The Condition of Education 2011

MAY 2011

Susan Aud

William Hussar

Grace Kena

National Center for Education Statistics

Kevin Bianco

Lauren Frohlich

Jana Kemp

Kim Tahan

American Institutes for Research

Katie Mallory

Production Manager

MacroSys, LLC

Thomas Nachazel

Senior Editor

Gretchen Hannes

Editor

American Institutes for Research

U.S. Department of Education

Arne Duncan

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences

John Q. Easton

Director

National Center for Education Statistics

Jack Buckley

Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high-priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high-quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public. Unless specifically noted all information contained herein is in the public domain.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to

NCES, IES, U.S. Department of Education

1990 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006-5651

May 2011

The NCES Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov.

The NCES Publications and Products address is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Statistics under Contract No. ED-05-CO-0044 with Education Statistics Services Institute—American Institutes for Research. Mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Suggested Citation

Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., Tahan, K. (2011). The Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

For ordering information on this report, write to

ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education

P.O. Box 22207

Alexandria, VA 22304

or call toll free 1-877-4ED-PUBS or order online at http://www.edpubs.gov.

Content Contact

Susan Aud

(202) 219-7013

susan.aud@ed.gov

Letter from the Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics

MAY 2011

To ensure reliable, accurate, and timely data, which are necessary to monitor the progress of education in the United States, Congress has mandated that the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) produce an annual report, The Condition of Education. This year’s report presents 50 indicators of important developments and trends in U.S. education. These indicators focus on participation and persistence in education, student performance and other measures of achievement, the environment for learning, and resources for education. The report also uses a group of the indicators to take a closer look at changes in postsecondary education in the United States by institution level and control. As more students in the United States pursue education beyond high school, the distribution of students across institutions, such as public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit, has been shifting. We take a look at these changes to see how they are reshaping postsecondary education.

Enrollment in U.S. schools is expected to grow in the coming years. From 2008 through 2020, public elementary and secondary enrollment is projected to increase to 53 million students. Undergraduate enrollment is expected to increase from 17.6 million students in 2009 to 20.0 million in 2020. Enrollment in postbaccalaureate programs is projected to increase through 2020 to 3.4 million students. These increases in enrollment will be accompanied by a growing diversity of students.

Overall, progress on national assessments in reading and mathematics has been made among 4th- and 8th-graders since the early 1990s. On both mathematics and reading assessments, significant gaps among racial/ethnic groups remain, though the mathematics and reading gaps between White and Black 4th-graders have narrowed since the assessments were first given. In 2007–08, above 75 percent of public high school students graduated on time with a regular diploma, reflecting an increase since 2001 when it was 73 percent. Other measures showing improvements are the status dropout rate, which declined among all racial/ethnic groups and was 8 percent overall in 2009, and rates of postsecondary degree attainment, which increased for Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native students.

NCES produces an array of reports each year that present findings about the U.S. education system. The Condition of Education 2011 is the culmination of a year-long project. It includes data that were available by April 2011. In the coming months, other reports and surveys informing the nation about education will be released. Along with the indicators in this volume, NCES intends these surveys and reports to help inform policymakers and the American public about trends and conditions in U.S. education.

Jack Buckley

Commissioner

National Center for Education Statistics

Reader’s Guide

The Condition of Education for 2011 is available for the first time as an eBook, in addition to the print volume and an electronic version on the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) website (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe). The Condition of Education website includes the entire content of the 2011 print volume, plus special analyses from the 2000 through 2010 editions, and selected indicators from earlier editions of The Condition of Education. (For all the indicators available on the website, see “The List of Indicators on The Condition of Education Website.”)

This eBook of The Condition of Education 2011 is divided into five sections of indicators. Each section begins with a summary of the general topic areas covered by the indicators. Each indicator starts with the indicator title and a summary statement and then moves on to the key findings with one or two figures and/or tables, technical notes, and references to one or more supplemental tables, which are provided as links to the website for easy access and viewing of the tables. The supplemental tables feature the estimates used in the indicator discussion as well as additional estimates related to the indicator. Where applicable, tables of standard errors for estimate tables are available on the NCES website (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe) as well. Additional information on data sources, analyses conducted, and definitions of variables and measures can be found in the supplemental notes in appendix B. Finally, a glossary of key terms and a bibliography are in the appendixes. The glossary terms are also listed in each indicator with links to the corresponding term in the glossary section as a quick reference.

Indicators use the most recent national and international data available from either NCES or other sources that are relevant to the indicator. When the source is an NCES publication, such as the Digest of Education Statistics 2010 (NCES 2011-015), the publication can be viewed on the NCES website (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch).

Data Sources and Estimates

The data in this report were obtained from many different sources—including students and teachers, state education agencies, local elementary and secondary schools, and colleges and universities—using surveys and compilations of administrative records. Users of The Condition of Education should be cautious when comparing data from different sources. Differences in aspects such as procedures, timing, question phrasing, and interviewer training can affect the comparability of results across data sources.

Most indicators in The Condition of Education summarize data from surveys conducted by NCES or by the Census Bureau with support from NCES. Brief explanations of the major NCES surveys used in this edition of The Condition of Education can be found in supplemental note 3 and supplemental note 4 of this volume. More detailed explanations can be obtained on the NCES website (http://nces.ed.gov) under “Surveys and Programs.” Information about the Current Population Survey (CPS), another frequent source of survey data used in The Condition of Education, can be found in supplemental note 2 and at http://www.census.gov/cps/.

Data for indicators reported in this volume are obtained primarily from two types of surveys: universe surveys and sample surveys. Some indicators report data taken from entire populations (universe surveys), such as indicator 37 (Variations in Instruction Expenditures). With this type of survey, information is collected from every member of the population. For example, data for indicator 37 were obtained from each school district in the United States. When data from an entire population are available, estimates of the total population or a subpopulation are made by simply summing the units in the population or subpopulation. A universe survey is usually expensive and time consuming, so many surveys collect data from a sample of the population of interest (sample survey). For example, indicator 10 (Reading Performance) reports information from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which assesses a representative sample of students rather than the entire population of students. When a sample survey is used, statistical uncertainty is introduced because data come from only a portion of the entire population. This statistical uncertainty must be considered when reporting estimates and making comparisons.

Various types of statistics derived from universe and sample surveys are reported in The Condition of Education. Many indicators report the size of a population or a subpopulation, and often the size of a subpopulation is expressed as a percentage of the total population. In addition, the average (or mean) values of some characteristic of the population or subpopulation may be reported. The average is obtained by summing the values for all members of the population and dividing the sum by the size of the population. An example is the annual average salaries of full-time instructional faculty at degree-granting postsecondary institutions (indicator 44). Another measure that is sometimes used is the median. The median is the midpoint value of a characteristic at or above which 50 percent of the population is estimated to fall, and at or below which 50 percent of the population is estimated to fall. An example is the median annual earnings of young adults who are full-time, full-year wage and salary workers (indicator 17).

Estimates based on universe and sample survey data may be affected by a wide range of potential data collection errors, such as coverage errors, response errors, data coding errors, and data entry errors. Estimates of the size of these types of errors are typically not available.

Standard Errors

Using estimates calculated from data based on a sample of the population requires consideration of several factors before the estimates become meaningful. When using data from a sample, some margin of error will always be present in estimations of characteristics of the total population or subpopulation because the data are available from only a portion of the total population. Consequently, data from samples can provide only an approximation of the true or actual value. The margin of error of an estimate, or the range of potential true or actual values, depends on several factors such as the amount of variation in the responses, the size and representativeness of the sample, and the size of the subgroup for which the estimate is computed. The magnitude of this margin of error is measured by what statisticians call the “standard error” of an estimate.

When data from sample surveys are reported, as is the case with most of the indicators in The Condition of Education, the standard error is calculated for each estimate. The standard errors for all estimated totals, means, medians, or percentages reported in the supplemental tables of The Condition of Education can be viewed on the NCES website (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe).

The standard errors of the estimates for different subpopulations in an indicator can vary. As an illustration, indicator 10 reports the average reading scale scores of 12th-grade students between 1992 and 2009. In both 2005 and 2009, the average reading scale score for 12th-grade students in high-poverty schools was 266 (see table A-10-2). In contrast to the similarity of these scores, the standard errors for these estimates were 2.0 and 1.0, respectively (see table S-10-2). The average score with the smaller standard error provides a more reliable approximation of the true value than the average score with a higher standard error. In addition, standard errors tend to diminish in size as the size of the sample (or subsample) increases.

In order to caution the reader when interpreting findings in The Condition of Education, estimates from sample surveys are flagged with a “!” when the standard error exceeds 30 percent of the estimate, and suppressed with a “‡” when exceeding 50 percent of the estimate.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

When estimates are from a sample, caution is warranted when drawing conclusions about one estimate in comparison to another, or about whether a time series of estimates is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. Although one estimate may appear to be larger than another, a statistical test may find that the apparent difference between them is not reliably measurable due to the uncertainty around the estimates. In this case, the estimates will be described as having no measurable difference, meaning that the difference between them is not statistically significant.

Whether differences in means or percentages are statistically significant can be determined using the standard errors of the estimates. In this publication and others produced by NCES, when differences are statistically significant, the probability that the difference occurred by chance is less than 5 percent, according to NCES standards.

For all indicators in The Condition of Education that report estimates based on samples, differences between estimates (including increases and decreases) are stated only when they are statistically significant. To determine whether differences reported are statistically significant, two-tailed t tests at the .05 level are typically used. The t test formula for determining statistical significance is adjusted when the samples being compared are dependent. The t test formula is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. When the difference between estimates is not statistically significant, tests of equivalence can be used. An equivalence test determines the probability (generally at the .15 level) that the estimates are statistically equivalent, that is, within the margin of error that the two estimates are not substantively different. When the difference is found to be equivalent, language such as “x” and “y” “were similar” or “about the same” has been used. When the variables to be tested are postulated to form a trend, the relationship may be tested using linear regression, logistic regression, or ANOVA trend analysis instead of a series of t tests. These alternate methods of analysis test for specific relationships (e.g., linear, quadratic, or cubic) among variables. For more information on data analysis, please see the NCES Statistical Standards, Standard 5-1, available at http://nces.ed.gov/statprog/2002/std5_1.asp.

A number of considerations influence the ultimate selection of the data years that are featured in The Condition of Education. To make analyses as timely as possible, the latest year of data is shown if it is available during report production. The choice of comparison years is often also based on the need to show the earliest available survey year, as in the case of the NAEP and the international assessment surveys. In the case of surveys with long time frames, such as surveys measuring enrollment, the decade’s beginning year (e.g., 1980 or 1990) often starts the trend line. In the figures and tables of the indicators, intervening years are selected in increments in order to show the general trend. The narrative for the indicators typically compares the most current year’s data with those from the initial year and then with those from a more recent period. Where applicable, the narrative may also note years in which the data begin to diverge from previous trends.

Rounding and Other Considerations

All calculations within The Condition of Education are based on unrounded estimates. Therefore, the reader may find that a calculation, such as a difference or a percentage change, cited in the text or figure may not be identical to the calculation obtained by using the rounded values shown in the accompanying tables. Although values reported in the supplemental tables are generally rounded to one decimal place (e.g., 76.5 percent), values reported in each indicator are generally rounded to whole numbers (with any value of 0.50 or above rounded to the next highest whole number). Due to rounding, cumulative percentages may sometimes equal 99 or 101 percent rather than 100 percent.

Indicators in this volume that use the Current Price Index (CPI) use a base academic year of 2009–10 and a base calendar year of 2009 for constant dollar calculations. For more information on the CPI, see supplemental note 10.

Race and ethnicity

The categories denoting race and ethnicity in The Condition of Education are in accordance with the 1997 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standard classification scheme. These classifications are based primarily on the respondent’s self-identification, as is the case with data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau, or, in rare instances, on observer identification. Under the OMB standards, race and ethnicity are considered separate concepts. “Hispanic or Latino” is an ethnicity category, not a racial category. Race categories presented in The Condition of Education 2011 exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity; thus, the race/ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive.

Ethnicity is categorized as follows:

• Hispanic or Latino: A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

Racial groupings are as follows:

• American Indian or Alaska Native: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.

• Asian: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, and the Indian subcontinent: for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam.

• Black: A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.

• White: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.

• Two or more races: A person who selected two or more of the following racial categories when offered the option of selecting one or more racial designations: White, Black, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or American Indian or Alaska Native.

In The Condition of Education, the following terms are typically used to represent the above categories: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Two or more races. Not all categories are shown in all indicators. For more information on race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 1.

Symbols

In accordance with the NCES Statistical Standards, many tables in this volume use a series of symbols to alert the reader to special statistical notes. These symbols, and their meanings, are as follows:

— Not available.

† Not applicable.

# Rounds to zero.

! Interpret data with caution. The standard error of the estimate is equal to 30 percent or more of the estimate’s value.

‡ Reporting standards not met.

* p < .05 Significance level.

Introduction

To ensure reliable, accurate, and timely data, which are necessary to monitor the progress of education in the United States, Congress has mandated that the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) produce an annual report, The Condition of Education. This year's report presents 50 indicators of important developments and trends in U.S. education. These indicators focus on participation and persistence in education, student performance and other measures of achievement, the environment for learning, and resources for education.

This introduction features an Overview and a Closer Look. The Overview summarizes each section of the volume by highlighting each indicator, which is referenced by its number (e.g., indicator 19). Each figure in the Overview can also be found in an indicator in the volume. For indicators with figures highlighted in the Overview, the indicator figure number will follow the Overview figure number in its reference (i.e., figure 3 is figure 19-1). The Closer Look examines a subset of indicators on postsecondary education, using figures and tables from the full indicators. The relevant figures are included and referenced tables can be found on The Condition of Education website (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/).

Overview

Section 1: Participation in Education

• Between 2000 and 2009, enrollment rates increased for young adults ages 18–19 and adults ages 20–24, 25–29, and 30–34; students in these age groups are typically enrolled in college or graduate school (indicator 1). See figure 1 (figure 1-1).

• From 2008–09 through 2020–21, public elementary and secondary school enrollment is projected to increase from 49.3 to 52.7 million students, but with differences across states (indicator 2).

• From 1999–2000 to 2008–09, the number of students enrolled in public charter schools more than tripled from 340,000 to 1.4 million students. In 2008–09, some 5 percent of all public schools were charter schools (indicator 3).

• Private school enrollment in prekindergarten through grade 12 increased from 5.9 million in 1995–96 to 6.3 million in 2001–02, and then decreased to 5.5 million in 2009–10. Some 10 percent of all elementary and secondary school students were in private schools in 2009–10 (indicator 4).

• Between 1989 and 2009, the percentage of public school students who were White decreased from 68 to 55 percent, and the percentage of those who were Hispanic doubled from 11 to 22 percent (indicator 5).

• In 2009, some 21 percent of children ages 5–17 (or 11.2 million) spoke a language other than English at home, and 5 percent (or 2.7 million) spoke English with difficulty. Seventy-three percent of those who spoke English with difficulty spoke Spanish (indicator 6).

• The number of children and youth ages 3–21 receiving special education services was 6.5 million in 2008–09, corresponding to about 13 percent of all public school enrollment (indicator 7).

• Between 2000 and 2009, undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions increased by 34 percent, from 13.2 to 17.6 million students. Projections indicate that it will continue to increase, reaching 19.6 million students in 2020 (indicator 8).

• Postbaccalaureate enrollment has increased every year since 1983, reaching 2.9 million students in 2009. In each year since 1988, women have made up more than half of postbaccalaureate enrollment. In 2009, postbaccalaureate enrollment was 59 percent female (indicator 9).

Section 2: Learner Outcomes

• Between 2007 and 2009, there was no measurable change in the average grade 4 reading score on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); the average grade 8 reading score, however, increased 1 point. At grade 12, the average reading score increased by 2 points between 2005 and 2009 (indicator 10). See figure 2 (figure 10-1, for reading scale scores).

• In 2009, White students at grade 12 scored 27 points higher in NAEP reading than Black students and 22 points higher than Hispanic students. Neither score gap was significantly different from the respective score gaps in previous assessment years (indicator 11).

• From 1990 to 2009, average grade 4 NAEP mathematics scores increased by 27 points and average grade 8 scores increased by 20 points. At grade 12, average scores increased by 3 points between 2005 and 2009 (indicator 12). See figure 2 (figure 12-1, for mathematics scale scores).

• In 2009, White students at grade 12 scored 30 points higher in NAEP mathematics than Black students and 23 points higher than Hispanic students. Neither score gap was measurably different from the corresponding score gaps in 2005 (indicator 13).

• Thirty-four percent of students at grade 4, some 30 percent of students at grade 8, and 21 percent of students at grade 12 performed at or above the Proficient level in the NAEP science assessment in 2009 (indicator 14).

• In 2009, the average U.S. combined reading literacy score for 15-year-old students was not measurably different from the average score of the 34 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)-member countries. The average U.S. score was lower than that of 6 OECD countries and higher than that of 13 OECD countries (indicator 15).

• In 2009, the average U.S. mathematics literacy score for 15-year-old students was below the average of the 34 OECD member countries. On the science literacy scale, the average U.S. score was not measurably different from the OECD average (indicator 16).

• In 2009, young adults ages 25–34 with a bachelor’s degree earned more than twice as much as young adults without a high school diploma or its equivalent, 50 percent more than young adult high school completers, and 25 percent more than young adults with an associate’s degree (indicator 17).

• In 2010, young adults ages 25–34 with at least a bachelor’s degree had a full-time employment rate that was over 30 percentage points higher than that of their peers who had not completed high school (74 vs. 41 percent) (indicator 18).

Section 3: Student Effort and Educational Progress

• In 2007–08, about three-quarters of public high school students graduated on time with a regular diploma (indicator 19). See figure 3 below (figure 19-1).

• In general, the status dropout rates for Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics each declined between 1980 and 2009. However, in each year during that period, the status dropout rate was lower for Whites and Blacks than for Hispanics (indicator 20).

• The immediate college enrollment rate after high school increased from 1975 to 1997 (51 to 67 percent), declined from 1997 to 2001 (to 62 percent), then increased from 2001 to 2009 (70 percent). Gaps in immediate enrollment rates by family income, race/ethnicity, and sex have persisted over time (indicator 21).

• In 2007–08, about 36 percent of undergraduate students considered to be in their first year reported having ever taken a remedial course, while 20 percent had actually taken one in that same year. At public 2-year institutions, about 42 percent of students had ever taken a remedial course (indicator 22).

• About 54 percent of male and 60 percent of female first-time students who sought a bachelor’s degree and enrolled at a 4-year institution full time in fall 2002 completed a bachelor’s degree at that institution within 6 years (indicator 23).

• In 2010, some 32 percent of 25- to 29-year-olds had completed at least a bachelor’s degree. Between 1975 and 2010, the gap in bachelor’s degree attainment between Whites and Hispanics widened from 15 to 25 percentage points, and the gap between Whites and Blacks widened from 13 to 19 percentage points (indicator 24).

• Greater percentages of the population ages 25 to 64 had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher in all reporting OECD countries in 2008 than in 2001 (21 vs. 15 percent). The percentage of the U.S. population with a bachelor’s degree or higher was 32 percent in 2008, compared with 28 percent in 2001 (indicator 25).

• Between 1998–99 and 2008–09, the number of degrees earned increased by 41 percent for associate’s degrees, by 33 percent for bachelor’s degrees, and by 49 percent for master’s degrees. In 2008–09, females earned the majority of all associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees awarded (indicator 26).

Section 4: Contexts of Elementary and Secondary Education

• In 2008–09, charter schools and schools with a magnet program each composed a higher percentage of all public schools than they did in 1998–99 (5 vs. 1 percent for charter schools and 3 vs. 1 percent for schools with a magnet program) (indicator 27).

• In 2008–09, greater percentages of Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students attended high-poverty elementary and secondary public schools than did White or Asian/Pacific Islander students (indicator 28). See figure 4 (figure 28-1).

• In 2009, some 19 percent of 5- to 17-year-olds were in families living in poverty, compared with 15 percent in 2000 and 17 percent in 1990 (indicator 29).

• From 1992 to 2008, the rate of nonfatal incidents of crime against students ages 12–18 at school declined from 144 to 47 crimes per 1,000 students, and for students away from school the rate declined from 138 to 38 crimes per 1,000 students (indicator 30).

• A larger percentage of full-time teachers held a postbaccalaureate degree in 2007–08 than in 1999–2000. Forty-nine percent of elementary school teachers and 54 percent of secondary school teachers held a postbaccalaureate degree in 2007–08, compared with 43 percent and 50 percent, respectively, in 1999–2000 (indicator 31).

• In 2008–09, some 8 percent of public school teachers left the teaching profession compared with 16 percent of private school teachers. Another 7 percent of all teachers moved from their 2007–08 school to a different school (indicator 32).

• From 1999–2000 to 2007–08, the percentage of principals who were female increased from 52 to 59 percent at public elementary schools and from 22 to 29 percent at public secondary schools (indicator 33).

• In 2008–09, some 12 percent of all principals left the profession. In addition to principals who left the profession, another 6 percent of all principals moved from their 2007–08 school to a different school for the 2008–09 school year (indicator 34).

• From 1989–90 through 2007–08, total elementary and secondary public school revenues increased from $356 billion to $599 billion (in constant 2009–10 dollars), a 68 percent increase after adjusting for inflation (indicator 35).

• Total expenditures per student in public elementary and secondary schools rose 39 percent in constant dollars from 1989–90 through 2007–08, with interest on school debt increasing faster than current expenditures or capital outlay (indicator 36).

• Total variation in instruction expenditures per student has increased among public school districts since 1997–98, primarily due to an increase in the variation between states (indicator 37).

• In 2007, the United States spent $10,768 per student on elementary and secondary education, which was 45 percent higher than the OECD average of $7,401. At the postsecondary level, U.S. expenditures per student were $27,010, more than twice as high as the OECD average of $12,471 (indicator 38).

Section 5: Contexts of Postsecondary Education

• In fall 2009, some 11 percent of all full-time undergraduate students attended private for-profit institutions. About 38 percent of full-time students age 35 and over attended private for-profit institutions, compared with 5 percent of full-time students under the age of 25 (indicator 39).

• In 2008–09, more than half of the 1.6 million bachelor’s degrees awarded were in five fields: business (22 percent), social sciences and history (11 percent), health professions and related clinical sciences (8 percent), education (6 percent), and psychology (6 percent) (indicator 40).

• Overall, 656,800 master’s degrees and 67,700 doctoral degrees were awarded in 2008–09; these numbers represent increases of 49 and 54 percent, respectively, over the numbers awarded in 1998–99. In 2008–09, females earned 60 percent of master’s degrees and 52 percent of doctoral degrees awarded (indicator 41).

• Between 1998–99 and 2008–09, the number of degrees conferred by private for-profit institutions increased by a larger percentage than the number conferred by public institutions and private not-for-profit institutions; this was true for all levels of degrees (indicator 42). See figure 5 (figure 42-1).

• In 2007–08, about 4.3 million undergraduate students, or 20 percent of all undergraduates, took at least one distance education course. About 0.8 million, or 4 percent of all undergraduates, took their entire program though distance education (indicator 43).

• After increasing by 14 percent during the 1980s and by 5 percent during the 1990s, average salaries for full-time faculty were 4 percent higher in 2009–10 than they were in 1999–2000, after adjusting for inflation (indicator 44).

• In 2009, about 41 percent of full-time and 76 percent of part-time college students ages 16–24 were employed (indicator 45).

• From 1999–2000 to 2007–08, the percentage of full-time, full-year undergraduates receiving federal loans increased from 43 to 49 percent. Over the same period, the average federal grant increased from $3,300 to $3,800 (in constant 2009–10 dollars) (indicator 46).

• The net price of education was higher in 2007-08 than in 1999-2000 for full-time, full-year, dependent undergraduates at all family income levels (indicator 47).

• About 9 out of 10 full-time graduate students received financial aid in 2007–08. The average total price of attending was greater in 2007–08 than in 2003–04 for students in master’s or first-professional degree programs at public universities, as well as for students in first-professional degree programs at private not-for-profit universities (indicator 48).

• In 2008–09, average tuition and fees, in constant 2009–10 dollars, at 4-year postsecondary institutions were $12,100. At public 4-year institutions, average tuition and fees were $6,400, compared with $15,300 at private for-profit institutions and $24,900 at private not-for-profit institutions (indicator 49).

• In 2008–09, instruction was the largest per-student expense at public ($7,534) and private not-for-profit institutions ($15,215). At private for-profit institutions, instruction was the second largest per-student expense category, with $3,069 spent per student (indicator 50).

A Closer Look at Postsecondary Education by Institution Level and Control

Increasing participation in postsecondary education in the United States has become an issue of vital importance to policymakers. Several indicators in this volume describe the current state of postsecondary education and others describe how it has been changing in recent decades. In this section, we take a closer look at postsecondary education in the United States by examining these indicators by institution level and control, primarily for undergraduate students. These institutional characteristics were selected because postsecondary education in the U.S. has been undergoing changes along these dimensions. Specifically, postsecondary education has traditionally been divided into public and private not-for-profit institutions, but in recent years private for-profit institutions have entered the marketplace in growing numbers. This has created additional opportunities for students seeking a postsecondary education, but it has also brought to light differences in how students pursue and pay for that education.

Supplemental tables referenced in this section are available online at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/current_tables.asp.

Enrollment and Degrees Conferred

The past three decades have experienced growth in postsecondary enrollments, primarily in the public sector, and most recently, in the private for-profit sector as well. Between 1980 and 1990, undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting institutions grew from 10.5 to 12.0 million students, an increase of 1.5 million students (see table A-8-2). Eighty-five percent of this increase (representing 1.3 million students) occurred at public institutions; 8 percent, at private not-for-profit institutions; and 7 percent, at private for-profit institutions. Between 1990 and 2000, undergraduate enrollment increased by 1.2 million students; 69 percent of this increase occurred at public institutions; 14 percent, at private not-for-profit institutions; and 16 percent, at private for-profit institutions. The greatest increase was seen in the most recent decade: from 2000 to 2009, undergraduate enrollment at degree-granting institutions increased by 4.4 million students. Of this increase, 65 percent occurred at public institutions, 9 percent at private not-for-profit institutions, and 27 percent (representing 1.2 million students) at private for-profit institutions. Undergraduate enrollment at private for-profit 4-year institutions increased from 23,000 students in 1980 to 1.2 million students in 2009. During the same period, undergraduate enrollment at private for-profit 2-year institutions increased from 0.1 million to 0.4 million students.

The changes in enrollment numbers are similar to the changes in the number of degrees conferred: the number of undergraduate degrees has increased in the last decade, and changes in the percentage distribution of degrees conferred have differed depending on institution control. Between 1998–99 and 2008–09, there was a 41 percent increase in the number of associate’s degrees conferred and a 33 percent increase in the number of bachelor’s degrees conferred (see tables CL-1 and A-42-1).

Although most associate’s degrees (76 percent in 2008–09) are conferred by public institutions, this percentage has decreased since 1998–99, when 80 percent of associate’s degrees were conferred by public institutions; the percentage conferred by private for-profit institutions has increased from 11 to 18 percent over the same period. In 2008–09, degree-granting institutions conferred 787,300 associate’s degrees, an increase of 227,400 from the number conferred in 1998–99. Of the additional 227,400 degrees, approximately two-thirds were conferred by public institutions and about one-third were conferred by private for-profit institutions. (Private not-for-profit institutions conferred slightly fewer associate’s degrees in 2008–09 than they did in 1998–99.)

At the bachelor’s level, the number of degrees conferred by private for-profit institutions more than quadrupled from 1998–99 to 2008–09, from about 16,000 to 85,000. In 1998–99, some 66 percent of bachelor’s degrees were conferred by public institutions, compared with 33 percent conferred by private not-for-profit institutions and about 1 percent conferred by private for-profit institutions. By 2008–09, the distribution had changed somewhat: 64 percent of bachelor’s degrees were conferred by public institutions; 31 percent by private not-for-profit institutions; and 5 percent by private for-profit institutions.

Of the 17.6 million undergraduate students enrolled in degree-granting institutions in fall 2009, some 36 percent attended public 4-year institutions, 40 percent attended public 2-year institutions, 15 percent attended private not-for-profit 4-year institutions, less than 1 percent attended private not-for-profit 2-year institutions, 7 percent attended private for-profit 4-year institutions, and 2 percent attended private for-profit 2-year institutions, (see table A-39-1). This pattern varied by race/ethnicity. For example, 38 percent of White students attended public 2-year institutions, compared with 40 percent of Black students, 42 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander students, 45 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students, and 52 percent of Hispanic students. In addition, 17 percent of Black undergraduate students attended private for-profit institutions in 2009, compared with 10 percent of Hispanic students, 9 percent of nonresident alien students, 7 percent of White students, and 5 percent (each) of Asian/Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaska Native students.

Forty-four percent of full-time undergraduate students who enrolled in degree-granting institutions in fall 2009 attended public 4-year institutions, while 26 percent attended public 2-year institutions, 19 percent attended private not-for-profit 4-year institutions, less than one percent attended private not-for-profit 2-year institutions, 8 percent attended private for-profit 4-year institutions, and 3 percent attended private for-profit 2-year institutions (see figure CL-1). However, 30 percent of full-time students ages 35 and over attended private for-profit 4-year institutions, compared with 3 percent of full-time students under the age of 25. In 2009, some 66 percent of part-time undergraduate students enrolled in public 2-year institutions, 22 percent enrolled in public 4-year institutions, 7 percent enrolled in private not-for-profit 4-year institutions, and 5 percent enrolled in private for-profit 4-year institutions (less than one percent each enrolled in private not-for-profit and private for-profit 2-year institutions). Some 70 percent of part-time students under the age of 25 enrolled in public 2-year institutions, compared with 24 percent of full-time students under the age of 25.

Use of Resources

The changes in postsecondary undergraduate enrollment by institution level and control have been accompanied by changes in how coursework is delivered. Distance education courses, including those delivered by live, interactive audio or videoconferencing; pre-recorded instructional videos; webcasts; CD-ROM or DVD; and computer-based systems delivered over the Internet, can provide flexible learning opportunities for students. In 2007–08, about one in five undergraduate students, or 4.3 million, took at least one distance education course (see table A-43-1). However, in that year there were differences between institution controls in the percentages of students taking distance education courses and in the percentages who were completing their entire program through distance education. A lower percentage of students at private not-for-profit institutions (14 percent) took distance education courses than did students at public institutions (22 percent) and private for-profit institutions (21 percent) (see figure CL-2). In addition, at private for-profit institutions, 12 percent of students took their entire program through distance education, which was higher than the percentage who did so at both public and private not-for-profit institutions (3 percent each). Students at private for-profit 4-year institutions had the highest rate of distance course taking (30 percent) of all the institution levels and controls, as well as the highest rate taking their entire program through distance education (19 percent).

Differences in the delivery of education can be associated with how institutions distribute their resources. In 2008–09, total expenses for degree-granting institutions were $273 billion at public institutions, $141 billion at private not-for-profit institutions, and $16 billion at private for-profit institutions (see table A-50-3). Expenses for instruction were 28, 33, and 24 percent of total expenses, respectively, for public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit institutions (with per FTE student spending in constant 2009–10 dollars of $9,418, $15,289, and $2,659, respectively) (see figure CL-3).Student services, academic support and institutional support expenses were 20, 30, and 67 percent of total expenses for public, private not-for-profit and private for-profit institutions (with per FTE student spending of $6,647, $14,118, and $9,101, respectively).

Student Financing

One major concern for students pursuing postsecondary education is how to pay for it. The total price of attending a postsecondary institution includes tuition and fees, books and materials, and living expenses. In 2007–08, the average total price of attendance (in constant 2009–10 dollars) for students—that is, full-time, full-year, dependent undergraduates who attended only one institution during the year—was $19,300 at public 4-year institutions and $12,100 at public 2-year institutions (see table A-47-1). At private institutions, the total price was $37,400 at not-for-profit 4-year institutions $23,800 at not-for-profit 2-year institutions, $33,500 at for-profit 4-year institutions and, $27,900 at for-profit 2-year institutions.

Grants and loans are the major forms of federal financial support for postsecondary students. Federal grants (e.g., Pell grants), do not need to be repaid, and are available only to undergraduates who qualify by economic need, whereas loans are available to all students. In addition to federal financial aid, there are also grants from state and local governments, institutions, and private sources. In 2007–08, about two-thirds (65 percent) of full-time, full-year undergraduates received a grant from any source and one-third (33 percent) received a federal grant (see figure CL-4 and table A-46-1). At public 4-year institutions, some 29 percent of full-time, full-year undergraduates received federal grants in 2007–08, compared with 28 percent of undergraduates at private not-for-profit institutions and 56 percent of undergraduates at private for-profit 4-year institutions. At 2-year institutions, some 37 percent of students at public institutions, 52 percent of students at private not-for-profit institutions, and nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of student at private for-profit institutions received federal grants in 2007–08.

Forty-nine percent of first-time, full-time students at degree-granting institutions had a student loan in 2008–09 (see table A-49-1). At public 4-year institutions, some 47 percent of these students had student loans and the average loan amount was $6,000 (in constant 2009–10 dollars) (see figure CL-5). At private not-for-profit 4-year institutions, some 61 percent of first-time, full-time students had loans and the average loan amount was $7,700. At private for-profit 4-year institutions, 81 percent of these students had loans, and the average loan amount was $9,800. Looking at 2-year institutions, some 21 percent of first-time, full-time students at public institutions had loans in 2008–09, with an average loan amount of $4,200; in contrast, 58 percent of these students at private not-for-profit institutions had a loan, with an average loan amount of $6,100, and 78 percent of these students at private for-profit institutions had a loan, with an average loan amount of $7,800.

Approximately 3.2 million students entered the repayment phase of their student loans in fiscal year (FY) 2008, meaning their students loans became due between September 30, 2007 and October 1, 2008 (see table A-49-2). Of those students, 7 percent defaulted within 2 years, or by October 1, 2010 (see figure CL-6). The default rates for the FY 2008 cohort were highest at private for-profit 4-year institutions (11 percent) and private for-profit 2-year institutions (12 percent). The lowest default rates for that same cohort were at public and private not-for-profit 4-year institutions (4 percent each).

Persistence and Outcomes

Finally, we turn to persistence and outcomes in postsecondary education. One measure of persistence is the retention rate, defined as the percentage of students who enrolled in an institution in the fall and returned to that same institution the following year to continue their studies (see figure CL-7). Some 77 percent of full-time students and 46 percent of part-time students who entered 4-year institutions in 2008 returned the following year to continue their studies (see table A-39-2). Seventy-eight percent of full-time and 48 percent of part-time students who enrolled in public 4-year institutions in 2008 returned the following year; 79 percent of full-time and 44 percent of part-time students did so at private not-for-profit 4-year institutions; and 50 percent of full-time and 43 percent of part-time students did so at private for-profit 4-year institutions. At 2-year institutions, the retention rates for those who entered school in 2008 were the following: 59 percent of full-time and 40 percent of part-time students at public institutions, 59 percent of full-time and 60 percent of part-time students at private not-for-profit institutions, and 69 percent of full-time and 47 percent of students at private for-profit institutions.

Turning to outcomes, the bachelor’s degree completion rates of students who began seeking a bachelor’s degree at 4-year institutions in fall 2002 and did not transfer to another institution varied by the control of institution. Graduation rates were highest at private not-for-profit institutions, followed by public institutions and private for-profit institutions. For example, the 6-year graduation rate at private not-for-profit institutions was 65 percent, compared with 55 percent at public institutions and 22 percent at private for-profit institutions (see table A-23-1).

At both public and private not-for-profit 4-year institutions, the 6-year graduation rates for both males and females who began seeking a bachelor’s degree in fall 2002 varied by the acceptance rate of the institution. For example, at public 4-year institutions with open admissions policies, 27 percent of males and 34 percent of females completed a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent within 6 years (see table A-23-2). At public 4-year institutions where the acceptance rate was less than 25 percent of applicants, however, the 6-year graduation rate for males was 73 percent and for females, 72 percent.

At 2-year institutions, about 27 percent of first-time, full-time students who enrolled in fall 2005 completed a certificate or associate’s degree within 150 percent of the normal time required to complete such a degree (see table A-23-3). For the cohort who enrolled in 1999, the completion rate was 29 percent. The certificate or associate’s degree completion rate of students who enrolled in fall 2005 at 2-year institutions varied by institution control. Twenty-one percent of students graduated within 150 percent of the normal time at public 2-year institutions, 48 percent did so at private not-for-profit institutions, and 58 percent did so at private for-profit public institutions

This Closer Look provides a snapshot on what postsecondary education looks like today, particularly the differences in enrollment, resource use, student financing and outcomes by institution level and control. It is projected that by 2020, there will be nearly 20 million students enrolled in undergraduate institutions (see table A-8-1). The dynamic nature of this sector suggests that these factors may look quite different for those 20 million students.

Technical Notes

When looking at these data it is important to understand who, specifically, they apply to. Undergraduate students are the focus of this Closer Look. However, the indicators on expenses per student and on two-year cohort default rates apply to all postsecondary students. In addition, some indicators, such as the percentage distribution in degree-granting institutions, separate students into full-time and part-time subgroups. Other indicators, such as postsecondary graduation rates and the average total price of attendance, pertain only to full-time (as defined by the institution), full-year (attending at least 9 months out of the year) students who attended only one institution during the year. (The indicator that discusses average total price, grants, and net price is further limited to dependent students.)

Postsecondary education is a term that encompasses a wide range of academic options for students beyond high school, ranging from certificates to advanced degrees. The term postsecondary institution is the category used to refer to institutions with formal instructional programs and a curriculum designed primarily for students who have completed the requirements for a high school diploma or its equivalent. Institutions are characterized by type of financial control—public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit, as well as by level—4-year-and-above (4-year), 2-year but less-than-4-year (2-year), and less-than-2-year. For more information on the classification of postsecondary institutions, see supplemental note 8.

The postsecondary data used in this Closer Look are from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), and the Federal Student Aid Direct Loan and Federal Family Education Loan Programs Cohort Default Rate database. IPEDS data are collected at the institution level and participation in the data collection is a requirement for institutions that participate in Title IV federal student financial aid programs, such as Pell grants or Stafford loans. NPSAS data are based on a representative sample of all students in postsecondary education institutions that are eligible to participate in the federal financial aid programs under Title IV. The Federal Student Aid Cohort Default Rate database encompasses all borrowers with Federal Family Education Loans (FFELs) or William D. Ford Federal Direct loans. FFELs include subsidized or unsubsidized Federal Stafford loans and Federal Supplemental Loans for Students (Federal SLS loans). For more information on IPEDS, NPSAS, or Federal Student Aid, see supplemental note 3.

The List of Indicators on The Condition of Education Website (2003–2011)

This List of Indicators includes all the indicators that appear on The Condition of Education website (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe), drawn from the 2003–2011 print volumes. The list is organized first by section and then by subject area. Thus, the indicator numbers and the years in which the indicators were published are not sequential.

Topics in Focus

Reading—Young Children’s Achievement and Classroom Experiences, 2003

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/analysis/2003-index.asp)

Paying for College: Changes Between 1990 and 2000 for Full-Time Dependent Undergraduates, 2004

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/analysis/2004-index.asp)

Mobility in the Teacher Workforce, 2005

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/analysis/2005-index.asp)

U.S. Student and Adult Performance on International Assessments of Educational Achievement, 2006

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/analysis/2006-index.asp)

High School Coursetaking, 2007

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/analysis/2007-index.asp)

Community Colleges, 2008

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/analysis/2008-index.asp)

U.S. Performance Across International Assessments of Student Achievement, 2009

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/analysis/2009-index.asp)

High-Poverty Schools, 2010

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/analysis/2010-index.asp)

A Closer Look at Postsecondary Education by Institution Level and Control, 2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/analysis/2011-index.asp)

Section 1—Participation in Education

All Ages

Enrollment Trends by Age, 1–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ope.asp)

Preprimary Education

Early Education and Child Care Arrangements of Young Children, 2–2008

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_epr.asp)

Knowledge and Skills of Young Children, 3–2009

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ksc.asp)

Elementary/Secondary Education

Public School Enrollment, 2–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_enl.asp)

Charter School Enrollment, 3–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cse.asp)

Private School Enrollment, 4–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_pri.asp)

Homeschooled Students, 6–2009

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_hsc.asp)

Racial/Ethnic Enrollment in Public Schools, 5–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_1er.asp)

Family Characteristics of 5- to 17-Year-Olds, 6–2008

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_fch.asp)

Children Who Spoke a Language Other Than English at Home, 6–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_lsm.asp)

Children and Youth With Disabilities, 7–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cwd.asp)

Undergraduate Education

Undergraduate Enrollment, 8–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_hep.asp)

Mobility of College Students, 10–2008

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_pep.asp)

Graduate and Professional Education

Postbaccalaureate Enrollment, 9–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_gre.asp)

Adult Learning

Participation in Adult Education, 10–2007

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_aed.asp)

Section 2—Learner Outcomes

Early Childhood Outcomes

Children’s Skills and Proficiency in Reading and Mathematics Through Grade 3, 8–2005

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_kg4.asp)

Academic Outcomes

Reading Performance, 10–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_rd2.asp)

Reading Achievement Gaps, 11–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_rgp.asp)

Mathematics Performance, 12–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_mat.asp)

Mathematics Achievement Gaps, 13–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_mgp.asp)

Science Performance, 14–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_scp.asp)

Writing Performance of Students in Grades 8 and 12, 14–2008

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_wrt.asp)

Economics Performance of Students in Grade 12, 15–2008

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ecn.asp)

Poverty and Student Mathematics Achievement, 15–2006

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ecp.asp)

Reading and Mathematics Score Trends, 13–2010

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_lng.asp)

Achievement in the Arts, 14–2010

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_art.asp)

International Reading Literacy, 15–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_irl.asp)

International Mathematics and Science Literacy, 16–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_msl.asp)

Reading and Mathematics Achievement at 5th Grade, 16–2007

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_rma.asp)

International Comparisons of Reading Literacy in Grade 4, 18–2008

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_icr.asp)

International Trends in Mathematics Performance, 15–2009

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_imp.asp)

International Mathematics Content, 15–2010

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_imc.asp)

International Trends in Science Performance, 16–2009

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_isp.asp)

International Science Content, 16–2010

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_isc.asp)

U.S. History Performance of Students in Grades 4, 8, and 12, 14–2003

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ahs.asp)

Geography Performance of Students in Grades 4, 8, and 12, 13–2003

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_geo.asp)

Adult Literacy

Trends in Adult Literacy, 18–2007

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_nal.asp)

Trends in Adult Literary Reading Habits, 15–2005

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_tar.asp)

Adult Reading Habits, 20–2006

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_tra.asp)

Social and Cultural Outcomes

Youth Neither in School nor Working, 19–2007

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_yew.asp)

Economic Outcomes

Annual Earnings of Young Adults, 17–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_er2.asp)

Employment Outcomes of Young Adults, 18–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_eya.asp)

Section 3—Student Effort and Educational Progress

Student Attitudes and Aspirations

Time Spent on Homework, 21–2007

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_hsh.asp)

Student Preparedness, 22–2007

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_hsm.asp)

Postsecondary Expectations of 12th-Graders, 23–2006

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ect.asp)

Student Effort

Student Absenteeism, 24–2006

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_mis.asp)

Elementary/Secondary Persistence and Progress

Grade Retention of 16- to 19-Year-Olds, 25–2006

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_grr.asp)

Grade Retention, 18–2009

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_gra.asp)

Public High School Graduation Rates, 19–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_scr.asp)

Students With Disabilities Exiting School With a Regular High School Diploma, 22–2008

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_sdd.asp)

Event Dropout Rates by Family Income, 16–2004

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_evl.asp)

Status Dropout Rates, 20–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_sde.asp)

Transition to College

Immediate Transition to College, 21–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_trc.asp)

Postsecondary Persistence and Progress

Remedial Coursetaking, 22–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_rmc.asp)

Postsecondary Graduation Rates, 23–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_pgr.asp)

Completions

Educational Attainment, 24–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_eda.asp)

International Comparison of Educational Attainment, 25–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ice.asp)

Degrees Earned, 26–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_dcd.asp)

Advanced Degree Completion Among Bachelor’s Degree Recipients, 32–2006

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_had.asp)

Section 4—Contexts of Elementary and Secondary Education

School Characteristics and Climate

Characteristics of Public Schools, 27–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cps.asp)

Parents’ Attitudes Toward Schools, 38–2006

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_att.asp)

Concentration of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch, 28–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_pcp.asp)

School-Age Children Living in Poverty, 29–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_clp.asp)

Concentration of Public School Enrollment by Locale and Race/Ethnicity, 26–2009

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_rcp.asp)

Rates of School Crime, 30–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_qv3.asp)

School Crime and Safety, 26–2010

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_scc.asp)

School Suspension and Expulsions, 28–2009

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_sdi.asp)

Teachers and Staff

Newly Hired Teachers, 28–2010

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_nht.asp)

Elementary/Secondary School Teaching Among Recent College Graduates, 37–2006

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_trg.asp)

Characteristics of Full-Time Teachers, 31–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_tsp.asp)

Teacher Turnover: Stayers, Leavers, and Movers, 32–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_tat.asp)

Characteristics of School Principals, 33–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_pal.asp)

Principal Turnover: Stayers, Leavers, and Movers, 34–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_pat.asp)

Public School Staff, 30–2010

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_scs.asp)

Student Support Staff in Public Schools, 35–2007

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_qss.asp)

International Teacher Comparisons, 29–2009

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_itc.asp)

Learning Opportunities

Parent and Family Involvement in Education, 30–2009

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_pfi.asp)

Early Development of Children, 35–2005

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_bc1.asp)

Early Literacy Activities, 33–2006

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_elh.asp)

Afterschool Activities, 29–2007

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_act.asp)

Student/Teacher Ratios in Public Schools, 31–2010

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_qpt.asp)

Out-of-Field Teaching by Poverty Concentration and Minority Enrollment, 24–2004

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_oft.asp)

School Choice

Parental Choice of Schools, 32–2009

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_pch.asp)

Finance

Public School Revenue Sources, 35–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_sft.asp)

Public School Expenditures, 36–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_tot.asp)

Variations in Instruction Expenditures, 37–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ves.asp)

Public School Expenditures by District Poverty, 36–2010

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_pex.asp)

Education Expenditures by Country, 38–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ifn.asp)

Salaries and Pay Incentives for Teachers, 37–2010

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_pit.asp)

Section 5—Contexts of Postsecondary Education

Characteristics of Postsecondary Students

Characteristics of Undergraduate Institutions, 39–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_psi.asp)

Racial/Ethnic Concentration of Higher Education, 39–2010

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_hec.asp)

International Students in the United States, 39–2009

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ins.asp)

U.S. Students Studying Abroad, 40–2010

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ssa.asp)

Programs and Courses

Undergraduate Fields of Study, 40–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_fsu.asp)

Graduate and First-Professional Fields of Study, 41–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_gfs.asp)

Degrees Conferred by Public and Private Institutions, 42–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_dai.asp)

Distance Education in Higher Education, 43–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_dhe.asp)

International Comparisons of Degrees by Field, 43–2007

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_icd.asp)

Learning Opportunities

Instructional Faculty and Staff Who Teach Undergraduates, 46–2006

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_tug.asp)

Faculty and Staff

Faculty Salaries, Benefits, and Total Compensation, 44–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_fas.asp)

Finance

College Student Employment, 45–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_csw.asp)

Federal Grants and Loans to Undergraduates, 46–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_fgl.asp)

Price of Attending an Undergraduate Institution, 47–2010

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cst.asp)

Price of Graduate and First-Professional Attendance, 48–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_gsn.asp)

Tuition and Fees, Student Loans, and Default Rates, 49–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_tld.asp)

Public Effort to Fund Postsecondary Education, 40–2005

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_epe.asp)

Financial Aid for First-Time Students, 45–2009

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_faf.asp)

Postsecondary Revenues and Expenses, 50–2011

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_rep.asp)

Section

1

Participation in Education

Introduction

The indicators in this section of The Condition of Education report trends in enrollments across all levels of education. Enrollment is a key indicator of the scope of and access to educational opportunities, and functions as a basic descriptor of American education. Changes in enrollment have implications for the demand for educational resources such as qualified teachers, physical facilities, and funding levels, all of which are required to provide high-quality education for our nation’s students.

