Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The information presented in this report was obtained plete census had been taken using the same survey
from many sources, including federal and state agen- instruments, instructions, and procedures. In addi-
cies, private research organizations, and professional tion to such sampling errors, all surveys, both universe
associations. The data were collected using many re- and sample, are subject to design, reporting, and pro-
search methods, including surveys of a universe (such cessing errors due to nonresponse. To the extent
as all school districts) or of a sample, compilations of possible, these nonsampling errors are kept to a mini-
administrative records, and statistical projections. mum by methods built into the survey procedures;
Users of The Condition of Education should take par- however, the effects of nonsampling errors are more
ticular care when comparing data from different difficult to gauge than those produced by sampling
sources. Differences in procedures, timing, phrasing variability.
of questions, interviewer training, and so forth mean
The estimated standard error of a statistic is a mea-
that the results are not strictly comparable. Follow-
sure of the variation due to sampling and can be used
ing the general discussion of data accuracy below,
to examine the precision obtained in a particular
descriptions of the information sources and data col-
sample. The sample estimate and an estimate of its
lection methods are presented, grouped by sponsoring
standard error permit the construction of interval es-
organization. More extensive documentation of pro-
timates with prescribed confidence that the interval
cedures used in one survey as compared to another
includes the average result of all possible samples. If
does not imply more problems with the data, only that
all possible samples were selected, and each was sur-
more information is available.
veyed under the same conditions, and an estimate and
Unless otherwise noted, all statements cited in the text its standard error were calculated from each sample,
were tested for statistical significance and are statisti- then approximately 90 percent of the intervals from
cally significant at the 0.05 level. Several test 1.6 standard errors below the estimate to 1.6 standard
procedures were used. The procedure used depended errors above the estimate would include the actual
upon the type of data interpreted and the nature of value; 95 percent of the intervals from two standard
the statement tested. The most commonly used test errors below the estimate to two standard errors above
procedures were 1) t-tests, 2) multiple t-tests with a the estimate would include the actual value; and 99
Bonferroni adjustment to the significance level, 3) lin- percent of all intervals from 2.5 standard errors below
ear trend tests, and 4) sign tests. When a simple the estimate to 2.5 standard errors above the estimate
comparison between two sample estimates was made, would include the actual value. These intervals are
for example, between the first and last years in a time called 90 percent, 95 percent, and 99 percent confidence
series or between males and females, a t-test was used. intervals, respectively.
When multiple comparisons between more than two
To illustrate this further, consider the text table for In-
groups were made, and even if only one comparison
dicator 1 and the standard error table S1 for estimates
is cited in the text, a Bonferroni adjustment to the sig-
from the National Household Education Survey
nificance level was made to ensure that the significance
(NHES). For the 1996 estimate of the percentage of 3-
level for the tests as a group was at the 0.05 level. The
year-olds enrolled in center-based programs and
Bonferroni adjustment is commonly used when mak-
kindergarten (36.7 percent), table S1 shows a standard
ing comparisons between racial/ethnic groups and
error of 1.3. Therefore, we can construct a 95 percent
between the United States and other countries. A lin-
confidence interval from 34.1 to 39.3 (36.7 ± 2 x 1.3). If
ear trend test was used when a statement describing
this procedure was followed for every possible sample,
a trend, such as the growth of enrollment rates over
about 95 percent of the intervals would include the
time, was made or when a statement describing a re-
actual percentage of 3-year-olds enrolled in center-
lationship, such as the relationship between a parent’s
based programs and kindergarten.
educational attainment and a student’s reading profi-
ciency, was made. A sign test was used when a The estimated standard errors for two sample statis-
statement describing a consistent pattern of differences tics can be used to estimate the precision of the
over the years was made. difference between the two statistics and to avoid con-
cluding that there is an actual difference when the
The accuracy of any statistic is determined by the joint
difference in sample estimates may only be due to sam-
effects of “sampling” and “nonsampling” errors. Es-
pling error. The need to be aware of the precision of
timates based on a sample will differ somewhat from
differences arises, for example, when comparing mean
the figures that would have been obtained if a com-
proficiency scores between groups or years in the a result, most of the standard errors presented pro-
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) vide a general order of magnitude rather than the ex-
or when comparing percentages between groups or act standard error for any specific item.
years in the Current Population Survey (CPS). The
The preceding discussion on sampling variability was
standard error (se) of the difference between sample
directed toward a situation concerning one or two es-
estimate A and sample estimate B (when A and B do
timates. Determining the accuracy of statistical
not overlap) is
projections is more difficult. In general, the further
away the projection date is from the date of the actual
se A-B = se 2A + se2B data being used for the projection, the greater the pos-
sible error in the projection. If, for instance, annual
When a ratio (called a t-statistic) of the difference be- data from 1980 to 1995 are used to project enrollment
tween the two sample statistics and the standard error in elementary and secondary education, the further
of the difference as calculated above is less than 2, one beyond one projects, the more variability in the pro-
cannot be sure that the difference is not due only to jection. The enrollment projection for the year 2002
sampling error, and caution should be taken in draw- will be less certain than the projection for 1997. A de-
ing any conclusions about the difference. In this report, tailed discussion of the projections methodology is
for example, using the rationale above, we would not contained in Projections of Education Statistics to 2007
conclude that there is a difference between the two (National Center for Education Statistics 1997).
sample statistics. Some analysts, however, use the less
restrictive criterion of a t-statistic value of 1.64, which Both universe and sample surveys are subject to
corresponds to a 10 percent significance level. nonsampling errors. Nonsampling errors can arise in
various ways, including 1) from respondents or inter-
To illustrate this further, consider the data on event viewers interpreting questions differently; 2) from
dropout rates of those ages 15–24 in grades 10–12 in respondents estimating the values that they provide;
the text table of Indicator 6 and the associated stan- 3) from partial to total nonresponse; 4) from imputa-
dard error table S6. The estimated event dropout rate tion or reweighting to adjust for nonresponse; 5) from
for these people was 6.1 percent in 1972. For the (new) inability or unwillingness on the part of respondents
sample in 1996, the estimated event dropout rate was to provide correct information; 6) from recording or
5.0 percent. Is there enough evidence to conclude that keying errors; or 7) from overcoverage or
the actual event dropout rate for all people in grades undercoverage of the target universe.
