.7%
1.9%
2.4%
3.9%
1.8%
31
268
140
245
177
415
165
27
720
18.9%
15.0%
15.8%
14.1%
14.4%
14.5%
11.6%
24.4%
16.7%
8.4%
2.4%
3.3%
2.1%
2.7%
2.1%
2.5%
9.2%
1.6%
High - Missing
High - Special ed
High - Math
High - Science
High - English
High - Social studies
High - Vo/Tech
High - Other
15
353
379
374
433
333
287
680
14.7%
27.3%
29.0%
34.4%
29.7%
31.6%
34.8%
32.6%
7.3%
2.5%
2.7%
2.9%
2.3%
2.5%
2.9%
2.1%
39
356
415
349
429
343
308
734
9.8%
15.8%
14.8%
15.5%
16.8%
16.9%
13.6%
17.4%
4.9%
4.0%
1.7%
2.1%
2.3%
2.2%
2.0%
3.0%
98
460
509
448
648
390
222
1,084
20.1%
14.3%
12.7%
15.1%
16.1%
15.7%
12.4%
13.3%
6.6%
1.8%
1.6%
1.8%
1.7%
2.1%
2.5%
1.1%
Teacher Questionnaire Response Experience:
Detailed Tables
33
394
2,388
137
54
153
23
639
E
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table E-2B.
Percentage of teacher respondents with telephone/mail follow-up by teacher domain by teacher wave group,
NTPS 2015-16 (continued)
Telephone/Mail
Follow-up
Combined - Missing
Combined - Special ed
Combined - General elem.
Combined - Math
Combined - Science
Combined - English
Combined - Social studies
Combined - Vo/Tech
Combined - Other
Status missing
Full-time teachers
Part-time teachers
Early Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
Early
Wave
Weighted
percent
Early
Wave
Standard
error
Middle Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
Middle
Wave
Weighted
percent
Middle
Wave
Standard
error
Late Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
Late
Wave
Weighted
percent
Late
Wave
Standard
error
13
201
219
124
98
118
81
56
193
35.3%
27.3%
27.3%
34.1%
31.1%
27.2%
34.2%
39.2%
34.9%
15.6%
3.4%
3.6%
5.7%
5.2%
4.4%
6.0%
10.5%
3.9%
20
214
253
133
114
139
95
82
238
4.9%
24.9%
15.4%
17.1%
10.7%
18.0%
18.3%
21.5%
12.0%
2.6%
5.8%
2.4%
4.1%
3.1%
3.6%
3.9%
11.6%
2.3%
47
200
267
130
91
165
88
36
279
15.2%
12.9%
16.9%
14.5%
9.2%
12.8%
8.7%
11.3%
12.3%
7.2%
2.8%
4.9%
3.6%
4.1%
3.5%
3.3%
5.0%
2.1%
246
8,928
616
33.9%
30.5%
32.7%
4.6%
0.7%
2.2%
609
10,419
754
17.8%
16.9%
17.0%
3.3%
0.7%
1.7%
5,935
5,624
393
15.9%
11.8%
14.9%
0.7%
0.5%
1.9%
E-8
Teacher Questionnaire Response Experience:
Detailed Tables
E
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table E-3A.
