Measuring Access to Learning Opportunities

Committee on Improving Measures of Access toEqual Educational Opportunity

Willis D. Hawley and Timothy Ready, Editors

Center for Education and Committee on National Statistics

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESSWashington, D.C.www.nap.edu

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of theNational Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy ofSciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of thecommittee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard forappropriate balance.

This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. R215U990016-01B between the National Academy ofSciences and the U.S. Department of Education. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommenda-tions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Improving Measures ofAccess to Equal Educational Opportunity. Measuring access to learning opportunities / Committee on ImprovingMeasures of Access to Equal Educational Opportunity ; Willis D. Hawleyand Timothy Ready, editors. p. cm.“Center for Education and Committee on National Statistics, Division ofBehavioral and Social Sciences and Education.”Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-309-08897-6 (pbk.) 1. Educational equalization—United States. 2. Minoritystudents—Civil rights—United States. 3. Educational surveys—UnitedStates. I. Hawley, Willis D. II. Ready, Timothy. III. Title. LC213.2.N396 2003 379.2′6′0973—dc21 2003007413

International Standard Book Number 0-309-50539-9 (PDF)

Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W.,Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitanarea); Internet, http://www.nap.edu

Copyright 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2003). Measuring access to learning opportunities.Committee on Improving Measures of Access to Equal Educational Opportunity. W.D. Hawley and T.Ready, editors. Center for Education and Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral andSocial Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distin-guished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance ofscience and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the chartergranted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federalgovernment on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the NationalAcademy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in itsadministration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences theresponsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering alsosponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research,and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the NationalAcademy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to securethe services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matterspertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the NationalAcademy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, uponits own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg ispresident of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 toassociate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furtheringknowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policiesdetermined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both theNational Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to thegovernment, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administeredjointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf arechair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

v

COMMITTEE ON IMPROVING MEASURES OFACCESS TO EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

WILLIS D. HAWLEY (Chair), Department of Educational Policy, University ofMaryland

JULIAN BETTS, Department of Economics, University of California, San DiegoJOMILLS H. BRADDOCK II, Department of Sociology, University of MiamiGARNET (LAVAN) DUKES, Florida Department of Education, TallahasseeJOAN FIRST, National Coalition of Advocates for Students, Boston, MAJOHN FORREST KAIN, Cecil and Ida Green Center for the Study of Science and

Society, University of Texas, DallasVALERIE E. LEE, School of Education, University of MichiganWEI-WEI LOU, Portland Public Schools, OregonJENS LUDWIG, Public Policy Institute, Georgetown UniversityGARY ORFIELD, Harvard Graduate School of Education

TIMOTHY READY, Study DirectorPASQUALE DE VITO, Senior Program OfficerANDREW TOMPKINS, Research AssistantTERRY HOLMER, Senior Project Assistant

vi

CENTER FOR EDUCATION BOARD MEMBERS(2002–2003)

RICHARD MURNANE (Chair), Graduate School of Education, Harvard UniversityGORDON AMBACH, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DCJAMES D. ANDERSON, Educational Policy Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana-

ChampaignHANNA J. ARZI, Science Education Consultant, Tel Aviv, IsraelDEANNA BANKS BEANE, Association of Science-Technology Centers, Inc.,

Washington, DCALFREDO G. DE LOS SANTOS, JR., Hispanic Research Center, Arizona State

UniversityDENIS P. DOYLE, SchoolNet, Chevy Chase, MDMEL GEORGE, President Emeritus, University of MissouriMILTON GOLDBERG, National Alliance of Business, Washington, DCRON LATANISION, Department of Materials Science and Engineering,

Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyROBERT LINN, School of Education, University of ColoradoRICHARD MCCRAY, Department of Astro and Planet Sciences, University of

ColoradoMARGE PETIT, The National Center for the Improvement of Educational

Assessment, Dover, NHROBERT SCHWARTZ, Graduate School of Education, Harvard UniversityMARSHALL (MIKE) SMITH, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Menlo

Park, CACATHERINE SNOW, Graduate School of Education, Harvard UniversityIRIS WEISS, Horizon Research, Inc., Chapel Hill, NC

vii

COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL STATISTICS(2002–2003)

JOHN E. ROLPH (Chair), Marshall School of Business, University of SouthernCalifornia

JOSEPH G. ALTONJI, Department of Economics, Yale UniversityROBERT BELL, AT&T Research Laboratories, Florham Park, NJLAWRENCE BROWN, Department of Statistics, University of PennsylvaniaROBERT M. GROVES, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, Ann ArborHERMANN HABERMANN, Statistics Division, United Nations, New York CityJOEL L. HOROWITZ, Department of Economics, Northwestern UniversityWILLIAM KALSBEEK, Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina,

Chapel HillARLEEN LEIBOWITZ, School of Public Policy and Social Research, University of

California, Los AngelesTHOMAS A. LOUIS, Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins UniversityVIJAYAN NAIR, Department of Statistics, University of Michigan, Ann ArborDARYL PREGIBON, AT&T Research Laboratories, Florham Park, NJNORA CATE SCHAEFFER, Department of Social Sciences, University of Wisconsin,

MadisonMATTHEW D. SHAPIRO, Department of Economics, University of Michigan, Ann

Arbor

ANDREW A. WHITE, Director

ix

Acknowledgments

This report has been reviewed indraft form by individuals chosen fortheir diverse perspectives and technicalexpertise, in accordance with proce-dures approved by the National Re-search Council’s Report Review Com-mittee. The purpose of this independentreview is to provide candid and criticalcomments that will assist the institutionin making its published report as soundas possible and to ensure that the reportmeets institutional standards for objec-tivity, evidence, and responsiveness tothe study charge. The review commentsand draft manuscript remain confiden-tial to protect the integrity of the delib-erative process. We wish to thank thefollowing individuals for their review ofthis report: Robert Bell, AT&T Re-search Laboratories, Florham Park, NJ;Sue Berryman, World Bank, Washing-ton, DC; Tamela Lea Eitle, University ofMiami, FL; Scott Palmer, NixonPeabody LLP, Washington, DC; DennisParker, NAACP Legal Defense &Educational Fund, Inc., New York; Paul

Smith, Children’s Defense Fund, Wash-ington, DC; Karl Taeuber, University ofWisconsin-Madison; William L. Taylor,Law Offices of William L. Taylor, Wash-ington, DC; J. Douglas Willms, Univer-sity of Brunswick, Fredericton, NB.

Although the reviewers listed abovehave provided many constructivecomments and suggestions, they werenot asked to endorse the conclusions orrecommendations nor did they see thefinal draft of the report before its re-lease. The review of this report wasoverseen by William T. Trent, Depart-ment of Educational Policy Studies,University of Illinois-Champaign. Ap-pointed by the National ResearchCouncil, he was responsible for makingcertain that an independent examinationof this report was carried out in accor-dance with institutional procedures andthat all review comments were carefullyconsidered. Responsibility for the finalcontent of this report rests entirely withthe authoring committee and the institu-tion.

xi

Contents

Executive Summary 1

1 Introduction 7

2 Measuring Equal Opportunity: The Role of the E&S Survey 19

3 Use of E&S Survey Data 36

4 Strengthening the E&S Survey Data 46

5 Improving the Survey and Its Use 60

References and Bibliography 70

APPENDIXES

A Synopses of Papers Prepared for the Committee 77

B Overview of Findings from the 2000 E&S Survey 88

C 2000 E&S Survey 100

D Using E&S Survey Data in Combination with Other Federal Datasets 120

1

Executive Summary

Since 1968 the Elementary andSecondary School Civil Rights Compli-ance Report (known as the E&S survey)has been used to gather informationabout possible disparities in access tolearning opportunities and violations ofstudents’ civil rights. Thirty-five yearsafter the initiation of the E&S survey,large disparities remain both in educa-tional outcomes and in access to learn-ing opportunities and resources. Thesedisparities may reflect violations ofstudents’ civil rights, the failure ofeducation policies and practices toprovide students from all backgroundswith a similar educational experience, orboth. They may also reflect the failureof schools to fully compensate fordisparities already present as childrenfirst enter school that may be due inpart to past discriminatory practices andcurrent differences in parents’ educa-tion, income, and family structure.

The Committee on Improving Mea-

sures of Access to Equal EducationalOpportunity concludes that the E&Ssurvey continues to play an essentialrole in documenting these disparitiesand in providing information that isuseful both in guiding efforts to protectstudents’ civil rights and for informingeducational policy and practice. Thereis no other source for much of theinformation on the E&S survey. Thecommittee also concludes that thesurvey’s usefulness and access to thesurvey data could be improved.

BACKGROUND

Initially, the E&S survey exclusivelyaddressed questions related to the racialcomposition of schools. For manyyears, the survey was the only source ofinformation about school segregation inthe United States. Under the authorityof Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

2 M E A S U R I N G A C C E S S T O L E A R N I N G O P P O R T U N I T I E S

1964, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR)of the U.S. Department of Educationused this information to secure thecompliance of local education agencieswith school desegregation orders. Overthe years, items were added to the E&Ssurvey concerning other possibleviolations of students’ civil rights underTitle VI, which prohibits discriminationon the grounds of race, color, nationalorigin, and language. Additional ques-tions also have been added to thesurvey concerning two other laws forwhich OCR has enforcement responsi-bility and that were closely modeledafter Title VI: Title IX of the EducationAmendments of 1972, which prohibitsdiscrimination on the basis of sex inprograms that receive federal financialassistance, and Section 504 of theRehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohib-its discrimination against persons withdisabilities. Violation of any of theselaws can result in the withholding offederal financial assistance, althoughthis penalty rarely has been imposed.

Because the rationale for administer-ing the E&S survey has been to provideinformation related to the enforcementof these three laws, much more empha-sis historically has been placed on thecollection of data from schools anddistricts regarding their compliancewith these laws than on routine analysesand dissemination of findings. Informa-tion from the E&S survey usually

represents a first but important step inthe process of determining whetherminority students, students with disabili-ties, students with limited Englishproficiency, and females are affected bypolicies and practices that limit accessto learning opportunities or resources.By itself, the E&S survey can only beused to identify statistical relationshipsand disparities in learning opportunities;it cannot be used to address questionsof causality. However, statistical associa-tions among certain variables cansuggest that there may be unintendednegative consequences of educationalpolicies and practices or possible viola-tions of law.

OCR reports that the survey has longbeen underutilized. Although someOCR enforcement staff reportedly usethe data, most do not. No training isprovided to OCR staff regarding techni-cal issues in accessing and analyzingE&S survey data or potential uses of thedata in enforcement. The data some-times are used in conjunction withcitizen complaints and other informationto decide whether potential problems inspecific schools and school districts mayrequire further investigation.

Except for a brief period during the1970s, data from the survey have neverbeen routinely published or otherwisemade widely available to the public.OCR has made the data available toeducation advocates, researchers, and

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 3

other interested parties on request.However, sometimes this has requireduse of the Freedom of Information Actby those seeking the information. Inthe summer of 2002, OCR took a majorstep to make the E&S survey data muchmore available to the public by placingthem on the Internet. The committeecommends OCR for this step.

FINDINGS

For many issues, the E&S survey isthe sole source of national data that aredisaggregated by racial, ethnic, andlanguage minority status, gender, andby students’ disability status. Thesurvey is the sole source of informationat the school and classroom level formost of the policies and practices itcovers. No other source of informationprovides a comprehensive nationalpicture of disparities in disciplinarypractices in schools, gender disparitiesin interscholastic athletics, classroom-level student placements in early andmiddle grades, the effects of high-stakestesting, and services for students withdisabilities and limited proficiency withEnglish. Although various nationalsurveys touch on some of the issuesdealt with in the E&S survey, no otherdata source provides disaggregatedinformation that is updated regularlyand is traceable to individual class-

rooms, schools, and districts.With some modifications and closer

coordination with other Department ofEducation databases to accommodatemore sophisticated research designs,E&S survey data could play a moreprominent role than they have in thepast in informing contemporary policyand research questions—especially theidentification of possible unintendedinequitable outcomes of various educa-tional policies and practices.

The Department of Education hasannounced its intention to consolidatethe collection and maintenance ofadministrative data used for programmanagement and policy decisionsthrough the proposed Performance-Based Data Management Indicators(PBDMI) system. The implementationof the PDBMI system may affect theway in which data that currently aregathered through the E&S survey arecollected in future years. The commit-tee advocates that the departmentcontinue collecting data on access tolearning opportunities that will helpensure that students with special needsare well served. Data currently ob-tained from the E&S survey shouldcontinue to play an important role inprotecting the rights of students from allbackgrounds. The fact that the surveyprovides up-to-date district, school, andclassroom-level data distinguishes it as auniquely important information re-


source. If the E&S survey were to beincorporated into another data collectioninstrument, it is essential that thelegislatively based requirements man-dating the timely provision of specificdata at the classroom and school levelsbe retained.

The E&S survey historically hasfocused on the enforcement of civilrights issues and complaints. However,it has considerable potential to be usedas a complement to the No Child LeftBehind Act of 2001 by providing infor-mation on educational policies andpractices that affect students’ access toand the consequences of essentiallearning opportunities. To do this, thesurvey should be strengthened inseveral ways. First, the survey shouldbe integrally linked to other Departmentof Education data collection efforts,including special education data surveysand the department’s proposed PBDMIsystem. The survey’s unique contribu-tion of providing school district, school,and classroom data should be main-tained, and its capability to measuretrends over time should be expanded.

Second, revising questions andeliminating unnecessary items couldimprove the E&S survey itself. Fieldtesting, respondent validity studies, andfindings from ongoing research onlearning opportunities should guide therevisions of the survey. Some examplesof items that need revision are provided

in the report, e.g., ability grouping andteacher qualification indicators.

Though the survey data have beenuseful to a variety of users, the datafileshave been difficult to access and use.OCR has placed some of the informationon its website, facilitating simple queriesof the data. Problems remain for re-searchers and others who try to domore detailed studies. The E&S surveydata should be formatted in ways thatmake them easier for researchers touse. Improving the ability to connectthe data to existing datasets could helpwith this issue. Also, multiple sourcesof training and support to OCR staff andother users of the survey data should beprovided, and efforts to disseminatesurvey findings expanded.

CONCLUSIONS

Disparities in educational outcomesand in learning opportunity amongdifferent types of students continue tobe an important social problem. In thatcontext, the committee has threeprincipal conclusions about the E&Ssurvey:

• The E&S survey, or an equivalentresearch instrument, continues tobe needed to gather disaggre-gated data related to the equalityof access to learning opportuni-

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 5

ties and resources that are trace-able to individual classrooms,schools, and districts.

• The survey, although useful forcivil rights enforcement, inform-ing educational policy, and theconduct of research, is greatlyunderused.

• The survey can be made moreuseful by improvements to thecontent, the manner in which thesurvey is administered, andaccess to the valuable data itprovides.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The committee offers recommenda-tions in four categories: survey admin-istration, improving data quality, in-creasing access to the data, and dissemi-nating survey findings. We end with anoverall conclusion about the role of theE&S survey.

Survey Administration

• The mandated and certifiedcollection of data related topossible violations of students’educational civil rights should besustained.

• The survey should be supportedby line-item funding in thedepartment’s budget to ensure its

ongoing support at a level that isconsistent with its continuedquality.

• Because of the survey’s impor-tance, the department shouldconsider undertaking a thoroughstudy of the survey aimed atensuring that it deals appropri-ately and in sufficient depth withthe problems of discoveringpossible restrictions on students’learning opportunities and, ifpossible, reducing the reportingburden on schools and schoolsystems.

• The E&S survey content andprotocols should be coordinatedwith those of other departmentsurveys to ensure consistency ofdefinitions and thecomplementarity of the data andto eliminate redundant questions.

• The various stakeholders in theE&S survey—such as OCRenforcement staff, student advo-cates, state and local educators,and researchers—should discussand explore the advantages anddisadvantages of less frequent butmore comprehensive surveys.With respect to a comprehensivesurvey, all schools should besurveyed, at a minimum, every 10years, as was done in 2000.


Improving Data Quality

• Survey items should be revised toprovide more useful and completeinformation on five topics:1. the qualifications and experi-

ence of teachers;2. the assignment of students to

different types of classroomsand educational settings;

3. the consequences for stu-dents of high-stakes testing;

4. high school completion; and5. interscholastic athletics.

• OCR should ensure that respon-dents understand how to com-plete the survey accurately andthoroughly.

• OCR should carefully scrutinizethe data that are collected forthoroughness and reliability.

Increasing Access to the Data

There are several steps that OCRshould take to increase access to theE&S survey data:

• train staff to make more effectiveuse of the survey data;

• continue to improve the softwareprovided for public access to E&Ssurvey data over the Internet;

• sponsor or support programs totrain advocates, researchers, and

educators to use the data forvarious purposes;

• make well-edited data available toresearchers and others in ausable format and provide a datamanual and technical assistance;

• consider developing a smallgrants program to encourageresearch on the topic of access tolearning opportunities using E&Ssurvey data; and

• archive and preserve data from allsurveys in a common format andmake them accessible to re-searchers and other interestedparties on disk or over theInternet, both for historicalpurposes and to enable research-ers to track longitudinal trends.

Disseminating Survey Findings

Three steps should be taken by OCRto improve dissemination of E&S surveydata:

• conduct or sponsor the conduct ofbasic tabulations of the data;

• include findings from analyses ofthe data in OCR’s regular reportsto Congress; and

• publicize the basic findings fromthe survey in widely disseminatedgovernment publications.

7

1

Introduction

Since the mid-1990s, local and stateeducation agencies increasingly haveemphasized the need to hold students,educators, and schools accountable formeeting high academic standards. Withthe passage of the No Child Left BehindAct in 2001, the need for accountabilitywas confirmed again in federal law, aswas the federal government’s commit-ment to ensuring equitable access toessential learning opportunities.

Historically, the Office for Civil Rights(OCR) of the U.S. Department of Educa-tion is the federal agency that has beencharged with ensuring that all stu-dents—especially those in protectedclasses, as defined in civil rights laws byrace, ethnicity, gender, religion, nationalorigin, language, and disability (seebelow)—have equitable access tolearning opportunities. In addition tomonitoring complaints from students,parents, and other interested parties,the principal instrument that OCR has

used to identify possible inadequacy oflearning opportunities and resources isthe Elementary and Secondary SchoolCivil Rights Compliance Report, com-monly known as the E&S survey.

The E&S survey was first adminis-tered in 1968.1 In the 35 years sincethen, profound changes have takenplace in the nation and in its schools.For example, in 1968, only 16 percent ofthe U.S. population consisted of racial orethnic minorities; by 2000, the percent-age of minorities in the U.S. populationhad nearly doubled to 31 percent (U.S.Census Bureau, 2000), and nearly 4 in10 school-age children were racial orethnic minorities (National Center forEducation Statistics, 2001). Not onlyhas the minority population grown but it

1OCR administered a less elaborate surveythat was the precursor to the E&S survey in 1967(see Orfield, 1969).


has become much more diverse andgeographically dispersed. In the 1960s,the struggle for civil rights primarilywas focused on segregation and otherforms of discrimination against blacks—particularly in the South. By 2000,nearly 60 percent of the country’sminority population was Hispanic,Asian, and American Indian. Concernsabout students’ civil rights had alsoexpanded to include a broader range ofissues, including equal learning oppor-tunities for students with limited En-glish capabilities, female students, andstudents with disabilities.

This report examines the continuedrelevance and adequacy of the E&Ssurvey as a tool for enforcement of civilrights laws in education, for monitoringequality of access to learning opportuni-ties, and for research of other currentissues of educational policy and prac-tice. It provides recommendations onhow the survey’s design, data collection,and analysis can be improved to en-hance the survey’s value.

THE COMMITTEE AND ITS WORK

In 2002, the OCR, with the support ofthe Office of English Language Acquisi-tion, asked the National Academies toundertake a study to examine how theE&S survey could more effectivelymeasure student access to learning

opportunities and how the resultingdata might be made more accessibleand useful both to those concerned withthe protection of students’ civil rightsand to the conduct of research.

To this end, the National Academies’Center for Education and Committee onNational Statistics collaborated in theformation of the Committee on Improv-ing Measures of Access to Equal Educa-tional Opportunity to study the E&Ssurvey and its uses. The committee’scharge was to

• oversee an evaluation of the E&Ssurvey to determine whether itcan be used to— identify significant trends in

the area of access to equaleducational opportunity for allstudents and

— inform the work of the OCRand the Department ofJustice;

• commission papers analyzingseveral issues covered by thesurvey, data permitting;

• comment on how the E&S surveymethodology can be improvedand/or augmented to provide newdata and enhance its analyticaland evaluative potential; and

• identify ways in which the E&Sdata can be linked with otherdatasets to provide a fuller con-text for analyzing issues related to

I N T R O D U C T I O N 9

access to equal educationalopportunity.

In order to address these issues, thecommittee met three times and commis-sioned five papers that are based onE&S survey data. The committee’sprimary objective in commissioningthese papers was to learn about theadequacy of the data for purposes ofresearch, and the papers provide part ofthe evidentiary foundation for thisreport. Several committee memberscollaborated in the research and writingof these papers.

Because of the short amount of timeavailable, the committee decided that itwould rely on the commissioned papersfor the preliminary analyses of issues.The committee encouraged the authorsto continue to pursue their researchindependently and, if warranted, sepa-rately publish more fully developedanalyses. Synopses of the commissionedpapers are provided in Appendix A.

The committee also oversaw a basicanalysis of data from the 2000 E&Ssurvey. The 2000 survey is particularlynoteworthy because, for only the sec-ond time in its 35-year history, it in-cluded data from virtually all publicelementary and secondary schools inthe United States, rather than from asample of them. Selected findings fromthis analysis are presented in AppendixB; highlights of this material also are

presented in Chapter 2.In addition to commissioning papers

and overseeing a basic analysis of thedata, the committee carefully examinedand discussed the survey and each ofthe issues it addresses.2 The committeealso heard from officials from the OCRconcerning technical matters related tosurvey design, administration, andanalysis, as well as the uses of thesurvey for purposes of enforcement andto inform department policies andprocedures. The committee and its staffreviewed technical documentation forthe survey provided by the departmentas well as available publications that arebased on survey findings. The commit-tee also interviewed individuals whohave been involved with or are knowl-edgeable about how the E&S surveyhas been used at different points in itshistory.

The committee’s 10 membersbrought to bear on these issues awealth of experience and expertiserepresenting a variety of perspectives,including researchers in the fields ofeducation, sociology, economics, publicpolicy, and political science; officials

2The issues addressed by E&S survey itemsare reviewed in Chapter 2. The 2000 survey itself,including instructions and definitions, is providedin Appendix C. A more detailed examination ofthe complementarity of E&S survey items withdata available from other Department of Educa-tion datasets is provided in Appendix D.


from state and local education agencies;and the leader of a national studentadvocacy organization.

This report reflects the committee’sconsensus views on the survey’sstrengths and weaknesses and onchanges that would make the survey amore valuable information resource forcivil rights enforcement, educationresearch, and other efforts to ensureequitable access to learning opportuni-ties. It is important to note that thereare very few publications that discussthe E&S survey and surprisingly fewpublished analyses of E&S data thathave been produced either by theDepartment of Education or by indepen-dent researchers. Given these circum-stances, the report is based primarily onthe committee’s own evaluation of thesurvey, analysis of interviews we con-ducted, and our experience with andfindings of the papers we commis-sioned.

In Chapter 2 we review the features ofthe E&S survey that make it an impor-tant information resource for ensuringequal access to high-quality education.In Chapter 3 we discuss how the surveyhas been used by the OCR, by educationadvocates, and by education research-ers, as well as possible new uses for it.In Chapter 4 we suggest changes thatwould make the E&S survey a morevaluable information resource for OCR’scivil rights enforcement efforts, for

parents who seek to ensure that theirchildren’s schools provide them withthe kinds of educational services towhich they are entitled, and for re-searchers interested in investigatingmore complex issues than those forwhich data from the E&S survey tradi-tionally have been employed. Chapter 4also discusses strategies for increasingthe utilization of the survey by thepublic and by researchers. In Chapter 5we conclude with a summary of ourconclusions, our recommendations, anda discussion of promising new uses ofE&S survey data.

CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS ANDTHE E&S SURVEY

The Survey’s Origins: Title VI andSchool Desegregation

A civil right can be defined as anenforceable right or privilege, which ifinterfered with by another, gives rise toan action or injury. The framework fordefining the civil rights of Americans islaid out in the U.S. Constitution and Billof Rights, the Thirteenth and Four-teenth Amendments, and in various lawsthat have been enacted over the years.One of the earliest and most importantof these laws for the enforcement of civilrights in schools is the Civil Rights Actof 1964. Title VI of that act became apowerful tool used by the OCR to


desegregate schools. The OCR initiallydeveloped the E&S survey exclusivelyto support that objective.

School desegregation has beendescribed as the cornerstone of themodern civil rights movement (Taylor,1971; Edley, 2002, p. 126), and it was oneof a handful of social issues that definedmuch of the latter half of the 20thcentury in the United States. Indeed,the period from the late 1950s into the1970s is increasingly referred to as thecivil rights era (DeFrancis, 1998; Greggand Leinhardt, 2002) and is the subjectof many history courses being taught incolleges around the country.

The origins of civil rights enforce-ment related to education are rooted inthe Supreme Court’s 1954 decision inBrown v. Board of Education. TheSupreme Court ruled in that case thatsegregating students by race in differ-ent schools was a violation of the equalprotection clause of the FourteenthAmendment to the U.S. Constitution.Informed by research and testimony onthe role of segregation in maintainingthe South’s Jim Crow system of allocat-ing privilege on the basis of race(Myrdal, 1944; Clark, 1963; Kluger,1976; see also National Research Coun-cil, 1989), the Supreme Court ruled“separate educational facilities areinherently unequal” (347 U.S. 495,1954).

Despite the forceful language of the

Brown v. Board of Education ruling,progress in implementing the rulingwas slow, and partly in response, Con-gress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964(Orfield, 1969; Halpern, 1995; Fergusonand Mehta, 2002). Title VI of that actprovided the OCR and its predecessoragency, the Equal Educational Opportu-nity Program, with the statutory author-ity and a powerful administrative tool forschool desegregation. OCR’s efforts toenforce Title VI played a pivotal role infostering the substantial progress thatwas made toward school desegregationin the late 1960s and early 1970s(Orfield, 1969; Rabkin, 1980; Halpern,1995; Glennon, 2002).

OCR used the E&S survey to providequantitative documentation of ongoingproblems with segregation throughoutthe country and to monitor the progressof districts under court-ordered deseg-regation plans and of districts withwhich OCR had negotiated desegrega-tion consent agreements (U.S. Commis-sion on Civil Rights, 1969; Orfield,1969). Title VI states: “No person in theUnited States shall, on the ground ofrace, color, or national origin, be ex-cluded from participation in, or deniedthe benefits of, or be subjected todiscrimination under any program oractivity receiving Federal financialassistance” (PL 88-352 Title VI, Section601). Title VI provides OCR and otherfederal agencies with the authority to


deny federal funding to state and localgovernment entities, including schooldistricts that discriminate on the basis ofrace, color, or national origin.3

Language specifying OCR’s authorityunder Title VI to collect information(i.e., through the E&S survey) that isneeded for the law’s implementationappears in the Code of Federal Regula-tions.4 Prior to the creation of the E&Ssurvey, the federal government did notsystematically collect racial data ineducation. Many school districts either

did not collect the data or refused tomake them available. The E&S surveymade it possible for the first time toprecisely monitor patterns and trends insegregation and, later, other civil rightsissues related to race and ethnicity—acapability that is necessary, althoughnot sufficient by itself, to civil rightsenforcement (Orfield, 2001a, 2001b).5

Federal court rulings on desegrega-tion have always relied on judicialfindings of violations that producedillegal segregation. During the 1960s

3Prior to 1965, even this important regulatorytool would not have been very effective becausethe federal government provided very littlefunding to local school districts. This changed,however, in 1965, with the enactment of legisla-tion that created two important federally fundedprograms—Head Start, the early childhoodeducation program, and Chapter I (Title I) of the1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act,which provided federal financial aid to low-income schools (Orfield, 1969, p. 45; Halpern,1995, pp. 45–46).

4Information is collected in the E&S surveypursuant to 34 C.F.R. Section 100.6(b) of theDepartment of Education regulations implement-ing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “Eachrecipient shall keep such records and submit tothe responsible Department official or hisdesignee timely, complete and accurate compli-ance reports at such times, and in such form andcontaining such information, as the responsibleDepartment official or his designee may deter-mine to be necessary to enable him to ascertainwhether the recipient has complied or iscomplying with this part. For example, recipi-ents should have available for the Departmentracial and ethnic data showing the extent towhich members of minority groups are beneficia-ries of and participants in federally-assistedprograms. . . .

Each recipient shall permit access by theresponsible Department official or his designeeduring normal business hours to such of itsbooks, records, accounts and other sources ofinformation, and its facilities as it may bepertinent to ascertain compliance with this part.”

Requirements also are incorporated byreference in department regulations implement-ing Title IX of the Education Amendments of1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of1973.

5 Title VI also led to the creation of an OCR-administered survey on the racial and ethniccomposition of colleges and universities.Responsibility for the collection of these datalater was transferred to the National Center forEducation Statistics’ Integrated PostsecondaryEducation System and its fall enrollment andcompletion surveys (see http://nces.ed.gov/Ipeds). Also, responsibility for the collection ofdata on the racial and ethnic composition ofelementary and secondary teachers and adminis-trators that were initially collected through theE&S survey later was transferred to the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission, whichcollects this information at the district levelthrough its EEO-5 survey (see (http://www.mimdms.com/EEO5.html).


and early 1970s, violations were veryeasy to show in cases that addressedschool segregation in 17 southern andborder states where segregation wasrequired or authorized by law. Else-where, with some exceptions, schoolsegregation was determined to be “defacto”—i.e., the product of segregatedneighborhoods (Orfield, 1969, 1978).However, the Supreme Court ruled inthe 1973 Keyes case that, in schoolsettings outside the South, an entireschool district could be presumed to beillegally segregated once the plaintiffshad proved that there were acts ofintentional discrimination that affected asignificant portion of the district. TheKeyes decision extended remedies bothto school districts outside the South andto Hispanics, whose segregation had notbeen addressed in Brown v. Board andrelated decisions (Orfield, 1978).

Only a year later, progress in desegre-gating schools was slowed when aclosely divided Supreme Court decidedin the 1974 Milliken v. Bradley case thaturban desegregation plans could notinclude suburban districts except invery exceptional circumstances. TheCourt’s ruling in Milliken v. Bradleysubstantially ended major desegregationefforts in many of the largest metropoli-tan areas, except those with countywidedistricts that primarily were located inthe South and the West, such as Louis-ville, Kentucky (Orfield, 1996; Rebell,

2002). Then, in 1977, Congress passedan amendment to the 1964 Civil RightsAct that prohibited OCR from requiringschool districts to use busing as astrategy to desegregate schools; thisfurther reduced OCR’s ability to carryout its original mandate to desegregateschools by enforcing Title VI (Halpern,1995, pp. 154–160). Finally, the 1981termination of the Emergency SchoolAid Act, which was used to implementthe provisions of the federal desegrega-tion aid program, further curtailedOCR’s effectiveness in promotingdesegregation (Orfield, 2000).

Together, these events greatly dimin-ished OCR’s role in promoting schooldesegregation. Nevertheless, OCR hascontinued to use the E&S survey tomonitor the racial and ethnic composi-tion of schools in hundreds of districtswith which it previously had enteredinto settlements as well as in otherdistricts that have remained undercourt-ordered desegregation plans.

Other Title VI Enforcement Issues

Although desegregation is no longera focus of OCR civil rights enforcementactivities, the E&S survey continues toplay a role in OCR’s enforcement ofTitle VI. With information routinelygathered from the E&S survey, OCR-initiated compliance reviews, andcomplaints submitted by parents andother concerned parties, OCR monitors


for and acts on a wide variety of possibleviolations of civil rights under Title VI(U.S. Department of Education, Officefor Civil Rights, 1999), including:

• disciplinary policies and prac-tices,

• ability grouping,• access to language services by

English-language learners,6

• interdistrict student transfers,• student assignment policies,

including to gifted and talentedprograms,

• racial harassment, and• academic grading.

Other Civil Rights Laws and theEvolution of the E&S Survey

Section 504

In addition to Title VI, OCR also isresponsible for ensuring equal educa-tional opportunity and protectingstudents’ civil rights based on otherlaws. Chief among these is Section 504

of the Rehabilitation Act of 19737 thatbars discrimination on the basis ofdisability. With the support of informa-tion derived from the E&S survey, OCRaddresses the following issues pertain-ing to students with disabilities:

• teaching students in the leastrestrictive environment consistentwith their educational needs,

• suspensions and expulsion ofstudents with disabilities,

• appropriate special educationservices,

• academic adjustments and modifi-cations, and

• auxiliary aids for students withimpaired sensory, manual, orspeaking skills.

Title IX

OCR also monitors and addressesissues related to gender equity underthe authority of Title IX of the EducationAmendments of 1972,8 including:

6After the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lau v.Nichols in 1973, ensuring the education civilrights of language minority students was addedto OCR’s Title VI enforcement responsibilities.

7Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973requires that “no otherwise qualified individualwith a disability in the United States . . . shall,solely by reason of her or his disability, beexcluded from the participation in, be denied the

benefits of, or be subjected to discriminationunder any program or activity receiving Federalfinancial assistance” (see http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/docs/placpub.html).

8Title IX states: “No person in the UnitedStates shall, on the basis of sex, be excludedfrom participation in, be denied the benefits of, orbe subjected to discrimination under anyprogram or activity receiving Federal financialassistance” (see http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/dox/tix_dis.html).


• equal opportunity in interscholas-tic sports,

• treatment of students who arepregnant, and

• access to and placement invarious school programs.

See Appendix C for the specific items onthe E&S survey that address issuescovered by Title VI, Section 504, andTitle IX.