10–12 ages 15–24 decreased by 1.1 percentage points
between 1972 and 1996? The standard errors for these Sampling and nonsampling error combine to yield
two estimates are 0.2 and 0.4, respectively. Using the total survey error. Since estimating the magnitude of
above formula, the standard error of the difference is nonsampling errors would require special experiments
calculated as 0.45. The ratio of the estimated differ- or access to independent data, their magnitudes are
ence of 1.1 percentage points to the standard error of seldom available. In almost all situations, the sam-
the difference of 0.45 is 2.46. Using the table below, pling error represents an underestimate of the total
we see that there is less than a 5 percent chance that survey error, and thus an overestimate of the preci-
the 1.1 percentage point difference is due only to sam- sion of the survey estimates.
pling error, and one may conclude that the event
dropout rate of those ages 15–24 in grades 10–12 de- To compensate for suspected nonrandom errors, ad-
creased between 1972 and 1996. justments of the sample estimates are often made. For
example, adjustments are frequently made for
Percent chance that a difference is due only to sam- nonresponse, both partial and total. An adjustment
pling error: made for either type of nonresponse is often referred
to as an imputation—substitution of the “average”
t-statistic 1.00 1.64 1.96 questionnaire response for the nonresponse. Imputa-
Percent chance 32 10 5 tions are usually made separately within various
groups of sample members, which have similar sur-
It should be noted that most of the standard errors vey characteristics. Imputation for item nonresponse
presented in this report and in the original documents is usually made by substituting for a missing item the
are approximations. That is, to derive estimates of response to that item of a respondent having charac-
standard errors that would applicable to a wide vari- teristics that are similar to those of the nonrespondent.
ety of items and that could be prepared at a moderate In editions prior to the 1992 edition of The Condition of
cost, a number of approximations were required. As Education, when reporting race-specific data from the
CPS, Hispanics were usually included among whites Unless otherwise noted, all dollar values in this vol-
and blacks (i.e., “Hispanics may be of any race”). Be- ume are expressed in 1997 constant dollars. The
ginning with the 1992 edition of the report, racial/ Consumer Price Index (CPI) is used to convert cur-
ethnic data from the CPS excludes Hispanics from rent dollars for earlier years to 1997 dollars. The CPI
whites and blacks (e.g., whites are non-Hispanic for calendar year 1997 is 160.6. See table 38 in Digest
whites and blacks are non-Hispanic blacks). of Education Statistics, 1997 (National Center for Edu-
cation Statistics 1997) for CPI adjustments.
Table S1(a) Standard errors for the first text table in Indicator 1
Table S1(b) Standard errors for the second text table in Indicator 1
Grade 4 Grade 8
Average 1996 Change from 1992 Average 1996 Change from 1992 Change from 1990
Jurisdiction scale score average scale score scale score average scale score average scale score
National average 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.8
Alabama 1.2 2.0 2.1 2.7 2.4
Alaska 1.3 — 1.8 — —
Arizona 1.7 2.0 1.6 2.0 2.1
Arkansas 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.9 1.8
California 1.8 2.4 1.9 2.5 2.3
Colorado 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.5 1.4
Connecticut 1.1 1.6 1.1 1.6 1.5
Delaware 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.4 1.3
District of Columbia 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.6
Florida 1.2 1.9 1.8 2.3 2.2
Georgia 1.5 1.9 1.6 2.0 2.1
Hawaii 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.3 1.3
Indiana 1.0 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.8
Iowa 1.1 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.7
Kentucky 1.1 1.5 1.1 1.5 1.6
Louisiana 1.1 1.8 1.6 2.3 2.0
Maine 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.6 —
Maryland 1.6 2.0 2.1 2.5 2.6
Massachusetts 1.4 1.8 1.7 2.0 —
Michigan 1.3 2.1 1.8 2.3 2.2
Minnesota 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.7 1.6
Mississippi 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.7 —
Missouri 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.8 —
Montana 1.2 — 1.3 — 1.6
Nebraska 1.2 1.7 1.0 1.5 1.5
Nevada 1.3 — — — 1.4
New Jersey 1.5 2.1 — — 2.2
New Mexico 1.8 2.3 1.2 1.5 1.5
New York 1.2 1.8 1.7 2.7 2.7
North Carolina 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.8
North Dakota 1.2 1.4 0.9 1.5 1.5
Oregon 1.4 — 1.5 — 1.8
Pennsylvania 1.2 1.8 — — —
Rhode Island 1.4 2.1 0.9 1.2 1.1
South Carolina 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.8 —
Tennessee 1.4 1.9 1.4 2.0 —
Texas 1.4 1.8 1.4 1.9 2.0
Utah 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.3 —
Vermont 1.2 — 1.0 — `
Virginia 1.4 1.9 1.6 1.9 2.2
Washington 1.2 — 1.3 — —
West Virginia 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.4 1.4
Wisconsin 1.0 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.0
Wyoming 1.4 1.7 0.9 1.2 1.1
— Not available. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, NAEP 1996 Mathematics Report Card for the
Nation and the States: Findings from the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, 1997.
