Sources and Notes

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

4th grade performance on the 2003 NAEP reading exam: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation’s Report Card: Reading Highlights 2003,” November 2003.

Percent of 4th grade students who scored “proficient” or above on state reading tests in the 2002-03 school year: Data gathered from www.schoolresults.org and state department of education Web sites, November 2004. If states did not offer tests at grade 4 in 2003, the Education Week Research Center accepted test results from the next closest grade level.

In lieu of 4th grade reading data, reading results are reported for grade 3 in Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Tennessee, and Virginia; and for grade 5 in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.

8th grade performance on the 2003 NAEP reading exam: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,“The Nation’s Report Card: Reading Highlights 2003,” November 2003.

Percent of 8th grade students who scored “proficient” or above on state reading tests in the 2002-03 school year: Data gathered from www.schoolresults.org and state department of education Web sites, November 2004. If states did not offer tests at grade 8 in 2003, Education Week accepted test results from the next closest grade level.

In lieu of 8th grade reading data, reading results are reported for grade 7 in Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, and Washington state; and for grade 9 in Ohio.

4th grade performance on the 2003 NAEP mathematics exam: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics Highlights 2003,” November 2003.

Percent of 4th grade students who scored “proficient” or above on state mathematics tests in the 2002-03 school year: Data gathered from www.schoolresults.org and state department of education Web sites, November 2004. If states did not offer tests at grade 4 in 2003, Education Week accepted test results from the next closest grade level.

In lieu of 4th grade mathematics data, mathematics results are reported for grade 3 in Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Tennessee, and Virginia; and for grade 5 in Colorado, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.

8th grade performance on the 2003 NAEP mathematics exam: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, “The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics Highlights 2003,” November 2003.

Percent of 8th grade students who scored “proficient” or above on state mathematics tests in the 2002-03 school year: Data gathered from www.schoolresults.org and state department of education Web sites, November 2004. If states did not offer tests at grade 8 in 2003, Education Week accepted test results from the next closest grade level.

In lieu of 8th grade mathematics data, mathematics results are reported for grade 7 in California, Kansas, and Washington state; and for grade 9 in Ohio.

Percent of high school students taking upper-level mathematics and science courses: Council of Chief State School Officers, “State Indicators of Science and Mathematics Education,” 2003.

Percent of 9th to 12th graders who dropped out of school: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, “Public High School Dropouts and Completers From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2000-01,” November 2003.

Graduation rates: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, September 2004.

“Chance for college”: Postsecondary Education Opportunity, “Postsecondary Education Opportunity: The Environmental Scanning Research Letter of Opportunity for Postsecondary Education,” 2004. Data indicate the percent of entering 9th graders who graduate with regular high school diplomas four years later and enroll in degree-granting two- or four-year institutions of higher education.

STANDARDS AND ACCOUNTABILITY

State has adopted standards in the core subjects: Education Week Research Center, November 2004.

State has standards that are clear, specific, and grounded in content: Unpublished data for the 2004-05 school year from the American Federation of Teachers.

State has a regular timeline for revising standards: Education Week Research Center annual state policy survey, 2004.

Types of statewide tests required: Ibid.

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

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

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

State holds schools accountable for performance by including data on report cards: Education Week Research Center analysis of school report cards using the most recently available report cards in each state as of Oct. 22, 2004. The year of the report card does not always reflect the year of all the data contained in the report card. Nineteen states have more than one type of school report card. States whose most recently released report cards are from 2003-04 include: Arizona, California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. States whose most recently released report cards are from 2002-03 include: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming. States with one type of report card released in 2002-03 and another type released in 2003-04 include: Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, Oregon, Utah, and Vermont. New Mexico is the only state to have released 2004-05 report cards, although the data are from 2003-04. In addition to Connecticut’s 2002-03 report card, its most recently available No Child Left Behind report card is from 2001-02.

State has a statewide student-identification system: National Center for Educational Accountability, 2004. Data can be viewed at http://www.nc4ea.org/index.cfm?pg=surveyresults.

State holds schools accountable for performance: Education Week Research Center annual state policy survey, 2004. Information reflects implementation of school ratings, assistance, sanctions, and rewards for the 2004-05 school year; state plans did not count. The information is current as of November 2004.

Promotion contingent on performance on statewide exams: Education Week Research Center annual state policy survey, 2004.

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

State has appeals process for students who fail exit or end-of-course exams: Ibid. States receive credit in this column for appeals processes that apply to all students.

State has alternative criteria for students to earn standard diplomas if they fail exit or end-of-course exams: Ibid. States receive credit in this column for making alternative routes to standard diplomas available to all students failing exit or end-of-course exams.

State has nonstandard diplomas or a tiered-diploma system for students who fail exit or end-of-course exams: Ibid. States receive credit in this column for making nonstandard diplomas available to all students failing exit or end-of-course exams.

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

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

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

EFFORTS TO IMPROVE TEACHER QUALITY

State requires minimum degree/coursework in the subject area taught for beginning-teacher license: Education Week Research Center annual state policy survey, 2004.

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

State requires clinical experiences during teacher training: Education Week Research Center annual state policy survey, 2004.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minimum years of state-financed mentoring: Ibid.

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

State provides incentives to earn National Board certification: Education Week Research Center annual state policy survey, 2004, and National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2004.

Number of National Board-certified teachers: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2004.

State holds teacher education programs accountable: Education Week Research Center annual state policy survey, 2004.

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

State discourages out-of-field teaching: Ibid.

School report cards include information on the number and/or percent of fully licensed/certified teachers, new teachers, teachers with emergency licenses, out-of-field teachers, highly qualified teachers, classes taught by highly qualified teachers: Education Week Research Center analysis of state report cards using the most recently available school report cards in each state as of Oct. 22, 2004. See Sources and Notes under the Standards and Accountability section for a detailed listing of the years of the report cards analyzed for each state.

