Publication - Research and analysis

Evaluation of the Impact of the Implementation of Teaching Scotland's Future

Published: 10 Mar 2016
ISBN:
9781786521057

The evaluation offers an overview of the current landscape of teacher education, highlighting what progress has been made in key areas since TSF was published and where further progress and improvements are still needed.

Evaluation of the Impact of the Implementation of Teaching Scotland's Future
Appendix C: Profile of respondents and weighting

Appendix C: Profile of respondents and weighting

14.7 There were two main factors to take into account when applying weights to the TSF dataset. The first was to compensate for the impact of the sample design on the probability of selection - design weights. In the case of TSF, the aspects of the sample design that had an impact on the probability of selection were; the disproportionate sampling of smaller staff groupings to allow subgroup analysis.

14.8 The second reason for weighting is to correct for any under/over representation of different groups of pupils as a result of non-response - corrective weights. While there were different motivations for applying weights to the sample, the different considerations were combined to create a single weighting variable which brings the sample in line with teacher census data both at a national level.

14.9 Rim weighting was applied for the following variables:

  • Sector
  • Age
  • Sex
  • Position
  • Full-time/part-time
  • Permanent/temporary
  • Local authority/independent
  • Rurality
  • SIMD
  • Proportion of ethnic minorities in school
  • School size.

14.10 Weights were applied using data from the 2015 teacher census. Groups that were not included in the census, and for whom we had no other profile data on were not included in the weighting scheme.

14.11 The rim weighting was conducted using grossing weights which were then scaled back to align the teacher numbers in the weighted and unweighted data.

14.12 The profile of respondents, compared with national figures is shown in table C.1 below.

Figure C.1 Profile of respondents

Primary Secondary Special
Teacher census 45% 46% 4%
Survey 41% 48% 7%
Census Survey Census Survey Census Survey
Male 9% 10% 37% 36% 23% 19%
Female 91% 90% 63% 64% 77% 81%
Under 25 8% 5% 5% 5% 1% 1%
25-34 29% 17% 27% 19% 22% 16%
35-44 24% 26% 24% 26% 25% 26%
45-59 23% 30% 25% 28% 26% 29%
55+ 16% 20% 20% 22% 26% 29%
Head teacher 8% 19% 1% 3% 6% 9%
Depute head teacher 5% 13% 5% 10% 7% 12%
Principal teacher 7% 17% 24% 35% 10% 15%
Teacher 80% 51% 70% 52% 77% 65%
Full-time 84% 86% 86% 91% 85% 86%
Part-time 16% 14% 14% 9% 15% 14%
Permanent 81% 84% 89% 88% 85% 93%
Temporary 19% 16% 11% 12% 15% 7%
Across all sectors
Teacher census Survey
LA 94% 91%
Independent 6% 9%
Urban 89% 83%
Rural 11% 17%
0-5% pupils BME 36% 37%
5-10% pupils BME 34% 33%
10-20% pupils BME 18% 18%
20% or more pupils BME 12% 12%
0-20% pupils in 20% most deprived 46% 46%
20-40% pupils in 20% most deprived 24% 25%
40-60% pupils in 20% most deprived 17% 16%
60--80% pupils in 20% most deprived 7% 6%
80-100% pupils in 20% most deprived 6% 6%
1 - smallest schools 5% 9%
2 13% 15%
3 20% 17%
4 - largest schools 61% 59%

Contact

Email: James Niven