Percentage of teacher respondents with field follow-up by school domain by teacher wave group, NTPS 2015-16
E-9
Early
Wave
Standard
error
1.0%
0.4%
Middle Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
1,304
9,707
Middle
Wave
Weighted
percent
17.1%
17.8%
Middle
Wave
Standard
error
1.7%
0.7%
Late Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
2,289
9,663
Late
Wave
Weighted
percent
45.6%
32.1%
Late
Wave
Standard
error
1.9%
0.9%
Charter
Non-charter
1,006
8,784
7.7%
4.0%
1.5%
0.4%
1,128
9,883
22.1%
17.5%
2.1%
0.7%
1,304
10,648
40.6%
34.9%
2.3%
0.9%
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
3,821
2,012
2,854
1,103
3.6%
3.7%
5.4%
4.1%
0.5%
0.8%
0.8%
0.9%
4,618
2,132
2,973
1,288
16.4%
18.6%
19.1%
20.0%
0.9%
1.3%
1.4%
1.7%
4,602
2,188
3,859
1,303
35.8%
35.3%
34.1%
35.7%
1.2%
1.7%
1.8%
2.6%
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
2,027
3,306
1,758
2,699
5.4%
3.5%
5.9%
3.0%
0.9%
0.6%
1.0%
0.5%
2,772
3,690
1,777
2,772
19.9%
16.7%
17.1%
16.9%
1.2%
1.1%
1.5%
1.1%
4,165
3,808
1,536
2,443
38.5%
34.2%
30.0%
32.3%
1.4%
1.4%
1.9%
1.7%
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
1,499
2,794
3,770
1,727
3.7%
3.4%
4.1%
5.9%
0.8%
0.6%
0.5%
1.1%
1,867
2,782
4,185
2,177
17.5%
17.1%
17.5%
18.8%
1.6%
1.1%
1.0%
1.4%
2,156
2,570
4,747
2,479
37.3%
30.8%
34.7%
37.6%
1.9%
1.8%
1.2%
2.0%
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
3,431
1,854
2,886
1,619
3.3%
5.5%
4.0%
4.9%
0.5%
1.1%
0.6%
0.8%
3,343
1,971
3,214
2,483
15.7%
16.9%
18.0%
20.9%
1.2%
1.4%
1.1%
1.3%
3,297
2,027
3,268
3,360
31.8%
32.5%
35.4%
39.7%
1.6%
2.0%
1.9%
1.5%
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
204
477
2,965
2,594
1,264
2,286
0.6%
3.0%
4.0%
3.8%
4.9%
4.7%
0.4%
1.0%
0.6%
0.6%
1.3%
0.7%
290
568
3,302
3,152
1,621
2,078
13.9%
19.8%
16.6%
18.1%
18.1%
18.3%
2.8%
2.4%
1.1%
1.2%
1.4%
1.6%
256
535
3,337
3,040
1,724
3,060
59.1%
34.3%
36.4%
35.7%
33.4%
32.9%
5.9%
3.3%
1.5%
1.5%
2.2%
1.7%
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
9,428
108
92
162
4.2%
0.0%
4.1%
6.6%
0.4%
0.0%
2.9%
2.2%
10,514
149
130
218
17.8%
13.4%
15.2%
18.5%
0.7%
3.6%
5.3%
3.8%
11,389
117
119
327
34.6%
63.6%
23.5%
51.2%
0.8%
7.0%
6.1%
6.4%
Field Follow-up
Special district
Not special district
E
Early
Wave
Weighted
percent
5.0%
4.0%
Teacher Questionnaire Response Experience:
Detailed Tables
Early Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
1,270
8,520
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table E-3B.
Percentage of teacher respondents with telephone/mail follow-up by teacher domain by teacher wave group,
NTPS 2015-16
Early
Wave
Weighted
percent
E-10
Early
Wave
Standard
error
Middle Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
Middle
Wave
Weighted
percent
Middle
Wave
Standard
error
Late Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
Late
Wave
Weighted
percent
Late
Wave
Standard
error
Primary - Missing
Primary - Special ed
Primary - General elem.
Primary - Math
Primary - Science
Primary - English
Primary - Social studies
Primary - Other
33
394
2,388
137
54
153
23
639
8.4%
1.6%
4.0%
4.1%
2.4%
5.1%
0.0%
3.1%
8.8%
0.6%
0.6%
2.1%
1.4%
1.9%
0.0%
0.8%
40
534
2,879
157
68
169
35
736
14.3%
13.2%
17.0%
23.1%
15.5%
17.5%
7.2%
15.4%
5.1%
1.7%
1.0%
3.9%
4.9%
3.5%
4.3%
1.5%
50
501
2,655
147
62
277
27
883
34.0%
33.1%
36.2%
30.3%
40.4%
35.0%
39.6%
37.0%
15.9%
2.4%
1.3%
4.8%
7.8%
3.4%
11.6%
2.1%
Middle - Missing
Middle - Special ed
Middle - General elem.