Mathematics Science
Country Overall Male Female Overall Male Female
International average 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.4
Netherlands 4.7 5.6 5.9 5.3 5.7 6.2
Sweden 4.3 5.9 3.9 4.4 5.9 3.5
Denmark 3.3 4.0 4.0 3.6 5.4 4.1
Switzerland 5.8 6.4 7.4 5.3 6.1 7.8
Iceland 2.0 3.4 2.2 1.5 2.7 2.1
Norway 4.1 5.3 4.8 4.1 5.1 4.5
France 5.1 5.6 5.3 5.1 6.7 4.8
Australia 9.3 10.3 9.3 9.8 11.5 9.4
New Zealand 4.5 4.9 6.2 5.2 7.1 5.2
Canada 2.8 3.8 3.5 2.6 3.6 3.8
Austria 5.3 7.2 5.5 5.6 8.7 5.8
Slovenia 8.3 12.7 8.0 8.2 12.7 6.4
Germany 5.9 8.8 8.8 5.1 7.9 8.5
Hungary 3.2 4.9 4.8 3.0 4.2 4.3
Italy 5.5 7.4 6.0 5.3 6.7 5.6
Russian Federation 6.2 6.5 6.6 5.7 5.7 6.7
Lithuania 6.1 7.3 7.7 5.7 6.4 7.3
Czech Republic 12.3 11.3 16.8 8.8 8.8 11.0
United States 3.2 4.1 3.6 3.3 4.6 3.9
Cyprus 2.5 4.9 3.7 3.0 5.8 3.0
South Africa 8.3 9.3 10.8 10.5 11.5 13.0
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, Pursuing Excellence: A Study of U.S. Twelfth-
Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement in International
Context, 1998.
Mathematics Science
Country Overall Male Female Overall Male Female
International average* 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.8
Singapore 5.3 5.5 6.4 5.0 5.4 6.3
Korea 2.1 2.5 2.6 1.9 2.2 2.5
Japan 2.1 2.5 2.2 1.8 2.0 2.0
Hong Kong 4.3 4.7 4.2 3.7 4.1 3.8
Netherlands 3.4 3.8 3.4 3.1 3.6 3.5
Czech Republic 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.1 3.4 3.6
Austria 3.1 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.9 3.7
Slovenia 3.2 3.4 4.0 3.3 3.3 4.0
Ireland 3.4 3.9 4.3 3.3 3.5 4.5
Hungary 3.7 4.2 3.9 3.4 3.8 3.9
Australia* 3.2 3.9 3.6 3.0 3.4 3.3
United States 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.3
Canada 3.3 3.4 3.9 3.0 3.7 3.2
Israel 3.5 4.4 4.1 3.6 4.5 3.8
Latvia (Latvian-speaking schools) 4.8 5.5 5.2 4.9 5.4 5.5
Scotland 3.9 4.3 3.8 4.2 4.5 4.3
England 3.2 3.4 4.4 3.3 4.0 3.4
Norway 3.0 3.5 3.6 3.6 4.7 3.7
Cyprus 3.1 3.5 3.3 3.3 4.0 3.1
New Zealand 4.3 5.7 4.3 4.9 6.1 4.8
Greece 4.4 5.0 4.5 4.1 4.5 4.3
Thailand 4.7 5.8 4.2 4.9 5.9 4.3
Portugal 3.5 3.8 3.7 4.0 4.5 4.2
Iceland 2.7 3.3 3.0 3.3 4.3 3.3
Iran, Islamic Republic 4.0 6.0 5.0 3.9 5.9 4.7
Kuwait 2.8 — — 3.1 — —
— Not available. SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement, TIMSS International Study Center, Mathematics
* The standard errors for the International Average and Australia Achievement in the Primary School Years, IEA’s Third International
(grade 4) differ slightly from those published in Mathematics Mathematics and Science Study, 1997 and Science Achievement in
Achievement in the Primary School Years , 1997, and in Science the Primary School Years, IEA’s International Mathematics and
Achievement in the Primary School Years, 1997. Science Study, 1997.
Mathematics Science
Country Overall Male Female Overall Male Female
International average 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7
Singapore 4.9 6.3 5.4 5.5 6.7 7
Korea 2.4 3.2 3.4 1.9 2.7 2.3
Japan 1.9 2.6 2.1 1.6 2.4 2.0
Hong Kong 6.5 7.7 7.7 4.7 5.5 5.1
Belgium (Flemish) 5.7 8.8 7.4 4.2 6.0 5.8
Czech Republic 4.9 4.5 6.3 4.3 4.2 5.8
Slovak Republic 3.3 3.7 3.6 3.2 3.5 3.9
Switzerland 2.8 3.5 3.1 2.5 3.2 3.0
Netherlands 6.7 7.8 6.4 5.0 6.4 4.9
Slovenia 3.1 3.8 3.3 2.5 3.2 3.2
Bulgaria 6.3 — — 5.3 — —
Austria 3.0 3.2 4.5 3.7 4.0 4.6
France 2.9 3.1 3.8 2.5 2.7 3.3
Hungary 3.2 3.6 3.6 2.8 3.1 3.4
Russian Federation 5.3 6.3 5.0 4.0 4.9 3.7
Australia 4.0 5.1 4.6 3.9 5.2 4.1
Canada 2.4 3.2 2.7 2.6 3.1 3.7
Ireland 5.1 7.2 6.0 4.5 6.6 5.2
Belgium (French) 3.4 4.7 3.7 2.8 4.8 2.9
Israel 6.2 6.6 6.9 5.7 6.4 6.1
Thailand 5.7 5.6 7.0 3.7 3.9 4.3
Sweden 3.0 3.6 3.1 3.0 3.4 3.4
Germany 4.5 5.1 5.0 4.8 5.9 4.9
New Zealand 4.5 5.9 5.3 4.4 5.4 5.2
England 2.6 5.1 3.5 3.3 5.6 4.2
Norway 2.2 2.8 2.7 1.9 3.2 2.0
Denmark 2.8 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.6 3.9
United States 4.6 5.2 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.2
Scotland 5.5 6.6 5.2 5.1 6.4 4.7
Latvia (Latvian-speaking schools) 3.1 3.8 3.5 2.7 3.3 3.2
Iceland 4.5 5.5 5.6 4.0 5.1 4.6
Spain 2.0 2.5 2.6 1.7 2.1 2.3
Greece 3.1 3.7 3.1 2.2 2.6 3.1
Romania 4.0 4.8 4.0 4.7 5.3 5.0
Lithuania 3.5 4.0 4.1 3.4 3.8 4.0
Cyprus 1.9 2.8 2.5 1.9 2.2 2.7
Portugal 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.3 2.8 2.7
Iran, Islamic Republic 2.2 2.9 3.3 2.4 3.8 3.2
Kuwait 2.5 — — 3.7 — —
Colombia 3.4 6.9 3.6 4.1 7.3 4.6
South Africa 4.4 6.3 4.1 6.6 9.5 6.0
— Not available. SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement, TIMSS International Study Center, Mathematics
Achievement in the Middle School Years, IEA’s Third International
Mathematics and Science Study, 1996 and Science Achievement in
the Middle School Years, IEA’s Third International Mathematics and
Science Study, 1996.