OCR AND EDUCATION AS A CIVILRIGHT IN THE 21ST CENTURY

The mission of the Office for Civil Rightsis to ensure equal access to a high qualityeducation for all students through thevigorous enforcement of civil rights. (U.S.Department of Education, Office for CivilRights, 2000a, p. 1)

Current efforts to ensure equalaccess to learning opportunities andresources are not as visible to the publicas efforts to end segregation in the civilrights era. Nevertheless, equal accessto a high-quality education remains anessential civil right under both federaland state laws (Rebell, 2002).9

OCR received 4,897 civil rightscomplaints in 2000. Advocates forstudents’ civil rights report that personsfiling complaints sometimes use E&Sdata when filing complaints. A majority,55 percent, involved students withdisabilities under Section 504 (U.S.Department of Education, Office forCivil Rights, 2000a); 18 percent ofcomplaints (870) alleged discriminationon the basis of race or national origin(Title VI); allegations of sex discrimina-tion under Title IX accounted for 8percent (396) of complaints; and 11percent (539) of complaints allegeddiscrimination under multiple laws, suchas the inappropriate assignment ofminority students to special education(both Title VI and Section 504). In 2000,OCR reports that 2,000 school districtsand institutions of higher educationchanged their policies, procedures, orpractices to comply with federal civilrights laws as a result of OCR interven-tion (U.S. Department of Education,Office for Civil Rights, 2000a). Datafrom the E&S survey also can be usedby parents and other citizens, who maypursue grievances against their localschools independently of OCR.

9The mission statement of the Office for CivilRights refers to ensuring “equal access to a highquality education” through the enforcement ofcivil rights laws such as Title VI (U.S. Depart-ment of Education, Office for Civil Rights,2000a). In addition, nearly all state constitutions

cite the state’s responsibility to establish asystem of “free and common schools” to providestudents with “a thorough and efficient educa-tion,” “an adequate public education,” or an“ample education” (Rebell, 2002, p. 232).


These data concerning OCR enforce-ment activities, as well as informationpresented in Chapter 2 and in Appen-dixes A and B of this report, suggestthat violations of students’ civil rightsare not uncommon and that majordisparities in access to various kinds oflearning opportunities remain. TheE&S survey is the only vehicle nowavailable to identify many of thesedisparities. OCR reports that it uses thesurvey data, in conjunction with citizencomplaints and other information, todecide whether potential problems inspecific schools and school districts mayrequire further investigation. As isdiscussed below, others also use E&Ssurvey data to identify disparities inaccess to learning opportunities andresources.

The consequences for students’inability to have access to a high-qualityeducation may be as serious as theywere during the civil rights era becauseof the dwindling number of well-payingjobs requiring little education (seeMoses and Cobb, 2001). For example,as recently as 1979, male college gradu-ates earned only 29 percent more thanmale high school graduates and 57percent more than male dropouts. By1999, the earnings advantage of malecollege graduates over their high schoolgraduate and dropout counterparts hadincreased to 68 percent and 147 percent,respectively. The real wages of male

workers with only a high school educa-tion or less have fallen steadily in thepast 20 years (Council of EconomicAdvisers, 2000, pp. 135–136).10

Students attending predominantlyminority, high-poverty schools areparticularly at risk of not getting thekind of education that will prepare themfor the 21st century workforce. Thesestudents, on average, are much lesslikely than others to graduate from highschool (Neild and Balfanz, 2001;Roderick and Engel, 2001), and theyhave substantially lower test scores(Lippman et al., 1996; Puma et al., 1997;Balfanz et al., 2002). Based in part onan analysis of data from the E&S survey,Orfield (2001b) found that in schools inwhich 50–60 percent of the students areblack or Hispanic, on average, at least60 percent of the student population arepoor. In schools in which at least 80percent of the students are black orHispanic, on average, 80–90 percent ofthe students are poor (Orfield, 2001b).Although it is methodologically difficultto differentiate the effects on learningoutcomes of poverty and other factorsassociated with students’ neighbor-

10Real wages of female high school graduatesand dropouts have dropped much less than thosefor their male counterparts because such womenhistorically have been much less likely to holdwell-paying jobs (see National Research Council,2002a, p. 16).


hoods and families from those ofschools (see Halpern-Felsher et al.,1997), data from the E&S survey andother sources (see Darling-Hammond,1997; Adelman, 1999; National ResearchCouncil, 1999a; Farkas, 2002) provideevidence that students in high-poverty,segregated schools have less access tolearning opportunities and resourcesthan other students (see also Chapter 2and Appendix B).

Some of the resources and learningopportunities to which students areguaranteed are stipulated by law (e.g.,educating students with disabilities inthe least restrictive environment consis-tent with their needs). For most issues,however, the courts and education civilrights laws provide more generalguidance on the meaning of equalaccess to learning opportunities andresources. The emergence of neweducational policies and practices andongoing research on their educationaleffects and possible civil rights implica-tions periodically have led to the appear-ance and disappearance of various itemson the E&S survey.

The E&S survey produces importantinformation about disparities amongstudents of different backgrounds thatmay suggest unequal access to learningopportunities and resources. Data fromthe E&S survey can be used to helpidentify schools that may be denyingstudents equal access to educational

opportunities and resources, as definedby the civil rights laws on which thesurvey is based. School administratorsare required by law to maintain andaccurately provide the informationelicited by the survey to support theenforcement of the civil rights laws.

By themselves, statistical disparitiesassociated with race, ethnicity, lan-guage, gender, and disability statusidentified through the E&S survey, suchas those presented in Chapter 2 andAppendix B, do not necessarily provethat discrimination has occurred or thatstudents’ civil rights have been violated.Statistical associations among variableson the E&S survey can reflect possibleviolations of the law that should beaddressed by OCR, the unintendednegative consequences of educationalpolicies and practices, the indirecteffects of discrimination in housing oremployment, other forms of socialinequality, or the combined effects of allof the above. Data from the E&S surveycould be linked with other datasets inways that could address questions ofcausality (see Appendixes A and D).However, the hierarchical structure ofthe survey itself is a powerful resourcefor pinpointing the specific schools anddistricts where problems may be occur-ring. The fact that E&S data are re-quired to be submitted from such alarge sample of schools, many of whichare surveyed every two years, can


provide a degree of specificity to theanalysis of salient issues that would nototherwise be possible from voluntarysurveys administered to a much smallersample of schools.

Whatever the cause or causes, evi-dence of disparities among groups ofstudents is information that is useful notonly for civil rights enforcement, butalso for informing efforts to achieve thetwin goals of educational excellence andequity, as articulated in the No ChildLeft Behind Act. The E&S survey’scapacity to provide disaggregated

information about the distribution ofvarious kinds of disparities for catego-ries of students identified in civil rightslaws, and to do so for specific, identifi-able schools and districts, is a usefulstarting point for more comprehensiveanalyses of the underlying causes ofinequality. This information is impor-tant not only for civil rights enforcementby OCR, but also for use by parents andother concerned citizens with civilrights concerns or who seek to improveeducational opportunities and outcomesfor children.

19

2

Measuring Equal Opportunity:The Role of the E&S Survey

In education, civil rights always havebeen about equal access to the opportu-nity to learn for students from all back-grounds. In the 1960s, this was mani-fested primarily in the struggle todesegregate schools—and the solepurpose of the Elementary and Second-ary Civil Rights Compliance Report wasto provide information in support of thatgoal. In the greatly transformed educa-tional landscape of the first decade ofthe 21st century, it is important toenvision specifically what it means toensure equal access to a high-qualityeducation.

Over the years, the E&S survey hasbroadened its focus to include items thataddress a wide variety of potentialviolations of students’ civil rights. It hasbecome an important, albeitunderutilized, source of informationregarding the prevalence of educationalpolicies and practices that can restrictstudents’ learning opportunities. TheOffice for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S.

Department of Education is obligatednot only to take action against schooldistricts that intentionally discriminateagainst students based on race, color, ornational origin, but also Title VI regula-tions1 give OCR the authority to takeenforcement action against educationalpolicies and practices that result indiscrimination (unjustified disparities).2

The regulations prohibit recipients offederal financial assistance from using“criteria or methods of administrationwhich have the ef fect of subjecting

1Section 602 of Title VI of the 1964 CivilRights Act requires federal agencies to createregulations to implement the law (Ryan, 2002).The regulations specifying the Title VI enforce-ment responsibilities of the Office for Civil Rightsare codified in Title 34, Subtitle B, Chapter 1,Part 100 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

2The disparate impact of a contested practiceis unjustified if it can be shown that the disparityis caused by the contested practice and that thepractice either does not serve the legitimateeducational goals of the institution or effectivealternative practices are available (Ryan, 2002).See Chapter 3 for a more complete discussion ofthis topic.


individuals to discrimination because oftheir race, color, or national origin.”Policies and practices that result indiscrimination may be barred throughenforcement action by the department(Losen and Welner, 2002; Ryan, 2002).

It is important to note that the E&Ssurvey was not designed primarily foruse by academic researchers. Histori-cally, its purpose has been to provideinformation to OCR and to members ofthe public, upon request, related to thecompliance of individual schools andschool districts with civil rights laws. Asnoted in an evaluation of the surveyprepared for the Department of Educa-tion (WESTAT, 1997, p. 1), “OCR con-ducts the E&S survey to provide itsregional offices with current data to usewhen targeting compliance review sitesor to use as source material wheninvestigating complaints.” However, theE&S survey is also used by civil rightsadvocacy groups for monitoring issuesrelated to their mission and to informand mobilize communities in schoolimprovement efforts. Finally, thesurvey is used by social scientistsconducting research on equality ofaccess to high-quality education. Thischapter describes characteristics of thesurvey that make it useful for civil rightsenforcement, for research on patterns ofaccess to learning opportunities, and asan information resource to informpublic policy.

SURVEY CHARACTERISTICS

This section describes key features ofthe E&S survey. The entire 2000 surveyis reproduced in Appendix C.

Mandatory and Certified asAccurate

The official name of the E&S surveyis the Elementary and SecondarySchool Civil Rights Compliance Report.Unlike the surveys administered by theDepartment of Education’s NationalCenter for Education Statistics (NCES),for which response is voluntary, schoolsand school districts are required torespond to the E&S survey and failureto respond could result in the loss offederal financial assistance.3 Responserates are close to 100 percent, so thatOCR has a powerful mechanism formeasuring compliance with civil rightslaws and other public policy purposes.

The survey has two parts, ED 101 andED 102. ED 101 is sent to the superin-tendents of school districts (localeducation agencies), who are requiredto certify that the data that they (or theirdesignees) provide about their districts

3As described in footnote 2 of Chapter 1, thisauthority is derived from Title VI regulations. Itis important to note, however, that since the1970s, the Office for Civil Rights rarely has usedthis power as a sanction for violation of civilrights (Halpern, 1995) or for failure to respond tothe E&S survey (Rabekoff, 1990).

R O L E O F T H E E & S S U R V E Y 21

are complete and accurate. ED 102 issent to school principals, who aresimilarly required to certify that theinformation they provide is completeand accurate. The requirement that thedata be certified is meant to deterrespondents from reporting falseinformation to OCR. Since data on racewere not required in most states beforethe OCR regulations and some stateshad policies prohibiting them (Orfield,1969), it is unlikely that state and localschool authorities would collect the keyOCR data elements without a manda-tory policy.4

Data Identifiable for SpecificDemographic Groups

The E&S survey contains data onaccess to opportunities to learn that arebroken out by race, ethnicity, gender,and disability status—i.e., for thoseclasses of students whose rights arespecified in the civil rights laws that arethe basis of the E&S survey. Basicracial and ethnic enrollment data werenot routinely collected in the CommonCore of Data (CCD) until 1987, 19 years

after the launch of the E&S survey in1968. Thus, the E&S survey providesthe longest continuous record on theracial and ethnic composition of schools,as well as data disaggregated by raceand ethnicity on participation in, and theconsequences of, various educationalpractices of any Department of Educa-tion survey.

Besides race and ethnicity, the surveyhas also disaggregated data on a varietyof topics by gender, English proficiency,and disability status since the mid-1970s. For many issues addressed bythe survey, the data can be disaggre-gated by multiple categories (e.g., raceby gender or race and gender by disabil-ity status). Although other Departmentof Education surveys provide schoolinformation on many of the same issuesthat are covered by the E&S survey, fewprovide data that are disaggregated toshow potential disparities associatedwith race, ethnicity, gender, languageminority status, and disability status.5

Sampling and Timeliness

Generally, the Department of Educa-tion administers the E&S once every4Disaggregated data on opportunities to learn

generally are not available in most membercountries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. For example, insome countries (e.g., France), it is illegal tocollect and report data that are disaggregated byrace (Orfield, 2001a). In certain states, includingCalifornia, serious consideration has been givento prohibiting state agencies from compiling racedata (see Sacramento Bee, May 1, 2002).

5Appendix D provides a detailed discussion ofthe similarities and differences of items on theE&S survey and to those from the CCD, theEarly Childhood Longitudinal Study—Kinder-garten Cohort (ECLS-K), and the 1988 NationalEducational Longitudinal Study (NELS:88).


two years, in the even-numbered years.Between 1968 and 1972, the survey wasadministered annually. The survey wasnot administered in 1996. Because thesurvey is administered so frequently,the data about schools generally aremore up to date than those availablefrom other Department of Educationdatabases, such as those derived fromthe NELS-88 or the High School andBeyond surveys. The frequency of thesurvey makes the data very useful inidentifying patterns and changes inschool district practices and results.

Except for 1976 and 2000, when thesurvey was administered to all schoolsand school districts in the United States,roughly one-third of the approximately15,000 school districts in the countryare included in the survey. Schooldistricts with at least 25,000 students areincluded in each administration of thesurvey so that sampled districts alwaysinclude more than one-third of thenation’s schools and students. Forexample, in 1998, 37 percent of allschool districts were included in thesample. These districts contained 61percent of the nation’s public elemen-tary and secondary schools and 77percent of public school studentsenrolled in grades 1–12.6

Large urban school districts, whichhave a disproportionate share of minor-ity students and students in poverty,have been included among the sampleddistricts in every administration of thesurvey. Also included in each adminis-tration of the survey are school districtsthat are under court order to eliminatecivil rights violations. Because most ofthese districts are in the South, thesurvey has provided a more comprehen-sive view of districts in the South than inother parts of the country. Finally, asample of smaller districts is included ineach survey administration (WESTAT,1997). Overall, the survey provides acontinuous record on school civil rightsissues that spans more than threedecades and is disaggregated to showinformation for students from groupsthat are at greater risk of school failure.

Units of Analysis

The units of analysis for the E&Ssurvey are school districts, individualschools, and selected classrooms withinelementary schools. The E&S survey isa rare source of information for class-room-level data in the elementarygrades. The survey collects informationon the racial and ethnic composition ofeach classroom for the lowest grade inan elementary school (e.g., grade 1) andthe highest grade (e.g., grade 6) andwhether any ability grouping is used forinstruction in those classrooms. How-

6These percentages are calculated from fall1998 E&S Time Series Documentation (unpub-lished data, Office for Civil Rights, 2000) and theDigest of Education Statistics (2001, Tables 40and 89).


ever, classroom assignment data arecollected only from elementary schoolsin which the percentage of minoritystudents is more than 20 percent butless than 80 percent.

The survey contains disaggregatedgroup data for all schools in the sampledschool districts. Obtaining informationfrom nearly 100 percent of schools inthe sampled districts enables one toexamine issues for which more selectivesampling strategies would not provide asample of adequate size. Thus, thesurvey enables examination of disaggre-gated data at the school and districtlevel that would not be possible usinginformation derived from surveys withmore selective sampling techniques.

Although the primary use of thesurvey has been to identify patterns thatsuggest potential violations of civilrights in individual schools and districts,the OCR also produces state andnational data projections from thesampled schools.

Linking E&S Data to OtherDatabases

Because the E&S survey is adminis-tered so frequently to such a largesample, it is more costly and difficultthan it is for smaller scale surveys toinclude additional questions that wouldhelp explain the significance of thesimple correlations that can be identi-fied with E&S survey data alone. This is

a limitation that the E&S survey shareswith other large-scale administrativesurveys used for civil rights enforce-ment—e.g., EEO-1 of the Equal Employ-ment Opportunity Commission and theHome Mortgage Disclosure Act surveyof the U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development (Ross and Yinger,2002). Without additional informationobtained from qualitative research or bylinking to data from other surveys, theE&S survey can only highlight patternsof disparity that suggest problems ofeducational equity. Fortunately, E&Sdata can be linked to other datasets,considerably expanding their value; theE&S survey includes a school identifiercode through which data for individualschools may be linked to informationabout the same schools from otherfederal and state surveys.

All of the analyses of E&S data over-seen by this committee involved somelinkage with the Department ofEducation’s CCD, other databases fromthe NCES, or education databasesmaintained by individual states.7 The

7In addition, the Census Bureau and theDepartment of Education are preparing popula-tion data from the 2000 census that can bemapped to school attendance boundaries.Population data corresponding to schoolattendance also will be able to be linked to E&Ssurvey data.


analyses addressed issues related to thefollowing topics:

• student discipline,• services for English-language

learners in first grade,• the effects of high-stakes testing,• gender equity in interscholastic

sports,• the characteristics of schools

serving large numbers of English-language learners, and

• the grouping of students by raceand other characteristics inindividual classrooms.

Many analyses overseen by thecommittee found that linking E&S datato other databases made it possible toinvestigate research questions thatotherwise could not have been ad-dressed (see Appendix A). Because ofthe short amount of time available, theresearch conducted under the auspicesof the committee necessarily waspreliminary and exploratory in nature.The objective was to determine thefeasibility of using E&S survey data toinvestigate various issues, and, if pos-sible, to begin analyses that could leadto papers that could be publishedindependently in peer-reviewed jour-nals. Initial findings from some of theseanalyses are presented below.

E&S SURVEY AS THE SOLESOURCE OF NATIONALINFORMATION

The E&S survey is the only source ofnational data on school disciplinarypractices, gender equity in sports,services for students who becomepregnant, and classroom-level data onstudent assignment.

Classroom-Level StudentPlacement

The E&S survey is the only nationaldatabase with information on the place-ment of all students in classrooms byrace and ethnicity and English profi-ciency.8 The item also asks whetherany students are “ability grouped forinstruction in mathematics or English-Reading-Language Arts” in that class-room. Information on classroom assign-ment is requested for the lowest andhighest elementary grades only.

The civil rights concerns emanatefrom evidence that many students whoare “tracked” on a continuing basis intoseparate classrooms or groups withinclassrooms because of their below-grade-level performance continue tolose academic ground in these settings,

8Classroom-level data for elementary schoolsalso are available from the ECLS-K survey forsampled classrooms in the early elementarygrades only. Some states also maintain thesedata.


that minority students are dispropor-tionately “tracked” into low-abilityclasses, and that such practices mayproduce “within-school segregation”(see Oakes, 1990; Mickelson, 2001).

Classroom placement data disaggre-gated by race and ethnicity have beenelicited by the E&S survey since 1969,when they were first used to identifywhat has been called second-generationsegregation or within-school segrega-tion.9

Disciplinary Practices

In 2000 the E&S survey providedinformation on corporal punishment,out-of-school suspensions, total expul-sions, expulsions that constitute totalsuspension of educational services, andexpulsions due to zero-tolerance poli-cies. The survey also provides informa-tion on suspensions and expulsions ofstudents with disabilities. E&S data aredisaggregated to show the frequency ofvarious practices by race and ethnicity,for English-language learners, and forstudents with disabilities. Information

on disciplinary practices has been onthe survey since 1973. There is no othernational database on school disciplinarypractices.

Substantial racial disparities exist inthe administration of disciplinarypractices. Data from the 2000 E&Ssurvey show that although only 17percent of all U.S. students were black,39 percent of the 342,031 studentsreceiving corporal punishment wereblack, as were 34 percent of the morethan 3 million students who received anout-of-school suspension (Appendix B).Of course, out-of-school influences onstudents’ behavior may affect thefrequency with which various disciplin-ary practices are applied for differentgroups of students. However, these dataalso suggest one or both of the follow-ing: schools are applying differentdisciplinary standards for students ofdifferent races, or, as with other E&Ssurvey indicators, educators are failingto effectively educate, motivate, orengage a large number of black stu-dents in the purposes and programs ofschools. Any serious effort to ensureequal access to a high-quality educationrequires that the underlying causes beinvestigated and addressed. Using E&Ssurvey data to examine differences inthe application of disciplinary measuresamong schools and among districts, aswell as longitudinal trends, can be partof this effort.

9As with other survey items, disparities in thedistribution of groups of students in differentclassrooms may occur for various reasons, andsome may be well justified—such as thegrouping of English-language learners forlanguage instruction. Although the classroomplacement data on the E&S survey are a uniqueresource, the data could be made much moreuseful with some minor changes, as is discussedin Chapter 4.


Gender Equity in Sports

The E&S survey is used to gatherdata pursuant to the enforcement ofTitle IX of the Education Amendmentsof 1972. The E&S survey includesinformation on the number of interscho-lastic sports teams on which male andfemale students are eligible to partici-pate. It also includes information on thenumber of male and female studentswho participate in interscholasticathletics in each surveyed school. TheE&S survey has been used to collectdata on gender equity in sports since1994 and there is no other nationaldatabase on gender equity in interscho-lastic athletics.

The 2000 survey showed that, onaverage, high schools offer 9.7 inter-scholastic sports teams for boys and 8.7teams for girls. Of the nearly 6 millionhigh school students who participatedin interscholastic sports in 2000, 58percent were male (see Appendix B).

The Education of PregnantStudents

The E&S survey collects data oneducational services for students whoare pregnant or who have becomemothers. The survey includes itemsregarding the number of students whobecame pregnant in the year prior to thesurvey, and then asks how many ofthose students (who had not alreadygraduated) were enrolled the following

year. This question first appeared in1980, was dropped from the survey, andthen returned in 2000.

E&S DATA THAT COMPLEMENTOTHER DATA

Although similar data on severaltopics can be obtained from othersources, they are less likely to bedisaggregated, to be traceable to spe-cific schools and districts, or to be ascurrent as E&S data. These data coverteacher certification, the consequencesof high-stakes testing, the characteris-tics of special-purpose schools, thenumber of graduates and type of di-ploma awarded, segregation, Englishproficiency, advanced placementclasses, gifted and talented programs,and students with disabilities. Mostother national survey data tend to beseriously out of date and to havesamples that are much too small to beused to study individual states, let alonedistricts or individual schools.

Teacher Certification

Research indicates that the qualifica-tions of teachers is the school resourcethat has the greatest impact on studentlearning outcomes (Hedges, Laine andGreenwald, 1994; Sanders and Horn,1995; Ferguson and Ladd, 1996;Greenwald, Hedges, and Laine, 1996;


Sanders and Rivers, 1996; Darling-Hammond, 1997a; Ferguson, 2000).The E&S survey contains items aboutthe total number of teachers in a schooland how many of the teachers are fullycertified. Data from the 2000 E&Ssurvey show that schools with predomi-nantly minority students (black, His-panic, and American Indian) weresignificantly more likely to employuncertified teachers; see Figure 2-1.

High-Stakes Testing

The E&S survey includes informationabout the number of students whopassed or failed district- or state-man-dated high-stakes tests, as well as thenumber who were given alternative

assessments or were not tested. Thedata are disaggregated by race,ethnicity, gender, English proficiency,and for students with disabilities. Datadisaggregated in this way provide animportant opportunity to investigate theimmediate consequences of high-stakestesting and how accountability policiesaffect the educational opportunities ofspecific student populations. Data arepresented for each of the primarygrades in which students are requiredto pass a test as a criterion for promo-tion to the next grade. At the secondarylevel, data in the same format arecollected regarding tests that arerequired as a condition for graduation.

Because of rapid changes in educa-

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70S

choo

ls E

mpl

oyin

g U

ncer

tifie

d T

each

ers

(per

cent

)

<3 3-10 10-30 30-65 >65

School Minority Enrollment (percent)

FIGURE 2-1 Minority enrollment and schools employing any uncertified teachers.SOURCE: Data are from the 2000 E&S survey.NOTE: Data do not include special education or alternative schools (school n = 82,341). Sixtypercent of all public schools employ only state-certified teachers. Minority enrollment includesAmerican Indians, blacks, and Hispanics.


tion policies in recent years, the contem-poraneousness of the E&S data makesthem especially important. Most otherrecent surveys that contain data abouthigh-stakes testing focus on testingpolicies and practices being advocatedby federal and state legislators andpolicy makers (see American Federationof Teachers, 2001; Council of Chief StateSchool Officers, 2000; Editorial Projectsin Education, 2001, pp. 68–87). How-ever, there is often an important differ-ence between formally stated publicpolicies and the actual implementationof those policies by practitioners inschools and school districts (Cuban,1998). The E&S survey providesinsights into these differences.

That the E&S survey contains data onhigh-stakes testing, along with informa-tion about enrollment changes, specialeducation placements, disciplinaryinformation, and other data, is particu-larly important in light of the increasinguse of high-stakes testing. Educationadvocates and others are especiallyconcerned that the standards movementand associated high-stakes tests couldcreate incentives for schools to inappro-priately place poorly performing stu-dents in special education (see NationalResearch Council, 2002b, p.85), transferpoorly performing students to otherschools, or take other actions that wouldeliminate them from the pool of testedstudents.

Analysis of the 2000 survey con-ducted for this report revealed thatdistricts that were predominantly blackand Hispanic were far more likely torequire students to pass a district- orstate-sponsored examination as acondition for grade promotion or gradu-ation (Croninger and Douglas, 2002).Also, of those students required to takehigh-stakes exams, black and Hispanicstudents are more likely than white andAsian American students to have failed;see Figure 2-2.

Characteristics of Special-Purpose Schools

The E&S survey is an importantsource of information on the studentcomposition, aspects of the curricula,and certain educational resources andpractices of specialized schools. Thesurvey (ED 102) asks whether thereporting school is one of five kinds:

• a magnet school,• a charter school,• an alternative school for students

with academic difficulties,• an alternative school for pregnant

students, or• an alternative school for students

with discipline problems.

Information on the number of charterschools, magnet schools, and alternativeschools is also collected in the CCD,


and in 2002 the NCES (Kleiner, Porch,and Farris, 2002) published a statisticalanalysis on public alternative schoolsand programs for students at risk ofeducation failure. Little is known abouthow some of these schools—especiallycharter schools—are similar to ordifferent from other schools. Accordingto E&S survey data for 2000, minoritiesaccount for 40 percent of the enrollmentof charter schools, compared with30 percent of regular public schools.Charter schools are much more likely toemploy teachers who are not fullycertified.

Number of Graduates and Typeof Diploma Awarded

Schools are required to report thenumber of students awarded regulardiplomas and certificates of attendanceor certificates of completion. Data fromthe 2000 E&S survey showed thatblacks and American Indians weresubstantially more likely than whitesand Asian Americans to a receive acertificate of attendance or completioninstead of a diploma; see Figure 2-3.

Segregation

As discussed above, the originalpurpose of the E&S survey was to

010

203040

506070

8090

Black AmericanIndian

Asian Hispanic White Total

Female MaleP

assi

ng R

ate

(per

cent

)

Students' Race, Ethnicity, and Gender

FIGURE 2-2 Passing rates for tests that are the sole criterion for high school graduation.SOURCE: Data are from the 2000 E&S survey.NOTE: Schools were instructed to consider a test of the “sole criterion” for graduation if “allstudents were required to take a district- or state-required test, and must pass the test to gradu-ate from high school.” A total of 2,652 high schools required these tests; 585,709 high schoolstudents took such tests; 406,502 passed.


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Black American Indian


Rec

eipt

of C

ertif

icat

e of

A

ttend

ance

or

Com

plet

ion

(per

cent

)


Female Male

FIGURE 2-3 Certificates of attendance or completion to high school graduates.SOURCE: Data are from the 2000 E&S survey.NOTE: OCR projections indicate 2,605,843 public high school graduates in 2000, of whom69,081 received certificates of attendance or completion. OCR defines a certificate of atten-dance or completion as “an award of less than a regular diploma, or a modified diploma, orfulfillment of an IEP for students with disabilities.”

document patterns of racial segregationand the compliance of districts withdesegregation plans. Since 1987,information on the racial and ethniccomposition of schools comparable tothat collected on the E&S survey hasbeen collected annually in the CCD.However, the E&S survey is the onlysource of information for earlier years,and it has proven to be an indispensableresource for documenting long-termtrends, including the recent trendtoward resegregation (see Orfield,Bachmeier, and Eitle, 1997; Orfield,2001a). Data from the 2000 survey,when combined with information onschool poverty from the CCD, show

that highly segregated black andHispanic schools also tend to have avery high concentration of students inpoverty; see Figure 2-4.

Because nearly all E&S survey itemsare disaggregated by race and ethnicity,the survey is an important source ofinformation on what has been calledsecond-generation segregation orwithin-school segregation—an issue ofparticular interest for access to high-level classes and curriculum tracking.

English-Language Learners

The E&S survey also is an importantsource of information concerningEnglish-language learners and the


schools that serve them. According to2000 survey data, 3.2 million (8 percent)of elementary and secondary studentsneed English-language learner services:76 percent of these students are His-panic, and 13 percent are Asian Ameri-can. According to the 2000 E&S survey,36 percent of all Hispanic students needEnglish-language learner services, asdo 24 percent of all Asian Americanstudents.

Hispanic English-language learners,in particular, tend to be concentrated inhighly segregated, high-poverty schools(Horn, 2002). On average, 60 percent ofstudents in schools attended by His-

panic English-language learners arefrom families in poverty, and only 22percent are non-Hispanic whites.Nearly half (45 percent) of all HispanicEnglish-language learners attendschools in which at least 90 percent ofthe students are minorities (see Appen-dix B). The isolation of students insegregated, high- poverty schools tendsto concentrate disadvantage and cancontribute to poor educational outcomes(Lippman et al., 1996; Puma et al., 1997).The E&S survey is an important sourceof data that can be used to analyze thisproblem. In addition, the survey is auseful source of information on the

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80S

tude

nts

Elig

ible

for

Fre

e or

R

educ

ed-p

rice

Lunc

h (p

erce

nt)

<3 3-10 10-30 30-65 >65


FIGURE 2-4 School minority enrollment and poverty concentration.SOURCES: Data are from the 2000 E&S survey (minority enrollment) and the 2000–2001Common Core of Data (free and reduced-price lunch eligibility).NOTE: The data do not include special education and alternative schools (school n = 69,029).Minority enrollment includes American Indians, blacks, and Hispanics. Data on free andreduced-price lunch eligibility are not available for Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Tennessee,or Washington.


availability of learning resources in theschools attended by English-languagelearners and on their access to thoseresources within their schools (Horn,2002).

An official from the Office of EnglishLanguage Acquisition informed thecommittee that the E&S survey isparticularly valuable for its purposesbecause the data are current. Thenumber of English-language learners isgrowing rapidly, and the E&S surveydocuments how they have become morewidely dispersed across many morestates. The survey also identifies thedistricts and schools where thesestudents are concentrated.

Advanced Placement Classes

The E&S survey provides informationon the number of advanced placement(AP) courses taught in high schools.On average, schools with predominantlyminority students offer fewer APcourses than schools with predomi-nantly white students (see Appendix B).

The survey also provides informationon the number of students taking APscience and mathematics courses,disaggregated by gender, race, andethnicity. In 2000, black, Hispanic, andAmerican Indian students were abouthalf as likely as white students to beenrolled in AP science and mathcourses (see Appendix B). The E&Ssurvey also is a source of information on

the number of students who havelimited English proficiency and learningdisabilities who are enrolled in APclasses. Information on access to APcourses has been available from theE&S survey since 1992.

Gifted and Talented Programs

The E&S survey provides informationon the characteristics of elementaryschool students who are enrolled ingifted and talented programs. The 2000survey showed that black, Hispanic, andAmerican Indian students were 40percent, 49 percent, and 64 percent,respectively, as likely as white studentsto participate in gifted and talentedprograms (see Appendix B).

Students with Disabilities

Since 1976, the E&S survey hasincluded information on the composi-tion of students in various disabilitycategories and the degree to whichthose students are placed in inclusiveeducational settings—that is, the extentto which they are either“mainstreamed” or served in separateclassrooms or schools.

This information is gathered becauseof OCR’s responsibility to ensure com-pliance with Section 504 of the Rehabili-tation Act of 1973, which prohibitsdiscrimination based on disability. Aswith other items, the E&S surveydisaggregates information on students


with disabilities by race and ethnicity,and, in some cases, gender. Althoughsurveys administered by the Office ofSpecial Education and RehabilitativeServices (OSERS)—previously calledthe Office of Special Education Pro-grams (OSEP)—have long collectedstate-level data on students in specialeducation, the OSEP/OSERS data werenot disaggregated by race and ethnicityuntil 1998 and have never been reportedfor individual schools and districts.

Prior to 1998, the E&S survey was theonly source of routinely collectedinformation on the racial, ethnic, andlanguage background of studentsenrolled in special education. Recently,OSERS began to collect this informationas part of its regular survey conductedfor the purpose of monitoring states’administration of the Individuals WithDisabilities Act, as amended in 1997.That year, Congress required OSEP tobegin monitoring racial and ethnicdisparities in special education place-ment for the possibility of inappropriateplacement (see Hehir, 2002).

Since OSEP began to collect disaggre-gated data in 1998, the data collected byOSEP/OSERS have become essentiallyredundant with the items on the E&Ssurvey regarding students with disabili-ties. In the interest of eliminatingredundancy and reducing the paper-work burden on respondents, OCR andOSEP/OSERS pilot-tested a combined

data reporting instrument in 2000. Thecombined survey instrument coveringitems required by both OCR and OSEP/OSERS on students with disabilities wasadministered by OSEP/OSERS.10

Racial disparities in certain categoriesof special education have long been amatter of concern (see National Re-search Council, 1982). Part of theconcern has centered on the possibilitythat minority students were beinginappropriately evaluated for placementin special education. In addition, thereis concern that the poor quality ofregular education services available tomany minority students in the earlygrades may result in the disproportion-ate placement of students from certainminority groups in special education asthey reach third grade (Hehir, 2002;National Research Council, 2002b).Furthermore, E&S survey data showthat black and Hispanic students, oncethey had been identified as needingspecial education services, are far lesslikely to be educated in a fully inclusivegeneral education classroom (GarciaFierros and Conroy, 2002).

10The Department of Education is in theprocess of developing a much more comprehen-sive approach to the collection of administrativedata from schools and school districts, known asthe Program-Based Data Management Initiative(PBDMI). The possible implications of PBDMIfor the E&S survey are discussed in Chapter 3.