The indicators in this section include information on enrollment rates reported by age group, as well as enrollment by level of the education system. These levels are preprimary education, elementary and secondary education, undergraduate education, graduate and professional education, and adult education. Indicators prepared for this year’s volume appear on the following pages, and all indicators in this section, including indicators from previous years, appear on the NCES websit (see the “The List of Indicators on The Condition of Education Website” for a full listing of indicators).

The first indicator in this section compares rates of enrollment in formal education programs across specific age groups in the population. Trends in enrollment rates provide a perspective on the education of the U.S. population at different ages and over time.

Preprimary education helps prepare children for elementary school and can also serve as child care for parents. An indicator on the website describes participation in center-based early childhood care and education programs such as Head Start, nursery school, and prekindergarten.

Elementary and secondary education provides knowledge and skills that prepare students for further learning and productive membership in society. Because enrollment at the elementary and secondary levels is mandatory in most states until at least age 16 and in a number of states until age 17 or 18, changes in enrollment are driven primarily by shifts in the size and composition of the school-age population, as well as by shifts in the types of schools (e.g., traditional public, public charter, and private schools) that students attend. These factors are examined in this section’s indicators. An additional indicator on the website examines the educational option of homeschooling.

Some of the indicators in this section provide information about the characteristics of the students who are enrolled in formal education and, in some cases, how enrollment rates of different types of students vary across schools. For example, indicators that appear in this volume describe the racial/ethnic distributions of public school students, the number and characteristics of children who speak a language other than English at home, and the number and percentage of children with disabilities.

Postsecondary education offers students opportunities to gain advanced knowledge and skills either immediately after high school or later in life. Because postsecondary education is voluntary, changes in total undergraduate enrollment typically reflect fluctuations in enrollment rates and the perceived availability and value of postsecondary education, as well as the size of college-age populations. Postbaccalaureate (which includes graduate and first-professional) enrollment constitutes an important segment of postsecondary education, allowing students to pursue advanced coursework in a variety of areas. Indicators on postsecondary enrollment are found in this volume. An indicator on the website describes adult education, which consists of formal education activities intended to allow adults to upgrade their work skills, change careers, or expand personal interests.

Indicators of participation in education from previous editions of The Condition of Education not included in this volume are available at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe.

Indicator 1: Enrollment Trends by Age

Between 2000 and 2009, enrollment rates increased for young adults ages 18–19 and adults ages 20–24, 25–29, and 30–34; students in these age groups are typically enrolled in college or graduate school.

School enrollment rates for individuals ages 3–4, 5–6, 16–17, 18–19, 20–24, 25–29, and 30–34 were higher in 2009 than in 1970. In contrast, the rates of youth ages 7–13 and 14–15 remained close to 100 percent throughout this period (see table A-1-1). Enrollment patterns may reflect changes in attendance requirements, the perceived value or cost of education, and the time taken to complete degrees.

Between 1970 and 2009, the enrollment rate for children ages 3–4 (the ages at which children are typically enrolled in nursery or preschool) increased from 20 to 52 percent. More recently, from 2000 through 2009, it has remained stable (between 52 and 56 percent). The enrollment rate for children ages 5–6, who are typically enrolled in kindergarten or first grade, rose from 90 percent in 1970 to 96 percent in 1976 and has since remained stable.

For youth ages 7–13 and 14–15, enrollment rates have remained at nearly 100 percent over the past 39 years, reflecting states’ compulsory age requirements for school attendance (see tables A-1-1 and A-1-2). The enrollment rates for 7- to 13-year-olds and 14- to 15-year-olds were generally higher than the rate for 16- to 17-year-olds, but the rate for 16- to 17-year-olds did increase from 90 percent in 1970 to 95 percent in 2009. As of August 2010, the maximum compulsory age of attendance was 18 years in 20 states and the District of Columbia (D.C.), 17 years in 11 states, and 16 years in 19 states.

Young adults ages 18–19 are typically transitioning into college education or the workforce. Between 1970 and 2009, the overall enrollment rate for young adults ages 18–19 increased from 48 to 69 percent (see table A-1-1). During this period, the enrollment rate for 18- to 19-year-olds at the secondary level increased from 10 to 19 percent, while at the college level the rate rose from 37 to 50 percent. Between 2000 and 2009, the college enrollment rate increased from 45 to 50 percent.

Adults ages 20–34 who are in school are usually enrolled in college or graduate school. Between 1970 and 2009, the enrollment rate for adults ages 20–24 increased from 22 to 39 percent, and the rate for adults ages 25–29 increased from 8 to 13 percent. The enrollment rate for adults ages 30–34 increased from 4 percent in 1970 to 7 percent in 1975 and has since remained relatively stable (between 6 and 8 percent). Between 2000 and 2009, the enrollment rate for adults ages 20–24 increased from 32 to 39 percent; for adults ages 25–29, from 11 to 13 percent; and for adults ages 30–34, from 7 to 8 percent.

Enrollment rates for all age groups varied by state in 2009 (see table A-1-2). Rates for ages 3–4 ranged from 30 percent in Idaho to 66 percent in New Jersey. For ages 5–17, rates ranged from 95 (North Dakota and West Virginia) to 98 percent (Vermont). Among 18- to 19-year-olds, total rates ranged from 57 percent in Nevada to 84 percent in D.C. Secondary enrollment rates ranged from 14 percent in D.C. to 40 percent in Alaska, while the range for college enrollment rates was the reverse: 21 percent in Alaska to 70 percent in D.C. (There are several major universities in D.C. and the American Community Survey, from which the data come, considers college students to live in the state or district where they are enrolled in college.) Rates for 20- to 24-year-olds ranged from 30 percent (Nevada) to 52 percent (Rhode Island), and for 25- to 34-year-olds, from 9 percent (West Virginia) to 16 percent (Utah, Maryland, and D.C.).

Technical Notes

Current Population Survey (CPS) estimates include enrollment in any type of graded public, parochial, or other private school. This includes nursery schools, kindergartens, elementary schools, high schools, colleges, universities, and professional schools. American Community Survey (ACS) estimates include enrollment in public, private, and home school. This includes nursery school, kindergarten, elementary and high school, college, and graduate or professional school. Both the ACS and the CPS include only enrollments in regular schooling; that is, schools or classes that advance a person toward an elementary school certificate, a high school diploma, or a college, university, or professional school degree. Home school is not specifically mentioned in the CPS questionnaire and is included in enrollment estimates only if it meets the definition of regular schooling. Home school is specifically mentioned in the ACS questionnaire and homeschoolers are explicitly included with private school/college students. Due to this and other methodological differences between the CPS and ACS, enrollment estimates from the two surveys are not directly comparable. The age groupings used in this indicator reflect the schooling stages that are typical for students given their age. For more information on the CPS, see supplemental note 2. For more information on the ACS, see supplemental note 3.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-1-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-ope-1.asp)

A-1-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-ope-2.asp)

Glossary: College, Elementary/secondary school, Nursery school, Private school, Public school

Indicator 2: Public School Enrollment

From 2008–09 through 2020–21, public elementary and secondary school enrollment is projected to increase from 49.3 to 52.7 million students, but with differences across states.

In 2008–09, about 49.3 million students were enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools. Of these students, 34.3 million were enrolled in prekindergarten (preK) through grade 8, and 15.0 million were enrolled in grades 9 through 12 (see table A-2-1).

Public school enrollment declined during the 1970s and early 1980s and increased in the latter part of the 1980s. Enrollment continued to increase throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. By 1997–98, public school enrollment had reached 46.1 million students and had surpassed its early 1970s peak. Between 2000–01 and 2006–07, public school enrollment increased by 2.1 million students, reaching 49.3 million students in 2006–07. Total public school enrollment remained at 49.3 million in 2008–09 and is projected to remain at 49.3 million through 2010–11. From 2008–09 to 2020–21, total public school enrollment is projected to increase by 7 percent to 52.7 million (2020–21 is the last year for which projected data are available).

Enrollment trends in grades preK–8 and 9–12 have differed over time as successive cohorts of students have moved through the public school system. For example, enrollment in grades preK–8 decreased throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, while enrollment in grades 9–12 decreased in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s. Enrollment in grades preK–8 increased from 1985–86 through 2003–04 and remained relatively stable between 2003–04 and 2008–09. Public school enrollment in grades preK–8 is projected to increase from 34.3 million in 2008–09 to an estimated high of 37.4 million in 2020–21. Public school enrollment in grades 9–12 increased from 1990–91 through 2007–08, but is projected to decline through 2012–13. From 2013–14 through 2020–21, enrollment in grades 9–12 is projected to increase, and it is projected to surpass its 2007–08 level by 2020–21. Public school enrollment in grades 9–12 is projected to increase 2 percent from 2007–08 to 2020–21.

Since 1970–71, the South has been the region of the United States with the largest share of public school enrollment. However, the regional distribution of students in public schools has not remained static. The share of total public school enrollment in the Northeast and the Midwest decreased between 1970–71 and 2008–09 (from 21 to 16 percent and from 28 to 22 percent, respectively), while the share of enrollment in the South and the West increased during the same time period (from 32 to 38 percent and from 18 to 24 percent, respectively). According to projections, by 2020–21 some 15 percent of public school students will be in the Northeast, 21 percent will be in the Midwest, 26 percent will be in the West, and 39 percent will be in the South.

Changes in public school enrollment in grades preK–12 are also projected to differ by state. Nevada, Arizona, and Alaska are projected to see the greatest percent increases in total enrollment from 2008–09 to 2020–21 (25 to 28 percent), and enrollment is projected to increase by 18 percent or more in three other states (see table A-2-2). Michigan and West Virginia are projected to see the largest percent decreases in total enrollment over the same time period (by 6 percent each), and four other states are projected to see decreases of 4 percent or more.

From 2008–09 to 2020–21, the rate of increase in overall public school enrollment is projected to differ by grade level and among states. For example, enrollment in grades preK–8 is projected to increase more than enrollment in grades 9–12 during this period (9 vs. 2 percent). In grades preK–8, enrollment is projected to increase by more than 30 percent in Nevada and Alaska but decrease by more than 7 percent in West Virginia. Projections indicate that between 2008–09 and 2020–21, enrollment in grades 9–12 will experience a wider range of percent change than enrollment in grades preK–8. Enrollments in grades 9–12 in Texas, Nevada, Wyoming, and Colorado are expected to increase by more than 20 percent, while enrollments in these grades in Michigan, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire are projected to decrease by more than 15 percent.

Technical Notes

The most recent year of actual data is 2008–09, and 2020–21 is the last year for which projected data are available. For more information on projections, see NCES 2011-026. Some data have been revised from previously published figures. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. For a list of the states in each region, see supplemental note 1.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-2-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-enl-1.asp)

A-2-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-enl-2.asp)

Glossary: Elementary/secondary school, Prekindergarten, Public school

Indicator 3: Charter School Enrollment

From 1999–2000 to 2008–09, the number of students enrolled in public charter schools more than tripled from 340,000 to 1.4 million students. In 2008–09, some 5 percent of all public schools were charter schools.

A public charter school is a publicly funded school that is typically governed by a group or organization under a legislative contract or charter with the state; the charter exempts the school from selected state or local rules and regulations. In return for funding and autonomy, the charter school must meet the accountability standards articulated in its charter. A school’s charter is reviewed periodically (typically every 3 to 5 years) and can be revoked if guidelines on curriculum and management are not followed or if the standards are not met (U.S. Department of Education 2000). As of November 2010, charter schools operated in 40 states and the District of Columbia. In the following states, a charter school law has not been passed: Alabama, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.

From 1999–2000 to 2008–09, the number of students enrolled in public charter schools more than tripled from 340,000 to 1.4 million students (see table A-3-3). During this period, the percentage of all public schools that were charter schools increased from 2 to 5 percent, comprising 4,700 schools in 2008–09 (see table A-3-1). In addition to the increase in the number of charter schools, the enrollment size of charter schools has grown over time. The percentage of charter schools with enrollments under 300 students decreased from 77 percent in 1999–2000 to 64 percent in 2008–09. Accordingly, the percentage of charter schools with enrollments of 300–499 students increased from 12 to 20 percent during this period; the percentage with 500–999 students, from 9 to 13 percent; and the percentage with 1,000 students or more, from 2 to 3 percent. Though public charter schools have grown in size of enrollment since 1999–2000, they tend to be smaller than traditional public schools, of which 30 percent had fewer than 300 students in 2008–09.

The percentage of charter schools that were high-poverty schools—where 75 percent or more of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL)—increased from 13 percent in 1999–2000 to 30 percent in 2008–09. In comparison, 19 percent of traditional public schools were considered high poverty in 2008–09 (see table A-3-2). During this time period, the percentage of charter schools that were low poverty (25 percent of students or less were eligible for FRPL) decreased from 37 to 24 percent.

In 2008–09, over half (54 percent) of charter schools were elementary schools, while secondary and combined schools accounted for 27 and 19 percent of charter schools, respectively. The distribution was different at traditional public schools: 71 percent were elementary schools, 24 percent were secondary schools, and 5 percent were combined schools (see table A-3-2). In 2008–09, about 55 percent of charter schools were located in cities, 21 percent were in suburban areas, 8 percent were in towns, and 16 percent were in rural areas. In contrast, 25 percent of traditional public schools were in cities, 28 percent were in suburban areas, 14 percent were in towns, and 33 percent were in rural areas.

The proportion of public school students enrolled in charter schools varied by region and state. For example, in 2008–09, seven states and the District of Columbia enrolled five or more percent of public school students in charter schools. Four of these states were in the West (Arizona, Colorado, California and Utah), two were in the South (Delaware and the District of Columbia) and two were in the Midwest (Michigan and Ohio). California enrolled the most students in charter schools with about 285,000 enrolled and the District of Columbia enrolled the highest percentage of public school students in charter schools—35 percent, representing some 24,000 students.

Technical Notes

A public charter school is a school that provides free public elementary and/or secondary education to eligible students under a specific charter granted by the state legislature or other appropriate authority. Charter schools can be administered by regular school districts, state education agencies (SEAs), or chartering organizations. Data are based on schools reporting student membership. Student membership is defined as an annual headcount of students enrolled in school on October 1 or the school day closest to that date. The Common Core of Data (CCD) allows a student to be reported for only a single school or agency. For example, a vocational school (identified as a “shared time” school) may provide classes to students from other schools and report no membership of its own. High-poverty schools are defined as public schools where more than 75 percent of the students are approved for free or reduced-price lunch (FPRL). Low-poverty schools are defined as public schools where 25 percent or fewer students are approved for FRPL. For more information on poverty status, locale, and geographic region, see supplemental note 1. For more information on the CCD, see supplemental note 3.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-3-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-cse-1.asp)

A-3-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-cse-2.asp)

A-3-3 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-cse-3.asp)

Glossary: Charter school, Student membership

Indicator 4: Private School Enrollment

Private school enrollment in prekindergarten through grade 12 increased from 5.9 million in 1995–96 to 6.3 million in 2001–02, and then decreased to 5.5 million in 2009–10. Some 10 percent of all elementary and secondary school students were in private schools in 2009–10.

Private school enrollment in prekindergarten through grade 12 increased from 5.9 million in 1995–96 to 6.3 million in 2001–02, and then decreased to 5.5 million in 2009–10. Some 10 percent of all elementary and secondary school students were in private schools in 2009–10, which was lower than the percentage in 1995–96 (12 percent) (see tables A-4-1 and A-4-2).

Between 1995–96 and 2005–06, Catholic schools maintained the largest share of total private school enrollment, but the percentage of all private school students enrolled in Catholic schools decreased from 45 percent in 1995–96 to 39 percent in 2009–10 (see table A-4-1). In 2007–08 and 2009–10, the number of students enrolled in Catholic schools was not measurably different from the number enrolled in other religious schools. The decrease in Catholic school enrollment stemmed from the decline of students enrolled in parochial schools (those run by a parish, not by a diocese or independently). The number of students enrolled in Conservative Christian and Affiliated schools also declined. In contrast, the number and percentage of students enrolled in unaffiliated and nonsectarian schools increased from 1995–96 to 2009–10.

In 2009–10, most private school students were enrolled in schools with a regular program emphasis (85 percent; see table A-4-3). Of the remaining students, 5 percent were enrolled in early childhood schools, 4 percent were enrolled in Montessori schools, and 2 percent each were enrolled in schools with a special program emphasis, special education schools, and alternative schools. The racial/ethnic composition of private schools varied by type of program emphasis. For example, the percentage of Black students enrolled in special education schools (22 percent) exceeded the percentage of Black students enrolled in the remaining program types (7 to 17 percent), and a higher percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander students were enrolled in Montessori schools (13 percent) than in all other program types (3 to 10 percent).

In 2009–10, the percentage of all students who were enrolled in private schools was higher in the Northeast (14 percent) than in the Midwest (11 percent), the South (9 percent), and the West (8 percent) (see table A-4-2). Looking at changes over time, the percentage of students enrolled in private schools was lower in 2009–10 than in 1995–96 in all four regions.

There were differences in the racial/ethnic composition of private school enrollments (data from 2009–10) compared with public school enrollments (data from 2008–09). White students’ share of enrollment was greater in private schools than public schools (73 vs. 55 percent), while the opposite was true for Blacks (9 vs. 17 percent) and Hispanics (9 vs. 21 percent) (see table A-4-3 and NCES 2011-015, table 43). Asians/Pacific Islanders made up 5 and 6 percent of public and private school enrollments respectively. American Indian/Alaska Native students comprised 1 percent of public school enrollment and 0.4 percent of private school enrollment.

Technical Notes

Prekindergarten students who are enrolled in private schools that do not offer at least one grade of kindergarten or higher are not part of this universe. Other religious schools are those with a religious orientation or purpose but are not Catholic. Conservative Christian schools are those with membership in at least 1 of 4 associations, and affiliated schools are those with membership in 1 of 11 associations. Unaffiliated schools are those that have a more general religious orientation or purpose but are not classified as Conservative Christian or affiliated with a specific religion. Nonsectarian schools do not have a religious orientation or purpose. Vocational schools are included with special program emphasis schools. For more information on private schools, private school program emphases, private school typology, and the Private School Universe Survey (PSS), see supplemental note 3. The distribution of private school students by race/ethnicity excludes prekindergarten students. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. For more information on geographic region and race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 1. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-4-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pri-1.asp)

A-4-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pri-2.asp)

A-4-3 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pri-3.asp)

Glossary: Prekindergarten, Private school, Public school

Indicator 5: Racial/Ethnic Enrollment in Public Schools

Between 1989 and 2009, the percentage of public school students who were White decreased from 68 to 55 percent, and the percentage of those who were Hispanic doubled from 11 to 22 percent. By 2009, Hispanic enrollment had exceeded 11 million students.

The shifting racial and ethnic distribution of public school students enrolled in prekindergarten through 12th grade is one aspect of the changing composition of school enrollment. From 1989 through 2009, the number of White students in U.S. public schools fluctuated between 27.9 and 30.9 million, but their share of enrollment decreased from 68 to 55 percent (see table A-5-1). In contrast, during this same period, Hispanic enrollment increased from 4.8 to 11.4 million students and the percentage of Hispanics enrolled doubled from 11 to 22 percent. While the total number of Black students increased (from 7.1 to 7.8 million), their share of enrollment decreased slightly during this time. Hispanic enrollment surpassed Black enrollment for the first time between 2001 and 2003 and has remained higher than Black enrollment in each year through 2009.

Overall, enrollment increased in each region of the country between 1989 and 2009 (see table A-5-2). Enrollment increased from 15.1 to 19.1 million in the South, from 9.1 to 12.3 million in the West, from 10.5 to 11.1 million in the Midwest, and from 7.4 to 8.5 million in the Northeast.

The racial/ethnic distribution of public school enrollment differed by region from 1989 to 2009. The number of White students remained stable in the West and South, decreased in the Northeast, and increased in the Midwest. The percentage of enrollment of White students declined in all four regions. The number of Black students increased slightly in the West and South and remained stable in the Northeast and Midwest during this time period. The percentage of enrollment of Black students remained stable in all four regions. The number of Hispanic students increased in all four regions as did their share of enrollment. The number of Asian students was stable in the West and increased in the South, Northeast, and Midwest. Their percentage of enrollment remained stable in the West and Northeast and increased in the South and Midwest. Pacific Islander students in all four regions represented less than one percent of enrollment in 2009–10. American Indian/Alaska Native students made up 1 percent or less of student enrollment in all regions of the United States. Students of two or more races made up 4 percent of enrollment in the West, 3 percent in the Midwest, and 2 percent in the Northeast and South.

In 2009, 12 states and the District of Columbia had student racial/ethnic distributions of less than 50 percent White students (see table A-5-4). Black students had the largest share of public school enrollment in Mississippi and the District of Columbia. Hispanic students had the largest share of public school enrollment in four states (Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas). Of all the jurisdictions, the District of Columbia enrolled the highest percentage of Black students (76 percent), New Mexico enrolled the highest percentage of Hispanic students (56 percent), and Hawaii enrolled the highest percentage of Asian students (23 percent) and students of two or more races (32 percent).

Technical Notes

Estimates include all public school students enrolled in prekindergarten through 12th grade. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. For more information on race/ethnicity and region, see supplemental note 1. For more information on the Current Population Survey (CPS), see supplemental note 2. For more information on the American Community Survey (ACS), see supplemental note 3.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-5-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-1er-1.asp)

A-5-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-1er-2.asp)

A-5-3 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-1er-3.asp)

A-5-4 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-1er-4.asp)

Glossary: Public school

Indicator 6: Children Who Spoke a Language Other Than English at Home

In 2009, some 21 percent of children ages 5–17 (or 11.2 million) spoke a language other than English at home, and 5 percent (or 2.7 million) spoke English with difficulty. Seventy-three percent of those who spoke English with difficulty spoke Spanish.

The number of school-age children (children ages 5–17) who spoke a language other than English at home rose from 4.7 to 11.2 million between 1980 and 2009, or from 10 to 21 percent of the population in this age range (see table A-6-1). From 2006 to 2009, this percentage remained between 20 and 21 percent. After increasing from 4 to 7 percent between 1980 and 2000, the percentage of school-age children who spoke a language other than English at home and spoke English with difficulty decreased to 5 percent in 2009.

Among school-age children who spoke a non-English language at home, the percentage who spoke English with difficulty generally decreased between 1980 and 2009. For example, 41 percent of these children spoke English with difficulty in 1980, compared with 36 percent in 2000, some 25 percent in 2006, and 24 percent in 2009. School enrollment patterns have also changed over time for these children: the enrollment rate increased from 90 to 93 percent between 1980 and 2009.

In 2009, the percentage of school-age children who spoke a language other than English at home and spoke English with difficulty varied by demographic characteristics, including race/ethnicity, citizenship status, poverty status, and age (see table A-6-2). Sixteen percent each of Hispanics and Asians spoke a non-English language at home and spoke English with difficulty, compared with 6 percent of Pacific Islanders, 3 percent of American Indians/Alaska Natives, and 1 percent each of Whites, Blacks, and children of two or more races. Differences were also seen among racial/ethnic subgroups of Hispanic and Asian school-age children. For example, 25 percent of Vietnamese school-age children spoke a non-English language at home and spoke English with difficulty, compared with 8 percent of their Filipino peers. For Hispanic subgroups, 19 percent of Dominican school-age children spoke a non-English language at home and spoke English with difficulty, compared with 7 percent of Puerto Rican school-age children. In terms of citizenship status, 4 percent of U.S.-born citizens spoke a language other than English at home and spoke English with difficulty, compared with 11 percent of naturalized U.S. citizens and 35 percent of non-U.S. citizens. Regarding poverty status, the percentage of poor school-age children who spoke a language other than English at home and spoke English with difficulty (10 percent) was greater than the percentages for their near-poor (7 percent) and non-poor peers (3 percent). Children in families with incomes below the poverty threshold are classified as poor, those in families with incomes at 100–199 percent of the poverty threshold are classified as near-poor, and those in families with incomes at 200 percent or more of the poverty threshold are classified as nonpoor.

Concerning differences by age, the percentage of 5- to 9-year-olds who spoke a non-English language at home and spoke English with difficulty (7 percent) was greater than the percentages of 10- to 13-year-olds and 14- to-17-year-olds who did so (4 percent each). These patterns by age held across most demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Of the 2.7 million school-age children who spoke a language other than English at home and spoke English with difficulty in 2009, about 73 percent spoke Spanish, 13 percent spoke an Asian/Pacific Islander language, 10 percent spoke an Indo-European language other than Spanish, and 4 percent spoke another language (see table A-6-3). English-speaking ability also varied by state in 2009. In five states—Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Montana—the percentage of 5- to 17-year-olds who spoke a non-English language and spoke English with difficulty was about 1 percent. The states with the highest percentages were Arizona and New York (6 percent each); Nevada and Texas (9 percent each); and California (11 percent).

Technical Notes

Respondents were asked whether each child in the household spoke a language other than English at home. Those who answered “yes” were asked how well each child could speak English using the following categories: “very well,” “well,” “not well,” and “not at all.” All children who were reported to speak English less than “very well” were considered to have difficulty speaking English. Spanish-language versions of the questionnaires were available to respondents. Estimates have been revised from previous publications. For more information on the Long Form Decennial Census and the American Community Survey, see supplemental note 3. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. For more information on race/ethnicity, poverty status, and geographic region, see supplemental note 1.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-6-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-lsm-1.asp)

A-6-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-lsm-2.asp)

A-6-3 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-lsm-3.asp)

Indicator 7: Children and Youth With Disabilities

The number of children and youth ages 3–21 receiving special education services was 6.5 million in 2008–09, corresponding to about 13 percent of all public school enrollment. Some 38 percent of these students receiving special education services had specific learning disabilities.

Enacted in 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates the provision of a free and appropriate public school education for children and youth ages 3–21 who have disabilities. Data collection activities to monitor compliance with IDEA began in 1976. From 1980–81 through 2004–05, the number of children and youth ages 3–21 in IDEA programs increased, as did the number expressed as a percent in relation to public school enrollment (see table A-7-1). Beginning in 2005–06, the number and percentage of children and youth served under IDEA have declined each year through 2008–09. In 1980–81 some 4.1 million children and youth ages 3–21 received special education services. The number of children and youth served under IDEA grew to 6.7 million in 2005–06, or about 14 percent of public school enrollment. By 2008–09, the number of children and youth receiving services declined to 6.5 million, corresponding to about 13 percent of all public school enrollment.

Generally, a greater percentage of children and youth ages 3–21 received special education services under IDEA for specific learning disabilities than for any other type of disability in every school year between 1980–81 and 2008–09 (see table A-7-1). A specific learning disability is a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. In 2008–09, some 38 percent of all children and youth receiving special education services had specific learning disabilities, 22 percent had speech or language impairments, and 10 percent had other health impairments. Students with disabilities such as intellectual disabilities, emotional disturbances, developmental delay, and autism each accounted for between 5 and 7 percent of children and youth served under IDEA. Children and youth with multiple disabilities; hearing, orthopedic, and visual impairments; traumatic brain injury; and deaf-blindness each accounted for 2 percent or less of children served under IDEA.

About 95 percent of children and youth ages 6–21 who were served under IDEA in 2008–09 were enrolled in regular schools (see table A-7-2). Some 3 percent of children and youth ages 6–21 who were served under IDEA were enrolled in separate schools (public or private) for students with disabilities; 1 percent were placed by their parents in regular private schools; and less than 1 percent each were in separate residential facilities (public and private), homebound or in hospitals, or in correctional facilities. Among all children and youth ages 6–21 who were enrolled in regular schools, the percentage of children and youth who spent most of their school day (more than 80 percent) in general classes was higher in 2008–09 than in any other school year since 1990. For example, in 2008–09, some 58 percent of children and youth spent most of their school day in regular class, compared to 33 percent in 1990–91. In 2008–09, about 86 percent of students with speech or language impairments—the highest percentage of all disability types—spent most of their school day in general classes. Sixty-two percent each of students with developmental delay and of students with visual impairments spent most of their school day in general classes. In contrast, 16 percent of students with intellectual disabilities and 13 percent of students with multiple disabilities spent most of their school day in general classes.

Technical Notes

Special education services through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are available only for eligible children. Eligible children and youth are those identified by a team of professionals as having a disability that adversely affects academic performance and being in need of special education and related services. Intellectual disability includes the condition formerly known as mental retardation. Data include children and youth in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Bureau of Indian Education schools. Data for 2007–08 and 2008–09 do not include Vermont. In 2006–07, the total number of 3- to 21-year-olds served under IDEA in Vermont was 14,010. For more information on the student disabilities presented, see supplemental note 7.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-7-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-cwd-1.asp)

A-7-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-cwd-2.asp)

Glossary: Disabilities, children with; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

Indicator 8: Undergraduate Enrollment

Between 2000 and 2009, undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions increased by 34 percent, from 13.2 to 17.6 million students. Projections indicate that it will continue to increase, reaching 19.6 million students in 2020.

Total undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions increased from 7.4 million students in fall 1970 to 13.2 million in fall 2000 and 17.6 million in fall 2009 (see table A-8-1). According to projections, undergraduate enrollment is expected to reach 19.6 million in fall 2020 (the last year for which projected data are available).

Undergraduate enrollment grew at a faster rate during the 1970s (42 percent) than it did in more recent decades; it continued to increase throughout the 1980s and 1990s, but at slower rates. From 2000 to 2009, undergraduate enrollment rose by 34 percent. During this time period, male enrollment grew 31 percent, from 5.8 million to 7.6 million students, while female enrollment grew 35 percent, from 7.4 to 10.0 million students. In 2009, females accounted for 57 percent of enrollment, and males, 43 percent. Enrollments for both males and females are expected to increase through 2020, reaching 8.1 and 11.5 million students, respectively.

Undergraduate enrollment in public institutions increased from 10.5 million students in 2000 to 13.4 million in 2009, a 27 percent increase. Private institutions experienced a higher rate of growth over this time period, as their enrollment grew from 2.6 to 4.2 million students, a 60 percent increase. Most of the growth in private institution enrollment between 2000 and 2009 occurred among for-profit institutions—their enrollment almost quadrupled from 0.4 to 1.6 million students. Enrollment at private not-for-profit institutions increased by 17 percent, from 2.2 to 2.6 million students.

Between 2000 and 2009, undergraduate enrollment at 4-year institutions increased from 7.2 to 10.0 million students, and is expected to reach 11.1 million in 2020 (see table A-8-2). Enrollment increased 30 percent (from 4.8 to 6.3 million) at public 4-year institutions, 19 percent at private not-for-profit institutions (from 2.2 to 2.6 million), and nearly five-fold at private for-profit institutions (from 0.2 to 1.2 million). During the same period, enrollment at 2-year institutions increased from 5.9 to 7.5 million students and is expected to reach 8.5 million students by 2020. Between 2000 and 2009, enrollment at public 2-year institutions increased 25 percent (from 5.7 to 7.1 million), nearly doubled at private for-profit institutions (from 192,000 to 385,000), and decreased at private not-for-profit institutions (from 59,000 to 35,000).

For each racial/ethnic group, undergraduate enrollment generally increased between 1976 and 2009, but at different rates, resulting in a shift in the racial/ethnic distribution (see table A-8-3). In 1976, some 7.7 million (82 percent) of undergraduate students were White, compared with 9.0 million (68 percent) in 2000. By 2009, the number of White students had grown to 10.9 million, but White students as a percentage of the total enrollment had decreased to 62 percent. The number of Black students almost tripled between 1976 and 2009, from 0.9 to 2.6 million students. Black students’ share of undergraduate enrollment fluctuated between 10 and 12 percent from 1976 to 2000, and in 2009 about 15 percent of undergraduate students were Black. Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander enrollment each increased more than five-fold from 1976 to 2009; accordingly, the percentages of students who were Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander increased. In 1976, Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders represented 4 and 2 percent of total enrollment, respectively, compared with 13 and 7 percent, respectively, in 2009. While American Indian/Alaska Native enrollment increased from 70,000 to 189,000 students from 1976 to 2009, these students accounted for approximately 1 percent of the total enrollment in 2009.

Technical Notes

Projections are based on data through 2009. The most recent year of actual data is 2009, and 2020 is the last year for which projected data are available. For more information on projections, see NCES 2011-026. Because of underreporting and nonreporting of racial/ethnic data, some estimates are slightly lower than corresponding data in other published tables. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. For more information on race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 1. Data for 1999 were imputed using alternative procedures. For more information, see NCES 2001-083, appendix E. For more information on the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), see supplemental note 3. All actual data presented in this indicator are IPEDS fall enrollment data, and thus measure the enrollment in the fall of the academic year. For more information on the classification of postsecondary education institutions, see supplemental note 8.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-8-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-hep-1.asp)

A-8-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-hep-2.asp)

A-8-3 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-hep-3.asp)

Glossary: Four-year postsecondary institution, Full-time enrollment, Part-time enrollment, Private institution, Public institution, Two-year postsecondary institution, Undergraduate student

Indicator 9: Postbaccalaureate Enrollment

Postbaccalaureate enrollment has increased every year since 1983, reaching 2.9 million students in 2009. In each year since 1988, women have made up more than half of postbaccalaureate enrollment. In 2009, postbaccalaureate enrollment was 59 percent female.

In fall 1976, some 1.6 million students were enrolled in postbaccalaureate programs, which include graduate and first-professional programs (see table A-9-1). Postbaccalaureate enrollment fluctuated during the period from the mid-1970s to the early 1980s, but between 1983 and 2009 it increased from 1.6 to 2.9 million students. Fall enrollment in postbaccalaureate programs is projected to increase through 2020 to 3.4 million students.

More females than males have been enrolled in postbaccalaureate programs every year since 1988. In 1976, some 673,000 females were enrolled in a postbaccalaureate program, compared with 905,000 males. In 1988, female enrollment exceeded male enrollment, and by 2009 postbaccalaureate enrollment consisted of 1.7 million females (59 percent) and 1.2 million males (41 percent). Projections indicate that females will continue to enroll in postbaccalaureate programs at a higher rate than will males, and in 2020 postbaccalaureate enrollment is expected to increase to 2.1 million females (61 percent) and 1.3 million males (39 percent).

As postbaccalaureate enrollment has grown, the distribution of students—in terms of attendance status and control of institutions they attended—has changed. In 1976, more students attended part time than full time, but in each year since 2000 full-time enrollment has been higher than part-time enrollment. Additionally, the percentage of postbaccalaureate students who attended private institutions increased between 1976 and 2009. In 1976, about 35 percent of postbaccalaureate students were enrolled in private institutions, compared with 50 percent in 2009. The growth in total private enrollment is attributable to the growth in enrollment at both private for-profit and private not-for-profit institutions. The number of students attending private for-profit institutions increased from 3,000 students in 1976 (less than 1 percent of total enrollment) to 267,000 students in 2009 (9 percent), while the number of students attending private not-for-profit institutions increased from 541,000 students in 1976 (34 percent) to 1.2 million students in 2009 (41 percent).

For each racial/ethnic group, the number of students enrolled in postbaccalaureate programs generally increased between 1976 and 2009 but at different rates, resulting in a shift in the racial/ethnic distribution. In 1976, some 1.3 million (85 percent) postbaccalaureate students were White. By 2009, the number of White students had grown to 1.8 million, but White enrollment as a percentage of total enrollment had decreased to 63 percent (see table A-9-2). The number of Black postbaccalaureate students more than tripled between 1976 and 2009, from 90,000 to 342,000 students. The percentage of postbaccalaureate students who were Black increased from 6 to 12 percent from 1976 to 2009. Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander enrollment increased six- and seven-fold, respectively, from 1976 to 2009; accordingly, the percentages of students who were Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander increased. In 1976, Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders each represented 2 percent of total enrollment, and in 2009 they represented 6 and 7 percent, respectively. While American Indian/Alaska Native enrollment increased from 6,000 to 18,000 students during this period, they accounted for less than 1 percent of enrollment in 2009. The percentage of students who were nonresident aliens increased from 5 percent in 1976 to 11 percent in 2009.

In 1976, males outnumbered females in postbaccalaureate programs for each racial/ethnic group shown except for Blacks; however, in 2009, females outnumbered males in all groups except for nonresident aliens. The largest relative gap between female and male enrollment in 2009 was between Black females and males: 71 percent of the total Black enrollment was female in fall 2009.

Technical Notes

The most recent year of actual data is 2009, and 2020 is the last year for which projected data are available. For more information on projections, see NCES 2011-026. Because of underreporting and nonreporting of racial/ethnic data, some estimates are slightly lower than corresponding data in other published tables. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Nonresident aliens are shown separately because information about their race/ethnicity is not available. For more information on race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 1. For information on the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), see supplemental note 3. All actual data presented in this indicator are IPEDS fall enrollment data and thus measure the enrollment in the fall of the academic year. For more information on the Classification of Postsecondary Education Institutions, see supplemental note 8.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-9-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-gre-1.asp)

A-9-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-gre-2.asp)

Glossary: Nonresident alien, Postbaccalaureate enrollment, Private institution, Public institution

Section

2

Learner Outcomes

Introduction

The indicators in this section of The Condition of Education examine student achievement and other outcomes of education among students in elementary and secondary education and among adults in the broader society. The indicators on student achievement illustrate how students are performing on assessments in reading, mathematics, science, and other academic subject areas. They highlight trends over time in student achievement as well as gaps in achievement between groups. Indicators prepared for this year’s volume appear on the following pages, and all indicators in this section, including indicators from previous years, appear on the NCES website (see “The List of Indicators on The Condition of Education Website” for a full listing of indicators).

Children enter school with varying levels of knowledge and skill. Measures of these early childhood competencies represent important indicators of students’ future prospects both inside and outside of the classroom. The first indicator in this section (found on the website) traces the gains in achievement and the specific reading and mathematics skills of children through the early years of elementary education. This indicator highlights changes in student achievement for a cohort of kindergarten children as they progressed through the early years of schooling.

As students progress through school, it is important to know the extent to which they are acquiring necessary skills and gaining proficiency in challenging subject matter. Several indicators in this section report trends in assessment performance, either by age or by grade, among elementary and secondary students. Performance is measured in three ways: (1) as the change in students’ average scores over time, (2) as the change in the percentage of students achieving specified levels of achievement, and (3) through international comparisons of national average scores. Indicators in this volume show the reading, mathematics, and science achievement of students in grades 4, 8, and 12. In addition, there are indicators that examine the gaps in achievement by various groups of students. Other indicators that appear on the website highlight achievement in the arts, writing, economics, U.S. history, and geography. Also, two indicators found in this volume examine the reading, mathematics, and science performance of students at the international level.

In addition to academic achievement at the elementary and secondary levels, adult literacy contributes to an educated, capable, and engaged citizenry. Indicators on the website highlight adult literacy, measured here by levels of adult literacy and adult reading habits.

Economic outcomes include the earnings of individuals with varying levels of educational attainment, as well as the likelihood of being employed (both included in this volume). The last indicators in this section look specifically at the economic outcomes of education. An indicator showing the health status of individuals by their educational attainment is featured on the website.

Indicators of learner outcomes from previous editions of The Condition of Education not included in this volume are available at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe.

Indicator 10: Reading Performance

Between 2007 and 2009, there was no measurable change in the average grade 4 reading score; the average grade 8 reading score, however, increased 1 point. At grade 12, the average reading score increased by 2 points between 2005 and 2009.

In 2009, the average National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scale score for 4th-grade students (221) was not measurably different from the 2007 score (221), but higher than the scores on all earlier assessments between 1992 (217) and 2005 (219) (see table A-10-1). From 1992 to 2009, 4th-grade students’ average NAEP reading scale scores increased 4 points. For 8th-grade students, the average score in 2009 was 1 point higher than in 2007 (263) and 4 points higher than in 1992 and 1994, but not always measurably different from the scores on the assessments given between 1998 and 2005. The average reading score for 12th-grade students was 2 points higher in 2009 than in 2005 (286), the year of the immediately preceding assessment, but was 4 points lower than the score in 1992 (292). The 2009 score was not measurably different than the scores in 1994 or 2002.

Percentages of 4th-grade students performing at or above the Basic, at or above the Proficient, and at the Advanced achievement levels in reading showed no measurable change from 2007 to 2009. In 2009, about 67 percent of 4th-grade students performed at or above Basic, 33 percent performed at or above Proficient, and 8 percent performed at Advanced. Percentages of 8th-grade students performing at or above Basic and at or above Proficient each increased 1 percentage point between 2007 and 2009. Additionally, the 2009 percentages of 8th-grade students who reached both these performance levels were higher than in 1992. In 2009, the percentage of 8th-grade students performing at the Advanced level (3 percent) was not measurably different from the percentage performing at this level in 2007 (3) or 1992 (3). The percentage of students at grade 12 performing at or above Basic (74 percent) in 2009 was not significantly different from the percentage doing so in 2005 (73), but was lower than the percentage doing so in 1992 (80). Thirty-eight percent of 12th-grade students performed at or above Proficient in 2009; this was 3 percentage points higher than the 2005 percentage, but not significantly different than percentages in the earlier assessment years. There was no measurable change at the Advanced level from 2005 at grade 12, although it was 1 percentage point higher than in 1992.

At grade 4, the average reading scores in 2009 for White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native students were not measurably different from their scores in 2007 (see table A-10-2). The 2009 reading scores for White, Black, and Hispanic students were, however, higher than the scores from assessment years prior to 2007. At grade 8, average reading scores were higher in 2009 than in 2007 for all racial/ethnic groups. At grade 12, the average score for White students was 3 points higher in 2009 than in 2005, and the score for Asian/Pacific Islander students was 11 points higher. Scores for Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students did not change significantly from 2005 to 2009.