Table S4(a) Standard errors for the first text table in Indicator 4
Table S4(b) Standard errors for the second text table in Indicator 4
Table 6(a) Standard errors for the first text table in Indicator 6
Table S6(b) Standard errors for the second text table in Indicator 6
Year
Proficiency levels Grade 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996
Level 150:
Disjointed, unclear 4 1.3 0.8 1.1 0.5 0.9 0.7
writing 8 — — 0.1 — — 0.1
11 — — — — — —
Level 200:
Incomplete, vague 4 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.5
writing 8 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5
11 0.3 — 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
Level 250:
Beginning, focused, 4 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.8 1.2
clear writing 8 2.6 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3
11 1.0 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.4
Level 300:
Complete, sufficient 4 — 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
writing 8 1.8 0.8 0.8 1.5 1.2 0.8
11 2.4 1.7 1.1 1.9 1.5 1.5
Level 350:
Effective, coherent 4 — — — — — —
writing 8 — 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2
11 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.5
— Not available. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress,
NAEP 1996 Trends in Academic Progress , revised 1998.
White
5 3.6 4.3 3.0 2.3 4.7 3.1 5.7 2.3 2.3 3.4 3.1 1.9 3.8 3.7 3.4 1.2 2.5 3.0
10 3.3 3.1 3.5 1.7 2.9 1.8 3.2 1.4 2.9 2.6 2.1 3.0 2.2 2.8 2.7 2.0 1.3 2.7
25 1.5 1.8 2.9 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.3 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.1 1.5 1.5
50 2.2 1.8 1.9 2.3 1.0 2.1 2.7 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.0 1.1 2.0 1.2 1.1 1.3 2.2 1.3
75 1.4 2.1 2.2 1.6 2.1 2.8 2.3 1.3 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.3 2.6 1.3 1.3 1.8 1.6 2.0
90 4.5 2.6 1.6 2.2 1.4 2.5 2.0 1.7 1.8 2.4 2.0 1.9 2.6 1.3 2.2 1.4 1.9 2.7
95 3.5 3.3 2.4 2.8 2.7 3.5 2.5 1.3 1.8 2.5 2.3 1.8 4.0 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.1 3.7
Black
5 6.5 7.6 5.2 5.7 9.2 6.5 7.2 5.2 5.7 8.1 6.2 8.2 8.5 6.2 5.4 5.0 7.0 6.6
10 4.5 5.9 6.8 4.2 4.8 2.8 6.8 6.1 4.0 7.4 4.4 6.3 6.8 2.9 3.0 3.2 5.1 6.2
25 4.9 5.5 4.9 4.5 4.9 3.3 6.9 3.4 4.4 4.7 6.1 1.6 5.5 3.3 2.3 5.8 3.4 5.7
50 5.5 4.6 6.0 4.2 3.8 6.2 6.7 4.3 2.4 3.6 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.9 2.6 3.5
75 13.6 4.6 7.0 3.3 4.0 3.2 3.7 3.3 2.7 4.6 4.2 3.8 4.6 3.0 4.0 4.3 2.4 3.1
90 10.2 6.0 6.5 3.6 6.4 6.2 5.4 5.7 1.6 3.3 7.1 3.4 7.8 4.9 2.3 4.1 2.1 5.3
95 12.0 5.8 23.2 6.4 6.4 5.3 3.6 4.4 3.1 4.7 3.7 6.7 5.0 3.8 4.4 5.1 3.2 9.6
Hispanic
5 13.1 6.0 7.5 5.1 4.9 4.8 13.9 5.9 5.4 6.4 4.9 4.4 10.8 6.2 9.7 10.6 7.9 9.3
10 12.3 6.1 7.6 5.1 5.2 3.5 11.7 7.1 3.7 5.1 3.9 4.9 6.5 8.4 4.1 2.7 8.3 3.2
25 8.7 5.1 7.1 3.4 4.7 4.3 7.6 5.3 3.6 5.0 5.1 2.9 7.5 6.2 4.0 6.0 6.6 3.3
50 6.4 5.1 5.4 4.3 4.6 3.7 7.0 2.9 4.7 2.1 3.2 2.3 8.2 3.9 3.2 4.6 4.9 3.2
75 8.0 4.5 3.8 5.1 4.0 4.4 4.2 2.4 5.0 4.3 3.9 2.6 7.1 8.7 6.0 4.9 4.0 6.6
90 6.5 4.3 4.8 5.5 5.0 4.5 5.8 2.4 3.3 3.3 6.2 4.0 9.8 5.6 3.9 3.5 3.0 3.1
95 7.5 4.8 5.8 3.5 5.1 5.2 7.7 5.4 3.3 3.5 5.7 5.6 16.8 5.4 15.8 3.1 6.8 6.9
Students
Grades Grades
Citizenship skill Total 9–10 11–12 Parents
Political knowledge (correct answers out of five)
None or one 1.0 1.3 1.4 0.9
Two or three 0.9 1.2 1.4 0.9
Four or five 0.8 0.9 1.3 0.9
Attention to politics
Read national news at least once a week 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.0
Watch/listen to national news almost daily 1.0 1.3 1.4 0.8
Participation skills
I could write a letter to a government office 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.4
I could make a statement at a public meeting 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.7
Political efficacy
I understand politics or government 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.0
My family has a say in what government does 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.0
Tolerance of diversity
People should be allowed to speak against religion or church 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.7
Controversial books could be kept in a public library 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.0
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey, Spr ing
1996 (Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family
Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement Component).