An analysis of E&S survey data for aNational Research Council report (Finn,1982) found that some minoritygroups—especially blacks—weredisproportionately represented amongthe “educable mentally retarded” andamong students labeled as “emotionallydisturbed.” The report also found thatmales were significantly overrepre-sented in these and other categories ofspecial education. Using 1998 E&Ssurvey data, a later National ResearchCouncil report (2002b) documentedessentially similar disparities.11

Another recent report on the topic,Racial Inequity in Special Education(Losen and Orfield, 2002b), includes anumber of papers that also used E&Ssurvey data to document racialdisproportionality in special education.Although recognizing the limitations ofE&S data when not supplemented withinformation from other sources, thecoeditors of this volume nonethelessargue that data on racial disproportion-

ality in special education and otherfacets of education are important andprovide information that is essentialboth to efforts to improve the quality ofeducation and to equitable access to it.Losen and Orfield (2002a, p. xxii) note:“In a society where race is so stronglyrelated to individual, family and commu-nity conditions, it is extremely difficultto know what part of the inequalities arecaused by discrimination within theschool.” Commenting further onstudies in their volume that are basedon E&S survey data and supplementedwith information from other sources,the coeditors added: “These studies,however, do uncover correlations withrace that cannot be explained by factorssuch as poverty or exposure to environ-mental hazards, alone” (Losen andOrfield, 2002a, p. xxii).

Like the 2002 National ResearchCouncil report, the coeditors of RacialInequity in Special Education state thatthe papers in their volume also “suggestthat special education issues faced byminority children often begin withshortcomings in the realm of generaleducation well before teachers orparents seek an evaluation for specialeducation eligibility. Therefore, policysolutions that fail to consider the con-nection with general education class-rooms will unlikely bring about signifi-cant change” (Losen and Orfield, 2002a,p. xxiii).

11This report questioned both the validity andthe significance of E&S findings of disparities, aswell as those based on recent OSEP/OSERSsurveys. The report argued that because neithersurvey provides important information aboutdiagnostic criteria, students’ needs, and otherbackground information that could be used todetermine the appropriateness of specialeducation services to meet individual students’needs—regardless of their race—data from thesesurveys are not helpful in determining whetheror not racial disproportionality in specialeducation is actually a problem (NationalResearch Council, 2002b).


In the absence of additional informa-tion from other surveys or from fieldresearch, the E&S survey data cannotby themselves prove whether racialdifferences in assignment to specialeducation or other aspects of schooling

that are addressed by the survey are theresult of discrimination or constituteviolations of students’ civil rights.Indeed, the survey was never intendedto be used as the sole source of informa-tion about discrimination.

36

3

Use of E&S Survey Data

As is true with all information re-sources, any assessment of the value ofthe E&S survey depends on the pur-poses for which the data from thesurvey are used. As discussed in Chap-ter 2, the E&S survey is the sole sourceof national school-level data about anumber of issues related to equality ofaccess to opportunity to learn. Forsome issues, it is the only availablesource of information; for many otherissues, it is the only source of informa-tion that is current, disaggregated, andcan be linked to specific schools andschool districts. Yet officials of theOffice for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S.Department of Education, which admin-isters the survey, have stated that theE&S survey is underutilized, not onlyby researchers and the general public,but also within OCR itself. 1 OCR

officials say they would like to see thesurvey data used more extensively. Inthis chapter we examine how E&Ssurvey data have been used to enforcecivil rights laws, to promote publicinvolvement in efforts to ensure thatschools provide equal access to high-quality education, and as a resource foreducation researchers.

USE IN ENFORCEMENT

Internal OCR Use

With a budget of $71.2 million (infiscal 2000), the OCR employs 750 full-time staff members located at theheadquarters in Washington, DC, and in12 regional offices throughout the

1There is little published information on howOCR uses E&S survey data. Information onOCR’s use of the survey is derived primarily from

conversations and interviews with OCR officialsand others who are knowledgeable about thesurvey and its uses.

U S E O F E & S S U R V E Y D ATA 37

United States. OCR is responsible forensuring compliance with civil rightslaws in higher education, in addition toelementary and secondary education(although the E&S survey and thisreport cover only the latter). More thantwo-thirds of the approximately 5,000complaints it fields each year involveelementary and secondary schools(U.S. Department of Education, Officefor Civil Rights, 2000a).

Since 1999, survey data have beenavailable to OCR staff either over itsprivate Internet-based network or oncompact disks in a format that enablesusers to compile descriptive statisticsand to combine data from differentschools and districts. Although somelawyers in the regional offices often useE&S data in their work, most OCR staffseldom, if ever, use them. One reasonfor this lack of use is that OCR staffhave not been provided with technicalassistance or professional developmenton how to access and manipulate thedata or on how the survey data could beused in enforcement activities (PeterMcCabe, former director, E&S survey,personal communication, 2002).

Historically, OCR has been primarilyinterested in the collection of E&Ssurvey data as records rather than inthe analysis or dissemination of find-ings. The data, collected and certifiedby superintendents and principals ortheir designees, sometimes have been

used by OCR officials as backgroundinformation as they investigate com-plaints. Except for a brief period in thelate 1970s and early 1980s when bookscontaining descriptive statistics for allsurveyed districts and schools wereproduced (e.g., U.S. Department ofHealth Education and Welfare, Officefor Civil Rights, 1978), the only accessto E&S data that OCR staff had was inthe form of paper copies of all thecompliance reports (i.e., the E&Ssurvey forms) submitted by individualschools and districts. The reports wereshipped to each of the 12 regionaloffices in cardboard boxes. In thisformat, the data could be used asbackground information while investi-gating complaints involving individualschools and districts, but for little else.OCR has not routinely analyzed or evencompiled the data, although the datafrom each administration of the surveyhave been recorded and stored in acomputer-readable format for everyadministration of the survey since 1968.

The most common use of the surveydata by OCR is to identify schools anddistricts where discrimination may beoccurring. As noted by OCR attorneyRichard Foster (personal communica-tion, October 2001), “If the data can getus closer to where discrimination isreally occurring, then our enforcementwork becomes more effective.” Compli-ance reviews are selected partly on the


basis of E&S survey data, as well asfrom information provided by parents,education groups, media, communityorganizations, and the public.

Compliance reviews are OCR-initiatedinvestigations of state and local educa-tion agencies. The issues of concernand locations are selected on the basisof OCR’s enforcement priorities andinformed by data from the E&S survey.Compliance reviews are described asproactive efforts to address civil rightsissues and generally involve practicesthat affect many more students than istypically the case when OCR respondsto individual complaints (U.S. Depart-ment of Education, Office for CivilRights, 2000a; Glennon, 2002, p. 213).

In 2000, 47 compliance reviews wereinitiated on the following topics2:

• ensuring that nondiscriminatorypractices are followed in theplacement of minority students inspecial education and in theprovision of access to gifted andtalented programs;

• ensuring that English-languagelearners are afforded access to

special language services in orderto benefit from a school district’seducational program;

• ensuring that students are notsubject to a racially hostile envi-ronment;

• ensuring nondiscriminatorystudent disciplinary policies andpractices; and

• ensuring equal opportunity formale and female students toparticipate in athletic programs.

That year, the largest number of compli-ance reviews was focused on the appro-priate identification and placement ofminority students in special education—collectively known as MINSPED(Glennon, 2002). 3 MINSPED compli-ance reviews are briefly discussedbelow to illustrate the role that E&Ssurvey data have played in OCR en-forcement activities.

Between 1993 and June of 2001, OCRinitiated 167 MINSPED compliancereviews—most between 1995 and 2000.Schools and districts selected forMINSPED compliance reviews wereidentified primarily on the basis ofstatistics from the E&S survey—espe-cially that of 1994. Nearly all of these

2The number of compliance reviews con-ducted varies substantially from year to year inaccordance with changes in the Department ofEducation’s administrative priorities. Accordingto OCR staff, no compliance reviews wereinitiated in 2002.

3Theresa Glennon’s account of the MINSPEDinitiative is one of very few recent publishedaccounts of OCR enforcement activities.


compliance reviews resulted in volun-tary agreements in which school dis-tricts agreed to put in place a number ofmeasures to “reduce the misuse ofspecial education for students of color”(Glennon, 2002, p. 199). Most of theseagreements focused only on proceduresfor the appropriate referral, evaluation,and placement of minority students tospecial education programs. AsGlennon (2002, p. 205) notes:

This single-issue focus may be helpful insome instances, but it could also under-mine OCR’s ability to direct schooldistricts toward more comprehensivereforms in both general and specialeducation—reforms that may be neces-sary to resolve the overrepresentationproblem, given the evidence that multiplefactors contribute to this problem.

This point also has been made by Hehir(2002), Losen and Orfield (2002a), andthe Committee on Minority Representa-tion in Special Education (NationalResearch Council, 2002b) in regard toOCR enforcement in the area of specialeducation. Halpern (1995) has ex-pressed similar views on the limitationsof addressing pervasive racial dispari-ties in education solely through civilrights enforcement efforts, as narrowlyconstrued.

However, some agreements tran-scended a narrow focus on ensuringthat the students’ rights under the lawsgoverning special education are strictly

enforced. Some also addressed defi-ciencies in other school programs thatmay contribute to the observed racialdisparities in special education. Onoccasion, the agreements that OCRnegotiated with districts also addressedracial disparities in disciplinary prac-tices, resource inequalities, achieve-ment gaps on high-stakes tests,underrepresentation in gifted andtalented programs, andoverrepresentation in low-track coursesof study (Glennon, 2002).

Glennon cites a 1999 report fromOCR’s Chicago regional office on itsMINSPED compliance reviews as anexample of how OCR’s enforcementefforts can produce more comprehen-sive approaches to addressing theproblem of inequality of opportunities tolearn. The Chicago office reported thatits enforcement efforts were moreeffective when they “included an empha-sis on improving the ability of a schooldistrict’s reading programs to serve itsdiverse student populations” (Glennon,2002, p. 206).4

4As noted by the Committee on PreventingReading Difficulties in Young Children (NationalResearch Council, 1999b), more than 2 millionchildren have been diagnosed with readingdisabilities and are enrolled in special educationfor that reason. Students identified as readingdisabled constitute approximately 80 percent ofall children receiving special education services(see also National Research Council, 2002b).


Although she recognized the promiseof some of the agreements that werenegotiated as a result of MINSPEDcompliance reviews, Glennon (2002)noted that OCR does not publicize theagreements nor has the office evaluatedtheir effectiveness. She also observedthat none of the agreements includednumerical requirements for change.However, even if the agreements in-cluded quantitative goals, OCR’s datasystem is not prepared to monitorcompliance because in most years theE&S survey is not administered to allschools, and no data are available forschools not included in the survey.Assuming that a school district istargeted for a compliance review in parton the basis of E&S survey data, thereis no guarantee that that district will beincluded in the next administration ofthe survey.5 Nevertheless, OCR claimsthat carefully targeted “compliancereviews nearly always result in recipi-ents (of federal financial assistance)making policy or program changes thatbenefit large numbers of students—unlike complaints where remedies maybenefit only the complaining party”(U.S. Department of Education Officefor Civil Rights, 1999).

Increased use of E&S survey data forenforcement by the OCR is contingenton factors related to the administrationof the survey, as well as OCR’s enforce-ment policies and priorities. OCR wouldneed to provide technical assistance toits staff in the 12 regional offices on howto access and manipulate the data. Also,professional development related to thepotential uses of survey data in educa-tion civil rights enforcement would beneeded.

The extent to which OCR chooses aproactive enforcement strategy byengaging in compliance reviews affectsthe probability that OCR staff will useE&S data, and the number of compli-ance reviews initiated since 2000 hasdecreased markedly.

E&S survey data could also be usedto monitor the nonbinding partnershipagreements, which have become thepredominant OCR strategy to promotecompliance with the civil rights laws(U.S. Department of Education Officefor Civil Rights, 2000a). These agree-ments typically do not have numericalgoals (Glennon, 2002), and E&S surveydata have not been used to monitoroutcomes (personal communication,Rebecca Fitch and Peter McCabe,Office for Civil Rights, 2002). BecauseOCR does not publicize the agreementsit negotiates, there is no way of knowingwhat changes occur as a result of itsenforcement activities. If OCR agree-

5Despite this limitation, the Office for CivilRights planned to integrate data from the E&Ssurvey into its Case Information System (CIS II)in early 2003 (Peter McCabe, personal communi-cation, 2002).


ments were made public and includedquantitative goals, the E&S surveycould be an important resource not onlyfor monitoring compliance, but also formeasuring the outcomes of OCR en-forcement efforts. For this to occur, theschool districts with which OCR hasnegotiated partnership agreementswould have to be routinely includedamong sampled districts in each admin-istration of the survey.

Litigation

Exactly how often E&S survey datahave been used by the public in litigationover students’ civil rights is unknown,but civil rights advocates estimate thatE&S survey data have informed dozens,and possibly hundreds, of lawsuits overthe years. The lawsuits have addressedissues of equitable access to publiceducation for minority children andyouth, those whose first language is notEnglish, and children with disabilities.An important example of the use of E&Sdata in litigation occurred in the 1974Lau decision of the U.S. Supreme Court;the data had been used extensively bythe U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in aseries of reports on the education ofMexican Americans (see Sotomayor,1974). The reports were cited by theSupreme Court as an important basisfor the recognition of the constitutionalrights of Hispanic students (Lau v.Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 1974).

However, except for issues related tospecial education, litigation of educationcivil rights issues has become increas-ingly rare in recent years (Ryan, 2002;Paul Weckstein, director, Center forEducation Law, personal communica-tion, October 2002). For example, in the1960s, the federal government providedfunding to the Harvard Center for Lawand Education to conduct analyses ofeducation civil rights issues and to bringlitigation to protect students’ rights.Federal funding supporting educationcivil rights litigation did not continueinto the 1970s, although foundationsupport for such organizations as theNAACP Legal Defense Fund and theMexican-American Legal Defense andEducation Fund, which still includelitigation among their civil rights advo-cacy activities, has continued to varyingdegrees. In addition to the withdrawalof federal funding, education civil rightslitigation was affected by court rulingsthat have made it more difficult to bringclass action lawsuits.

Courts have been increasingly reluc-tant to accept plaintiffs’ claims based onthe disparate impact clause of Title VI(Ryan, 2002). Although there are manyeducational policies and practices thathave a racially disparate impact, Title VIdisparate impact claims have beenraised primarily in challenges to testing,tracking, and funding decisions thathave a racially disparate impact (Ryan,


2002). The first step of proving aracially disparate impact is usually notdifficult. For example, plaintiffs makingdisparate impact claims related to high-stakes testing must first show that theuse of a test has a disparate adverseimpact on a protected group. Evidenceof statistical disparities, such as thoseoften found in analyses of E&S surveydata, typically is sufficient. Once theplaintiffs meet this evidentiary burden,however, defendants have the opportu-nity to demonstrate that the practicecontested (e.g., a test) is an educationalnecessity—that it serves “the legitimateeducational goals of the institution” (seeGI Forum, 87 F. Supp 2d at 679, citingCureton v. NCAA, 37 F. Supp. 2d 687,697 [ED Pa. 1999]). Despite ratherspecific and stringent professionalstandards for fair and appropriatetesting (American Educational ResearchAssociation, 1999; National ResearchCouncil 1999b), courts generally deferto school leaders’ claims about theeducational necessity of testing andother challenged practices (Ryan, 2002).Thus, data documenting disparateimpacts of various educational practicesthat can be derived from the E&Ssurvey are relevant but generally havenot been decisive.6

Finally, it should be noted that in2001, the Supreme Court ruled inAlexander v. Sandoval that privatelitigants may no longer rely on Title VI’simplementing regulations in casespresented in a formal court of law,although they may continue to filecomplaints based on Title VI with theOCR (Losen and Welner, 2002).

Except for a brief period during thelate 1970s and early 1980s (U.S. Depart-ment of Health, Education and Welfare,1978), the OCR has never published orbroadly disseminated findings from theE&S survey. Data were made availableon request to the public. Generally,requests for data have been for topicscovered by the E&S survey for specificschools and school districts. There isno record of the number of requests forE&S data over the years, but it appearsthat E&S data were frequently re-quested and often used in school civilrights litigation during the 1970s andinto the 1980s (Halpern, 1995).

By the 1990s, however, the E&Ssurvey had become close to invisible tomost outside of the Department ofEducation, except for a small number ofresearchers and education advocates.

6For a more complete discussion of criteria bywhich disparate impact claims concerning high-

stakes testing have been made, see NationalResearch Council (1999c). For further discus-sion of litigation regarding racial disparities inspecial education, see Losen and Welner (2002).


In 1996, OCR received about 15 re-quests per month for E&S survey data.The survey was so little used that in1996, Norma Cantu, the Department ofEducation’s assistant secretary for civilrights, had tentatively decided to termi-nate it. However, after extensive discus-sions that included education advocacyorganizations, she reversed her deci-sion, and OCR made a commitment toupdate the content and improve theadministration of the survey “to make itmore useful” (Peter McCabe, Office forCivil Rights, personal communication,2002). Among the administrativeobjectives was to reduce the amount oftime required to make the data availablefrom 18 months to 6 months and tomake the data more readily available tothe public.

Another strategy to make the datamore useful was to administer thesurvey in all school districts in theUnited States for only the second timein the history of the survey. This wasdone in 2000 to coincide with the admin-istration of the census. OCR officialshoped that researchers would link E&Sschool data with neighborhood popula-tion data corresponding to schoolattendance boundaries, as well as toother datasets. It was hoped thatresearchers would then conduct analy-ses that would provide incisive andcomprehensive overviews of the currentstate of education civil rights issues in

the United States and how variousschool and nonschool factors interact inaffecting equality of access to educa-tional opportunities.

By the spring of 2002, the number ofrequests to OCR for E&S survey datahad more than doubled, to approxi-mately 35 per month. More than half ofthese requests were coming from thepress. Education advocacy groups,such as the National Coalition of Advo-cates for Students and its local affiliates,increasingly were informing the pressabout the existence of E&S survey datathat were pertinent to local schoolproblems that were receiving attention.

Although demand for E&S data wasincreasing, OCR was still far fromachieving the kind of visibility andaccess to the data that it desired. In-forming the public about students’rights is viewed by OCR as an importantpart of its mission and an essential toolfor ensuring equal access to educationalopportunities (Richard Foster, Office forCivil Rights, personal communication,October 2001). To this end, OCR main-tains a very detailed website(www.ed.gov/offices/ocr) describingthe mission of OCR, the civil rights lawsit enforces, and examples of how en-forcement of those laws affects stu-dents’ opportunities to learn.

In the summer of 2002, OCR madeE&S survey data, including data forindividual schools and districts, avail-


able to the public on its website. InAugust 2000, during its third month ofoperation, the civil rights data page onthe OCR website was accessed 1,858times (Bernadette Adams-Yates, Officefor Civil Rights, personal communica-tion, 2002). No information has as yetbecome available on how these data arebeing used. (Although OCR’s effortshave made the data much more acces-sible, the software involved could beimproved, a point we discuss inChapter 4.)

PUBLIC USE

Another important use of E&S surveydata is to promote informed democraticinvolvement in public education. To thisend, education advocacy organizationssuch as the National Coalition of Advo-cates for Students (NCAS) use E&Ssurvey data to inform and mobilizecitizens’ involvement in their schools.Long before the E&S survey databecame available over the Internet,organizations such as NCAS obtainedthe data from OCR to produce publica-tions that inform parents and familiesabout the level of access available totheir children in local public schools(see Carmona, Wheelock, and First,1998; National Coalition of Advocates forStudents, 1998).

In fact, NCAS, its affiliates, and otherchild advocacy organizations have beenthe primary consumers of OCR surveydata over the years. Their publicationsinclude data-based education advocacyreports that contain qualitative andquantitative information about studentachievement and school exclusion andhow they relate to each other. Thesereports also compare the school experi-ences of minority children with those oftheir white peers.

Advocacy groups have also providedthe data to the press, who often writeabout the implications—includingunintended negative consequences—oflocal school reforms. For example,NCAS has given priority to teachinglocal education writers how to accessE&S data and use survey findings toinform substantive stories about localpublic schools. In September of 2002,NCAS mailed press kits to more than600 members of the Education WritersAssociation that included Internetaddresses for 2000 E&S district andschool-level survey data. The writerswere encouraged to contact NCAS andits member organizations to discuss theimplications of these data. Similarefforts are made by other advocacyorganizations, such as the AppliedResearch Center (see Gordon, 1998;Gordon, Della Piana, and Keleher, 2000;Johnson, Boyden and Pitz, 2002; ).


An example of how widespreadreporting of disaggregated data fromthe E&S survey has influenced schoolpolicies comes from Florida in the1980s. When Florida media, using E&Ssurvey data, reported that many Floridaschool districts routinely administeredcorporal punishment to 20 percent oftheir black students each year, a num-ber of districts changed their disciplin-ary practices, and the frequency withwhich corporal punishment was useddramatically decreased (Joan First,director, NCAS, personal communica-tion, 2002).

RESEARCH USE

Until recently, E&S survey data rarelyhave been used for academic research.A few researchers have used the data toanalyze issues related to school deseg-regation (see, e.g., Farley, 1975, 1976,1978; Farley, Richard, and Wurdock,1980; Welch, 1987; Farley and Taeuber,

1974; Orfield, 1977, 1978, 1986, 1996;Orfield and Yun, 1999). The data alsohave been used to discuss racial dispari-ties in special and gifted education (see,e.g., Harry and Anderson, 1995; Ford,1998; MacMillan and Reschly, 1998;Oswald et al., 1999; National ResearchCouncil, 2002b). Recently, a number ofpublications associated with the CivilRights Project at Harvard Universityalso have used E&S survey data (see,e.g., Losen and Orfield, 2002a, 2002b;The Advancement Project and The CivilRights Project, 2000; Orfield, 2001b).

Because the OCR until recently hasnot publicized the survey nor dissemi-nated even basic findings, many re-searchers have been unaware that thesurvey data exist. Some researcherswho have been aware of the survey havehad difficulty gaining access to the datain a format that allows for the use of afull range of analytical strategies. Whenaccess has been obtained, technicaldocumentation has been sparse (seeChapter 4).

46

4

Strengthening the E&S Survey Data

The primary purpose of the E&Ssurvey has been to provide the Officefor Civil Rights (OCR) with data to usewhen targeting compliance review sitesor when investigating complaints.Because OCR attempts to settle com-plaints through informal procedures andrarely issues findings as part of a re-sponse to a complaint, it is unclearwhether and to what extent OCR orcomplainants use the data.

The lack of strong information aboutuse raises the issue of the basic pur-poses of the E&S survey and what canbe done to strengthen it, both techni-cally and to address policy concerns.Although the committee recognizes thatthe original intents of the survey con-tinue to be important, many educationaland societal changes have occurredsince its inception. The state of the artin data collection, analysis, and coordi-nation with other data systems has alsoadvanced greatly since the inception of

the survey. These factors, plus thepassage of the No Child Left Behind Actof 2001, which includes substantialaccountability provisions for states andlocal school districts, argue for ex-panded availability and use of the E&Ssurvey data.

The No Child Left Behind Act focusesattention on the outcomes of educationalpractice by requiring testing in reading,mathematics, and science and relatedaccountability for results and by requir-ing that the results be disaggregated byseveral categories, including gender,race, ethnicity, English proficiency,disability status, and economic disadvan-tage. The E&S survey could helpprovide a fuller picture of the educa-tional process with information oneducational inputs that describe theaccess of students to quality opportuni-ties to learn. Halpern (1995) suggeststhat OCR has strongly focused onfrequency counts of racial categories

S T R E N G T H E N I N G T H E E & S S U R V E Y D ATA 47

and that a reliance on this approach willhave limited value unless it is supple-mented by a focus on the quality of theeducational opportunities that studentsexperience.

This chapter highlights ways in whichthe E&S survey could be strengthenedand therefore be made more useful toOCR and others concerned with ensur-ing access to learning opportunities.The committee offers several ways tostrengthen the survey in three broadcategories: methodology and technicalissues, content, and use.

METHODOLOGY AND TECHNICALISSUES

Field Testing and RespondentValidity Studies

The E&S survey instruments aresomewhat complex and require respon-dents to collect a substantial amount ofdetailed information—such as onenrollments and dropout rates, childrenwith disabilities, racial and ethniccategories, disciplinary events, testing,student assignment, athletics, andteacher certification. The capability ofdistricts and schools to collect therequired information efficiently andaccurately varies greatly. Some districtshave computerized student identifica-tion and data management systems inwhich most of the needed information is

routinely collected and analyzed, whileother districts and schools may use apaper system to collect some or all ofthe data. Still others collect the datathat the state requires once a year forfall enrollment procedures and do notcollect any additional information. Inaddition, as noted above, several of thequestions may not be easily understoodby respondents or ask for informationthat could be understood or interpreteddifferently by different jurisdictions.

In addition to issues related to thevarious data collection systems is thequestion of which employees at theschool or district level actually completethe survey. The committee heard frommembers who have responsibility fordata collection in their jurisdictions thatthere are substantial differences in rolesand responsibilities among respondents.In some cases, a data manager maycomplete the forms; in other cases, anadministrator (e.g., school principal orassistant principal) is charged with theresponsibility. In still other instances, aclerk from the central office of thedistrict or school may be given the task.A strength of the survey is that it re-quires a signed certification that thedata are accurate. While this require-ment enhances the probability of accu-rate data, it does not necessarily ensurethat the data were collected and re-ported in a consistent and reliablemanner.


These variations in the way the E&Ssurvey is administered can be expectedto have an effect on the overall reliabil-ity of the information collected. Thedegree of this effect is not known, butminimizing the unreliability of theinformation is critical. The committeesuggests two courses of action. First,there should be an extensive field-testing component as changes are madein the survey, as is done for state andlocal student testing programs thatregularly conduct item tryouts, and fieldtesting of new and revised assessmentinstruments to be sure that students canunderstand the test questions andrespond appropriately. Second, OCRshould consider more extensive fieldtesting of its new or revised forms tohelp ensure that respondents under-stand the nature of the questions andhow to complete the forms. Similarly,OCR should also conduct validitystudies to determine whether theinformation being collected is, in fact,valid. This kind of study would requirethat schools be sampled and the infor-mation they supply be compared withdocumentation that exists. Discrepancyrates could then be calculated and theinstances in which no backup documen-tation exists could be tabulated. Thistype of validity study would give OCR anidea of how accurate the results fromthe survey really are. If it is not pos-sible to conduct a full-scale validity

study, OCR should consider implement-ing a recommendation from Croningerand Douglas (2002) to conduct a seriesof small-scale focus interviews to deter-mine how school and district administra-tors complete certain key tables in thesurvey.

Tracking Trend Data

One common purpose for large datacollection systems is to provide trendinformation over time. It is certainlylogical to expect that a survey that hasexisted since 1968 would have somecapability to provide long-term trends.At present, this capability seems quitelimited. The data are not accessible in acommon electronic format and there-fore cannot be easily retrieved ormanipulated. Both the computer tapesand printouts of descriptive informationfrom surveys administered from 1968 to1992 were not stored in a central loca-tion and effectively were lost for severalyears, then relocated in 1998. Althoughthe data have been transferred from thetapes to computer disks, the data forvarious survey administrations are inincompatible formats, as they werecompiled by computer software andhardware that are now obsolete. Forthis reason, OCR currently cannotaccess and analyze most E&S datalongitudinally (Peter McCabe, formerdirector, E&S survey, personal commu-nication, 2002).


For historical purposes, OCR shouldundertake efforts to compile past datafor comparable survey questions sinceits 1968 inception. OCR also shouldconsider the benefit of building a datasystem that will strengthen the capacityto allow for easily generated, accessibletrend data for reporting categories inthe future.

Data Projection Methodology

A technical report on the E&S surveydone for OCR (U.S. Department ofEducation, Office for Civil Rights,2000b) addressed the issue of state andnational projections from the reportedE&S survey data. Depending on theyears, the survey samples varied in theirstatistical validity. For most years, thesamples have been of sufficient qualityto allow for projections to the state andnational levels. However, the surveyscollected in 1969, 1971 and 1973, 1982,and 1990 did not yield statistically validsamples, so defensible projections couldnot be constructed.1 Also, other prob-lems with the survey administered in1996–1997 made these data unreliable(Glennon, 2002, p. 213; Peter McCabe,personal communication, 2002).

OCR should routinely utilize appropri-ate sampling methodology techniques toensure that projections to state andnational levels can be produced. Inrecent years, the projections, when theyhave been calculated, have provided a“best estimate,” but the methods thatare currently used do not allow calcula-tion of confidence intervals to clearlyidentify the degree of error associatedwith the projections. In addition todeveloping the methodology to rou-tinely provide projections, OCR shouldproduce and report confidence levels.

Adjusting Protocols

The committee discussed a number ofissues related to the changing demo-graphic nature of the country and thedifferent initiatives that states andschools have implemented to addressthe situation. As an example, thecommittee finds that the collection ofclassroom-level data (Item 13) could bea major strength of the survey, but thatproblems with the protocol for datacollection and ambiguity in the wordingof the question pose problems. Here weaddress the protocol issue; the problemof ambiguous wording is addressedseparately, below.

The survey protocol has historicallyplaced limits on which schools completethe classroom portions of the survey.OCR collects classroom-level data at theentry and exit grades (e.g., grade 1 and

1According to the technical report (U.S.Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights,2000b), the survey for 1990 produced a samplethat could be projected to the national level butwas not valid for state-level projections.


grade 6) for elementary school pupils inschools in which minority enrollment inthe school is greater than 20 percentand less than 80 percent. Classroom-level data collected for these schoolsinclude the grade level, ability grouping,and number of students by race,ethnicity, and English proficiency.

The data collection procedure usedby OCR eliminates elementary schoolsthat have fewer than 20 percent or morethan 80 percent of their students fromracial and ethnic minority groups, aswell as all middle schools, junior highschools, and high schools. The commit-tee notes that this protocol might havemade sense when the demographiccomposition of the nation and itsschools was less complex, but it isinadequate for the multiethnic demo-graphics of schools in the 21st century.OCR should consider changing the datacollection protocols so that all elemen-tary schools selected in the samplewould supply classroom data.

Data Editing

When administering any large-scalesurvey, such as the E&S survey, dataediting is important. Because theadministration and operation of thesurvey have not been well funded, dataediting has frequently suffered.Glennon (2002) indicated that the datafrom the 1996 survey, actually adminis-tered in 1997, turned out to be unusable.

Officials responsible for the survey haveindicated that there were insufficientfunds to do proper editing of the datathat were received and that, in times ofbudget shortfalls, data editing is fre-quently a casualty.

Croninger and Douglas (2002) con-ducted analyses to look at the preva-lence of high-stakes testing. They foundthat the data they used from Tables 12Aand 12B of the E&S survey for 2000 hadnot been adequately edited or verifiedby OCR. They had to make certainlogical assumptions about treating thedata to do their analyses; these infer-ences could have been avoided hadproper editing been done and documen-tation provided. Even when data editinghas been done, the contractor has in thepast carried out the editing with little orno oversight from OCR. In the future,OCR should place a priority on editingthe data that are collected in order tohave the best datasets available for useby OCR, advocates, parents, and re-searchers.

CONTENT

Changes in Existing Survey Items

In fulfilling its charge, the committeeexamined the survey items to determinewhether improvements to specific itemswould enhance the validity and reliabil-ity of the survey. The committee identi-


fied seven topics as prime candidates forrevision: children with disabilities,testing, high school completion, studentassignment, advanced placementclasses, interscholastic athletics, andteacher qualifications.

Children with Disabilities

Item 10.1 (Table 10.1) collects infor-mation on children with mild, moderate,and severe retardation by race andethnicity. Item 10.2 (Table 10.2) collectsinformation on children identified asemotionally disturbed and with specificlearning disabilities, by race andethnicity. Both items also ask forinformation about the educationalplacement of these students (i.e., thepercentage of time spent outside of aregular classroom), but no data on therace and ethnicity of students in differ-ent educational placements are re-quested. These items would bestrengthened by collecting race andethnicity data for educational placement.

How students with disabilities areserved makes a huge difference in theirfuture prospects (see Vaughn et al.,2000; Swanson, 1999; National ResearchCouncil, 2002b, pp. 324–328), and thequality of services available for childrenwith disabilities varies widely. In manycases, students are well served. But,not infrequently, students are identifiedas having disabilities and sent to groupsor classrooms that actually reduce their

learning opportunities (see GarciaFierros and Conroy, 2002).Misassignment can be the consequenceof teachers’ inability to serve difficult-to-teach students (see Harry et al., 2002).There is abundant evidence that black,American Indian, and Hispanic studentsare disproportionately identified ashaving certain types of disabilities(Finn, 1982; National Research Council,2002b; Losen and Orfield, 2002b).

Testing

High-stakes tests are those whosepassage is required before a student isallowed to advance to the next grade orgraduate from high school. Retention ingrade often results in increasing thelikelihood that students affected willdrop out of school or learn less than ifthe need to accelerate their learning hadbeen addressed in other ways (NationalResearch Council, 1999c, pp. 128–132).Item 12 asks about the use of high-stakes tests for grade promotion andhigh school graduation.

Tables 12A and 12B ask whethertesting information is used as a “sole” or“significant” criterion for grade promo-tion and for high school graduation,respectively. The meaning of “solecriterion” and “significant criterion” isambiguous, and item 12 would beimproved by clarifying the meaning ofthese terms. In addition, the item doesnot ask for the number of students who


fail the test the first time. As a result,the current information contains repeattest takers who have failed one or moretimes; this confounds the results, andthe meaning of the data becomesunclear. The importance of improvingthis question is heightened by theprovisions of the No Child Left BehindAct, which mandates increased testingduring the elementary and middlegrades.

Student Assignment

As noted in the discussion of protocol,above, Item 13 elicits information on theclassroom assignments of students fromdifferent racial and ethnic groups andfor students with limited English profi-ciency. The item also asks whether anystudents are “ability grouped for in-struction in mathematics or English-Reading-Language Arts” in that class-room. Information on classroom assign-ment is requested for the lowest andhighest elementary grades only.

The civil rights concerns emanatefrom evidence that many students whoare “tracked” on a continuing basis intoseparate classrooms or groups withinclassrooms because of their below-grade-level performance continue tolose academic ground in these settings,that minority students are dispropor-tionately “tracked” into low-abilityclasses, and that such practices mayproduce “within-school segregation”

(see Oakes, 1990; Mickelson, 2001).Experts agree, however, that someapproaches to ability grouping (or, moreaccurately, performance grouping) canserve important educational purposesproviding they enlarge, rather thanrestrict, opportunities to learn (seeSlavin et al., 1994). So knowing thatstudents are grouped by ability, by itself,is not sufficient to identify discrimina-tory or ineffective practices.