Middle - Math
Middle - Science
Middle - English
Middle - Social studies
Middle - Vo/Tech
Middle - Other
22
276
41
313
243
379
205
78
455
8.1%
0.3%
3.5%
3.7%
3.6%
4.1%
4.1%
6.5%
4.6%
8.9%
0.3%
2.6%
1.2%
1.4%
1.2%
1.5%
3.2%
1.4%
36
304
43
348
254
392
222
60
473
9.4%
17.3%
11.8%
22.2%
16.1%
19.1%
20.2%
13.6%
19.0%
10.1%
2.2%
5.7%
2.5%
2.6%
2.3%
3.0%
5.1%
2.1%
31
268
140
245
177
415
165
27
720
40.7%
32.2%
35.2%
37.9%
35.4%
34.9%
42.0%
29.0%
34.5%
15.7%
3.2%
5.1%
3.1%
3.5%
2.6%
4.2%
9.0%
2.3%
High - Missing
High - Special ed
High - Math
High - Science
High - English
High - Social studies
High - Vo/Tech
High - Other
15
353
379
374
433
333
287
680
0.0%
3.9%
4.0%
4.9%
4.7%
7.3%
6.7%
6.2%
0.0%
1.3%
1.0%
1.2%
1.2%
1.6%
1.8%
1.0%
39
356
415
349
429
343
308
734
37.5%
13.3%
19.7%
19.5%
19.3%
19.1%
20.7%
19.7%
10.5%
2.3%
2.2%
2.3%
2.2%
2.5%
2.7%
2.0%
98
460
509
448
648
390
222
1,084
38.9%
25.9%
40.3%
35.7%
30.8%
32.3%
34.8%
36.4%
11.0%
2.3%
3.6%
3.0%
2.3%
2.5%
4.2%
2.2%
Teacher Questionnaire Response Experience:
Detailed Tables
Field Follow-up
Early Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
E
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table E-3B.
Percentage of teacher respondents with telephone/mail follow-up by teacher domain by teacher wave group,
NTPS 2015-16 (continued)
Field Follow-up
Combined - Missing
Combined - Special ed
Combined - General elem.
Combined - Math
Combined - Science
Combined - English
Combined - Social studies
Combined - Vo/Tech
Combined - Other
E-11
Status missing
Full-time teachers
Part-time teachers
Early Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
Early
Wave
Weighted
percent
Early
Wave
Standard
error
Middle Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
Middle
Wave
Weighted
percent
Middle
Wave
Standard
error
Late Wave
Unweighted
respondent
count
Late
Wave
Weighted
percent
Late
Wave
Standard
error
13
201
219
124
98
118
81
56
193
0.0%
2.2%
5.4%
3.2%
5.0%
6.9%
3.6%
0.0%
5.3%
0.0%
1.1%
1.7%
1.8%
2.2%
3.1%
2.1%
0.0%
1.8%
20
214
253
133
114
139
95
82
238
40.6%
15.1%
22.2%
16.5%
24.7%
16.6%
15.2%
20.8%
24.2%
17.4%
2.4%
3.3%
3.2%
4.2%
3.6%
3.8%
4.6%
3.5%
47
200
267
130
91
165
88
36
279
49.0%
42.1%
30.6%
31.6%
37.9%
31.3%
40.8%
28.4%
36.1%
12.0%
5.3%
4.4%
4.4%
6.2%
4.5%
5.6%
9.4%
3.5%
246
8,928
616
7.1%
4.1%
4.4%
2.5%
0.4%
1.0%
609
10,419
754
16.4%
17.9%
14.5%
3.2%
0.7%
1.5%
5,935
5,624
393
34.2%
36.2%
36.5%
1.2%
1.2%
3.4%
Teacher Questionnaire Response Experience:
Detailed Tables
E
Teacher Questionnaire Response Experience:
Detailed Tables
E
While special afternoon reminder calls do not appear to reduce the follow-up effort overall, the
percentages of teacher respondents who responded before field follow-up within school and teacher
domains is compared by experimental group in Table E-4. The special afternoon reminder calls had
some impact on a small number of domains: teachers from schools with enrollment 100-199, middle
school math teachers, middle school math teachers, and high school social studies teachers. All of
these domains have less than 300 teachers. The statistics for these domains are in bold and italic in
Table E-4. If there is any effect of special afternoon calls, it looks minimal.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
E-12
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table E-4.