Selected student Percentage of students who gave correct answers to political items
characteristics None or one Two or three Four or five
Total 1.0 0.9 0.8
Sex
Male 1.4 1.3 1.2
Female 1.4 1.3 1.0
Race–ethnicity
White 1.2 1.1 1.0
Black, Hispanic, or other 1.8 1.6 1.0
Academic performance
A 1.6 1.7 1.6
B 1.5 1.4 1.1
C 1.9 1.7 1.3
D–F 4.4 4.3 1.9
Language spoken most at home by student
English 1.0 0.9 0.8
Other 3.8 3.4 2.3
Parents’ highest educational level
Less than high school 3.1 2.8 1.7
High school only 1.8 1.7 1.1
Some college/vocational/technical 1.8 1.7 1.3
Bachelor‘s degree 2.3 2.4 2.2
Graduate/professional school 2.0 2.1 2.2
Control of school
Public 1.0 0.9 0.8
Private 3.0 3.1 2.7
Participation in community service during school year
No participation 1.4 1.2 0.9
Once or twice 2.0 1.9 1.8
Regularly/under 35 hours 2.7 2.6 2.2
Regularly/35 hours or more 2.5 2.4 2.4
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey, Spring
1996 (Youth Civic Involvement Component and Parent and Family
Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement Component).
Male Female
High school Bachelor’s High school Bachelor’s
Grades diploma Some degree Grades diploma Some degree
March 9–11 or GED college or higher 9–11 or GED college or higher
1971 1.2 0.5 1.0 0.8 1.5 0.9 1.7 1.8
1973 1.1 0.5 1.0 0.7 1.5 0.9 1.6 1.6
1975 1.5 0.6 0.9 0.6 1.5 0.9 1.5 1.3
1977 1.5 0.6 0.8 0.6 1.6 0.9 1.3 1.2
1979 1.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 1.7 0.9 1.2 1.1
1981 1.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 1.7 0.8 1.1 1.0
1983 1.8 0.8 0.9 0.6 1.7 0.8 1.1 1.0
1985 1.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 1.8 0.8 1.1 0.9
1987 1.5 0.6 0.8 0.6 1.8 0.8 1.0 0.9
1989 1.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 2.0 0.8 1.1 0.9
1990 1.5 0.6 0.8 0.6 1.9 0.8 1.0 0.9
1991 1.7 0.6 0.8 0.6 1.8 0.8 1.1 0.9
1992 1.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.8 0.9 1.0 0.9
1993 1.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 1.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
1994 1.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 1.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
1995 1.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 2.0 0.9 0.9 0.9
1996 1.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 2.1 1.0 0.9 0.9
1997 1.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 2.1 1.0 1.0 0.9
1998 1.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 2.2 1.0 1.0 0.8
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
March Current Population Surveys.
Table S14(a) Standard errors for the first text table in Indicator 14
Sex and
race–ethnicity 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Total 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.4 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.7 2.9 2.8
Sex
Male 1.6 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.6 3.0 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.7 3.0 3.3 4.0 3.5
Female 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.9 3.1 3.2 3.4 4.5 4.1 4.3 4.0 4.3 4.9 4.3
Race–ethnicity
White 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 2.4 2.7 3.1 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.7 3.4
Black 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.7 1.4 2.0 2.0 1.8 2.2 1.8 2.1 1.8 2.1
Hispanic 3.3 2.5 3.4 3.5 7.4 7.9 6.3 9.2 7.7 9.3 4.2 5.2 4.9 5.8
SOURCE: The College Board, Advanced Placement Program,
National Summary Reports, various years (Copyright © 1984–97 by
the College Entrance Examination Board. All rights reserved.). U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, October Current
Population Surveys.
Table S14(b) Standard errors for the second text table in Indicator 14
Number of examinations
Number of AP examinations taken with scores of 3 or higher
Sex and Social Foreign Cal- Computer Social Foreign Cal- Computer
race–ethnicity studies English language culus science Science studies English language culus science Science
Total 1.2 1.2 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.4 *0.0 0.5
Sex
Male 1.9 1.3 0.4 1.1 0.1 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.9
Female 2.1 2.1 0.7 0.9 *0.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.5 0.5 *0.0 0.6
Race–ethnicity
White 1.6 1.5 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.2 0.5 *0.0 0.6
Black 0.8 0.9 0.2 0.4 *0.0 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 *0.0 0.1
Hispanic 1.8 1.8 2.8 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.9 2.5 0.4 *0.0 0.4
* Standard errors less than 0.05 are rounded to 0.0. SOURCE: The College Board, Advanced Placement Program,
National Summary Reports (Copyright © 1997 by the College
Entrance Examination Board. All rights reserved.). U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, October Current Population
Surveys.
Above school average 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.3
At school average 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.5 2.2
Below school average 2.8 2.3 3.1 3.4 2.2 1.5 3.1
Mixed 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.5 1.2 1.9
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, Teacher Follow-up Survey, 1994–95.
Current grade
level, race–ethnicity, Word School Graphics/
and family income processing E-mail Internet assignments Databases design
Total (Grades 1–12) 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.3
Grades 1–6
Total 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.5
Race–ethnicity
White 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.5
Black 1.3 0.7 0.8 1.9 0.0 1.0
Hispanic 1.4 0.6 1.0 1.7 0.0 1.0
Family income
Low income 1.8 1.1 1.2 2.3 0.0 1.4
Middle income 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.6
High income 1.0 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.0 0.8
Grades 7–12
Total 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.5
Race–ethnicity
White 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.6
Black 2.2 1.2 1.6 2.4 0.5 1.4
Hispanic 2.8 1.7 2.2 2.9 0.8 1.9
Family income
Low income 2.4 1.5 1.7 2.7 0.5 1.6
Middle income 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.6
High income 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.8
Grade 4 Grade 8
Drill Demon- Playing Simula- Drill Demon- Playing Simula-
Selected and stration math/ tions and and stration math/ tions and
student prac- of new learning appli- Not prac- of new learning appli- Not
characteristics tice topics games cations used tice topics games cations used
Total 2.1 0.6 2.5 1.1 2.6 2.2 1.3 2.1 2.6 3.5
Sex
Male 2.4 0.8 2.6 1.0 2.7 2.3 1.3 2.0 2.8 3.4
Female 2.4 0.5 2.5 1.3 2.6 2.3 1.4 2.4 2.4 3.8
Race–ethnicity
White 2.4 0.7 2.7 1.2 2.9 2.5 1.7 2.3 3.5 4.3
Black 4.0 1.7 3.9 1.9 4.0 4.8 1.4 4.9 1.9 6.7
Hispanic 3.5 0.5 4.1 1.3 3.4 3.0 1.0 4.3 2.0 4.3
Title I participation
Participated 3.6 0.7 4.2 3.1 4.2 6.4 6.3 6.9 2.2 6.5
Did not
participate 2.3 0.7 2.5 1.0 2.8 2.4 1.0 2.2 2.9 3.8
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress,
1996 Summary Data Tables: Teacher Reports for Mathematics and
Science, 1998.