Also, the question does not ask howmany students of each racial or ethnicgroup are in the upper or lower abilitygroupings. The definitions and instruc-tions for ability grouping are compli-cated and could be confusing to respon-dents at the school level. Specifically,student assignment data are organizedaccording to teacher identificationcodes. This can be ambiguous, particu-larly in the upper elementary grades inwhich students are more likely to betaught by more than one teacher. Also,as noted in the protocol section above,the fact that only schools in whichminority students constitute more than20 percent but less than 80 percent oftotal enrollment are required to com-plete Item 13 is problematic.

Information about classroom assign-ment and ability grouping is extremelyimportant, but the current wording ofthis item severely limits its value. Thisitem could be greatly improved withminor modifications: providing a clearer


definition of ability grouping, the addi-tion of information about the subjectmatter being taught (e.g., Is it a lan-guage class for English-language learn-ers?), as well as information about theracial and ethnic composition of stu-dents in the highest and lowest groups.In addition, all sampled schools shouldbe required to provide information onclassroom assignment.

Advanced Placement Classes

When students are motivated to learn,the opportunity to engage rigorouscurricula often leads to higher achieve-ment (Adelman, 1999). The absence ofsuch learning opportunities restrictswhat and how much students learn andgives an advantage to those studentswho do have access to more demandingcourses and programs. Item 14 asksabout advanced placement (AP) classesoffered by the school. However, thesurvey does not provide a denominatorthat is more specific than the overallracial and ethnic composition of theschool. For example, information is notcohort or grade specific. This makesestimation of the percentages of stu-dents in each race and ethnic group whoare in AP classes less precise than itmight otherwise be. Also, the questionis limited to AP classes and does notcollect information on other advancedcourses of study like the internationalbaccalaureate program and honors

programs. The item should be ex-panded to include other advanced studyprograms and data specifically ongroups by grade or cohort.

High School Completion

Graduation from high school is, ofcourse, a critical step toward college orwell-paying jobs. Item 15 asks abouthigh school completion (diploma andcertificate of attendance or completion)offered by the school. The race andethnicity data do not provide specificdenominators (e.g., the number ofstudents from each race and ethnicgroup entering high school), so it is notpossible to determine the percentagesof students who graduate from eachrace and ethnic group. Also, thereseems to be considerable ambiguity inthe meaning of the types of completioncertificates. For example, some stateshave begun to offer a Certificate ofInitial Mastery and Certificate of Ad-vanced Mastery to their students, atrend that may accelerate as a result ofthe No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.Gathering data specifically on groups bygrade or cohort as well as clarifying thedefinitions for the type of completioncertificates would strengthen the item.

Interscholastic Athletics

Item 16 asks about the number ofdifferent sports and teams offered at theschool and whether the sports that are


offered include males only, females only,or both male and female participants.The item elicits useful information ongender equity, but adding informationon the race and ethnicity of studentswould be useful. Although many schooldistricts under long-standing schooldesegregation court orders have beenrequired to demonstrate equitableaccess to extracurricular activities forblack students, data have not beenroutinely collected to allow comprehen-sive monitoring. The E&S survey hascollected information on student partici-pation in interscholastic athletics since1994 to monitor Title IX issues, butinformation on the race and ethnicity ofstudent participants has not beencollected for Title VI purposes. Thecollection of this information either inthis question or as an additional itemwould provide useful data to OCR andthose concerned with equity in extracur-ricular learning opportunities.

Teacher Qualifications

The school-based learning opportu-nity that accounts for the greatestvariation in student achievement isquality teaching (see Sanders and Horn,1995; Sanders and Rivers, 1996; Hedges,Layne, and Greenwald, 1994; DarlingHammond, 1997a; Ferguson, 2000). Tomeasure this, Item 17 asks how manyfull-time teachers employed by the

school meet requirements for a stan-dard certificate. With the field ofteacher certification rapidly changing instates and the provisions of the NoChild Left Behind Act that every childhave a fully qualified teacher, the com-mittee questions whether the concept ofa “standard certificate” has becomeambiguous. The language of the ques-tion should be clarified or possiblychanged to include whether teachersare teaching in the content field orspecialty for which they were trained toteach.

A related issue with respect to teach-ers is their years of teaching experience.Teacher inexperience is negativelyrelated to teacher effectiveness, at leastin the first 3–4 years of teaching. Sinceminority students, those with disabili-ties, and those with limited Englishproficiency are often more likely to betaught by novice teachers, teacherexperience should be a subject of theE&S survey.

Items That Might Be Eliminated

The committee discussed whethersome items could be deleted to helpstreamline the survey and to rid it ofquestions that are not actionable orcannot be cast into language that wouldelicit clear and useful responses. Items6 and 6a on the District SummaryReport (ED 101) cover how many


students were identified as pregnantduring the previous academic year andthen how many currently are not inschool. The committee concludes thatthese questions are not particularlyhelpful in generating actionable data forOCR enforcement, nor do they connectdirectly to civil rights concerns.

USE

Improving Access to Survey Dataand Survey Findings

The OCR E&S survey has beenuseful to a wide variety of users, includ-ing state and federal agencies, educationadvocates, civil rights attorneys, andacademic researchers. Although thedata have been used for importantpurposes, they could be more widelyand productively used.

Historically, the data files have beendifficult to access and utilize in complexexaminations. Recently, however, OCRhas made some significant strides inmaking information more accessible tothe public and to education advocates.OCR has placed some of the informationon its website so that users can accessthe data and query them in simple ways.This action should make the informa-tion much more useful to the generalpublic, and OCR should be commendedfor taking this step.

The fledgling effort should be evalu-ated to determine whether the visitorsto the website find that the informationand the formats provided are useful. Itwould also be helpful to find outwhether users are content with the levelof analysis currently available orwhether other, more detailed analysesare desired. Also, given the sporadicnature of OCR data editing of thesurvey, there should be an examinationof possible data errors and whether, iferrors are found, it is a substantialenough problem to discourage thepublic from using the data.

There are a number of actions thatOCR could consider that would improveaccess to the survey data. Several ofthese possible solutions would require agreater allocation of resources withinOCR. Some actions, however, may notrequire additional monetary resourcesbut rather would demand more coordi-nation and cooperation between officeswithin the Department of Education.

Formatting the Data to Make It Easier toUse

Some of the academic researcherscommissioned by the committee (e.g.,Ready and Lee, 2002; Croninger andDouglas 2002; see Appendix A) foundthe files to be problematic to use,prompting several attempts to have thedatasets provided in different formats.


Eventually some of the researchersfigured out ways to use the files or wereprovided with “flat files”2 for certainyears, which included much of the rawdata that could be more easily trans-formed into other statistical formats foranalysis. The process was not a smoothone and required the researchers tospend much time struggling to makethe system work.

For research purposes, E&S datashould be provided either as flat fileswith detailed codebooks or as well-labeled statistical package files (e.g.,SPSS, SAS, or STATA). If the data aremade available as any one of these typesof files, researchers can then usetransfer software (STATTRASFER orDBMScopy) to translate the files to anyother package. Good documentation ofsuch procedures is essential.

The National Center for EducationStatistics (NCES) is the primary statisti-cal agency for the collection, analysis,and publication of education data. Itsgoal is to collect, analyze, and dissemi-nate statistics and other informationrelated to education in the United Statesand in other nations. NCES has a largeportfolio of data collection projects,including surveys in early childhood,elementary and secondary education,international indicators, postsecondary

issues, and the National Assessment ofEducational Progress. NCES is a majorsource of educational data and informa-tion for the public. NCES has theprofessional staff and the experienceneeded to anticipate problems andissues that may arise as users of theE&S survey data attempt to secure andanalyze the data. OCR should discusswith NCES the possibility of includingE&S survey data in the datasets itmakes available to the public.

OCR should also investigate whetherselected findings could be published inother NCES or Department of Educa-tion documents that routinely get widedissemination to states, school districts,and the public. One example of such adocument is the department’s annualCondition of Education report, whichpresents key findings from a wide rangeof data collection vehicles.

Training and Support of the E&S SurveyUsers

It is not unusual for users of largedatasets, like the E&S survey, to needtraining and support to make maximumuse of the information. For some users,it may be enough to access the lesscomplex data displays that currentlyexist on the website. For more experi-enced users of the basic data, as well asresearchers who want to do complexsecondary analysis of the datasets andlink them to other, non-OCR datafiles,2A flat file is a text file that is not tied to any

particular computer program.


additional support may be warranted tofacilitate the work. Obstacles mayinclude such topics as how to treatmissing data, how to avoid potentialmisinterpretations of the data resultingfrom nonobvious definitions of thevariables, and inaccuracies. Onlinetutorials and hard-copy data manuals arepossible solutions to making the datamore useful to a wider range of analysts.NCES may be able to provide someassistance to OCR since that agency hasa solid history of providing web accessand data analysis tools for its products.NCES has also conducted data analysisworkshops for state education agencypersonnel, and university and private-sector secondary researchers, anactivity OCR should consider.

Connections to Other Data

The E&S survey is but one of manysurveys conducted by the U.S. Depart-ment of Education. The E&S surveyserves a unique set of purposes, but italso contains questions that othersurveys ask in similar, if not identical,ways, particularly for information onspecial education students because thedepartment’s Office of Special Educa-tion and Rehabilitative Services collectsextensive data on services. The NCEScollects education data for a wide varietyof purposes, some of which overlap withthe content of the E&S survey. OCRshould work with these agencies to

identify overlap and to see if redundancyexists. Moreover, as previously noted,Halpern (1995) suggests that OCR doesnot adequately measure curricular andprogrammatic changes that may beconnected to discriminatory practices;rather it emphasizes collecting frequencycounts. On its own, the E&S surveyclearly cannot collect in-depth informa-tion on the quality of curricula andopportunities to learn to produce a fullpicture, but data from it could be inte-grated with other data collection effortsto achieve that goal (see Appendix D fora further discussion of this use).

Links to the PBDMI

As mentioned earlier, there is a newmajor effort under way in the Depart-ment of Education to consolidate thecollection and maintenance of adminis-trative data used for program manage-ment and policy. The initiative, knownas the Performance-Based Data Man-agement Initiative (PBDMI), began withtop management support from majoroffices in the Department of Education,including OCR and the Offices ofElementary and Secondary Education,English Language Acquisition, Voca-tional and Adult Education, and SpecialEducation and Rehabilitative Services.The intention is to lay out the informa-tion needed by each program againstthe statutory, regulatory, and otherrequired information to ensure that only


critical information is identified. ThePBDMI will be launching many activi-ties, including a demonstration projectdesigned to provide a capability thatlinks the department’s various sourcesof state demographic, academic, andfunding information together to supporteducational performance and achieve-ment analysis. The plan is to transformthe current data gathering process,which has numerous and sometimesduplicative collections, into a series ofstate-federal data exchanges with acentral data repository. The PBDMI isexpected to achieve partnerships withstate systems beginning in 2003 and,given sufficient funding, full implemen-tation by 2005.

The PBDMI effort is consistent withprevious recommendations to OCR. Forexample, the National Research Council(2002b) recommended that the Depart-ment of Education conduct a single,well-designed data collection effort tomonitor both the number of studentsreceiving services through the Individu-als with Disabilities Education Act andthe characteristics of those children ofconcern to civil rights enforcementefforts. The PBDMI has the opportu-nity to be cognizant of the value ofcollecting programmatic data fromschools on access to high-quality educa-tional services and resources and toensure that the public has access to thatinformation. How the E&S survey goes

through revision and continuation, whilecoordinating and cooperating with thePBDMI, will be critical to its futureutility.

Implementation of the PBDMI islikely to affect the E&S survey, althoughprecisely how is still unclear, since it isstill under development. OCR should besure to participate fully in the PBDMIdiscussions and ensure that the goals ofthe E&S survey data collection arerepresented in the implementation ofPBDMI. PBDMI, when fully opera-tional, may offer a unique opportunity toportray E&S survey data in a way thatenriches both the OCR data and keyeducational information collected by thedepartment.

Analysis and Dissemination

It would be very useful to thoseconcerned with the provision of educa-tional opportunities to minority stu-dents, to students with disabilities andthose with limited English proficiency,and to advocates of gender equity tohave easy access to simple tabulationsof the data from the E&S survey. Thepublication of such work may encourageresearchers to conduct more extensiveanalysis of the data. The publication ofselected data should be in both elec-tronic and print forms to allow formaximum access and dissemination.

Components of the survey could bedisseminated in various ways. In


addition to the suggestions above thatselected findings be published in thedepartment’s annual Condition ofEducation report and that survey datamight be part of the PBDMI process,OCR should consider requesting fundsto continue and expand its data report-ing efforts so that it could at leastconduct simple analyses of the surveydata during the year they becomeavailable. OCR should also considerpublishing the findings in ways thatwould allow people to examine trends

over time. Also, with the emphasis nowbeing placed on the accountabilityprovisions of the No Child Left BehindAct, OCR should consider posting on itswebsite a full report of tabulations of thedata showing how opportunities to learnare allocated to students of differentbackgrounds. This would allow analyststo balance the testing outcome datafrom the act with solid informationabout access to learning opportunitiesand resources described by the E&Ssurvey.

60

5

Improving the Survey and Its Use

The work of the Office for Civil Rights(OCR) in addressing violations ofstudents’ civil rights and combatingdiscrimination continues to be impor-tant, and the E&S survey is a useful,albeit underused, resource in OCR’sefforts to enforce civil rights laws. Theinformation produced by the E&Ssurvey facilitates the identification ofdisparities in learning opportunitiesassociated with race, ethnicity, lan-guage, gender, and disability status.Importantly, the survey is the onlyavailable data source that can be used toidentify problems not only at the na-tional and state levels, but also in schooldistricts, and in individual schools. Thecommittee finds that the E&S surveycontinues to play an important role inprotecting the rights of minority stu-dents, students with disabilities, stu-dents with limited English proficiency,and women. The E&S survey is theonly nationwide source of much of the

information it collects. The survey’scapacity to identify interdistrict,intradistrict, and even intraschooldisparities in learning opportunitiesmakes it a unique resource that pro-vides some, though not all, of theinformation needed for spotting poten-tially actionable discrimination andviolations of civil rights.

The survey currently is not beingextensively used by OCR in enforce-ment, except as one of a number ofsources of information used to identifyschool districts for compliance reviews.The number of compliance reviewsinitiated by OCR varies considerablyfrom year to year; in 2002, no newcompliance reviews were initiated. Thesurvey’s most important use in recentyears has been to provide parents andothers with information on disparities inaccess to high-quality learning opportu-nities.

The committee also finds that the

I M P R O V I N G T H E S U R V E Y A N D I T S U S E 61

survey and the manner in which it isadministered can be improved to: (1)more effectively assess whether stu-dents have access to critical learningopportunities; (2) make the data moreaccessible to interested citizens, as wellas to educators and policy makers; and(3) enhance its usefulness as a resourcefor research that could lead to schoolimprovement.

Despite the many societal and educa-tional changes that have occurredduring the past 35 years, major dispari-ties in opportunities to learn and ineducation outcomes persist, especiallythose associated with race andethnicity—the original focus of the E&Ssurvey. The timely collection andanalysis of classroom-, school- anddistrict-level data that can help identifyeducational policies and practices thatmay have inequitable, if not discrimina-tory, effects on students is no lessimportant today than it was when theE&S survey was first administered.

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES—THE KEY

In one way or another, virtually allcivil rights related to education involvethe assurance that students will havethe necessary opportunities to learn.The definition of “necessary” is con-tested, but the idea of equal opportuni-

ties to learn for persons of differentbackgrounds is the basis of contempo-rary understandings of rights. Legisla-tion and court rulings addressing theneeds of persons who do not speakEnglish or who have disabilities haveextended the protection of the law andgone beyond the goal of equality toguarantee the provision of neededservices. School finance cases also havesought to broaden the definition ofindividual rights related to educationbeyond equality of spending per studentto take into account the fact that somestudents, including but not limited tostudents who do not speak English andstudents with disabilities, need moreservices than others if they are tosucceed in school (see Rebell, 2002).

Regardless of the race, ethnicity,socioeconomic status, or disabilitystatus of the students whose educationalrights are at issue, the focus of concernis learning opportunities. If studentswith certain characteristics have differ-ential access to learning opportunities inparticular situations, it may signaldiscrimination. However, despite thecentrality of learning opportunities tothe protection of civil rights, there is noaccepted or even widely discussedmodel that identifies the full range ofopportunities to learn, their relativeimportance to student learning, andtheir interrelationships. Research thatlinks data on patterns of access to


learning opportunities and resources,such as those from the E&S survey,with other datasets that are used toexamine the effects of various policies,practices, and resources, potentiallycould produce a clearer understandingof what kinds of disparities make adifference for students’ learning out-comes (see Appendixes A and D). Notonly would the development of such amodel be important for the protection ofcivil rights, but it would also shapeeducation strategies generally.

Children’s learning is influenced bymany experiences. Those that areavailable in school typically account forless than one-third of students’ aca-demic achievement, as measured bymost common tests (e.g., see Halpern-Felsher et al., 1997; National ResearchCouncil, 1999a). Yet the focus of theE&S survey, and thus the focus of thiscommittee’s interests, are the learningopportunities and resources provided inschools or by schools. Trying to iden-tify the full range of influences onstudent learning that might reasonablybe the concern of those who wouldprotect civil rights is daunting. None-theless, the E&S survey focuses onlearning opportunities that are of criticalimportance. Continuing refinement ofthe survey and judicious additions to itsscope would make it an even moresubstantial resource for enhancing the

education of students who have beenthe victims of discrimination or ofinadequate access to learning opportu-nities and resources.

PROMISING NEW USES OF E&SSURVEY DATA

Integrating E&S Survey Datawith Other InformationResources

As discussed in Chapter 4, planning isunder way to integrate the E&S surveyinto a consolidated data system thatwould coordinate the collection andmanagement of data related to theadministration of various programsadministered by the U.S. Department ofEducation. The effort to develop thissystem, known as the Performance-Based Data Management Initiative(PBDMI), is being conducted in part-nership with state departments ofeducation. Besides integrating theadministrative data systems of thedepartment, other goals of PBDMIinclude facilitating the integration ofstate and local education data with thedepartment’s administrative database tomake the data more usable and acces-sible for all.

Integrating the E&S survey with thePBDMI would help to ensure that thedefinitions of items that appear on the


E&S survey are consistent with thoseon other department surveys. Depart-mental literature on PBDMI also prom-ises that it will reduce the data collec-tion burden on schools by eliminatingredundancy among the various surveyscurrently administered. It also prom-ises that PBDMI will facilitate efforts toensure accountability.

When the PBDMI data system isimplemented, it will be important toensure that the attributes that make theE&S survey an essential resource formonitoring equality of access to learn-ing opportunities and resources isretained. Written descriptions ofPBDMI from the Department of Educa-tion do not currently mention thecollection and integration of data onaccess to learning opportunities andresources as a feature of the new datasystem. It is essential that informationon access to opportunities to learn be anintegral part of the PBDMI system. Thenew data system must continue toprovide information pertinent to stu-dents’ civil rights under Title VI, TitleIX, and Section 504. These data mustcontinue to be disaggregated by raceand ethnicity, traceable to specificschools and school districts, and acces-sible not only to departmental officials,but also to local educators and to thepublic. If some or all of the E&S surveywere incorporated into the PBDMI, it

could become less burdensome andtherefore more cost-effective to rou-tinely collect E&S data from all schools.

The Survey as a Resource forSchool Improvement Efforts

Large disparities in education out-comes among students of differentbackgrounds persist, and OCR contin-ues to find that violations of students’civil rights are not uncommon.Whether or not the disparities identifiedby the E&S survey are caused byviolations of students’ legal rights, thedisparities evidence the failure ofschools to provide equal access to high-quality education for students from allbackgrounds. This information isrelevant not just to civil rights enforce-ment, but also to broader based effortsto achieve equity and excellence. Pro-viding educators, parents, and thegeneral public with easy access informa-tion that suggests that their own schoolsmay be failing to ensure equal access tolearning opportunities can lead togreater public involvement in schoolimprovement efforts.

As society and public school studentsbecome more diverse, issues of equitywill become important in places thatpreviously have not had diverse studentpopulations. The successful implementa-tion of school reforms in a post-desegregation era will require that


policies and practices be closely moni-tored so that they do not disadvantageminority students. The E&S surveyprovides a resource that can help toensure that no child will be left behind.Without such a resource, educationpolicy makers and practitioners may beunable to determine if reforms differ-ently affect educational outcomes forracial and ethnic minority, languageminority, or disabled students or evenwhether outcomes may vary by gender.

Until the summer of 2002, OCR hadnot published or otherwise madeavailable to the public E&S survey datafor more than 20 years—except byrequest. The recent placement of E&Sdata on the Internet is a very importantinnovation whose implications for publicuse of the data are not yet known. Thesoftware used to examine the data forexploratory purposes requires notechnical training to use, and it allowsindividuals to make very specific que-ries about the various items addressedby the survey. For example, one couldexamine the number and percentage ofsixth graders at a specific school whopassed or failed a district- or state-administered test required for gradepromotion, with the information disag-gregated by race, ethnicity, and sex.Data for different schools can be com-pared, as can data for different states.Although some of the data from thesurvey are suppressed to protect stu-

dents’ privacy, the data available overthe Internet provide extensive informa-tion concerning disparities in access tolearning opportunities.1 Making thesedata easily available to the public isconsistent with current federal and statepolicies emphasizing the public report-ing of school-level data as a means ofpromoting accountability.

Educational Equity Self-Assessments

One way to do this could be in theform of an Educational Equity Self-Assessment (EESA). An EESA issimilar in concept to the Racial JusticeReport Card developed by the AppliedResearch Center of Oakland, California(Gordon, Della Piana, and Keleher,2002). Using E&S survey data, possiblyin combination with data from othersources, OCR could develop an EESAthat educators, parent-teacher organiza-tions, and others could use to evaluateindividual schools. The EESA would bea computer-based, interactive programwith access from the Internet or deliv-ered on CD-ROM or DVD. Schooladministrators and others in a schoolcommunity could examine their school’sperformance on equity measures of

1Researchers can obtain access to thesuppressed data on the Internet by signing anagreement that protects the confidentiality ofdata pertaining to individually identifiablestudents.


issues, such as school discipline; gradu-ation rates; student retention; testingoutcomes; access to advanced place-ment and gifted and talented programs;tendencies toward within-school segre-gation, particularly as related to track-ing; and racial disparities in specialeducation. The data for a given schoolcould be compared with district, state,or national averages or to equity stan-dards suggested by OCR. Significantdeviations from the suggested “equitystandards” could produce an interactivediagnostic exercise that would includedescriptions of one or more research-based strategies or programs that couldhelp the school to reduce the observeddisparities and to achieve the suggestedstandards.

Public Reporting andAccountability

Another possible new use of E&Ssurvey data is to incorporate it (andother information pertaining to accessto learning resources) with the kinds ofdisaggregated achievement data thatmust be publicly reported under the NoChild Left Behind Act. Under the act,schools are required to report achieve-ment outcomes disaggregated bystudents’ race and poverty status and forlanguage minority students. Schoolsare held accountable for ensuring thatstudents from each group make ad-equate progress toward achieving state-defined standards for learning.

Data related to access to learningopportunities and resources, such asthose available from the E&S survey,should be an integral part of school datasystems and should provide informationthat is helpful to diagnosing causes ofdisparities, whether or not they arerelated to discrimination. The inclusionby schools in routine public reporting ofinformation on access to learningopportunities and resources, along withdata on students’ progress toward theachievement of standards, could behelpful in providing guidance aboutcauses of disparities in outcomes as wellas promising strategies to address them.

New Research Opportunities

Although the E&S survey is the mostimportant source of informationavailable on a wide range of topicsrelated to access to learning opportuni-ties and resources, data from the surveyinfrequently have been used in aca-demic research. As discussed in Chap-ter 2, the survey is the sole national datasource for a number of topics, includingthe application of disciplinary practices,classroom assignment data, and genderequity in sports. For many other issues,it is the only source for disaggregateddata that can be linked to specificschools and districts or be projected tostate and national levels.

The researchers who most frequentlyhave made use of the data are graduatestudents working with education advo-


cacy organizations and journalists(Peter McCabe, Office for Civil Rights,personal communication, 2002). Theseindividuals typically conduct basicanalyses—or, prior to web access,requested OCR staff to conduct basisanalyses—documenting disparities thatpoint to schools’ failure to adequatelyserve students of diverse backgrounds.This kind of basic research is importantand provides citizens with informationthat is essential to inform and motivatetheir involvement in school improve-ment efforts. However, using E&S datato conduct complex analyses to docu-ment the causes of disparities andidentify the kinds of resources andeducational practices that would beeffective for overcoming them has beenrare.

Several changes must take place if thedata are to be more widely used inacademic research. First, OCR mustmake the data more easily available toresearchers. Neither OCR nor anyother unit of the Department of Educa-tion routinely analyzes the data orpublishes even basic findings from thesurvey in departmental publications.Outside the advocacy community, veryfew people are aware of the E&S sur-vey—including many highly skilled andexperienced education researchers.Some of the researchers contacted bythe committee who were aware of thesurvey in the past have had difficulty

gaining access to usable datafiles. Oneresearcher who works for an advocacyorganization and who has used E&Ssurvey data for more than 30 years toldthe committee, “These data are used toenforce civil rights laws. They are notintended for academic researchers”(Paul Smith, director of research for theChildren’s Defense Fund, personalcommunication, 2002).

Yet most of the researchers whoworked with E&S survey data under theauspices of this committee found themto be of great interest. They could be animportant resource on access to oppor-tunities to learn if OCR could implementprocedures to improve the quality of thedata and make them available in aformat that is amenable to research (seeChapter 4), although there currentlydoes not appear to be any protocol forthis. The Beyond 20/20 software thatOCR provides to facilitate public accessto E&S data over the Internet is wellsuited for displaying descriptive statis-tics or for doing cross-tabulations thatcan identify various kinds of disparities.However, for researchers, the softwarecannot be used to conduct more elabo-rate studies that might uncover theunderlying causes for observed dispari-ties.2

2After several months of discussions with thecommittee and internal work, OCR was able toprovide the committee with files containing datafrom the 2000 survey in a format that lent itselfto complex studies.


CONCLUSIONS

Disparities in educational outcomesand in learning opportunity amongdifferent types of students continue tobe an important social problem. In thatcontext, the committee has threeprincipal conclusions about the E&Ssurvey:

• The E&S survey, or an equivalentresearch instrument, continues tobe needed to gather disaggre-gated data related to the equalityof access to learning opportuni-ties and resources that are trace-able to individual classrooms,schools, and districts.

• The survey, although useful forcivil rights enforcement, inform-ing educational policy, and theconduct of research, is greatlyunderused.

• The survey can be made moreuseful by improvements to thecontent, the manner in which thesurvey is administered, andaccess to the valuable data itprovides.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The committee offers recommenda-tions in four categories: survey admin-istration, improving data quality, in-

creasing access to the data, and dissemi-nating survey findings. We end with anoverall conclusion about the role of theE&S survey.

Survey Administration

• The mandated and certifiedcollection of data related topossible violations of students’educational civil rights should besustained.

• The survey should be supportedby line-item funding in thedepartment’s budget to ensure itsongoing support at a level that isconsistent with its continuedquality.

• Because of the survey’s impor-tance, the department shouldconsider undertaking a thoroughstudy of the survey aimed atensuring that it deals appropri-ately and in sufficient depth withthe problems of discoveringpossible restrictions on students’learning opportunities and, ifpossible, reducing the reportingburden on schools and schoolsystems.

• The E&S survey content andprotocols should be coordinatedwith those of other departmentsurveys to ensure consistency ofdefinitions and thecomplementarity of the data andto eliminate redundant questions.


• The various stakeholders in theE&S survey—such as OCRenforcement staff, student advo-cates, state and local educators,and researchers—should discussand explore the advantages anddisadvantages of less frequent butmore comprehensive surveys.With respect to a comprehensivesurvey, all schools should besurveyed, at a minimum, every 10years, as was done in 2000.

Improving Data Quality

• Survey items should be revised toprovide more useful and completeinformation on five topics:1. the qualifications and experi-

ence of teachers;2. the assignment of students to

different types of classroomsand educational settings;

3. the consequences for stu-dents of high-stakes testing;

4. high school completion; and 5. interscholastic athletics.

• OCR should ensure that respon-dents understand how to com-plete the survey accurately andthoroughly.

• OCR should carefully scrutinizethe data that are collected forthoroughness and reliability.

Increasing Access to the Data

There are several steps that OCRshould take to increase access to theE&S survey data:

• train staff to make more effectiveuse of the survey data;

• continue to improve the softwareprovided for public access to E&Ssurvey data over the Internet;

• sponsor or support programs totrain advocates, researchers, andeducators to use the data forvarious purposes;

• make well-edited data available toresearchers and others in ausable format, and provide a datamanual and technical assistance;

• consider developing a smallgrants program to encourageresearch on the topic of access tolearning opportunities using E&Ssurvey data; and

• archive and preserve data from allsurveys in a common format andmake them accessible to re-searchers and other interestedparties on disk or over theInternet, both for historicalpurposes and to enable research-ers to track longitudinal trends.

Disseminating Survey Findings

Three steps should be taken by OCRto improve dissemination of E&S surveydata:


• conduct or sponsor the conduct ofbasic tabulations of the data;

• include findings from analyses ofthe data in OCR’s regular reportsto Congress; and

• publicize the basic findings fromthe survey in widely disseminatedgovernment publications.

CONCLUSION

If the E&S survey were to be recre-ated today, with a core objective ofproviding information on equality ofaccess to the kinds of learning opportu-nities and resources that would beuseful in shaping education policy andpractices and for informing efforts toprotect students’ civil rights, the issuesaddressed by the current survey wouldbe an essential part of the framework.However, much more information alsowould be needed.

Knowledge of how the learningenvironment, peers, learning resources,teacher preparation, and curriculumaffect student learning is constantlyevolving, as is knowledge of how tomeasure variables associated with eachof these categories of learning opportu-nities and resources. To admit thatthere is still much that is unknownabout how to measure learning opportu-nities and resources should be a spurfor more work. The committee urgesthe Department of Education not only tocontinue collecting the kind of informa-tion that currently is on the E&S survey,but also to constantly reassess itsquality and utility. Finally, we urge thedepartment to recommit itself to usingthis information not only to protectstudents’ legally defined civil rights, butalso to ensure that all students who arebeing held accountable for achievinghigh standards have equal access to theopportunities and resources needed todo so.

70

References and Bibliography

Abt Associates. (1993). Prospects: The congres-sionally mandated study of educational growthand opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education.

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox:Academic intensity attendance patterns, andbachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Education.

The Advancement Project and The Civil RightsProject. (2000). Opportunities suspended: Thedevastating consequences of zero tolerance andschool discipline policies. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University, The Civil Rights Project.

American Educational Research Association,American Psychological Association, and TheNational Council on Measurement in Educa-tion. (1999). Standards for educational andpsychological testing. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

American Federation of Teachers. (2001).Making standards matter, 2001. Washington,DC: Author.

Babcock, P.S. (2002). Achievement disrupted: Anexploration of achievement indicators andstudent performance. Paper presented at theNational Research Council meeting of theCommittee on Improving Measures of Accessto Equal Educational Opportunity, August 12–13, Woods Hole, MA.

Balfanz, R., McPartland, J., and Shaw, A. (2002).Reconceptualizing extra help for high schoolstudents in a high standards era (Report No.ED-99-CO-0160). Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, Office of Vocationaland Adult Education.

Braddock, J.H., Sokol-Katz, J., and Greene A.(2002). Uneven playing fields: State variationsin boy’s and girl’s access to and participation inhigh school interscholastic sports. Paperpresented at the National Research Councilmeeting of the Committee on ImprovingMeasures of Access to Equal EducationalOpportunity, August 12–13, Woods Hole, MA.

Carey, N., Rowland, C., and Farris, E. (1998).State survey on racial and ethnic classifications(NCES 98-034). Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, Office of Educa-tional Research and Improvement.

Carmona, L.A., Wheelock, M.A., and First, J.(1998). A gathering storm: How Palm BeachCounty schools fail poor and minority children.Boston: National Coalition of Advocates forStudents.

Clark, K.B. (1963). Prejudice and your child, 2ndedition. Boston: Beacon Press.

Coleman, J. (1975). Trends in school segregation,1968–1973 (Paper #722-03-01 ed.). Washing-ton, DC: The Urban Institute.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2000).Executive summary of state student assessmentprograms. Washington, DC: Author.

Council of Economic Advisers. (2000). Economicreport of the President transmitted to theCongress, together with the annual report of theCouncil of Economic Advisers. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

Croninger, R., and Douglas, K. (2002). Theprevalence of high-stakes testing in U.S. publicelementary and secondary schools: Consequencesfor children of color. Paper presented at the

R E F E R E N C E S 71

National Research Council meeting of theCommittee on Improving Measures of Accessto Equal Educational Opportunity, August 12–13, Woods Hole, MA.

Cross, B. (2002). A time for action. In T.Johnson, J.E. Boyden, and W.J. Pittz (Eds.),Racial profiling and punishment in U.S. publicschools. How zero tolerance policies and high-stakes testing subvert academic excellence andracial equity (pp. 5–8). Oakland: AppliedResearch Center.

Cuban, L. (1998). How schools change reforms:Redefining reform success and failure.Teachers College Record, 99, 453–477.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997a). Doing whatmatters most: Investing in quality teaching.New York: National Commission on Teachingand America’s Future.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997b). The right to learn.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DeFrancis, M. (1998). Where are they now:Many of the civil rights activists as well asthose opposed to desegregation are still activein public affairs. FOCUS (August).

Editorial Projects in Education. (2001). Qualitycounts, 2001. Bethesda: Author.

Edley, C. (2002). Education reform in context:Research, politics and civil rights. In NationalResearch Council, T. Ready, C. Edley, and C.Snow (Eds.), Division of Behavioral and SocialSciences and Education, Achieving higheducational standards for all (pp. 123–148).Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Farkas, G. (2002). Racial disparities anddiscrimination in education: What do weknow, how do we know it, and what do weneed to know? Paper presented at theNational Research Council Workshop onMeasuring Disparities in Education, July 1,Washington, DC.