Percentage of teacher respondents with telephone or mail follow-up by nonresponse follow-up experimental group by
school/teacher domain, NTPS 2015-16
Domain
Special district
Not special district
Teacher experimental group 1 special afternoon call
Unweighted
respondent
Unweighted
Weighted
Standard
count
percent
percent
error
952
26.2%
25.0%
1.8%
4,172
36.9%
36.4%
1.0%
Teacher experimental group 2 regular call schedule
Unweighted
respondent
Unweighted
Weighted
Standard
count
percent
percent
error
959
30.1%
29.3%
2.3%
4,045
35.6%
34.8%
1.0%
E-13
31.1%
35.4%
28.9%
34.2%
2.0%
1.0%
594
4,410
32.5%
34.8%
31.0%
33.7%
2.1%
0.9%
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
2,074
956
1,524
570
36.2%
35.4%
33.4%
33.2%
35.2%
33.1%
32.6%
32.9%
1.3%
1.9%
2.0%
2.6%
1,975
953
1,502
574
35.9%
35.6%
32.9%
32.4%
34.9%
33.6%
31.9%
31.8%
1.3%
1.8%
2.1%
3.0%
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
1,631
1,660
730
1,103
28.7%
36.4%
38.8%
39.2%
28.9%
35.5%
37.6%
38.9%
1.7%
1.5%
2.2%
1.9%
1,638
1,620
670
1,076
30.6%
36.2%
36.6%
36.7%
29.9%
35.2%
35.6%
37.1%
1.6%
1.6%
2.3%
1.8%
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
935
1,129
1,968
1,092
34.0%
38.9%
33.0%
34.9%
34.1%
37.5%
32.4%
33.3%
2.0%
1.8%
1.4%
2.4%
928
1,085
1,922
1,069
33.1%
38.8%
33.1%
34.1%
32.5%
37.1%
32.9%
32.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.5%
2.5%
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
1,430
881
1,410
1,403
39.9%
34.4%
35.7%
29.2%
39.9%
33.7%
33.7%
27.9%
1.9%
2.2%
1.9%
1.5%
1,367
841
1,395
1,401
38.0%
37.2%
34.3%
29.8%
38.0%
35.5%
32.9%
28.7%
2.0%
2.1%
1.8%
1.6%
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
150
252
1,518
1,368
718
1,118
36.0%
42.1%
36.6%
35.1%
32.6%
32.0%
40.2%
41.0%
36.2%
33.7%
31.5%
31.3%
10.0%
3.8%
1.7%
1.5%
2.3%
1.7%
131
247
1,460
1,323
714
1,129
32.8%
32.8%
35.1%
35.4%
36.0%
32.4%
35.4%
30.3%
33.8%
34.1%
36.3%
31.2%
12.1%
3.5%
1.5%
1.6%
2.3%
1.9%
E
662
4,462
Teacher Questionnaire Response Experience:
Detailed Tables
Charter
Non-charter
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table E-4.
Response follow-up experience with teacher-interview final respondents by nonresponse follow-up experimental group by
school/teacher domain, NTPS 2015-16 (continued)
Domain
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
E-14
Primary - Missing
Primary - Special ed
Primary - General elem.