NAEP results also permit state-level comparisons of the reading abilities of 4th- and 8th-grade students in public schools. State measures of the reading abilities of 12th-grade students are available from a 2009 state pilot reading assessment in which 11 states participated. While there was no measurable change from 2007 to 2009 in the overall average score for 4th-grade public school students in the nation, scores increased in two states (Kentucky and Rhode Island) and the District of Columbia and decreased in four states (Alaska, Iowa, New Mexico, and Wyoming) (see table A-10-3). At grade 8, although the average score for public school students in the nation was 1 point higher in 2009 than in 2007, score increases were seen in less than one-quarter of the states. Scores were higher in 2009 than in 2007 for nine states (Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Utah), and in the remaining states and the District of Columbia, scores showed no measurable change.

Technical Notes

NAEP reading scores range from 0 to 500. The 12th-grade NAEP reading assessment was not administered in 2003 or 2007. The achievement levels define what students should know and be able to do: Basic indicates partial mastery of fundamental skills, Proficient indicates demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, and Advanced indicates superior performance. Testing accommodations (e.g., extended time, small group testing) for children with disabilities and English language learners were not permitted in 1992 and 1994; students were tested with and without accommodations in 1998. For more information on NAEP, see supplemental note 4. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. For more information on race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 1.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-10-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rd2-1.asp)

A-10-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rd2-2.asp)

A-10-3 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rd2-3.asp)

Glossary: Achievement levels, English language learner, Traditional public school

Indicator 11: Reading Achievement Gaps

In 2009, White students at grade 12 scored 27 points higher in reading than Black students and 22 points higher than Hispanic students. Neither score gap was significantly different from the respective score gaps in previous assessment years.

In 2009 and in all previous assessment years since 1992, the average National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) reading scale scores of White 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade students were higher than their Black and Hispanic peers’ scores. This disparity is known as an achievement gap—in NAEP reading scores, the achievement gap is seen by the differences between the average scores of two student subgroups on the standardized assessment. In 2009, the average reading score of Black 4th-grade students was less than that of White 4th-grade students by 26 points; this gap was not measurably different from the gap in 2007, but it was smaller than the gaps in all other assessment years prior to 2007 (see table A-11-1). The reading achievement gap between Hispanic and White 4th-grade students in 2009 (-25 points) was not measurably different from the gaps in 2007 or 1992.

Scores of White, Black, and Hispanic 8th-grade students have all increased from 1992, yet neither the 2009 reading achievement gap between Black and White 8th-grade students (-26 points) nor the gap between Hispanic and White 8th-grade students (-24 points) was measurably different from the corresponding gaps in 2007 and 1992. In 2009, White students at grade 12 scored 27 points higher in reading than Black students and 22 points higher than Hispanic students. Neither score gap was measurably different from the respective score gaps in previous assessment years.

In 2009, female 4th-grade students scored 7 points higher, on average, than male students. This difference was not measurably different from the gaps in 2007 or 1992. Scores for female 8th-grade students in 2009 were not measurably different than their scores in 2007 or 1992, while male 8th-grade students’ average reading score in 2009 was higher than their scores in either of the other two years. The reading score difference between male and female 8th-grade students in 2009 (-9 points) was not measurably different from the difference seen in 2007, but it was smaller than the difference seen in 1992 (-13 points). Average reading scores for both male and female 12th-grade students were lower in 2009 than in 1992. Female students scored 12 points higher on average than male students in 2009, not measurably different from the differences in 2005 or 1992.

In 2009, achievement gaps between students in schools with high percentages of low-income students and students in schools with low percentages of such students existed at all three grade levels (see table A-11-2). For this indicator, students are identified as attending schools with high percentages of low-income students if more than 75 percent of the students in the school are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Students are identified as attending schools with low percentages of low-income students if 25 percent or fewer of the students in the school are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. In 2009, the low-income gap for grade 4 was not measurably different from the gap in 2007 but was smaller than gaps in all years prior to 2007. In grade 8, there were no measurable differences in the 2009 low-income gap and gaps in previous assessment years. In 2009, the low-income gap at grade 12 was larger than gaps reported in all previous assessments.

Technical Notes

NAEP reading scores range from 0 to 500. Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded scores. Testing accommodations for children with disabilities and English language learners were not permitted in 1992 and 1994; students were tested with and without accommodations in 1998 and 2000. The 12th-grade NAEP reading assessment was not administered in 2000, 2003, or 2007. For more information on race/ethnicity, supplemental note 1. For more information on NAEP, see supplemental note 4.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-11-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rgp-1.asp)

A-11-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rgp-2.asp)

Glossary: Achievement levels, English language learner

Indicator 12: Mathematics Performance

From 1990 to 2009, average grade 4 mathematics scores increased by 27 points and average grade 8 scores increased by 20 points. At grade 12, average scores increased by 3 points between 2005 and 2009.

In 2009, the average National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scale score for 4th-grade students (240) was not measurably different from the 2007 score but was higher than the scores on all of the assessments given between 1990 and 2005 (see table A-12-1). From 1990 to 2009, average grade 4 NAEP mathematics scale score increased by 27 points. The average score for 8th-grade students in 2009 was higher than the average scores in all previous assessment years. From 1990 to 2009, average grade 8 scores increased by 20 points, from 263 to 283. The average 12th-grade mathematics score was 3 points higher in 2009 than it was in 2005, the year the assessment was first given.

The percentages of 4th-grade students performing at or above the Basic, at or above the Proficient, and at the Advanced achievement levels showed no measurable change from 2007 to 2009. In 2009, some 82 percent of 4th-grade students performed at or above Basic, 39 percent performed at or above Proficient, and 6 percent performed at Advanced. The percentages of 8th-grade students performing at or above Basic, at or above Proficient, and at the Advanced achievement levels each showed increases of 1 to 2 percentage points from 2007 to 2009. In 2009, some 73 percent of 8th-grade students performed at or above Basic, 34 percent performed at or above Proficient, and 8 percent performed at Advanced. The percentage of 12th-grade students performing at or above Basic was 3 percentage points higher in 2009 (64 percent) than in 2005. Twenty-six percent of 12th-grade students performed at or above the Proficient level in 2009, which was also a 3-point increase from the percentage who did so in 2005. The percentages performing at the Advanced level in 2005 and 2009 were not measurably different (2 and 3 percent, respectively).

At grade 4, the average mathematics scores in 2009 for White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaska Native students were not measurably different from their scores in 2007 (see table A-12-2). The 2009 scores for White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander 4th-grade students were, however, higher than their scores from the assessment years prior to 2007. At grade 8, the average mathematics scores in 2009 for White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander students were higher than their scores in 2007. The 2009 score for American Indian/Alaska Native 8th-grade students was not measurably different from their scores in any of the earlier assessment years. At grade 12, average mathematics scores were higher in 2009 than in 2005 for all racial/ethnic groups. From 2005 to 2009, the average score for Asian/Pacific Islander 12th-grade students increased by 13 points, and the average score for American Indian/Alaska Native students increased by 10 points.

NAEP results also permit state-level comparisons of the mathematics achievement of 4th- and 8th-grade students in public schools. While there was no measurable change from 2007 to 2009 in the overall average mathematics score for 4th-grade public school students, scores increased in seven states (Colorado, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) and the District of Columbia and decreased in four states (Delaware, Indiana, West Virginia, and Wyoming) (see table A-12-3). At grade 8, scores were higher in 2009 than in 2007 in 14 states (Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia. At grade 8, no state had mathematics scores decline from 2007 to 2009. State mathematics results for 12th-grade students are available only for 2009, the pilot year of a NAEP state mathematics assessment in which 11 states participated.

Technical Notes

NAEP mathematics scores range from 0 to 500 for grades 4 and 8. The framework for the 12th-grade mathematics assessment was revised in 2005; as a result, the 2005 and 2009 results cannot be compared with those from previous years. At grade 12, mathematics scores on the revised assessment range from 0 to 300. The achievement levels define what students should know and be able to do: Basic indicates partial mastery of fundamental skills, Proficient indicates demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, and Advanced indicates superior performance. Testing accommodations (e.g., extended time, small group testing) for children with disabilities and English language learners were not permitted in 1990 and 1992. Students in grades 4 and 8 were tested with and without accommodations in 1996. For more information on NAEP, see supplemental note 4. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. For more information on race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 1.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-12-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-mat-1.asp)

A-12-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-mat-2.asp)

A-12-3 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-mat-3.asp)

Glossary: Achievement levels, English language learner, Traditional public school

Indicator 13: Mathematics Achievement Gaps

In 2009, White students at grade 12 scored 30 points higher in mathematics than Black students and 23 points higher than Hispanic students. Neither score gap was measurably different from the corresponding score gaps in 2005.

In 2009 and in all previous assessment years since 1992, the average National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics scale scores of White 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade students were higher than the scores of their Black and Hispanic peers. This disparity is known as an achievement gap—in the NAEP mathematics assessment, it is the difference between the average scores of two student subgroups on the standardized assessment. The achievement gap between Black and White 4th-grade students in 2009 (-26 points) was not measurably different from the gap in 2007, but it was smaller than the gap in 1990 (-32 points). The 21-point achievement gap between White and Hispanic 4th-grade students in 2009 was not measurably different from the gap in 2007 or the gap in 1990 (see table A-13-1).

White, Black, and Hispanic 8th-grade students’ scores increased between 2007 and 2009, yet neither the 2009 achievement gap between Black and White 8th-grade students (-32 points) nor the 2009 achievement gap between Hispanic and White 8th-grade students (-26 points) was measurably different from the corresponding gaps in 2007 or 1990. In 2009, White 12th-grade students scored 30 points higher in mathematics than Black students and 23 points higher than Hispanic students. Neither achievement gap was measurably different from the corresponding gaps in 2005.

In 2009, male 4th-grade students scored 2 points higher on average than female 4th-grade students. This difference was not measurably different from the gap in 2007. At grade 8, male students scored 2 points higher than female students in 2009; since the increases in scale scores were comparable for both males and females since 2007, the 2-point score difference was not measurably different from the difference in 2007. Average mathematics scores for both male and female 12th-grade students were higher in 2009 than in 2005. Male students scored 3 points higher on average than female students in 2009, not measurably different from the score difference in 2005.

In 2009, achievement gaps between students in schools with high percentages of low-income students and students in schools with low percentages of such students exist at all three grade levels (see table A-13-2). For this indicator, students are identified as attending schools with high percentages of low-income students if more than 75 percent of the students in the school are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Students are identified as attending schools with low percentages of low-income students if 25 percent or fewer of the students in the school are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. In 2009, the low-income gap at grade 4 was -31 points, at grade 8 the gap was -38 points, and at grade 12 the gap was -36 points (see table A-13-2). None of the low-income gaps in 2009 were measurably different from previous gaps reported by NAEP.

Technical Notes

NAEP mathematics scores range from 0 to 500 for grades 4 and 8. The framework for the 12th-grade mathematics assessment was revised in 2005; as a result, the 2005 and 2009 results cannot be compared with those from previous years. At grade 12, mathematics scores on the revised assessment range from 0 to 300. Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded scores. Testing accommodations for children with disabilities and English language learners were not permitted in 1990 and 1992. Students were tested in grades 4 and 8 with and without accommodations in 1996. For more information on race/ethnicity or free or reduced-price lunch, see supplemental note 1. For more information on NAEP, see supplemental note 4.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-13-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-mgp-1.asp)

A-13-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-mgp-2.asp)

Glossary: Achievement levels, English language learner

Indicator 14: Science Performance

Thirty-four percent of students at grade 4, some 30 percent of students at grade 8, and 21 percent of students at grade 12 performed at or above the Proficient level in the 2009 science assessment. One percent of 4th-grade students, 2 percent of 8th-grade students, and 1 percent of 12th-grade students performed at the Advanced level.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2009 science assessment was designed to measure students’ knowledge of three content areas: physical science, life science, and Earth and space sciences. In 2009, a new science framework was developed by the National Assessment Governing Board to keep assessment content current with key developments in science, curriculum standards, assessments, and research. As such, the results of the 2009 science assessment are not comparable to results from earlier years. Nevertheless, this indicator presents a snapshot of what the nation’s 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade students know and can do in science, and it will serve as the basis for comparisons on future science assessments.

Seventy-two percent of 4th-grade students, 63 percent of 8th-grade students, and 60 percent of 12th-grade students performed at or above the Basic achievement level in science in 2009 (see table A-14-1). Thirty-four percent of students at grade 4, some 30 percent of students at grade 8, and 21 percent of students at grade 12 performed at or above the Proficient level in 2009. Some 1 percent of 4th-grade students, 2 percent of 8th-grade students, and 1 percent of 12th-grade students performed at the Advanced level.

On average, male students scored higher than female students at all three grades in 2009 (see table A-14-2). Differences were also reflected in achievement-level results: at grade 4, 35 percent of male students performed at or above Proficient, compared with 32 percent of female students. At grades 8 and 12, the percentages of male students performing at or above the Basic, at or above the Proficient, and at the Advanced levels were higher than the percentages of female students.

Results of the 2009 science assessment varied for students of different racial/ethnic groups. At grades 4 and 8, White students had higher average scale scores (163 and 162, respectively) than other racial/ethnic groups. In addition, Asian/Pacific Islander students scored higher (160 at grades 4 and 8) than Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students. At grade 12, there was no significant difference in scores for White and Asian/Pacific Islander students (159 vs. 164, respectively), and both groups scored higher than other racial/ethnic groups.

At grades 4 and 8, the percentage of students who scored at or above Basic and at or above Proficient were lowest for students in high-poverty schools, meaning those schools in which more than 75 percent of the students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. At grade 4, some 46 percent of students in high-poverty schools scored at or above Basic and 11 percent scored at or above Proficient, compared with 89 and 54 percent, respectively, for students in low-poverty schools, meaning those schools in which 25 percent or fewer of the students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. At grade 8, some 33 percent of students in high-poverty schools scored at or above Basic and 8 percent scored at or above Proficient, compared with 81 percent and 46 percent in low-poverty schools.

Technical Notes

NAEP science scores range from 0 to 300. The achievement levels define what students should know and be able to do: Basic indicates partial mastery of fundamental skills, Proficient indicates demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, and Advanced indicates superior performance. In 2009, a new framework was developed for the 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade NAEP science assessment. For more information on NAEP, see supplemental note 4. Eligibility or approval for the National School Lunch Program also serves as a measure of poverty status. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. For more information on race/ethnicity or free or reduced-price lunch, see supplemental note 1.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-14-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-scp-1.asp)

A-14-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-scp-2.asp)

A-14-3 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-scp-3.asp)

Glossary: Achievement levels, English language learner

Indicator 15: International Reading Literacy

In 2009, the average U.S. combined reading literacy score for 15-year-old students was not measurably different from the average score of the 34 OECD-member countries. The U.S. average score was lower than that of 6 OECD countries and higher than that of 13 OECD countries.

The 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) reports the performance of 15-year-old students in reading literacy in 65 countries and other education systems, including the 34 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, 26 non-OECD countries, and 5 other education systems. The OECD countries are a group of the world’s most advanced economies. Other education systems refer to non-national entities, such as Shanghai-China.

The U.S. students’ average score on the combined reading literacy scale (500) was not measurably different from the average score of OECD countries (493) (see table A-15-1). Compared with the other 64 countries and other education systems, the U.S. average was lower than the average in 9 countries and other education systems (6 OECD countries, 1 non-OECD country, and 2 education systems) and higher than the average in 39 countries and other education systems (13 OECD countries, 24 non-OECD countries, and 2 other education systems).

PISA 2009 presents results for three reading literacy subscales that represent reading processes: access and retrieve, integrate and interpret, and reflect and evaluate. These subscales refer to skills students must apply to draw meaning from reading, (e.g., reflect and evaluate requires students to relate what they read to their own knowledge and experience and judge what they read objectively). On the access and retrieve subscale and integrate and interpret subscale, U.S. students’ averages (492 and 495, respectively) were not measurably different from the OECD averages (495 and 493, respectively). On the reflect and evaluate subscale, the U.S. students’ average (512) was higher than the OECD average (494).

In all 65 participating countries and other education systems, female students scored higher, on average, than male students on the combined reading literacy scale (see table A-15-2). The average difference between U.S. males and females (25 scale score points) was smaller than the average difference of the 34 OECD countries (39 scale score points) and the difference in 45 countries and other education systems (24 OECD countries, 18 non-OECD countries, and 3 other education systems).

The average scores of U.S. Black and Hispanic students on the combined reading literacy scale (441 and 466, respectively) were lower than the U.S. and OECD averages. In contrast, average scores of U.S. White and Asian students (525 and 541, respectively) were higher than the U.S. and OECD averages (see table A-15-3). The average score of U.S. students who reported being of two or more races (502) was not measurably different from the U.S. and OECD averages.

The U.S. average in reading literacy in 2000 (504), the last PISA cycle in which reading literacy was assessed in depth, was not measurably different from the average in 2009 (500) (see table A-15-4). There were no measurable differences between the U.S. average and the OECD trend average in 2000 (504 and 496, respectively) or in 2009 (500 and 495, respectively).

Technical Notes

PISA is principally an OECD study, and the results for non-OECD countries and other education systems are displayed separately and are not included in the OECD average. The OECD average is the average of the national averages of the OECD member countries, with each country weighted equally, and differs from the OECD average used for analysis of trends in student scores over time. The OECD average used in the analysis of trends in reading literacy is based on the averages of the 27 OECD countries with comparable data for 2000 and 2009. The reading literacy scale was established in PISA 2000 to have a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100. The combined reading literacy scale is made up of all the items in the three subscales, and each scale is computed separately through Item Response Theory (IRT) models. Therefore, the combined reading scale score is not the average of the three subscale scores. For more information on PISA, see supplemental note 5. For more information on race/ethnicity, please see supplemental note 1.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-15-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-irl-1.asp)

A-15-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-irl-2.asp)

A-15-3 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-irl-3.asp)

A-15-4 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-irl-4.asp)

Glossary: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

Indicator 16: International Mathematics and Science Literacy

In 2009, the average U.S. mathematics literacy score for 15-year-old students was below the average score of the 34 OECD member countries. On the science literacy scale, the average U.S. score was not measurably different from the OECD average.

The 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) reports on the performance of 15-year-olds in mathematics and science literacy in 65 countries and other education systems, including the 34 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, 26 non-OECD countries, and 5 other education systems. The OECD countries are a group of the world’s most advanced economies. Other education systems refer to non-national entities, such as Shanghai-China.

The average U.S. mathematics literacy score (487) in 2009 was lower than the average score of the 34 OECD countries (496). In comparison with students in all 64 other countries and education systems, students in the United States on average scored lower than students in 23 (17 OECD countries, 2 non-OECD countries, and 4 other education systems) and higher than students in 29 (5 OECD countries, 23 non-OECD countries, and 1 other education system).

No measurable difference was found between the average U.S. mathematics literacy scores in 2009 (487) and 2003 (483), the earliest time point to which PISA 2009 mathematics literacy scores can be compared (see table A-16-1). In both years, the U.S. average score was lower than the OECD average score.

In 2009, male students outscored their female peers in mathematics literacy in 35 countries and other education systems, and on average among the OECD countries (see table A-16-2). Female students outscored their male peers in 5 countries. On average, U.S. male students scored 20 scale score points above U.S. female students in 2009; this gender difference was greater than the 6-point difference observed in favor of U.S. male students over their female peers in 2003.

The average U.S. science literacy score (502) in 2009 was not measurably different from the average score of the 34 OECD countries (501). In comparison with students in all 64 other countries and education systems, students in the United States on average scored lower than students in 18 (12 OECD countries, 2 non-OECD countries, and 4 other education systems) and higher than students in 33 (9 OECD countries, 23 non-OECD countries, and 1 other education system).

The average U.S. science literacy score was higher in 2009 (502) than in 2006 (489), the only year of data to which PISA 2009 science literacy scores can be compared (see table A-16-3). The U.S. average was lower than the OECD average in 2006, but was not measurably different from the OECD average in 2009.

In 2009, female students outscored their male peers in science literacy in 21 countries and other education systems, while male students outscored their female peers in 11 countries (see table A-16-4). No measurable gender gap in science literacy scores was found among the OECD countries, on average, in 2009. U.S. male students scored 14 scale score points above U.S. female students on average in 2009, whereas no measurable gender difference was observed in 2006.

Technical Notes

Since PISA is principally an OECD study, the results for non-OECD countries and other education systems are displayed separately and are not included in the OECD average. The OECD average is the average of the national averages of the 34 OECD member countries, with each country weighted equally, and differs from the OECD average used for analysis of trends in student scores over time. The OECD average used in the analysis of trends in mathematics literacy is based on the averages of the 29 OECD countries with comparable data for 2003 and 2009. For science literacy trends, all 34 OECD countries are used. Scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000. For more information on PISA, see supplemental note 5.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-16-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-msl-1.asp)

A-16-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-msl-2.asp)

A-16-3 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-msl-3.asp)

A-16-4 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-msl-4.asp)

Glossary: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

Indicator 17: Annual Earnings of Young Adults

In 2009, young adults ages 25–34 with a bachelor’s degree earned more than twice as much as young adults without a high school diploma or its equivalent, 50 percent more than young adult high school completers, and 25 percent more than young adults with an associate’s degree.

In 2009, some 61 percent of young adults ages 25–34 who were in the labor force were employed full time throughout a full year. The percentage of young adults working full time throughout a full year was generally higher for those with higher levels of educational attainment. For example, 69 percent of young adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher were full-time, full-year workers in 2009, compared with 55 percent of young adults with a high school diploma or its equivalent.

For young adults ages 25–34 who worked full time throughout a full year, higher educational attainment was associated with higher median earnings. This pattern of higher median earnings corresponding with higher levels of educational attainment was consistent for each year examined between 1995 and 2009 (see table A-17-1). For example, young adults with a bachelor’s degree consistently had higher median earnings than those with less education. This relationship of higher median earnings corresponding with higher educational attainment also held across sex and race/ethnicity subgroups.

In 2009, the median of the earnings for young adults with a bachelor’s degree was $45,000, while the median was $21,000 for those without a high school diploma or its equivalent, $30,000 for those with a high school diploma or its equivalent, and $36,000 for those with an associate’s degree. In other words, young adults with a bachelor’s degree earned more than twice as much as those without a high school diploma or its equivalent in 2009 (i.e., 114 percent more), 50 percent more than young adult high school completers, and 25 percent more than young adults with an associate’s degree. In 2009, the median of the earnings of young adults with a master’s degree or higher was $60,000, some 33 percent more than the median for young adults with a bachelor’s degree.

Between 1980 and 2009, the difference (in constant 2009 dollars) in median earnings increased between those with a bachelor’s degree or higher and those who had completed high school, as did the difference between those with a bachelor’s degree or higher and those without a high school diploma or its equivalent. For example, in 1980, young adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher earned $18,200 more than those without a high school diploma or its equivalent. This difference increased to $25,500 in 2005 and to $29,000 in 2009. This increase in the differential in median earnings over this period was primarily due to the decrease in earnings for high school completers and young adults without a high school diploma or its equivalent. Between 1995 and 2009, there was no overall linear pattern in the difference in median earnings between those with a bachelor’s degree and those with a master’s degree or higher. For example, in 1995, young adults with a master’s degree or higher earned $12,700 more than their peers with a bachelor’s degree; this difference in median earnings was $10,100 in 2005 and $15,000 in 2009.

Earnings differences were also observed by sex and race/ethnicity. In 2009, the median of the earnings for young adult males was higher than the median for young adult females at every education level (see figure 18-2). For example, in 2009, young adult males with a bachelor’s degree earned $51,000, while their female counterparts earned $40,100. In the same year, the median of White young adults’ earnings was higher than that of Black and Hispanic young adults’ earnings at most education levels. Asian young adults with a bachelor’s degree or with a master’s degree or higher had higher median earnings than did their White, Black, and Hispanic counterparts in 2009. For example, in 2009, the median of earnings for young adults with at least a master's degree was $70,000 for Asians, $58,000 for Whites, $55,000 for Blacks, and $53,000 for Hispanics.

Technical Notes

High school completers are those who earned a high school diploma or equivalent (e.g., a General Educational Development [GED] certificate). Median earnings are presented in 2009 constant dollars by means of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to eliminate inflationary factors and to allow for direct comparison across years. For more information on the CPI, see supplemental note 10 Full-year worker refers to those who were employed 50 or more weeks during the previous year; full-time worker refers to those who were usually employed 35 or more hours per week. The Current Population Survey (CPS) questions used to obtain educational attainment were changed in 1992. In 1994, the survey instrument for the CPS was changed and weights were adjusted. For more information on changes to the CPS, see supplemental note 2. For more information on race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 1.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental table:

A-17-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-er2-1.asp)

Glossary: Bachelor’s degree, Constant dollars, Consumer Price Index (CPI), Educational attainment, High school completer, Master’s degree

Indicator 18: Employment Outcomes of Young Adults

In 2010, young adults ages 25–34 with at least a bachelor’s degree had a full-time employment rate that was over 30 percentage points higher than that of their peers who had not completed high school (74 vs. 41 percent).

In 2010, some 73 percent of young adults ages 25–34 were employed (61 percent full time and 12 percent part time), 9 percent were unemployed, and 18 percent were not in the labor force (see table A-18-1). In each year shown from 1990 to 2010, a greater percentage of young adults with at least a bachelor’s degree were employed full time than were their peers with lower levels of education. In 2010, for example, 74 percent of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher were employed full time (including 73 percent of bachelor’s degree holders and 77 percent of those with a master’s degree or higher), compared with 65 percent of those with an associate’s degree, 56 percent of those with some college education, 55 percent of high school completers, and 41 percent of those who had not completed high school (i.e., those without a high school diploma or its equivalent). Additionally, a smaller percentage of young adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher were unemployed than were their peers with lower levels of education. In 2010, for example, 4 percent of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher were unemployed (including 4 percent of bachelor’s degree holders and 3 percent of those with a master’s degree or higher), compared with 7 percent of those with an associate’s degree, 10 percent of those with some college education, 13 percent of high school completers, and 14 percent of those who had not completed high school.

The percentage of young adults who were unemployed in 2010 (9 percent) was higher than the percentages in 2000 (3 percent) and 2005 (5 percent). The full-time employment rate in 2010 (61 percent) was lower than the rates in these years as well (72 and 67 percent, respectively). In addition, the percentage of young adults who were employed full time was lower in 2010 than in 2000 at each level of educational attainment. For example, 55 percent of young adults who had not completed high school were employed full time in 2000, compared with 41 percent in 2010. Among young adults with at least a bachelor’s degree, the corresponding percentages were 81 percent and 74 percent. Comparing full-time employment rates in 2010 with those in 2005, rates were lower for young adults with less than a bachelor’s degree but no measurable changes were found between these two years for young adults with at least a bachelor’s degree.

Overall, in 2010, White young adults had the highest rate of full-time employment and American Indian/Alaska Native young adults had the lowest rate (see table A-18-2). Blacks had the highest overall unemployment rate among young adults and Asians had the lowest rate. In 2010, the range in the percentage of young adults who were not in the labor force went from 16 percent for Whites to 27 percent for American Indians/Alaska Natives.

Trends in employment, unemployment, and labor force participation for young adults varied by race/ethnicity and educational attainment in 2010. With the exception of master’s degree or higher, at each level of educational attainment, a greater percentage of Black young adults was unemployed than were their peers of other races/ethnicities. Patterns for full-time employment among young adults varied more widely across racial/ethnic groups. For example, among those with at least a bachelor’s degree, the rate of full-time employment was lower for Asians (63 percent) than for their peers in the other racial/ethnic groups (71 to 77 percent). In addition, the percentage of young adults with at least a bachelor’s degree who were not in the labor force was higher for Asians (24 percent) than for their peers in the other racial/ethnic groups (10 to 14 percent).

Technical Notes

Persons who were employed 35 or more hours during the previous week were classified as working full time; those who worked fewer hours were classified as working part time. High school completers refers to those who earned a high school diploma or equivalent (e.g., a General Educational Development [GED] certificate). Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. For more information on race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 1. The Current Population Survey (CPS) questions used to obtain data on educational attainment were changed in 1992. For more information on the CPS, see supplemental note 2.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-18-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-eya-1.asp)

A-18-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-eya-2.asp)

Glossary: Associate’s degree, Bachelor’s degree, Educational attainment, High school diploma, Master’s degree

Section

3

Student Effort and Educational Progress

Introduction

The indicators in this section of The Condition of Education report on the progress students make as they move through the education system. In this section, particular attention is paid to how various subgroups in the population proceed through school and attain different levels of education, as well as the factors that are associated with their progress along the way. Indicators prepared for this year’s volume appear on the following pages, and all indicators in this section, including various indicators from previous years, appear on the NCES website (see the “List of Indicators on The Condition of Education Website” for a full listing of indicators).

Focusing on the educational aspirations and efforts of students, the first indicators in this section (found on the website) include student measures of time spent on homework, preparedness for academic activities, postsecondary education expectations, and patterns of school attendance.

Included in this section of the volume is an indicator on the averaged freshman graduation rate, which estimates the on-time graduation rate for students in each state. On the website, there are indicators on the percentage of students who have ever been retained in a grade; the percentage of students with disabilities who leave high school with a regular diploma; and the dropout rates by family income. Dropping out of high school is measured here in two ways: (1) by status rates (the percentage of students in a given age range who are not enrolled in school and who have not completed high school) and (2) by event rates (the percentage of students in an age range who leave school in a given year). Status rates are discussed in an indicator in this volume, while event rates are discussed in an indicator on the website.

Students’ transition to college is also examined in this section. One important measure featured in this volume is the percentage of students who enroll in college within one year of completing high school. In addition, this section includes indicators that describe the relationship between the qualifications and characteristics of students who enter postsecondary education, in particular their need for remedial coursework, and their success in earning a credential.

Lastly, this section contains indicators that focus on completion. An overall measure of the progress of the population through the education system is attainment, which is the highest level of education completed by a certain age. The Condition of Education annually examines levels of attainment for 25- through 29-year-olds. In addition, this section has an indicator that compares U.S. educational attainment to that of other countries. Another indicator in this volume showcases the number of postsecondary degrees earned over time by gender and race/ethnicity.

Indicators of student effort and educational progress from previous editions of The Condition of Education which are not included in this volume are available at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe.

Indicator 19: Public High School Graduation Rates

In 2007–08, about three-quarters of public high school students graduated on time with a regular diploma.

This indicator examines the percentage of public high school students who graduate on time with a regular diploma. To do so, it uses the averaged freshman graduation rate—an estimate of the number of regular diplomas issued in a given year divided by an estimate of the averaged enrollment base for the freshman class four years earlier. For each year, the averaged freshman enrollment count is the sum of the number of 8th-graders 5 years earlier, the number of 9th-graders 4 years earlier (when current-year seniors were freshmen), and the number of 10th-graders 3 years earlier, divided by 3. The intent of this averaging is to account for the high rate of grade retention in the freshman year, which adds 9th-grade repeaters from the previous year to the number of students in the incoming freshman class each year.

Among public high school students in the class of 2007–08, the averaged freshman graduation rate was 74.7 percent; that is, 3 million students graduated on time (see table A-19-1). Wisconsin had the highest graduation rate, at 89.6 percent. Sixteen other states had rates of 80 percent or more (ordered from high to low): Vermont, Minnesota, Iowa, New Jersey, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Connecticut, Montana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Illinois, and Idaho. The District of Columbia had the lowest rate, at 56.0 percent. Nine other states had graduation rates below 70 percent (ordered from high to low): Alaska, Alabama, Florida, New Mexico, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Nevada.

The overall averaged freshman graduation rate was higher for the graduating class of 2007–08 (74.7 percent) than it was for the graduating class of 2001–02 (72.6 percent). However, from 2004–05 to 2005–06, the overall averaged freshman graduation rate decreased from 74.7 percent to 73.4 percent. Looking at changes by state, there was an increase in the graduation rate in 40 states from school year 2001–02 to 2007–08; in 8 of these states (Alabama, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Vermont) rates increased by more than 5 percentage points. The graduation rate decreased in 11 states (Arizona, California, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington) and the District of Columbia, with decreases of greater than 5 percentage points observed in Utah (6 percent), the District of Columbia (12 percent), and Nevada (16 percent).

Technical Notes

Ungraded students were allocated to individual grades proportional to each state’s enrollment in those grades. Graduates include only those who earned regular diplomas or diplomas for advanced academic achievement (e.g., honors diploma) as defined by the state or jurisdiction. The 2003–04 national estimates include imputed data for New York and Wisconsin. The 2005–06 national estimates include imputed data for the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. The 2007–08 estimate includes graduates of semi-private schools in Maine. For more information on the Common Core of Data (CCD), see supplemental note 3. For more information on measures of student progress and persistence, see supplemental note 6.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental table:

A-19-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-scr-1.asp).

Glossary: High school, High school diploma, Public school

Indicator 20: Status Dropout Rates

In general, the status dropout rates for Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics each declined between 1980 and 2009. However, in each year during that period, the status dropout rate was lower for Whites and Blacks than for Hispanics.

The status dropout rate represents the percentage of 16- through 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school and have not earned a high school credential (either a diploma or an equivalency credential such as a General Educational Development [GED] certificate). In this indicator, status dropout rates are estimated using both the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Current Population Survey (CPS). The 2009 ACS has larger sample sizes than the CPS, which allows for more detailed comparisons of status dropout rates by race/ethnicity, nativity, and sex. For more information on these surveys, see supplemental note 2 and supplemental note 3.

Based on the CPS, the status dropout rate declined from 14 percent in 1980 to 8 percent in 2009 (see table A-20-1). A significant part of this decline occurred between 2000 and 2009 (from 11 percent to 8 percent). Status dropout rates and changes in these rates over time differed by race/ethnicity. In general, the status dropout rates for Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics each declined between 1980 and 2009. However, in each year during that period, the status dropout rate was lower for Whites and Blacks than for Hispanics. In addition, the rate for Asians/Pacific Islanders was lower than that for Hispanics and Blacks every year between 1989 and 2009. Although the gaps between the rates of Blacks and Whites, Hispanics and Whites, and Hispanics and Blacks have decreased, the decreases occurred in different time periods. The Black-White gap narrowed during the 1980s, with no measurable change between 1990 and 2009. In contrast, the Hispanic-Black gap narrowed between 1990 and 2009, with no measurable change in the gap during the 1980s. The Hispanic-White gap narrowed between 2000 and 2009, with no measurable change in the gap between 1980 and 1999.

The ACS allows for comparisons of status dropout rates for 16- through 24-year-olds residing in households, as well as those in noninstitutionalized and institutionalized group quarters. Among those living in households and noninstitutionalized group quarters, such as college housing and military quarters, the status dropout rate was 8 percent (see table A-20-2) in 2009. A higher percentage of males than females were status dropouts (9 vs. 7 percent). This pattern was evident across certain racial/ethnic groups, namely Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics.

The status dropout rate includes all 16- through 24-year-old dropouts, regardless of when they last attended school, as well as individuals who may never have attended school in the United States and may never have earned a high school credential. It is possible to isolate data for immigrants and those who were born and attended school in the United States, helping to highlight the experiences of young people in our education system. In 2009, the status dropout rate for Hispanics born in the United States was higher than the rates for Asians, Whites, Blacks, and persons of two or more races born in the United States. No measurable differences were found, however, between U.S.-born Hispanics and Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders. Overall, the status dropout rate for U.S.-born 16- through 24-year-olds was lower than the rate for their peers born outside of the United States (7 vs. 20 percent). Hispanics and Asians born in the United States had lower status dropout rates than did their counterparts born outside of the United States, whereas U.S.-born Blacks had higher status dropout rates than did their counterparts born outside of the United States. A higher dropout rate among Hispanics born outside of the United States (32 percent) compared to those born in the United States (10 percent) partially accounts for the relatively high overall Hispanic rate (17 percent). In 2009, the status dropout rate for the institutionalized population was 40 percent (see table A-20-3). This rate varied by race/ethnicity, ranging from 31 percent for Whites to 47 percent for Hispanics.

Technical Notes

The United States refers to the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. For more information on race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 1. Estimates of the status dropout rate using the CPS include civilian, noninstitutionalized 16- through 24-year-olds. Young adults in the military or those who are incarcerated, for instance, are not included in this measure. However, the 2009 ACS includes noninstitutionalized and institutionalized group quarters. Therefore, due to this and other methodological differences between the CPS and ACS, status dropout estimates from the two surveys are not directly comparable. For more information on these surveys, see supplemental note 2 and supplemental note 3. For more information on measures of student persistence and progress, see supplemental note 6.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-20-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-sde-1.asp)

A-20-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-sde-2.asp)

A-20-3 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-sde-3.asp)

Glossary: GED certificate, High school equivalency certificate, Status dropout rate

Indicator 21: Immediate Transition to College

The immediate college enrollment rate after high school increased from 1975 to 1997 (51 to 67 percent), declined from 1997 to 2001 (to 62 percent), then increased from 2001 to 2009 (70 percent). Gaps in immediate enrollment rates by family income, race/ethnicity, and sex have persisted over time.

The immediate college enrollment rate is defined as the percentage of high school completers of a given year who enroll in 2- or 4-year colleges in the fall immediately after completing high school. Between 1975 and 2009, the immediate college enrollment rate ranged from 49 to 70 percent (see table A-21-1). The rate of enrollment immediately after high school increased from 1975 to 1997 (51 to 67 percent), declined from 1997 to 2001 (to 62 percent), then increased from 2001 to 2009 (70 percent).

Differences in immediate college enrollment rates by family income, race/ethnicity, and sex were observed over time. In every year between 1975 and 2009, the immediate college enrollment rates of high school completers from low- and middle-income families were lower than those of high school completers from high-income families (see table A-21-1). Most recently, in 2009, the immediate college enrollment rate of high school completers from low-income families was 55 percent, 29 percentage points lower than the rate of high school completers from high-income families (84 percent). The immediate college enrollment rate of high school completers from middle-income families (67 percent) also trailed the rate of their peers from high-income families by 17 percentage points.

Since 2003, data on Asian high school completers have been collected separately. Between 2003 and 2009, the immediate college enrollment rate of Asian high school completers increased from 80 to 90 percent, while the enrollment rate of White high school completers increased from 66 to 71 percent (see table A-21-2). During this period, the immediate college enrollment rates did not measurably change for Black and Hispanic high school completers (approximately 60 percent each in 2003 and 2009). In every year between 2003 and 2009, the immediate college enrollment rate of Asian high school completers was higher than the rates of White, Black, and Hispanic high school completers. The immediate college enrollment rate of Asian high school completers was 19 percentage points higher than the immediate college enrollment rate of White high school completers (71 percent). In 2009, the immediate college enrollment rates of White and Asian high school completers were higher than the rates of Black (63 percent) and Hispanic (62 percent) high school completers.

Overall, at 2- and 4-year colleges, the immediate college enrollment rates of high school completers increased between 1975 and 2009 (see table A-21-3). In 1975, 18 percent of high school completers enrolled at a 2-year college immediately after high school, while 28 percent did so in 2009. Similarly, in 1975, some 33 percent of high school completers enrolled at a 4-year college immediately after high school, compared with 42 percent in 2009. In every year between 1975 and 2009, immediate college enrollment rates at 2-year colleges were lower than those at 4-year colleges.

During this period, immediate college enrollment rates increased for both males and females: the rate for males increased from 53 to 66 percent, and for females, from 49 to 74 percent. Thus, the enrollment pattern shifted during this period from higher college enrollment rates for males to higher enrollment rates for females. At 2-year colleges in 2009, the immediate college enrollment rate for males (25 percent) was lower than the rate for females (30 percent), while at 4-year colleges the rates for males and females were not measurably different.

Technical Notes

This indicator provides data on high school completers ages 16–24, who account for about 98 percent of all high school completers in a given year. Enrollment rates were calculated using data from the Current Population Survey (CPS). Before 1992, high school completer referred to those who had completed 12 years of schooling. As of 1992, high school completer refers to those who have received a high school diploma or equivalency certificate. Low income refers to the bottom 20 percent of all family incomes, high income refers to the top 20 percent of all family incomes, and middle income refers to the 60 percent in between. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Due to short-term data fluctuations associated with small sample sizes for the Black, Hispanic, Asian, and low-income categories in some years, moving average rates are also presented and discussed in the indicator text. For more information on the CPS, educational attainment, family income, and race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 2.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-21-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-trc-1.asp)

A-21-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-trc-2.asp)

A-21-3 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-trc-3.asp)

Glossary: Educational attainment, High school completer

Indicator 22: Remedial Coursetaking

In 2007–08, about 36 percent of undergraduate students considered to be in their first year reported having ever taken a remedial course, while 20 percent had actually taken one in that same year. At public 2-year institutions, about 42 percent of students had ever taken a remedial course.

Many students enter postsecondary education not fully prepared for college-level work, requiring them to take remedial courses. Remedial courses, usually in mathematics, English, or writing, provide instruction to improve basic knowledge and skills within a subject and to develop studying and social habits related to academic success at the college level.

Students attending postsecondary education part time or not completing the credit accumulation requirements for second-year status could be considered first-year students for more than 1 year. Therefore, there is a distinction between “first-year” students who reported in 2007–08 that they had “ever” taken a remedial course and those who reported that they had taken one in 2007–08.

In 2007–08, approximately 36 percent of first-year undergraduate students reported that they had ever taken a remedial course, and 20 percent of first-year undergraduates reported that they had taken at least one remedial course in the 2007–08 academic year (see table A-22-1). Some 9 percent of first-year undergraduate students reported that they took one remedial course in 2007–08, while 7 percent took two, and 4 percent took three or more remedial courses in that year.

A higher percentage of female than male undergraduate students reported in 2007–08 that they had ever taken a remedial course (39 percent vs. 33 percent) or that they had taken at least one in 2007–08 (21 percent vs. 19 percent).

In 2007–08, the percentage of White first-year undergraduates (31 percent) who reported that they had ever taken a remedial course in college was smaller than the percentages of undergraduate students who had in all other racial/ethnic groups, except students of two or more races and students who listed their race as “other.” The reported rates of remedial coursetaking for students in these two groups were not measurably different than that of Whites. In addition, higher percentages of Black and Hispanic undergraduate students (45 percent and 43 percent, respectively) than Asian students (38 percent) reported that they had ever taken a remedial course.

There were differences by age group in the percentages of first-year undergraduates who reported in 2007–08 that they had ever taken a remedial course. The percentage of the youngest students (ages 15 to 23 years old) who reported ever taking a remedial course (35 percent) was smaller than the percentages of students ages 24 to 29 (40 percent) or students 30 years or older (38 percent) who reported doing so.

In 2007–08, some 42 percent of first-year undergraduate students at public 2-year institutions (typically community colleges) reported having ever taken a remedial college course—a percentage that was higher than students at institutions of any other level or control. For instance, 4-year institutions in the following categories had smaller percentages of first-year students who reported having ever taken a remedial college course: public non-doctorate institutions (39 percent of students), public doctorate institutions (24 percent), private not-for-profit non-doctorate institutions (26 percent), and private not-for-profit doctorate institutions (22 percent).

Technical Notes

Data are based on a sample survey of students who enrolled at any time during the school year including those that were not in degree- or certificate-awarding programs. Data include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Full time refers to students who attended full time (as defined by the institution) for the full year (at least 9 months). Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. For more information on race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 1. For more information on the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), see supplemental note 3. Institutions in this indicator are classified based on the number of highest degrees awarded. For example, institutions that award 20 or more doctoral degrees per year are classified as doctoral universities. For more information on the classification of postsecondary institutions, see supplemental note 8.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental table:

A-22-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rmc-1.asp)

Glossary: Four-year postsecondary institution, Postsecondary education, Two-year postsecondary institution, Undergraduate student

Indicator 23: Postsecondary Graduation Rates

About 54 percent of male and 60 percent of female first-time students who sought a bachelor’s degree and enrolled at a 4-year institution full time in fall 2002 completed a bachelor’s degree at that institution within 6 years.

Approximately 57 percent of first-time students who sought a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent and enrolled at a 4-year institution full time in fall 2002 completed a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent at that institution within 6 years (see table A-23-1). By comparison, 55 percent of students in an analogous cohort who began seeking a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent in fall 1996 graduated within 6 years.

The bachelor’s degree completion rates for students who began seeking a bachelor’s degree at 4-year institutions in fall 2002 varied by the control of institution. Graduation rates were highest at private not-for-profit institutions, followed by public institutions and private for-profit institutions. For example, the 6-year graduation rate at private not-for-profit institutions was 65 percent, compared with 55 percent at public institutions and 22 percent at private for-profit institutions.