Table S21(a) Standard errors for the first text table in Indicator 21
Table S21(b) Standard errors for the second text table in Indicator 21
Frequency of participation
A few 2 to 3 At least
times Once a times a once a
Activity Total a year month month week
Common planning period for
team teachers 1.5 2.5 3.8 3.5 1.7
Being mentored by another teacher
in a formal relationship 1.8 2.1 4.3 4.5 4.0
Individual or collaborative research
on topic of interest professionally 1.2 1.7 3.3 2.4 2.6
Regularly scheduled collaboration
with other teachers 0.9 1.8 1.9 2.1 1.8
Networking with teachers
outside your school 1.2 1.1 2.8 3.6 3.7
Mentoring another teacher in a
formal relationship 1.6 2.1 4.6 3.5 2.6
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, Teacher Survey
on Professional Development and Training, 1998.
A few 2 to 3 At least
times a Once a times a once a
Activity Never year month month week
Common planning period for
team teachers 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.9
Being mentored by another teacher
in a formal relationship 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.4
Individual or collaborative research
on topic of interest professionally 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5
Regularly scheduled collaboration
with other teachers 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.9
Networking with teachers
outside your school 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.4
Mentoring another teacher in a
formal relationship 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.6
NOTE: The methodology for computing standard errors for 1994–97 SOURCE: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute for
differs from that of previous years. Social Research, Monitoring the Future Study.
Type of drug 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Alcohol 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Marijuana 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2
Stimulants 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
LSD 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
Cocaine 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Tranquilizers 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Type of drug 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
Alcohol 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Marijuana 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Any illicit drug other than marijuana 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Stimulants 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
LSD 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Cocaine 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3
Sedatives 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Tranquilizers 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Inhalants — 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Type of drug 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Alcohol 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4
Marijuana 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Any illicit drug other than marijuana 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Stimulants 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
LSD 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Cocaine 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Sedatives 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Tranquilizers 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Inhalants 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
— Not available. SOURCE: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute
for Social Research, Monitoring the Future Study.
Type of drug and grade 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Alcohol
8th-graders 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
10th-graders 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
12th-graders 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1
Marijuana/hashish
th
8 -graders 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
10th-graders 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
12th-graders 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1
Any illicit drug other than marijuana
8th-graders 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
10th-graders 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
12th-graders 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1
Stimulants
8th-graders 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1
th
10 -graders 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
12th-graders 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1
LSD
8th-graders 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
th
10 -graders 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
12th-graders 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 *0.0
Cocaine
8th-graders 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
th
10 -graders 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
12th-graders 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 *0.0
Tranquilizers
8th-graders 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
th
10 -graders 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
12th-graders 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 *0.0
Cigarettes
8th-graders 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
th
10 -graders 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
12th-graders 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1
Inhalants
8th-graders 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
10th-graders 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
12th-graders 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 *0.0
* Standard errors less than 0.05 are rounded to 0.0. SOURCE: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute
for Social Research, Monitoring the Future Study.
Type of drug and grade 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Alcohol
8th-graders 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
th
10 -graders 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
12th-graders — — — — — — —
Marijuana
8th-graders 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
th
10 -graders 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
12th-graders 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6
Heroin
8th-graders 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
th
10 -graders 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
12th-graders 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0
LSD
8th-graders 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
th
10 -graders 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
12th-graders 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Cocaine
8th-graders 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3
th
10 -graders 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
12th-graders 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Tranquilizers
8th-graders 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
10th-graders 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
12th-graders 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Cigarettes
8th-graders 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
10th-graders 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
12th-graders — — — — — — —
— Not available. SOURCE: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute
for Social Research, Monitoring the Future Study.