Primary - Math
Primary - Science
Primary - English
Primary - Social studies
Primary - Other
Teacher experimental group 1 special afternoon call
Unwgtd
respondent
Unwgtd
Wgtd
Standard
count
percent
percent
error
4,864
35.1%
33.9%
0.9%
82
34.1%
33.7%
7.8%
53
37.7%
56.9%
10.5%
125
26.4%
20.3%
5.2%
Teacher experimental group 2 regular call schedule
Unwgtd
respondent
Unwgtd
Wgtd
Standard
count
percent
percent
error
4,735
34.5%
33.5%
0.9%
72
44.4%
38.3%
9.9%
52
46.2%
59.8%
14.2%
145
26.2%
20.4%
5.7%
39.2%
37.4%
35.3%
27.8%
43.7%
27.4%
55.1%
35.5%
14.0%
3.8%
1.6%
5.5%
9.3%
4.6%
13.3%
2.5%
20
207
1,223
61
28
90
11
335
40.0%
38.2%
35.7%
44.3%
32.1%
34.4%
45.5%
34.0%
35.9%
36.4%
34.9%
42.9%
37.9%
32.6%
41.5%
32.7%
14.9%
4.0%
1.6%
7.4%
10.0%
5.1%
18.4%
2.9%
Middle - Missing
Middle - Special ed
Middle - General elem.
Middle - Math
Middle - Science
Middle - English
Middle - Social studies
Middle - Vo/Tech
Middle - Other
11
106
39
157
96
169
94
13
271
54.5%
34.0%
28.2%
37.6%
40.6%
30.8%
41.5%
30.8%
33.9%
41.8%
35.3%
24.1%
35.6%
38.2%
30.2%
37.7%
6.6%
32.1%
24.4%
4.8%
6.2%
4.0%
5.2%
3.7%
5.3%
6.9%
3.2%
15
121
35
115
100
177
92
19
279
33.3%
41.3%
28.6%
24.3%
45.0%
36.7%
29.3%
42.1%
36.2%
27.6%
40.8%
23.2%
21.6%
44.6%
32.8%
24.5%
39.6%
34.9%
16.5%
4.6%
7.2%
3.9%
5.4%
3.2%
5.1%
12.5%
2.9%
High - Missing
High - Special ed
High - Math
High - Science
High - English
High - Social studies
High - Vo/Tech
High - Other
38
141
217
164
237
161
144
422
23.7%
39.7%
28.6%
40.9%
30.8%
37.9%
38.2%
29.9%
21.2%
45.5%
26.0%
36.2%
32.0%
39.8%
35.4%
27.3%
9.7%
6.5%
3.3%
4.0%
3.7%
4.6%
4.7%
2.5%
29
158
193
208
212
169
109
424
27.6%
36.1%
32.1%
34.6%
33.0%
31.4%
33.9%
31.8%
30.0%
35.4%
29.3%
31.1%
32.4%
27.1%
35.0%
33.1%
11.3%
4.1%
3.8%
3.5%
3.5%
3.7%
4.8%
4.4%
E
40.9%
37.4%
35.9%
29.9%
45.9%
28.7%
50.0%
38.1%
Teacher Questionnaire Response Experience:
Detailed Tables
22
190
1,222
77
37
108
14
404
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table E-4.
Response follow-up experience with teacher-interview final respondents by nonresponse follow-up experimental group by
school/teacher domain, NTPS 2015-16 (continued)
Domain
Combined - Missing
Combined - Special ed
Combined - General elem.