Farley, R. (1975). Racial integration in publicschools, 1967–1972: Assessing the effects ofgovernment policies. Sociological Focus, 8(1),3–26.

Farley, R. (1976). Is Coleman right? Social Policy,6(4), 1–10.

Farley, R. (1978). School integration in theUnited States. In F.D. Bean and W.F. Parker(Eds.), The demography of racial and ethnicgroups (pp. 15–50). New York: AcademicPress.

Farley, R. (1979). School desegregation andenrollments in the nation’s largest cities: Ananalysis of recent trends. Paper presented atthe 139th Annual Meeting of the AmericanStatistical Association, August 13–16, Washing-ton, DC.

Farley, R., and Taeuber, A.F. (1974). Racialsegregation in the public schools. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 79(4), 888–905.

Farley, R., Richard, T., and Wurdock, C. (1980).School desegregation and white flight: Aninvestigation of competing models and theirdiscrepant findings. Sociology of Education, 53,123–139.

Ferguson, R. (2000). Certification test scores,teacher quality and student achievement. InD.W. Grissmer and J.M. Ross (Eds.), Analyticissues in the assessment of student achievement.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Educa-tion, National Center for Education Statistics.

Ferguson, R., and Ladd, H. (1996). How and whymoney matters: An analysis of Alabamaschools. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schoolsaccountable: Performance-based reform ineducation (pp. 265–298). Washington, DC:Brookings Institution.

Ferguson, R., and Mehta, J. (2002). Why racialintegration and other policies since Brown v.Board of Education have only partiallysucceeded at narrowing the achievement gap.In National Research Council, T. Ready, C.Edley, and C. Snow (Eds.), Division ofBehavioral and Social Sciences and Education,Achieving high educational standards for all(pp. 123–148). Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Finn, J. (1982). Patterns in special educationplacement as revealed by the OCR surveys. InNational Research Council, Panel on Selectionand Placement of Students in Programs for theMentally Retarded, Committee on ChildDevelopment Research and Public Policy, K.A.Heller, W.H. Holzman, and S. Messick (Eds.),Placing children in special education: A strategyfor equity (pp. 322–381). Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

Ford, D.Y. (1998). The underrepresentation ofminority students in gifted education: Prob-lems and promises in recruitment andretention. Journal of Special Education, 32,4–14.


Gallagher, E.D. (2002). The odds ratios of failingMCAS among African Americans, Latinos, andwhites and achieving at least proficiency onMCAS. Available: http://www.es.umb.edu/edgwebp.htm#MCAS [August 12, 2002].

Gamaron, A. (1992). Access to excellence:Assignment to honors classes in the transitionfrom middle to high school. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(3), 185–204.

Garcia Fierros, E., and Conroy, J.W. (2002).Double jeopardy: An exploration of restrictive-ness and race in special education. In D.J.Losen and G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity inspecial education (pp. 39–70). Cambridge, MA:Harvard Education Press.

Glennon, T. (2002). Evaluating the Office forCivil Rights’ minority and special educationproject. In D.J. Losen and G. Orfield (Eds.),Racial inequity in special education. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Gordon, R. (1998). Education and race. Oak-land: Applied Research Center.

Gordon, R., Della Piana, L., and Keleher, T.(2002). Facing the consequences: An examina-tion of racial discrimination in U.S. publicschools. Oakland: Applied Research Center.

Greenwald, R., Hedges, L.V., and Laine, R.D.(1996). The effect of school resources onstudent achievement. Review of EducationalResearch, 66(3), 361–396.

Gregg, M., and Leinhardt, G. (2002). Learningfrom the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute:Documenting teacher development. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 39, 553–587.

Halpern, S.C. (1995). On the limits of the law:The ironic legacy of Title VI of the 1964 CivilRights Act. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

Halpern-Felsher, B.L., Connell, J.P., Spencer,M.B., Aber, J.L., Duncan, G.J., Clifford, E.,Crinchlow, W.E., Usinger, P.A., Cole, S.P.,LaRue, A., and Seidman, E. (1997). Neighbor-hood and family factors predicting educationalrisk and attainment in African American andwhite children and adolescents. In J. Brooks-Gunn, G.J. Duncan, and J.L. Aber (Eds.),Neighborhood poverty: Context and consequencesfor children (pp. 146–173). New York: RussellSage Foundation.

Harry, B., and Anderson, M.G. (1995). Thedisproportionate placement of African Ameri-can males in special education programs: A

critique of the process. Journal of NegroEducation, 63(4), 602–619.

Harry, B., Klingner, J.K., Sturges, K.M., andMoore, R.F. (2002). Of rocks and soft places:Using qualitative methods to investigatedisproportionality. In D.J. Losen and G.Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequality in specialeducation (pp. 71–92). Cambridge, MA:Harvard Education Press.

Hedges, L.V., Laine, R.D., and Greenwald, R.(1994). Does money matter? A meta-analysisof studies of the effects of differential inputs onstudent outcomes. Educational Researcher,23(4), 5–14.

Hehir, T. (2002). IDEA and disproportionality:Federal enforcement, effective advocacy, andstrategies for change. In D.J. Losen and G.Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in specialeducation (pp. 219–238). Cambridge, MA:Harvard Education Press.

Hill, P.T., Campbell, C., and Harvey, J. (2000). Ittakes a city: Getting serious about urban schoolreform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institu-tion.

Horn, C. (2002). The intersection of race, classand English learner status. Paper presented atthe National Research Council meeting of theCommittee on Improving Measures of Accessto Equal Educational Opportunity, August 12–13, Woods Hole, MA.

Johnson, T., Emiko-Boyden, J., and Pittz, W.J.(2002). Racial profiling and punishment inU.S. public schools: How zero tolerance policiesand high stakes testing subvert academicexcellence and racial equity. Oakland, CA:Applied Research Center.

Kleiner, B., Porch, R., and Farris, E. (2002).Public alternative schools and programs forstudents at risk of school failure: 2000–2001(NCES 2002-004). Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics.

Kluger, R. (1976). Simple justice: The history ofBrown v. Board of Education and blackAmerica’s struggle for equality. New York:Knopf.

Lippman, L., Burns, S., and McArthur, E. (1996).Urban schools: The challenge of location andpoverty (Report No. NCES 96-84). Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Officeof Educational Research and Improvement.


Losen, D.J., and Orfield, G. (2002a). Introduction.In D.J. Losen and G. Orfield (Eds.), Racialinequality in special education. Cambridge,MA: Harvard Education Press.

Losen, D.J., and Orfield, G. (Eds.). (2002b).Racial inequality in special education. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Losen, D.J., and Welner, K.G. (2002). Legalchallenges to inappropriate and inadequatespecial education for minority children. In D.J.Losen and G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequalityin special education (pp. 167–194). Cambridge,MA: Harvard Education Press.

MacMillan, D.L., and Reschly, D.J. (1998).Overrepresentation of minority students: Thecase for greater specificity or reconsiderationof the variables examined. Journal of SpecialEducation, 32, 15–24.

Mansfield, W., and Farris, W. (1992). Office forCivil Rights survey redesign: A feasibility survey(Report No. NCES 92-130). Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Education, Office ofEducational Research and Improvement.

McFadden, A.C., Marsh, G.E., Price, B.J., andHwang, Y. (1992). A study of race and genderbias in the punishment of school children.Education and Treatment of Children, 15(2),140–146.

Mickelson, R.A. (2001). Subverting Swann: First-and-second-generation segregation in theCharlotte-Mecklenburg schools. AmericanEducational Research Journal, August, (2),215–252.

Minceberg, E.M., Cahn, N., Isaacson, M.R., andLyons, J.J. (1989). Federal civil rightsenforcement and elementary and secondaryeducation since 1981. In R.C. Govan and W.L.Taylor (Eds.), One nation, indivisible: The civilrights challenge for the 1990s. Report of theCitizens’ Commission on Civil Rights (pp. 88–127). Washington, DC: L&B.

Moses, R., and Cobb, C.E., Jr. (2001). Radicalequations: Math literacy and civil rights.Boston: Beacon Press.

Myrdal, G. (1944). An American dilemma. NewYork: Harper and Row.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2001).Digest of education statistics, 2000 (NCES 2001-034). Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation.

National Coalition of Advocates for Students.(1998). Zero tolerance raises equity concerns

across nation. Mobilization for Equity(November).

National Research Council. (1982). Placingchildren in special education: A strategy forequity. Panel on Selection and Placement ofStudents in Programs for the MentallyRetarded, Committee on Child DevelopmentResearch and Public Policy, K.A. Heller, W.H.Holtzman, and S. Messick (Eds.), Commissionon Behavioral and Social Sciences andEducation. Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.

National Research Council. (1989). A commondestiny: Blacks and American society. Commit-tee on the Status of Black Americans, G.D.Jaynes, and R.M. Williams, Commission onBehavioral and Social Sciences and Education.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1999a). Makingmoney matter: Financing America’s schools.Committee on Education Finance, H.F. Ladd,and J.S. Hansen (Eds.), Commission onBehavioral and Social Sciences and Education.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1999b). Preventingreading difficulties in young children. Commit-tee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties inYoung Children, C.E. Snow, M.S. Burns, and P.Griffin (Eds.), Commission on Behavioral andSocial Sciences and Education. Washington,DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1999c). High stakes:Testing for tracking, promotion and graduation.Committee on Appropriate Test Use, J.P.Heubert and J.M. Hauser (Eds.), Board onTesting and Assessment, Center for Education.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2002a). Achievinghigh educational standards for all: Conferencesummary. T. Ready, C. Edley, and C.E. Snow(Eds.), Division of Behavioral and SocialSciences and Education. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2002b). Minoritystudents in special and gifted education.Committee on Minority Representation inSpecial Education, S.M. Donovan and C. Cross(Eds.), Division of Behavioral and SocialSciences and Education. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

Neild, R.C., and Balfanz, R. (2001). An extremedegree of difficulty: The educational demograph-


ics of the ninth grade in Philadelphia. Balti-more: Johns Hopkins University, Center forthe Social Organization of Schools.

Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: Theeffects of race, social class and tracking onopportunities to learn mathematics and science.Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Orfield, G. (1969). The reconstruction of Southerneducation: The schools and the 1964 CivilRights Act. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

Orfield, G. (1977). Desegregation and the cities:The trends and the policy choices. Washington,DC: U.S. Senate Committee on HumanResources.

Orfield, G. (1978). Must we bus? Washington,DC: Brookings Institution.

Orfield, G. (1986). Public school desegregation inthe United States, 1968–1980. Washington,DC: Joint Center for Political Studies.

Orfield, G. (1996). Dismantling desegregation:The quiet repeal of Brown v Board of Education.New York: New Press.

Orfield, G. (2001a). The 1964 Civil Rights Actand American education. In B. Grofman (Ed.),Legacies of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (pp. 89–128). Charlottesville, VA: University ofVirginia Press.

Orfield, G. (2001b). Why data collection matters.In W. Hutmacher, D. Cochrane, and N. Bottani(Eds.), In pursuit of equity in education.Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Orfield, G. (2001c). Schools more separate:Consequences of a decade of resegregation.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, The CivilRights Project.

Orfield, G., Bachmeier, D.J., and Eitle, T. (1997).Deepening segregation in American publicschools. Equity and Excellence in Education,30(2), 5–24.

Orfield, G., Schley, S., Glass, D., and Rardon, S.(1993). The growth of segregation in Americanschools: Changing patterns of separation andpoverty since 1968. Alexandria, VA: NationalSchool Boards Association.

Orfield, G., and Yun, J. (1999). Resegregation inAmerican schools. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity, The Civil Rights Project.

Osher, D., Woodruff, D., and Simms, A.E. (2002).Schools make a difference: The overrepresen-tation of African American youth in specialeducation and the juvenile justice system. InD.J. Losen and G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial equity

in special education (pp. 93–116). Cambridge,MA: Harvard Education Press.

Oswald, D.P., Coutinho, M.J., Best, A.M., andSingh, N.N. (1999). Ethnic representation inspecial education: The influence of school-related economic and demographic variables.Journal of Special Education, 32, 194–206.

Panetta, L., and Gall, P. (1971). Bring us together:The Nixon team and the civil rights retreat.Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.

Patton, J.M. (1992). Assessment and identifica-tion of African-American learners with giftsand talents. Exceptional Children, 59(2), 150–159.

Puma, M., Karweit, N., Price, C., Ricciuti, A.,Thompson, W., and Vaden-Kiernan, M. (1997).Prospects: Student outcomes final report.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation.

Rabekoff, E. (1990). Federal civil rights enforce-ment in elementary and secondary education.In S.M. Liss and W.L. Taylor (Eds.), Lostopportunities: The civil rights record of the Bushadministration mid-term: Report of the Citizens’Commission on Civil Rights (pp. 37–51).Washington, DC: Citizens’ Commission onCivil Rights.

Rabkin, J. (1980). Office for Civil Rights. In J.Q.Wilson (Ed.), The politics of regulation (pp.304–353). New York: Basic Books.

Ready, D.D., and Lee, V.E. (2002). Linking theOffice for Civil Rights’ elementary and second-ary school survey with nationally representativeeducational datasets: Possibilities and problems.Paper presented at the National ResearchCouncil Committee on Improving Measures ofAccess to Equal Educational Opportunity,August 12–13, Woods Hole, MA.

Rebell, M.A. (2002). Education adequacy,democracy, and the courts. In NationalResearch Council, T. Ready, C. Edley, and C.E.Snow (Eds.), Achieving high educationalstandards for all: Conference summary (pp.218–268). Washington, DC: National Acad-emy Press.

Roderick, M., and Engel, M. (2001). Thegrasshopper and the ant: Motivationalresponses of low-achieving students to highstakes testing. Educational Evaluation andPolicy Analysis, 23, 197–227.

Ross, S.L., and Yinger, J. (2002). Detectingdiscrimination: A comparison of the methods


used by scholars and civil rights enforcementofficials. Paper presented at the NationalResearch Council Committee on Methods forAssessing Discrimination, July 1–3, Washing-ton, DC.

Ryan, J.E. (2002). What constitutes race discrimi-nation in education? A legal perspective. Paperpresented at the National Research CouncilCommittee on Methods for Assessing Dis-crimination, July 1–3, Washington, DC.

Sanders, W.L., and Horn, S.P. (1995). TheTennessee Value-Added Assessment System(TVAA): Mixed model methodology ineducational assessment. In A.J. Shinkfield andD.L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Teacher evaluation:Guide to effective practice. Boston: KluwerAcademic.

Sanders, W.L., and Rivers, J.C. (1996). Cumula-tive and residual effects of teachers on futureacademic achievement. Knoxville: Universityof Tennessee Value-Added Research andAssessment Center.

Shaw, S.R., and Braden, J.P. (1990). Race andgender bias in the administration of corporalpunishment. School Psychology Review, 19(3),378–383.

Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L., Wasik, B.A., Madden,N.A., and Dolan, L.J. (1994). Success for all: Acomprehensive approach to prevention andearly intervention. In R.E. Slavin, N.L.Karweit, and B.A. Wasik (Eds.), Preventingearly school failure (pp. 175–205). Boston:Allyn and Bacon.

Sotomayor, F. (1974). Para los ninos=For thechildren: Improving education for MexicanAmericans. Washington, DC: U.S. Commis-sion on Civil Rights.

Swanson, H.L. (1999). Intervention research foradolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes related to high-orderprocessing. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Education.

Taeuber, K. (1990). Desegregation of publicschool districts: Persistence and change. PhiDelta Kappan, 18–24.

Taylor, W. (1971). Federal civil rights laws: Canthey be made to work? The George WashingtonLaw Review, 39(5), 971–1007.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (1969). Federalenforcement of school desegregation. Washing-ton, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for CivilRights. (1999). Ensuring access to equaleducational opportunity. Available http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/docs/ensure99.html [August 14, 2002].

U.S. Department of Education, Office for CivilRights. (2000a). Fiscal year 2000 annualreport to Congress: Guaranteeing equal access tohigh standards education. Washington, DC:Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for CivilRights (2000b). Fall 1998 elementary andsecondary civil rights compliance report: Timeseries documentation. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Health Education andWelfare, Office for Civil Rights. (1978).Directory of elementary and secondary schooldistricts, and schools in selected school districts:School year 1976–1977, volumes I and II.Washington, DC: Author.

Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., and Chard, D.J. (2000).The underlying message in LD interventionresearch: Findings from research syntheses.Exceptional Children, 67(1), 99–114.

Welch, F. (1987). A reconsideration of the impactof school desegregation programs on publicschool enrollment of white students, 1968–1976. Sociology of Education, 60(October),215–221.

WESTAT. (1997). Redesign considerations:Elementary and secondary school civil rightscompliance report (Report No. EB950390010).Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation.

77

Appendix A

Synopses of PapersPrepared for the Committee

This appendix contains synopses offive papers commissioned by the com-mittee and presented at its secondmeeting, August 12, 2002, at WoodsHole, Massachusetts. The committee’spurpose in commissioning these paperswas to obtain information about thevalue of E&S survey data for researchon current educational policies andpractices. The committee consideredthe findings of these papers, as well asthe researchers’ accounts of theirexperiences in working with the E&Sdata, in its deliberations.

Given the short amount of timeavailable to the researchers, the papersshould be considered preliminaryanalyses; they address the followingtopics:

• the effects of school disciplinarypolicies,

• gender equity in sports,• the impact of high-stakes testing,

• the degree of segregation ofEnglish-language learners, and

• the availability of services forEnglish-language learners.

The committee encouraged the re-searchers to continue the analysesbegun under the auspices of the com-mittee and to independently publishpapers based on their analyses, asappropriate.

ACHIEVEMENT DISRUPTED

Philip BabcockUniversity of California, San Diego

This paper investigates correlationsbetween test scores and school expul-sion rates to determine to what degreethese correlations might be driven bypolicy. The investigation is framed aspart of a larger inquiry into the underly-ing causes of peer effects.


The analysis begins with a basicdescription of the data, e.g., histogramsof expulsions and suspensions, samplecovariances between test scores anddemographic measures. The main bodyof the paper explores implications of aspecific theory of peer effects.

While studies suggest that peereffects have an impact on measures ofstudent performance, the specificmechanism by which they operateremains unclear. One explanation isthat disruptive behavior by a studentimpedes the learning of every otherstudent in a classroom. If so, thensystematic efforts made by teachers andeducators to reduce disruptive behaviorought to lead to higher test scores,other things being equal. The paperexamines an implication of this basictheory. Taking suspension rates andexpulsion rates as proxies for discipline,one could attempt to determine theeffect of discipline on test scores bymeans of a simple ordinary leastsquares regression. The immediatedifficulty with such an approach is thatthere is apt to be correlation betweenthe error term and the regressors. Onewould expect higher rates of expulsionat schools whose students come fromtroubled or dysfunctional social environ-ments and have behavior problemsbecause of unobserved factors. Thesestudents might perform poorly on tests

because of the same unobserved traitsthat affect the rate of expulsion.

The paper attempts to distinguishbetween the two sources of correlation,endogenous and exogenous, by con-structing a panel of test scores, suspen-sion rates, and expulsion rates for ninthgraders in California, school by school,using data from 1998 and 2000. Theanalysis includes both fixed-effect andbetween-effects estimates of the coeffi-cients on expulsion and suspension, theassumption being that neighborhoodeffects for a given school changed littlein two years.

The analysis indicates that when onedoes not control for school-specificunobserved effects, higher rates ofexpulsion are associated with lowermath scores. The paper argues that thisis evidence of endogeneity: schoolswhose students have been unobservablydisadvantaged by their local environ-ment exhibit more behavior problemsand also lower math scores. In thefixed-effects regression, however, thecorrelation is positive. Holding constantthe school, an increase in expulsionrates between 1998 and 2000 wasassociated with an increase in mathscores. The strictness of disciplinepolicy, then, might have a positive effecton test scores. The result is merelysuggestive, however: the analysis wasnot robust to heteroskedastic specifica-

A P P E N D I X A 79

tions or to reasonable alterations of thedataset.

The paper concludes with a discus-sion of the database of the Office forCivil Rights (OCR), including somesuggestions for additions that would behelpful in this area of research.

UNEVEN PLAYING FIELDS:STATE VARIATIONS IN BOY’SAND GIRL’S ACCESS TO AND

PARTICIPATION IN HIGH SCHOOLINTERSCHOLASTIC SPORTS

Jomills Henry Braddock II, Jan Sokol-Katz, and Anthony Greene

University of Miami

This year marks the 30th anniversaryof Title IX. Yet despite considerableprogress and the need for furtherimprovement, Title IX is facing in-creased opposition (including numerouslegal challenges) and scrutiny (Secre-tary of Education’s Commission onOpportunities in Athletics). Usingaggregate data from OCR, combinedwith demographic and contextual dataavailable from the National Center forEducational Statistics, this paper (1)analyzes state-level disparities in boy’sand girl’s access to both single- andmixed-gender interscholastic athleticprograms and their patterns of participa-tion in single- and mixed-gender schoolsports and (2) examines demographic

and contextual correlates of variationamong states in relative access andparticipation of boys and girls in inter-scholastic athletics.

While unity, or even virtual parity, hasbeen achieved in only a handful ofstates, we find wide variation among thestates in how equitably girls and boyshave access to both single- and mixed-gender interscholastic sports and teams.We also find that states vary widely inpatterns of participation in single- andmixed-gender sports activities. Regres-sion analyses suggest that variation ingender disparities in single-genderathletic participation opportunities(number of sports and teams offered tomale and female students) among statescan be predicted by a combination ofcontextual characteristics (medianhousehold income) and school demo-graphics (percentage of white enroll-ments). And variation in gender dispari-ties in single-gender athletic participa-tion rates (ratio of male to femalestudents participating in single-gendersports) among states can be stronglypredicted by participation opportunities(number of sports and teams offered tomale and female students) and educa-tional investment (per pupil expendi-tures). This analysis also suggests thatthe impact on gender differences inparticipation rates of school demograph-ics (percentage of white enrollments) islargely indirect and mediated by partici-


pation opportunities (number of sportsand teams offered to male and femalestudents). With regard to genderdisparities in mixed-gender athleticparticipation opportunities (number ofsports and teams offered to both maleand female students) among states, ourmodel is not adequate to explain statevariations. However, gender disparitiesin mixed-gender athletic participationrates among states can be modestlypredicted by a combination of contex-tual characteristics (median householdincome) and educational investment(per pupil expenditures).

Our analysis suggests that monitoringgender equity in athletic access andparticipation is crucial. Because theOCR compliance reports are the mostreliable sources of data on this equityissue, it will be important to both con-tinue and strengthen data collectionefforts. Specifically, additional informa-tion is required to better understand therelationship between enrollment racialcomposition and access to and participa-tion in single-gender athletics. Recentquestions that have been raised aboutwhether black females are benefitingfrom Title IX could be informed withbetter information about characteristicsof student participants. Better informa-tion regarding specific sports offered isalso important. This would help clarifygeneral understanding of such issues asthe types of sports available to girls and

boys as both single- and mixed-genderactivities. Next steps should includemultilevel analyses taking into accountvariations at the school, district, andstate levels.

PREVALENCE OF HIGH-STAKESTESTING IN U.S. PUBLIC

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARYSCHOOLS: CONSEQUENCES FOR

MINORITY CHILDREN

Robert G. Croninger and Karen DouglasUniversity of Maryland

Recent policy initiatives have placedincreasing importance on the implemen-tation of high-stakes tests for reformingpublic elementary and secondaryschools. Provisions in the 2001 El-ementary and Secondary Education Actcall for increased testing to determine ifstudents and teachers are meeting highacademic standards, as do new state-level policies that seek to align statetesting practices with rigorous contentand performance standards for studentsand teachers. Forty-six states havedeveloped or are in the process develop-ing testing policies aligned to grade-level content and performance stan-dards (see National Research Council,1999). Of these states, 18 require thatstudents pass some form of an exitexamination before receiving a highschool diploma (see Council of Chief


State School Officers 2000), while 3states require schools to use statestandards and assessments in makingpromotional decisions for elementaryschool or middle school students. Fouradditional states plan to make promo-tion contingent on high-stakes tests by2003 (see Editorial Projects in Educa-tion, 2001).

Although high-stakes testing providesnew opportunities for holding individu-als and schools accountable for thequality of educational opportunities thatthey provide students (see Weckstein,1999), it also raises important equityissues about the actual consequences oftesting for specific populations of stu-dents. If minority students and theschools that they attend disproportion-ately bear the burden of high-stakestesting both in terms of the require-ments to pass high-stakes tests and thesanctions imposed for failure to do so,then the new wave of testing polices andpractices may not promote more equi-table educational opportunities. On thecontrary, it may promote unfair (Na-tional Research Council, 1999) andperhaps illegal testing practices (DebraP. v. Turlington, 474 F. Supp. 244, M.D.Fla. 1979) that further deny minoritystudents access to valuable educationalopportunities (Howe, 1997). As policymakers at all levels of government callfor new and more demanding testingpractices, it is increasingly important

that we examine the consequences ofsuch practices against not only stan-dards of academic rigor but also stan-dards of educational equity.

We know surprisingly little abouteither the prevalence or consequencesof high-stakes testing given the atten-tion it has received in recent educationpolicies. While a number of surveyshave been conducted to characterizehigh-stakes testing policies at the statelevel (e.g., see American Federation ofTeachers, 2001; Council of Chief StateSchool Officers, 2000; Editorial Projectsin Education, 2001), only the 2000 OCRE&S survey provides data about theprevalence and consequences of high-stakes testing as practiced by individualdistricts and schools. Although thestates have taken the lead in implement-ing high-stakes testing, there is ampleevidence that individual districts (e.g.,Chicago Public Schools) have imple-mented high-stakes testing policiesindependent of state legislators andeducation officials (National ResearchCouncil, 1999). Even in states thatrequire the use of high-stakes tests forpromotional decisions or the certifica-tion of high school graduation, theremay be considerable variability in theimplementation of policies or in theconsequences of policies for students.Moreover, because the 2000 E&Ssurvey asked schools to report the passand failure rates of students by race,


gender, and disability status, it may bepossible to use these data to investigatenot only the prevalence of high-stakestesting practices but also their immedi-ate consequences for specific studentpopulations. These types of data areunavailable elsewhere.

We propose to explore the feasibilityof using the 2000 E&S survey data toanalyze the prevalence and conse-quences of high-stakes testing practicesin U.S. elementary and secondaryschools. Specifically, we propose to (1)evaluate the research utility of thecurrent format for E&S survey data byattempting to download data abouttesting (Tables 12a and 12b) using theBeyond 20/20 interface; (2) link thesedata to the 2000 Common Core of Data(CCD); and (3) examine the validity ofE&S survey data by comparing thesedata with other data sources (e.g., OCRand CCD enrollment data; OCR andCouncil of Chief State School Officersreports of testing data by states).

The analytic method used will dependon the variability between schools,districts, and states in testing practicesand their consequences. The researchquestions that we propose to address inthe study include:

• What is the prevalence of high-stakes testing as a requirementfor grade promotion? How dothese practices vary by state,

districts, and schools? Are theredifferences by race in who is andis not held to test-based promo-tional requirements?

• What are the immediate conse-quences of using high-stakestesting to make promotion deci-sions for students? Are theredifferences by race in who passesor fails these tests?

• What is the prevalence of high-stakes testing as a requirementfor high school graduation? Howdo these practices vary by state,districts, and schools? Are theredifferences by race in who is andis not required to pass an exitexamination before receiving ahigh school diploma?

• What are the immediate conse-quences of using high-stakestesting as a graduation require-ment for students? Are theredifferences by race in who passesor fails these tests?

ReferencesAmerican Federation of Teachers. (2001).

Making standards matters 2001. Washington,DC: Author.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2000).Executive summary of state student assessmentprograms. Washington, DC: Author.

Editorial Projects in Education. (2001, January11). Standards related policies. EducationWeek, 68–87.

Howe, K.R. (1997). Understanding equal educa-tional opportunity. Social justice, democracy,and schooling. New York: Teachers CollegePress.


National Research Council. (1999). High stakes:Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation.Committee on Appropriate Test Use, J.P.Heubert and R.M. Hauser (Eds.). Board onTesting and Assessment, Center for Education.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Weckstein, P. (1999). School reform andenforceable rights to quality education. In J.A.Heubert (Ed.), Law and school reform. Sixstrategies for promoting educational equity (pp.306–389). New Haven: Yale.

THE INTERSECTION OF ENGLISH-LANGUAGE LEARNING, RACE,

AND POVERTY

Catherine HornHarvard University

The school-age population in theUnited States is becoming increasinglydiverse. As examples, in 1999, 20percent of the school-age children hadat least one foreign-born parent, includ-ing 5 percent of elementary and second-ary students who were themselvesforeign born (Jamieson, Curry, andMartinez, 2001). The number of school-age students who are Hispanic rosefrom 13 percent in 1993 to 17 percentnationally in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau,2001). Also in 2000, almost 1 in 10public school students was an English-language learner, and Spanish continuesto be the predominant language back-ground of the students receiving En-glish-language learner services(Kindler, 2002).

Two of the reported variables in the

E&S survey broken out by race/ethnicity are the numbers of studentsneeding and enrolled in programs forEnglish-language learners. Coupledwith data from the National Center forEducational Statistics’ CCD, this infor-mation begins to shed light on the waysin which English proficiency, race, andincome intersect. To that end, thispaper looks closely at the followingbroad research question: In what waysdo concentrations of English-languagelearners interact with poverty and race?

Studying the ways in which thesethree important characteristics inter-twine is paramount to better under-standing the influence of each on itsown. For example, on an aggregatelevel, we know that while 18 percent ofwhite, non-Hispanic students and 7percent of black students have foreign-born parents, 88 and 65 percent ofAsians and Hispanics, respectively, haveat least one parent who was born out-side the United States; 25 and 18 per-cent respectively were themselvesforeign born (Jamieson, Curry, andMartinez, 2001). Of course, while thesenumbers do not exactly reflect the poolof students needing English-languageservices, they are certainly an indicationthat certain racial and ethnic groupsmay have a disproportionate need forthem. Through the use of data includedin the E&S survey and CCD, we can


explore the racial and ethnic and socio-economic conditions of the schools inwhich large proportions of English-language learners are present, incomparison with schools with smallerproportions.

The paper first explores the interrela-tionship of English proficiency, race,and income by presenting descriptivetables, including, but not limited too, thefollowing:

• by deciles, concentrations ofEnglish-language learners byconcentrations of poverty;

• by deciles, concentrations ofEnglish-language learners byconcentrations of nonwhiteschool demographics;

• concentrations of English-lan-guage learners by location (e.g.,rural, suburban, urban); and

• districts with the highest percent-age of their total student popula-tion needing or receiving English-language learner services.

The work then turns its focus towardthose schools in which concentrationsof English-language learners are thehighest. Using a modified exposureindex, the paper presents a series offindings displaying schools’ racialdistributions for the average student in aschool with a high concentration ofthose students. So, for example, these

data show the percentage of whitestudents in schools with high concentra-tions of English-language learnersattended by the typical black or His-panic student. These findings arecompared with similar exposure indices,by race, for schools in general. To theextent possible, this paper also exploresthe racial distributions for the averagestudent in a school with high concentra-tions of poverty.

The paper concludes with a discus-sion of the policy implications of thefindings. From a civil rights perspec-tive, such information should be useful,for example, in considering the con-founding impacts of legal decisions toend court-mandated desegregation.The paper also includes a brief discus-sion about the viability and limitations ofthe E&S survey data for continuedresearch around the issues of English-language learners, race, and povertyand suggestions for better data collec-tion to understand these issues.

ReferencesJamieson, A., Curry, A., and Martinez, G. (2001).

School enrollment in the United States—Socialand economic characteristics of students,October, 1999. Current Population Reports.Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Available: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school.html.

Kindler, A. (May, 2002). Survey of the states’limited English proficient students and availableeducational programs and services 1999–2000summary report. Washington, DC: GeorgeWashington University, The National Clearing-house for English-Language Acquisition and


Language Instruction Educational Programs.Available: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/seareports/99-00/sea9900.pdf.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). Table A-1: Schoolenrollment of the population 3 to 34 years old, bylevel and control of school, race, and Hispanicorigin: October 1955 to 2000. Washington,DC: Author. Available: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/school.html.

LINKING THE OFFICE FORCIVIL RIGHTS’ ELEMENTARYAND SECONDARY SCHOOLSURVEY WITH NATIONALLY

REPRESENTATIVEEDUCATIONAL DATASETS:

POSSIBILITIES AND PROBLEMS

Douglas D. Ready and Valerie E. LeeUniversity of Michigan

We began investigating the E&Ssurvey data with two objectives in mind.First, we sought to determine thefeasibility of linking the E&S to datafrom the Early Childhood LongitudinalStudy (ECLS-K), also collected by theU.S. Department of Education.1 Sec-ond, if we could indeed link thedatasets, we intended to perform analy-ses possible only through the combinedE&S survey and ECLS-K datasets. Ourhope was that E&S survey data wouldprovide school-level measures that were

useful to such analyses and unavailableon ECLS-K. Conversely, because theE&S survey includes no student-leveloutcomes, we hoped to augment thosedata with student-level social and aca-demic measures available on ECLS-K

After considerable effort, we weresuccessful in attaining our first goal; it isindeed possible to create a combinedE&S survey and ECLS-K datafile. Thestandard NCES 12-digit school identifi-cation codes, which are included onboth E&S survey and ECLS-K data(restricted file only), make this linkagepossible.2 Using these codes to matchE&S survey to ECLS-K schools, weultimately linked 687 public schools.3

Our next task was to identify impor-tant questions that could be answered

2We accomplished this by saving the E&Ssurvey data as a comma-separated file, openingthe file in SPSS, and then merging the file withthe ECLS-K data using the NCES school IDcommon to both files.

3We used the 2000 E&S survey data. ECLS-Kkindergarten data were collected during the1998–1999 school year with first grade datacollected the following school year. The schoolsample includes only public schools (as E&Scontains only public schools) that have bothkindergarten and first grade and that enroll atleast five ECLS-K students. Twenty ECLS-Kschools that matched these criteria were notlocated in the E&S survey dataset. The studentsample includes children with fall-K, spring-K,and spring-first test scores; full data on race,socioeconomic status, and gender; and were inthe same school for kindergarten and firstgrade. The resulting average within-schoolECLS-K sample size is 15.03.