Table S28(a) Standard errors for the first text table in Indicator 28
Table S28(b) Standard errors for the second text table in Indicator 28
Family income
1979 1982 1985
School level and type Low Middle High Low Middle High Low Middle High
Preschool
All public 2.6 3.0 2.3 2.7 3.0 2.2 2.4 2.7 1.9
All private 1.0 2.2 2.2 0.8 2.1 2.1 0.8 2.0 2.0
Church-related 1.8 3.6 3.6 1.5 3.4 3.3 1.2 3.3 3.2
Nonchurch-related 1.1 2.8 2.7 0.9 2.8 2.7 1.0 2.6 2.6
Kindergarten
All public 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.1
All private 1.4 3.6 3.6 1.6 3.5 3.4 1.5 3.3 3.2
Church-related 1.5 4.4 4.3 1.8 4.0 3.8 1.9 4.0 3.8
Nonchurch-related 2.8 6.4 6.2 3.3 7.1 6.9 2.5 6.3 6.1
Elementary
All public 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4
All private 0.6 1.4 1.4 0.7 1.5 1.4 0.7 1.5 1.5
Church-related 0.6 1.5 1.5 0.8 1.6 1.5 0.8 1.6 1.6
Nonchurch-related 1.5 3.7 3.8 1.3 4.3 4.3 1.9 4.1 4.1
Secondary
All public 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7
All private 0.8 2.4 2.4 0.9 2.5 2.5 1.0 2.4 2.4
Church-related 0.9 2.6 2.6 1.0 2.8 2.8 1.1 2.6 2.6
Nonchurch-related 2.1 5.2 5.3 1.8 5.6 5.6 2.7 5.5 5.7
Family income
1991 1994 1997
School level and type Low Middle High Low Middle High Low Middle High
Preschool
All public 2.4 2.6 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.2
All private 0.8 2.0 2.0 0.8 1.7 1.6 0.9 1.7 1.7
Church-related 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 1.2 2.5 2.5
Nonchurch-related 1.2 2.8 2.7 1.1 2.2 2.2 1.2 2.4 2.3
Kindergarten
All public 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.1
All private 1.6 3.5 3.5 1.8 3.4 3.3 1.7 3.2 3.1
Church-related 2.1 4.2 4.1 2.2 4.0 3.8 2.1 3.8 3.7
Nonchurch-related 2.4 6.4 6.4 3.4 6.4 6.4 2.8 5.7 5.6
Elementary
All public 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4
All private 0.7 1.6 1.6 0.6 1.4 1.4 0.6 1.5 1.5
Church-related 0.8 1.8 1.7 0.7 1.6 1.5 0.7 1.7 1.7
Nonchurch-related 1.4 3.8 3.8 1.3 3.0 3.0 1.5 3.2 3.2
Secondary
All public 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6
All private 1.2 2.9 2.9 1.1 2.5 2.5 1.1 2.4 2.4
Church-related 1.2 3.3 3.3 1.3 2.9 2.9 1.2 2.8 2.8
Nonchurch-related 2.9 5.5 5.7 2.3 5.0 5.0 2.6 4.8 4.9
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
October Current Population Surveys.
Table S29(a) Standard errors for the first text table in Indicator 29
1995
Public Private Minority enrollment
Subject Fall 1989 Total 2-year 4-year 2-year 4-year High Low
Reading, writing, or mathematics 1.4 0.8 1.4 1.2 5.4 1.6 2.0 0.8
Reading 0.7 0.5 1.0 0.8 2.5 1.2 1.7 0.6
Writing 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.9 5.3 1.3 1.7 0.6
Mathematics 1.0 0.8 1.3 1.1 4.8 1.4 2.0 0.8
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, Postsecondary Education Quick Information
System, Remedial Education at Higher Education Institutions in Fall
1995, 1996.
Table S29(b) Standard errors for the second text table in Indicator 29
1995
Public Private Minority enrollment
Subject Fall 1989 Total 2-year 4-year 2-year 4-year High Low
Reading, writing, or mathematics 2.1 1.7 — 2.6 6.8 3.9 2.0 1.9
Reading 2.3 1.6 0.7 3.1 5.5 2.7 3.1 1.7
Writing 2.2 1.6 0.5 2.7 6.8 4.2 3.4 1.8
Mathematics 2.2 1.6 0.5 2.7 7.0 3.5 2.1 1.7
— Not applicable. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, Postsecondary Education Quick Information
System, Remedial Education at Higher Education Institutions in Fall
1995, 1996.
Program area
Agriculture/
home Edu- Engi- Fine Health Human- Natural Social
Instructional method Total economics Business cation neering arts sciences ities sciences sciences Other
Teaching tools
Computational tools/software 0.6 4.2 1.7 1.9 2.3 1.5 1.8 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.5
Computer-aided instruction 0.5 4.3 1.5 1.8 2.5 1.6 1.8 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.4
Grading
Grading on a curve 0.5 4.8 1.8 1.3 3.0 1.6 1.9 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.5
Competency-based grading 0.5 3.7 1.6 1.8 2.5 1.7 1.8 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.7
Assignments
Multiple drafts of written work 0.5 3.7 1.4 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.0 0.9 1.3 1.6
Student presentations 0.6 4.6 1.6 1.6 2.9 1.5 1.8 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.4
Student evaluations 0.6 3.9 1.5 1.9 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.0 0.9 1.4 1.5
Term/research papers 0.6 3.6 1.6 1.8 2.6 2.0 1.8 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.6
Midterms/finals
Multiple choice 0.6 3.9 1.5 1.8 2.8 1.9 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.7 1.6
Short answer 0.5 3.4 1.8 1.7 2.9 2.0 1.8 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.6
Essay 0.6 4.9 1.7 1.8 2.7 2.1 1.6 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.6
Type of institution
Sex and Control of institution Compre- Liberal
academic rank Total Public Private Research Doctoral hensive arts 2-year Other
Total 0.9 1.1 1.9 2.5 2.4 2.0 2.8 1.3 3.4
Sex
Male 1.1 1.3 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.2 3.5 1.6 3.9
Female 0.9 1.1 1.9 3.7 3.0 1.9 2.3 1.3 3.4
Academic rank
Full professor 1.2 1.1 2.5 2.1 3.0 2.5 3.1 2.7 4.6
Associate professor 1.7 2.0 2.9 3.9 2.3 1.2 1.7 3.1 8.7
Assistant professor 1.5 1.3 3.1 3.3 2.6 1.8 3.6 3.9 6.7
Instructor 1.0 1.2 2.0 5.4 3.4 1.9 3.3 1.4 5.2
Lecturer 2.3 2.7 4.2 5.9 6.3 2.3 6.4 1.8 8.7
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, 1993.
Table S35(a) Standard errors for the first text table in Indicator 35
Type of activity
Level of involvement Attended Attended parent- Attended general
Family type High Low Volunteered class event teacher conference school meeting
Fathers in two-parent families 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Fathers in single-parent families 2.6 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.7 2.4
Nonresident fathers 0.6 0.9 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.8
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey, 1996
(Parent and Family Involvement in Education and Civic Involvement
Components).