Combined - Math
Combined - Science
Combined - English
Combined - Social studies
Combined - Vo/Tech
Combined - Other
E-15
Full-time teachers
Part-time teachers
Status missing
Teacher experimental group 1 special afternoon call
Unwgtd
respondent
Unwgtd
Wgtd
Standard
count
percent
percent
error
19
15.8%
22.9%
19.9%
96
36.5%
35.9%
7.1%
109
33.9%
32.3%
4.8%
60
31.7%
33.3%
7.0%
38
31.6%
27.9%
6.6%
58
39.7%
38.4%
6.5%
41
29.3%
32.5%
7.8%
29
41.4%
32.4%
9.7%
120
30.0%
30.7%
4.8%
1,336
3,535
253
19.3%
40.1%
43.5%
18.3%
39.8%
42.7%
1.3%
1.2%
3.5%
Teacher experimental group 2 regular call schedule
Unwgtd
respondent
Unwgtd
Wgtd
Standard
count
percent
percent
error
19
10.5%
8.1%
4.6%
97
37.1%
39.0%
9.2%
110
27.3%
26.8%
5.6%
50
46.0%
48.2%
8.3%
56
25.0%
24.7%
6.3%
65
33.8%
32.8%
6.4%
40
37.5%
35.9%
7.2%
19
47.4%
55.4%
13.0%
118
29.7%
25.4%
4.2%
1,260
3,497
247
19.1%
39.2%
46.6%
18.8%
38.7%
44.6%
1.4%
1.1%
3.5%
Teacher Questionnaire Response Experience:
Detailed Tables
E
Appendix F
Experimental Study Detailed Tables
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
F-1
Experimental Study Detailed Tables
F
Tables F-1 through F-3 show the response rate for the school questionnaire, principal questionnaire,
and teacher listing form by school domain. The difference in response rates is significant in twenty
one school domains out of thirty for the school questionnaire, twenty school domains for the
teacher listing form, and two school domains for the principal questionnaire at a significant level of
5%. The statistics in these domains are in bold and italic in Tables F-1 and F-3.
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
F-2
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table F-1.
School response rate comparison by experimental group and by school domain, NTPS 2015-16
Main Study
Sample
Size
8,300
Eligible
schools
8,029
Special district
Not special district
1,449
6,851
Charter
Non-charter
Experimental Group
Response
Completes
rate
288
29.4%
F-3
Sample
Size
1,000
Eligible
schools
980
1,421
6,608
400
2,678
28.1%
40.5%
1.2%
0.6%
164
836
163
817
19
269
11.7%
32.9%
2.5%
1.6%
1,173
7,127
1,094
6,935
355
2,723
32.4%
39.3%
1.4%
0.6%
142
858
141
839
36
252
25.5%
30.0%
3.7%
1.6%
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
3,708
1,441
2,054
1,097
3,626
1,420
1,981
1,002
1,410
544
705
419
38.9%
38.3%
35.6%
41.8%
0.8%
1.3%
1.1%
1.5%
439
175
250
136
435
175
243
127
136
53
68
31
31.3%
30.3%
28.0%
24.4%
2.2%
3.5%
2.8%
3.7%
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
2,507
2,585
1,201
2,007
2,395
2,520
1,161
1,953
700
932
534
912
29.2%
37.0%
46.0%
46.7%
0.9%
0.9%
1.4%
1.1%
301
312
145
242
297
309
139
235
59
91
55
83
19.9%
29.4%
39.6%
35.3%
2.3%
2.6%
4.1%
3.1%
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
1,352
1,924
3,200
1,824
1,332
1,849
3,087
1,761
435
868
1,111
664
32.7%
46.9%
36.0%
37.7%
1.3%
1.1%
0.8%
1.1%
159
235
388
218
157
232
379
212
41
78
121
48
26.1%
33.6%
31.9%
22.6%
3.5%
3.1%
2.4%
2.8%
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
2,416
1,395
2,331
2,158
2,323
1,357
2,270
2,079
941
576
936
625
40.5%
42.4%
41.2%
30.1%
1.0%
1.3%
1.0%
1.0%
283
176
281
260
275
172
275
258
86
55
87
60
31.3%
32.0%
31.6%
23.3%
2.8%
3.5%
2.8%
2.6%
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
404
551
2,820
2,151
1,035
1,339
342
512
2,733
2,098
1,022
1,322
145
228
1,101
819
360
425
42.4%
44.5%
40.3%
39.0%
35.2%
32.1%
2.5%
2.1%
0.9%
1.1%
1.5%
1.3%
50
69
360
232
132
157
44
68
352
231
132
153
11
23
108
69
38
39
25.0%
33.8%
30.7%
29.9%
28.8%
25.5%
6.1%
5.7%
2.4%
3.0%
3.9%
3.5%
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
7,641
158
111
390
7,485
125
99
320
2,899
49
39
91
38.7%
39.2%
39.4%
28.4%
0.6%
3.9%
4.6%
2.3%
939
19
14
28
927
18
10
25
278
4
4
2
30.0%
22.2%
40.0%
8.0%
1.5%
9.5%
13.1%
5.1%
Domain
All
Standard
error
1.4%
F
Standard
error
0.5%
Experimental Study Detailed Tables
Completes
3,078
Response
rate
38.3%
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table F-2.