At both public and private not-for-profit 4-year institutions, the 6-year graduation rates for females who enrolled in fall 2002 were higher than the rates for males. At public institutions, approximately 58 percent of females seeking a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent graduated within 6 years, compared with 52 percent of males; at private not-for-profit institutions, 67 percent of females graduated within 6 years, compared with 62 percent of males. At private for-profit institutions, however, the 6-year graduation rate was higher for males than females (24 vs. 21 percent).

Bachelor’s degree completion rates for students who sought a bachelor’s degree at 4-year institutions and enrolled in fall 2002 also varied by race/ethnicity. Asian/Pacific Islander students had the highest 6-year graduation rate, followed by White, Hispanic, Black, and American Indian/Alaska Native students (see table A-23-2). Approximately 67 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders graduated with a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent within 6 years, compared with 60 percent of Whites, 49 percent of Hispanics, 40 percent of Blacks, and 38 percent of American Indians/Alaska Natives.

At both public and private not-for-profit 4-year institutions, the 6-year graduation rates for both males and females who began seeking a bachelor’s degree in fall 2002 varied by the acceptance rate of the institution. For example, at public 4-year institutions with open admissions policies, 27 percent of males and 34 percent of females completed a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent within 6 years. At public 4-year institutions where the acceptance rate was less than 25 percent of applicants, however, the 6-year graduation rate for males was 73 percent and for females, 72 percent.

At 2-year institutions, about 27 percent of first-time, full-time students who enrolled in fall 2005 completed a certificate or associate’s degree within 150 percent of the normal time required to complete such a degree (see table A-23-3). For the cohort who enrolled in 1999, the completion rate was 29 percent.

The certificate or associate’s degree completion rate of students who enrolled in 2-year institutions in fall 2005 varied by institution control. Fifty-eight percent of students graduated within 150 percent of the normal time at private for-profit 2-year institutions, 48 percent did so at private not-for-profit institutions, and 21 percent did so at public institutions.

Technical Notes

The graduation rate was calculated as the total number of students who completed a degree within the specified time to degree attainment (for bachelor’s degrees, 6 years; for less than 4-year degrees, 150 percent of the normal time required to attain such a degree) divided by the revised cohort, meaning the cohort minus any allowable exclusions. For this indicator, the revised cohorts are the spring 2009 estimates of 1) the number of students who entered a 4-year institution in fall 1996, fall 1999, and fall 2002 as first-time, full-time undergraduates seeking a bachelor’s or equivalent degree, and 2) the number of students who entered a 2-year institution in fall 1999 and fall 2005 as first-time, full-time undergraduates seeking a certificate or associate’s degree. Students who transferred to another institution and graduated are not counted as completers at their initial institution. For more information on the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), see supplemental note 3. Race categories exclude person of Hispanic ethnicity. For more information on race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 1.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-23-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pgr-1.asp)

A-23-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pgr-2.asp)

A-23-3 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pgr-3.asp)

Glossary: Associate’s degree, Bachelor’s degree, Four-year postsecondary institution, Private institution, Public institution, Two-year postsecondary institution

Indicator 24: Educational Attainment

In 2010, some 32 percent of 25- to 29-year-olds had completed at least a bachelor’s degree. Between 1975 and 2010, the gap in bachelor’s degree attainment between Whites and Hispanics widened from 15 to 25 percentage points, and the gap between Whites and Blacks widened from 13 to 19 percentage points.

Between 1975 and 2010, the educational attainment of 25- to 29-year-olds increased. For the purpose of this indicator, educational attainment represents the percentage who achieved at least the cited credential, such as a high school diploma or equivalency credential or a bachelor’s degree. In 2010, for example, 89 percent of 25- to 29-year-olds had received at least a high school diploma or equivalency certificate, a 6 percentage point increase from 1975 (see table A-24-1). The high school completion rate has remained between 85 and 89 percent since 1980.

In both 1975 and 2010, the percentage of Whites who had completed high school was higher than that of Blacks and Hispanics, although the gaps between Whites and Blacks and Whites and Hispanics have narrowed over the years. Between 1975 and 2010, the high school completion rate for Blacks increased from 71 to 90 percent, and the gap between Blacks and Whites decreased from 15 to 5 percentage points. During this period, the high school completion rate for Hispanics increased from 53 to 69 percent, and the gap between Hispanics and Whites decreased from 34 to 25 percentage points. In 2010, the high school completion rate for Whites was 95 percent. Educational attainment data for Asians/Pacific Islanders were not available until 1990; in that year, 90 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders had completed high school. Between 1990 and 2010, the high school completion rate for Asians/Pacific Islanders increased from 90 to 94 percent.

Between 1975 and 2010, the percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds who had completed a bachelor’s degree or higher increased from 22 to 32 percent; however, most of the increase occurred prior to the last decade. Between 1975 and 2010, the percentage who had attained a bachelor’s degree increased from 24 to 39 percent for Whites, from 10 to 19 percent for Blacks, and from 9 to 13 percent for Hispanics. During this period, the gap in bachelor’s degree attainment between Blacks and Whites increased from 13 to 19 percentage points, and the gap between Whites and Hispanics increased from 15 to 25 percentage points. Between 1990 and 2005, the percentage of Asians/Pacific Islanders who had attained a bachelor’s degree increased from 42 to 60 percent; however, between 2005 and 2010 this percentage decreased from 60 to 53 percent.

In 2010, some 7 percent of 25- to 29-year-olds had completed a master’s degree or higher. The percentage of Asians/Pacific Islanders who had attained a master’s degree in 2010 (18 percent) was higher than that of their peers from all other races/ethnicities: 8 percent of Whites, 5 percent of Blacks, and 2 percent of Hispanics had attained a master’s degree in 2010. Between 1995 and 2010, the rate of master’s degree attainment increased for Whites (from 5 to 8 percent), Blacks (from 2 to 5 percent), and Asians/Pacific Islanders (from 11 to 18 percent).

Differences in educational attainment by gender shifted between 1975 and 2010. For example, in 1975, a higher percentage of males than females had completed high school, by a difference of 3 percentage points, but by 2010 females’ rate of high school attainment was higher than males’, by 3 percentage points. A higher percentage of males than females had attained a bachelor’s degree in 1975 (by a difference of 6 percentage points), while by 2010 the percentage of females who had attained a bachelor’s degree was 8 percentage points higher than that of males.

Technical Notes

This indicator uses March Current Population Survey (CPS) data to estimate the percentage of civilian, noninstitutionalized people ages 25 through 29 who are out of high school. Prior to 1992, high school completers referred to those who completed 12 years of schooling, some college meant completing 1 or more years of college, and bachelor’s degree or higher referred to those who completed 4 years of college; from 1992 to 2010, high school completers refers to those who have received a high school diploma or equivalency certificate, some college means completing any college at all, and bachelor’s degree or higher refers to those who have earned at least a bachelor’s degree. For more information on the CPS, see supplemental note 2. For more information on educational attainment of 25- to 29-year-olds, see supplemental note 6. Some estimates are revised from previous publications. Included in the totals but not shown separately are estimates for persons from other racial/ethnic groups. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. For more information on race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 1.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental table:

A-24-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-eda-1.asp)

Indicator 25: International Comparison of Educational Attainment

Greater percentages of the population ages 25 to 64 had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher in all reporting OECD countries in 2008 than in 2001 (21 vs. 15 percent). The percentage of the U.S. population with a bachelor’s degree or higher was 32 percent in 2008, compared with 28 percent in 2001.

Member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) generally reported that the percentages of the adult population (ages 25 to 64) with a high school education or a bachelor’s degree or higher were greater in 2008 than in 2001. On average across member countries of the OECD reporting data, the percentage of the population ages 25 to 64 possessing a high school education was 65 percent in 2001 and 72 percent in 2008. The percentage of the adult population possessing a bachelor’s degree or higher was 15 percent in 2001 and 21 percent in 2008 (see table A-25-1).

The percentage of the population who had completed high school was higher in 2008 than in 2001 in 24 OECD countries and lower in 2008 than in 2001 in three OECD countries (one OECD country showed no measurable difference from 2001 to 2008). In the United States, 88 percent of the population had completed high school in 2001, compared with 89 percent in 2008. Greater percentages of the population ages 25 to 64 had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher in all reporting OECD countries in 2008 than in 2001. The percentage of the U.S. adult population with a bachelor’s degree or higher was 32 percent in 2008, compared with 28 percent in 2001.

In 2008 in 27 reporting OECD countries, 60 percent or more of the population ages 25 to 64 had completed at least high school, but differences in educational attainment were seen when the population was broken out by age group. On average across OECD countries, the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds with at least a high school education was 21 percentage points higher than that of 55- to 64-year-olds with at least a high school education (81 vs. 60 percent, respectively) (see table A-25-2). The United States was the only country in 2008 where the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds who had completed high school did not exceed the percentage of 55- to 64-year-olds who had completed high school. The percentage of the population who had completed high school in 2008 was about the same at every age group in the United States (between 88 and 89 percent). Canada, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, the Slovak Republic, and Switzerland were the only other countries where 80 percent or more of 55- to 64-year-olds were high school completers.

In 2008, over 20 percent of the 25- to 64-year-old population in 18 OECD countries had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher. In 31 OECD countries and the partner country Brazil, 25- to 34-year-olds had higher levels of attaining a bachelor’s degree or higher than did 55- to 64-year-olds. On average across OECD countries, 27 percent of the population ages 25 to 34 had completed a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with 15 percent of the population 55 to 64 years old. In the United States, some 32 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds and 31 percent for 55- to 64-year-olds had attained a bachelor’s degree or higher. The United States was the only country where at least 30 percent of 55- to 64-year-olds had attained a bachelor’s degree or higher in 2008.

Technical Notes

The OECD is an organization of 34 countries whose purpose is to promote trade and economic growth in both member and nonmember countries. Of the 34 OECD member countries, 29 countries reported high school attainment data in 2001 and 32 countries reported these data in both 2005 and 2008. Twenty-nine OECD member countries reported bachelor’s degree or higher attainment data in 2001, and 33 countries reported these data in both 2005 and 2008. The OECD average refers to the mean of the data values for all reporting OECD countries, to which each country reporting data contributes equally. Attainment data for two non-OECD partner countries are displayed separately and are not included in the OECD average. High school attainment data in this indicator refer to degrees classified by the OECD as International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) level 3. ISCED level 3 corresponds to high school completion in the United States. ISCED level 3C short programs do not correspond to high school completion; these short programs are excluded from this indicator. Data regarding the attainment of a bachelor’s degree or higher in this indicator refer to degrees classified by the OECD as ISCED level 5A or 6. ISCED level 5A, first award, corresponds to the bachelor’s degree in the United States; ISCED level 5A, second award, corresponds to master’s and first-professional degrees in the United States; and ISCED level 6 corresponds to doctoral degrees. For more information on ISCED levels, see supplemental note 11.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-25-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-ice-1.asp)

A-25-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-ice-2.asp)

Glossary: Educational attainment, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

Indicator 26: Degrees Earned

Between 1998–99 and 2008–09, the number of degrees earned increased by 41 percent for associate’s degrees, by 33 percent for bachelor’s degrees, and by 49 percent for master’s degrees. In 2008–09, females earned the majority of all associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees awarded.

Postsecondary enrollment in degree-granting institutions increased by 32 percent from academic years 1998–99 to 2008–09, from 14.5 to 19.1 million students (see indicators 8 and 9). This growth was accompanied by a 38 percent increase in the number of degrees earned, which rose from 2.3 million in 1998–99 to 3.2 million in 2008–09. The number of degrees earned increased by 41 percent for associate’s degrees, by 33 percent for bachelor’s degrees, and by 49 percent for master’s degrees (see table A-26-1). In addition, the number of first-professional degrees earned increased by 17 percent, and the number of doctoral degrees, by 54 percent.

From 1998–99 to 2008–09, the number of degrees earned increased for students of all racial/ethnic groups for each level of degree, but at varying rates. For all levels of degrees, the change in percentage distribution of degree recipients was characterized by increased numbers of Black and Hispanic graduates. For more information on changing enrollment patterns in postsecondary education by race/ethnicity, see tables A-8-3 and A-9-2. From 1998–99 to 2008–09, the number of associate’s degrees earned by Hispanics more than doubled (increasing by 101 percent), and the number earned by Black students increased by 77 percent, while the number earned by White students increased by 28 percent (see table A-26-2). As a result, in 2008–09, Blacks students earned 13 percent and Hispanic students earned 12 percent of all associate’s degrees awarded, up from 10 and 9 percent, respectively, in 1998–99. During the same time period, the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded to Black students increased by 53 percent, and the number awarded to Hispanic students increased by 85 percent. The number of bachelor’s degrees awarded to White students increased by 26 percent. In 2008–09, Black students earned 10 percent and Hispanics earned 8 percent of all bachelor’s degrees conferred, up from 9 and 6 percent, respectively, in 1998–99. Similarly, higher percentages of master’s degrees were conferred to Black and Hispanic students in 2008–09 (11 and 6 percent, respectively) than in 1998–99 (7 and 4 percent, respectively).

From 1998–99 to 2008–09, the percentage of degrees earned by females fluctuated between 61 and 62 percent for associate’s degrees and remained steady around 57 percent for bachelor’s degrees. In contrast, both the percentage of master’s and the percentage of doctoral degrees earned by females increased during this period (from 58 to 60 percent and from 43 to 52 percent, respectively) (see table A-26-1). For nearly all levels of degrees within different race/ethnic groups, women earned the majority of degrees in 2008–09. For example, Black females earned 68 percent of associate’s degrees, 66 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 72 percent of master’s degrees, 62 percent of first-professional degrees, and 67 percent of doctoral degrees awarded to Black students (see table A-26-2). Hispanic females earned 62 percent of associate’s degrees, 61 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 64 percent of master’s degrees, 53 percent of first-professional degrees, and 57 percent of doctoral degrees awarded to Hispanic students. White females earned more degrees than White males for each level of degree except first-professional, for which they earned 46 percent of the degrees awarded.

Technical Notes

Reported racial/ethnic distributions of students by level of degree, field of degree, and sex were used to estimate race/ethnicity for students whose race/ethnicity was not reported. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Nonresident aliens are featured separately because information about their race/ethnicity is not available. For more information on race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 1. For more information on the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), see supplemental note 3. For more information on the Classification of Postsecondary Education Institutions, see supplemental note 8.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-26-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-dcd-1.asp)

A-26-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-dcd-2.asp)

Glossary: Associate’s degree, Bachelor’s degree, Doctoral degree, First-professional degree, Nonresident alien, Private institution, Public institution

Section

4

Contexts of Elementary and Secondary Education

Introduction

The indicators in this section of The Condition of Education measure aspects of the context for learning in elementary and secondary schools. Such aspects include the content of learning; expectations for student performance; the climate for learning and other organizational aspects of schools; characteristics of teachers, principals, and staff; processes of instruction; mechanisms of choice in education; and financial resources. Indicators prepared for this year’s volume appear on the following pages, and all indicators in this section, including indicators from previous years, appear on the NCES website (see “The List of Indicators on The Condition of Education Website” for a full listing of indicators).

The first indicators in this section consider school characteristics and the climate for learning, which is shaped by different factors in the school environment. First, an indicator provides information on the characteristics of public schools. In addition, indicators found in this volume consider measures of the concentration of poverty in public schools and the pervasiveness of violence in public schools. Indicators on the website feature the concentration of racial and ethnic groups in public schools and the suspension and expulsion of students.

Other indicators in this section look at principals and teachers. Two indicators in this volume examine the characteristics of principals and teachers, while another indicator found on the website compares the extent and nature of teacher training that U.S. teachers receive in certain subject areas with the training received by teachers in foreign countries. In addition, there are indicators in this volume on principal and teacher turnover. Indicators on school staff and international teaching comparisons can be found on the Web.

In this section, there are indicators on the website that focus on the learning opportunities that are afforded to children, including student/teacher ratios in public schools. Other indicators on the website highlight parent and family involvement in education, participation in early literacy activities, and afterschool activities.

School choice provides parents with the opportunity to choose a school for their children other than their assigned public school. Indicators regarding school choice (found on the website) report on the parental choice of charter schools or private schools as an alternative to their child’s assigned public school.

The final indicators in this section detail financial support for education. In this section of The Condition of Education, the primary focus is on describing the forms and amounts of financial support made available to education from public and private sources and the items on which funds are spent. In this volume of The Condition of Education, there are also indicators on variations in expenditures per student, trends in expenditures per student in elementary and secondary education by school poverty level, and international comparisons of education expenditures.

Indicators of contexts of elementary and secondary schooling from previous editions of The Condition of Education not included in this volume are available at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe.

Indicator 27: Characteristics of Public Schools

In 2008–09, charter schools and schools with a magnet program each composed a higher percentage of all public schools than they did in 1998–99 (5 vs. 1 percent for charter schools and 3 vs. 1 percent for schools with a magnet program).

Regular public schools constituted 90 percent of all public schools in 2008–09, with alternative schools for students at risk of school failure (6 percent), special education schools (2 percent), and vocational schools (1 percent) making up the remainder (see table A-27-1). The distributions of public schools by school type differed by school level in 2008–09. Ninety-eight percent of elementary schools were regular schools, with other school types making up less than 2 percent of elementary schools. At the secondary level, 80 percent of schools were regular schools, 14 percent were alternative schools, 5 percent were vocational schools, and 1 percent were special education schools.

Charter schools are publicly funded schools that are typically governed by a group or organization under a legislative contract or charter with the state. They can be regular schools, alternative schools, special education schools, and vocational schools as well as Title I schools and schools with magnet programs (see indicator 3 for more information on charter schools). Some 5 percent of all public schools were charter schools in 2008–09, up from 1 percent in 1998–99.

The percentage of public schools with a magnet program was higher in 2008–09 than it was in 1998–99 (3 vs. 1 percent). A Title I school is designated under appropriate state and federal regulations as a high-poverty school that is eligible for participation in programs authorized by Title I of P.L. 107-110. In 2008–09, some 63 percent of public schools were Title I schools.

The distribution of public schools by school size differed by school level in 2008–09. Some 38 percent of secondary schools were small (enrollment of less than 300 students), as compared to 27 percent of elementary schools. In that same year, 26 percent of secondary schools were large (1,000 or more students), as compared to 4 percent of elementary schools.

The percentage of public schools where White students accounted for more than 50 percent of enrollment was lower in 2008–09 than in 1998–99 (63 vs. 72 percent). In contrast, the percentage of schools where Hispanic students accounted for more than 50 percent of enrollment was higher in 2008–09 than in 1998–99 (13 vs. 8 percent). In both years, the percentage of schools where Black students accounted for more than 50 percent of enrollment was approximately the same (11 percent).

In 2008–09, nineteen percent of public schools were high-poverty schools (i.e., schools where more than 75 percent of the students were eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program). The distributions of public schools by poverty level differed by school level. In 2008–09, about 22 percent of elementary schools and 11 percent of secondary schools were high-poverty schools.

In 2008–09, the largest percentage of public schools were in rural areas (32 percent), followed by suburbs (28 percent), cities (26 percent), and towns (14 percent).

Technical Notes

Estimates are for public schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The percentage distributions for school size and race/ethnicity exclude schools that did not report enrollment. High-poverty schools are defined as public schools where more than 75 percent of the students are eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) program, and low-poverty schools are defined as public schools where 25 percent or fewer students are eligible for FRPL. Small schools are defined as public schools with enrollments of less than 300 students, and large schools are defined as public schools with enrollments of 1,000 or more students. For more information on locale, poverty, race/ethnicity, and region, see supplemental note 1. For more information on the Common Core of Data (CCD), see supplemental note 3.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental table:

A-27-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-cps-1.asp)

Glossary: Combined school, Elementary school, Magnet school or program, Public school, Regular school, Secondary school, Title I school

Indicator 28: Concentration of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch

In 2008–09, greater percentages of Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native students attended high-poverty elementary and secondary public schools than did White or Asian/Pacific Islander students.

The percentage of students eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) program provides a proxy measure for the concentration of low-income students within a school. In this indicator, schools are divided into categories by FRPL eligibility; high-poverty schools are defined as public schools where more than 75 percent of the students are eligible. In 2008–09, approximately 22 percent of elementary and 8 percent of secondary school students attended high-poverty public schools, up from the 20 percent of elementary and 6 percent of secondary school students who did so in 2007–08 (see table A-28-1 and U.S. Department of Education 2010, indicator 25).

In terms of the racial/ethnic distribution of students across schools of all poverty levels, in 2008–09, greater percentages of Hispanic, Black, and American Indian/Alaska Native students attended high-poverty public elementary and secondary schools than did White or Asian/Pacific Islander students. In addition, greater percentages of Asian/Pacific Islander students attended these schools than did White students. For example, at the elementary level, 45 percent of Hispanic, 44 percent of Black, and 31 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students were enrolled in high-poverty schools, compared with 17 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander and 6 percent of White students. Smaller percentages of students of all racial/ethnic groups attended high-poverty schools at the secondary level than at the elementary level, but the relative patterns among the racial/ethnic groups were similar at both levels.

Examining the racial/ethnic distributions within schools of a given poverty type provides a more detailed snapshot of the extent to which students of various races/ethnicities are concentrated in certain schools. While over half (54 percent) of public school students in 2008–09 were White, 14 percent of students attending high-poverty schools were White (see table A-28-2). Black and Hispanic students, in contrast, were overrepresented in high-poverty schools. Blacks made up 17 percent of students overall and 34 percent of students in high-poverty schools, and Hispanics made up 21 percent of students overall and 45 percent of students in high-poverty schools. Asians/Pacific Islanders made up 5 percent of the student population overall and 4 percent of the student population in high-poverty schools, and American Indians/Alaska Natives made up 1 percent of students in all schools and 2 percent of students in high-poverty schools.

The distribution of students in high-poverty schools also differed by the locale (city, suburban, town, and rural) of the schools. In 2008–09, the percentage of students in high-poverty schools who attended city schools was nearly twice as large as the percentage of all students who attended city schools (58 vs. 29 percent). On the other hand, 35 percent of all public school students attended schools in suburban areas, but only 23 percent of students in high-poverty schools attended schools in suburban areas. Students attending schools in towns and rural areas were also underrepresented among students attending high-poverty schools, comprising 12 and 24 percent, respectively, of students in all schools, compared with 9 and 11 percent, respectively, of students in high-poverty schools.

Technical Notes

Private school students are excluded from the analysis because large proportions of private schools do not participate in the FRPL program. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. For more information on race/ethnicity, locale, and poverty, see supplemental note 1. For more information on the Common Core of Data (CCD), see supplemental note 3.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-28-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pcp-1.asp)

A-28-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pcp-2.asp)

Glossary: National School Lunch Program, Public school

Indicator 29: School-Age Children Living in Poverty

In 2009, some 19 percent of 5- to 17-year-olds were in families living in poverty, compared with 15 percent in 2000 and 17 percent in 1990.

In 2009, approximately 19 percent of 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States were in families living in poverty (see table A-29-1). The region with the highest rate of poverty among school-age children in 2009 was the South (21 percent), followed by the West (18 percent), Midwest (18 percent), and the Northeast (16 percent).

At the state level, child poverty rates across the United States ranged from 10 to 32 percent in 2009. In the District of Columbia and Mississippi, 32 and 29 percent, respectively, of children were living in poverty in 2009. In contrast, New Hampshire and Maryland each had 10 percent of school-age children living in poverty. When compared to the U.S. national rate of child poverty in 2009, some 21 states had rates that were lower than the national average, 16 states and the District of Columbia had rates that were higher than the national average, and 13 states had rates that were not measurably different from the national average. Of the 17 jurisdictions (16 states and the District of Columbia) that had poverty rates above the national average, 14 were located in the South.

In general, child poverty rates across the United States decreased from 1990 to 2000. For the United States as a whole, 17 percent of school-age children in 1990 were in poverty, compared with 15 percent of children in 2000. From 1990 to 2000, the child poverty rate decreased in 38 states. Six states and the District of Columbia had increases in child poverty rates from 1990 to 2000. Both the Midwest and the South experienced a decrease in child poverty rates over this time period (from 15 to 12 percent and 20 to 18 percent, respectively), while the Northeast and the West did not show a measurable change.

From 2000 to 2009, the percentage of school-age children living in poverty in the United States increased from 15 to 19 percent. The child poverty rate was higher in 2009 than in 2000 for 36 states and all regions. In spite of the general decrease in child poverty rates from 1990 to 2000, some 30 states and the District of Columbia had higher child poverty rates in 2009 than in 1990, while 17 states had child poverty rates that were not measurably different than they were in 1990. Three states, Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia, had significant decreases in the percentages of children living in poverty from 1990 to 2009. The percentages of school-age children living in poverty were higher in 2009 than in 1990 for the West, Midwest, and Northeast, while the child poverty rates in 1990 and 2009 in the South were not measurably different.

From 2008 to 2009 the child poverty rate increased from 17 to 19 percent. All regions experienced increases in child poverty rates between 2008 and 2009, as did 18 states.

Technical Notes

Children in families include own children and all other children in the household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. For more information on poverty and region, see supplemental note 1. For more information on the American Community Survey, see supplemental note 3.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental table:

A-29-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-clp-1.asp)

Indicator 30: Rates of School Crime

From 1992 to 2008, the rate of nonfatal incidents of crime against students ages 12–18 at school declined from 144 to 47 crimes per 1,000 students, and for students away from school the rate declined from 138 to 38 crimes per 1,000 students.

This indicator examines the rate of nonfatal incidents of crime against students ages 12–18, both at school and away from school. Nonfatal crime includes theft and all violent crime; violent crime includes serious violent crime (rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) and simple assault. The rate of nonfatal crime against students ages 12–18 declined between 1992 and 2008. This pattern held for the crime rate at school and away from school as well as in the following three subcategories: theft, violent crime, and serious violent crime. Specifically, from 1992 to 2008, the rate of nonfatal crime against students at school declined from 144 to 47 crimes per 1,000 students; the theft victimization rate, from 95 to 24 thefts per 1,000 students; the violent crime rate, from 48 to 24 crimes per 1,000 students; and the serious violent crime rate, from 10 to 4 crimes per 1,000 students (see table A-30-1). During the same time period, the total nonfatal crime rate against students away from school declined from 138 to 38 crimes per 1,000 students, the theft victimization rate declined from 68 to 19 thefts per 1,000 students, the rate of violent crime declined from 71 to 19 crimes per 1,000 students, and the serious violent crime rate declined from 32 to 8 crimes per 1,000 students.

In the more recent period from 2007 to 2008, the rate of total nonfatal crime against students at school decreased from 57 to 47 crimes per 1,000 students. During this period, the theft victimization rate at school declined from 31 to 24 thefts per 1,000 students, but the rate of violent crime did not measurably change (26 crimes per 1,000 students in 2007 and 24 in 2008). In addition, there was no measurable difference between 2007 and 2008 in the rate of total crime against students away from school; this was also true for rates of theft, violent crime, and serious violent crime away from school.

Nonfatal crime rates at school and away from school differed depending on the type of crime. From 1992 through 2008, the rate of serious violent crime against students was generally lower at school than away from school. For example, in 2008, the student victimization rate for serious violent crime was four crimes per 1,000 students at school, compared with eight per 1,000 students away from school. In contrast, the rate of theft against students at school was generally higher than the rate of theft away from school.

In 2008, the rate of nonfatal crime against students varied according to student characteristics. The rates of total nonfatal crime and violent crime were lower for female students than for male students both at school and away from school (see table A-30-2). For example, the violent victimization rate at school was 19 crimes per 1,000 female students, compared with 29 per 1,000 male students; away from school, the rate of violent crime was 12 crimes per 1,000 females, compared with 25 per 1,000 males. However, there was no difference between male and female students in the rates of theft against them; this was true for theft at school and away from school. At school, the rate of total nonfatal crime against Black students (68 crimes per 1,000 students) was higher than the rate for White students (44 per 1,000 students) and Hispanic students (47 per 1,000 students). In general, the violent victimization rate (at school and away from school) was higher for students from households with incomes of less than $15,000 than it was for students from households with higher income levels.

Technical Notes

Total nonfatal crime includes violent crime and theft. Violent crime includes serious violent crime and simple assault. Serious violent crime includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Theft includes purse snatching, pickpocketing, all burglaries, attempted forcible entry, and all attempted and completed thefts except motor vehicle thefts. Theft does not include robbery in which threat or use of force is involved. “At school” includes inside the school building, on school property, or on the way to or from school. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding and missing data on student characteristics. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. For more information on race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 1. There were changes in the sample design and survey methodology in the 2006 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) that affected survey estimates. Due to this redesign, 2006 data are not presented in this indicator. Data from 2007 onward are comparable to earlier years. For more information on NCVS, see supplemental note 3.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-30-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-qv3-1.asp)

A-30-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-qv3-2.asp)

Indicator 31: Characteristics of Full-Time Teachers

A larger percentage of full-time teachers held a postbaccalaureate degree in 2007–08 than in 1999–2000. Forty-nine percent of elementary school teachers and 54 percent of secondary school teachers held a postbaccalaureate degree in 2007–08, compared with 43 percent and 50 percent, respectively, in 1999–2000.

In the 2007–08 school year, there were 3.5 million full-time teachers, up from 3.1 million in 1999–2000. There were 2.1 million full-time elementary school teachers in 2007–08, including 1.9 million public school and 167,000 private school teachers (see table A-31-1). At the secondary level, there were 1.1 million full-time teachers, including 1.0 million public school and 61,000 private school teachers. The number of elementary and secondary full-time teachers in public schools increased from 1999–2000 to 2007–08; however, the number of private teachers in 1999–2000 was not measurably different from the number in 2007–08 at either level.

The majority of full-time teachers were women in 2007–08. At the elementary level, 84 percent of public school and 87 percent of private school teachers were female; these estimates were about the same as those in 1999–2000. At the secondary level, 59 percent of public school teachers were female, up from 55 percent in 1999–2000. Females represented 53 percent of private school secondary teachers in 2007–08, an estimate not measurably different from that in 1999–2000.

The racial/ethnic distribution of full-time teachers shifted slightly from 1999–2000 to 2007–08. The percentage of teachers who were Hispanic was higher in 2007–08 than in 1999–2000 (8 vs. 6 percent for elementary, and 7 vs. 5 percent for secondary). At the elementary level, there were no measurable differences from 1999–2000 to 2007–08 in the percentage of teachers who were White or in the percentage who were Black. At the secondary level, the percentage of teachers who were White was lower in 2007–08 (83 percent) than in 1999–2000 (86 percent).

A larger percentage of full-time teachers held a postbaccalaureate degree (master’s degree, education specialist or professional diploma, first-professional degree, or doctoral degree) in 2007–08 than in 1999–2000. Forty-nine percent of elementary school teachers and 54 percent of secondary school teachers held a postbaccalaureate degree in 2007–08, compared with 43 percent and 50 percent, respectively, in 1999–2000. In 2007–08, a higher percentage of public elementary school teachers held such degrees than did private elementary school teachers (50 vs. 30 percent).

In general, full-time teachers in public elementary and secondary schools had fewer years of teaching experience in 2007–08 than in 1999–2000, while private elementary school teachers had more teaching experience in 2007–08 than in 1999–2000 (see table A-31-2). Public elementary school teachers averaged 13 years of teaching experience in 2007–08 and 15 years in 1999–2000. In addition, 27 percent of public elementary school teachers had 20 or more years of teaching experience in 2007–08, compared with 34 percent in 1999–2000. Public secondary school teachers had 14 years of teaching experience, on average, in 2007–08, and 15 years in 1999–2000; about 28 percent of these teachers had 20 or more years of teaching experience in 2007–08, compared with 37 percent in 1999–2000. In 2007–08, private elementary school teachers had 14 years of teaching experience, on average, while in 1999–2000 they had 13 years of experience. In addition, 28 percent of them had 20 or more years of experience in 2007–08, compared with 24 percent in 1999–2000. From 1999–2000 to 2007–08, there were no measurable changes in either of these experience measures for secondary private school teachers.

In 2007–08, about 89 percent of elementary and 87 percent of secondary public school teachers held a regular teaching certificate; an additional 4 percent of public school teachers at each level had satisfied all requirements except a probationary period. In comparison, in private schools, 57 percent of elementary and 55 percent of secondary teachers held a regular teaching certificate, with 3 percent of elementary and 2 percent of secondary teachers holding a probationary certification. In 2007–08, approximately 1 percent each of elementary and secondary public school teachers held no teaching certification in the state where they taught, compared with 35 percent of elementary and 41 percent of secondary private school teachers.

Technical Notes

Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. For more information on race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 1. Regular certification includes regular or standard state certificates and advanced professional certificates (for both public and private school teachers) and full certificates granted by an accrediting or certifying body other than the state (for private school teachers only). Probationary certificates are for those who have satisfied all requirements except the completion of a probationary period. For more information on the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), see supplemental note 3.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-31-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-tsp-1.asp)

A-31-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-tsp-2.asp)

Glossary: Combined school, Doctoral degree, Education specialist/professional diploma, Elementary school, First-professional degree, Master’s degree, Private school, Public school, Secondary school

Indicator 32: Teacher Turnover: Stayers, Leavers, and Movers

In 2008–09, some 8 percent of public school teachers left the teaching profession compared with 16 percent of private school teachers. Another 7 percent of all teachers moved from their 2007–08 school to a different school.

From school years 1988–89 to 2008–09, a lower percentage of public school teachers left the profession than private school teachers. In 1988–89, 6 percent of public school teachers, or 132,000 teachers, left the profession, while 13 percent of private school teachers, or 40,000 teachers, left the profession. Similarly, in 2008–09, some 8 percent of public school teachers, or 270,000 teachers, left the teaching profession, compared with 16 percent of private school teachers, or 77,000 teachers (see table A-32-1). The percentage of teachers in public schools who left the profession increased from 1988–89 to 2008–09. The percentage of private school teachers who left did not measurably change over the same time period.

In addition to teachers who left the teaching profession, another 7 percent of all teachers moved from their 2007–08 school to a different school (either outside or within their district or within or between sectors) for the following school year (see table A-32-2). Eight percent of public school teachers and 5 percent of private school teachers moved in 2008–09. The percentage of public school teachers who moved in 2008–09 was not measurably different from the percentage who moved in 1988–89 (8 percent in both years), but the percentage of private school teachers who moved was lower in 2008–09 (5 percent) than in 1988–89 (10 percent).

Overall, the percentage of teachers leaving the profession in 2008–09 was higher among teachers with the most teaching experience (20 years or more) and teachers with the least teaching experience (3 years or fewer), compared with teachers with 10 to 19 years of experience. There were no measurable differences in the percentages leaving teaching between teachers with the most or least amount of experience and teachers with 4 to 9 years of experience. Twelve percent of all teachers with 3 or fewer years of experience and 11 percent of teachers with 20 or more years of experience left the teaching profession in 2008–09, compared with 5 percent of teachers with 10 to 19 years of experience. The same pattern held true across experience levels for teachers in public schools who left teaching. Among private school teachers, a higher percentage of teachers with 3 or fewer years of teaching experience (23 percent) or 4 to 9 years of experience (17 percent) left the teaching profession in 2008–09, compared with private school teachers with 20 or more years of experience (11 percent).

Similar to teachers who left the profession, the percentage of teachers moving schools in 2008–09 was higher among teachers with the least amount of teaching experience. Thirteen percent of teachers with 3 or fewer years of experience moved schools, compared with between 5 and 9 percent of teachers with higher levels of experience. However, in contrast to the pattern observed among leavers, a smaller percentage of teachers with the highest amount of experience moved schools (5 percent), compared with teachers with 3 or fewer years (13 percent) or 4 to 9 years of experiences (9 percent).

Higher percentages of the youngest teachers than of teachers of other ages moved between schools in 2008–09. Overall, 14 percent of teachers under age 30 moved schools, compared with 7 percent of teachers ages 30 to 39, some 6 percent of those ages 40 to 49, some 5 percent of those ages 50 to 59, and 2 percent of those age 60 or over. The same pattern held for the youngest teachers at both public and private schools. The percentage of teachers age 60 or over who moved schools was lowest compared to teachers of all other age groups who moved.

When looking at teacher movers by region, a higher percentage of teachers in the South and West moved schools in 2008–09 than did teachers in the Northeast. The percentage of teachers moving schools in the South was also higher than that of teachers in the Midwest.

Technical Notes

Stayers are those teachers who remained at the same school. Movers are those teachers who moved to a different school. Leavers are those teachers who left the profession. Teachers left the profession for a variety of reasons, including taking a job in a field other than elementary or secondary teaching, pursuing further education, leaving for family reasons, retiring, or other miscellaneous reasons. The denominator used to calculate the percentages in this indicator is the weighted number of School and Staffing Survey (SASS) teachers surveyed during the Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) year. SASS teachers who died or left the country are excluded. For more information on SASS and TFS, see supplemental note 3. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. For more information on race/ethnicity and poverty, see supplemental note 1. Average base salary was calculated in 2009–10 school year constant dollars and adjusted using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). For more information on the CPI, see supplemental note 10.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-32-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-tat-1.asp)

A-32-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-tat-2.asp)

A-32-3 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-tat-3.asp)

Glossary: Doctoral degree, Education specialist/professional diploma, First-professional degree, Master’s degree, Private school, Public school

Indicator 33: Characteristics of School Principals

From 1999–2000 to 2007–08, the percentage of principals who were female increased from 52 to 59 percent at public elementary schools and from 22 to 29 percent at public secondary schools.

Schools employed 118,400 principals in the 2007–08 school year, up from 110,000 principals in 1999–2000 (see table A-33-1). In 2007–08 there were 78,500 elementary school principals, with 79 percent at public schools and 21 percent at private schools. At the secondary level there were 24,500 principals, with 88 percent at public schools and 12 percent at private schools.

From 1999–2000 to 2007–08, the percentage of public school principals who were female increased at both the elementary and secondary levels, although the gender distribution varied by level. The percentage of principals who were female increased from 52 to 59 percent at public elementary schools and from 22 to 29 percent at public secondary schools. From 1999–2000 to 2007–08, there was no measurable change at either school level in the percentage of private school principals who were female.

There were changes in the distribution of principals by age from 1999–2000 to 2007–08. At public elementary and secondary schools, the percentage of principals under age 40 increased, as did the percentage of principals age 55 and over, while the percentage of principals ages 45 to 49 and 50 to 54 decreased. For example, 10 percent of public elementary school principals were under age 40 in 1999–2000, compared with 19 percent in 2007–08. The percentage of public elementary school principals who were age 55 and over increased from 22 to 33 percent during this time. From 1999–2000 to 2007–08, the percentage of private school principals ages 55 and over also increased at the elementary and secondary levels, while the percentage of principals ages 45 to 49 and 50 to 54 decreased at both levels. However, unlike public school principals, the percentages of elementary and secondary principals at private schools who were under age 40 in 1999–2000 were not measurably different from the percentages in 2007–08.

The percentage of public school principals with 20 or more years of experience as a principal was lower in 2007–08 than in 1999–2000 at both elementary and secondary schools. During this period, the percentage of public secondary school principals with 20 or more years of experience as a principal decreased from 10 to 5 percent. About 36 percent of public secondary school principals had 3 or fewer years’ experience as a principal in 2007–08, compared with 30 percent in 1999–2000. Compared with public school principals, a higher percentage of private school principals had 20 or more years of experience as principals in 2007–08. For example, 19 percent of private elementary school principals had 20 or more years of experience as a principal, compared with 8 percent of their public school peers. However, when comparing teaching experience, the percentage of private school principals with few years of experience was higher than that of public school principals. In 2007–08, about 26 percent of private elementary school principals had 3 or fewer years of teaching experience, compared with 3 percent of public elementary school principals.

Educational attainment differed between public and private school principals. In 2007–08, about 32 percent of private elementary school principals and 18 percent of private secondary school principals had a bachelor’s degree or less, while 1 percent each of public elementary and public secondary school teachers had a bachelor’s degree or less. A higher percentage of public elementary school principals held a doctoral or first-professional degree (8 percent) than did private elementary school principals (5 percent); there was no measurable difference between public and private school secondary principals in the percentage of principals who held a doctoral or first-professional degree.

Principals’ median annual salary, calculated in constant 2009–10 dollars, was generally higher in 2007–08 than in 1999–2000. From 1999–2000 to 2007–08, the median salary of public secondary school principals increased from $86,900 to $90,100. The salary of secondary school principals was higher than the salary of elementary school principals, and the salary of public school principals was higher than the salary of private school principals. In 2007–08, principals at public elementary schools had lower median salaries than those at public secondary schools ($86,000 vs. $90,100). Public school principals outearned their private school peers, whose salaries were $46,100 in private elementary schools and $67,600 in private secondary schools.

Technical Notes

Median annual salary estimates were adjusted using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). For more information on the CPI, see supplemental note 10. For more information on the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), see supplemental note 3.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental table:

A-33-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pal-1.asp)

Glossary: Elementary school, Private school, Public school, Secondary school

Indicator 34: Principal Turnover: Stayers, Leavers, and Movers

In 2008–09, some 12 percent of all principals left the profession. In addition to principals who left the profession, another 6 percent of all principals moved from their 2007–08 school to a different school for the 2008–09 school year.

In 2008–09, some 12 percent of all principals left the profession (see table A-34-1). The percentage of principals in public schools who left the profession (“leavers”) was not significantly different from the percentage of those in private schools who left the profession (12 and 11 percent, respectively). Forty-five percent of public school principals who left after the 2007–08 school year were retired in 2008–09, and 22 percent of private school principal leavers were retired (see table A-34-3). In addition to principals who left the profession, another 6 percent of all principals moved from their 2007–08 school to a different school for the 2008–09 school year (“movers”) (either outside or within their district or between or within sectors) (see table A-34-1). The percentage of principals who were movers was higher at public schools than at private schools (7 percent vs. 3 percent, respectively).

Generally, a higher percentage of principals over the age of 60 than principals in younger age groups left the profession (see table A-34-2). In 2008–09, some 20 percent of all principals age 60 or over left the profession, compared with 13 percent of principals ages 50 to 59, some 8 percent of principals ages 40 to 49, and 9 percent of principals ages 30 to 39. These differences in percentages of leavers by age group were seen among principals overall as well as among public school principals, while the only significant difference among the percentages of private school principals leaving the profession was that a higher percentage of principals under 30 (24 percent) left the profession than principals ages 40 to 49 (8 percent). Among principals over the age of 60, a higher percentage of public school than private school principals left the profession (27 vs. 10 percent, respectively).

Compared to principals who left the profession in 2008–09, principals who moved to other schools in 2008–09 followed an opposite pattern in terms of age. A lower percentage of all principals over the age of 60 than of principals in most of the younger age groups moved to other schools. Three percent of all principals age 60 or over moved to other schools in 2008–09, compared with 6 percent each of principals ages 50 to 59 or 40 to 49 and 9 percent of principals ages 30 to 39.

Overall, a higher percentage of principals with the highest level of experience at any school (10 or more years) left the profession in 2008–09, compared with principals with the lowest level of experience at any school (less than three years). Among public school principals, 18 percent who had been a principal at any school for 10 or more years left the profession, while 8 percent of those who had been a principal at any school for less than three years left the profession. The patterns by which public and private school principals left the profession differed in terms of levels of experience. A higher percentage of private school principals who had been a principal at any school for less than three years (16 percent) left the profession, compared with those who had been a principal at any school for 10 or more years (8 percent).

Of those public school leavers with the most experience as principals (10 or more years), a higher percentage were retired in 2008–09 (68 percent), compared with those who were working in a K–12 school, but not as a principal (8 percent) or were working in K–12 education, but not in a K–12 school (20 percent) (see table A-34-3). Among the most experienced private school principal leavers, a higher percentage were retired in 2008–09 (40 percent), compared with those were working in a job outside of K–12 education (22 percent).

While a higher percentage of more experienced principals left the profession than less experienced principals, a higher percentage of less experienced principals moved to other schools (see table A-34-2). A lower percentage of all principals with 10 or more years experience as a principal anywhere (5 percent) moved to other schools in 2008–09, compared with principals with less than three years of experience (8 percent).

Technical Notes

Stayers are 2007–08 principals who were principals in the same schools in 2008–09. Movers are 2007–08 principals who were principals in different schools in 2008–09. Leavers are 2007–08 principals who were no longer principals in 2008–09. “Other” includes principals who had left their 2007–08 school, but for whom it was not possible to determine a mover or leaver status in 2008–09. For more information on the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and the Principal Follow-up Survey (PFS), see supplemental note 3.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-34-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pat-1.asp)

A-34-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pat-2.asp)

A-34-3 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pat-3.asp)

Glossary: Education specialist/professional diploma, Elementary school, Private school, Public school, Secondary school

Indicator 35: Public School Revenue Sources

From 1989–90 through 2007–08, total elementary and secondary public school revenues increased from $356 billion to $599 billion, a 68 percent increase after adjusting for inflation.