1Both of the authors of this paper are engagedin a multiyear study using ECLS-K data that isfunded by the U.S. Department of Education.


only through analyses using this newlycreated dataset. Such analyses are bynature multilevel, requiring the use ofhierarchical linear modeling. Our goalwas to investigate how school-levelcharacteristics (provided by the E&Ssurvey) influence student outcomes(provided by ECLS-K), and whetherthose characteristics influence therelationship between student character-istics and student outcomes. Forexample, previous research suggeststhat the proportion of schools’ minorityenrollment is related to student achieve-ment, even after accounting for theaverage social class and prior achieve-ment of the students they enroll.Although research on racial segregationis personally and professionally impor-tant to us, we realized that ECLS-Kalready contains information about eachschool’s racial composition. The E&Ssurvey also contains important informa-tion about teacher certification, butagain, this information is included inECLS-K. Because ECLS-K studieschildren, classrooms, and schools in theearly elementary grades (at present,kindergarten and first grade), the E&Ssurvey high school measures were notsalient. The E&S survey also containsseveral measures pertaining to studentsuspension, expulsion, and corporalpunishment, which are again not par-ticularly relevant in schools attended bykindergartners and first graders.

We settled on a series of researchquestions involving access to limited-English-proficiency (LEP) programs inpublic elementary schools that offerkindergarten. We were interested inwhether first grade LEP studentssuffered academically by attendingschools in which access to LEP serviceswas limited or restricted. The E&Ssurvey contains a measure indicatingthe number of students in each schoolneeding LEP services and anotherindicating the number that actuallyreceive LEP services. Our next stepwould have been to create a measure foreach school indicating the extent towhich LEP students were being deniedaccess to LEP services—the proportioneligible for but not receiving LEPservices. However, initial analysesrevealed the correlation between thetwo measures was: 96. This is welcomenews for LEP students and for research-ers interested in equity; students whoneed LEP services in U.S. publicschools generally receive them, at leastaccording to the school staff who filledout the survey. For us, however, thefact that these two measures are essen-tially identical precluded their use in ourinvestigation because of the virtual lackof variability between measures.

Because of the lack of informativeschool-level measures and the dearth ofvariables unique to the E&S survey, wedecided we could not conduct empirical


analyses using the combined E&S/ECLS-K datafile. We therefore alteredboth our approach and our questionssubstantially. Instead of restricting ourfocus to one or two empirical questions,we broadened our efforts to investigatethe general utility of the E&S surveydata.

In the first section of the full report,we document the extent to which theE&S survey includes data in commonwith three other large, widely useddatasets collected by the U.S. Depart-ment of Education: the CCD, theNational Educational Longitudinal Study(NELS:88), and the ECLS-K. Of course,

the timing of all data collections mustcoincide. For example, students inNELS:88 began high school in 1988 andgraduated (most of them) in 1992. Ourfindings are displayed in a series oftables that indicate which E&S surveymeasures are redundant and availableon other datasets and which data areunique to E&S survey. In a concludingsection of the report we share our viewsregarding the value of the E&S surveyfrom the standpoint we know best: asquantitative researchers interested instudying educational equity using large,nationally representative databases.

88

Appendix B

Overview of Findings from the2000 E&S Survey

This appendix contains 21 figures thatshow basic findings from the 2000 E&Ssurvey. They depict racial, ethnic, andgender differences for many of thevariables in the survey. Because the2000 E&S survey was administered tonearly 100 percent of public schools inthe United States for the first time since1976, the figures are included to providethe reader with a pictorial overview ofthe data.

Most of the figures are based solelyon data from the E&S survey. Figuresdepicting relationships between theaverage socioeconomic status of thestudents of a school1 and that school’scomposition by race, ethnicity, andEnglish proficiency also rely on datafrom the Common Core of Data thatwere linked to the 2000 E&S dataset.

The figures were produced for thecommittee by Douglas E. Ready of theUniversity of Michigan.

1The measure of the average socioeconomicstatus of a school is based on the percentage ofstudents enrolled who are eligible for free orreduced-price lunch.

A P P E N D I X B 89

1% 4%

17%

16%62%

American Indians Asians

Blacks

HispanicsWhites

FIGURE B-1 Race and ethnicity of U.S. public school students, 2000–2001. (Data are projec-tions from the 2000 E&S survey.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Stu

dent

s E

ligib

le fo

r F

ree

or R

educ

ed-p

rice

Lunc

h (p

erce

nt)

<3 3-10 10-30 30-65 >65


FIGURE B-2 School minority enrollment and poverty concentration. (Minority enrollment datafrom the 2000 E&S survey. Data on free/reduced-price lunch eligibility from the CommonCore of Data, 2000–2001. The data do not include special education and alternative schools[school n = 69,029]. Minority enrollment includes American Indians, blacks, and Hispanics.Data on free/reduced-price lunch eligibility are not available for the following states: AZ, CT,IL, TN and WA.)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Stu

dent

s E

ligib

le fo

r F

ree

orR

educ

ed-p

rice

Lunc

h (p

erce

nt)

0 0-5 5-20 >20

Percent of School's Students Who Are English-language Learners

FIGURE B-3 Poverty concentration and English-language learners. (English-language learnerdata from the 2000 E&S survey. Data on free/reduced-price lunch eligibility from CommonCore of Data, 2000–2001. Data on free/reduced-price lunch eligibility are not available forthe following states: AZ, CT, IL, TN and WA.)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

<3 3-10 10-30 30-65 >65


Tea

cher

s W

ho A

re U

ncer

tifie

d (p

erce

nt)

FIGURE B-4 School minority enrollment and uncertified teachers.*9 percent of U.S. teachers do not hold state teaching certificates. (Data from the 2000 E&Ssurvey. The data do not include special education and alternative schools [school n = 81,858].Minority enrollment includes American Indians, blacks, and Hispanics.)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70S

choo

ls E

mpl

oyin

g U

ncer

tifie

d T

each

ers

(per

cent

)

<3 3-10 10-30 30-65 >65


FIGURE B-5 Minority enrollment and schools employing any uncertified teachers.*60 percent of all public schools employ only state-certified teachers. (Data from the 2000 E&Ssurvey. The data do not include special education or alternative schools [school n = 82,341].Minority enrollment includes American Indians, blacks, and Hispanics.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Sch

ools

Em

ploy

ing

Unc

ertif

ied

Tea

cher

s (p

erce

nt)

0 0-5 5-20 >20

Percent of School's Students Who Are English-language Learners

FIGURE B-6 Uncertified teachers and English-language learners. (Data from the E&S survey.The data do not include special education and alternative schools [school n = 80, 424].)


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Percent of School's Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-price Lunch

Sch

ools

Em

ploy

ing

Onl

y S

tate

-cer

tifie

d Te

ache

rs (

perc

ent)

<15 15-30 30-45 45-70 >70

FIGURE B-7 Poverty concentration and access to state-certified teachers. (Teacher certificationdata from the 2000 E&S survey. Data on free/reduced-price lunch eligibility from CommonCore of Data, 2000–2001. The data do not include special education and alternative schools[school n = 64,969]. Data on free/reduced-price lunch eligibility are not available for thefollowing states: AZ, CT, IL, TN, and WA.)

010

203040

506070

8090



Female Male

Pas

sing

Rat

e (p

erce

nt)


FIGURE B-8 Proportion of high school students passing tests that are the sole criterion forgraduation. (Data from the 2000 E&S survey. Schools were instructed to consider a test the“sole criterion” for graduation if “all students were required to take a district-or-state-requiredtest, and must pass the test to graduate from high school.” A total of 2,652 schools requiredthese tests; 585,709 high school students took such tests, 406,502 of whom passed.)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90



Stu

dent

s P

assi

ng (

perc

ent)

Female Male


FIGURE B-9 Proportion of high school students passing tests that are a significant criterion forgraduation. (Data from the 2000 E&S survey. Schools were instructed to consider a test of“significant criterion for graduation” if all students were required to take a district-or-state-required test, and the test is an important criterion in the decision on whether or not the studentgraduates from high school, but other criteria, such as teacher recommendations or thestudent’s grades were used in the graduation decision.” A total of 5,269 high schools requiredthese tests; 1,149,780 high school students took such tests, 853,625 of whom passed.)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Black American Indian


Female Male

Rec

eipt

of C

ertif

icat

e of

A

ttend

ance

or

Com

plet

ion

(per

cent

)


FIGURE B-10 Proportion of U.S. high school graduates receiving certificates of attendance orcompletion. (Data are projections from the 2000 E&S survey. Projections by the Office for CivilRights (OCR) indicate that there were 2,605,843 public high school graduates in 2000, ofwhom 69,081 received certificates of attendance or completion. OCR defines a certificate ofattendance or completion as “an award of less than a regular diploma, or a modified diploma,or fulfillment of an IEP for students with disabilities.”)


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Average Number of AP Courses Offered

Average Number of AP Courses Offered, Controlling for School Size

<3 3-10 10-30 30-65 >65

Sch

ool-a

vera

ge N

umbe

r of

AP

Cou

rses

Offe

red


FIGURE B-11 High school minority enrollment and access to advanced placement (AP) courses.(Data from the 2000 E&S survey. The data do not include special education and alternativehigh schools [school n = 15,920]. Minority enrollment includes American Indians, blacks, andHispanics.)

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sch

ools

Offe

ring

One

or

Mor

e A

P C

ours

e (p

erce

nt)

<15 15-30 30-45 45-70 >70

Percent of School's Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-price Lunch

FIGURE B-12 Poverty concentration and access to advanced placement (AP) courses.(AP data from the 2000 E&S survey. Data on free/reduced-price lunch eligibility from CCD,2000–2001. The data do not include special education or alternative high schools [schooln = 11,299]. “High schools” include all schools enrolling eleventh and twelfth graders. Data onfree/reduced-price lunch eligibility not available for the following states: AZ, CT, IL, TN,and WA.)


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Black Asian Hispanic American Indian White Total

Stu

dent

s E

nrol

led

in a

n A

P M

ath

Cou

rse

(per

cent

)

Students' Race and Ethnicity

FIGURE B-13 Proportion of high school students enrolled in an advanced placement (AP) mathcourse. (Data from the 2000 E&S survey. Data include only students attending high schools inwhich AP math courses are available. Alternative and special education high schools are notincluded in these calculations.)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


Stu

dent

s E

nrol

led

in a

n A

P S

cien

ce C

ours

e (p

erce

nt)


FIGURE B-14 Proportion of high school students enrolled in an advanced placement (AP)science course. (Data from the 2000 E&S survey. Data include only students attending highschools in which AP science courses are available. Alternative and special education highschools are not included in these calculations.)


0

2

4

6

8

10

12


Stu

dent

s P

artic

ipat

ing

inG

/T P

rogr

ams

(per

cent

)


FIGURE B-15 Proportion of students participating in gifted and talented programs. (Data fromthe 2000 E&S survey. Gifted and talented programs are defined by OCR as special programsduring regular school hours for students who possess unusually high academic ability or aspecialized talent or aptitude, such as in literature or the arts.)

7%

52%

0%2%

39%

American IndiansAsians

Blacks

Hispanics

Whites

FIGURE B-16 Racial and ethnic composition of students receiving corporal punishment(n = 342,031). (Projections from the 2000 E&S survey. Corporal punishment includespaddling, spanking, and other forms of physical punishment. Students were counted only once,regardless of the number of times they received corporal punishment.)


2% 2%

18%

48%

30%

American Indians Asians

Blacks

Hispanics

Whites

FIGURE B-17 Racial and ethnic composition of expelled students. (Projections from the 2000E&S survey. Expulsion is defined as the exclusion from school for disciplinary reasons thatresults in the student’s removal from school attendance rolls or that meets the criteria forexpulsion as defined by the appropriate state or local school authority.)

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50



Labe

led

Mild

ly M

enta

lly R

etar

ded

(per

cent

)


Female Male

FIGURE B-18 Proportion of U.S. public school students labeled mildly mentally retarded byrace, ethnicity, and gender. (Data from the 2000 E&S survey. Total student n = 45,837, 331;E&S data indicate 327,397 students were labeled mildly mentally retarded.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Average Number of Male Sports

Average Number of Female Sports

Average Number of Male Teams

Average Number of Female Teams

FIGURE B-19 Gender equity in high school athletics. (Data from the 2000 E&S survey. Thedata do not include special education and alternative high schools [school n = 15,216].)

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Males Participating on All-maleTeams

Females Participating on All-female Teams

Males Participating on Co-ed Teams

Females Participating on Co-ed Teams

Num

ber

of S

tude

nts

Par

ticip

atin

g

FIGURE B-20 Gender and participation in high school athletics. (Data from the 2000 E&Ssurvey. The data do not include special education and alternative high schools [schooln = 14,216].)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60Regular Public Schools Charter Schools

Students Receiving Freeor Reduced-price Lunch

Minority Enrollment Schools Employing Uncertified Teachers

Per

cent

FIGURE B-21 Comparing charter and regular public schools: Student and teachercharacteristics. (Data from the 2000 E&S survey. The data do not include special education andalternative schools. Data on free/reduced-price lunch eligibility from Common Core of Data,2000–2001. Minority enrollment includes American Indians, blacks, and Hispanics. For free/reduced-price lunch comparison, regular school n = 68,424; charter school n = 573. For othercomparisons, regular school n = 81, 297; charter school n = 1,007.)

100

Appendix C

2000 E&S Survey

A P P E N D I X C 101

OMB #1870-0500 Expiration Date: 12/31/2001

2000 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLIANCE REPORTDISTRICT SUMMARY: ED101

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil RightsWashington, D.C. 20202-1172Due Date: February 23, 2001

REPORTING REQUIREMENT

This Compliance Report is required by the U.S. Department of Education under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ImplementingRegulations are issued to carry out the purposes of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, at 34 CFR 100.6(b); Title IXRegulations are at 34 CFR 106.71; and Section 504 Regulations are at 34 CFR 104.61.

Public Burden Statement. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond toa collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control numberfor this information collection is 1870-0500. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated toaverage 7.5 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, research existing data resources, gather thedata needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning theaccuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to U.S. Department ofEducation, Washington, D.C. 20202-1172. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of yourindividual submission of this form, write directly to: Compliance Reports Coordinator, U.S. Department ofEducation, 400 Maryland Avenue S.W., Room 5316, Switzer Building, Washington, D.C. 20202-1172.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

� Please print legibly using a black ball-point pen.

� If you select to report via a mainframe computer cartridge or PC diskette, please see separate documentation.

� Information should be reported as of October 1, 2000, or the nearest convenient date prior to December 15, 2000,unless otherwise noted. Whenever possible, information should be provided consistent with the date of the specialeducation Child Count in your state.

� In order to allow us to distinguish between no students for a given item and non-applicability of that itemfor your district, please enter a response. If the answer to a given item is NONE, enter zero (0) in theappropriate space. If a particular item is not applicable in your case, enter an X in the far right column.

� The certification signature block must be completed for the district by the superintendent or authorizedrepresentative. The certification pertains to all items on the ED-101 and ED-102 forms.

� Please mail original forms to the Office for Civil Rights. Retain photocopied ED-101 and ED-102 forms foryour reference for two years from the date signed. The mailing address is: Compliance Report Project Office,Office for Civil Rights, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20202-1172.

� Please add the telephone number and the FAX telephone number in the appropriate boxes on the form for theindividual in your district who can respond to questions we might have.

Page 1: ED101 - Instruction Sheet


DEFINITIONS

PUBLIC SCHOOL. An institution that provides pre-school, elementary, and/or secondary instruction; has one or moregrade groupings (pre-kindergarten through 12) or is ungraded; has one or more teachers to give instruction; is locatedin one or more buildings, has an assigned administrator(s); receives public funds as its primary support; and is operatedby an education agency. Public schools include charter schools that receive public funding from local or state sources.

PUBLIC SCHOOL MEMBERSHIP. An unduplicated count of students in membership in a district which is taken,wherever possible, on the date consistent with the special education Child Count in your state (but no earlier thanOctober 1, 2000, and no later than December 15, 2000). The count includes students enrolled in non-district facilitiesand in pre-kindergarten/pre-school programs.

NON-DISTRICT SCHOOL OR FACILITY. A public or private school or facility that provides instruction or services thatare not provided by the local education agency. This includes regional service agencies that provide administrative orspecial services to local education agency students. A private school may serve children with disabilities who are placedby a public agency in the private school, and who receive special education and related services in the private school atpublic expense.

CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES-IDEA. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), children withmental retardation, hearing impairments including deafness, speech or language impairments, visual impairmentsincluding blindness, emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other healthimpairments, specific learning disabilities, deaf-blindness, multiple disabilities, or developmental delay, and who, byreason thereof, need special education and related services.

CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES-504. An elementary or secondary student with a disability who is being provided withrelated aids and services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and is not being providedwith services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

PREGNANT STUDENT: A childbearing woman who is of school age and either is or was enrolled in school at sometime during the previous school year.

SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

Item 1. Number Of Public Schools. This number should be equal to the number of Individual School Report ED-102form(s) submitted with the District Summary ED-101 for this district.

Item 2. Public School Membership. An unduplicated count of students in membership in the district as of October 1,2000, or the nearest convenient date prior to December 15, 2000. Whenever possible, report public school membershipon the date which is as consistent as possible with your state's special education Child Count.

Item 4. Number Of Children With Disabilities-IDEA. Count only the students in this district who are eligible under theIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act. This number may not necessarily be the same as the aggregate of studentsreported on the ED-102 form(s) under Item 10, (Tables 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3), Children with Disabilities, and Item 11,Additional Categories of Children with Disabilities. Include also students in non-district facilities and pre-kindergarten/pre-school children. Intermediate units are considered non-district facilities. Note: Students in non-districtfacilities and pre-kindergarten are counted on this form but not on the ED-102 form.

Item 8. Testing. Please mark the appropriate bubble regarding district- or state-required tests that students in yourdistrict were required to pass in the previous 1999-2000 school year.

SPECIAL NOTE

In Item 5 of the ED-102 form, information is collected regarding charter schools. The instruction for charter schools inItem 5 of the ED-102 form says:

A charter school is a school providing free public elementary or secondary education to eligible students under aspecific charter granted by the state legislature or other appropriate authority and designated by such authority tobe a charter school.

Only provide data for charter schools for which you have received a pre-printed form. Darken the YES bubbleif the school is a charter school; otherwise, darken the NO bubble.



OMB No. 1870-0500Expiration Date: 12/31/2001

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS2000 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLCIVIL RIGHTS COMPLIANCE REPORTDISTRICT SUMMARY: ED101Due Date: February 23, 2001

7. How many children have been identified as having a disability and are receiving related aids and services solelyunder Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973? Do not count children who have been identified as having adisability who are receiving services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.............................

1. Report the total number of public schools in this district:

Of this number, how many are in each of the following (a-c):a. How many children are receiving special education and related services in this district's schools or facilities?

Of this number, how many are in each of the following [(1) - (6)]:

PLEASE CORRECT OR SUPPLEMENT THE INFORMATION ON THE LABEL IF IT IS INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE:

ORIGINAL - Return to Office for Civil Rights (LEGAL COPY)

District Name:

District Address:

City/Post Office:

2. Report public school membership of this district (include students served in out-of-district facilities):

3. How many children are awaiting initial evaluation for special education programs and related services?

County: State: Zip:

(1) Public residential placement?.....................

(3) Private separate school?............................

6. Report the number of students who were identified as pregnant, for part or all of the school year, in SchoolYear 1999-2000.

Street or P.O. Box

4. Report the number of children with disabilities-IDEA. Count only students eligible under the Individuals WithDisabilities Education Act. Do not count students with disabilities who are solely being served under Section 504of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

b. How many children are receiving special education and related services in a non-district school or facility?

(2) Private residential placement?....................

8. Were students in your district required in the previous school year (1999-2000), to pass a district-required orstate-required test:

a. to be promoted from any one grade to the next successive grade?b. to graduate from high school?

CERTIFICATION: I certify that the information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. (A willfully false statement is punishable by law [U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001]).

(5) Regional service agency or intermediateunit?..........................................................

(4) Public elementary or secondary schoollocated in another district?..........................

c. How many children have been evaluated as requiring special education and related services, but are not receivingthese services?.....................................................................................................................................................

5. Among the children reported under 4a. and 4b. above, how many are pre-kindergarten/pre-school children?.............

a. Of this number, how many are not in school this year? (Do not count students who graduated.)..................................

Yes, required by the district No

Yes, required by the district No

Yes, required by the state

Yes, required by the state

(6) Homebound/hospital?.................................

Signature of Superintendent or Authorized Representative

Title

Date / /

Telephone ( ) -Fax ( ) -

17215


OMB#1870-0500Expiration Date: 12/31/2001

2000 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLCIVIL RIGHTS COMPLIANCE REPORTINDIVIDUAL SCHOOL REPORT: ED102

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil RightsWashington, D.C. 20202-1172Due Date: February 23, 2001

REPORTING REQUIREMENT

This Compliance Report is required by the U.S. Department of Education under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX ofthe Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Implementing regulations are issued tocarry out the purposes of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, at 34 CFR 100.6(b); Title IX regulations at 34 CFR 106.71; andthe Section 504 regulations are at 34 CFR 104.61.

Public Burden Statement. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to acollection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for thisinformation collection is 1870-0500. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 9 hours perresponse, including the time to review instructions, research existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete andreview the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) orsuggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 20202-1172. If youhave comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to:Compliance Reports Coordinator, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Room 5316, Switzer Building,Washington, D.C. 20202-1172.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

� This form should be completed for each public school in the district.

� Please print legibly using a black ball-point pen.

� If you select to report via a mainframe computer cartridge or PC diskette, please see separate documentation.

� Information should be reported as of October 1, 2000, or the nearest convenient date prior to December 15, 2000,unless otherwise noted. Whenever possible, information should be provided consistent with the date of the specialeducation Child Count in your state.

� In order to allow us to distinguish between no students for a given item and non-applicability of that item foryour school, please enter a response to all items. If the answer to a given item is NONE, enter zero (0) in theappropriate space. If a particular item is not applicable in your case, enter an X in the "total" column if the item has atotal; otherwise, enter an X in the far right column for that item.

� Please mail original forms to the Office for Civil Rights. Retain photocopied ED-101 and ED-102 forms for yourreference for two (2) years from the date signed. The mailing address is: Compliance Report Project Office, Office forCivil Rights, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20202-1172.

� The "Optional TOTAL" in Column 6 of Tables 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3, and Column 4 and Row J of Table 11 are notrequired by OCR. They are intended for your use in making calculations if you choose to do so.

� Please add the telephone number and the FAX telephone number in the appropriate boxes on the form for theindividual in your school who can respond to questions regarding this form.

� The certification signature block located on page 5 must be completed for all schools. It is essential that all ten (10)pages be returned, even if no items are completed on pages 6, 7, 8, or 9. The certification pertains to all items onthe ED-102 form.

� All schools must complete Item 17 (Teachers) on page 10 of the form.



DEFINITIONS

PUBLIC SCHOOL. An institution that provides pre-school, elementary and/or secondary instruction; has one or more gradegroupings (pre-kindergarten through 12) or is ungraded; has one or more teachers to give instruction; is located in one or morebuildings; has an assigned administrator(s); receives public funds as its primary support; and is operated by an education agency. Public schools include charter schools that receive public funding from local or state sources.

PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT. An unduplicated count of students enrolled in the district as of October 1, 2000, or thenearest convenient date prior to December 15, 2000. Whenever possible, report public school enrollment on the date which is asconsistent as possible with the special education Child Count date in your state. CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES-IDEA. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), children with mentalretardation, hearing impairments including deafness, speech or language impairments, visual impairments including blindness,emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learningdisabilities, deaf-blindness, multiple disabilities, or developmental delay; and who, by reason thereof, need special education andrelated services.

CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES-504. An elementary or secondary student with a disability who is being provided with relatedaids and services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and is not being provided with servicesunder the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

� Children receiving special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), defined underChildren with Disabilities-IDEA above, are reported in the column “Served under IDEA” in Table 9, or “Students withDisabilities/IDEA” in Tables 12A and 12B, or “Students with Disabilities-IDEA”’ in Tables 7, 14, and 15. Childrenreceiving services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, are reported in the column “Servedunder Section 504 Only" in Table 9 and in the column “Section 504 Only" in Tables 12A and 12B.

ABILITY GROUPING. Pedagogical practice of separating students into different classrooms within a grade based on theirestimated achievement or ability levels, and who are ability grouped for classroom instruction in mathematics, or English-Reading-Language Arts.

NOTE ONE: In this application, ability grouping does NOT include grouping by achievement level on the basis ofrequired prerequisites for certain courses, i.e., Algebra I as a prerequisite for Algebra II.

NOTE TWO: Ability grouping includes students pulled out of their regular mathematics, or English-Reading-LanguageArts classes for Title I purposes in these subject areas.

RACE/ETHNICITY CATEGORIES

� American Indian or Alaskan Native: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and whomaintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.

� Asian or Pacific Islander: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, thePacific Islands, or the Indian subcontinent. This includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the PhilippineIslands, and Samoa.

� Hispanic: A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or originregardless of race.

� Black (Not of Hispanic Origin): A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.

� White (Not of Hispanic Origin): A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or theMiddle East.

NOTE: In October 1997, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced its decision concerning the revisionof the standards for Federal data on race and ethnicity. In that announcement, OMB reported that there would be fiveracial categories -- American Indian or Alaska Native, Black or African American, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other PacificIslander, and White -- and one ethnic category -- Hispanic or Latino. Additionally, OMB announced that individualswould be allowed to select one or more categories. Under the new reporting requirements, a single, multi-racial categorycan not be used. OCR is currently working with OMB and other program offices in the U.S. Department of Education todevelop reporting categories for aggregating multiple race responses. OCR expects to use these categories in thecoming years in future versions of this Compliance Report. The Office for Civil Rights will provide ample notice to publicelementary and secondary schools before these revisions go into effect.



LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT (LEP) STUDENT. (1) Individuals who were not born in the United States or whose nativelanguage is a language other than English; (2) individuals who come from environments where a language other than English isdominant; and (3) individuals who are American Indians and Alaskan Natives and who come from environmentswhere a language other than English has had a significant impact on their level of English language proficiency; and who, byreason thereof, have sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language, to deny suchindividuals the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is English or to participate fully inour society.

� The LEP column in Tables 7, 8, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 12A, 12B, 13, 14, and 15 means the number of students needing LEPprograms.

NOTE: The three definitions which follow (which are used in Tables 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 11) are consistent withdefinitions used by the Office of Special Education Programs Placement form.

CHILDREN WHO RECEIVED SPECIAL EDUCATION OUTSIDE THE REGULAR CLASS LESS THAN 21 PERCENT OF THESCHOOL DAY. The number of children with disabilities receiving special education and related services outside the regularclassroom for less than 21 percent of the school day. This may include children with disabilities placed in: regular class withspecial education/related services provided within regular classes; regular class with special education/related services providedoutside regular classes; or regular class with special education services provided in resource rooms.

CHILDREN WHO RECEIVED SPECIAL EDUCATION OUTSIDE THE REGULAR CLASS AT LEAST 21 PERCENT BUT NOMORE THAN 60 PERCENT OF THE SCHOOL DAY. The number of children with disabilities receiving special education andrelated services outside the regular classroom for at least 21 percent but no more than 60 percent of the school day. This mayinclude: resource rooms with special education/related services provided within the resource room; or resource rooms with part-time instruction in a regular class.

CHILDREN WHO RECEIVED SPECIAL EDUCATION OUTSIDE REGULAR CLASS FOR MORE THAN 60 PERCENT OF THESCHOOL DAY. The number of children with disabilities receiving special education and related services outside the regularclassroom for more than 60 percent of the school day. Do not include children who receive education programs in separate dayor residential facilities. This category may include children placed in: self-contained classrooms with part-time instruction in aregular class or self-contained special classrooms with full-time special education instruction on a regular school campus.

SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

Item 1. Grades Offered. Darken the appropriate YES or NO bubble for each grade offered in this school. Also darken thebubble which represents the level that you consider your school to be. If you consider your school to be other than anelementary, middle/junior, or high school (for example, a school which offers instruction at more than one of these levels), pleasedarken the OTHER bubble. If your school is totally ungraded, darken the totally ungraded bubble.

Item 2. Special Education. Darken the YES bubble if this school offers only special education classes, otherwise darken theNO bubble.

Item 3. Ability Grouping. Darken the YES bubble if you have any students in this school who are ability grouped for classroominstruction in mathematics or English-Reading-Language Arts; otherwise, darken the NO bubble.

NOTE ONE: In this application, ability grouping does NOT include grouping by achievement level on the basis of requiredprerequisites for certain courses, i.e., Algebra I as a prerequisite for Algebra II.

NOTE TWO: Ability grouping includes students pulled out of their regular mathematics, or English-Reading-Language Artsclasses for Title I purposes in these subject areas.

Item 4. Magnet School or Program. A magnet school or program is a special school or program designed to attract studentsof different racial/ethnic backgrounds for the purpose of reducing, preventing or eliminating racial isolation. Racial isolation meansa school with 50 percent or more minority enrollment. Darken the appropriate bubble, if this school is a magnet school or has amagnet program, regardless of the source of funding, i.e., Federal, state, or local government.

Item 5. Charter School. A charter school is a school providing free public elementary or secondary education to eligiblestudents under a specific charter granted by the state legislature or other appropriate authority and designated by such authorityto be a charter school. Only provide data for charter schools for which you have received a pre-printed form. Darken theYES bubble if the school is a charter school; otherwise, darken the NO bubble.



Item 6. Alternative School. An alternative school is a public elementary or secondary school that addresses the needs ofstudents which typically cannot be met in a regular school and provides nontraditional education which falls outside of thecategories of regular education, special education, vocational education, gifted and talented or magnet school programs. Thisdefinition includes schools which are adjunct to a regular school, e.g., are located on the same campus as a regular school buthave a separate principal or administrator. Darken the YES bubble if this school is an alternative school; otherwise, darken theNO bubble. Also darken as many bubbles as are appropriate if the school is designed to meet the needs of pregnant students,students with academic difficulties, and/or students with discipline problems.

Item 7. Pupil Statistics. (Do not include pre-kindergarten/pre-school children).

NOTE: The column “Students with Disabilities: IDEA“ in this table means children with disabilities receiving special educationservices under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The column “LEP“ in this table means the number ofstudents needing LEP programs.

A. Enrollment. Enter in Table 7, Row A the unduplicated count of students on the rolls of the school taken, whenever possible,as of the date which is consistent with the date of the special education Child Count in your state (but no earlier than October1, 2000, and no later than December 15, 2000). The total number of male and female students in the Students withDisabilities:IDEA column (column 7) should be equal to the sum of the totals reported in Tables 10.1, 10.2, 10.3,and 11.

B. In Gifted Or Talented (G/T) Programs. Enter in Table 7, Row B the number of students enrolled in special programs duringregular school hours for students who possess unusually high academic ability or a specialized talent or aptitude such as inliterature or the arts. Count students once regardless of the number of classes in which they are enrolled.

C. Needing LEP Programs. Enter in Table 7, Row C the number of students who have a home language other than Englishand who are so limited in their English proficiency that they cannot participate meaningfully in the school's regular instructionalprogram.

D. Enrolled In LEP Programs. Enter in Table 7, Row D the number of students reported in Table 7, Row C as needing LEPprograms who are enrolled in a program of language assistance (e.g., English-as-a-Second-Language or bilingualeducation). Do not count students enrolled in a class to learn a language other than English.

Item 8. Discipline of Students without Disabilities.

NOTE: Discipline of Students with Disabilities is reported in Table 9, using definitions of long-term suspension whichcorrespond to those used in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Data for students without disabilitiesshould use the following definitions.

A. Corporal Punishment. Enter in Table 8, Row A the number of students who received corporal punishment during theprevious (1999-2000) school year. Corporal punishment is paddling, spanking, or other forms of physical punishmentimposed on a student. If your state or school district has a policy banning corporal punishment, please enter X in the far rightbox to indicate that this item does not apply. Count each student only once regardless of the number of times he or she waspunished.

B. Out-of-School Suspensions. Enter in Table 8, Row B the number of students suspended from school for at least one (1)day during the previous (1999-2000) school year. Out-of-School Suspension is defined as excluding a student from schoolfor disciplinary reasons for one school day or longer. Count students only once regardless of the number of timessuspended. Do not count students suspended from the classroom who served the suspension in the school.

C. Total Expulsions. Enter in Table 8 Row C, the number of students expelled from school during the previous (1999-2000) school year. An expulsion is defined as the exclusion from school for disciplinary reasons that results in the student'sremoval from school attendance rolls or that meets the criteria for expulsion as defined by the appropriate state or local schoolauthority. This includes expulsions where the student, although expelled from a particular school, continues to receiveeducational services from the district. Do not include suspensions.

D. Expulsions--Total Cessation of Educational Services. Of the total number of students expelled from school during theprevious (1999-2000) school year (Table 8 Row C), enter the number who had a total cessation of educational services--thatis, the student, after expulsion from a school, was not offered other educational services by either the school or the district.

Page 4 - ED102 Instruction Sheet


E. Expulsions--Zero Tolerance Policies. Of the total number of students expelled during the previous (1999-2000) schoolyear (Table 8 Row C), enter the number of students who were expelled because of zero tolerance policies. A zerotolerance expulsion policy is a policy that results in mandatory expulsion of any student who commits one or more specifiedoffenses (for example, some zero tolerance policies specify offenses involving guns, or other weapons, or violence, or similarfactors, or combinations of these factors).

NOTE: A zero tolerance expulsion policy should still be included in your response to this question, even if the resulting "mandatory" expulsion may be subject to some narrow or limited exceptions. For example, the Federal Gun -Free Schools Act permits "State law to allow the chief administering officer of . . . a local education agency to modify such expulsion requirement for a student on a case-by-case basis", and State or district zero tolerance expulsion policies may similarly give discretion for limited exceptions to the strict application of the expulsion requirement. Such policies would still be "zero tolerance policies" which should be included in your responses to this question. The count requested should only include students actually expelled as a result of such policies.

Item 9. Discipline of Students with Disabilities. Schools must report data on the numbers of students receiving corporalpunishment during the 1999-2000 school year in Row A (see Item 8 for definition of corporal punishment). Schools also mustreport data on the number of students with disabilities who received long-term suspensions/expulsions during the 1999-2000school year (suspensions of more than 10 days) in Row B (students who continued to receive services) and Row C (students forwhom there was a cessation of services). The column entitled "Served under Section 504 Only" refers to those studentsreceiving services solely under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. In each row, report students onlyonce regardless of the number of times he or she was disciplined. See general instructions for the appropriate response if a cellhas no students or is not applicable to this school. Individual students may be reported in more than one row.

