Published Online: December 27, 2005
Published in Print: January 5, 2006, as Sources And Notes

Sources And Notes

Article Tools
  • PrintPrinter-Friendly
  • EmailEmail Article
  • ReprintReprints

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Percent of high school students taking upper-level mathematics and science courses:
Council of Chief State School Officers, “State Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education,” 2005, http://www.ccsso.org/Projects/ Science_and_Mathematics_Education_Indicators/.

Percent of 9th to 12th graders who dropped out of school during 2001-02: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/.  

Graduation rates: EPE Research Center analysis using Cumulative Promotion Index. For detailed information on methodology see: “Who Graduates? Who Doesn’t?: A Statistical Portrait of Public High School Graduation, Class of 2001,” 2004, http://www.urban.org/ChristopherBSwanson.

Percent of 4th graders scoring at or above “proficient” on state reading tests during the 2004-05 and 2002-03 school years: Data gathered from state department of education Web sites and www.schoolmatters.com. If states did not offer tests at grade 4, the EPE Research Center accepted test results from the next closest grade level.
In lieu of 4th grade reading data, reading results are reported for the following states in an alternate grade: 3rd grade— Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland (2002-03 only), Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, Oregon, Tennessee (2002-03 only), Virginia; 5th grade—Kansas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania.

Improvement on NAEP between 2003 and 2005 on 4th grade reading: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Percent of 8th graders scoring at or above “proficient” on state reading tests during the 2004-05 and 2002-03 school years: Data gathered from state department of education Web sites and www.schoolmatters.com. If states did not offer tests at grade 8, the EPE Research Center accepted test results from the next closest grade level.
In lieu of 8th grade reading data, reading results are reported for the following states in an alternate grade: 7th grade—Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Washington; 9th grade—Ohio (2002-03 only).

Improvement on NAEP between 2003 and 2005 on 8th grade reading: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Percent of 4th graders scoring at or above “proficient” on state mathematics tests during the 2004-05 and 2002-03 school years: Data gathered from state department of education Web sites and www.schoolmatters.com. If states did not offer tests at grade 4, the EPE Research Center accepted test results from the next closest grade level.
In lieu of 4th grade mathematics data, mathematics results are reported for the following states in an alternate grade: 3rd grade—Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland (2002-03 only), Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Tennessee (2002-03 only), Virginia; 5th grade—Colorado (2002-03 only), Kentucky, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania.

Improvement on NAEP between 2003 and 2005 on 4th grade mathematics: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Percent of 8th graders scoring at or above “proficient” on state mathematics tests during the 2004-05 and 2002-03 school years: Data gathered from state department of education Web sites and www.schoolmatters.com. If states did not offer tests at grade 8, the EPE Research Center accepted test results from the next closest grade level.
In lieu of 8th grade mathematics data, mathematics results are reported for the following states in an alternate grade: 7th grade—California, Kansas, Minnesota, Washington; 9th grade—Ohio (2002-03 only).

Improvement on NAEP between 2003 and 2005 on 8th grade mathematics: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress.

STANDARDS AND ACCOUNTABILITY

State has adopted standards in the core subjects: EPE Research Center, November 2005.

State has standards that are clear, specific, and grounded in content: American Federation of Teachers, October 2005, http://www.aft.org/topics/sbr/states.htm.

State has a regular timeline for revising standards: EPE Research Center annual state policy survey, 2005.

Types of statewide tests required: Ibid.

Types of test items state uses to measure student performance: Ibid.

Subjects in which state uses assessments aligned to state standards: Ibid.

State standards-based tests have undergone an external-alignment review since 2001: Ibid.

State holds schools accountable for performance by providing report cards for all schools: EPE Research Center analysis of school report cards using the most recently available report cards in each state as of Oct. 21, 2005. The year of the report card does not always reflect the year of all the data included on the report card. Twenty-three states have more than one type of school report card. States whose most recently released report cards are from 2004-05 include: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin. States whose most recently released report cards are from 2003-04 include: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wyoming.

State has a statewide student-identification system: National Center for Educational Accountability, October 2005. Data can be viewed at http://www.nc4ea.org/index.cfm?pg=surveyresults. In addition to the data provided by the NCEA, the EPE Research Center gave California, Illinois, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, and Wisconsin credit for a statewide student-identification system.