From 1989–90 through 2007–08, total elementary and secondary public school revenues increased from $356 billion to $599 billion, a 68 percent increase after adjusting for inflation to 2009–10 dollars (see table A-35-1). During this period, the total amount coming from each revenue source (federal, state, and local) increased, but the percentage increases differed by revenue source. Federal revenues, the smallest of the three revenue sources, increased by 125 percent, compared with increases of 73 percent for state revenues and 56 percent for local revenues.

The percentage of total revenues for public elementary and secondary education that came from local sources declined from 47 percent in 1989–90 to 44 percent in 2007–08. While the percentage coming from state sources was similar in 1989–90 and 2007–08 (47 and 48 percent, respectively), the percentage fluctuated during this period: it was lowest (45 percent) in 1993–94 and highest (50 percent) in 2000–01. The percentage of total revenues from federal sources increased from 6 to 9 percent from 1989–90 through 2004–05, and in 2007–08 it was 8 percent.

In 2007–08, there were significant variations across the states in the percentage of public school revenues coming from each revenue source. In 25 states, the majority of education revenues came from state governments, while in 15 states and the District of Columbia the majority came from local revenues. In 10 states, no single revenue source made up a majority of education revenues (see table A-35-2).

In 2007–08, the percentage of revenues coming from state sources was highest in Vermont (86 percent) and Hawaii (85 percent). (Hawaii has only one school district.) The percentage of revenues coming from state sources was lowest in Nevada and Illinois (31 percent each). The percentage of revenues coming from federal sources was highest in Louisiana (17 percent) and Mississippi (16 percent) and lowest in New Jersey and Connecticut (4 percent each). Among the states, the percentage of revenues coming from local sources was highest in Nevada (63 percent) and lowest in Hawaii (3 percent) and Vermont (8 percent). The percentage of revenues from property taxes also differed by state, ranging from a high of 54 percent in Connecticut to lows of 0 or nearly 0 percent in Hawaii and Vermont.

Technical Notes

Revenues have been adjusted for the effects of inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and are in constant 2009–10 dollars. For more information about the CPI, see supplemental note 10. Other local government revenues includes revenues from sources such as local nonproperty taxes and investments, as well as revenues from student activities, textbook sales, transportation and tuition fees, and food services. For more information about revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, see supplemental note 10. For more information about the Common Core of Data, see supplemental note 3.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-35-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-sft-1.asp)

A-35-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-sft-2.asp)

Glossary: Consumer Price Index (CPI), Elementary school, Secondary school, Property tax, Public school, Revenues

Indicator 36: Public School Expenditures

Total expenditures per student in public elementary and secondary schools rose 39 percent in constant dollars from 1989–90 through 2007–08, with interest on school debt increasing faster than current expenditures or capital outlay.

Total expenditures per student in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools measured in constant 2009–10 dollars rose from $8,832 in 1989–90 to $12,236 in 2007–08, a 39 percent increase (see table A-36-1). Most of this increase occurred after 1998–99. The various components of total expenditures increased at different rates during this time period. Spending on interest on school debt per student increased at the highest rate at 105 percent (from $159 to $326), followed by capital outlay at 83 percent (from $749 to $1,368) and current expenditures at 33 percent (from $7,925 to $10,542).

In the 2007–08 school year, payments of salaries and employee benefits for instructional and noninstructional staff, after adjusting for inflation, together composed $8,464 of current expenditures per student in public elementary and secondary schools. From 1989–90 through 2007–08, the amount of current expenditures per student spent on salaries and employee benefits together increased by 30 percent, with salaries alone increasing 22 percent and employee benefits alone increasing 62 percent. During this period, the amount of current expenditures spent on purchased services increased 57 percent. As a result of these different rates of increases, salaries as a share of current expenditures decreased from 66 to 60 percent between 1989–90 and 2007–08, while the percentage of current expenditures spent on employee benefits rose from 17 to 20 percent, and the percentage spent on purchased services increased from 8 to 10 percent. The percentage spent on tuition and other items remained around 2 percent throughout the period.

Among the major functions of current expenditures, spending on student and staff support increased at the highest rate (62 percent) between 1989–90 and 2007–08, followed by instruction (34 percent) and transportation (32 percent) (see table A-36-2). Spending also increased by a smaller percentage on three other major functions of current expenditures: operation and maintenance (20 percent), food services (17 percent), and administration (16 percent). Of the seven major functions of current expenditures, only spending on enterprise operations declined (32 percent).

In the 2007–08 school year, 61 percent of the $10,542 spent on current expenditures in public elementary and secondary schools went toward instruction expenditures such as salaries and benefits of teachers (see table A-36-2). About 14 percent went toward student and staff support; 10 percent, operation and maintenance; 8 percent, administration; 4 percent each, transportation and food services; and less than 1 percent, enterprise operations.

Technical Notes

Expenditures have been adjusted for the effects of inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and are in constant 2009–10 dollars. For more information about the CPI, see supplemental note 10. Current expenditures are presented by both the service or commodity bought (object) as well as the activity that is supported by the service or commodity bought (function). Total expenditures exclude “Other current expenditures” such as community services, private school programs, adult education, and other programs not allocable to expenditures per student at public schools. Enterprise operations include expenditures for operations funded by sales of products or services, along with amounts for direct program support made available by state education agencies for local school districts. For more information about the classifications of expenditures, see supplemental note 10. For more information about the Common Core of Data, see supplemental note 3.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-36-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-tot-1.asp)

A-36-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-tot-2.asp)

Glossary: Expenditures, Public school

Indicator 37: Variations in Instruction Expenditures

Total variation in instruction expenditures per student has increased among public school districts since 1997–98, primarily due to an increase in the variation between states.

A number of methods can be used to measure the variation in the amount that school districts spend per student on instruction. This indicator uses the Theil coefficient to measure the variation in the instruction expenditures per student in unified public school districts for prekindergarten through grade 12. The Theil coefficient provides a national measure of differences in instruction expenditures per student that can be decomposed into separate components to measure school district-level variations between and within states. The between-state and within-state components indicate whether the national variation in instruction expenditures per student is primarily due to differences in expenditures between states or within states. Similarly, the trends in the two components indicate whether the change over time in the national variation of instruction expenditures per student is primarily due to changes between states or within states. The Theil coefficient can range from zero, indicating no variation, to a maximum possible value of 1.0. The value of the Theil coefficient remains unchanged if expenditures in all districts are increased by the same percentage; therefore it was not necessary to adjust instruction expenditures for inflation at the national level.

The variation in instruction expenditures per student over time may reflect differences across school districts in the amount of services or goods purchased, such as the number of classroom teachers hired. These changes may, in part, reflect various state finance litigation, school finance reform efforts, and changes in the composition of student enrollment. Further, some of the variation in expenditures per pupil may be due to cost differences across states and districts within states. Changes in cost differences across and within states may also affect the changes in the variation over time.

Across U.S. districts, the total variation in instruction expenditures per student decreased between school years 1989–90 and 1997–98 and then increased between school years 1997–98 and 2007–08 (see table A-37-1). In 2007–08, the total variation in instruction expenditures per student was greater than it was in the early 1990s. Both the between-state and within-state variations in instruction expenditures per student decreased between 1989–90 and 1997–98 and increased between 1997–98 and 2007–08. Like the total variation, the between-state variation was greater in 2007–08 than it was in the early 1990s. The within-state variation was smaller in 2007–08 than it was in the early 1990s.

Between 1989–90 and 2007–08, differences between states accounted for a greater proportion of the variation in instruction expenditures per student among public school districts than did differences within states. The percentage of the total variation due to between-state differences increased from 72 percent in 1989–90 to 78 percent in 2007–08, while the percentage of the total variation due to within-state differences decreased from 28 to 22 percent.

Technical Notes

For more information on classifications of expenditures for elementary and secondary education, the variation in expenditures per student, and the Theil coefficient, see supplemental note 10. This indicator only includes unified public elementary and secondary districts. Unified districts serve both elementary and secondary grades. The Theil coefficient was calculated for unified districts only in order to limit any variations in expenditures per pupil due to the grade levels of the school districts or due to districts serving only students in special programs. In 2007–08, approximately 92 percent of all public elementary and secondary school students were enrolled in unified school districts. For more information on the Common Core of Data, see supplemental note 3.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental table:

A-37-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-ves-1.asp)

Glossary: Expenditures, Public school

Indicator 38: Education Expenditures by Country

In 2007, the United States spent $10,768 per student on elementary and secondary education, which was 45 percent higher than the OECD average of $7,401. At the postsecondary level, U.S. expenditures per student were $27,010, more than twice as high as the OECD average of $12,471.

This indicator uses material from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report Education at a Glance to compare countries’ expenditures on education using expenditures per student from both public and private sources and total education expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). The latter measure allows a comparison of countries’ expenditures relative to their ability to finance education. Private sources of expenditures include payments from households for school-based expenses such as tuition, transportation fees, book rentals, or food services, as well as private funds raised by institutions.

In 2007, expenditures per student for the United States were $10,768 at the combined elementary and secondary level, which was 45 percent higher than the average of $7,401 for the OECD member countries reporting data (see table A-38-1). The expenditure per student measure is based on full-time-equivalent (FTE) student enrollment rather than headcounts. At the postsecondary level, U.S. expenditures per student were $27,010, which was more than twice as high as the OECD average of $12,471. Expenditures per student varied widely across the OECD countries: at the combined elementary and secondary level, expenditures ranged from $2,165 in Mexico and $2,245 in Chile to $15,579 in Luxembourg; at the postsecondary level, they ranged from $5,576 in Poland to $20,278 in Canada, $20,883 in Switzerland, and $27,010 in the United States.

Among the OECD countries reporting data in 2007, the countries that spent the highest percentage of their GDP on total education expenditures were Iceland (7.8 percent), the United States (7.6 percent), Israel (7.4 percent), Denmark (7.1 percent), and Korea (7.0 percent). Looking at education expenditures by level, the percentage of its GDP (4.0 percent) that the United States spent on elementary and secondary education was higher than the average percentage by all OECD countries reporting data (3.6 percent). Compared with the percentage of its GDP that the United States spent on elementary and secondary education, 6 countries spent a higher percentage, 20 countries spent a lower percentage, and 3 countries spent the same percentage. Among OECD countries, Iceland spent the highest percentage (5.1 percent) of its GDP on elementary and secondary education. At the postsecondary level, the United States spent 3.1 percent of its GDP on education, which was higher than the average percentage spent by OECD countries (1.5 percent) and higher than the percentage spent by any other OECD country reporting data.

A country’s wealth (defined as GDP per capita) is positively associated with expenditures per student on education at the combined elementary/secondary level and at the postsecondary level. For example, the education expenditures per student (both elementary/secondary and postsecondary) for each of the 10 OECD countries with the highest GDP per capita in 2007 were higher than the OECD average expenditures per student. The expenditures per student for the 10 OECD countries with the lowest GDP per capita were below the OECD average at both the elementary/secondary level and at the postsecondary level.

Technical Notes

Education expenditures are from public revenue sources (governments) and private revenue sources. Private sources include payments from households for school-based expenses such as tuition, transportation fees, book rentals, or food services, as well as funds raised by institutions through endowments or returns on investments. Data for private school expenditures at the elementary and secondary levels are estimated for some countries, including the United States. Per student expenditures are based on public and private FTE enrollment figures and on current expenditures and capital outlays from both public and private sources, where data are available. Purchasing power parity (PPP) indices are used to convert other currencies to U.S. dollars (i.e., absolute terms). Within-country consumer price indices are used to adjust the PPP indices to account for inflation because the fiscal year has a different starting date in different countries. For more information on classification of expenditures for international comparisons, see supplemental note 10. Luxembourg data are excluded from the graphs because of anomalies with respect to their GDP per capita data (large revenues from international finance institutions distort the wealth of the population). The OECD average for GDP per capita for each graph is based on the number of countries with data available (31 for figure 38-1 and 30 for figure 38-2).

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental table:

A-38-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-ifn-1.asp)

Glossary: Elementary/secondary school, Expenditures, Full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment, Gross domestic product (GDP), Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Postsecondary education, Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) indices

Section

5

Contexts of Postsecondary Education

Introduction

The indicators in this section of The Condition of Education examine features of postsecondary education, many of which parallel those presented in the previous section on elementary and secondary education. Indicators prepared for this year’s volume appear on the following pages, and all indicators in this section, including those from previous years, appear on the NCES website (see “The List of Indicators on The Condition of Education Website” for a full listing of indicators).

Postsecondary education is characterized by diversity both in institutional level and control and in the characteristics of students. Postsecondary institutions vary by the level of degrees awarded, control (public or private), and whether they are operated on a not-for-profit or for-profit basis. Beyond these basic differences, postsecondary institutions have distinctly different missions and provide students with a wide range of learning environments. For example, some institutions are research universities with graduate programs, while others focus on undergraduate education; some have a religious affiliation, while others do not; and some have selective entrance policies, while others have more open admissions.

The first indicator in this section examines postsecondary enrollment by institution level and control. Indicators on the website focus on the racial and ethnic concentration in postsecondary institutions, the number and characteristics of U.S. students who study in foreign countries, and international students who study in U.S. postsecondary institutions.

Indicators in this volume highlight data on degree completion, showing trends in the fields of study that undergraduate and graduate students receive their degrees in; compare the distribution of degrees awarded by institutional control; and examine the percentage of postsecondary student participating in distance education courses.

Faculty members are another defining feature of postsecondary institutions: they teach students, conduct research, and serve their institutions and communities. An indicator in this volume highlights trends in faculty salaries and benefits at different postsecondary levels and across institutional control.

Finally, The Condition of Education examines financial support for postsecondary education. Indicators in this volume include the number and characteristics of college students who are employed and an examination of federal grants and loans to undergraduate students. Other indicators provide measures of the price of attending a postsecondary institution, as well as student loan amounts and default rates by institution level and control. The last indicator in this volume examines the levels and sources of postsecondary revenues and expenses. Indicators on the website look at the institutional aid available to students and public funding for postsecondary institutions.

Indicators of the contexts of postsecondary education from previous editions of The Condition of Education not included in this volume are available at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe.

Indicator 39: Characteristics of Undergraduate Institutions

In fall 2009, some 11 percent of all full-time undergraduate students attended private for-profit institutions. About 38 percent of full-time students age 35 and over attended private for-profit institutions, compared with 5 percent of full-time students under the age of 25.

Of the 18 million undergraduate students at degree-granting institutions in the United States in fall 2009, some 76 percent attended public institutions, 15 percent attended private not-for-profit institutions, and 9 percent attended private for-profit institutions (see table A-39-1). Enrollment patterns by institution control varied by race/ethnicity. For example, 17 percent of Black undergraduate students attended private for-profit institutions in fall 2009, compared with 5 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander students. Fifty-two percent of Hispanic undergraduate students and 45 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native undergraduate students attended public 2-year institutions, compared with 38 percent of White students, 40 percent each of Black students, and 42 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander students.

Among undergraduate students who were enrolled full time in fall 2009, some 11 percent attended private for-profit institutions in fall 2009. About 38 percent of full-time students age 35 and over attended private for-profit institutions, compared with 5 percent of full-time students under the age of 25. For part-time undergraduate students under the age of 25, more than two-thirds (70 percent) attended public 2-year institutions in fall 2009.

Some 77 percent of full-time students and 46 percent of part-time students who entered 4-year institutions in 2008 returned the following year to continue their studies; this percentage is the retention rate (see table A-39-2). At 2-year institutions, the retention rates for those who entered school in 2008 were 61 percent for full-time students and 40 percent for part-time students. Among 4-year institutions, retention rates varied based on the percentage of applicants who were accepted for admission. For 4-year institutions with open admissions policies, 57 percent of full-time students and 46 percent of part-time students who enrolled in fall 2008 returned the following year. Four-year institutions that accepted less than a fourth of applicants had retention rates of 95 percent for full-time students and 60 percent for part-time students.

At 4-year public institutions with open admissions policies, 31 percent of the students who began as first-year, full-time undergraduates in 2002 completed a bachelor’s degree within 6 years (by fall 2009) (see table A-39-2). In contrast, at public 4-year institutions that accepted less than a fourth of applicants, 73 percent of students who began attending in 2002 completed a bachelor’s degree within 6 years. At private not-for-profit and private for-profit institutions with open admissions, the 6-year graduation rates for the 2002 cohort for bachelor’s degree recipients were 35 and 13 percent, respectively.

Technical Notes

Degree-granting institutions grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. For 4-year institutions, the retention rate is the percentage of first-time, bachelor’s degree-seeking students who return to the institution to continue their studies the following fall. For 2-year institutions, the retention rate is the percentage of first-time degree/certificate-seeking students enrolled in the fall who either returned to the institution or successfully completed their program by the following fall. The overall graduation rate is the percentage of full-time, first-time students who graduated or transferred out of the institution within 150 percent of normal program completion time. For a bachelor’s degree, this represents 6 years. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. For more information on race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 1. Full time refers to students who enrolled full time (as defined by the institution) in the fall. For more information on the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), see supplemental note 3. Institutions in this indicator are classified based on the highest degree offered. For more information on the classification of postsecondary institutions, see supplemental note 8.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-39-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-psi-1.asp)

A-39-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-psi-2.asp)

Glossary: College, Four-year postsecondary institution, Full-time enrollment, Part-time enrollment, Private institution, Public institution, Tuition, Two-year postsecondary institution

Indicator 40: Undergraduate Fields of Study

In 2008–09, more than half of the 1.6 million bachelor’s degrees awarded were in five fields: business (22 percent), social sciences and history (11 percent), health professions and related clinical sciences (8 percent), education (6 percent), and psychology (6 percent).

Of the 1.6 million bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2008–09, over 50 percent were concentrated in five fields: business (22 percent), social sciences and history (11 percent), health professions and related clinical sciences (8 percent), education (6 percent), and psychology (6 percent) (see table A-40-1). The fields of visual and performing arts (6 percent), engineering and engineering technologies (5 percent), communication and communications technologies (5 percent), and biological and biomedical sciences (5 percent) represented an additional 21 percent of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2008–09.

Overall, there were 33 percent more bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2008–09 than in 1998–99 (an increase of 401,100 bachelor’s degrees awarded). Bachelor’s degrees awarded in the field of parks, recreation, leisure, and fitness studies had the largest percent change of all fields (from 16,500 to 31,700 degrees, a 92 percent change). The next largest percent change was in the field of security and protective services (from 24,600 to 41,800 degrees, a 70 percent change). Education was the only field in which fewer bachelor’s degrees were awarded in 2008–09 than in 1998–99 (a negative percent change of 5 percent).

About 57 percent of all bachelor’s degrees conferred in 2008–09 were awarded to females, which was about the same as the percentage awarded to females in 1998–99. Looking at the five most prevalent bachelor’s degree fields, females earned between 49 and 85 percent of the degrees awarded in those fields. In 2008–09, females earned the smallest percentages of bachelor’s degrees relative to males in the fields of engineering and engineering technologies (16 percent of these degrees were awarded to females) and computer and information sciences and support services (18 percent female), both of which are considered STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. From 1998–99 to 2008–09, there were changes in the percentages of bachelor’s degrees conferred to females in several fields of study. For example, of all the bachelor’s degrees conferred in the field of security and protective services, the percentage that were conferred to females was 50 percent in 2008–09, compared with 43 percent in 1998–99. In contrast, of all the bachelor’s degrees conferred in the field of computer and information sciences and support services, the percentage conferred to females was 18 percent in 2008–09, compared with 27 percent in 1998–99.

Of the 787,300 associate’s degrees earned in 2008–09, about 54 percent were awarded in two broad areas of study: liberal arts and sciences, general studies, and humanities (34 percent) and health professions and related clinical sciences (21 percent). Overall, there was a 41 percent change in the number of associate’s degrees awarded from 1998–99 to 2008–09 (an increase of 227,400 associate’s degrees awarded). The field experiencing the largest percent change in the number of associate’s degrees awarded over this time period was psychology (143 percent, from 1,600 to 3,900 degrees). Several fields experienced a decline in the number of associate’s degrees awarded; for example, 4,400 fewer associate’s degrees were awarded in engineering and engineering technologies in 2008–09 than in 1998–99 (a negative percent change of 8 percent).

In 2008–09, females earned 62 percent of all associate’s degrees awarded. Females earned the majority of associate’s degrees awarded in the fields of family and consumer sciences (96 percent were awarded to females) and legal professions and studies (90 percent female). Females earned fewer associate’s degrees than males in fields such as precision production (6 percent female) and engineering and engineering technologies (11 percent female).

Technical Notes

The percent increases discussed in this indicator refer to aggregate fields of study. For more information on fields of study for postsecondary degrees, see supplemental note 9. The 2000 Classification of Instructional Programs was initiated in 2002–03. Estimates for 1998–99 have been reclassified when necessary to conform to the new taxonomy. For more information on the classification of postsecondary education institutions, see supplemental note 8. For more information on the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), see supplemental note 3.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental table:

A-40-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-fsu-1.asp)

Glossary: Associate’s degree, Bachelor’s degree, Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP), STEM fields

Indicator 41: Graduate and First-Professional Fields of Study

Overall, 656,800 master’s degrees and 67,700 doctoral degrees were awarded in 2008–09; these numbers represent increases of 49 and 54 percent, respectively, over the numbers awarded in 1998–99. In 2008–09, females earned 60 percent of master’s degrees and 52 percent of doctoral degrees awarded.

Of the 656,800 master’s degrees awarded in 2008–09, over 50 percent were concentrated in two fields: education (27 percent) and business (26 percent) (see table A-41-1). During that same academic year, an additional 10 percent of all master’s degrees were awarded in the field of health professions and related clinical sciences.

Overall, there were 49 percent more master’s degrees awarded in 2008–09 than in 1998–99 (an increase of 216,800 master’s degrees awarded). During this period, the two fields awarding the most master’s degrees, education and business, saw percent changes of 51 and 57 percent, respectively, in the number of degrees awarded. In each of the 20 most popular fields of study, the number of master’s degrees awarded was higher in 2008–09 than in 1998–99. The field of security and protective services had the largest percent change in the number of master’s degrees awarded (from 2,200 to 6,100 degrees, a 172 percent increase). The field of physical sciences and science technologies saw the smallest percent change in the number of master’s degrees awarded over this period (from 5,100 to 5,700 degrees, a 10 percent increase).

Females earned 60 percent of all master’s degrees awarded in 2008–09. In the two fields awarding the most master’s degrees, education and business, females earned 77 and 45 percent, respectively, of all master’s degrees awarded. In addition, females earned 81 percent of all master’s degrees awarded in the field of health professions and related clinical sciences. In fields such as engineering and engineering technologies and computer and information sciences and support services, however, females earned fewer master’s degrees than males in 2008–09: females earned 23 percent of the master’s degrees awarded in engineering and engineering technologies and 27 percent of master’s degrees awarded in computer and information sciences and support services. These fields are part of a larger grouping known as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

Over 50 percent of the 67,700 doctoral degrees awarded in 2008–09 were awarded in four fields: health professions and related clinical sciences (18 percent), education (13 percent), engineering and engineering technologies (12 percent), and biological and biomedical sciences (10 percent). Overall, there were 54 percent more doctoral degrees in 2008–09 than in 1998–99 (an increase of 23,600 doctoral degrees awarded). In 2008–09, more doctoral degrees were awarded in the field of health professions and related clinical sciences than in any other field, and from 1998–99 to 2008–09 the number of degrees awarded in this field increased by more than 500 percent.

Females earned about 35,400 doctoral degrees (or 52 percent of all doctoral degrees awarded) in 2008–09, an 87 percent increase over the number awarded in 1998–99. Among the top 20 fields of study, females earned the smallest percentages of doctoral degrees relative to males in 2008–09 in the fields engineering and engineering technologies and computer and information sciences and support services (22 percent female each). In contrast, females earned the greatest percentages of doctoral degrees relative to males in family and consumer sciences/human sciences (80 percent female) and health professions and related clinical sciences (74 percent female).

In 2008–09, of the 92,000 first-professional degrees awarded, 48 percent were awarded in the field of law. An additional 17 percent of first-professional degrees were conferred in medicine, and 12 percent were conferred in pharmacy. In 2008–09, 17 percent more first-professional degrees were awarded than were in 1998–99. During this period, the field of pharmacy saw the greatest percentage increase in the number of degrees awarded (183 percent), and the field of chiropractic medicine saw the greatest decrease (31 percent). Females earned 45,100 first-professional degrees in 2008–09 (49 percent of all first-professional degrees awarded in that year), representing a 32 percent increase over the number of degrees awarded to females in 1998–99.

Technical Notes

The percent increases discussed in this indicator refer to aggregate fields of study. For more information on fields of study for postsecondary degrees, see supplemental note 9. The 2000 edition of Classification of Instructional Programs was initiated in 2002–03. Estimates for 1998–99 have been reclassified when necessary to conform to the new taxonomy. For more information on the classification of postsecondary education institutions, see supplemental note 8. For more information on the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), see supplemental note 3.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental table:

A-41-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-gfs-1.asp)

Glossary: Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP), Doctoral degree, First-professional degree, Master’s degree, STEM fields

Indicator 42: Degrees Conferred by Public and Private Institutions

Between 1998–99 and 2008–09, the number of degrees conferred by private for-profit institutions increased by a larger percentage than the number conferred by public institutions and private not-for-profit institutions; this was true for all levels of degrees.

Between 1998–99 and 2008–09, the number of postsecondary degrees conferred by public and private for-profit and private not-for-profit institutions generally increased for each level of degree. From 1998–99 to 2008–09, the number of associate’s degrees awarded increased by 41 percent, bachelor’s degrees by 33 percent, master’s degrees by 49 percent, first-professional degrees by 17 percent, and doctoral degrees by 54 percent (see table A-42-1). For all degree levels, the percentage increases were smaller for public and private not-for-profit institutions than for private for-profit institutions.

The number of associate’s degrees awarded from 1998–99 to 2008–09 increased by 33 percent for public institutions (from 448,300 to 596,100 degrees) and more than doubled for private for-profit institutions (from 64,000 to 144,300 degrees), but decreased by 1 percent for private not-for-profit institutions (from 47,600 to 46,900 degrees). Due to these changes, the percentage of all associate’s degrees that were conferred by private for-profit institutions increased from 11 percent in 1998–99 to 18 percent in 2008–09, while the percentage that were conferred by public and private not-for-profit institutions decreased during this period (from 80 to 76 percent and from 9 to 6 percent, respectively).

From 1998–99 to 2008–09, the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded by public institutions increased by 29 percent (from 790,300 to 1,020,400 degrees), the number awarded by private not-for-profit institutions increased by 26 percent (from 393,700 to 496,300 degrees), and the number awarded by private for-profit institutions more than quadrupled (from 16,300 to 84,700 degrees). Despite the large gains made by private for-profit institutions, they awarded 5 percent of all bachelor’s degrees conferred in 2008–09, while public institutions awarded 64 percent and private not-for-profit institutions awarded 31 percent of all bachelor’s degrees.

The number of master’s degrees awarded by private not-for-profit institutions increased 48 percent from 1998–99 to 2008–09, yet the percentage of master’s degrees conferred by these institutions remained about the same. For public institutions, however, the number of master’s degrees conferred increased at a lower rate (29 percent), resulting in a decrease in their share of all master’s degrees: public institutions conferred 54 percent of all master’s degrees in 1998–99 and 47 percent in 2008–09. The number of master’s degrees conferred by private for-profit institutions, on the other hand, increased by 580 percent, resulting in an increase in their share of total master’s degrees conferred. Private for-profit institutions conferred 2 percent of all master’s degrees in 1998–99 and 10 percent in 2008–09.

From 1998–99 to 2008–09, the percentage increases in the number of first-professional degrees awarded by public institutions and private not-for-profit institutions (18 and 16 percent, respectively) were similar to the overall 17 percent increase in first-professional degree awards. The number of first-professional degrees awarded by private for-profit institutions in 2008–09 was more than twice the number of degrees awarded in 1998–99. In 2008–09, public institutions conferred 41 percent of all first-professional degrees; private not-for-profit institutions, 58 percent; and private for-profit institutions, 1 percent. From 1998–99 to 2008–09, the number of doctoral degrees conferred increased by 42 percent for public institutions (from 28,100 to 39,900 degrees), by 62 percent for private not-for-profit institutions (from 15,500 to 25,200 degrees), and by almost 500 percent for private for-profit institutions (from 440 to 2,600 degrees).

Although enrollment size is not reported here, the growing number of private for-profit institutions provides context for the percentage increases in the number of degrees conferred by level and control of institution. For example, the number of private for-profit 4-year institutions increased from 190 to 530 from 1998–99 to 2008–09, accounting for most of the increase in the total number of 4-year institutions (from 2,340 to 2,720 institutions) (see table A-42-2). In addition, the number of private for-profit 2-year institutions increased from 480 to 570 during this time, while the total number of all 2-year institutions decreased from 1,710 to 1,690.

Technical Notes

This indicator includes only degree-granting institutions that participated in Title IV federal financial aid programs. For more information on the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and IPEDS classification of institutions, see supplemental note 3 and supplemental note 8.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-42-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-dai-1.asp)

A-42-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-dai-2.asp)

Glossary: Associate’s degree, Bachelor’s degree, Doctoral degree, First-professional degree, Private institution, Public institution

Indicator 43: Distance Education in Higher Education

In 2007–08, about 4.3 million undergraduate students, or 20 percent of all undergraduates, took at least one distance education course. About 0.8 million, or 4 percent of all undergraduates, took their entire program through distance education.

Distance education courses and programs provide flexible learning opportunities to both undergraduate and postbaccalaureate students. In this indicator, distance education courses include live, interactive audio- or videoconferencing; prerecorded instructional videos; webcasts; CD-ROMs or DVDs; or computer-based systems accessed over the Internet. Distance education does not include correspondence courses. In 2007–08, about 4.3 million undergraduate students, or 20 percent of all undergraduates, took at least one distance education course (see table A-43-1). About 0.8 million, or 4 percent of all undergraduates, took their entire program through distance education. The percentage of undergraduates who took any distance education courses rose from 16 percent in 2003–04 to 20 percent in 2007–08; over the same period, however, the percentage who took their entire program through distance education decreased from 5 to 4 percent. In addition to these undergraduate students, about 0.8 million, or 22 percent, of all postbaccalaureate students took distance education courses in 2007–08 (see table A-43-2). The percentage of postbaccalaureate students who took their entire program through distance education (9 percent) was higher than the percentage at the undergraduate level.

There were differences in the percentage of students participating in distance education programs by institutional control in 2007–08. A lower percentage of students at private not-for-profit institutions (14 percent) took distance education courses than students at public institutions (22 percent) or students at private for-profit institutions (21 percent) (see table A-43-1). Also, a higher percentage of students at private for-profit institutions (12 percent) took their entire program through distance education than students at either public institutions or private not-for-profit institutions (both 3 percent). Within the specific institutional controls and levels, a higher percentage of students at private for-profit 4-year institutions (30 percent) took distance education courses than students at any other control and level of institution, ranging from 6 percent at private for-profit less-than-2-year institutions to 24 percent at public 2-year institutions. Similarly, a higher percentage of students at private for-profit 4-year institutions took their entire program through distance education (19 percent) than students at any other control and level of institution, ranging from 2 percent at public less-than-2-year, public 4-year, and private for-profit less-than-2-year institutions to 8 percent at private for-profit 2-year institutions.

Participation in distance education programs also varied by student characteristics. A higher percentage of older than younger undergraduate students took distance education courses. In 2007–08, for example, 30 percent of students 30 years old and over took distance education courses, compared to 26 percent of students 24 to 29 years of age and 15 percent of students 15 to 23 years of age (see table A-43-1). A higher percentage of undergraduates who had a job took distance education courses (22 percent) than those who had no job (16 percent) and a higher percentage of students attending classes exclusively part time took distance education courses (25 percent) than those attending classes exclusively full time (17 percent).

There also were differences in distance education participation by student dependency status. In 2007–08, a lower percentage of undergraduates who were financially dependent (14 percent) took distance education courses than undergraduates who were financially independent (see table A-43-1). A higher percentage of independent undergraduates who were married and had dependents took distance education courses (33 percent) than did other types of independent undergraduates, including those who were unmarried, with or without dependents, as well as those who were married and without dependents (percentages for these three groups ranged from 24 to 29 percent). Similarly, a higher percentage of married postbaccalaureate students with dependents took distance education courses (33 percent) and took their entire program through distance education (16 percent) than did unmarried postbaccalaureate students with no dependents (5 percent) (see table A-43-2).

Technical Notes

Estimates pertain to all postsecondary students who enrolled at any time during the school year at an institution participating in Title IV programs. Distance education participation includes participation at any institution for students attending more than one institution during the school year. For more information on the National Postsecondary Student Financial Aid Study (NPSAS), see supplemental note 3. For more information on the classification of postsecondary education institutions, see supplemental note 8.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-43-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-dhe-1.asp)

A-43-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-dhe-2.asp)

Glossary: College, Four-year postsecondary institution, Public institution, Private institution, Two-year postsecondary institution, Undergraduate student

Indicator 44: Faculty Salaries, Benefits, and Total Compensation

After increasing by 14 percent during the 1980s and by 5 percent during the 1990s, average salaries for full-time faculty were 4 percent higher in 2009–10 than they were in 1999–2000, after adjusting for inflation.

In 2009–10, the average salary for full-time instructional faculty at degree-granting postsecondary institutions was $74,600, with a range of $55,600 for instructors, lecturers, and other faculty with no academic rank to $103,700 for professors (see table A-44-1). Faculty categories are defined by the institution. Salaries at the various levels and controls of institutions ranged from $44,700 at private 2-year colleges to $97,700 at private doctoral universities. Institutions are categorized by the number of highest degrees awarded: doctoral, master’s, bachelor’s, or associate’s.

The average faculty salary increased by 25 percent from 1979–80 to 2009–10, after adjusting for inflation (see table A-44-2). Average salaries increased for each type of faculty during this period as follows: professors (30 percent), assistant professors (28 percent), associate professors (24 percent), and faculty with no academic rank (17 percent). Average salaries were also higher in 2009–10 than they were in 1979–80 at each institution level and control, with increases ranging from 9 percent at public 2-year colleges to 40 percent at private doctoral universities.

Compared with earlier years, growth in average faculty salaries slowed in the recent decade. After increasing by 14 percent during the 1980s and by 5 percent during the 1990s, average faculty salaries were 4 percent higher in 2009–10 than they were in 1999–2000, after adjusting for inflation (data not shown). This pattern differed by institution level and control. Average salaries at public and private master’s degree institutions and public and private doctoral universities were between 1 and 4 percent higher in 2009–10 than they were in 1999–2000. Salaries at public other 4-year colleges did not measurably change during this period. In contrast, average faculty salaries increased by 9 percent at private other 4-year colleges and were 3 percent lower at private 2-year colleges.

Average fringe benefits (adjusted for inflation) increased by a higher percentage than did average faculty salaries (82 vs. 25 percent) between 1979–80 and 2009–10. As a result, fringe benefits accounted for a higher share of total compensation for faculty in 2009–10 than it did in 1979–80 (22 vs. 16 percent). Compared with faculty salaries between 1999–2000 and 2009–10, fringe benefits for faculty increased by larger percentages at most levels and controls of institutions. From 1999–2000 to 2009–10, average fringe benefits for faculty increased by 24 percent, while average faculty salaries increased by 4 percent. In particular, fringe benefits for faculty increased by higher percentages at public institutions than at private institutions. For example, average benefits for faculty at public master’s degree institutions increased by 28 percent, compared with an increase of 19 percent for faculty at private master’s degree institutions. From 1999–2000 to 2009–10, benefits for faculty at public 2-year colleges increased by 29 percent, while benefits at private 2-year colleges decreased by 2 percent.

Combining salary with benefits, faculty received an average total compensation package in 2009–10 that was about 8 percent higher than the package they received in 1999–2000. In 2009–10, the average compensation package for faculty was about $95,600, including $74,600 in salaries and $21,000 in benefits.

Technical Notes

Average total compensation is the sum of salary (which excludes outside income) and fringe benefits (which may include benefits such as retirement plans, medical/dental plans, group life insurance, or other benefits). Private institutions include private not-for-profit and private for-profit institutions. Institutions are classified by the number of highest degrees awarded. For example, institutions that award 20 or more doctoral degrees per year are classified as doctoral universities. For more information on the classification of postsecondary institutions, see supplemental note 8. Data do not include institutions at which all faculty were part time, contributed their services, were in the military, or taught preclinical or clinical medicine. Salaries reflect an average of all faculty on 9- and 10-month contracts rather than a weighted average based on contract length that appears in some other National Center for Education Statistics reports. Data exclude faculty on 11- and 12-month contracts (17 percent of faculty in 2009–10) and are reported for the 50 states and D.C. and exclude Puerto Rico and the territories. Data are adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to constant 2009–10 dollars. For more information on the CPI, see supplemental note 10. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. For more information on the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), see supplemental note 3.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-44-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-fas-1.asp)

A-44-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-fas-2.asp)

Glossary: Consumer Price Index (CPI), Faculty, Four-year postsecondary institution, Private institution, Public institution, Salary, Two-year postsecondary institution

Indicator 45: College Student Employment

In 2009, about 41 percent of full-time and 76 percent of part-time college students ages 16–24 were employed.

The percentage of full-time college students ages 16–24 who were employed increased from 34 to 52 percent between 1970 and 2000 and then decreased to 47 percent in 2001, where it remained relatively stable until 2008 before declining to 41 percent in 2009 (see table A-45-1). The percentage of full-time students who worked 20–34 hours per week increased from 10 to 22 percent from 1970 to 2000 and then remained relatively stable (between 20 and 22 percent) through 2008 before declining to 18 percent in 2009. The percentage of these students who worked 35 or more hours per week increased from 4 percent in 1970 to 9 percent in 2000, fluctuated between 8 and 9 percent through 2008, and declined to 6 percent in 2009.

In 2009, about 76 percent of part-time college students ages 16–24 were employed. In contrast to the increase among full-time college students, there was no overall trend between 1970 and 2009 in the percentage of part-time college students who were employed. The percentage of part-time college students working 35 or more hours per week, however, decreased from 60 to 37 percent between 1970 and 2009.

The employment rate of full-time college students at public 4-year institutions fluctuated between 1990 and 2009; it increased between 1990 and 2000, decreased in 2001, and then remained relatively stable until it decreased again in 2009. The employment rate for full-time students at private 4-year institutions also increased between 1990 and 2000 and decreased in 2001, but showed no measurable change between 2001 and 2009. The percentage of full-time students at public 2-year institutions who were employed did not measurably change between 1990 and 2000 but decreased between 2000 and 2009. The percentage of part-time students in public and private 4-year institutions who were employed did not show an overall trend between 1990 and 2009. The employment rate of part-time students in public 2-year institutions in 1990 was not measurably different from the rate in 2007, but from 2007 to 2009, it decreased from 83 to 72 percent.

The percentages of students who were employed differed by level and control of institution. In general, the employment rates of full-time students were higher at public 2-year institutions than at 4-year institutions for nearly all years of data shown between 1990 and 2009. In addition, the employment rate of full-time students at public 4-year institutions was higher than the rate at private 4-year institutions for all years of data shown. In 2009, for example, about 45 percent of full-time students at public 2-year institutions were employed, compared with 41 percent of full-time students at public 4-year institutions and 35 percent at private 4-year institutions. The employment rates for part-time students generally did not differ by level and control of institution between 1990 and 2007, though in 2008 and 2009, a higher percentage of part-time students at public 4-year institutions worked than did those at public 2-year institutions. In 2009, a higher percentage of part-time students at 4-year private institutions were employed than were students at 2- and 4-year public institutions.

In 2009, the percentage of full-time college students ages 16–24 who were employed differed by sex and race/ethnicity. A higher percentage of female full-time students were employed than were male full-time students (45 vs. 36 percent) (see table A-45-2). Also, the employment rates of full-time students were higher among White and Hispanic students and students of two or more races (45, 39, and 44 percent, respectively) than among Black and Asian students (29 and 26 percent, respectively).

The percentage of students who were employed in 2009 also differed by student enrollment level. The percentage of part-time graduate students who were employed was higher than the percentage of part-time undergraduate students who were employed (88 vs. 74 percent). At both the part-time and full-time level, higher percentages of graduate than undergraduate students worked 35 or more hours per week.

Technical Notes

College includes both 2- and 4-year institutions. College students were classified as full time if they were taking at least 12 hours of classes (or at least 9 hours of graduate classes) during an average school week and as part time if they were taking fewer hours. Hours worked per week refers to the number of hours that the respondent worked at all jobs during the survey week. For more information on the Current Population Survey (CPS), see supplemental note 2. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. For more information on race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 1.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-45-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-csw-1.asp)

A-45-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-csw-2.asp)

Glossary: Four-year postsecondary institution, Full-time enrollment, Part-time enrollment, Private institution, Public institution, Two-year postsecondary institution

Indicator 46: Federal Grants and Loans to Undergraduates

From 1999–2000 to 2007–08, the percentage of full-time, full-year undergraduates receiving federal loans increased from 43 to 49 percent. Over the same time period, the average federal grant increased from $3,300 to $3,800 (in constant 2009–10 dollars).

Grants and loans are the major forms of federal financial support for postsecondary students. Federal grants, which do not need to be repaid, are available to undergraduates who qualify by economic need, whereas loans are available to all students. In addition to federal financial aid, there are also grants from state and local governments, institutions, and private sources, as well as private loans.

In 2007–08, about 65 percent of full-time, full-year undergraduates received a grant from any source, compared with 59 percent in 1999–2000 (see table A-46-1). From 1999–2000 to 2007–08, the average grant amount received from all sources by these recipients increased from $6,500 to $7,400 (in constant 2009–10 dollars). During this period, the average federal grant per recipient also increased from $3,300 to $3,800. The percentage of low-income dependent undergraduate students who received federal grants increased from 73 percent in 1999–2000 to 80 percent in 2007–08. In 2007–08, about 15 percent of middle-income and less than 1 percent of high-income students received federal grants.

In 2007–08, while some 29 percent of full-time, full-year undergraduates at public 4-year institutions and 28 percent of full-time full-year undergraduates at private not-for-profit 4-year institutions received federal grants, 56 percent of full-time full-year undergraduates at private for-profit 4-year institutions received federal grants. From 1999–2000 to 2007–08, the percentage of students at private for-profit 4-year institutions receiving federal grants increased from 36 to 56 percent. At public 4-year and private not-for-profit 4-year institutions, however, there were no measurable changes during this period in the percentages of students receiving federal grants.

Fifty-three percent of full-time, full-year undergraduates received a loan, including federal loans, in 2007–08, up from 45 percent in 1999–2000. In 2007–08, some 49 percent of all full-time, full-year undergraduates received federal loans, compared with the 43 percent who received federal loans in 1999–2000. Of those undergraduates receiving a loan, the average loan amount from all sources was $8,200 in 2007–08, higher than the average amount in 1999–2000 ($6,500, in constant 2009–10 dollars). From 1999–2000 to 2007–08, the percentage of low-income dependent undergraduates who received federal loans increased from 47 to 51 percent. In 2007–08, there was no measurable difference between low-income and middle-income dependent undergraduates in the percentage who received federal loans (51 and 49 percent, respectively), but the percentages for both groups were higher than the percentage of high-income dependent undergraduates who received federal loans that year (35 percent). Sixty-one percent of independent undergraduates received a federal loan in 2007–08.

In 2007–08, approximately 49 percent of full-time, full-year undergraduates at public 4-year institutions received federal loans, compared with 61 percent of students at private not-for-profit 4-year institutions and 92 percent of students at private-for-profit 4-year institutions. Comparing the percentage of students receiving federal loans at private for-profit 4-year institutions in 1999–2000 with the percentage receiving federal loans at those institutions in 2007–08 shows that the percentage increased from 73 to 92 percent, respectively. However, there were no measurable changes from 1999–2000 to 2007–08 in the percentages of students receiving federal loans at 4-year public institutions and private not-for-profit 4-year institutions.

Technical Notes

Federal loans include Perkins loans, subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans, and Supplemental Loans to Students (SLS); federal grants are primarily Pell Grants and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), but also include Byrd scholarships. Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS), veterans’ benefits, and tax credits are not included in any of the totals. The weights used for the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) 2000 calculations were revised and produce estimates that differ from those reported in The Condition of Education 2010. Income for dependent students is based on parents’ annual income in the prior year. The cutoff points for low, middle, and high income were obtained by identifying the incomes below the 25th percentile (low-income), between the 25th and 75th percentiles (middle-income), and at the 75th percentile and above (high-income). Data were adjusted to 2009–10 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). For more information on the CPI-U, see supplemental note 10. For more information on NPSAS, see supplemental note 3.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental table:

A-46-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-fgl-1.asp)

Glossary: Four-year postsecondary institution, Private institution, Public institution, Two-year postsecondary institution

Indicator 47: Price of Attending an Undergraduate Institution

The net price of education was higher in 2007–08 than in 1999–2000 for full-time, full-year, dependent undergraduates at all family income levels.