Item 10. Children with Disabilities. (Do not count pre-kindergarten/pre-school children.) Enter the number of students withdisabilities by race/ethnicity, educational placement, sex, and LEP. Report all students receiving special education services at thisschool, whether or not they reside in this school district. Count each student only once. If a student has more than one disability,count by the primary disability. Please read the instructions fully before completing this item.

Enter in Table 10.1:

MENTAL RETARDATION. This refers to significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning existing concurrently withdeficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period, which adversely affect a child's educationalperformance.

A. Mild Retardation. Students require intermittent support to perform functional academic skills, activities of daily living (self-care, home living, use of their community, recreation and leisure activities, work) or communicating and interacting withothers. This support may be episodic, time-limited (may be intense but for a relatively short period of time), or of low intensityover a long period of time.

B. Moderate Retardation. Students require limited but continuing support to perform functional academic skills, activities of daily living (self-care, home living, use of their community, recreation and leisure activities, work) or communicating and interacting with others. This support may be consistent over time. It may be either time-limited (but may be intense for asubstantial period of time), or of low intensity over a life span.

C. Severe Retardation. Students require extensive or pervasive support to perform functional academic skills, activities of dailyliving (self-care, home living, use of their community, recreation and leisure activities, work) or communicating and interactingwith others. Support may be of high intensity, over long periods of time, or potentially life sustaining.

NOTE: Complete Rows A, B, and C if your school collects this information. Rows A, B, and C are optional if your schooldoes not already collect this information. If a particular cell is not applicable, enter an X in the right-most box of the cell.

D. Total is the total of Table 10.1 Rows A, B, and C. You must complete Row D, regardless of whether or not you havereported data in Rows A, B, and C. If a particular cell is not applicable in your case, enter an X in the right-most box of thecell.

NOTE: The computational total in column 6 of this table is optional. You may complete it if it will assist you in yourcomputations. It is not required by OCR.



Enter in Table 10.2:

NOTE: The definitions of disability categories which follow are the same as the definitions used by the Office of SpecialEducation Programs, as specified in the regulations for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

A. Emotional Disturbance. [previously entitled Serious Emotional Disturbance] This refers to a condition exhibiting one or moreof the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree, which adversely affects a child’seducational performance: (1) an inability to learn, which cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors; (2) aninability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers; (3) inappropriate behavior orfeelings under normal circumstances; (4) a general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression; or (5) a tendency todevelop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems. The term includes schizophrenia. Theterm does not apply to children who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that they have an emotional disturbance.

B. Specific Learning Disability. This refers to a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved inunderstanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak,read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities,brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does not include learning problemsthat are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or ofenvironmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.

NOTE: The computational total in column 6 is optional. You may complete it if it will assist you in your computations. It is notrequired by OCR.

Enter in Table 10.3: Developmental Delay.

Developmental Delay as defined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is defined as a child who is experiencingdevelopmental delays, as defined by your state, and as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures in one ormore of the following cognitive areas: physical development, cognitive development, communication development, social oremotional development, or adaptive development. Please refer to the instructions on the table for this item before you complete it,in order to ensure that your state and your district meet all necessary requirements. .

NOTE: The computational total in column 6 is optional. You may complete it if it will assist you in your computations. It is notrequired by OCR.

NOTE: The column LEP in these tables means the number of students needing LEP programs.

Item 11. Additional Categories of Children with Disabilities. (Do not include pre-kindergarten/pre-school children). Enter the number of students by educational placement and by disability. Report all students receiving specialeducation services at this school, whether or not they reside in this school district. Count each student only once. If a student hasmore than one disability, count by the primary disability.

NOTE: The computational total in column 4 is optional. You may complete it if it will assist you in your computations. It is not required by OCR.

A. Hearing Impairments. This refers to an impairment in hearing, whether permanent or fluctuating, that adversely affects achild's educational performance. It also includes a hearing impairment that is so severe that the child is impaired inprocessing linguistic information through hearing, with or without amplification, that adversely affects a child’s educationalperformance.

B. Speech or Language Impairments. This refers to a communication disorder, such as stuttering, impaired articulation, alanguage impairment, or a voice impairment, that adversely affects a child's educational performance.

C. Visual Impairments. This refers to a visual impairment which, even with correction, adversely impacts a child's educationalperformance. The term includes both partial sight and blindness.

D. Orthopedic Impairments. This refers to a severe orthopedic impairment that adversely affects a child's educationalperformance. The term includes impairments caused by congenital anomaly (e.g., clubfoot, absence of some member, etc.),impairments caused by disease (e.g,. poliomyelitis, bone tuberculosis, etc.) and impairments from other causes (e.g., cerebralpalsy, amputations, and fractures or burns that cause contractures).



E. Autism. This refers to a development disability significantly affecting verbal and non-verbal communication and socialinteraction, generally evident before age 3, that adversely affects educational performance. Other characteristics oftenassociated with autism are engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements, resistance to environmentalchange or change in daily routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences. Autism doesn’t apply if a child'seducational performance is adversely affected primarily because the child has an emotional disturbance.

F. Traumatic Brain Injury. This refers to an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external physical force, resulting in total or partial functional disability or psychosocial impairment or both, that adversely affects a child's educational performance. The term applies to open or closed head injuries resulting in impairments in one or more areas, such as cognition; language; memory; attention; reasoning; abstract thinking; judgement; problem-solving; sensory, perceptual, and motor abilities; psychosocial behavior; physical functions; information processing; and speech. The term does not apply to brain injuries that are congenital or degenerative, or brain injuries induced by birth trauma.

G. Deaf-Blindness. This refers to concomitant hearing and visual impairments, the combination of which causes such severecommunication and other developmental and educational problems that they cannot be accommodated in special educationprograms solely for children with blindness or children with deafness.

H. Multiple Disabilities. This refers to concomitant impairments (such as mental retardation-blindness, mental retardation-orthopedic impairments, etc.), the combination of which causes such severe educational problems that the problems cannotbe accommodated in special education programs solely for one of the impairments. The term does not include deaf-blindness.

I. Other Health Impairments. This refers to having limited strength, vitality, or alertness, due to chronic or acute health problemssuch as a heart condition, tuberculosis, rheumatic fever, nephritis, asthma, sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, epilepsy, leadpoisoning, leukemia or diabetes, which adversely affects a child's educational performance.

J. Total. This is an optional computational row. You may complete it if it will help you in your computation. It is not required byOCR.

Note on maintaining data by sex on students with disabilities: The sum of the totals reported in Tables 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and11 equals the number of Students With Disabilities receiving special education services under IDEA reported in Column 7 onTable 7, Row A. A student should be counted only once, based on the child's primary disability, and in only one of the four tables. Although you are not required to report data by sex on Table 11, you are required to maintain data on the sex of all students withdisabilities for the purposes of responding to Table 7 Row A. Please note that districts are only required to provide data on thesex of specific subcategories of students with disabilities in Tables 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3.

SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR TABLES 12A AND 12B: TESTING

TABLE 12A IS TO BE COMPLETED BY ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS (GRADES K-8)

Table 12A. Testing (for Grade-to-grade promotion). Please complete this table if your school administered, in the1999-2000 school year, a district- or state-required test that students are either required to pass or that is used as asignificant factor in making promotion decisions for all students taking the test. If your school conducted tests forgrade-to-grade promotion for more than one grade, please photocopy the table as many times as are necessaryBEFORE filling it out in order to report on each test. Report data using both the original table on this page and asmany photocopied tables as are appropriate.

If students were not required to pass a district- or state-required test to be promoted from one grade to the next, please darkenthe bubble entitled "No such tests were administered".

If students were required to pass such a test, please darken the appropriate bubble indicating whether this test was a "solecriterion" or a "significant criterion", and complete the table. If all students were required to take a district- or state-required test,and must pass the test to be promoted from one grade to the next, please darken the bubble entitled “Sole criterion". However, ifall students were required to take the test, and the test is an important criterion in the decision on whether or not to promote thestudent from grade to grade, but other criteria, such as teacher recommendations or student grades were used in the promotiondecision, please darken the bubble entitled “Significant criterion”.

Please provide the following data for the testing of students in these grades during the 1999-2000 school year, by race/ethnicity,limited English proficiency (in the column entitled LEP), and whether the student is receiving services under the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (in the column entitled Students with Disabilities-IDEA) or under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Actof 1973 (in the column entitled Section 504 Only), and sex.



Do not count students who were not tested because they passed the test on a previous occasion.

Include in Rows A or B those students who took the test and were provided with accommodations, modifications, or adaptations,such as a different setting, extended time, Braille, or use of dictionaries by LEP students.

All students who were excluded from taking a test for grade-to-grade promotion and who did not take an alternate assessmentshould be reported in Row C.

Students who were tested using alternate assessments should be reported in Row D. An alternate assessment is anassessment provided to children with disabilities who cannot participate in a state- or district-wide assessment program, even withappropriate accommodations.

If students are required to pass more than one test in order to be promoted from one grade to the next, include that student in therow entitled Tested and Passed if that student passed all tests that he or she was required to pass; if the student failed one ormore tests, report that student in the row entitled Tested and Failed.

TABLE 12B IS TO BE COMPLETED BY HIGH SCHOOLS (GRADES 9-12)

Table 12B. Testing (for Graduation from high school). Please complete this table if your school administered, in the1999-2000 school year, a district- or state-required test that students are either required to pass or that is used as asignificant factor in making graduation decisions for all students taking the test.

If students were not required to pass a district- or state-required test to graduate from high school, please darken the bubbleentitled "No such tests were administered". If students were required to pass such a test, please darken the appropriate bubbleindicating whether this test was the "sole criterion" or a "significant criterion", and complete the table.If all students were required to take a district- or state-required test, and must pass the test to graduate from high school, pleasedarken the bubble entitled “Sole criterion". However, if all students were required to take the test, and the test is an importantcriterion in the decision on whether or not the student graduates from high school, but such other criteria as teacherrecommendations or student grades were used in the graduation decision, please darken the bubble entitled “Significantcriterion".

Please provide the following data for the testing of students during the 1999-2000 school year, by race/ethnicity, limited Englishproficiency (in the column entitled LEP), and whether the student is receiving services under the Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act (in the column entitled Students with Disabilities-IDEA) or under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (inthe column entitled Section 504 Only), and sex.

Do not count students who were not tested because they passed the test on a previous occasion.

In Rows A or B, include those students who took the test and were provided with accommodations, modifications, or adaptations,such as a different setting, extended time, Braille, or use of dictionaries by LEP students.

All students who were excluded from taking a test for graduation from high school and who did not take an alternate assessmentshould be reported in Row C.

Students who were tested using alternate assessments should be reported in Row D. An alternate assessment is an assessmentprovided to children with disabilities who cannot participate in a state- or district-wide assessment program, even with appropriateaccommodations.

If students are required to pass more than one test in order to graduate from high school, include that student in the row entitledTested and Passed if that student passed all tests that he or she was required to pass; if the student failed one or more tests,report that student in the row entitled Tested and Failed.

ITEM 13 IS TO BE COMPLETED FOR THE HIGHEST AND LOWEST ELEMENTARY GRADES(BETWEEN GRADES 1 AND 6) ONLY

Item 13. Student Assignment. Complete this table only if the total percentage of minority students (American Indian or AlaskanNative, Asian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Black [Not of Hispanic Origin]) in this school is more than 20 percent but less than80 percent. (Do not include pre-kindergarten/pre-school or kindergarten). Report only the entry (lowest) or exit (highest)elementary grades, which are typically grades one and five or six. Enter in Table 13 the grade level and darken the bubbleunder the respective YES or NO columns if students are grouped in that class according to ability level. For the ability groupingdefinition to be used in completing Table 13, please refer to Item 3 of the Specific Instructions. Please complete by race/ethnicityand limited English proficiency.



ITEMS 14-16 ARE TO BE COMPLETED FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ONLY

Item 14. Advanced Placement. Enter the number of students by race/ethnicity, sex, LEP, and disability status (studentsreceiving services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) who are currently enrolled in Advanced PlacementProgram mathematics or science courses. Mathematics includes calculus AB and BC. Science includes biology, chemistry, andphysics. If this school does not participate in a particular Advanced Placement Program course, darken the bubble in the NotOffered column for that course. If the school does not offer any Advanced Placement Programs for high school students pleasedarken the Not Offered bubble for Table 14. Type of AP class means the particular AP course, i.e., mathematics, English,computer science, etc, --and not the number of AP classes offered.

Item 15. High School Completers. Enter the number of students who received a regular high school diploma or a certificate ofattendance or completion from the previous (1999-2000) school year. Certificate of attendance or completion refers to an awardof less than a regular diploma, or a modified diploma, or fulfillment of an Individual Education Plan for students with disabilities. Please complete by race/ethnicity, sex, LEP, and disability status (students receiving services under the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act).

Item 16. Interscholastic Athletics. For the entire previous school year (1999-2000), enter the number of sports, teams, andstudents as of the day of the first official interscholastic competition (e.g., game, match, meet). Do not include intramural sports orcheerleading. Count each competitive level of a given sport as a separate item (e.g., freshman, junior varsity, and varsity). Forexample, basketball is one sport, but there may be more than one basketball team (e.g., varsity boys, varsity girls, junior varsityboys, etc.). Count a student once for each team he or she is on. For example, a student should be counted twice if he or she ison two teams.

ITEM 17 IS TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL SCHOOLS

Item 17. Teachers. For item 17(a), enter the total number of full-time teachers employed by your school on October 1, 2000. Foritem 17(b), enter the number of full-time teachers employed by your school who meet all applicable state teacher certificationrequirements for a standard certificate. Do not include teachers who have emergency, temporary or provisional certification. Forbeginning teachers, include, as certified, those who have met all of the standard teacher education requirements with theexception of the State-required probationary period.

You must return all sheets of this form, even if you did not use pages 6, 7, 8, or 9 because it did not pertain to yourschool.



OR

IGIN

AL

- R

etur

n to

Offi

ce fo

r C

ivil

Rig

hts

(LE

GA

L C

OP

Y)

stud

ents

with

dis

cipl

ine

prob

lem

s?

OM

B N

o. 1

870-

0500

Exp

iratio

n D

ate:

12/

31/2

001

U.S

. DE

PA

RT

ME

NT

OF

ED

UC

AT

ION

, OF

FIC

E F

OR

CIV

IL R

IGH

TS

2000

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

SC

HO

OL

CIV

IL R

IGH

TS

CO

MP

LIA

NC

E R

EP

OR

TIN

DIV

IDU

AL

SC

HO

OL

RE

PO

RT

: E

D10

2D

UE

DA

TE

: F

ebru

ary

23, 2

001

7.P

up

il S

tati

stic

s:(D

o no

t inc

lude

pre

-kin

derg

arte

n/pr

e-sc

hool

chi

ldre

n.)

The

col

umn

Stu

dent

s w

ith D

isab

ilitie

s: ID

EA

refe

rs to

chi

ldre

n an

d yo

uth

rece

ivin

g se

rvic

es u

nder

the

Indi

vidu

als

with

Dis

abili

ties

Edu

catio

n A

ct.

OR

IGIN

AL

- R

etur

n to

Offi

ce fo

r C

ivil

Rig

hts

(LE

GA

L C

OP

Y)

TA

BL

E 7

Pu

pil

Sta

tist

ics

* S

EX

:M

= M

ALE

;F

= F

EM

ALE

**LE

P =

lim

ited

Eng

lish

prof

icie

nt

M F M F M F M F

A.

Enr

ollm

ent

B.

In G

ifted

/T

alen

ted

Pro

gram

s

C.

Nee

ding

LEP

Pro

gram

s

D.

Enr

olle

d in

LEP

Pro

gram

s(O

f tho

sere

port

ed in

7.C

.)

NU

MB

ER

OF

ST

UD

EN

TS

S E X*

RA

CE

/ET

HN

ICIT

Y(3

)H

ispa

nic

(4)

Bla

ck,

Not

of

His

pani

c O

rigin

(5)

Whi

te, N

ot o

fH

ispa

nic

Orig

in

(2)

Asi

an o

rP

acifi

c Is

land

er

(1)

Am

eric

an In

dian

or

Ala

skan

Nat

ive

(6)

TO

TA

L

(7)

Stu

dent

s w

ithD

isab

ilitie

s:ID

EA

(8)

LEP

**

stud

ents

with

aca

dem

ic d

iffic

ultie

s?

PLE

AS

E C

OR

RE

CT

OR

SU

PP

LEM

EN

T T

HE

INF

OR

MA

TIO

N O

N T

HE

LAB

EL

IF IT

IS IN

CO

RR

EC

TO

R IN

CO

MP

LET

E:

Str

eet o

r P

.O. B

ox

Zip

:S

tate

:C

ount

y:

City

/Pos

t O

ffice

:

Sch

ool A

ddre

ss:

Sch

ool N

ame:

Dis

tric

t N

ame:

1.G

rad

es O

ffer

ed:

(D

arke

n al

l tha

t app

ly.)

If th

is s

choo

l is

tota

lly u

ngra

ded,

dar

ken

this

bub

ble:

If th

is s

choo

l is

part

ially

or

tota

lly g

rade

d, d

arke

n th

e gr

ades

offe

red

in th

e bu

bble

s be

low

:

5.C

har

ter

Sch

oo

l:Is

this

sch

ool a

cha

rter

sch

ool?

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

4.M

agn

et S

cho

ol o

r P

rog

ram

:b.

If th

e an

swer

to 4

a w

as "

YE

S",

doe

s th

e en

tire

scho

ol p

opul

atio

n pa

rtic

ipat

e in

the

mag

net s

choo

l pro

gram

?. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .a.

Is th

is s

choo

l eith

er a

mag

net s

choo

l or

a sc

hool

ope

ratin

g a

mag

net p

rogr

am w

ithin

the

scho

ol?.

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

6.A

lter

nat

ive

Sch

oo

l:Is

this

sch

ool a

n al

tern

ativ

e sc

hool

?

2.S

pec

ial E

du

cati

on

:D

oes

this

sch

ool o

ffer

on

ly s

peci

al e

duca

tion

serv

ices

?. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

.

3.A

bili

ty G

rou

pin

g:

Do

you

have

any

stu

dent

s in

this

sch

ool w

ho a

re a

bilit

y gr

oupe

d fo

r cl

assr

oom

inst

ruct

ion

in m

athe

mat

ics

or E

nglis

h-R

eadi

ng-L

angu

age

Art

s?. .

.N

oY

es

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Wha

t is

the

leve

l of t

his

scho

ol?

Ele

men

tary

Oth

erM

iddl

e/Ju

nior

Hig

h

Hig

h S

choo

l

If so

, is

it de

sign

ed to

mee

t the

nee

ds o

f:pr

egna

nt s

tude

nts?

Yes

No

YE

S

NO

Pre

-KK

12

34

56

78

910

1112

The

sum

of t

he to

tals

rep

orte

d in

Tab

les

10.1

, 10.

2, 1

0.3

and

11eq

uals

the

num

ber

of S

tude

nts

With

Dis

abili

ties

rece

ivin

gsp

ecia

l edu

catio

n se

rvic

es u

nder

IDE

A r

epor

ted

in C

olum

n 7

onT

able

7, R

ow A

. Alth

ough

you

are

not r

equi

red

to r

epor

t dat

aby

sex

on

Tab

le 1

1, y

ou a

rere

quire

d to

mai

ntai

n da

ta o

n th

ese

x of

all

stud

ents

with

disa

bilit

ies

for

the

purp

oses

of

resp

ondi

ng to

Tab

le 7

Row

A.

Ple

ase

note

that

dis

tric

ts a

reon

ly r

equi

red

to p

rovi

de d

ata

onth

e se

x of

spe

cific

sub

cate

gorie

sof

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s in

Tab

les

10.1

, 10

.2,

and

10.3

.

17300


OR

IGIN

AL

- R

etur

n to

Offi

ce fo

r C

ivil

Rig

hts

(LE

GA

L C

OP

Y)

Tab

le 8

: D

isci

plin

e (S

tud

ents

Wit

ho

ut D

isab

iliti

es).

Ple

ase

repo

rt th

e fo

llow

ing

data

for

the

1999

- 2

000

Sch

ool Y

ear.

Do

not i

nclu

de p

re-k

inde

rgar

ten/

pre-

scho

ol c

hild

ren.

Ple

ase

read

th

e sp

ecif

ic in

stru

ctio

ns

for

this

tab

le c

aref

ully

bef

ore

co

mp

leti

ng

th

is it

em.

Ind

ivid

ual

Sch

oo

l Rep

ort

:E

D10

2 —

Pag

e 2

of

10

Dis

tric

t Nam

e:

Sch

ool N

ame:

Tab

le 9

: D

isci

plin

e o

f S

tud

ents

wit

h D

isab

iliti

es.

Ple

ase

repo

rt, f

or th

e 19

99 -

200

0 S

choo

l Yea

r, d

ata

on c

orpo

ral p

unis

hmen

t, an

d lo

ng-t

erm

sus

pens

ions

/exp

ulsi

ons

(bot

h w

ithan

d w

ithou

t ser

vice

s) fo

r st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s se

rved

und

er th

e In

divi

dual

s w

ith D

isab

ilitie

s E

duca

tion

Act

(in

the

colu

mn

entit

led

Ser

ved

unde

r ID

EA

) an

d S

ectio

n 50

4 of

the

Reh

abili

tatio

n A

ct o

f 197

3 (in

the

colu

mn

entit

led

Ser

ved

unde

r S

ectio

n 50

4 O

nly)

. See

the

spec

ific

inst

ruct

ions

for

the

defin

ition

of l

ong-

term

sus

pens

ion/

expu

lsio

n an

d th

e sp

ecifi

cin

stru

ctio

ns fo

r Ite

m 8

for

the

defin

ition

of c

orpo

ral p

unis

hmen

t. F

or e

ach

row

, cou

nt e

ach

stud

ent o

nly

once

. Do

not i

nclu

de p

re-k

inde

rgar

ten/

pre-

scho

ol c

hild

ren.

See

gen

eral

inst

ruct

ions

for

the

appr

opria

te r

espo

nse

if a

cell

has

no s

tude

nts

or is

not

app

licab

le to

this

sch

ool.

Indi

vidu

al s

tude

nts

may

be

repo

rted

in m

ore

than

one

row

.

TA

BL

E 8

* S

EX

:M

= M

ALE

;F

= F

EM

ALE

**LE

P =

lim

ited

Eng

lish

prof

icie

nt

A.

Cor

pora

lP

unis

hmen

t

B.

Out

of S

choo

lS

uspe

nsio

ns

M MF F

C.

Tot

al E

xpul

sion

s

NU

MB

ER

OF

ST

UD

EN

TS

S E X*

RA

CE

/ET

HN

ICIT

Y(3

)H

ispa

nic

(4)

Bla

ck,

Not

of

His

pani

c O

rigin

(5)

Whi

te, N

ot o

fH

ispa

nic

Orig

in

(2)

Asi

an o

rP

acifi

c Is

land

er

(1)

Am

eric

an In

dian

or

Ala

skan

Nat

ive

(6)

TO

TA

L(7

)LE

P**

M F M F M F

D.

Exp

ulsi

ons

--T

otal

Ces

satio

nof

Edu

catio

nal

Ser

vice

s

E.

Exp

ulsi

ons

--Z

ero

Tol

eran

ceP

olic

ies

TA

BL

E 9

NU

MB

ER

OF

ST

UD

EN

TS

A.

Cor

pora

l Pun

ishm

ent

B.

Long

-ter

m s

uspe

nsio

n/ex

puls

ion:

non

-ces

satio

n of

ser

vice

s

C.

Long

-ter

m s

uspe

nsio

n/ex

puls

ion:

ces

satio

n of

ser

vice

s

(1)

Ser

ved

unde

r ID

EA

(2 )

Ser

ved

unde

r S

ectio

n 50

4 O

nly

17300


OR

IGIN

AL

- R

etur

n to

Offi

ce fo

r C

ivil

Rig

hts

(LE

GA

L C

OP

Y)

Item

10:

Ch

ildre

n w

ith D

isab

ilitie

s. P

leas

e co

mpl

ete

the

follo

win

g ta

bles

by

race

, sex

, LE

P a

nd e

duca

tiona

l pla

cem

ent f

or th

e nu

mbe

r of

chi

ldre

n w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s re

ceiv

ing

serv

ices

who

, und

er th

e In

divi

dual

s w

ith D

isab

ilitie

s E

duca

tion

Act

, are

rec

eivi

ng s

ervi

ces

in th

is s

choo

l. E

duca

tiona

l pla

cem

ent i

s de

fined

as

the

perc

enta

ge o

f the

day

that

ast

uden

t rec

eive

s sp

ecia

l edu

catio

n se

rvic

es o

utsi

de th

e re

gula

r cl

ass.

Incl

ude

all s

tude

nts

atte

ndin

g th

is s

choo

l reg

ardl

ess

of w

heth

er th

ey a

re r

esid

ent o

r no

n-re

side

nt o

f the

repo

rtin

g sc

hool

dis

tric

t. D

o no

t cou

nt p

re-k

inde

rgar

ten/

pre-

scho

ol c

hild

ren.

See

gen

eral

inst

ruct

ions

for

the

appr

opria

te r

espo

nse

if a

cell

has

no s

tude

nts

or is

not

app

licab

leto

this

sch

ool (

e.g.

, thi

s sc

hool

doe

s no

t use

the

subc

ateg

orie

s of

mild

, mod

erat

e, a

nd s

ever

e).

* S

EX

: M

= M

ALE

; F

= F

EM

ALE

**D

ark

lines

den

ote

that

this

par

t of t

he ta

ble

is o

ptio

nal.

(S

ee p

age

5 of

inst

ruct

ion

shee

t.)**

*S

ee D

efin

ition

s on

pag

e 3

of E

D10

2 in

stru

ctio

n sh

eet f

or

defin

ition

s, in

clud

ing

com

plet

e la

bel f

or L

ess

than

21%

,B

etw

een

21%

an

d 6

0%, a

nd

Mo

re t

han

60%

****

LEP

= li

mite

d E

nglis

h pr

ofic

ient

Ind

ivid

ual

Sch

oo

l Rep

ort

:E

D10

2 —

Pag

e 3

of

10

Dis

tric

t Nam

e:

Sch

ool N

ame:

PLE

AS

E F

ILL

IN A

LLIN

FO

RM

AT

ION

INC

LUD

ING

LE

PIT

EM

S. I

F T

HE

AN

SW

ER

IS Z

ER

O,

PLE

AS

E E

NT

ER

ZE

RO

.(F

or e

xam

ple,

if y

ouen

tere

d "s

choo

l tot

al"

LEP

dat

a ot

her

than

zero

in T

able

7 (

Tab

le7,

Row

C, C

olum

n 6)

,bu

t you

r sc

hool

has

no

LEP

stu

dent

s in

the

mor

e sp

ecifi

c "s

ub-t

otal

"ca

tego

ries

on th

is p

age,

plea

se e

nter

zer

o. If

you

have

LE

P s

tude

nts

inth

ese

subc

ateg

orie

s,pl

ease

ent

er th

e nu

mbe

rof

thes

e st

uden

ts.)

TA

BL

E 1

0.1

A.

Mild

Ret

arda

tion

B.

Mod

erat

e R

etar

datio

n

C.

Sev

ere

Ret

arda

tion

D.

TO

TA

L

DIS

AB

ILIT

Y C

AT

EG

OR

Y(S

ee S

pec

ific

Inst

ruct

ion

s, f

or

Item

10, b

efo

re c

om

ple

tin

gth

is it

em.)

RA

CE

/ET

HN

ICIT

Y(2

)A

sian

or

Pac

ific

Isla

nder

(3)

His

pani

cO

ptio

nal*

*(6

)T

OT

AL

ED

UC

AT

ION

AL

PL

AC

EM

EN

T:

TIM

EO

UT

SID

E R

EG

UL

AR

CL

AS

SR

OO

M(4

)B

lack

,N

ot o

fH

ispa

nic

Orig

in

(5)

Whi

te,

Not

of

His

pani

cO

rigin

SE

X*

(1)

Am

eric

anIn

dian

or

Ala

skan

Nat

ive

M F M F M FFM

(9)

Mor

e th

an60

%**

*

(8)

Bet

wee

n21

% a

nd60

%**

*

(7)

Less

than

21%

***

(10)

LEP

****

17300


OR

IGIN

AL

- R

etur

n to

Offi

ce fo

r C

ivil

Rig

hts

(LE

GA

L C

OP

Y)

* S

EX

: M

= M

ALE

; F

= F

EM

ALE

**D

ark

lines

den

ote

that

this

par

t of t

he ta

ble

is o

ptio

nal.

(S

ee p

age

6 of

inst

ruct

ion

shee

t.)**

*S

ee D

efin

ition

s on

pag

e 3

of E

D10

2 in

stru

ctio

n sh

eet f

or

defin

ition

s, in

clud

ing

com

plet

e la

bel f

or L

ess

than

21%

,B

etw

een

21%

an

d 6

0%, a

nd

Mo

re t

han

60%

****

LEP

= li

mite

d E

nglis

h pr

ofic

ient

Ind

ivid

ual

Sch

oo

l Rep

ort

:E

D10

2 —

Pag

e 4

of

10

Dis

tric

t Nam

e:

Sch

ool N

ame:

Tab

le 1

0.3

Dev

elo

pm

enta

l Del

ay.

Sch

ools

are

onl

y pe

rmitt

ed to

sub

mit

data

usi

ng th

e fo

llow

ing

tabl

e fo

r ch

ildre

n w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s in

kin

derg

arte

n th

roug

hag

e 9:

if 1

) th

eir

stat

e ha

s ad

opte

d th

is c

ateg

ory

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e pr

ovis

ions

of S

ectio

n 60

2(3)

(b)

of th

e In

divi

dual

s w

ith D

isab

ilitie

s E

duca

tion

Act

(ID

EA

); 2

) th

e sc

hool

dis

tric

t com

plet

ing

the

ED

101

form

has

ado

pted

this

cat

egor

y; a

nd 3

) th

e st

ate

is a

ctua

lly u

sing

this

cat

egor

y to

rep

ort d

ata

from

this

sch

ool d

istr

ict f

or ID

EA

chi

ld c

ount

pur

pose

s. D

o no

t pro

vide

dat

a us

ing

this

tabl

e un

less

all

thre

e of

thes

e ID

EA

req

uire

men

ts a

re m

et.

TA

BL

E 1

0.2

A.

Em

otio

nal

Dis

turb

ance

B.

Spe

cific

Lea

rnin

g

D

isab

ility

DIS

AB

ILIT

YC

AT

EG

OR

Y(1

)A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

rA

lask

anN

ativ

e

RA

CE

/ET

HN

ICIT

Y(2

)A

sian

or

Pac

ific

Isla

nder

(3)

His

pani

cO

ptio

nal*

*(6

)T

OT

AL

ED

UC

AT

ION

AL

PL

AC

EM

EN

T:

TIM

EO

UT

SID

E R

EG

UL

AR

CL

AS

SR

OO

M(7

)Le

ss th

an21

%**

*

(8)

Bet

wee

n21

% a

nd60

%**

*

Tot

al o

f Tab

le 1

0.2.

See

pag

e 6

ofin

stru

ctio

n sh

eet

(4)

Bla

ck,

Not

of

His

pani

cO

rigin

(5)

Whi

te,

Not

of

His

pani

cO

rigin

SE

X*

FM M F

(9)

Mor

e th

an60

%**

*

TA

BL

E 1

0.3

IS T

O B

E C

OM

PL

ET

ED

ON

LY

BY

SC

HO

OL

S IN

ST

AT

ES

WH

ICH

HA

VE

AD

OP

TE

D T

HE

CA

TE

GO

RY

OF

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

TA

L D

EL

AY

FO

R S

TU

DE

NT

S W

ITH

DIS

AB

ILIT

IES

IN K

IND

ER

GA

RT

EN

TH

RO

UG

H A

GE

9.

(10)

LEP

****

TA

BL

E 1

0.3

Dev

elop

men

tal D

elay

DIS

AB

ILIT

YC

AT

EG

OR

Y(1

)A

mer

ican

Indi

an o

rA

lask

anN

ativ

e

RA

CE

/ET

HN

ICIT

Y(2

)A

sian

or

Pac

ific

Isla

nder

(3)

His

pani

cO

ptio

nal*

*(6

)T

OT

AL

ED

UC

AT

ION

AL

PL

AC

EM

EN

T:

TIM

EO

UT

SID

E R

EG

UL

AR

CL

AS

SR

OO

M

(7)

Less

than

21%

***

(8)

Bet

wee

n21

% a

nd60

%**

*

(4)

Bla

ck,

Not

of

His

pani

cO

rigin

(5)

Whi

te,

Not

of

His

pani

cO

rigin

SE

X*

FM

(9)

Mor

e th

an60

%**

*

(10)

LEP

****

PLE

AS

E F

ILL

IN A

LLIN

FO

RM

AT

ION

INC

LUD

ING

LE

PIT

EM

S. I

F T

HE

AN

SW

ER

IS Z

ER

O,

PLE

AS

E E

NT

ER

ZE

RO

.(F

or e

xam

ple,

if y

ouen

tere

d "s

choo

l tot

al"

LEP

dat

a ot

her

than

zero

in T

able

7 (

Tab

le7,

Row

C, C

olum

n 6)

,bu

t you

r sc

hool

has

no

LEP

stu

dent

s in

the

mor

e sp

ecifi

c "s

ub-t

otal

"ca

tego

ries

on th

is p

age,

plea

se e

nter

zer

o. If

you

have

LE

P s

tude

nts

inth

ese

subc

ateg

orie

s,pl

ease

ent

er th

e nu

mbe

rof

thes

e st

uden

ts.)

17300


OR

IGIN

AL

- R

etur

n to

Offi

ce fo

r C

ivil

Rig

hts

(LE

GA

L C

OP

Y)

(2)

BE

TW

EE

N 2

1% A

ND

60%

OF

TIM

E O

UT

SID

E R

EG

UL

AR

CL

AS

SR

OO

M*

(3)

MO

RE

TH

AN

60%

OF

TIM

EO

UT

SID

E R

EG

UL

AR

CL

AS

SR

OO

M*

(4)

(Op

tion

al) T

OT

AL

[CO

LU

MN

(1)

+ C

OL

UM

N (

2)+

CO

LU

MN

(3)

]

Item

11.