State holds schools accountable for performance: EPE Research Center annual state policy survey, 2005. Information reflects implementation of school ratings, assistance, sanctions, and rewards for the 2005-06 school year.

Percent of schools that did not make AYP based on data from 2004-05: EPE Research Center annual state policy survey, 2005. Data were updated to reflect appeals decisions as of Oct. 31, 2005.

Percent of schools identified as in need of improvement based on data from 2004-05: Ibid.

Promotion contingent on performance on statewide exams: EPE Research Center annual state policy survey, 2005.

Graduation contingent on performance on statewide exit or end-of-course exams: Ibid.

State has appeals process for students who fail exit or end-of-course exams: Ibid.

Exit or end-of-course exams are based on state 10th grade standards or higher: Ibid

State requires remediation for students failing promotion, exit, or end-of-course exams: Ibid.

State finances remediation for students failing promotion, exit, or end-of-course exams: Ibid.

EFFORTS TO IMPROVE TEACHER QUALITY

State requires minimum degree/coursework in the subject area taught for beginning-teacher license: EPE Research Center annual state policy survey, 2005.

Percent of secondary teachers who majored in the core academic subjects they teach: Special analysis of U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999-2000, by Richard M. Ingersoll, University of Pennsylvania, 2002.

State requires clinical experiences during teacher training: EPE Research Center annual state policy survey, 2005.

State has established an alternative-route program to recruit individuals with at least a B.A.: Ibid.

State requires participants in all alternative routes to demonstrate subject-matter expertise before teaching: Ibid.

State finances and/or regulates one or more alternative-route programs that include preservice training, mentoring: Ibid.

State requires teachers to pass written tests for beginning-teacher license: Ibid.

State requires performance assessment for second stage of certification: Ibid.

State requires evaluations to be tied to student achievement: Ibid.

State requires and finances mentoring for all novice teachers: Ibid.

Minimum years of state-financed mentoring: Ibid.

State encourages or supports ongoing professional development for all teachers: Ibid.

State provides incentives to earn National Board certification: EPE Research Center annual state policy survey, 2005, and National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2005.

Number of National Board-certified teachers: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2005.

State discourages out-of-field teaching: EPE Research Center annual state policy survey, 2005.

School report cards include information on the number and/or percent of fully licensed/certified teachers, new teachers, teachers with emergency licenses, out-of-field teachers, highly qualified teachers, classes taught by highly qualified teachers: EPE Research Center analysis of state report cards using the most recently available school report cards in each state as of Oct. 21, 2005. See Sources and Notes under the Standards and Accountability section for a detailed listing of the years of the report cards analyzed for each state.

State holds teacher education programs accountable: EPE Research Center annual state policy survey, 2005.

Number of programs identified as at-risk or low-performing: Ibid.

Average teacher salaries: American Federation of Teachers, “Survey and Analysis of Teacher Salary Trends, 2004,” 2005.

State has policies encouraging pay-for-performance programs: EPE Research Center annual state policy survey, 2005.

SCHOOL CLIMATE

Note: All NAEP data are available from the NAEP Data Explorer at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde.

Percent of 8th graders in schools where a school official reports that the following are not problems or are minor problems: absenteeism, tardiness, classroom misbehavior: EPE Research Center analysis of 2003 NAEP assessment background-survey data.

State surveys teachers, parents, and/or students about school conditions: EPE Research Center annual state policy survey, 2005.

School report cards include school safety information: EPE Research Center analysis of state report cards using the most recently available school report cards in each state as of Oct. 21, 2005. See Sources and Notes under the Standards and Accountability section for a detailed listing of the years of the report cards analyzed for each state.

State law or regulations include provisions related to school bullying/ harassment: EPE Research Center annual state policy survey, 2005.

State finances a program intended to reduce school bullying/ harassment: Ibid.

State law enforces specific penalties for incidents of school violence: Ibid.

Percent of students in schools where a school official reports that physical conflicts are not a problem or are a minor problem: EPE Research Center analysis of 2003 NAEP assessment background-survey data.