Principal response rate comparison by experimental group and by school domain, NTPS 2015-16
Main Study
Sample
Size
8,300
Eligible
schools
8,025
Special district
Not special district
1,449
6,851
Charter
Non-charter
Experimental Group
Response
Completes
rate
380
38.9%
F-4
Sample
Size
1,000
Eligible
schools
978
1,420
6,605
409
2,760
28.8%
41.8%
1.2%
0.6%
164
836
163
815
30
350
18.4%
42.9%
3.0%
1.7%
1,173
7,127
1,093
6,932
372
2,797
34.0%
40.3%
1.4%
0.6%
142
858
140
838
46
334
32.9%
39.9%
3.9%
1.7%
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
3,708
1,441
2,054
1,097
3,622
1,420
1,981
1,002
1,453
546
729
441
40.1%
38.5%
36.8%
44.0%
0.8%
1.3%
1.1%
1.5%
439
175
250
136
434
175
242
127
166
71
93
50
38.2%
40.6%
38.4%
39.4%
2.3%
3.7%
3.1%
4.2%
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
2,507
2,585
1,201
2,007
2,394
2,519
1,159
1,953
724
952
558
935
30.2%
37.8%
48.1%
47.9%
0.9%
1.0%
1.4%
1.1%
301
312
145
242
295
309
139
235
82
117
69
112
27.8%
37.9%
49.6%
47.7%
2.6%
2.7%
4.2%
3.2%
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
1,352
1,924
3,200
1,824
1,331
1,849
3,087
1,758
450
897
1,140
682
33.8%
48.5%
36.9%
38.8%
1.3%
1.1%
0.9%
1.1%
159
235
388
218
157
231
379
211
62
94
149
75
39.5%
40.7%
39.3%
35.5%
3.9%
3.2%
2.5%
3.2%
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
2,416
1,395
2,331
2,158
2,321
1,357
2,270
2,077
963
596
963
647
41.5%
43.9%
42.4%
31.2%
1.0%
1.3%
1.0%
1.0%
283
176
281
260
275
172
275
256
115
76
111
78
41.8%
44.2%
40.4%
30.5%
2.9%
3.7%
2.9%
2.9%
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
404
551
2,820
2,151
1,035
1,339
343
512
2,731
2,096
1,022
1,321
147
229
1,138
844
372
439
42.9%
44.7%
41.7%
40.3%
36.4%
33.2%
2.5%
2.1%
0.9%
1.1%
1.5%
1.3%
50
69
360
232
132
157
44
68
352
229
132
153
18
26
147
89
46
54
40.9%
38.2%
41.8%
38.9%
34.8%
35.3%
7.0%
5.9%
2.6%
3.2%
4.1%
3.8%
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
7,641
158
111
390
7,480
125
99
321
2,988
48
39
94
39.9%
38.4%
39.4%
29.3%
0.6%
3.9%
4.6%
2.3%
939
19
14
28
925
18
10
25
362
8
6
4
39.1%
44.4%
60.0%
16.0%
1.6%
11.4%
13.1%
6.9%
Domain
All
Standard
error
1.5%
F
Standard
error
0.5%
Experimental Study Detailed Tables
Completes
3,169
Response
rate
39.5%
NTPS 2015-2016 Analysis of Response Rates and
Field Collection Experience
Table F-3.