Ad

dit

ion

al C

ateg

ori

es o

f C

hild

ren

wit

h D

isab

iliti

es:

Ple

ase

repo

rt b

y ed

ucat

iona

l pla

cem

ent (

the

perc

enta

ge o

f the

day

a s

tude

nt r

ecei

ves

spec

ial e

duca

tion

serv

ices

outs

ide

the

regu

lar

clas

s), t

he a

dditi

onal

chi

ldre

n re

ceiv

ing

spec

ial e

duca

tion

serv

ices

und

er th

e In

divi

dual

s w

ith D

isab

ilitie

s E

duca

tion

Act

. Do

not c

ount

pre-

kind

erga

rten

/pre

-sch

ool c

hild

ren.

Incl

ude

all s

tude

nts

atte

ndin

g th

is s

choo

l reg

ardl

ess

of w

heth

er th

ey a

re r

esid

ent o

r no

n-re

side

nt o

f the

rep

ortin

g sc

hool

dis

tric

t.

Ple

ase

No

te:

1.S

choo

ls o

fferin

g el

emen

tary

grad

es -

Ple

ase

com

ple

teIt

em 1

2A o

n P

age

6 an

d It

em13

on

Pag

e 8

of

the

ED

-102

.

2.S

choo

ls o

fferin

g hi

gh s

choo

lgr

ades

- P

leas

e co

mp

lete

Item

12B

on

Pag

e 7,

Item

s 14

and

15

on

Pag

e 9

and

Item

16

on

Pag

e 10

of

the

ED

-102

.

3.S

choo

ls o

fferin

g m

iddl

e sc

hool

grad

es -

Ple

ase

com

ple

teIt

em 1

2A o

n P

age

6 o

f th

eE

D-1

02.

4.A

LL

SC

HO

OL

S M

US

TC

OM

PL

ET

E IT

EM

17

ON

PA

GE

10

OF

TH

E E

D-1

02.

NO

TE

:P

LE

AS

E R

ET

UR

N A

LL

SH

EE

TS

OF

TH

E O

RIG

INA

LF

OR

MS

TO

TH

E O

FF

ICE

FO

RC

IVIL

RIG

HT

S, E

VE

N IF

YO

U D

IDN

OT

US

E O

NE

OF

PA

GE

S 6

, 7, 8

,O

R 9

BE

CA

US

E IT

DID

NO

TP

ER

TA

IN T

O Y

OU

R S

CH

OO

L.

Prin

ted

Nam

e of

Prin

cipa

l or

Aut

horiz

ed R

epre

sent

ativ

e

Titl

e

Tel

epho

ne

--

Fax

--

Dat

e

//

TA

BL

E 1

1

DIS

AB

ILIT

Y C

AT

EG

OR

Y

*See

DE

FIN

ITIO

NS

on

page

3 o

f ED

102

inst

ruct

ion

shee

t for

def

initi

on, i

nclu

ding

the

com

plet

e la

bel.

A.

Hea

rin

g Im

pai

rmen

ts

B.

Sp

eech

or

Lan

gu

age

Imp

airm

ents

C.

Vis

ual

Imp

airm

ents

D.

Ort

ho

ped

ic Im

pai

rmen

ts

E.

Au

tism

F.

Tra

um

atic

Bra

in In

jury

G.

Dea

f-B

lind

nes

s

H.

Mu

ltip

le D

isab

iliti

es

I.O

ther

Hea

lth

Imp

airm

ents

J.T

OT

AL

(Op

tio

nal

. See

Inst

ruct

ion

s)

CE

RT

IFIC

AT

ION

: I

cert

ify th

at th

e in

form

atio

n is

true

and

cor

rect

to th

e be

st o

f my

know

ledg

e an

d be

lief.

A w

illfu

lly fa

lse

stat

emen

t is

puni

shab

le b

y la

w (

U.S

. Cod

e, T

itle

18, S

ectio

n 10

01).

Ind

ivid

ual

Sch

oo

l Rep

ort

:E

D10

2 —

Pag

e 5

of

10

Dis

tric

t Nam

e:

Sch

ool N

ame:

(1)

LE

SS

TH

AN

21%

OF

TIM

EO

UT

SID

E R

EG

UL

AR

CL

AS

SR

OO

M*

See

inst

ruct

ions

reg

ardi

ngm

aint

aini

ng d

ata

by s

ex fo

rst

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s.

17300


OR

IGIN

AL

- R

etur

n to

Offi

ce fo

r C

ivil

Rig

hts

(LE

GA

L C

OP

Y)

Ind

ivid

ual

Sch

oo

l Rep

ort

:E

D10

2 —

Pag

e 6

of

10

Dis

tric

t Nam

e:

Sch

ool N

ame:

TO

BE

CO

MP

LE

TE

D B

Y E

LE

ME

NT

AR

Y A

ND

MID

DL

E S

CH

OO

LS

(G

RA

DE

S K

-8)

ON

LY

Item

12A

. T

esti

ng

(G

rad

e to

Gra

de

Pro

mo

tio

n).

Ple

ase

com

ple

te t

he

follo

win

g t

able

if y

ou

r sc

ho

ol a

dm

inis

tere

d, i

n t

he

1999

-200

0 sc

ho

ol y

ear,

a d

istr

ict-

or

stat

e-re

qu

ired

tes

t th

at s

tud

ents

are

eith

er r

equ

ired

to

pas

s o

r th

at is

use

d a

s a

sig

nifi

can

t fa

cto

r in

mak

ing

pro

mo

tion

dec

isio

ns

for

all s

tud

ents

tak

ing

th

e te

st.

If y

ou

r sc

ho

ol c

on

du

cted

tes

ts f

or

gra

de-

to-g

rad

e p

rom

oti

on

fo

r m

ore

th

an o

ne

gra

de,

ple

ase

ph

oto

cop

y th

e p

age

(pri

or

to c

om

ple

tin

g)

as m

any

tim

es a

s ar

e n

eces

sary

in o

rder

to

rep

ort

on

eac

h t

est,

an

d r

epo

rt d

ata

usi

ng

bo

th t

he

tab

le o

n t

his

pag

e an

d a

s m

any

ph

oto

cop

ied

tab

les

as a

re a

pp

rop

riat

e. If

stu

dent

s w

ere

no

t re

quire

d to

pas

s a

dist

rict-

or

stat

e-re

quire

d te

st to

be

prom

oted

from

one

gra

de to

the

next

, ple

ase

dark

en th

e bu

bble

ent

itled

"N

o su

ch te

sts

wer

e ad

min

iste

red"

. If s

tude

nts

wer

e re

quire

d to

pas

s su

ch a

test

,pl

ease

dar

ken

the

appr

opria

te b

ubbl

e in

dica

ting

whe

ther

this

test

was

the

"sol

e cr

iterio

n" o

r a

"sig

nific

ant"

crit

erio

n an

d co

mpl

ete

the

tabl

e. If

all

stud

ents

wer

e re

quire

d to

take

adi

stric

t- o

r st

ate-

requ

ired

test

, and

mus

t pas

s th

e te

st to

be

prom

oted

from

one

gra

de to

the

next

, ple

ase

dar

ken

the

bubb

le e

ntitl

ed "

Sol

e cr

iterio

n". H

owev

er, i

f all

stud

ents

wer

ere

quire

d to

take

the

test

, and

the

test

is a

n im

port

ant c

riter

ion

in th

e de

cisi

on o

n w

heth

er o

r no

t to

prom

ote

the

stud

ent f

rom

gra

de to

gra

de, b

ut o

ther

crit

eria

, suc

h as

teac

her

reco

mm

enda

tions

or

the

stud

ent's

gra

des

wer

e us

ed in

the

prom

otio

n de

cisi

on, p

leas

e d

arke

n th

e bu

bble

ent

itled

"S

igni

fican

t crit

erio

n".

Ple

ase

prov

ide

the

follo

win

g da

ta f

or t

he m

ost

rece

nt te

stin

g of

stu

dent

s in

thes

e gr

ades

dur

ing

the

1999

-200

0 sc

hool

yea

r by

rac

e/et

hnic

ity, l

imite

d E

nglis

h pr

ofic

ienc

y (in

the

colu

mn

mar

ked

LEP

), a

nd w

heth

er th

e st

uden

t is

rece

ivin

g se

rvic

es u

nder

the

Indi

vidu

als

with

Dis

abili

ties

Edu

catio

n A

ct (

in th

e co

lum

n en

title

d S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties/

IDE

A),

or

unde

r S

ectio

n 50

4 of

the

Reh

abili

tatio

n A

ct o

f 197

3 (i

nth

e co

lum

n en

title

d S

ectio

n 50

4 O

nly)

and

sex

. Do

not c

ount

stu

dent

s w

ho w

ere

not t

este

d be

caus

e th

ey h

ad p

asse

d th

e te

st o

n a

prev

ious

occ

asio

n.

Incl

ude

in R

ows

A o

r B

thos

est

uden

ts w

ho to

ok th

e te

st a

nd w

ere

prov

ided

with

acc

omm

odat

ions

, mod

ifica

tions

, or

adap

tatio

ns, s

uch

as a

diff

eren

t set

ting,

ext

ende

d tim

e, B

raill

e, o

r us

e of

dic

tiona

ries

by L

EP

stud

ents

. All

stud

ents

who

did

not

take

the

test

sho

uld

be r

epor

ted

in R

ow C

. Stu

dent

s w

ho w

ere

test

ed u

sing

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

ts s

houl

d be

rep

orte

d in

Row

D. A

n al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent i

s an

ass

essm

ent p

rovi

ded

to c

hild

ren

with

dis

abili

ties

who

can

not p

artic

ipat

e in

a s

tate

- or

dis

tric

t-w

ide

asse

ssm

ent p

rogr

am, e

ven

with

app

ropr

iate

acc

omm

odat

ions

.If

stud

ents

are

req

uire

d to

pas

s m

ore

than

one

test

in o

rder

to b

e pr

omot

ed fr

om o

ne g

rade

to th

e ne

xt, i

nclu

de th

at s

tude

nt in

the

Row

ent

itled

Tes

ted

and

Pas

sed

if th

at s

tude

ntpa

ssed

all

test

s th

at h

e or

she

was

req

uire

d to

pas

s; if

that

stu

dent

faile

d on

e or

mor

e te

sts,

rep

ort t

hat s

tude

nt in

the

Row

ent

itled

Tes

ted

and

Fai

led.

IMPORTANT! RETURN THIS PAGEEVEN IF IT WAS NOT FILLED OUT

Gra

de 1

Gra

de 2

Gra

de 3

Gra

de 4

Gra

de 5

Gra

de 6

Gra

de 7

Gra

de 8

Gra

de 9

No

su

ch t

ests

wer

e ad

min

iste

red

So

le c

rite

rio

nS

ign

ific

ant

cri

teri

on

Ple

ase

dar

ken

th

e ap

pro

pri

ate

bu

bb

le f

or

info

rmat

ion

rep

ort

ed in

th

is t

able

:T

ests

wer

e re

quire

d fo

r pr

omot

ion

to:

* S

EX

:M

= M

ALE

;F

= F

EM

ALE

**LE

P =

lim

ited

Eng

lish

prof

icie

nt

TA

BL

E 1

2A

A.

Tes

ted

and

pass

ed

B.

Tes

ted

and

faile

d

M MF F

C.

Not

test

ed

M F

NU

MB

ER

OF

ST

UD

EN

TS

S E X*

RA

CE

/ET

HN

ICIT

Y(3

)H

ispa

nic

(4)

Bla

ck,

Not

of

His

pani

c O

rigin

(5)

Whi

te, N

ot o

fH

ispa

nic

Orig

in

(2)

Asi

an o

rP

acifi

c Is

land

er

(1)

Am

eric

an In

dian

or

Ala

skan

Nat

ive

D.

Alte

rnat

eA

sses

smen

ts

M F

(7)

Stu

dent

s w

ithD

isab

ilitie

s/ID

EA

(8)

Sec

tion

504

Onl

y

(9)

LEP

**(6

)T

OT

AL

17300


OR

IGIN

AL

- R

etur

n to

Offi

ce fo

r C

ivil

Rig

hts

(LE

GA

L C

OP

Y)

Ind

ivid

ual

Sch

oo

l Rep

ort

:E

D10

2 —

Pag

e 7

of

10

Dis

tric

t Nam

e:

Sch

ool N

ame:

Item

12B

. T

esti

ng

(H

igh

Sch

oo

l Gra

du

atio

n).

Ple

ase

com

ple

te t

he

follo

win

g t

able

if y

ou

r sc

ho

ol a

dm

inis

tere

d, i

n t

he

1999

-200

0 sc

ho

ol y

ear,

a d

istr

ict-

or

stat

e-re

qu

ired

test

th

at s

tud

ents

are

eit

her

req

uir

ed t

o p

ass

or

that

is u

sed

as

a si

gn

ific

ant

fact

or

in m

akin

g g

rad

uat

ion

dec

isio

ns

for

all s

tud

ents

tak

ing

th

e te

st. I

f stu

dent

s w

ere

not r

equi

red

to p

ass

a di

stric

t- o

r st

ate-

requ

ired

test

to g

radu

ate

from

hig

h sc

hool

, ple

ase

dar

ken

the

bubb

le e

ntitl

ed "

No

such

test

s w

ere

adm

inis

tere

d". I

f stu

dent

s w

ere

requ

ired

to p

ass

such

a te

st, p

leas

e da

rken

the

appr

opria

te b

ubbl

e in

dica

ting

whe

ther

the

test

was

the

"sol

e cr

iterio

n" o

r a

"sig

nific

ant"

crit

erio

n an

d co

mpl

ete

the

tabl

e. If

all

stud

ents

wer

e re

quire

d to

take

a d

istr

ict-

or

stat

e-re

quire

d te

st, a

nd m

ust p

ass

the

test

to g

radu

ate

from

hig

h sc

hool

, ple

ase

dar

ken

the

bubb

le e

ntitl

ed "

Sol

e cr

iterio

n". H

owev

er, i

f all

stud

ents

wer

e re

quire

d to

take

the

test

, and

the

test

is a

n im

port

ant c

riter

ion

in th

e de

cisi

on o

n w

heth

er o

r no

t the

stu

dent

gra

duat

es fr

om h

igh

scho

ol, b

ut o

ther

crit

eria

, suc

h as

teac

her

reco

mm

enda

tions

or

the

stud

ent's

gra

des

wer

e us

ed in

the

grad

uatio

n de

cisi

on, p

leas

e d

arke

n th

e bu

bble

ent

itled

"S

igni

fican

t crit

erio

n".

Ple

ase

prov

ide

the

follo

win

gda

ta fo

r th

e te

stin

g of

stu

dent

s in

thes

e gr

ades

dur

ing

the

1999

-200

0 sc

hool

yea

r by

rac

e/et

hnic

ity, l

imite

d E

nglis

h pr

ofic

ienc

y (in

the

colu

mn

mar

ked

LEP

), a

nd w

heth

er th

est

uden

t is

rece

ivin

g se

rvic

es u

nder

the

Indi

vidu

als

with

Dis

abili

ties

Edu

catio

n A

ct (

in th

e co

lum

n en

title

d S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties/

IDE

A),

or

unde

r S

ectio

n 50

4 of

the

Reh

abili

tatio

nA

ct o

f 197

3 (in

the

colu

mn

entit

led

Sec

tion

504

Onl

y) a

nd s

ex. D

o no

t cou

nt s

tude

nts

who

wer

e no

t tes

ted

beca

use

they

had

pas

sed

the

test

on

a pr

evio

us o

ccas

ion.

Incl

ude

inR

ows

A o

r B

thos

e st

uden

ts w

ho to

ok th

e te

st a

nd w

ere

prov

ided

with

acc

omm

odat

ions

, mod

ifica

tions

, or

adap

tatio

ns, s

uch

as a

diff

eren

t set

ting,

ext

ende

d tim

e, B

raill

e, o

r us

eof

dic

tiona

ries

by L

EP

stu

dent

s. A

ll st

uden

ts w

ho d

id n

ot ta

ke th

e te

st a

nd h

ave

not p

asse

d th

e te

st in

prio

r ye

ars

shou

ld b

e re

port

ed in

Row

C. S

tude

nts

who

wer

e te

sted

usi

ngal

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ents

sho

uld

be r

epor

ted

in R

ow D

. An

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t is

an a

sses

smen

t pro

vide

d to

chi

ldre

n w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s w

ho c

anno

t par

ticip

ate

in a

sta

te-

ordi

stric

t-w

ide

asse

ssm

ent p

rogr

am, e

ven

with

app

ropr

iate

acc

omm

odat

ions

. If s

tude

nts

are

requ

ired

to p

ass

mor

e th

an o

ne te

st in

ord

er to

gra

duat

e, in

clud

e th

at s

tude

nt in

the

Row

ent

itled

Tes

ted

and

Pas

sed

if th

at s

tude

nt p

asse

d al

l tes

ts th

at h

e or

she

was

req

uire

d to

pas

s; if

that

stu

dent

faile

d on

e or

mor

e te

sts,

rep

ort t

hat s

tude

nt in

the

Row

entit

led

Tes

ted

and

Fai

led.

TO

BE

CO

MP

LE

TE

D B

Y H

IGH

SC

HO

OL

S (

GR

AD

ES

9-1

2) O

NL

Y

* S

EX

:M

= M

ALE

;F

= F

EM

ALE

**LE

P =

lim

ited

Eng

lish

prof

icie

nt

TA

BL

E 1

2B

A.

Tes

ted

and

pass

ed

B.

Tes

ted

and

faile

d

M MF F

C.

Not

test

ed

M F

NU

MB

ER

OF

ST

UD

EN

TS

S E X*

RA

CE

/ET

HN

ICIT

Y(3

)H

ispa

nic

(4)

Bla

ck,

Not

of

His

pani

c O

rigin

(5)

Whi

te, N

ot o

fH

ispa

nic

Orig

in

(2)

Asi

an o

rP

acifi

c Is

land

er

(1)

Am

eric

an In

dian

or

Ala

skan

Nat

ive

D.

Alte

rnat

eA

sses

smen

ts

M F

(7)

Stu

dent

s w

ithD

isab

ilitie

s/ID

EA

(8)

Sec

tion

504

Onl

y

(9)

LEP

**(6

)T

OT

AL

IMPORTANT! RETURN THIS PAGEEVEN IF IT WAS NOT FILLED OUT

No

su

ch t

ests

wer

e ad

min

iste

red

So

le c

rite

rio

nS

ign

ific

ant

cri

teri

on

Ple

ase

dar

ken

th

e ap

pro

pri

ate

bu

bb

le f

or

info

rmat

ion

rep

ort

ed in

th

is t

able

:

17300

120

Appendix D

Using E&S Survey Data inCombination with

Other Federal Datasets

Researchers with a license from theNational Center for Education Statistics(NCES) to use the restricted versions ofthe Early Childhood Longitudinal Study(ECLS-K) and the National EducationalLongitudinal Study (NELS:88) files cancreate new files using school-levelinformation from the E&S survey forthe appropriate years. Information fromthe Common Core of Data (CCD) is notrestricted, so the school IDs are avail-able to everyone. In this appendix, wediscuss the potential benefits of mergingE&S survey data with those from theCCD, ECLS-K, and NELS:88. Table D-1lists the measures available from theE&S survey and indicates where compa-rable measures are available in theother datasets. At the very least, thetable may provide a useful way to checkthe reliability of individual school-levelmeasures. However, if there are dis-crepancies, we have no basis for deter-mining which datafiles contain the morereliable data.

In addition to data about schools, bothECLS-K and NELS:88 collected datafrom individual teachers. With ECLS-K,sampled children’s kindergarten andfirst grade teachers were surveyed.With NELS:88, information was col-lected from two of each sampledstudent’s teachers in tenth grade, andfrom their math or science teachers intwelfth grade. Researchers mightconsider differences in how children’sdays are structured in elementary andhigh school when considering how toconstruct their analyses. In earlyelementary school, children’s schoolexperiences are limited largely to oneteacher in one classroom, so the class-room as the unit of analysis makes goodsense conceptually and statistically.1 In

1There is no way to connect the classroom-level measures available on the E&S survey tothe classrooms (and children) on ECLS-K.ECLS-K classroom-level measures are availableonly for the grades that have been sampled thus

A P P E N D I X D 121

high schools, however, students’ experi-ences are spread over six or seven (ormore) teachers each year, meaning thatthe appropriate unit of analysis is not theclassroom but rather the school. Inaddition to cognitive assessments,NELS:88 also collected data fromsampled students about their activitiesand attitudes with paper-and-pencilsurveys. When appropriate, we notehow students’ responses might informschool-level investigations. All child-level reports of behaviors on ECLS-Kare made by teachers or parents.

E&S survey data are available at boththe district and the school levels, andTable D-1 shows the data that areavailable at the lowest level of aggrega-tion, which is generally the school, butfor some measures it is individualclassrooms. Virtually all E&S data arebroken down into multiple studentcategories (see the table footnotes).Throughout the table, the symbol *between two student characteristicsindicates that the measure is brokendown by more than one student charac-teristic (e.g., gender and race and

ethnicity). For example, “Total StudentEnrollment Gender*Grade” indicatesthat the E&S survey provides informa-tion about the number of boys and girlsin each grade. Similarly, “Grade*Race”indicates how many black eighthgraders or white third graders areenrolled in a particular school.

The ECLS-K measures listed in TableD-1 are from the first grade file, mea-sured in 1999–2000. NELS:88 measuresare from the second follow-up, whichoccurred during the 1991–1992 schoolyear, when most students were intwelfth grade. It is important thatresearchers planning to create com-bined E&S/NELS:88 data files use E&Ssurvey data from the appropriate year:for example, the 1992 E&S survey datafor those using data from the secondNELS:88 follow-up. Much of the aggre-gate information available on the E&Ssurvey that is unavailable at the schoollevel on ECLS-K or NELS:88 is availableabout individual sampled students,although researchers should be judi-cious in making school-level aggregatesfrom student-level data. Althoughwithin-school student samples wererandomly drawn, the numbers for whichsome aggregates are drawn is small,and they are all in a single grade.Furthermore, many similar (and evenidentical) school-level measures are alsoavailable for the ECLS-K base year(when sampled children were in kinder-

far (kindergarten and first grade). When weindicate that data are available at the classroomlevel, this is in reference to sampled classrooms,and not each school’s population of classroomseven for kindergarten and first grade.


garten) as well as the NELS:88 baseyear (eighth grade) and the first follow-up (tenth grade).

SCHOOL ENROLLMENT

The first category in the table in-cludes measures in which the fourdatasets have the most in common.Each dataset includes measures indicat-ing total school enrollment and schoolenrollment by race. With the CCD data,by “calculable” we mean simply addingtwo or more variables will produce ameasure identical to that on the E&Ssurvey. Information about enrollmentby gender and race in each grade is alsoavailable on ECLS-K for sampled class-rooms. Because the CCD contains nomore information in common with theE&S survey, we do not mention itfurther in this section.

STUDENT DISCIPLINE, GIFTEDAND TALENTED, AND ENGLISHAS A SECOND LANGUAGE

E&S contains information about thenumber of student disciplinary actionsbroken down by various student charac-teristics. Surprisingly, neither ECLS-Knor NELS:88 provides such information,although this information is available on

NELS:88 on sampled students. ECLS-Kincludes the number of students ingifted and talented programs at both theschool and sampled classroom levels.ECLS-K and NELS:88 also provideinformation about the number of stu-dents in classes for English-languagelearners in each school, while ECLS-Khas information about the number ofEnglish-language learners in kindergar-ten and first grade. NELS:88 includes ameasure indicating the number ofchildren in each school receivingbilingual and English-language learnerservices. On ECLS-K, informationabout the number of children actuallyreceiving such services is available onlyin sampled classrooms.

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

The E&S survey distinguishes be-tween two types of special educationstudents: 504 and IDEA. The followingdefinitions are included with E&Sdocumentation:

Section 504: An elementary or secondarystudent with a disability who is beingprovided with related aids and servicesunder Section 504 of the RehabilitationAct of 1973, as amended, and is not beingprovided with services under the Indi-viduals with Disabilities Education Act(IDEA).


IDEA: Under the Individuals with Dis-abilities Education Act (IDEA), childrenwith mental retardation, hearing impair-ments including deafness, speech orlanguage impairments, visual impair-ments including blindness, emotionaldisturbance, orthopedic impairments,autism, traumatic brain injury, otherhealth impairments, or specific learningdisabilities, deaf-blindness, multipledisabilities, or developmental delay; andwho, by reason thereof, need specialeducation and related services.

Because of the important federal rolein special education, the E&S surveycontains a great deal of informationabout special education access.NELS:88 provides simple information onthe number of special education stu-dents enrolled in each school. ECLS-Kincludes only dichotomous measuresindicating whether the school serveschildren with individual education plans(IEPs), children eligible under Section504, and children with IEPs who areserved under IDEA. However, insampled classrooms, ECLS-K includesthe number of children with IEPs andthe number served under both IDEAand Section 504. The E&S survey alsobreaks down special education studentsinto their specific disability; ECLS-Kincludes the same information, but onlyfor sampled classrooms and does notdistinguish degrees of mental retarda-tion, as does the E&S survey.

Another area in which the E&S

survey appears to be the sole source ofschool-level information is specialeducation mainstreaming. E&S con-tains information about the number ofstudents in each disability category thatspend less than 21 percent, between 21and 60 percent, and more than 60percent of their time in regular class-rooms. ECLS-K contains a very broadmeasure indicating whether specialeducation students spend most of theirday in or out of the regular classroom,as well as more detailed information onsampled students receiving specialeducation services.

HIGH-STAKES TESTING

The E&S survey includes informationabout the number of students whopassed or failed district- or state-man-dated tests, as well as the number whowere given alternative assessments orwere simply not tested (again, brokendown by student characteristics).ECLS-K includes only a measure indicat-ing the proportion of students whoperformed at or above national normson standardized tests of math andreading. NELS:88 indicates whether ornot twelfth graders must pass a test toreceive their high school diploma,whether students are required to passminimum competency tests, and thepercentage of students who fail these


tests on the first attempt. Of course,testing was less of an issue a decade agothan it is today.

ABILITY GROUPING

Another set of E&S survey datadetails the number of students in eachgrade and class who are grouped byability. Although quite interesting, thereis no information regarding whichchildren are in which groups (low,medium, or high), meaning that it isimpossible to investigate whetherwithin-school segregation by race,ethnicity, or gender is occurring. Infor-mation on these measures is includedonly for schools that have a 20–80percent minority enrollment, suggestingthat this area was a potential point of thesurvey item. However, the E&S surveymeasures do not provide a means toinvestigate such questions. One couldcertainly investigate whether schoolsthat enroll different types of studentstend to group their students by ability,but segregation by ability grouping isobviously a within-school phenomenon.Once ability groups are created, somesegregation is likely to follow becausetest scores are stratified by race andsocial class throughout the K–12 sys-tem. Sampled ECLS-K classroomscontain data on whether a teacher sortsstudents by ability for math or reading,

but, again, there is no information aboutwhich children are in which groups.

TEACHERS AND HIGH SCHOOLDATA

The E&S survey includes the numberof full-time equivalent (FTEs) teachersand the number of teachers who arefully certified in their subject area. BothECLS-K and NELS:88 include thenumber of FTEs. In terms of teachercertification, ECLS-K and NELS:88include such data on sampled teachers,which makes sense since teachers canbe linked to students (and their achieve-ment scores).

The E&S survey also collects infor-mation about student participation inadvanced placement (AP) courses. Thedata include the number of studentstaking AP math and AP science courses.NELS:88 includes measures indicatingthe number of twelfth graders taking APcourses and the percent of the overallstudent body taking AP courses, andNELS:88 transcripts actually recordstudent enrollment in AP courses.However, the NELS:88 data are likely tobe outdated, as the AP program hasmushroomed in the last decade. On theNELS:88 first follow-up (tenth grade), ameasure is included indicating thenumber of students with limited Englishproficiency enrolled in AP classes.


Because of interest in Title IX compli-ance, the E&S survey includes informa-tion on the number of male and femalesports each high school offers and thenumber of males and females participat-ing. NELS:88 has no comparablemeasures other than data collectedamong sampled students regardingtheir participation in interscholasticactivities.

SUMMARY

In some areas, such as the numberand characteristics of students andteachers and the raw number of En-glish-language learners and specialeducation students in each school, dataon the E&S survey are available onother federal datasets. In several other

areas, however, such as student disci-pline and special educationmainstreaming, E&S appears to be animportant source of national data and iscertainly the only dataset containingsuch information on the entire popula-tion of U.S. public schools, and overtime, for the same schools. For re-searchers interested in national trendsin the programs surveyed by the E&Ssurvey, the data are an invaluableresource, especially because individualschools have been surveyed for almost35 years. The potential to investigatechange in these schools’ compliance isenormous. However, for researchersinterested in school effects studiesinvolving student-level social and aca-demic outcomes, the E&S data are lessvaluable.


TABLE D-1 Availability of E&S Survey Measures in CCD, ECLS-K, and NELS:88 Datasets

E&S Measures: Number of Students CCD Measures

School EnrollmentEnrollment MEMBER00Enrollment by gradea G0100, G0200, etc.Enrollment by race ASIAN00, HISP00,

BLACK00, WHITE00,AM00,

Enrollment grade*racea calculableEnrollment by gender calculableEnrollment gender*gradea calculable

Student Disciplinec

Receiving corporal punishment —Receiving out-of-school suspensions —Expelled— —

Gifted/Talented and Language ServicesIn gifted and talented programsd —In gifted and talented programs by grade —

Needing LEP programse —

Enrolled in LEP programsf —

Students with DisabilitiesUnder Section 504 —

Under IDEA —

Total mental retardationg —

Mild mental retardationg —Moderate mental retardationg —Severe mental retardationg —Emotional disturbance —Specific learning disabilities —Developmental delays —Hearing impairments —


ECLS-K Measures NELS:88 Measures

S4ENRLS F2SCENRLS4ENRLK, S4ENRLF G12ENROLL (12th gr. enrol.)S4ASNPCT, S4HSPPCT, S4BLKPCT, S4WHTPCT, F2C22A-F2C22ES4INDPCT, S4OTHPCT

A4ASIAN, A4HISP, etc.b —— —A4BOYS, A4GIRLSb —

— —— —

—

S4GFTNBR —A4PRTGF2 —

S4LEPSCH; S4LEPFRS (% 1st grade) F2C24A4NUMLEb

Calculable using A4ESLRE, A4ESLOU, and F2C25F (Bilingual)A4NOESLb F2C25G (ESL)

S4ON504 (enroll these students, yes or no)A4SC504b —S4ONIEP, S4IEP504 (enroll these students, yes or F2C25Hno) A4IEPb

A4RETARb: no distinction between degree ofretardation.— —— —— —A4EMPRBb —A4LRNDIb —A4DELAYb —A4HEARb —


Speech or language impairments — A4IMPb

Visual impairments — A4VISb

Orthopedic impairments — A4ORTHOb

Autism — A4AUTISMb

Traumatic brain injury — A4TRAUMb

Deaf or blind — A4DEAFb

Multiple disabilities — A4MULTIb

Other health impairments — A4OTHERb

Mainstreamingh

Total mental retardation —Mild mental retardation —Moderate mental retardation —Severe mental retardation —Emotional disturbance —Specific learning disabilities —Developmental delays —Hearing impairments —Speech or language impairments —Visual impairments —Orthopedic impairments —Autism —Traumatic brain injury —Deaf or blind —Multiple disabilities —Other health impairments —

High-Stakes TestingPassing, failing, given alternative assessments, —or not tested for a district- or state-administeredtest for promotion or graduationj

Ability Grouped Classrooms (through 8th grade) a,k

—

Teachers: NumberFulltime —Certified fulltime —

TABLE D-1 Continued



————————

S4DISSRVi —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —

% perform at or above grade level national norms F2C42: seniors must pass test for high schoolin math (S4PCTMTH)and reading (S4PCTRD): diploma

F2C43A-F2C43F: minimum competency tests req.7-12F2C46: % initially fail tests

Ability groups for reading (A4DIVRD) or math —(A4DIVMTH)b

S4FTETOT F2C29ATB4TYPCEb (classroom level) F2T4_7A: certification of sampled math teachers

F2T4_7B: certification of sampled science teachers



High School SpecificTaking AP math or science coursesl —

Participating in interscholastic athletic activities —by gender, and number of sports and numberof teams for males and females

TABLE D-1 Continued


NOTES: Datasets: CCD, Common Core of Data; ECLS-K, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten and Firstgrade; NELS:88, National Educational Longitudinal Study, 1988. For each dataset (column), the entries are thevariable names in that dataset. An asterisk (*) indicates the number is available by two or more variables. A dash(—) indicates the information is not available in the dataset. LEP, students with limited English proficiency.

aThis information available only for schools enrolling 20–80 percent minority students.bData are available only for sampled classrooms.dData also sorted by race, gender, IDEA, 504, LEP, race*gender, LEP*gender, IDEA*gender, and 504*gender.dData also sorted by race, gender, LEP, IDEA, race*gender, LEP*gender, and IDEA*gender.eData also sorted by race, gender, IDEA, LEP, race*gender, IDEA*gender, LEP*gender, grade, classroom, andgrade*classroom.fData also sorted by race, gender, IDEA, LEP, race*gender, IDEA*gender, and LEP*gender.


— F2C49: # 12th graders in AP coursesFC25I: % students who take AP courses

— Sampled students only


gData also sorted by race, gender, LEP, race*gender, and LEP*gender.hMainstreaming is indicated by the number of students with this disability who are in a regular classroom <21 percentof the time, between 21–60 percent of the time, and more than 60 percent of the time. These data are also sorted bygender.iMeasure simply indicates whether children with disabilities spend most of their day in or out of the regular classroom.jData also sorted by grade (K–8 only), race, gender, 504, IDEA, LEP, grade* gender, 504*gender, IDEA*gender,LEP*gender, race*grade, race*grade*gender, grade*gender*504, grade*gender*IDEA, grade*gender*LEP, grade*504,and grade*504.kData also sorted by grade, classroom, race, LEP, race*classroom, LEP*classroom, race*grade, LEP*grade,grade*classroom, race*grade*classroom, and LEP*grade*classroom.lData also sorted by race, gender, IDEA, LEP, race*gender, IDEA*gender, LEP*gender.

Documents

Measuring Access to Learning Opportunities