School report cards include information on parent involvement: EPE Research Center analysis of state report cards using the most recently available school report cards in each state as of Oct. 21, 2005. See Sources and Notes under the Standards and Accountability section for a detailed listing of the years of the report cards analyzed for each state.

Percent of students in schools where a school official reports that: lack of parent involvement is not a problem or is a minor problem; more than half of parents participate in parent-teacher conferences: EPE Research Center analysis of 2003 NAEP assessment background-survey data.

State has a public school open-enrollment program: Education Commission of the States, “ECS State Notes-Choice,” May 2003.

State law allows charter schools: Center for Education Reform, November 2005.

Strength of charter school law: Center for Education Reform, “Charter School Laws Across the States; Ranking and Scorecard,” February 2004. Rating presented in terms of a grade point average.

Number of charter schools: Center for Education Reform, November 2005.

Percent of students in elementary schools with 350 or fewer students: EPE Research Center analysis of U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data Public Elementary and Secondary School Universe, 2003-04. Elementary schools were defined as those with a lowest grade level of prekindergarten to 3 and a highest grade level of up to 8.

Percent of students in middle schools with 800 or fewer students: Ibid.
Middle schools were defined as those with a lowest grade level of 4-7 and a highest grade level of 4-9.

Percent of students in high schools with 900 or fewer students: Ibid. High schools were defined as those with a lowest grade level of 7-12 and a highest grade level of 12.

School report cards include information on class size or pupil-teacher ratio: EPE Research Center analysis of state report cards using the most recently available school report cards in each state as of Oct. 21, 2005. See Sources and Notes under the Standards and Accountability section for a detailed listing of the years of the report cards analyzed for each state.

State has implemented a class-size-reduction program and/or limits class size by statute: EPE Research Center annual state policy survey, 2005.

Average class size for self-contained classes in elementary schools: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, “Schools and Staffing Survey, 1999-2000: Overview of the Data for Public, Private, Public Charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs Elementary and Secondary Schools,” 2002.

Median pupil-teacher ratio in primary-level schools: EPE Research Center analysis of U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data Public Elementary and Secondary School Universe, 2002-03.

State tracks condition of all school facilities: EPE Research Center annual state policy survey, 2005.

State provides grants/debt service for capital outlays or construction: Ibid.

State funding dedicated to capital outlays or construction for FY 2006: Ibid.

RESOURCES: SPENDING

Unadjusted per-pupil expenditures: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, “Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2002-03,” April 2005.

Per-pupil expenditures (PPE) adjusted for regional cost differences: Ibid. The figures were adjusted using the NCES Geographic Cost of Education Index.

Percent of total taxable resources spent on education: EPE Research Center analysis of state and local revenues from the National Center for Education Statistics, “Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2002-03,” April 2005, and the 2003 gross-state-product figures from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis. Gross-state product figures from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis for 2004 were released in time for this analysis. However, revenues for public elementary and secondary schools from the NCES report cited above included 2002-03 school year data, so the EPE Research Center used the 2003 gross-state-product figures to calculate each state’s total taxable resources dedicated to education. The figures represent resources spent on pre-K-12 education.

Percent of students in districts with PPE at or above the U.S. avg. ($6,786): EPE Research Center analysis using the following: 1) the U.S. Census Bureau's Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance Data for 2003; 2) the NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (school district) Universe Survey Data, 2002-03; 3) the Geographic Variations in Public Schools’ Costs, 1993-94; 4) the U.S. Census Bureau’s Small-Area Income and Poverty Estimates, 2002.

Spending index: Ibid.

RESOURCES: EQUITY

Wealth-neutrality score: EPE Research Center analysis using the following: 1) the U.S. Census Bureau’s Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance Data for 2003; 2) NCES Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (school district) Universe Survey Data, 2002-03; 3) the Geographic Variations in Public Schools’ Costs, 1993-94; 4) the U.S. Census Bureau's Small-Area Income and Poverty Estimates, 2002; 5) NCES School District Demographics, 2000 Census.

McLoone Index: Ibid.

Coefficient of variation: Ibid.

Vol. 25, Issue 17, Page 101

Back to Top Back to Top

Most Popular Stories

Viewed

Emailed

Recommended

Commented