Table S35(b) Standard errors for the second text table in Indicator 35
Black Hispanic
Public schools Public schools
Other Non- Other Non-
Central metro- metro- Private Central metro- metro- Private
Year Total city politan politan schools Total city politan politan schools
1970 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.5 — — — — —
1972 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.6
1974 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.8
1976 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.7
1978 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.7
1979 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.7
1982 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.9
1985 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.9
1986 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.9
1988 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.3 1.0 0.6 0.6 1.1
1990 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.5 1.0
1991 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.0
1992 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.5 1.0
1993 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.0
1994 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.7
1995 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.6
1996 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7
— Not available. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Current Population Reports, Series P-20, “Level of Enrollment Below
College for Persons 3 to 24 Years Old, by Control of School,
Metropolitan Status, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin,” various years;
and October Current Population Surveys.
Parents’ highest education level 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Total 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3
Less than high school completion 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6
High school completion 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6
Some college 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5
Bachelor’s degree or higher 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Not available 3.8 3.8 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.5 2.9
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
October Current Population Surveys, various years.
Table S52(a) Standard errors for the first text table in Indicator 52
Hispanic Non-Hispanic
Asian/
Other Pacific
Recency of migration Total Total Mexican Hispanic Total White Black Islander
Total 0.3 1.1 1.4 2.3 0.3 0.3 0.8 1.1
Born outside 50 states/D.C. 1.1 2.0 2.6 3.3 1.0 1.3 2.5 1.6
First generation 0.8 1.6 2.1 2.8 0.8 1.1 2.8 1.2
Later generation 0.3 2.0 2.2 5.5 0.3 0.3 0.9 2.9
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
October Current Population Survey, 1997.
Table S52(b) Standard errors for the second text table in Indicator 52
Hispanic Non-Hispanic
Asian/
Year and recency Other Pacific
of migration Total Total Mexican Hispanic Total White Black Islander
1979 Total 0.3 2.0 2.5 3.5 0.8 0.3 1.2 —
Born outside 50 states/D.C. 2.4 3.0 5.3 4.8 4.4 2.4 5.3 —
First generation 1.2 4.1 3.8 5.1 5.7 1.2 9.9 —
Later generation 0.3 3.0 4.3 6.0 0.8 0.0 1.3 —
1989 Total 0.3 2.7 2.8 3.9 0.7 0.3 0.9 1.5
Born outside 50 states/D.C. 2.7 4.1 3.8 4.6 3.2 1.8 3.5 1.9
First generation 1.4 5.4 5.4 14.5 4.1 0.9 5.6 3.3
Later generation 0.3 3.9 4.0 9.0 0.8 0.3 1.0 2.8
1997 Total 0.3 1.2 1.5 2.1 0.2 0.2 0.7 1.1
Born outside 50 states/D.C. 0.9 1.5 1.9 2.5 0.8 1.2 2.8 1.3
First generation 0.9 2.1 3.3 2.3 0.9 1.0 4.0 2.0
Later generation 0.2 2.2 2.6 4.6 0.2 0.3 0.7 2.3
Hispanic Non-Hispanic
Asian/
Puerto Other Pacific
Recency of migration Total Total Rican Mexican Hispanic Total White Black Islander
Born outside 50 states/D.C. 0.8 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.4 0.9 0.6 1.7 1.6
First generation 0.8 2.1 2.1 1.4 1.4 0.9 0.7 2.1 2.8
Later generation 0.4 2.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 3.0
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
October Current Population Survey, 1997.
Parents' highest education level 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Total 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Less than high school diploma 4.9 4.9 5.0 6.0 5.0 4.4 5.6 5.5
High school diploma or GED 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.8 3.0
Some college 3.4 3.3 3.0 3.3 2.8 2.5 2.7 2.7
Bachelor's degree or higher 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.1 2.1 1.8 2.0 1.9
Not available 5.7 5.7 5.4 5.0 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.0
Public 2-year
Total 1.9 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.4 1.6 1.0
First generation 2.8 1.9 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.2 2.0 1.1
Parents have some college 4.1 3.3 4.4 4.4 4.1 2.6 3.3 2.1
Parents have bachelor’s
or advanced degree 3.6 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.9 2.3 3.1 2.1
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students
Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis
System.
First-generation status
Parents Parents have
First have some bachelor’s or
Student characteristics Total generation college advanced degree
Sex
Male 1.0 1.7 1.9 1.5
Female 1.0 1.7 1.9 1.5
Age in 1989–90
18 years or younger 1.3 1.8 2.2 1.6
19–24 years 1.0 1.5 2.1 1.6
25–29 years 0.5 1.1 0.8 0.4
30 years or older 0.8 1.2 1.0 0.4
Race–ethnicity
White 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.4
Black 0.7 1.0 1.4 0.9
Hispanic 0.7 1.3 1.1 0.7
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8
American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3
Marital status in 1989–90
Not married 0.9 1.5 1.4 0.7
Married 0.9 1.5 1.3 0.7
Separated 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.1
Dependency status in 1989–90
Dependent 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.0
Single independent 0.7 1.2 1.3 0.7
Independent with dependents 0.9 1.6 1.3 0.8
Socioeconomic status in 1989–90
Lowest quartile 0.8 1.4 1.2 0.5
Middle quartiles 1.0 1.6 2.0 1.5
Highest quartile 1.1 1.3 1.9 1.5
Educational aspirations in 1989–90
Trade school 0.6 1.2 1.1 0.4
2-year degree 0.8 1.5 1.4 1.0
Bachelor’s degree 1.1 1.6 2.1 1.6
Advanced degree 1.0 1.5 2.1 1.6
SAT total score
Less than 600 0.9 1.7 1.3 1.2
600–799 1.6 3.3 2.6 1.8
800–999 1.9 3.0 2.9 2.5
1,000–1,199 1.5 2.5 2.7 2.1
1,200–1,399 1.4 0.9 1.3 2.2
1,400 or more 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.6
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students
Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis
System.
Private,
Public not-for-profit Public
First-generation status 4-year 4-year 2-year Other
Total 1.7 0.9 1.8 1.0
First generation 1.6 0.7 2.2 1.5
Parents have some college 2.5 1.2 3.0 1.3
Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 2.3 1.6 2.4 0.8
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students
Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis
System.