State has policies encouraging pay-for-performance programs: Education Week Research Center annual state policy survey, 2004.

Average teacher salaries: American Federation of Teachers, “2003 Survey and Analysis of Teacher Salary Trends,” 2004.

SCHOOL CLIMATE

Note: All NAEP data are available from the NAEP Data Tool at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/search.asp.

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

State surveys teachers, parents, and/or students about school conditions: Education Week Research Center annual state policy survey, 2004.

School report cards include school safety information: Education Week Research Center analysis of state report cards using the most recently available school report cards in each state as of Oct. 22, 2004. See Sources and Notes under the Standards and Accountability section for a detailed listing of the years of the report cards analyzed for each state.

State law or regulations include provisions related to school bullying/harassment: Education Week Research Center annual state policy survey, 2004.

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

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

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

Number of schools identified as “persistently dangerous”: Education Week Research Center annual state policy survey, 2004.

Percent of high school students who felt too unsafe to go to school during the past 30 days, carried a weapon on school property during the past 30 days, were threatened or injured with a weapon on school property in the past year, were in a physical fight on school property in the past year: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2003,” May 2004.

School report cards include information on parent involvement: Education Week Research Center analysis of state report cards using the most recently available school report cards in each state as of Oct. 22, 2004. See Sources and Notes under the Standards and Accountability section for a detailed listing of the years of the report cards analyzed for each state.

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

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

State law allows charter schools: Center for Education Reform, data gathered from www.edreform.com, November 2004.

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

Number of charter schools: Center for Education Reform, data gathered from www.edreform.com, November 2004.

Percent of students in elementary schools with 350 or fewer students: Education Week Research Center analysis of U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data Public Elementary and Secondary School Universe, 2002-03. Elementary schools were defined as those with a lowest grade level of prekindergarten to grade 3 and a highest grade level up to grade 8.

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

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

School report cards include information on class size or pupil-teacher ratio: Education Week Research Center analysis of state report cards using the most recently available school report cards in each state as of Oct. 22, 2004. See Sources and Notes under the Standards and Accountability section for a detailed listing of the years of the report cards analyzed for each state.

State has implemented a class-size-reduction program and/or limits class size by statute: Education Week Research Center annual state policy survey, 2004.

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

Median pupil-teacher ratio in primary-level schools: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, 2002-03, Preliminary 0g.

State tracks condition of all school facilities: Education Week Research Center annual state policy survey, 2004.

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

State funding dedicated to capital outlays or construction for FY 2005: Ibid.

State law includes provisions related to character education: Ibid.

State finances character education program: Ibid.

State requires students to do community service for graduation: Ibid.

RESOURCES: EQUITY

Wealth-neutrality score: Special analysis by Greg Orlofsky, private consultant, using the following: 1) the U.S. Census Bureau’s Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance Data for 2002; 2) the NCES Common Core of Data Public Elementary and Secondary School Universe, 2001-02; 3) the Geographic Variations in Public Schools’ Costs, 1993-94; 4) the U.S. Census Bureau’s Small-Area Income and Poverty Estimates, 1999.

McLoone Index: Ibid.

Coefficient of variation: Ibid.

Basis of state funding formula: Education Week Research Center annual state policy survey, 2004.

Guaranteed per-pupil funds from foundation formula/foundation level: Ibid.

State requires a minimum local effort for districts to receive state aid: Ibid.

State reclaims funds from districts able to generate above a specified amount: Ibid.

State uses a weight or an adjustment in its school finance formula to provide additional funds for special education students, English-language learners, and students in poverty: Ibid.

Total number of state categorical programs: Ibid.

Total spent on state categorical programs: Ibid.

RESOURCES: SPENDING

Education spending per student, adjusted for regional cost differences: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, “Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2001-02,” June 2004. Figures were adjusted using the NCES Geographic Cost of Education Index.

Percent of students in districts with per-pupil expenditures at or above the U.S. average ($6,503): Special analysis by Greg Orlofsky, private consultant, using the following: 1) the U.S. Census Bureau’s Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance Data for 2002; 2) the NCES Common Core of Data Public Elementary and Secondary School Universe, 2001-02; 3) the Geographic Variations in Public Schools’ Costs, 1993-94; 4) the U.S. Census Bureau’s Small-Area Income and Poverty Estimates, 1999.

Spending index: Ibid.

Percent of total taxable resources spent on education: Education Week Research Center analysis of state and local revenues from the National Center for Education Statistics, “Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2001-02,” June 2004, and gross-state-product figures from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. The figures represent resources spent on pre-K-12 education.

Average annual rate of change in expenditures per pupil, adjusted for inflation (1992-2002): Education Week Research Center analysis. The per-pupil expenditures (PPEs) for 1991-92 through 1999-2000 are from the National Center for Education Statistics, “Digest of Education Statistics, 2002.” The 2000-01 and 2001-02 PPEs are from the National Center for Education Statistics, “Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education,” multiple years. Expenditures were adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Percent of students in districts with per-pupil expenditures at or above: $5,000, the national median ($6,208), $7,000, and $8,000: Special analysis by Greg Orlofsky, private consultant, using the following: 1) the U.S. Census Bureau’s Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance Data for 2002; 2) the NCES Common Core of Data Public Elementary and Secondary School Universe, 2001-02; 3) the Geographic Variations in Public Schools’ Costs, 1993-94; 4) the U.S. Census Bureau’s Small-Area Income and Poverty Estimates, 1999.

Unadjusted education spending per student: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, “Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2001-02,” June 2004.