The total price of attending a postsecondary institution (also called “the student budget”) includes tuition and fees, books and materials, and an allowance for living expenses. In 2007–08, the average total price of attendance, in constant 2009–10 dollars, for full-time, full-year, dependent undergraduates was $12,100 at public 2-year institutions and $19,300 at public 4-year institutions (see table A-47-1). At private institutions, the total price was $23,800 at not-for-profit 2-year institutions, $37,400 at not-for-profit 4-year institutions, $27,900 at for-profit 2-year institutions, and $33,500 at for-profit 4-year institutions. The average total price of attendance for students at each of the six major combinations of institution level and control was higher in 2007–08 than in 1999–2000, with the exception of private not-for-profit 2-year institutions, for which there was no measurable difference.

Many students and their families do not pay the full price of attendance because they receive financial aid to help cover their expenses. The primary types of financial aid are grants, which do not have to be repaid, and loans, which must be repaid. Grants, including scholarships, may be awarded on the basis of financial need, merit, or both, and may include tuition aid from employers. The average grant amounts for students at public 2- and 4-year institutions and private not-for-profit 4-year institutions were higher in 2007–08 than in 1999–2000 (see table A-47-1). However, there was no measurable change in the average grant amount for students at private not-for-profit 2-year institutions, private for-profit 2-year institutions, or private for-profit 4-year institutions. The loan amounts reported in this indicator include student borrowing through federal, state, institutional, and alternative (private) loan programs, as well as loans taken out by parents through the federal Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students (PLUS) program. When adjusted for inflation to 2009–10 dollars, the average amount borrowed by students at each of the six major combinations of institution level and control was higher in 2007–08 than in 1999–2000. Financial aid amounts and percentages exclude tax credits and deductions.

The net price is an estimate of the cash outlay, including loans, that students and their families need to pay in a given year to cover educational expenses. It is calculated here as the total price of attendance minus grants (which decrease the price). Tax credits and deductions are excluded from the calculation of net price. Reflecting the higher total costs, the net price for full-time, full-year, dependent undergraduates was higher in 2007–08 than in 1999–2000 at four of the six major combinations of institution level and control (public 2-year, public 4-year, private not-for-profit 4-year, and private for-profit 4-year). From 2003–04 to 2007–08, the net price of attendance increased for all institutions, with the exception of private not-for-profit 2-year institutions.

Overall, the net price of sending a student to a postsecondary institution was higher in 2007–08 than in 1999–2000 for families at all income levels. For low-income, middle-income and high-income families, the net price increased, respectively by $1,400, $2,200, and $3,600. During this period, net price also increased for students from all racial/ethnic groups, with the exception of American Indian/Alaska Natives (see table A-47-2). For example, the net price for White students increased from $16,000 in 1999–2000 to $18,700 in 2007–08. For Black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian students, and students of two or more races, the net price increased, respectively, by $2,600, $2,600, $3,100, $5,000, and $3,100.

Technical Notes

Full time refers to students who attended full time (as defined by the institution) for the full year (at least 9 months). Information on the use of tax credits by individual families is not available and therefore could not be taken into account in calculating net price. Averages were computed for all students, including those who did not receive financial aid. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Data were adjusted by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) to constant 2009–10 dollars. For more information on the CPI-U, see supplemental note 10. Estimates exclude students who were not U.S. citizens or permanent residents and therefore ineligible for federal student aid and students who attended more than one institution in a year, due to the difficulty matching information on price and aid. For more information on race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 1. The weights used for the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) 2000 calculations were revised and produce estimates that differ from those reported in The Condition of Education 2010. For more information on NPSAS, see supplemental note 3.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-47-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-cst-1.asp)

A-47-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-cst-2.asp)

Glossary: Consumer Price Index (CPI), Four-year postsecondary institution, Private institution, Public institution, Two-year postsecondary institution

Indicator 48: Price of Graduate and First-Professional Attendance

About 9 out of 10 full-time graduate students received financial aid in 2007–08. The average total price of attending was greater in 2007–08 than in 2003–04 for students in master’s or first-professional degree programs at public universities, as well as for students in first-professional degree programs at private not-for-profit universities.

In 2007–08, the average total price (tuition and fees, books and materials, and living expenses) for 1 year of full-time graduate education was $34,600 for a master’s degree program; $39,700 for a doctoral program; and $46,500 for a first-professional degree program. Prices are in constant 2009–10 dollars (see table A-48-1). The average total price differed depending on degree level and institution control, ranging from $29,000 for a master’s degree program at a public institution to $53,700 for a first-professional degree program at a private not-for-profit institution.

About one-fourth (26 percent) of master’s degree students were enrolled full time in 2007–08, compared to 53 percent of doctoral degree students and 78 percent of first-professional degree students. Among the full-time master’s degree students, the adjusted average net price (total price minus grants) was $23,900 at public institutions and $35,000 at private not-for-profit institutions. Compared with their peers at private not-for profit institutions, on average, full-time master’s students at public institutions received more in assistantships and borrowed less in student loans.

In 2007–08, some 85 percent of full-time students at the master’s level, 88 percent at the first-professional level, and 93 percent at the doctoral level received some type of financial aid (see table A-48-2). Grants and assistantships are usually awarded on a discretionary basis and are not related to financial need. Financial need must be demonstrated by students in order to obtain Perkins or subsidized Stafford loans, but not to take out unsubsidized Stafford loans, or private loans. Graduate students may receive tuition assistance from their employers (also considered grant aid). For example, in 2007–08, some 48 percent of part-time students in master of business administration programs received this type of financial aid (see table A-48-3).

The average annual net price in 2007–08 for full-time doctoral students was $24,700 at public institutions and $36,300 at private not-for-profit institutions (see table A-49-1). Although full-time doctoral students faced higher average total prices compared with their counterparts at the master’s level, they did receive larger average amounts in grants and assistantships and borrowed less in student loans.

In 2007–08, the annual net price paid by first-professional students was higher than that paid by doctoral students in both public and private not-for-profit institutions. Also, first-professional students relied more heavily on loans to pay for their education: in 2007–08 their per annum loan amounts averaged $23,400 at public institutions and $30,500 at private not-for-profit institutions, while doctoral students’ per annum loans averaged $4,700 and $9,800, respectively.

The average total price of attending a graduate program was greater in 2007–08 than in 2003–04 (after adjusting for inflation) for master’s degree students at public institutions and for first-professional students at both public and private not-for-profit institutions. Tuition and fees were greater in 2007–08 than in 2003–04 for master’s degree students at public institutions and for first-professional students at public and private not-for profit institutions. The 2007–08 tuition and fees associated with obtaining a doctoral degree at both public and private not-for-profit institutions were not measurably different from the 2003–04 tuition and fees; the same was true for net price. For students enrolled in first-professional degree programs at private not-for-profit institutions, the total annual price of attendance (in constant 2009–10 dollars) rose from approximately $47,600 in 2003–04 to $53,700 in 2007–08.

Technical Notes

First-professional programs include chiropractic, osteopathic medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, law, podiatry, medicine, theology, optometry, and veterinary medicine. The category labeled “Assistantships and other aid” consists primarily of assistantships but also includes a small amount of other types of aid such as work study, state vocational, rehabilitation and job training grants, federal veterans benefits, and military tuition aid. Analysis is limited to students who attended for the full year at only one institution in 2003–04 and 2007–08 to keep financial aid and prices comparable. Totals include data for private for-profit institutions, which are not shown separately. Full time means enrolled full time (according to the institution’s definition) for at least 9 months during the academic year; full-time enrollment does not preclude working. For more information on the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), see supplemental note 3. Data were adjusted to constant 2009–10 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). For more information on the CPI-U, see supplemental note 10. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-48-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-gsn-1.asp)

A-48-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-gsn-2.asp)

A-48-3 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-gsn-3.asp)

Glossary: Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP), Consumer Price Index (CPI), Doctoral degree, First-professional degree, Master’s degree

Indicator 49: Tuition and Fees, Student Loans, and Default Rates

In 2008–09, average tuition and fees, in constant 2009–10 dollars, at 4-year postsecondary institutions were $12,100. At public 4-year institutions, average tuition and fees were $6,400, compared with $15,300 at private for-profit institutions and $24,900 at private not-for-profit institutions.

In 2008–09, average tuition and fees, in constant 2009–10 dollars, at 4-year postsecondary degree-granting institutions were $12,100. At public 4-year institutions, average tuition and fees were $6,400, compared with $15,300 at private for-profit institutions and $24,900 at private not-for-profit institutions (see table A-49-1). Among first-time, full-time students attending 4-year institutions in 2008–09, the percentage who had student loans differed by institution control: 56 percent of all students had student loans, compared with 47 percent of students at public institutions, 61 percent of students at private not-for-profit institutions, and 81 percent of students at private for-profit institutions. In 2008–09, average per annum loan amounts, in constant dollars, were highest at private for-profit institutions ($9,800), followed by private not-for-profit institutions ($7,700) and public institutions ($6,000).

At 2-year postsecondary degree-granting institutions, average tuition and fees (in constant 2009–10 dollars) were $2,600 in 2008–09. At public 2-year institutions, average tuition and fees were $2,200; at private not-for-profit 2-year institutions, average tuition and fees were $12,700; and at private for-profit 2-year institutions, average tuition and fees were $13,900. Some 21 percent of first-time, full-time students attending public 2-year institutions had student loans, with an average loan amount of $4,200. At private not-for-profit 2-year institutions, 58 percent of students had student loans, with an average loan amount of $6,100. At private for-profit 2- year institutions, 78 percent of students had student loans, with an average loan amount of $7,800.

Approximately 3.2 million students entered the repayment phase of their student loans in fiscal year (FY) 2008, meaning their student loans became due between October 1, 2007, and September 30, 2008 (see table A-49-2). Of those students, 7 percent had defaulted on the payments on their student loans within 2 years (before FY 2009 ended on September 30, 2009). The percentage of students who enter repayment on their loans in a particular fiscal year and default prior to the end of the next fiscal year is the 2-year cohort default rate. The default rate for students in the FY 2008 cohort was 5 percent at 4-year degree-granting institutions and 11 percent at 2-year degree-granting institutions. Default rates for the FY 2008 cohort were highest at private for-profit 2-year institutions (12 percent) and private for-profit 4-year institutions (11 percent). The lowest default rates were for students at private not-for-profit and public 4-year institutions (4 percent each).

The 7 percent rate of default across all institutions for the FY 2008 cohort was higher than the rates for the FY 2007 (6 percent) and FY 2006 (5 percent) cohorts. The percentage increase in default rates from FY 2006 to FY 2008 was greatest at private for-profit 4-year institutions (from 8 percent to 11 percent). The smallest increases in default rates from FY 2006 to FY 2008 were at public 4-year institutions (from 3 to 4 percent) and private not-for-profit 2-year institutions (from 7 to 8 percent).

Technical Notes

Degree-granting institutions grant associate’s or higher degrees and participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs. Tuition and fees amounts for public institutions are the averages for in-state students. The repayment phase is the period when student loans must be repaid and generally begins 6 months after a student leaves an institution. The 2-year cohort default rate is the percentage of borrowers who enter repayment on certain Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program or William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program loans during a particular federal fiscal year (a fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30) and default or meet other specified conditions within the cohort default period. The cohort default period is the two-year period that begins on October 1 of the fiscal year when the borrower enters repayment and ends on September 30 of the following fiscal year. Default rates were calculated using student counts by institution from the Federal Student Aid Cohort Default Rate Database and the IPEDS classification of institution level and control. For more information on the Federal Student Aid (FSA) cohort default rate database or the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), see supplemental note 3. Institutions in this indicator are classified based on the highest degrees awarded. For more information on the classification of postsecondary institutions, see supplemental note 8. Data were adjusted to 2009–10 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). For more information on the CPI-U, see supplemental note 10.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-49-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-tld-1.asp)

A-49-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-tld-2.asp)

Glossary: College, Four-year postsecondary institution, Private institution, Public institution, Tuition, Two-year postsecondary institution

Indicator 50: Postsecondary Revenues and Expenses

In 2008–09, instruction was the largest per-student expense at public ($7,534) and private not-for-profit institutions ($15,215). At private for-profit institutions, instruction was the second largest expense category, with $3,069 spent per student.

About 19 million undergraduate and graduate students were enrolled in postsecondary degree-granting institutions in 2008–09 (see indicators 8 and 9). This indicator examines general patterns in the revenues and expenses of postsecondary degree-granting institutions. Only some financial data may be comparable across institutional control (public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit) because of differences in accounting procedures for certain categories. In addition, comparisons between institutional levels (2-year vs. 4-year) may also be limited because of different institutional missions.

In 2008–09, total revenue was $267 billion at public institutions, $69 billion at private not-for-profit institutions, and $19 billion at private for-profit institutions (see table A-50-1). The category of student tuition and fees typically accounts for a large percentage of total revenue and was the largest revenue source at both private not-for-profit and for-profit institutions in 2008–09 (78 and 86 percent, respectively). At public institutions, the share of revenue from tuition and fees (19 percent) was second to that from state appropriations (24 percent). Tuition and fees constituted the largest revenue category for private not-for-profit and private for-profit 2- and 4-year institutions, the second largest category for public 4-year institutions, and the third largest category for public 2-year institutions. Across all sectors, the shares for tuition and fees were generally larger for 4-year institutions than they were for 2-year institutions (see table A-50-2).

Historically, investment return has generally been among the largest revenue sources for private not-for-profit institutions. In contrast, private for-profit institutions typically receive little revenue from this source, while public institutions receive a moderate amount. Changes in the value of endowment funds from investments affect total revenue and can fluctuate from year to year. For example, in 2008–09, private not-for-profit institutions saw a loss in investment return of $64 billion, which decreased total revenue and caused other revenue sources to account for larger shares of the total (see table A-50-1). Investment income at public institutions was affected to a lesser degree (a loss of $9 billion).

In 2008–09, total expenses were $273 billion at public institutions, $141 billion at private not-for-profit institutions, and $16 billion at private for-profit institutions (see table A-50-3). At public and private not-for-profit institutions, instruction was the largest expense category (27 and 33 percent, respectively). At private for-profit institutions, instruction constituted 24 percent of total expenses but student services and academic and institutional support (a category which covers a wide range of administrative costs) was the largest category at 67 percent. Other relatively large categories at public institutions (those accounting for 8–10 percent of expenses) were research, institutional support, auxiliary enterprises, and hospitals. At private not-for-profit institutions, some of the other larger categories (those accounting for 10–14 percent of expenses) were research, institutional support, and auxiliary enterprises.

Public and private not-for-profit institutions spent the most per student on instruction in 2008–09 ($7,534 and 15,215, respectively); private for-profit institutions spent $3,069 per student.

Variations were found when comparing expenses at 2- and 4-year institutions in 2008–09. For example, public 2-year and private for-profit 2-year institutions spent a greater share of their budgets on instruction than their 4-year counterparts did (37 vs. 25 percent at public institutions and 33 vs. 21 percent at private for-profit institutions) (see table A-50-4). Private not-for-profit 2- and 4-year institutions each spent 33 percent of their budgets on instruction.

Technical Notes

Auxiliary enterprises are essentially self-supporting operations, such as residence halls, that exist to provide a service to students, faculty, or staff, and that charge a fee that is directly related to, although not necessarily equal to, the cost of the service. Academic support includes services that directly support an institution’s primary missions of instruction, research, or public service. Institutional support includes general administrative services, executive direction and planning, legal and fiscal operations, and community relations. Student services includes expenses associated with admissions, registrar activities, and activities whose primary purpose is to contribute to students’ emotional and physical well-being and to their intellectual, cultural, and social development outside the context of the formal instructional program. Data are adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to constant 2009–10 dollars. For more information on the CPI, see supplemental note 10. For more information on the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and IPEDS classification of institutions, see supplemental note 3 and supplemental note 8.

For more information: Visit the NCES website to view the following supplemental tables:

A-50-1 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rep-1.asp)

A-50-2 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rep-2.asp)

A-50-3 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rep-3.asp)

A-50-4 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rep-4.asp)

Glossary: Consumer Price Index (CPI), Full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment, Private institution, Public institution, Revenues, Tuition

Appendix

A

Supplemental Tables

Note: The supplemental tables are not included in this edition. To access the tables online, please use the following links.

A-1-1. Percentage of the population ages 3–34 enrolled in school, by age group: October 1970–2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-ope-1.asp)

A-1-2. Age range for compulsory school attendance, policies on kindergarten education, and percentage of the population ages 3–34 enrolled in school, by age group and state or jurisdiction: 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-ope-2.asp)

A-2-1. Actual and projected public school enrollment in grades prekindergarten (preK) through 12, by grade level and region: Selected school years, 1970–71 through 2020–21
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-enl-1.asp)

A-2-2. Projected percent change in public school enrollment in grades prekindergarten (preK) through 12, by grade level, region, and state or jurisdiction: School years 2008–09 and 2020–21
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-enl-2.asp)

A-3-1. Number and percentage distribution of public charter schools and students, by selected student and school characteristics: Selected school years, 1999–2000 through 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-cse-1.asp)

A-3-2. Number and percentage distribution of students and schools, by school type, level, and selected student and school characteristics: School year 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-cse-2.asp)

A-3-3. Number and percentage of public charter schools and students, by state or jurisdiction: School years 1999–2000 and 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-cse-3.asp)

A-4-1. Total enrollment and percentage distribution of students enrolled in private elementary and secondary schools, by school type and grade level: Various school years, 1995–96 through 2009–10
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pri-1.asp)

A-4-2. Private elementary and secondary school enrollment and private enrollment as a percentage of total enrollment in public and private schools, by region and grade level: Various school years, 1995–96 through 2009–10
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pri-2.asp)

A-4-3. Percentage distribution of students in private schools, by race/ethnicity and selected school characteristics: School year 2009–10
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pri-3.asp)

A-5-1. Number and percentage distribution of public school students enrolled in prekindergarten through 12th grade by race/ethnicity: October 1989–October 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-1er-1.asp)

A-5-2. Number of public school students enrolled in prekindergarten through 12th grade, by race/ethnicity and region: Selected years, October 1989–October 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-1er-2.asp)

A-5-3. Percentage distribution of public school students enrolled in prekindergarten through 12th grade, by race/ethnicity and region: Selected years, October 1989–October 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-1er-3.asp)

A-5-4. Percentage distribution of public school students enrolled in prekindergarten through 12th grade, by race/ethnicity and state or jurisdiction: 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-1er-4.asp)

A-6-1. Number and percentage of children ages 5–17 who spoke only English at home, who spoke a language other than English at home and who spoke English with difficulty, and percent enrolled in school: Selected years, 1980–2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-lsm-1.asp)

A-6-2. Number and percentage of children ages 5–17 who spoke a language other than English at home and who spoke English with difficulty, by age and selected characteristics: 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-lsm-2.asp)

A-6-3. Number and percentage of children ages 5–17 who spoke a language other than English at home and who spoke English with difficulty, by language spoken, region, and state or jurisdiction: 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-lsm-3.asp)

A-7-1. Number and percentage distribution of 3- to 21-year-olds served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, and number served as a percentage of total public school enrollment, by type of disability: Selected school years, 1980–81 through 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-cwd-1.asp)

A-7-2. Percentage distribution of students ages 6–21 served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, by educational environment and type of disability: Selected school years, 1990–91 through 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-cwd-2.asp)

A-8-1. Number and percentage of actual and projected undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by sex, attendance status, and control of institution: Selected years, fall 1970–2020
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-hep-1.asp)

A-8-2. Actual and projected undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting 4- and 2-year postsecondary institutions, by sex, attendance status, and control of institution: Selected years, fall 1970–2020
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-hep-2.asp)

A-8-3. Total undergraduate enrollment and percentage distribution of students in degree-granting institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex: Selected years, fall 1976–2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-hep-3.asp)

A-9-1. Number and percentage distribution of actual and projected postbaccalaureate enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by sex, attendance status, and control of institution: Fall 1976–2020
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-gre-1.asp)

A-9-2. Total postbaccalaureate enrollment and percentage distribution of students in degree-granting institutions, by race/ethnicity and sex: Selected years, Fall 1976–2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-gre-2.asp)

A-10-1. Average reading scale scores, selected percentile scores, and percentage of students at each achievement level, by grade: Selected years, 1992–2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rd2-1.asp)

A-10-2. Average reading scale scores, by grade and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1992–2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rd2-2.asp)

A-10-3. Average reading scale scores and achievement-level results for public school students, by grade and state or jurisdiction: 2007 and 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rd2-3.asp)

A-11-1. Average reading scale scores and selected achievement gaps of 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade students, by sex and race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1992–2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rgp-1.asp)

A-11-2. Average reading scale scores and selected achievement gaps of 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade students, by selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1992–2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rgp-2.asp)

A-12-1. Average mathematics scale scores, selected percentile scores, and percentage of students at each achievement level, by grade: Selected years, 1990–2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-mat-1.asp)

A-12-2. Average mathematics scale scores, by grade and selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 1990–2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-mat-2.asp)

A-12-3. Average mathematics scale scores and achievement-level results for public school students, by grade and state or jurisdiction: 2007 and 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-mat-3.asp)

A-13-1. Average mathematics scale scores and selected achievement gaps of 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade students, by sex and race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1990–2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-mgp-1.asp)

A-13-2. Average mathematics scale scores and selected achievement gaps of 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade students, by selected student and school characteristics: Selected years, 2000–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-mgp-2.asp)

A-14-1. Average science scale scores, selected percentile scores, and percentage of students at each achievement level, by grade: 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-scp-1.asp)

A-14-2. Average science scale scores and achievement-level results, by grade and selected student and school characteristics: 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-scp-2.asp)

A-14-3. Average science scale scores and achievement-level results for public school 4th- and 8th-grade students, by state or jurisdiction: 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-scp-3.asp)

A-15-1. Average scores of 15-year-old students on combined reading literacy scale and reading literacy subscales, by country: 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-irl-1.asp)

A-15-2. Average scores of 15-year-old students on combined reading literacy scale, by sex and country: 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-irl-2.asp)

A-15-3. Average scores of U.S. 15-year-old students on combined reading literacy scale, by race and ethnicity: 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-irl-3.asp)

A-15-4. Average scores of 15-year-old students on reading literacy scale, by country: 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-irl-4.asp)

A-16-1. Average scores of 15-year-old students on mathematics literacy scale, by country: 2003 and 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-msl-1.asp)

A-16-2. Average scores of 15-year-old students on mathematics literacy scale, by sex and country: 2003 and 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-msl-2.asp)

A-16-3. Average scores of 15-year-old students on science literacy scale, by country: 2006 and 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-msl-3.asp)

A-16-4. Average scores of 15-year-old students on science literacy scale, by sex and country: 2006 and 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-msl-4.asp)

A-17-1. Median annual earnings and percentage of full-time, full-year wage and salary workers ages 25–34, by educational attainment, sex, and race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1980–2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-er2-1.asp)

A-18-1. Percentage distribution of adults ages 25–34, by employment status and educational attainment: Selected years, 1990–2010
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-eya-1.asp)

A-18-2. Percentage distribution of adults ages 25–34, by race/ethnicity, employment status, and educational attainment: 2010
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-eya-2.asp)

A-19-1. Averaged freshman graduation rate for public high school students and number of graduates, by state or jurisdiction: School years 2001–02 through 2007–08
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-scr-1.asp)

A-20-1. Status dropout rates of 16- through 24-year-olds in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population, by race/ethnicity: October Current Population Survey (CPS) 1980–2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-sde-1.asp)

A-20-2. Number of status dropouts and status dropout rates of 16- through 24-year-olds in the household and noninstitutionalized group quarters population, by nativity and school or student characteristics: American Community Survey (ACS) 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-sde-2.asp)

A-20-3. Status dropout rates of 16- through 24-year-olds and number of status dropouts in the household and group quarters population, by housing type and school or student characteristics: American Community Survey (ACS) 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-sde-3.asp)

A-21-1. Percentage of high school completers who were enrolled in 2- or 4-year colleges the October immediately following high school completion, by family income: 1975–2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-trc-1.asp)

A-21-2. Percentage of high school completers who were enrolled in 2- or 4-year colleges the October immediately following high school completion, by race/ethnicity: 1975–2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-trc-2.asp)

A-21-3. Percentage of high school completers who were enrolled in 2- or 4-year colleges the October immediately following high school completion, by sex and level of institution: 1975–2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-trc-3.asp)

A-22-1. Percentage of first-year undergraduate students who took remedial education courses, by number of courses and selected characteristics: 2007–08
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rmc-1.asp)

A-23-1. Percentage of students seeking a bachelor’s degree at 4-year institutions who completed a bachelor’s degree, by control of institution, time to degree attainment, and sex: Cohort years 1996 and 2002
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pgr-1.asp)

A-23-2. Percentage of students seeking a bachelor’s degree at 4-year institutions who completed a bachelor’s degree within 6 years, by race/ethnicity, control of institution, sex, and admissions acceptance rate: Cohort years 1996 and 2002
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pgr-2.asp)

A-23-3. Percentage of students seeking a certificate or associate’s degree at 2-year institutions who completed a certificate program or associate’s degree within 150 percent of the normal time required to do so, by race/ethnicity, control of institution, and sex: Cohort years 1999 and 2005
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pgr-3.asp)

A-24-1. Percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds who attained selected levels of education, by race/ethnicity and sex: Selected years, March 1975–2010
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-eda-1.asp)

A-25-1. Percentage of the population 25 to 64 years old who attained selected levels of education, by country: 2001, 2005, and 2008
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-ice-1.asp)

A-25-2. Percentage of the population 25 to 64 years old who attained selected levels of education, by age group and country: 2008
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-ice-2.asp)

A-26-1. Number of degrees conferred by degree-granting institutions and percentage of degrees conferred to females, by level of degree: Academic years 1994–95 through 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-dcd-1.asp)

A-26-2. Number and percentage change in degrees conferred by degree-granting institutions, percentage distribution of degrees conferred, and percentage of degrees conferred to females, by level of degree and race/ethnicity: Academic years 1998–99, 2003–04, and 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-dcd-2.asp)

A-27-1. Number and percentage of public schools, by school level and selected school characteristics: School years 1998–99 and 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-cps-1.asp)

A-28-1. Number and percentage of public school students across schools, by percentage of students in school eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, school level, and race/ethnicity: School year 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pcp-1.asp)

A-28-2. Number and percentage of public school students within schools, by percentage of students in school eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, locale, and race/ethnicity: School year 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pcp-2.asp)

A-29-1. Percentage of 5- to 17-year-olds in families living in poverty, by region and state or jurisdiction: Selected years, 1990 through 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-clp-1.asp)

A-30-1. Rate of nonfatal incidents of crime against students ages 12–18 at school and away from school, by type of crime: Selected years, 1992–2008
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-qv3-1.asp)

A-30-2. Rate of nonfatal incidents of crime against students ages 12–18 at school and away from school, by type of crime and selected student characteristics: 2008
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-qv3-2.asp)

A-31-1. Number and percentage distribution of full-time teachers, by school level, sector, and selected teacher characteristics: School years 1999–2000 and 2007–08
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-tsp-1.asp)

A-31-2. Number and percentage distribution of full-time teachers, by school level, sector, and selected teaching characteristics: School years 1999–2000 and 2007–08
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-tsp-2.asp)

A-32-1. Number and percentage of public and private school teacher stayers, movers, and leavers: Various school years 1988–89 through 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-tat-1.asp)

A-32-2. Percentage distribution of teacher stayers, movers, and leavers, by school sector and selected school characteristics in the base year: School year 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-tat-2.asp)

A-32-3. Number and percentage distribution of teacher stayers, movers, and leavers, by school sector and selected teacher characteristics in the base year: School year 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-tat-3.asp)

A-33-1. Number and percentage distribution of school principals, by school level, school type, and selected principal characteristics: School years 1999–2000 and 2007–08
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pal-1.asp)

A-34-1. Number and percentage distribution of principal stayers, movers, and leavers, by sector and selected school characteristics in the base year: School year 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pat-1.asp)

A-34-2. Number and percentage distribution of principal stayers, movers, and leavers, by sector and selected principal characteristics in the base year: School year 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pat-2.asp)

A-34-3. Percentage distribution of school principal leavers, by total years of experience as a principal in any school in 2007–08 and 2008–09 status: School year 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-pat-3.asp)

A-35-1. Total revenues and percentage distribution for public elementary and secondary schools, by revenue source: School years 1989–90 through 2007–08
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-sft-1.asp)

A-35-2. Total revenues and percentage distribution for public elementary and secondary schools, by revenue source and state: School year 2007–08
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-sft-2.asp)

A-36-1. Total expenditures per student in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, percentage distribution of current expenditures, and percent change of total expenditures by type and object: Selected school years 1989–90 through 2007–08
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-tot-1.asp)

A-36-2. Current expenditures per student in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools, percentage distribution of current expenditures, and percent change of current expenditures, by function and object: Selected school years 1989–90 through 2007–08
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-tot-2.asp)

A-37-1. Variation and percentage distribution of variation in instruction expenditures per student in unified public elementary and secondary school districts, by source of variation: School years 1989–90 through 2007–08
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-ves-1.asp)

A-38-1. Annual educational expenditures per student on public and private institutions, and expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) in OECD countries, by level of education: 2007
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-ifn-1.asp)

A-39-1. Number and percentage distribution of fall undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by control and level of institution and selected student characteristics: Fall 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-psi-1.asp)

A-39-2. Number and percentage distribution of degree-granting undergraduate institutions, retention rates, and overall graduation rates, by level, control, and acceptance rate of institution: Fall 2008
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-psi-2.asp)

A-40-1. Number of associate’s and bachelor’s degrees awarded by degree-granting institutions, percentage of total, number and percentage awarded to females, and percent change, by selected fields of study: Academic years 1998–99 and 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-fsu-1.asp)

A-41-1. Number of master’s, doctoral, and first-professional degrees awarded by degree-granting institutions, percentage of total, number and percentage awarded to females, and percent change, by selected fields of study: Academic years 1998–99 and 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-gfs-1.asp)

A-42-1. Number and percentage distribution of degrees conferred by degree-granting institutions, by control of institution and level of degree: Academic years 1998–99 through 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-dai-1.asp)

A-42-2. Number of degree-granting institutions, by control and level of institution: Academic years 1998–99 through 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-dai-2.asp)

A-43-1. Number and percentage of undergraduate students in postsecondary institutions taking distance education courses, by selected characteristics: 2003–04 and 2007–08
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-dhe-1.asp)

A-43-2. Number and percentage of postbaccalaureate students in postsecondary institutions taking distance education courses, by selected characteristics: 2007–08
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-dhe-2.asp)

A-44-1. Percentage distribution of full-time faculty, and average total compensation, salary, and fringe benefits in current year dollars for faculty at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by faculty type and level and control of institution: Selected academic years, 1979–80 through 2009–10
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-fas-1.asp)

A-44-2. Percentage distribution of full-time faculty, and average total compensation, salary, and fringe benefits in constant 2009–10 dollars for faculty at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by faculty type and level and control of institution: Selected academic years, 1979–80 through 2009–10
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-fas-2.asp)

A-45-1. Percentage of 16- to 24-year-old college students who were employed, by attendance status, hours worked per week, and institution level and control: Selected years, October 1970 through October 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-csw-1.asp)

A-45-2. Percentage of 16- to 24-year-old college students who were employed, by attendance status, hours worked per week, and selected characteristics: October 2009
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-csw-2.asp)

A-46-1. Percentage of full-time, full-year undergraduates who received loans and grants, and average annual amounts received by recipients, by source of aid, dependency status, income, and institution control and level: Academic year 1999–2000, 2003–04, and 2007–08
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-fgl-1.asp)

A-47-1. Average total price of attendance, grants, net price, and loans for all full-time, full-year, dependent undergraduates attending only one institution, by institution control and level: Academic years 1999–2000, 2003–04, and 2007–08
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-cst-1.asp)

A-47-2. Average net price for all full-time, full-year, dependent undergraduates after grants, by sex, family income, and race/ethnicity: Academic years 1999–2000, 2003–04, and 2007–08
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-cst-2.asp)

A-48-1. Average annual tuition and fees, total price, amount of aid, and net price for all full-time graduate and first-professional students, and percentage of all students attending full time, by level, degree program, and institution control: Academic years 2003–04 and 2007–08
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-gsn-1.asp)

A-48-2. Percentage of full-time graduate and first-professional students with aid and the average annual amount of aid for students receiving each type of aid, by type of aid, level, degree program, and institution control: Academic years 2003–04 and 2007–08
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-gsn-2.asp)

A-48-3. Average annual tuition and fees, aid, and net tuition after grants for part-time graduate students, by level, degree program, and institution control: Academic years 2003–04 and 2007–08
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-gsn-3.asp)

A-49-1. Average tuition and fees, percentage of students with loans, and average loan amounts at degree-granting institutions, by level and control of institution: 2007–08 and 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-tld-1.asp)

A-49-2. Number of students at degree-granting institutions who have entered the repayment phase of student loans, number of students in default, and 2-year student loan cohort default rates, by level and control of institution: Fiscal years 2006–08
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-tld-2.asp)

A-50-1. Total and per-student revenue of public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by source of funds: Selected academic years, 2004–05 through 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rep-1.asp)

A-50-2. Total and per-student revenue of public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit 2- and 4-year degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by source of funds: 2004–05 and 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rep-2.asp)

A-50-3. Total and per-student expenses of public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by purpose: Selected academic years, 2004–05 through 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rep-3.asp)

A-50-4. Total and per-student expenses of public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit 2- and 4-year degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by purpose: 2004–05 and 2008–09
(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/tables/table-rep-4.asp)

Appendix

B

Supplemental Notes

NOTE 1: Commonly Used Variables

Certain common variables, such as parents’ education, race/ethnicity, community type, poverty, and region are used in the various surveys cited in The Condition of Education 2011. The definitions for these variables can vary across surveys and sometimes between different time periods of a single survey. This supplemental note describes how several common variables used in various indicators in this volume are defined in each of the surveys. In addition, this note describes how certain terms are used in these indicators.

Race/Ethnicity

The categories denoting race and ethnicity in The Condition of Education are in accordance with the 1997 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standard classification scheme. The 1997 standards emphasize self-reporting or self-identification as the preferred method for collecting data on race and ethnicity. However, while the federal categories provide a standardized format for purposes of collecting and presenting data on race and ethnicity, the standard was not designed to capture the full complexity of race and ethnicity in the United States.

The 1997 standards do not establish criteria or qualifications (such as blood quantum levels) that are to be used in determining a particular individual’s racial or ethnic classification. They do not specify how an individual should classify himself or herself. In situations where self-reporting is not practicable or feasible, observer identification may be used. For indicator 4, which uses data from the Private School Universe Survey, racial/ethnic classifications are based on school reports of race/ethnicity for aggregate K–12 enrollment. The 1997 standards reflect a change in data collection policy, making it possible for federal agencies to collect information that reflects the increasing diversity of the United States population.

Under the OMB standards, “Hispanic or Latino” is an ethnicity category, not a racial category. Agencies that collect data on race and ethnicity separately must collect data on ethnicity first. Ethnicity is categorized as follows:

• Hispanic or Latino: A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

Race categories presented in The Condition of Education 2011 exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity; thus, the race/ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive.

Racial groupings are as follows:

• American Indian or Alaska Native: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.

• Asian: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, and the Indian subcontinent; this includes, for example, people from Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam.

• Black or African American: A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.

• White: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.

• Two or more races: A person who reported any combination of two or more races and not Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.

In The Condition of Education, the following terms are typically used to represent the above categories: White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Two or more races. Not all categories are shown in all indicators. In some cases, categories are omitted because there are insufficient data in some of the smaller categories or because the data collection design did not distinguish between groups (between Asians and Pacific Islanders, for example). For example, in the Common Core of Data (CCD), the categories Asian and Pacific Islander are combined and “Two or more races” is used by some, not all, respondents. In other cases, omissions occur because only comparable data categories are shown. For example, the category “Two or more races,” which was introduced in the 2000 Census and became a regular category for data collection in the Current Population Survey (CPS) in 2003, is sometimes excluded from indicators that present a historical series of data with constant categories, and it is sometimes included within the category “Other.” For further details on these classifications, see the source documentation of the particular survey and http://www.census.gov/popest/race.html.

In The Condition of Education 2011, the above definitions of race/ethnicity apply to indicators 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39, 43, 45, and 47. Indicators 32 and 34 combine Asians and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders due to insufficient data. These definitions may or may not apply to indicators 23, 26, and 39, which use data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The above definitions are currently being phased into the IPEDS data collection, and will be fully implemented in the 2011–12 data collection. For more information on IPEDS, see supplemental note 3.

Locale

Federal departments and agencies use various classification systems to define community types. Indicators in The Condition of Education use the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) system of locale codes.

The CCD uses the “locale code” system to classify the type of geographic area where a school is physically located. Locale assignments are based on latitude and longitude values developed from reported address information. The assignments include four primary categories—(1) city, (2) suburban, (3) town, and (4) rural—and each primary category includes three subcategories. City and suburban areas are subdivided into small, midsize, and large, while town and rural areas are subdivided into fringe, distant, and remote according to their proximity to urban areas (see exhibit B-1). These 12 categories are based on four geographic concepts defined by the Census Bureau: urbanized areas, urban clusters, core based statistical areas, and principal cities. Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters are densely settled areas defined by collections of Census blocks and block groups, the smallest geographic units for which the Census Bureau determines population. Urban cores with populations of 50,000 or more are classified as Urbanized Areas, while those with populations of less than 50,000 but greater than 2,500 are classified as Urban Clusters. All nonurban territory is classified as Rural. A Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) includes at least one urban core population of 10,000 or more and adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting ties. CBSAs are composed of one or more contiguous counties, and are classified as Metropolitan Statistical Areas if they contain a population core of 50,000 or more. A principal city is an incorporated place or Census-designated place that serves as a primary population and economic center in a CBSA. NCES city locale assignments are based on principal cities of Metropolitan Statistical Areas. For more information about urban areas, see http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html. For more information about Core Based Statistical Areas, see http://www.census.gov/population/www/metroareas/metroarea.html.

Assignments of locale codes to local education agencies (LEAs) are based on enrolled-weighted locale assignments of the schools operated by the LEA. If a majority of students in the LEA attend schools located in a single locale, the LEA is assigned to that locale. Most LEAs in the CCD are assigned based on a majority locale. If a majority of students in an LEA do not attend schools within a single locale, the LEA is reevaluated to see if a majority of its students are located in one of the four primary categories (city, suburban, town, and rural). If so, then the LEA is assigned to the largest subcategory within that primary category. If the LEA does not have a majority of its students in a specific locale or within a primary category, then the LEA is assigned the locale that accounts for a plurality of its students. In cases where an LEA does not enroll students or does not report student enrollment to the CCD, the LEA is assigned a locale based on its reported address location.

Although geographic locale assignments are included in the CCD and other NCES surveys, data products and publications often consolidate the full set of locales and present data only for the four primary categories. The CCD adopted the 12-category locale framework in 2006. Prior to that, the CCD relied on an eight-category framework that classified areas primarily on the basis of metropolitan area boundaries.

In The Condition of Education 2011, urban-centric locale codes are used in indicators 3, 4, 27, 28, 32, and 34.

Poverty

Data on household income and the number of people living in the household are combined with estimates of the poverty threshold, published by the Census Bureau, to determine the poverty status of children (or adults). The thresholds used to determine poverty status for an individual differ for each survey year. The weighted average poverty thresholds for various household sizes for 1990, 1995, and 2000 through 2009 are shown in exhibit B-2. (For thresholds for other years, see http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html.)

In indicator 6, children in families whose incomes are below the poverty threshold are classified as poor, those in families with incomes at 100–199 percent of the poverty threshold are classified as near-poor, and those in families with incomes at 200 percent or more of the poverty threshold are classified as nonpoor.

In indicator 29, poverty status is based on Census Bureau guidelines for the year that corresponds with the year of the estimate. Poverty status for the 9-month estimates reflects poverty status at the time of the 9-month data collection, poverty status for the 2-year estimates reflects poverty status at the time of the 2-year collection, and poverty status for the preschool estimates reflects poverty status at the time of the preschool year collection. Census Bureau guidelines identify a dollar amount that would allow a household to meet its needs, given its size and composition. For example, in 2002, a family of four was considered to live below the poverty threshold if its income was less than or equal to $18,392. Children in families whose incomes were below the poverty threshold were classified as being in poverty.

Eligibility or approval for the National School Lunch Program also serves as a measure of poverty status. The National School Lunch Program is a federally assisted meal program operated in public and private nonprofit schools and residential child care centers. Unlike the poverty thresholds discussed above, which rely on dollar amounts determined by the Census Bureau, eligibility for the National School Lunch Program relies on the federal income poverty guidelines of the Department of Health and Human Services. To be eligible for free lunch, a student must be from a household with an income at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty guideline; to be eligible for reduced-price lunch, a student must be from a household with an income between 130 percent and 185 percent of the federal poverty guideline. Title I basic program funding relies on free lunch eligibility numbers as one (of four) possible poverty measures for levels of Title I federal funding.

In The Condition of Education 2011, eligibility for the National School Lunch Program applies to indicators 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 27, and 28; approval for the National School Lunch Program applies to indicators 32 and 34.

Geographic Region

The regional classification systems in exhibit B-3 represent the four geographical regions of the United States as defined by the Census Bureau of the U.S. Department of Commerce. In The Condition of Education 2011, indicators 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 20, 27, 29, 32, and 34 use this system.

NOTE 2: The Current Population Survey (CPS)

The Current Population Survey (CPS) is a monthly survey of about 60,000 households from the 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is conducted by the Census Bureau, which is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce, for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The survey has been conducted for more than 50 years.

The CPS sample is scientifically selected to represent the civilian, noninstitutional U.S. population. This includes the household population, people living in noninstitutional group quarters, and members of the military living off post or with their families on post. Thus, inmates in correctional institutions and patients in long-term medical or custodial facilities are not included in the sample, nor are military personnel living in barracks. Interviewers ask a knowledgeable adult household member (known as the “household respondent”) to answer all of the month’s questionnaires for all members of the household. Respondents are interviewed to obtain information about the employment status of each member of the household age 15 or older. However, published data focus on those age 16 and over. The sample provides estimates for the nation as a whole, as well as for individual states and other geographic areas.

Estimates obtained from the CPS include employment, unemployment, earnings, hours of work, and other measures. They are available by a variety of demographic characteristics, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, and education attainment. They are also available by occupation, industry, and class of worker (e.g., government, private, self-employed). Supplemental questions to produce estimates on topics such as school enrollment, income, previous work experience, health, employee benefits, and work schedules are often added to the regular CPS questionnaire.

Each year, the Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplement and October supplemental questionnaires contain questions of relevance to education policy. The ASEC Supplement, formerly known as the March CPS Supplement, is a primary source of detailed information on income and work experience in the United States. The October Supplement routinely gathers data on school enrollment, school characteristics, and educational attainment for elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education. Related data are also collected about preschooling and the general adult population. In addition, NCES funds additional items on education-related topics such as language proficiency, disabilities, computer use and access, student mobility, and private school tuition. Responses are collected for all household members age 3 and over.

CPS interviewers initially used printed questionnaires. However, since 1994, the Census Bureau has used Computer-Assisted Personal and Telephone Interviewing (CAPI and CATI) to collect data. These technologies allow interviewers to administer a complex questionnaire with increasing consistency and reductions in interviewer error. In 1994, the survey methodology for CPS was changed, and weights were adjusted. For more information on CPS data collections, please visit http://www.census.gov/apsd/techdoc/cps/cps-main.html.

The following section contains definitions of selected variables that are used in The Condition of Education 2011. Further information on the CPS can be found at http://www.census.gov/cps.

Definitions of Selected Variables

Employment Status

Indicator 18 examines employment status using data from the ASEC Supplement, which contains questions on the employment of adults in the previous week. Respondents can report that they were employed (either full or part time), unemployed (looking for work or on layoff), or not in the labor force (due to being retired, having unpaid employment, or some other reason).

Indicator 45 looks at employment status using data from the October CPS and its supplement, which also contains questions on employment of adults in the previous week. In this indicator, employed persons are persons age 16 or older who, during the reference week, (1) did any work at all (at least 1 hour) as paid employees or (2) were not working but had jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent because of vacation, illness, bad weather, child care problems, maternity or paternity leave, labor-management dispute, job training, or other family or personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off or were seeking other jobs.

Hours Worked per Week

Indicator 45 presents data from the October CPS and its supplement on the number of hours worked per week. This estimate is the number of hours a respondent worked in all jobs in the week prior to the survey interview. The population for this variable includes any employed person who also worked in the week prior to the survey interview. The sum of the categories may not equal the total percentage employed because those who were employed but did not work in the previous week were excluded.