Teacher listing form response rate comparison by experimental group and by school domain, NTPS 2015-16
Main Study
Sample
Size
8,300
Eligible
schools
8,025
Special district
Not special district
1,449
6,851
Charter
Non-charter
Experimental Group
Response
Completes
rate
291
29.7%
F-5
Sample
Size
1,000
Eligible
schools
980
1,421
6,604
381
2,718
26.8%
41.2%
1.2%
0.6%
164
836
163
817
21
270
12.9%
33.0%
2.6%
1.6%
1,173
7,127
1,093
6,932
366
2,733
33.5%
39.4%
1.4%
0.6%
142
858
141
839
35
256
24.8%
30.5%
3.6%
1.6%
Primary
Middle
High
Combined
3,708
1,441
2,054
1,097
3,624
1,420
1,979
1,002
1,424
535
714
426
39.3%
37.7%
36.1%
42.5%
0.8%
1.3%
1.1%
1.5%
439
175
250
136
435
175
243
127
136
49
69
37
31.3%
28.0%
28.4%
29.1%
2.2%
3.4%
2.9%
3.9%
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
2,507
2,585
1,201
2,007
2,393
2,517
1,161
1,954
710
920
546
923
29.7%
36.6%
47.0%
47.2%
0.9%
0.9%
1.4%
1.1%
301
312
145
242
297
309
139
235
62
92
54
83
20.9%
29.8%
38.8%
35.3%
2.3%
2.6%
4.0%
3.1%
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
1,352
1,924
3,200
1,824
1,332
1,850
3,085
1,758
449
867
1,137
646
33.7%
46.9%
36.9%
36.7%
1.3%
1.1%
0.9%
1.1%
159
235
388
218
157
232
379
212
45
77
119
50
28.7%
33.2%
31.4%
23.6%
3.6%
3.1%
2.4%
2.9%
FRPL 0-34%
FRPL 35-49%
FRPL 50-75%
FRPL 75-100%
2,416
1,395
2,331
2,158
2,318
1,358
2,270
2,079
937
568
953
641
40.4%
41.8%
42.0%
30.8%
1.0%
1.3%
1.0%
1.0%
283
176
281
260
275
172
275
258
85
60
88
58
30.9%
34.9%
32.0%
22.5%
2.7%
3.6%
2.8%
2.6%
Enrollment 0-99
Enrollment 100-199
Enrollment 200-499
Enrollment 500-749
Enrollment 750-999
Enrollment 1000+
404
551
2,820
2,151
1,035
1,339
342
512
2,731
2,097
1,022
1,321
146
228
1,124
821
355
425
42.7%
44.5%
41.2%
39.2%
34.7%
32.2%
2.5%
2.1%
0.9%
1.1%
1.5%
1.3%
50
69
360
232
132
157
44
68
352
231
132
153
12
22
109
68
38
42
27.3%
32.4%
31.0%
29.4%
28.8%
27.5%
6.3%
5.6%
2.4%
3.0%
3.9%
3.6%
Regular
Special education
Vocational
Alternative
7,641
158
111
390
7,480
125
98
322
2,914
48
40
97
39.0%
38.4%
40.8%
30.1%
0.6%
3.9%
4.7%
2.3%
939
19
14
28
927
18
10
25
278
5
5
3
30.0%
27.8%
50.0%
12.0%
1.5%
10.3%
13.4%
6.1%
Domain
All
Standard
error
1.4%
F
Standard
error
0.5%
Experimental Study Detailed Tables
Completes
3,099
Response
rate
38.6%
| File Type | application/pdf |
| Author | Minsun Riddles |
| File Modified | 2017-09-01 |
| File Created | 2017-08-31 |