Family Income

Indicator 21 uses data on family income, collected as part of the October CPS, to measure a student’s economic standing. The October CPS determines family income from a single question asked of the household respondent. Family income includes all monetary income from all sources (including jobs, businesses, interest, rent, and social security payments) over a 12-month period. The income of nonrelatives living in the household is excluded, but the income of all family members age 15 or older (age 14 or older in years prior to 1989), including those temporarily living outside of the household, is included.

In indicator 21, family income of a recent high school graduate is defined as the income of the household where the graduate has membership. A household is defined as the group of individuals whose usual place of residence at the time of the interview is the sample unit. The following considerations guide the determination of household members:

• Persons staying in the sample housing unit at the time of the interview: Persons for whom the household is their usual place of residence are included in the household membership. Persons who are living in the household temporarily (such as students) and who have living quarters held elsewhere are not considered part of the household unless they are living with their spouse or children.

• Persons who usually live in the sample housing unit and are absent at the time of the interview: Individuals who are temporarily absent and who have no other usual place of residence are classified as household members even if they are not present in the household during the survey week. If such persons are away temporarily attending school, they are considered part of the household unless they are living with their spouse or children.

Families in the bottom 20 percent of all family incomes are classified as low income; families in the top 20 percent of all family incomes are classified as high income; and families in the 60 percent between these two categories are classified as middle income. Exhibit B-4 shows the current dollar amount of the breakpoints between low and middle income and between middle and high income that are used in indicator 21. For example, the income for low-income families in 2009 ranged from $0 to $18,000; for middle-income families, from $18,100 to $86,700; and for high-income families, from $86,800 and higher.

Median Earnings

Indicator 17 uses data on earnings that are collected as part of the March CPS. The March CPS collects information on earnings from individuals who were full-year workers (individuals who were employed 50 or more weeks in the previous year) and full-time workers (those who were usually employed 35 or more hours per week). Earnings include all wage and salary income. Unlike mean earnings, median earnings either do not change or change very little in response to extreme observations.

Race/Ethnicity

Over time, the CPS has had different response options for race/ethnicity. From 1972 through 1988, the response options were limited to White, Black, Hispanic, and Other. From 1989 through 1995, the response options were White, Black, American Indian/Aleut Eskimo, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Other. In 1996, Census revised procedures for editing and allocating the race variable to offset an underestimation of data on American Indians and Asians/Pacific Islanders. One should use caution when making comparisons between data from 1995 and earlier and data from 1996 and later. From 1996 through 2002, the response options were White, Black, American Indian/Aleut Eskimo, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic. Since 2003, the response options have been White, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic, and respondents have been allowed to select two or more race categories. In The Condition of Education 2011, persons of Hispanic ethnicity are classified as Hispanic regardless of their race response(s). Thus, the race/ethnicity categories are mutually exclusive.

Indicators 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, and 45 present data by race/ethnicity using CPS data. For more information on race/ethnicity, see supplemental note 1.

Enrolled in School

Indicators 1, 5, 21, and 45 use data from the October CPS and information from its supplemental questionnaire on enrollment in school.

Status Dropout Rate

Indicator 20 reports status dropout rates using data from the October CPS. The status dropout rate is one of a number of rates that are used to report high school dropout and completion behavior in the United States. Status dropout rates measure the percentage of individuals within a given age range who are not enrolled in high school and lack a high school credential, irrespective of when they dropped out. Status dropout rates are distinct from event dropout rates, which measure the proportion of students who drop out of high school in a given year; event dropout rates have been reported in a previous volume of The Condition of Education (NCES 2004-077, indicator 16) and are featured in the annual report Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States (see, for example, NCES 2011-012). For more information on measures of student persistence and progress featured in The Condition of Education 2011, see supplemental note 6.

The status dropout rate is the percentage of civilian, noninstitutionalized young people ages 16 through 24 who are not in high school and have not earned a high school credential (either a diploma or equivalency credential such as a General Educational Development [GED] certificate). The numerator of the status dropout rate for a given year is the number of individuals ages 16 through 24 who, as of October of that year, had not completed high school and were not currently enrolled in school. The denominator is the total number of individuals ages 16 through 24 who were in the United States in October of that year. Status dropout rates count as dropouts individuals who never attended school and immigrants who did not complete the equivalent of a high school education in their home country. The inclusion of these individuals is appropriate because the status dropout rate is designed to report the percentage of youth and young adults in the United States who lack what is now considered a basic level of education. However, the status dropout rate should not be used as a measure of the performance of U.S. schools because it counts as dropouts individuals who may have never attended a U.S. school.

The CPS October Supplement items used to identify status dropouts include (1) “Is...attending or enrolled in regular school?” and (2) “What is the highest level of school...completed or the highest degree...received?” (See the Educational Attainment section below for details on how the second question changed between 1972 and 1992.) Beginning in 1986, the Census Bureau instituted new editing procedures for cases with missing data on school enrollment, (i.e., missing data relating to the first October Supplement item cited above). These changes were made in an effort to improve data quality. The effect of the editing changes was evaluated by applying both the earlier and revised editing procedures to the 1986 data. The changes resulted in an increase in the number of students enrolled in school and a slightly lowered status dropout rate (12.2 percent based on the earlier procedures and 12.1 percent based on the revised ones). The difference in the two rates is not statistically significant. While the change in the procedures occurred in 1986, the revised procedures are reflected in indicator 20 beginning with 1987 data.

Educational Attainment

Data from CPS questions on educational attainment are used in indicators 17, 21, and 24. From 1972 to 1991, two CPS questions provided data on the number of years of school completed: (1) “What is the highest grade or year of regular school...has ever attended?” and (2) “Did...complete that grade (year)?” An individual’s educational attainment was considered to be his or her last fully completed year of school. Individuals who completed 12 years of schooling were deemed to be high school graduates, as were those who began but did not complete the first year of college. Respondents who completed 16 or more years of schooling were counted as college graduates.

Beginning in 1992, the CPS combined the two questions into the following question: “What is the highest level of school... completed or the highest degree...received?” This change means that some data collected before 1992 are not strictly comparable with data collected from 1992 onward, and that care must be taken when making comparisons across years. The revised question changed the response categories from “highest grade completed” to “highest level of schooling or degree completed.” In the revised response categories, several of the lower grade levels are combined into a single summary category such as “1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th grades.” Several categories are added, including “12th grade, no diploma”; “High school graduate, high school diploma, or the equivalent”; and “Some college but no degree.” College degrees are now listed by level, allowing for a more precise description of educational attainment. The revised question emphasizes credentials received rather than the last grade level attended or completed. The new categories include the following:

• High school graduate, high school diploma, or the equivalent (e.g., GED)

• Some college but no degree

• Associate's degree in college, occupational/vocational program

• Associate’s degree in college, academic program

• Bachelor’s degree (e.g., B.A., A.B., B.S.)

• Master’s degree (e.g., M.A., M.S., M.Eng., M.Ed., M.S.W., M.B.A.)

• Professional school degree (e.g., M.D., D.D.S., D.V.M., LL.B., J.D.)

• Doctorate degree (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D.)

High School Completion

The pre-1988 questions about educational attainment did not specifically consider high school equivalency certificates (i.e., GEDs). Consequently, an individual who attended 10th grade, dropped out without completing that grade, and subsequently received a high school equivalency credential would not have been counted as completing high school. The revised question allows for these individuals to be counted as high school completers. Since 1988, an additional question has also asked respondents if they have a high school diploma or the equivalent, such as a GED. People who respond “yes” are classified as high school completers. Before 1988, the number of individuals who earned a high school equivalency certificate was small compared to the number of high school graduates, so the subsequent increase caused by including equivalency certificate recipients in the total number of people counted as “high school completers” was small in the years immediately after the change was made.

Before 1992, the CPS considered individuals who completed 12th grade to be high school graduates. A revision in 1992 added the response category “12th grade, no diploma.” Individuals who select this response are not counted as graduates. Historically, the number of individuals in this category has been small.

Some College

Based on the question used in 1992 and in subsequent surveys, the response for an individual who attended college for less than a full academic year would be “some college but no degree.” Before 1992, the appropriate response would have been “attended first year of college and did not complete it,” thereby excluding those individuals with 1–3 years of college from the calculation of the percentage of the population. With the revised question, such respondents are placed in the “some college but no degree” category. Thus, the percentage of individuals with some college might be larger than the percentage with 1–3 years of college, because “some college” includes those who have not completed an entire year of college, but “1–3 years of college” does not. Therefore, it is not appropriate to make comparisons between the percentage of those with “some college but no degree” (using the post-1991 question) and the percentage of those who completed “1–3 years of college” (using the two pre-1992 questions).

In The Condition of Education, the “some college” category for years preceding 1992 includes only the response “1–3 years of college.” After 1991, the “some college” category included those who responded “some college but no degree”; “associate’s degree in college, occupational/ vocational program”; and “associate’s degree in college, academic program.” The effect of this change to the “some college” category is indicated by the fact that in 1992, some 48.9 percent of 25- to 29-year-olds reported completing some college or more, compared with 45.3 percent in 1991 (see indicator 25, table 25-2, in NCES 2008-031). The 3.6 percentage point difference is statistically significant. Some of the increase between 1991 and 1992 may be the result of individuals who completed less than 1 year of postsecondary education responding differently to the “some college” category; that is, they included themselves in the category in 1992 but did not include themselves in the category in 1991.

Another potential difference in the “some college” category is how individuals who have completed a certificate or type of award other than a degree respond to the questions, introduced in 1992, about their educational attainment. Some may answer “some college, no degree”; others may indicate only high school completion; and still others may equate their certificate with one of the types of associate’s degrees. No information is available on the tendencies of individuals with a postsecondary credential other than a bachelor’s or higher degree to respond to the new attainment question introduced in 1992.

College Completion

Some students attend college for 4 or more years without earning a bachelor’s degree, so some researchers are concerned that the college completion rate, based on the pre-1992 category “4th year or higher of college completed,” overstates the number of respondents with a bachelor’s degree (or higher). In fact, however, the completion rates among those ages 25–29 in 1992 and 1993 were similar to the completion rates for 1990 and 1991, before the change in the question’s wording. Thus, there appears to be good reason to conclude that the change has not affected the completion rates reported in The Condition of Education 2011.

NOTE 3: Other Surveys

American Community Survey (ACS)

The Census Bureau introduced the American Community Survey (ACS) in 1996. Fully implemented in 2005, it provides a large monthly sample of demographic, socioeconomic, and housing data comparable in content to the Long Form of the Decennial Census. Aggregated over time, these data will serve as a replacement for the Long Form of the Decennial Census. The survey includes questions mandated by federal law, federal regulations, and court decisions.

Since 2005, the survey has been mailed to approximately 250,000 addresses in the United States and Puerto Rico each month, or about 2.5 percent of the population annually. A larger proportion of addresses in small governmental units (e.g., American Indian reservations, small counties, and towns) also receive the survey. The monthly sample size is designed to approximate the ratio used in the 2000 Census, which requires more intensive distribution in these areas. The ACS covers the U.S. resident population, which includes the entire civilian, noninstitutionalized population; incarcerated persons; institutionalized persons; and the active duty military who are in the United States. In 2006, the ACS began interviewing residents in group quarter facilities. Institutionalized group quarters include adult and juvenile correctional facilities, nursing facilities, and other health care facilities. Noninstitutionalized group quarters include college and university housing, military barracks, and other noninstitutional facilities such as workers and religious group quarters and temporary shelters for the homeless.

National-level data from the ACS are available from 2000 onward. Annual results were available for areas with populations of 65,000 or more beginning in the summer of 2006; for areas with populations of 20,000 or more in the summer of 2008; and for all areas—down to the census tract level. This schedule is based on the time it will take to collect data from a sample size large enough to produce accurate results for different size geographic units.

Indicators 1, 5, 6, 20, and 29 use data from the ACS. Indicator 20 examines the status dropout rate by looking at an ACS question in which respondents were asked whether they had attended school or college at any time in the last 3 months and what degree or level of school was the highest they had completed. The status dropout rate is the percentage of 16- through 24-year-olds surveyed by the ACS who are not enrolled in high school and have not earned a high school credential (either a diploma or equivalency credential such as a General Educational Development [GED] certificate). For more information on the status dropout rate, see supplemental note 6. For further details on the ACS, see http://www.census.gov/acs/www/.

Common Core of Data (CCD)

The Common Core of Data (CCD), a program of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), is the Department of Education’s primary statistical database on public elementary and secondary education in the United States. It is a comprehensive, annual, national database of information concerning all public elementary and secondary schools (approximately 101,000) and school districts (approximately 18,000). The database contains data that are designed to be comparable across all states. The CCD consists of five surveys that state education departments complete annually from their administrative records. The database includes a general description of schools and school districts; data on students and staff, including demographics; and fiscal data, including revenues and current expenditures.

Indicators 2, 3, 4, 7, 19, 27, 28, 35, 36, and 37 use data from the CCD. Further information about the database is available at http://www.nces.ed.gov/ccd/.

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) is the core program that NCES uses for collecting data on postsecondary education. IPEDS is a single, comprehensive system that encompasses all identified institutions whose primary purpose is to provide postsecondary education. Before IPEDS, some of the same information was collected through the Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS). Indicators 8 and 9 use data from HEGIS.

IPEDS consists of institution-level data that can be used to describe trends in postsecondary education at the institution, state, and/or national levels. For example, researchers can use IPEDS to analyze information on (1) enrollments of undergraduates, first-time freshmen, and graduate and first-professional students by race/ethnicity and sex; (2) institutional revenue and expenditure patterns by source of income and type of expense; (3) completions (awards) by level of program, level of award, race/ethnicity, and sex; (4) characteristics of postsecondary institutions, including tuition, room and board charges, and calendar systems; (5) status of career and technical education programs; and (6) other issues of interest.

Participation in IPEDS was a requirement for more than 6,900 institutions that participated in Title IV federal student financial aid programs, such as Pell Grants or Stafford Loans, during the corresponding academic years. Title IV institutions include traditional colleges and universities, 2-year institutions, and for-profit degree- and non-degree-granting institutions (such as schools of cosmetology), among others. These categories are further disaggregated by financial control (public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit), resulting in nine institutional categories or sectors. Institutions that do not participate in Title IV programs may participate in the IPEDS data collection on a voluntary basis.

The structure of the IPEDS collection of data on degrees conferred changed beginning with the 2007–08 academic year. Prior to 2007–08, colleges reported the number of first-professional degrees separate from the number of doctoral degrees. In addition, doctoral degrees were reported as a single category. In the 2008–09 academic year, institutions were required (optional in the 2007–08 academic year) to discontinue reporting first-professional degrees as a separate category and to integrate them into the master’s and doctoral degrees categories; additionally, required in the 2008–09 academic year, the doctoral degrees could be reported in three different classifications: “professional practice,” “research/scholarship,” and “other.” In order to present consistent national data over time, the data for the institutions reporting in the new structure were cross-walked to the old structure. The master’s and doctoral degrees awarded in fields of study classified in the Classification of Instruction Programs (CIP) as “formerly considered first-professional” were reclassified as first-professional degree awards. Therefore, data presented in The Condition of Education on completed degrees from 2007–08 onward may not match reported totals within other publications. The specific fields and CIP programs cross-walked in this manner were the following:

51.0401 Dentistry (D.D.S. or D.M.D.)

51.1201 Medicine (M.D.)

51.1701 Optometry (O.D.)

51.1901 Osteopathic medicine (D.O.)

51.2001 Pharmacy (Pharm.D.)

51.2101 Podiatry (Pod.D. or D.P.) or podiatric medicine (D.P.M.)

51.2401 Veterinary medicine (D.V.M.)

51.0101 Chiropractic (D.C. or D.C.M.)

22.0101 Law (LL.B. or J.D.)

39.0602 Theology (M. Div., M.H.L., B.D., or Ord. and M.H.L./Rav.).

Indicators 8, 9, 22, 23, 26, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 49, and 50 use data from IPEDS. The institutional categories used in these indicators are described in supplemental note 8. Further information about IPEDS is available at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/.

Federal Student Aid Cohort Default Rate Database

The U.S Department of Education releases official cohort default rates once per year. The FY 2008 official cohort default rates, the most recent cohort default rates available, were delivered to both domestic and foreign schools on September 13, 2010.

For schools having 30 or more borrowers entering repayment in a fiscal year, the school’s cohort default rate is the percentage of a school’s borrowers who enter repayment on certain Federal Family Education Loans (FFELs) and/or William D. Ford Federal Direct Loans (Direct Loans) during that fiscal year and default (or meet the other specified condition) within the cohort default period. For schools with 29 or fewer borrowers entering repayment during a fiscal year, the cohort default rate is an “average rate” based on borrowers entering repayment over a 3-year period.

The phrase “cohort default period” refers to the 2-year period that begins on October 1 of the fiscal year when the borrower enters repayment and ends on September 30 of the following fiscal year. This is the period during which a borrower’s default affects the school’s cohort default rate.

Cohort default rates are based on federal fiscal years. Federal fiscal years begin October 1 of a calendar year and end on September 30 of the following calendar year. Each federal fiscal year refers to the calendar year in which it ends.

The phrase “cohort fiscal year” refers to the fiscal year for which the cohort default rate is calculated. For example, when calculating the 2008 cohort default rate, the cohort fiscal year is FY 2008 (October 1, 2007, to September 30, 2008).

A Federal Stafford Loan or Direct Stafford/Ford Loan enters repayment under the requirements applicable to the type of loan. In most cases, they enter repayment after a 6-month grace period that begins when the borrower separates (graduates or withdraws) from school or drops below half-time enrollment. The official repayment date is the first day following the end of the 6-month grace period. Use of this date is dependent on the school providing timely notification of any change in a student’s enrollment status to the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) or the data manager. If the school does not provide timely notification, the data manager will use the best information available to determine the repayment date. This date will be used for purposes of calculating the school’s cohort default rate. A Federal Supplemental Loan to Students (SLS) loan enters repayment on the day after the borrower separates from school or drops below half-time enrollment, unless the borrower also has a Federal Stafford Loan that was obtained during the same period of continuous enrollment. In that event, the repayment date of the Federal SLS loan for cohort default rate purposes is the same as the repayment date for the Federal Stafford Loan; generally, this is the first day following the end of the 6-month grace period.

For cohort default rate purposes, a Direct Loan is considered to be in default after 360 days of delinquency (or after 270 days if the borrower’s first day of delinquency was before October 7, 1998). If the default date falls within the cohort default period, the borrower will be included in both the denominator and the numerator of the cohort default rate calculation.

Indicator 49 uses data from the Federal Student Aid Cohort Default Rate database.

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS)

The National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) is based on a nationally representative sample of all students in postsecondary education institutions, which comprises undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional students. Each NPSAS survey provides information on the cost of postsecondary education, the distribution of financial aid, and the characteristics of both aided and nonaided students and their families.

For NPSAS:2000, information on approximately 50,000 undergraduate, 11,000 graduate, and 1,000 first-professional students was obtained from more than 900 postsecondary institutions. They represented the nearly 17 million undergraduates, 2.4 million graduate students, and 300,000 first-professional students who were enrolled at some time between July 1, 1999, and June 30, 2000. Weights for NPSAS:2000 were revised to be comparable with financial aid data from NPSAS:2004 and NPSAS:2008. The revised NPSAS:2000 weights produce estimates that differ from the estimates reported in The Condition of Education 2010. Using the revised weights has the largest effect on the estimates of average Stafford Loan amounts, and therefore on the averages of all composite financial aid variables that include Stafford loans, such as total loans, total aid, and cumulative loans. The revised weights result in some changes in the estimates for nearly all variables in NPSAS:2000, although there were only minor changes in average grant amounts.

For NPSAS:04, information on approximately 80,000 undergraduates and 11,000 graduate or first-professional students was obtained from about 1,400 postsecondary institutions. These students represented nearly the 19 million undergraduate students, 3 million graduate students, and 300,000 first-professional students who were enrolled at some time between July 1, 2003, and June 30, 2004.

For NPSAS:08, information on approximately 114,000 undergraduate students and 14,000 graduate or first-professional students was obtained from about 1,600 postsecondary institutions. These students represented the nearly 21 million undergraduate students and 3 million graduate students who were enrolled at some time between July 1, 2007, and June 30, 2008.

NPSAS represents all undergraduate students enrolled in postsecondary institutions in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico who were eligible to participate in the federal financial aid programs in Title IV of the Higher Education Act. The survey focuses on how they and their families pay for postsecondary education and includes information on general demographics and other characteristics of these students, types of aid and amounts received, and the cost of attending college. Students attending all controls and levels of institutions are represented, including private (both not-for-profit and for-profit) and public 4-year colleges and universities, 2-year institutions, and less-than-2-year institutions.

To be eligible for inclusion in the institutional sample, an institution must satisfy the following conditions: (1) offer an education program designed for persons who have completed secondary education; (2) offer an academic, occupational, or vocational program of study lasting 3 months or longer; (3) offer access to the general public; (4) offer more than just correspondence courses; (5) be located in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and (6) be other than a U.S. Service Academy.

Part-time and full-time students who are enrolled in academic or vocational courses or programs at these institutions and who are not concurrently enrolled in a high school completion program or who are not enrolled solely for the purpose of completing a GED or other high school completion program are eligible for inclusion in NPSAS. The first NPSAS, conducted in 1986–87, sampled students enrolled in fall 1986. Since the 1989–90 NPSAS, students who enrolled at any time during the year have been eligible for inclusion in the survey. This design change provides the opportunity to collect the data necessary for estimating full-year financial aid awards. Unless otherwise specified, all estimates in The Condition of Education using data from NPSAS include students in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Indicator 43 reports data by dependency status. For federal financial aid purposes, all students are considered to be dependent unless they meet one of the following criteria for independence: age 24 or older; enrolled in a graduate or professional program beyond a bachelor’s degree; married; orphan or ward of the court; have legal dependents other than a spouse; or on active duty or a veteran of the U.S. armed forces.

Indicators 22, 43, 46, 47, and 48 use data from NPSAS. Further information about the survey is available at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/npsas/.

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is the nation’s primary source of information on criminal victimization. Initiated in 1972 and redesigned in 1992, the NCVS annually collects detailed information on the frequency and nature of the crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, theft, household burglary, and motor vehicle theft experienced by Americans and their households each year. The survey measures crimes reported to police as well as those not reported. The NCVS sample consists of about 50,000 households. U.S. Census Bureau personnel interview all household members age 12 or older within each sampled household to determine whether they had been victimized by the measured crimes during the 6 months preceding the interview. Households remain in the sample for 3 years and are interviewed seven times at 6-month intervals. The ﬁrst of these seven household interviews is used only to bind future interviews by establishing a time frame in order to avoid duplication of crimes reported in the six subsequent interviews. After their seventh interview, households are replaced by a new sample of households. Data are obtained on the frequency, characteristics, and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States. The survey enables the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to estimate the likelihood of victimization for the population as a whole, as well as for segments of the population such as women, the elderly, members of various racial groups, city dwellers, or other groups. The NCVS provides the largest national forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and the characteristics of violent offenders.

Indicator 30 uses data from NCVS. Further information about the survey is available at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245#Methodology.

Private School Universe Survey (PSS)

The Private School Universe Survey (PSS) was established in 1988 to ensure that private school data would be collected on a regular basis. With the help of the Census Bureau, the PSS is conducted biennially to provide the total number of private schools, students, and teachers, and to build a universe of private schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia that can serve as a sampling frame of private schools for NCES sample surveys.

The PSS groups elementary and secondary schools according to one of seven program emphases:

• Regular: The PSS questionnaire does not provide a definition of this term. Regular schools do not specialize in special, vocational/technical, early childhood, or alternative education and do not have a Montessori or special program emphasis, although they may offer these programs in addition to the regular curriculum.

• Montessori: The PSS questionnaire does not provide a definition of this term. Montessori schools provide instruction using Montessori teaching methods.

• Special program emphasis: A science/mathematics school, a performing arts high school, a foreign language immersion school, and a talented/gifted school are examples of schools that offer a special program emphasis.

• Special education: Special education schools primarily serve students with disabilities.

• Vocational: Vocational schools primarily serve students who are being trained for occupations. For indicator 4, vocational schools are included with special program emphasis schools.

• Alternative: Alternative schools provide nontraditional education. They fall outside the categories of regular, Montessori, special education, early childhood, and vocational education.

• Early childhood: Early childhood program schools serve students in prekindergarten, kindergarten, transitional (or readiness) kindergarten, and/or transitional first (or prefirst) grade.

Private schools are assigned to one of three major categories (Catholic, other religious, or nonsectarian) and, within each major category, one of three subcategories based on the school’s religious affiliation provided by respondents.

• Catholic: Catholic schools are categorized according to governance, provided by Catholic school respondents, into parochial, diocesan, and private schools.

• Other religious: Other religious schools have a religious orientation or purpose, but are not Roman Catholic. Other religious schools are categorized according to religious association membership, provided by respondents into conservative Christian, other affiliated, and unaffiliated schools. Conservative Christian schools are those “Other religious” schools with membership in at least one of four associations: Accelerated Christian Education, American Association of Christian Schools, Association of Christian Schools International, or Oral Roberts University Education Fellowship. Affiliated schools are those “Other religious” schools not classified as Conservative Christian with membership in at least 1 of 11 associations—Association of Christian Teachers and Schools, Christian Schools International, Evangelical Lutheran Education Association, Friends Council on Education, General Conference of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Islamic School League of America, National Association of Episcopal Schools, National Christian School Association, National Society for Hebrew Day Schools, Solomon Schechter Day Schools, and Southern Baptist Association of Christian Schools—or indicating membership in “other religious school associations.” Unaffiliated schools are those “Other religious” schools that have a religious orientation or purpose, but are not classified as Conservative Christian or affiliated.

• Nonsectarian: Nonsectarian schools do not have a religious orientation or purpose and are categorized according to program emphasis, provided by respondents, into regular, special emphasis, and special education schools. Regular schools are those that have a regular elementary/secondary or early childhood program emphasis. Special emphasis schools are those that have a Montessori, vocation/technical, alternative, or special program emphasis. Special education schools are those that have a special education program emphasis.

In the most recent PSS data collection, conducted in 2009–10, the survey was sent to 40,302 institutions, with a weighted response rate of 93.6 percent.

Indicator 4 uses data from the PSS. Further information on the survey is available at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/.

Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)

The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) is a large sample survey of America’s elementary and secondary schools. First conducted in 1987–88, SASS periodically surveys and collects data on the following:

• public schools (collecting data on school districts, schools, principals, teachers, and library media centers);

• private schools (collecting data on schools, principals, and teachers [and library media centers for survey years prior to 2003–04]);

• Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) funded schools (collecting data on schools, principals, teachers, and library media centers); and public charter schools (collecting data on schools, principals, teachers, and library media centers).

Responses from each component can be linked together to provide a comprehensive perspective on the context of elementary and secondary education in the United States. To ensure that the samples contain sufficient numbers for estimates, SASS uses a stratified probability sample design. Public and private schools are oversampled into groups based on certain characteristics. After the schools are stratified and sampled, the teachers within the schools are stratified and sampled based on their characteristics. In 1999–2000, public charter schools became a new school sector for SASS, and questionnaires were sent to charter schools, principals, and teachers. Since the 2003–04 SASS, public charter schools have been sampled as part of the public school questionnaire.

Indicators 31 and 33 use data from SASS. The most recent SASS data collection was conducted in 2007–08. Further information about the survey is available at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/SASS/.

The Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS)

The Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) is a component of SASS that is designed to determine how many teachers remained at the same school, moved to another school, or left the profession in the year following the SASS administration. It has been administered the year following each SASS administration since school year 1988–89. The 2008–09 TFS was administered to a subsample of SASS teachers who completed the SASS in 2007–08. Information was collected by web and paper instruments between February and August 2009.

Within TFS, there are questionnaires for teachers who left teaching since the previous SASS and another for those who are currently teaching either in the same school as the prior year or in a different school. The topics for the Current Teacher questionnaire include teaching status and assignments, ratings of various aspects of teaching, information on decisions to change schools, and ratings of various strategies for retaining more teachers. The topics for the Former Teacher questionnaire include employment status, ratings of various aspects of teaching and their current jobs, and information on decisions to leave teaching.

Indicator 32 uses data from the TFS. Further information about the survey is available at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/ovrv_whatstfs.asp.

The Principal Follow-up Survey (PFS)

The Principal Follow-up Survey (PFS), first conducted in school year 2008–09, is a component of the 2007–08 SASS. The goal of the PFS was to assess how many principals from school year 2007–08 still worked as a principal in the same school in the 2008–09 school year, how many had moved to become a principal in another school, and how many had left the principalship altogether. Another goal was to measure the percentage of principals who left to retire or seek work in another occupational field. All public, private, and BIE school principals who replied to a 2007–08 SASS principal questionnaire were included in the PFS sample. Information was collected primarily by mail, with telephone follow-up for nonrespondents from March to June 2009.

Indicator 34 uses data from the PFS. Further information about the survey is available at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/ovrv_pfs.asp.

NOTE 4: National Assessment of Educational Progress

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), governed by the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), is administered regularly in a number of academic subjects. Since its creation in 1969, NAEP has had two major goals: (1) to assess student performance reflecting current educational and assessment practices, and (2) to measure change in student performance reliably over time. To address these goals, NAEP conducts a main assessment and a long-term trend assessment. The two assessments are administered to separate samples of students at separate times, use separate instruments, and measure different educational content. Thus, results from the two assessments should not be directly compared.

Main NAEP

Indicators 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are based on the main NAEP. Begun in 1990, the main NAEP, following the assessment framework developed by NAGB, periodically assesses students’ performance in several subjects in grades 4, 8, and 12. NAGB develops the frameworks using standards developed within the field; this is a consensus process involving educators, subject-matter experts, and other interested citizens. Each round of the main NAEP includes a student assessment and background questionnaires (for the student, teacher, and school) to provide information on instructional experiences and the school environment at each grade. While NAEP assessments are not intended to reveal underlying causes for student performance, the results can be viewed in tandem with the changing composition of enrollment and trends in education policy, practice, and expectations for America’s youth.

Through 1988, NAEP reported only on the academic achievement of the nation as a whole and subgroups within the population. Because the national samples were not designed to support the reporting of accurate and representative state-level results, Congress passed legislation in 1988 authorizing a voluntary Trial State Assessment (TSA). Separate representative samples of students were selected from each state or jurisdiction that agreed to participate in state NAEP. TSAs were conducted in 1990, 1992, and 1994 and were evaluated thoroughly. Beginning with the 1996 assessment, the authorizing statute no longer considered the state component to be a “trial” assessment.

A significant change to state NAEP occurred in 2001 with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also referred to as the “No Child Left Behind” legislation. This legislation requires states that receive Title I funding to participate every 2 years in state NAEP in reading and mathematics at grades 4 and 8. State participation in other state NAEP subjects, including science and writing, remains voluntary.

The assessments given in the states are exactly the same as those given nationally. The assessments follow the subject area frameworks developed by NAGB and use the latest advances in assessment methodology. State NAEP assessed students at grades 4 and 8 in 2009, and 11 states participated in a pilot-state NAEP reading and mathematics assessment at grade 12. The assessments allow states to monitor their own progress over time in the selected subject areas. They can then compare the knowledge and skills of their students with students in other states and with students across the country.

The ability of the assessments to measure change in student performance over time is sometimes limited by changes in the NAEP framework. While shorter-term trends can be measured in most of the NAEP subjects, data from different assessments are not always comparable. In cases where the framework of a given assessment changes, linking studies are generally conducted to ensure comparability over time. In 2005, NAGB revised the grade 12 mathematics framework to reflect changes in high school mathematics standards and coursework. As a result, even though many questions are repeated from previous assessments, the 2005 and 2009 mathematics results cannot be directly compared with those from previous years.

NAGB called for the development of a new mathematics framework for the 2005 assessment. The revisions made to the mathematics framework for the 2005 assessment were intended to reflect recent curricular emphases and better assess the specific objectives for students in each grade level. The revised mathematics framework focuses on two dimensions: mathematical content and cognitive demand. By considering these two dimensions for each item in the assessment, the framework ensures that NAEP assesses an appropriate balance of content, as well as a variety of ways of knowing and doing mathematics. For grades 4 and 8, comparisons over time can be made among the assessments prior to and after the implementation of the 2005 framework. In grade 12, with the implementation of the 2005 framework, the assessment included more questions on algebra, data analysis, and probability to reflect changes in high school mathematics standards and coursework. Additionally, the measurement and geometry content areas were merged. Grade 12 results could not be placed on the old NAEP scale and could not be directly compared with previous years as the assessment changed. The reporting scale for grade 12 mathematics was changed from 0–500 to 0–300. For more information regarding the 2005 framework revisions, see http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/ whatmeasure.asp.

In 2009, a new framework was developed for the 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade NAEP reading assessments. The previous framework was first implemented in 1992 and was used for each subsequent assessment from 1994 through 2007. Past NAEP practice has been to start a new trend line when a new framework is introduced.

However, special analyses were conducted in 2009 to determine if the results from the 2009 reading assessment could be compared to results from earlier years despite being based on a new framework. Both a content alignment study and a reading trend or bridge study were conducted to determine if the “new” assessment was comparable to the “old” assessment. Overall, the results of the special analyses suggested that the old and new assessments were similar in terms of their item and scale characteristics and the results they produced for important demographic groups of students. It was determined that the results of the 2009 reading assessment could still be compared to those from earlier assessment years, thereby maintaining the trend lines first established in 1992. For more information regarding the 2009 reading framework revisions, see http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/whatmeasure.asp.

In 2009, a new framework was developed for the 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-grade NAEP science assessment to keep the content current with key developments in science, curriculum standards, assessments, and research. The 2009 framework, therefore, replaces the framework that was used for earlier NAEP science assessments in 1996, 2000, and 2005. Due to the change in framework, the results from the 2009 science assessment are not comparable to those from previous assessment years. The 2009 science framework organizes science content into three broad content areas, physical science, life science, and Earth and space sciences, reflecting the science curriculum students are generally exposed to in grades K–12. For more information regarding the 2009 science framework and the specific content areas, see http://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/science-09.pdf.

The main NAEP results are reported in The Condition of Education in terms of average scale scores and achievement levels. The achievement levels define what students who are performing at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels of achievement should know and be able to do. NAGB establishes new achievement levels whenever a new main NAEP framework is adopted. As provided by law, NCES, upon review of congressionally mandated evaluations of NAEP, has determined that achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis and should be interpreted with caution. NAEP achievement levels have been widely used by national and state officials. The policy definitions of the achievement levels that apply across all grades and subject areas are as follows:

• Basic: This level denotes partial mastery of prerequi-site knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade assessed.

• Proficient: This level represents solid academic performance for each grade assessed. Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, including subject-matter knowledge, application of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills appropriate to the subject matter.

• Advanced: This level signifies superior performance at each grade assessed.

In indicators 10, 12, and 14, the percentage of students at or above Proficient or at or above Basic are reported. The percentage of students at or above Proficient includes students at the Proficient and Advanced achievement levels. Similarly, the percentage of students at or above Basic includes students at the Basic, Proficient, and Advanced achievement levels.

NAEP estimates that are potentially unstable (large standard error compared with the estimate) are not flagged as potentially unreliable. This practice for NAEP estimates is consistent with the current output from the NAEP online data analysis tool. The reader should always consult the appropriate standard errors when interpreting these findings. For additional information on NAEP, including technical aspects of scoring and assessment validity and more specific information on achievement levels, see http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.

Until 1996, the main NAEP assessments excluded certain subgroups of students identified as “special needs students,” that is, students with disabilities and students with limited-English-proficiency. For the 1996 and 2000 mathematics assessments and the 1998 and 2000 reading assessments, the main NAEP included a separate assessment with provisions for accommodating these students (e.g., extended time, small group testing, mathematics questions read aloud, etc.). Thus, for these years, there are results for both the unaccommodated assessment and the accommodated assessment. For the 2002, 2003, and 2005 reading assessments and the 2003 and 2005 mathematics assessments, the main NAEP did not include a separate unaccommodated assessment—only a single accommodated assessment was administered. The switch to a single accommodated assessment instrument was made after it was determined that accommodations in NAEP did not have any significant effect on student scores. Indicators 10, 11, 12, and 13 present NAEP results with and without accommodations.

NOTE 5: International Assessments

Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)

Indicators 15 and 16 are based on data collected as part of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). PISA is sponsored by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental organization of 34 industrialized countries that serves as a forum for member countries to cooperate in research and policy development on social and economic topics of common interest.

PISA seeks to represent the overall yield of learning for 15-year-olds. PISA assumes that by age 15, young people have had a series of learning experiences, both in and out of school, that allow them to perform at particular levels in reading, mathematics, and science. Formal education will have played a major role in student performance, but other factors, such as learning opportunities at home, also play a role. PISA’s results provide an indicator of the overall performance of a country’s educational system, and they also provide information about other factors that influence performance (e.g., hours of instructional time). By assessing students near the end of compulsory schooling in key knowledge and skills, PISA provides information about how well prepared students will be for their future lives as they approach an important transition point for education and work. PISA thus aims to show how well equipped 15-year-olds are for their futures based on what they have learned up to that point.

PISA was first implemented in 2000 and is based on a 3-year cycle. PISA 2009 was the fourth cycle of the assessment. In each PISA cycle the capabilities of 15-year-olds in reading literacy, mathematics literacy, and science literacy are assessed. However, in each assessment year, PISA provides a detailed examination for one of the three subjects (referred to as a major domain) and a basic examination of the other two subjects (referred to as minor domains). The 2000 assessment focused on reading literacy; the 2003 assessment focused on mathematics literacy; the 2006 assessment focused on science literacy; and the 2009 assessment again focused on reading literacy.

In 2009, 65 countries and other education systems participated in PISA, including the 34 OECD countries, 26 non-OECD countries, and 5 other education systems. Other education systems refer to non-national entities, such as Shanghai-China. To implement PISA, each participating country and education system selected a representative sample of 15-year-olds. The PISA 2009 guidelines specified that a minimum of 4,500 students from a minimum of 150 schools was required in each country and education system in order to meet the minimum sample threshold to participate in the assessment. The guidelines also specified that within schools, a sample of 35 students was to be selected in an equal probability sample unless fewer than 35 students age 15 were available (in which case all students were selected). PISA 2009 standards required that students in the sample be 15 years and 3 months to 16 years and 2 months old at the beginning of the testing period.

In the United States, the PISA 2009 assessment was administered from September 21, 2009, to November 19, 2009. A total of 5,233 15-year-old students from 165 participating schools in the United States participated in the assessment.

PISA 2009 was developed by international experts and a consortium of test developers with items submitted and reviewed by representatives of each country for possible bias and relevance to PISA’s goals. The final assessment consisted of 102 reading items, 36 mathematics items, and 52 science items allocated to 13 test booklets. Each booklet was made up of 4 test clusters, and the average number of items per cluster was 15 items for reading, 12 items for mathematics, and 17 items for science. Each student completed a 2-hour paper-and-pencil assessment. During the assessment, all students answered reading items, but only some students, depending on the test booklet which they received, answered mathematics and/or science items. In addition to the cognitive assessment, students received a 30-minute questionnaire designed to give information about their backgrounds, attitudes, and experiences in school. Principals in schools where PISA was administered were also given a 30-minute questionnaire to provide information about their schools. For more detailed information on sampling, administration, response rates, and other technical issues related to PISA data, see http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011004.pdf.

The OECD developed the PISA 2009 Assessment Framework: Key Competencies in Reading, Mathematics, and Science to design the PISA 2009 assessment in a collaborative effort of the PISA Governing Board and an international consortium. The PISA 2009 framework acts as a blueprint for the assessment, outlining what should be assessed.

Reading literacy in PISA 2009 is defined as “understanding, using, reflecting on, and engaging with written texts in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential, and to participate in society.” Reading literacy is built on three “task characteristics”: (1) situation, which distinguishes the range of context or purposes for which reading takes place; (2) text, the range of materials that are read; and (3) aspect, which consists of the mental strategies, approaches or purposes that readers use to negotiate their way into, around, and between texts.

The three reading literacy subscales (access and retrieve, integrate and interpret, and reflect and evaluate) were derived from three aspect categories: (1) access and retrieve, which includes navigating the information space provided to locate and retrieve one or more distinct pieces of information; (2) integrate and interpret, which includes developing an understanding of the coherence of the text and make meaning from something that is not stated; and (3) reflect and evaluate, which includes drawing upon knowledge, ideas, or attitudes beyond the text in order to relate the information provided within the text to one’s own conceptual and experiential frame of reference.

Mathematics literacy in PISA 2009 is defined as “an individual’s capacity to identify and understand the role that mathematics plays in the world, to make well-founded judgments and to use and engage with mathematics in ways that meet the needs of that individual’s life as a constructive, concerned and reflective citizen.”

Science literacy in PISA 2009 is defined as “scientific knowledge and use of that knowledge to identify questions, to acquire new knowledge, to explain scientific phenomena, and to draw evidence based conclusions about science-related issues, understanding of the characteristic features of science as a form of human knowledge and inquiry, awareness of how science and technology shape our material, intellectual, and cultural environments, and willingness to engage in science-related issues, and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen.” Details on the PISA 2009 framework and the reading, science, and mathematics literacy competencies can be found at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/40/44455820.pdf.

The PISA 2000 and 2009 OECD averages used in the analysis of trends in reading literacy scores over time are based on the averages of the 27 OECD countries with comparable data for 2000 and 2009. As a result, the reading literacy OECD average score for PISA 2000 differs from previously published reports and the reading literacy OECD average score for PISA 2009 differs from the OECD average score used for analyses other than trend comparisons. The seven current OECD members not included in the OECD average for trend analysis include the Slovak Republic and Turkey, which joined PISA in 2003; Estonia and Slovenia, which joined PISA in 2006; Luxembourg, which experienced substantial changes in its assessment conditions between 2000 and 2003; and the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, which did not meet the PISA response rate standards in 2000. Though reading literacy scores can be compared for all PISA administrative cycles (2000, 2003, 2006, and 2009), the U.S. averages in 2000 and 2009 are compared with OECD average scores in 2000 and 2009 because reading literacy was the major domain assessed in those years.

The PISA mathematics framework was revised in 2003. Because of changes in the framework, it is not possible to compare mathematics learning outcomes from PISA 2000 with those from PISA 2003, 2006, and 2009. The PISA science framework was revised in 2006. Because of changes in the framework, it is not possible to compare science learning outcomes from PISA 2000 and 2003 with those from PISA 2006 and 2009. Details on the changes to PISA since 2000 can be found at http://www.oecd.org/document/61/0,3746,en_32252351_32235731_46567613_1_1_1_1,00.html.

The PISA 2003 and 2009 OECD averages used in the analysis of trends in mathematics literacy scores over time are based on the 29 OECD countries with comparable data for 2003 and 2009. The five current members not included in the OECD average for trend analysis include Chile, Estonia, Israel, Slovenia, which did not participate in 2003, and the United Kingdom, which did not meet PISA response rate standards for the 2003 assessment.

For science literacy trends, all 34 OECD countries are used.

The OECD excluded the data for Austria from the trend analysis in its report (PISA 2009 Results: Learning Trend—Changes in Student Performance Since 2000 (Volume V), available at http://www.pisa.oecd.org) because of a concern over a data collection issue in 2009; however, after consultation with Austrian officials, NCES kept the Austrian data in the U.S. trend reporting.

For more information on PISA, see http://nces.ed.gov/Surveys/PISA.

NOTE 6: Measures of Student Persistence and Progress

Various measures have been developed to provide information about student persistence and progress in formal elementary and secondary education in the United States. Three measures are presented in this report: the public school averaged freshman graduation rate (indicator 19), the status dropout rate (indicator 20), and the educational attainment of 25- through 29-year-olds (indicator 24). Each of these indicators employs a different analytic method and dataset to document a unique aspect of the complex processes of high school graduation and dropping out of high school. No single data source provides comprehensive information on the graduation and dropout processes on an annual basis, but the three indicators presented here complement one another and draw upon the particular strengths of their respective data. Each indicator has limitations, however, which underscores the importance of having multiple indicators that address the question of student persistence. A brief description of the relevant methodology and data used by each indicator follows.

Public School Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate

The accurate reporting of a high school graduation rate requires student record data on student progression from grade to grade, data on graduation status, and data on students who transfer in and out of a school, district, or state during the high school years, or in other words, cohort data (National Institute of Statistical Sciences (NISS) 2004 Task Force, NCES 2005-105). At the time the on-time graduation rate reporting requirement was enacted in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001, few states had data collection systems adequate to support the calculation of an accurate on-time graduation rate. Recognizing the need for an interim measure to use while individual states develop student record systems, the leadership in the Department of Education asked NCES to evaluate the array of potential graduation indicators. In response NCES issued a two-volume report that examined the existing measures of high school completion and the newly proposed proxy measures. The analysis provided the technical basis for the Department’s selection of an interim graduation rate based on estimating the percentage of an incoming freshman class that graduates 4 years later (NCES 2006-604 and 2006-605). The averaged freshman graduation rate (AFGR) appeared in the NCES analysis as the only measure that consistently figured among the best performing indicators.

Indicator 19 examines the percentage of public high school students who graduate on time by using the AFGR. The AFGR is a measure of the percentage of the incoming freshman class that graduates 4 years later. The AFGR is the number of graduates with a regular diploma divided by the estimated count of incoming freshmen 4 years earlier, as reported through the NCES Common Core of Data (CCD), the survey system based on state education departments’ annual administrative records. (For more information on the CCD, see supplemental note 3.) The estimated count of incoming freshmen is the sum of the number of 8th-graders 5 years earlier, the number of 9th-graders 4 years earlier (when current-year seniors were freshmen), and the number of l0th-graders 3 years earlier, divided by 3. The intent of this averaging is to account for the high rate of grade retention in the freshman year, which adds 9th-grade repeaters from the previous year to the number of students in the incoming freshman class each year. Ungraded students are allocated to individual grades proportional to each state's enrollment in those grades. An advantage of using CCD data to calculate the AFGR is that the data are available on an annual basis by state; however, the demographic details available from the survey are limited.

Status Dropout Rate

Indicator 20 reports status dropout rates by race/ethnicity and nativity status. Status dropout rates measure the extent of the dropout problem for a population. As such, these rates can be used to gauge the need for further education and training within that population. Indicator 20 uses data from the American Community Survey (ACS) and the October Current Population Survey (CPS) to estimate the percentage of the population ages 16 through 24 who are not in high school and have not earned a high school credential (either a diploma or an equivalency credential such as a General Educational Development [GED] certificate), irrespective of when they dropped out. The 2009 ACS allows for more detailed comparisons of status dropout rates by race/ethnicity, nativity, and sex, and, unlike the CPS, includes institutionalized persons, incarcerated persons, and active duty military personnel living in barracks in the United States. The CPS provides several decades of historical trends on status dropouts that are not available from the ACS. The disadvantage of using CPS data to compute status dropout rates for the civilian, noninstitutionalized population is that military personnel and incarcerated or institutionalized persons are excluded. A disadvantage of both the CPS and ACS is that the datasets include as dropouts individuals who never attended U.S. schools, including immigrants who did not complete the equivalent of a high school education in their home country. Estimates of status dropout rates from the ACS and CPS are not directly comparable due to methodological differences, such as differing sampling frames, modes of administration, and question wording. For more information on the CPS, see supplemental note 2, and for more information on the ACS, see supplemental note 3.

Educational Attainment of 25- to 29-Year-Olds

Indicator 24 examines the educational attainment of adults who are just past the age by which most people are traditionally expected to have completed their postsecondary education. This indicator uses March CPS data to estimate the percentage of civilian, noninstitutionalized people ages 25 through 29 who have achieved the following levels of educational attainment: high school diploma or equivalent (including a credential such as a GED), some college, bachelor’s degree, or master’s or other advanced degree. Estimates of educational attainment represent the percentage of adults who completed at least the cited credential. Attainment estimates do not differentiate between those who graduated from public schools, those who graduated from private schools, and those who earned a GED. These estimates also include individuals who never attended high school in the United States but attained a high school diploma or its equivalent in another country. An advantage of using CPS data to compute educational attainment estimates is that estimates can be computed on an annual basis for various demographic subgroups of adults. A disadvantage of using CPS data to compute the educational attainment rate is that these data exclude all military personnel living in barracks and incarcerated or institutionalized persons. For more information on the CPS, see supplemental note 2.

NOTE 7: Student Disabilities

Indicator 7 uses data from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), which collects information on students with disabilities as part of the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). OSEP classifies disabilities in 13 categories. (For more detailed definitions of these categories, see the part B and C data dictionaries at http://www.ideadata.org.)

Prior to October 1994, children and youth with disabilities were served under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as well as under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B. Data reported for years prior to 1994–95 include children ages 0–21 served under Title I. Increases since 1987–88 are due in part to new legislation enacted in fall 1986, which added a mandate for public school special education services for 3- to 5-year-old disabled children.

Disability Categories

Autism

A developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction that adversely affects a child’s educational performance, generally evident before age 3. Other characteristics often associated with autism are engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements, resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences.

Deaf-Blindness

Concomitant hearing and visual impairments, the combination of which causes such severe communication and other developmental and educational needs that the student cannot be accommodated in special education programs solely for children with deafness or children with blindness.

Developmental Delay

This term may apply to children ages 3 through 9 who are experiencing delays in one or more of the following developmental areas: physical, cognitive, communication, social or emotional, or adaptive, and who, therefore, need special education and related services. It is optional for states to adopt and use this term to describe any child within its jurisdiction. A local education agency (LEA) may use the term if its state has adopted it, but it must conform its use of the term to the state’s use of the term.

Emotional Disturbance

A condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects a child’s educational performance:

• An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors.

• An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers.

• Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances.

• A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression.

• A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems.

Emotional disturbance includes schizophrenia. However, the term does not apply to children who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that they have an emotional disturbance.

Hearing Impairment

An impairment in hearing, whether permanent or fluctuating, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance, but that is not included under the traditional definition of deafness.

Although children and youth with deafness are not included in the definition of hearing impairment, they are counted in the hearing impairment category.

Intellectual Disability

Significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period that adversely affects a child’s educational performance.

Multiple Disabilities

Concomitant impairments (such as intellectual disability-blindness, intellectual disability-orthopedic impairment, etc.), the combination of which causes such severe educational needs that the student cannot be accommodated in special education programs solely for one of the impairments. The term does not include deaf-blindness.

Orthopedic Impairment

A severe orthopedic impairment that adversely affects a child’s educational performance. The term includes impairments caused by a 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., cerebral palsy, amputations, and fractures or burns that cause contractures).

Other Health Impairment

Having limited strength, vitality, or alertness, including a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertness with respect to the educational environment, that

• is due to chronic or acute health problems such as asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, sickle cell anemia; or Tourette syndrome; and

• adversely affects a child’s educational performance.

Specific Learning Disability

A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. This disorder includes conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities; intellectual disability; emotional disturbance; or environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.

Speech or Language Impairment

A communication disorder such as stuttering, impaired articulation, a language impairment, or a voice impairment that adversely affects a child’s educational performance.

Traumatic Brain Injury

An acquired injury to the brain caused by an external physical force, resulting in total or partial functional disability, 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; judgment; 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 to brain injuries induced by birth trauma.

Visual Impairments

An impairment in vision that, even with correction, adversely affects a child’s educational performance. The term includes both partial sight and blindness.

Preschool Disability

Beginning in 1976, data were collected for preschool age children by disability type; those data are combined with data for children and youth ages 6–21. However, the 1986 Amendments to the Education of the Handicapped Act (now known as IDEA) mandated that data not be collected by disability for students ages 3–5. For this reason, data from the 1990s on preschoolers with disabilities are reported separately. Beginning in 2000–01, states were again required to report preschool children by disability.

NOTE 8: Classification of Postsecondary Education Institutions

The U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) employs various categories to classify postsecondary institutions. This supplemental note outlines the different categories used in varying combinations in indicators 4, 8, 9, 23, 26, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 49, and 50.

Basic IPEDS Classifications

The term postsecondary institutions is the category used to refer to institutions with formal instructional programs and a curriculum designed primarily for students who have completed the requirements for a high school diploma or its equivalent. This includes programs whose purpose is academic or vocational, as well as continuing professional education programs, and excludes avocational and adult basic education programs. For many analyses, however, comparing all institutions in this broad universe of postsecondary institutions would not be appropriate. Thus, postsecondary institutions are placed in one of three levels, based on the highest award offered at the institution:

• 4-year-and-above institutions: Institutions or branches that offer programs of at least 4 years' duration or offer programs at or above the baccalaureate level. These institutions award a 4-year degree or higher in one or more programs or award a post-baccalaureate or post-master’s. Includes schools that offer post-baccalaureate certificates only or those that offer graduate programs only. Also includes freestanding medical, law, or other first-professional schools.

• 2-year but less-than-4-year institutions: A postsecondary institution that offers programs of at least 2 but less than 4 years’ duration. Includes occupational and vocational schools with programs of at least 1,800 hours and academic institutions with programs of less than 4 years’ duration. Does not include bachelor’s degree-granting institutions where the baccalaureate-level program can be completed in 3 years.

• Less-than-2-year institutions: Institutions or branches that offer programs of less than 2 years’ duration below the baccalaureate level. Includes occupational and vocational schools with programs that do not exceed 1,800 contact hours.

Postsecondary institutions are further divided according to these criteria: type of financial control, degree-granting versus non-degree-granting, and Title IV-participating versus non-Title IV-participating.

IPEDS also classifies institutions at each of the three levels of institutions by financial control:

• Public institutions: Institutions whose programs and activities are operated by publicly elected or appointed school officials and which are supported primarily by public funds.

• Private not-for-profit institutions: Institutions in which the individual(s) or agency in control receives no compensation other than wages, rent, or other expenses for the assumption of risk. These include both independent not-for-profit schools and those affiliated with a religious organization.

• Private for-profit institutions: Institutions in which the individual(s) or agency in control receives compensation other than wages, rent, or other expenses for the assumption of risk (e.g., proprietary schools).

Thus, IPEDS divides the universe of postsecondary institutions into nine different “sectors,” each comprising a combination of the institution level and the control of the institution. In some sectors (for example, private for-profit 4-year institutions), the number of institutions is small relative to other sectors.

Institutions in any of these nine sectors can be degree- or non-degree-granting, a classification based on whether or not they offer students a formal award such as a degree or certificate:

• Degree-granting institutions offer associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral, and/or first-professional degrees that a state agency recognizes or authorizes.

• Non-degree-granting institutions offer other kinds of credentials and exist at all types of financial control (i.e., public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit institutions).

The number of 4-year-and-above non-degree-granting institutions is small compared with the total number of non-degree-granting institutions.

Institutions in any of these nine sectors can also be Title IV-participating or not. For an institution to participate in federal Title IV Higher Education Act, Part C, financial aid programs, it must offer a program of study at least 300 clock hours in length; have accreditation recognized by the U.S. Department of Education; have been in business for at least 2 years; and have a Title IV participation agreement with the U.S. Department of Education. All indicators in this volume using IPEDS data present only Title IV-participating institutions. For more information on the Higher Education Act of 2008, see http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html.

In some indicators based on IPEDS data, 4-year-and-above degree-granting institutions are further classified according to the highest degree awarded:

• Doctoral institutions award at least 20 doctoral degrees per year.

• Master’s institutions award at least 20 master’s degrees per year.

The remaining institutions are considered to be other 4-year degree-granting institutions. The number of degrees awarded by an institution in a given year is obtained for each institution from data published in the IPEDS “Completions Survey” (IPEDS-C).

Indicators 4, 8, 22, 26, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, and 49 include 2-year (short for 2-year but less-than-4-year) degree-granting institutions in their analyses.

Indicators 8, 9, 22, 26, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 49 include 4-year-and-above degree-granting institutions in their analyses.

NOTE 9: Fields of Study for Postsecondary Degrees

The general categories for fields of study used in indicators 40 and 41 were derived from the 2000 edition of the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP-2000), which was initiated in 2002–03. Some category modifications have been made in some instances. These modified aggregations are as follows:

Agriculture and natural resources: agriculture, agriculture operations and related sciences; and natural resources and conservation.

Business: business, management, marketing, and related support services; and personal and culinary services.

Communication and communications technologies: communication, journalism, and related programs; and communications technologies/technicians and support services.

Engineering and engineering technologies: engineering; engineering technologies/construction trades and mechanics and repairers.

Physical sciences and science technologies: physical sciences and science technologies/technicians.

Social science and history: social sciences and history.

Data may differ from previously published figures as data from earlier years have been reclassified when necessary to make them conform to the new taxonomy. Further information about the CIP-2000 is available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/cip2000/.

NOTE 10: Finance Using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to Adjust for Inflation

The Consumer Price Indexes (CPIs) represent changes in the prices of all goods and services purchased for consumption by households. Indexes vary for specific areas or regions, periods of time, major groups of consumer expenditures, and population groups. The CPI reflects spending patterns for two population groups: (1) all urban consumers and urban wage earners and (2) clerical workers. The all urban consumer group represents about 87 percent of the total U.S. population. Indicators 17, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50 in The Condition of Education 2011 use the U.S. All Items CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

CPIs are calculated for both the calendar year and the school year using the CPI-U. The calendar year CPI is the same as the annual CPI-U. The school year CPI is calculated by adding the monthly CPI-U figures, beginning with July of the first year and ending with June of the following year, and then dividing that figure by 12. The school year CPI is rounded to three decimal places. Data for the CPI-U are available on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) website (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/). Also, figures for both the calendar year CPI and the school year CPI can be obtained from the Digest of Education Statistics 2010 (NCES 2011-015), an annual publication of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

Although the CPI has many uses, its principal function in The Condition of Education is to convert monetary figures (salaries, expenditures, income, etc.) into inflation-adjusted dollars to allow for comparisons over time. For example, due to inflation, the buying power of a salary of a person holding a bachelor’s degree or higher in 1995 is not comparable with that of a bachelor’s degree-holder in 2010. In order to make such comparisons, the 1995 salary must be converted into constant 2009–10 dollars by multiplying the 1995 salary by a ratio of the 2010 CPI over the 1995 CPI. As a formula, this is expressed as

The reader should be aware that there are alternative price indexes to the CPI that could be used to make these adjustments. These alternative adjustments might produce findings that differ from the ones presented here. For more detailed information on how the CPI is calculated or on the other types of price indexes, go to the BLS website (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/).

Classifications of Expenditures

Indicators 36 and 37 examine expenditures for public elementary and secondary education. Indicator 36 uses total expenditures as a whole, together with the three major functions (categories) of total expenditures: current expenditures, capital outlay, and interest on school debt. Current expenditures, in turn, is broken into seven subfunctions (subcategories): expenditures for instruction, administration, student and staff support, operation and maintenance, transportation, food services, and enterprise operations. Indicator 37 uses expenditures for instruction (usually referred to as instruction expenditures) in its analysis.

Total expenditures for elementary and secondary education includes all expenditures allocable to per student costs: these are all current expenditures for regular school programs, capital outlay, and interest on school debt. Expenditures on education by other agencies or equivalent institutions (e.g., the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture) are included. Total expenditures excludes “Other current expenditures” such as community services, private school programs, adult education, and other programs not allocable to expenditures per student at public schools.

Current expenditures includes expenditures for the day-to-day operation of schools and school districts, and includes instruction, administration, student and staff support, operation and maintenance, transportation, food services, and enterprise operations. Thus, current expenditures includes items such as salaries for school personnel, benefits, supplies, purchased services, student transportation, schoolbooks and materials, and energy costs. Current expenditures and each of its seven subfunctions can be further broken down by the object of the expenditure: salaries, employee benefits, purchased services, supplies, and tuition and other.

• Instruction expenditures includes expenditures for activities related to the interaction between teachers and students. Includes salaries and benefits for teachers and instructional aides, textbooks, supplies, and purchased services such as instruction via television. Also included are tuition expenditures to other local education agencies.

• Administration expenditures includes expenditures for school administration (i.e., the office of the principal, full-time department chairpersons, and graduation expenses), general administration (the superintendent and board of education and their immediate staff), and other support services expenditures.

• Student and staff support expenditures includes expenditures for student support (attendance and social work, guidance, health, psychological services, speech pathology, audiology, and other student support services), instructional staff services (instructional staff training, educational media [libraries and audiovisual], and other instructional staff support services), and other support services (business support services, central support services, and other support services not reported elsewhere).

• Operation and maintenance expenditures includes expenditures for supervision of operations and maintenance; operating buildings (heating, lighting, ventilating, repair, and replacement); care and upkeep of grounds and equipment; vehicle operations and maintenance (other than student transportation); security; and other operations and maintenance services.

• Transportation includes expenditures for vehicle operation, monitoring, and vehicle servicing and maintenance.

• Food services includes all expenditures associated with providing food to students and staff in a school or school district. The services include preparing and serving regular and incidental meals or snacks in connection with school activities, as well as the delivery of food to schools.

• Enterprise operations includes expenditures for activities that are financed, at least in part, by user charges, similar to a private business. These include operations funded by sales of products or services, together with amounts for direct program support made by state education agencies for local school districts.

Capital outlay includes direct expenditures for construction of buildings, roads, and other improvements and for purchases of equipment, land, and existing structures. Includes amounts for additions, replacements, and major alterations to fixed works and structures; the initial installation or extension of service systems and other built-in equipment; and site improvement. The category also encompasses architectural and engineering services, including the development of blueprints.

Interest on debt includes expenditures for long-term debt service interest payments (i.e., those longer than 1 year).

Classifications of Revenue

In indicator 35, revenue is classified by source (federal, state, or local). Revenue from federal sources includes direct grants-in-aid to schools or agencies, funds distributed through a state or intermediate agency, and revenue in lieu of taxes to compensate a school district for nontaxable federal institutions within a district’s boundary. Revenue from state sources includes both direct funds from state governments and revenue in lieu of taxation. Revenue from local sources includes revenue from such sources as local property and nonproperty taxes, investments, and revenue from student activities, textbook sales, transportation and tuition fees, and food services. Intermediate revenue comes from sources that are not local or state education agencies, but that operate at an intermediate level between local and state education agencies and possess independent fundraising capability—for example, county or municipal agencies. Intermediate revenue is included in local revenue totals. In indicator 35, local revenue is classified as either local property tax revenue or other local revenue.

The Variation in Expenditures per Student and the Theil Coefficient

Indicator 37 uses the Theil coefficient to measure the variation in expenditures per pupil in regular public school elementary and secondary schools in the United States. A comparison of the values of Theil coefficients for groups within a set (i.e., districts within the nation) will indicate relative dispersion and any variations that may exist among them. The Theil coefficient was subsequently used to measure the trends in variation of a number of items, including expenditures per student (see NCES 2000-020 and Murray, Evans, and Schwab 1998).

The Theil coefficient has a convenient property when the individual units of observation (e.g., school districts) can be aggregated into subgroups (e.g., states): the Theil coefficient for the aggregation of all the individual units of observation can be decomposed into a measure of the variation within the subgroups and a measure of the variation between the subgroups. Hence, in the examination of the variation in instructional expenditures in the United States, the national variation can be decomposed into measures of between-state and within-state variation.

The between-state Theil coefficient, TB, equals

where Pk is the enrollment in state k, X{bar}k is the student-weighted mean expenditure per student in state k, and X{bar} is the student-weighted mean expenditure per student for the country.

The within-state Theil coefficient, Tw, equals

where Tk is the Theil coefficient for state k.

Tk equals

where Pjk is the enrollment of district j in state k and Xjk is the mean expenditure per student of district j in state k.

The national Theil coefficient, T, is

Classifications of Expenditures for International Comparisons

Indicator 38 presents international data on public and private expenditures for instructional and noninstructional educational institutions. Instructional educational institutions are educational institutions that directly provide instructional programs (i.e., teaching) to individuals in an organized group setting or through distance education. Business enterprises or other institutions that provide short-term courses of training or instruction to individuals on a “one-to-one” basis are not included. Noninstructional educational institutions are educational institutions that provide administrative, advisory, or professional services to other educational institutions, although they do not enroll students themselves. Examples include national, state, and provincial bodies in the private sector; organizations that provide education-related services such as vocational and psychological counseling; and educational research institutions.

Public expenditures refers to the spending of public authorities at all levels. Total public expenditures used for the calculation in indicator 38 corresponds to the nonrepayable current and capital expenditures of all levels of the government directly related to education. Expenditures that are not directly related to education (e.g., culture, sports, youth activities, etc.) are, in principle, not included. Expenditures on education by other ministries or equivalent institutions (e.g., Health and Agriculture) are included. Public subsidies for students’ living expenses are excluded to ensure international comparability of the data.

Private expenditures refers to expenditures funded by private sources (i.e., households and other private entities). “Households” means students and their families. “Other private entities” includes private business firms and nonprofit organizations, including religious organizations, charitable organizations, and business and labor associations. Private expenditures are composed of school fees, the cost of materials such as textbooks and teaching equipment, transportation costs (if organized by the school), the cost of meals (if provided by the school), boarding fees, and expenditures by employers on initial vocational training. Private educational institutions are considered to be service providers and do not include sources of private funding.

Current expenditures includes final consumption expenditures (e.g., compensation of employees, consumption of intermediate goods and services, consumption of fixed capital, and military expenditures); property income paid; subsidies; and other current transfers paid.

Capital expenditures includes spending to acquire and improve fixed capital assets, land, intangible assets, government stocks, and nonmilitary, nonfinancial assets, as well as spending to finance net capital transfers.

NOTE 11: International Education Definitions

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

The OECD is an intergovernmental organization of 34 industrialized countries that serves as a forum for member countries to cooperate in research and policy development on social and economic topics of common interest. These 34 member countries are included in indicator 25: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, and United States. Currently, 25 nonmembers participate as regular observers or full participants in OECD Committees; two of these partner countries, Brazil and the Russian Federation, are included in indicator 25.

International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED)

Indicators 25 and 38 uses the 1997 International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) to compare educational systems in different countries. ISCED is the standard used by many countries to report education statistics to UNESCO and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). ISCED divides educational systems into the following seven categories, based on six levels of education.

ISCED Level 0: Education preceding the first level (early childhood education) usually begins at age 3, 4, or 5 (sometimes earlier) and lasts from 1 to 3 years, when it is provided. In the United States, this level includes nursery school and kindergarten.

ISCED Level 1: Education at the first level (primary or elementary education) usually begins at age 5, 6, or 7 and continues for about 4 to 6 years. For the United States, the first level starts with 1st grade and ends with 6th grade.

ISCED Level 2: Education at the second level (lower secondary education) typically begins at about age 11 or 12 and continues for about 2 to 6 years. For the United States, the second level starts with 7th grade and typically ends with 9th grade. Education at the lower secondary level continues the basic programs of the first level, although teaching is typically more subject focused, often using more specialized teachers who conduct classes in their field of specialization. The main criterion for distinguishing lower secondary education from primary education is whether programs begin to be organized in a more subject-oriented pattern, using more specialized teachers conducting classes in their field of specialization. If there is no clear breakpoint for this organizational change, the lower secondary education is considered to begin at the end of 6 years of primary education. In countries with no clear division between lower secondary and upper secondary education, and where lower secondary education lasts for more than 3 years, only the first 3 years following primary education are counted as lower secondary education.

ISCED Level 3: Education at the third level (upper secondary education) typically begins at ages 15 or 16 and lasts for approximately 3 years. In the United States, the third level starts with 10th grade and ends with 12th grade. Upper secondary education is the final stage of secondary education in most OECD countries. Instruction is often organized along subject-matter lines, in contrast to the lower secondary level, and teachers typically must have a higher level, or more subject-specific, qualification. There are substantial differences in the typical duration of programs both across and between countries, ranging from 2 to 5 years of schooling. The main criteria for classifications are (1) national boundaries between lower and upper secondary education and (2) admission into educational programs, which usually requires the completion of lower secondary education or a combination of basic education and life experience that demonstrates the ability to handle the subject matter in upper secondary schools.

ISCED Level 4: Education at the fourth level (postsecondary nontertiary education) straddles the boundary between secondary and postsecondary education. This program of study, which is primarily vocational in nature, is generally taken after the completion of secondary school, typically lasts from 6 months to 2 years. Although the content of these programs may not be significantly more advanced than upper secondary programs, these programs serve to broaden the knowledge of participants who have already gained an upper secondary qualification. This level of education is not included in the analysis for indicator 25, but is included for select countries in indicator 38.

ISCED Level 5: Education at the fifth level (first stage of tertiary education) includes programs with more advanced content than those offered at the two previous levels. Entry into programs at the fifth level normally requires successful completion of either of the two previous levels. Indicator 25 makes a distinction between two types of tertiary education.

• ISCED Level 5A: Tertiary-type A programs provide an education that is largely theoretical and is intended to provide sufficient qualifications for gaining entry into advanced research programs and professions with high skill requirements. Entry into these programs normally requires the successful completion of an upper secondary education; admission is competitive in most cases. The minimum cumulative theoretical duration at this level is 3 years of full-time enrollment. In the United States, tertiary-type A programs include first university programs that last 4 years and lead to the award of a bachelor’s degree and second university programs that lead to a master’s degree.

• ISCED Level 5B: Tertiary-type B programs are typically shorter than tertiary-type A programs and focus on practical, technical, or occupational skills for direct entry into the labor market, although they may cover some theoretical foundations in the respective programs. They have a minimum duration of 2 years of full-time enrollment at the tertiary level. In the United States, such programs are often provided at community colleges and lead to an associate’s degree. This level of education is not included in the analysis for indicator 25.

• ISCED Level 6: Education at the sixth level (advanced research qualification) is provided in graduate and professional schools that generally require a university degree or diploma as a minimum condition for admission. Programs at this level lead to the award of an advanced, postgraduate degree, such as a Ph.D. The theoretical duration of these programs is 3 years of full-time enrollment in most countries (for a cumulative total of at least 7 years at levels five and six), although the length of actual enrollment is often longer. Programs at this level are devoted to advanced study and original research.

High school attainment data presented in indicator 25 refer to ISCED level 3 degrees. ISCED level 3 corresponds to high school completion in the United States. ISCED level 3C short programs do not correspond to high school completion; these short programs are excluded from indicator 25. Bachelor’s degree or higher data presented in indicator 25 refer to ISCED level 5A or 6 degrees. ISCED level 5A, first award, corresponds to the bachelor’s degree in the United States; ISCED level 5A, second award, corresponds to master’s and first-professional degrees in the United States; and ISCED level 6 corresponds to doctoral degrees in the United States.

Appendix

C

Glossary

A

Achievement levels: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) achievement levels are set through a National Assessment Governing Board process and define what students should know and be able to do at different levels of performance. The NAEP achievement levels are Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. The definitions of these levels, which apply across all grades and subject areas, are as follows:

Basic: This level denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade.

Proficient: This level represents solid academic performance for each grade assessed. Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, including subject-matter knowledge, application of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills appropriate to the subject matter.

Advanced: This level signifies superior performance.

The percentage of students at or above Proficient includes students at the Proficient achievement level and at the Advanced achievement level. Similarly, the percentage of students at or above Basic includes students at the Basic, those at the Proficient, and those at the Advanced achievement levels. See also supplemental note 4.

Alternative school: A public elementary/secondary school that (1) addresses needs of students that typically cannot be met in a regular school, (2) provides nontraditional education, (3) serves as an adjunct to a regular school, or (4) falls outside the categories of regular, special education, or vocational education. Some examples of alternative schools are schools for potential dropouts; residential treatment centers for substance abuse (if they provide elementary or secondary education); schools for chronic truants; and schools for students with behavioral problems.

Associate’s degree: An award that normally requires at least 2 but less than 4 years of full-time-equivalent college work.

B

Bachelor’s degree: A degree granted for the successful completion of a baccalaureate program of studies, usually requiring at least 4 years (or the equivalent) of full-time college-level study.

C

Charter school: A publicly funded school that, in accordance with an enabling statute, has been granted a charter exempting it from selected state or local rules and regulations. A public charter school may be a newly created school, or it may previously have been a public or private school. In return for funding and autonomy, the charter school must meet accountability standards. A school’s charter is typically reviewed every 3 to 5 years and can be revoked if guidelines on curriculum and management are not followed or standards are not met. Charter schools provide free public elementary and/or secondary education and can be administered by regular school districts, state education agencies (SEAs), or chartering organizations. See also Public school.

Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP): A taxonomic coding scheme for secondary and postsecondary instructional programs. It is intended to facilitate the organization, collection, and reporting of program data using classifications that capture the majority of reportable data. The CIP is the accepted federal government statistical standard on instructional program classifications and is used in a variety of education information surveys and databases. See also supplemental note 10.

College: A postsecondary educational institution.

Combined school: A school offering both elementary and secondary education. A combined school typically has one or more of grades kindergarten (K) through grade 6 and one or more of grades 9–12. For example, schools with grades K–12, 6–9, or 1–12 are classified as combined schools.

Constant dollars: Dollar amounts that have been adjusted by means of price and cost indexes to eliminate inflationary factors and allow for direct comparison across years.

Consumer Price Index (CPI): This price index measures the average change in the cost of a fixed-market basket of goods and services purchased by consumers.

D

Disabilities, children with: Children who, by reason of having any of the disabilities outlined in supplemental note 7, need special education and related services. Types of disabilities include the following:

Specific learning disabilities: Specific learning disabilities are disorders of one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest themselves in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. These disorders include conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.

Speech or language impairments: Communication disorders such as stuttering, impaired articulation, a language impairment, or a voice impairment that adversely affects a child’s educational performance.

Doctoral degree: An earned degree carrying the title of Doctor. The Doctor of Philosophy degree (Ph.D.) is the highest academic degree and requires mastery within a field of knowledge and demonstrated ability to perform scholarly research. Other doctoral degrees are awarded for fulfilling specialized requirements in professional fields, such as education (Ed.D.), musical arts (D.M.A.), business administration (D.B.A.), and engineering (D. Eng. or D.E.S.). Many doctoral degrees in both academic and professional fields require an earned master’s degree as a prerequisite. First-professional degrees, such as M.D. and D.D.S., are not included under this heading. See also First-professional degree.

Dropout: The term is used to describe both the event of leaving school before completing high school and the status of an individual who is not in school and who is not a high school completer. High school completers include both graduates of school programs as well as those completing high school through equivalency programs such as the GED. Transferring from a public school to a private school, for example, is not regarded as a dropout event. A person who drops out of school may later return and graduate but is called a “dropout” at the time he or she leaves school. Measures to describe these often complicated behaviors include the event dropout rate (or the closely related school persistence rate), the status dropout rate, and the high school completion rate. See also Status dropout rate.

E

Education specialist/professional diploma: A certificate of advanced graduate studies that advance educators in their instructional and leadership skills beyond the master’s level of competence.

Educational attainment: The highest level of schooling attended and completed. See also High school completion, Associate’s degree, Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree, Doctoral degree, and First-professional degree.

Elementary school: An elementary/secondary school with one or more grades of K–6 that does not have any grade higher than grade 8. For example, schools with grades K–6, 1–3, or 6–8 are classified as elementary. See also Primary school.

Elementary/secondary school: Elementary/secondary schools include regular schools (i.e., schools that are part of state and local school systems and private elementary/secondary schools, both religiously affiliated and nonsectarian); alternative schools; vocational education schools; and special education schools.

English language learner: A person for whom English is a second language and who has not yet attained proficiency in the English language. See also Limited-English proficient.

Expenditures: Charges incurred, whether paid or unpaid, that are presumed to benefit the current fiscal year. For elementary/secondary schools, these include all charges for current outlays plus capital outlays and interest on school debt. For postsecondary institutions, these include current outlays plus capital outlays. For the government, these include charges net of recoveries and other correcting transactions, other than retirement of debt, investment in securities, extension of credit, or agency transactions. Also, government expenditures include only external transactions, such as the provision of prerequisites or other payments in kind. Aggregates for groups of governments exclude intergovernmental transactions among the governments. See also supplemental note 10. Expenditures types include the following:

Current expenditures: Short-term spending that is fully expensed in the fiscal period in which it is incurred. Current expenditures are in contrast to capital expenditures, which refer to spending on long-term assets that are capitalized and amortized over their useful life. Examples of current expenditures include salaries for school personnel, fixed charges, student transportation, book and materials, and energy costs. Expenditures for state administration are excluded. Instructional expenditures (elementary/secondary): Current expenditures for activities directly associated with the interaction between teachers and students. These include teacher salaries and benefits, supplies (such as textbooks), and purchased instructional services.

Expenditures per student: Charges incurred for a particular period of time divided by a student unit of measure, such as enrollment, average daily attendance, or average daily membership. See also supplemental note 10.

F

Faculty: Persons identified by the institution as such and whose assignments include conducting instruction, research, or public service as a principal activity (or activities). They may hold academic rank titles of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, instructor, lecturer, or the equivalent of any of those academic ranks. Faculty may also include the chancellor/president, provost, vice provosts, deans, directors or the equivalent, as well as associate deans, assistant deans, and executive officers of academic departments (chairpersons, heads or the equivalent) if their principal activity is instruction combined with research and/or public service. Graduate, instruction, and research assistants are not included in this category.

Financial aid: Grants, loans, assistantships, scholarships, fellowships, tuition waivers, tuition discounts, veteran’s benefits, employer aid (tuition reimbursement), and other monies (other than from relatives/friends) provided to students to help them meet expenses. This includes Title IV subsidized and unsubsidized loans made directly to students.

First-professional degree: An award that requires completion of a degree program that meets all of the following criteria: (1) completion of the academic requirements to begin practice in the profession; (2) at least 2 years of college work before entering the degree program; and (3) a total of at least 6 academic years of college work to complete the degree program, including previously required college work plus the work required in the professional program itself. First-professional degrees may be awarded in the following 10 fields: chiropractic (D.C. or D.C.M.), osteopathic medicine (D.O.), dentistry (D.D.S. or D.M.D.), pharmacy (Pharm.D.), law (L.L.B. or J.D.), podiatry (D.P.M., D.P., or Pod.D.), medicine (M.D.), theology (M.Div., M.H.L., B.D., or Ordination), optometry (O.D.), and veterinary medicine (D.V.M.).

Four-year postsecondary institution: A postsecondary education institution that can award a bachelor’s degree or higher. See also Postsecondary education and supplemental note 8.

Full-time enrollment: The number of students enrolled in postsecondary education courses with a total credit load equal to at least 75 percent of the normal full-time course load.

Full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment: For institutions of higher education, enrollment of full-time students, plus the full-time equivalent of part-time students. The full-time equivalent of the part-time students is estimated using different factors depending on the level and control of institution and level of student.

G

GED certificate: This award is received following successful completion of the General Educational Development (GED) test. The GED program, sponsored by the American Council on Education, enables individuals to demonstrate that they have acquired a level of learning comparable to that of high school graduates. See also High school equivalency certificate.

Graduate: An individual who has received formal recognition for the successful completion of a prescribed program of studies.

Gross domestic product (GDP): Gross national product less net property income from abroad. Both gross national product (GNP) and GDP aggregate only the incomes of residents of a nation, corporate and individual, derived directly from the current production of goods and services by individuals, businesses, and government; gross private domestic investment in infrastructure; and total exports of goods and services. The goods and services included are largely those bought for final use (excluding illegal transactions) in the market economy. A number of inclusions, however, represent imputed values, the most important of which is rental value of owner-occupied housing.

H

High school: A secondary school offering the final years of high school study necessary for graduation, in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9. Usually includes grades 10, 11, 12 or grades 9, 10, 11, and 12.

High school completer: An individual has completed high school if he or she has been awarded a high school diploma or an equivalent credential, including a General Educational Development (GED) credential.

High school diploma: A formal document regulated by the state certifying the successful completion of a prescribed secondary school program of studies. In some states or communities, high school diplomas are differentiated by type, such as an academic diploma, a general diploma, or a vocational diploma.

High school equivalency certificate: A formal document certifying that an individual has met the state requirements for high school graduation equivalency by obtaining satisfactory scores on an approved examination and meeting other performance requirements (if any) set by a state education agency or other appropriate body. One particular version of this certificate is the General Educational Development (GED) test. The GED test is a comprehensive test used primarily to appraise the educational development of students who have not completed their formal high school education and who may earn a high school equivalency certificate by achieving satisfactory scores. GEDs are awarded by the states or other agencies, and the test is developed and distributed by the GED Testing Service of the American Council on Education.

I

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): IDEA is a federal law requiring services to children with disabilities throughout the nation. IDEA governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services to more than 6.8 million eligible infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. Infants and toddlers with disabilities (birth–age 2) and their families receive early intervention services under IDEA, Part C. Children and youth (ages 3–21) receive special education and related services under IDEA, Part B.

Inflation: A rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time, which generally corresponds to a decline in the real value of money or a loss of purchasing power. See also Constant dollars and Purchasing power parity.

L

Limited-English proficient: Refers to an individual who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English, or who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual’s level of English language proficiency. It may also refer to an individual who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual the ability to meet the state’s proficient level of achievement on state assessments as specified under the No Child Left Behind Act, the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English, or the opportunity to participate fully in society. See also English language learner.

M

Magnet school or program: A special school or program designed to reduce, prevent, or eliminate racial isolation and/or to provide an academic or social focus on a particular theme.

Master’s degree: A degree awarded for successful completion of a program generally requiring 1 or 2 years of full-time college-level study beyond the bachelor’s degree. One type of master’s degree, which includes the Master of Arts degree, or M.A., and the Master of Science degree, or M.S., is awarded in the liberal arts and sciences for advanced scholarship in a subject field or discipline and for demonstrated ability to perform scholarly research. A second type of master’s degree is awarded for the completion of a professionally oriented program—for example, an M.Ed, in education, an M.B.A. in business administration, an M.F.A. in fine arts, an M.M. in music, an M.S.W. in social work, or an M.P.A. in public administration. A third type of master’s degree is awarded in professional fields for study beyond the first-professional degree—for example, the Master of Laws (LL.M.) and Master of Science (M.S.) in various medical specializations.

Measurable difference: Before determining that two estimates in a sample survey are different, a statistical test must be conducted to take into consideration uncertainty due to sampling variability. The statistical test detects the presence of a measurable difference between the two estimates.

N

National School Lunch Program: Established by President Truman in 1946, the program is a federally assisted meal program operated in public and private nonprofit schools and residential child care centers. To be eligible for free lunch, a student must be from a household with an income at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty guideline; to be eligible for reduced-price lunch, a student must be from a household with an income between 130 percent and 185 percent of the federal poverty guideline. See also supplemental note 1.

Nonresident alien: A person who is not a citizen of the United States, who is in this country on a temporary basis, and who does not have the right to remain indefinitely.

Nursery school: An instructional program for groups of children during the year or years preceding kindergarten, which provides educational experiences under the direction of teachers. See also Preschool.

O

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): The OECD is an organization of nations whose purpose is to promote trade and economic growth in both member and nonmember nations. OECD’s activities inform many aspects of economic and social policy. See also supplemental note 11.

P

Part-time enrollment: The number of students enrolled in postsecondary education courses with a total credit load of less than 75 percent of the normal full-time credit load.

Postbaccalaureate enrollment: The number of students with a bachelor’s degree who are enrolled in graduate-level or first-professional courses. See also First-professional degree.

Postsecondary education: The provision of a formal instructional program whose curriculum is designed primarily for students who are beyond the compulsory age for high school. This includes programs whose purpose is academic, vocational, and continuing professional education, and excludes avocational and adult basic education programs. See also supplemental note 8.

Prekindergarten: Preprimary education for children typically ages 3–4 who have not yet entered kindergarten. It may offer a program of general education or special education and may be part of a collaborative effort with Head Start.

Preschool: An instructional program enrolling children generally younger than 5 years of age and organized to provide children with educational experiences under professionally qualified teachers during the year or years immediately preceding kindergarten (or prior to entry into elementary school when there is no kindergarten). See also Nursery school.

Private institution: An institution that is controlled by an individual or agency other than a state, a subdivision of a state, or the federal government; that is usually not supported primarily by public funds; and that is not operated by publicly elected or appointed officials. See also supplemental note 8. Types of private institutions include:

Private for-profit institution: A private institution in which the individual(s) or agency in control receives compensation other than wages, rent, or other expenses for the assumption of risk.

Private not-for-profit institution: A private institution in which the individual(s) or agency in control receives no compensation, other than wages, rent, or other expenses for the assumption of risk. These include both independent not-for-profit institutions and those affiliated with a religious organization.

Private school: A school serving students in one or more of grades K–12 that is controlled by an individual or agency other than a state, a subdivision of a state, or the federal government; that is usually not supported primarily by public funds; and that is not operated by publicly elected or appointed officials. Organizations or institutions that provide support for homeschooling but do not offer classroom instruction for students are not included. See also supplemental note 3.

Property tax: The sum of money collected from a tax levied against the value of property.

Public institution: A postsecondary educational institution whose programs and activities are operated by publicly elected or appointed school officials and which is supported primarily by public funds. See also supplemental note 8.

Public school: An institution that provides educational services for at least one of grades K–12 (or comparable ungraded levels), has one or more teachers to give instruction, has an assigned administrator, receives public funds as primary support, and is operated by an education or chartering agency. Public schools include regular, special education, vocational/technical, alternative, and charter schools. They also include schools in juvenile detention centers, schools located on military bases and operated by the Department of Defense, and Bureau of Indian Education-funded schools operated by local public school districts. See also Special education school, Vocational school, Alternative school, Charter school, and Traditional public school.

Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) indices: PPP exchange rates, or indices, are the currency exchange rates that equalize the purchasing power of different currencies, meaning that when a given sum of money is converted into different currencies at the PPP exchange rates, it will buy the same basket of goods and services in all countries. PPP indices are the rates of currency conversion that eliminate the difference in price levels among countries. Thus, when expenditures on gross domestic product (GDP) for different countries are converted into a common currency by means of PPP indices, they are expressed at the same set of international prices, so that comparisons among countries reflect only differences in the volume of goods and services purchased.

R

Regular school: A public elementary/secondary school providing instruction and education services that does not focus primarily on special education, vocational/technical education, or alternative education, or on any of the particular themes associated with magnet/special program emphasis schools.

Revenues: Funds that are appropriated to schools and education institutions. Types of revenues include the following:

Revenues from federal sources: Revenues from federal sources include direct grants-in-aid from the federal government; federal grants-in-aid through the state or an intermediate agency; and other revenue, in lieu of taxes that would have accrued had the tax base been subject to taxation.

Revenues from local sources: Revenues from local sources include revenues from a local education agency (LEA), including taxes levied or assessed by an LEA; revenues from a local government to the LEA; tuition received; transportation fees; earnings on investments from LEA holdings; net revenues from food services (gross receipts less gross expenditures); net revenues from student activities (gross receipts less gross expenditures); and other revenues (textbook sales, donations, property rentals).

Revenues from state sources: Revenues from state sources include revenues from an agency of state government including those that can be used without restriction, those for categorical purposes, and revenues in lieu of taxation.

S

Salary: The total amount regularly paid or stipulated to be paid to an individual, before deductions, for personal services rendered while on the payroll of a business or organization.

Secondary school: A school with one or more of grades 7–12 that does not have any grade lower than grade 7. For example, schools with grades 9–12, 7–9, 10–12, or 7–8 are classified as secondary.

Special education school: An elementary/secondary school that (1) focuses primarily on special education, including instruction for any of the following groups of students: hard of hearing, deaf, speech impaired, health impaired, orthopedically impaired, intellectually disabled, seriously emotionally disturbed, multi-handicapped, visually handicapped, deaf and blind, and the learning disabled; and (2) adapts curriculum, materials, or instruction for students served.

Status dropout rate: The status dropout rate is the percentage of young adults who are dropouts, regardless of when they dropped out. The numerator of the status dropout rate for any given year is the number of young adults ages 16–24 who, as of October of that year, had not completed high school and were not currently enrolled. The denominator is the total number of 16- to 24-year-olds in October of that same year.

STEM fields: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields of study that are considered to be of particular relevance to advanced societies. For the purposes of The Condition of Education 2011, STEM fields include agriculture and natural resources, biological and biomedical sciences, computer and information sciences and support services, engineering and engineering technologies, mathematics and statistics, and physical sciences and science technologies.

Student membership: Student membership is an annual headcount of students enrolled in school on October 1 or the school day closest to that date. The Common Core of Data (CCD) allows a student to be reported for only a single school or agency. For example, a vocational school (identified as a “shared time” school) may provide classes for students from a number of districts and show no membership.

T

Title I school: A school designated under appropriate state and federal regulations as a high-poverty school that is eligible for participation in programs authorized by Title I of the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, P.L. 107-110.

Title IV institution: An institution that has a written agreement with the Secretary of Education that allows the institution to participate in any of the Title IV federal student financial assistance programs (other than the State Student Incentive Grant [SSIG] and the National Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership [NEISP] programs).

Traditional public school: Traditional public schools are publicly funded schools other than public charter schools. See also Public schools and Public charter schools.

Tuition: The amount of money charged to students for instructional services. Tuition may be charged per term, per course, or per credit.

Two-year postsecondary institution: A postsecondary education institution that does not confer bachelor’s or higher degrees, but does provide 2-year programs that result in a certificate or an associate’s degree, or 2-year programs that fulfill part of the requirements for a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year institution. See also Postsecondary education and supplemental note 8.

U

Undergraduate student: A student enrolled in a 4- or 5-year bachelor’s degree program, an associate’s degree program, or a vocational or technical program below the baccalaureate.

V

Vocational school: A secondary school that focuses primarily on vocational, technical, or career education and provides education and training in one or more occupations. They may be part of a regular district (along with academic schools) or in a vocational district (serving more than one academic school district).