NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report March 1996

Racial and Ethnic

Classifications

Used by Public Schools

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 96-092
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report March 1996

Racial and Ethnic

Classifications

Used by Public Schools

Nancy Carey

Elizabeth Farris

Westat, Inc.

Judi Carpenter

Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 96-092
U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Sharon P. Robinson

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Jeanne E. Griffith

Acting Commissioner

Paul Planchon

Associate Commissioner

Survey and Cooperative Systems Group

John Ralph

Acting Associate Commissioner

Data Development and Longitudinal Surveys Group

National Center for Education Statistics

The purpose of the Center is to collect and report “statistics

and information showing the condition and progress of

education in the United States and other nations in order to

promote and accelerate the improvement of American

education.”--Section 402(b) of the National Education

Statistics Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 9001).

March 1996

Contact:

Judi Carpenter

(202) 219-1333

Edith McArthur

(202) 219-1442

This report was prepared by Westat, Inc., under contract with the National Center for Education Statistics.

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328
iii

Highlights • Approximately half (55 percent) of all public schools collect data about

students’ race and ethnicity only when students initially register for school

in the district. Another 17 percent collect these data at initial registration

and whenever students change schools within the district. One-quarter of

public schools collect racial and ethnic data on an annual basis (figure 1).

• A sizable number of schools (41 percent) reported that there

are students in their schools for whom the five standard federal categories

are not accurately descriptive (table 5). Of the 31 percent of all schools that

could estimate the number of students

for whom this applied, the majority (84 percent) reported that it applied to

less than 5 percent of their total student population.

• The majority of public schools (73 percent) reported that they use only the

five standard federal categories to classify the race and ethnicity of students

(figure 2). Of the remaining 27 percent of schools that use classifications

other than these five categories, 10 percent use “other” or “undesignated,”

with space for indicating a specific race or ethnicity. Another 5 percent of

schools reported the use of “other” without space for specification. A

general “multiracial” category is being used by 5 percent of schools.

• Additional racial and ethnic designations, such as “Filipino,” are being

used by 7 percent of all schools (figure 2). Use of designations such as

these appears to be limited primarily to schools in the West, those in cities

and urban fringe areas, and those with 20 percent or more minority

enrollments (table 2).

• About half of the 27 percent of schools that use classifications other than

the five standard federal categories reported that the central district office

handles the task of aggregating this information before reporting it to the

federal government (table 4). Many of the remaining schools (35 percent)

reported that these students are distributed by the school among the five

standard federal categories based on which ones the school considers most

appropriate.

• Public schools typically ask parents or guardians to identify the race and

ethnicity of their children. Almost half (44 percent) of all schools ask

parents to select one of the five standard federal categories. A much

smaller percentage (17 percent) ask parents to select from a set of

categories used by the school district. In 12 percent of schools, parents

may
iv

write in their own specifications when identifying the race or ethnicity of

their children (table 1).

• Approximately one-quarter (22 percent) of public schools assign students

to racial and ethnic classifications based on observation by teachers or

administrators (table 1). In the Northeast, the percentage is double that of

the national average (44 percent).

• In general, most respondents reported that various suggested revisions to

the five standard federal categories were not an issue or were only a minor

issue in terms of their applicability to students enrolled in their schools

(table 6).
v

Table of Contents

Page

Highlights ............................................................................................................................................ iii

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1

How Do Public Schools Collect Information About Students’ Race and Ethnicity? .................................. 4

To What Extent Are Public Schools Identifying Race and Ethnicity With Categories

Other Than the Five Standard Categories Used by the Federal Government?................................... 6

For Federal Reporting Purposes, How Do Public Schools Provide Racial Information

for Students Who Are Reported Using Designations Other Than the Five Standard

Federal Categories?............................................................................................................................ 9

To What Extent Would Suggested Revisions to the Five Standard Federal Categories Be

Applicable to Students in the Nation’s Public Schools?.................................................................... 10

Suggested Revisions to Directive No. 15 and Their Relevance to Schools ................................................. 12

Other Issues Related to the Collection of Data on Race and Ethnicity....................................................... 13

Summary and Conclusions......................................................................................................................... 14

List of Appendices

Appendix

A Survey Methodology and Data Reliability......................................................................................... 17

B Tables of Standard Errors.................................................................................................................. 25

C Survey Form....................................................................................................................................... 37
vi

List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Percent of public schools indicating when information about the race and ethnicity

of students is usually obtained: 1995...................................................................................................... 4

2 Percent of public schools indicating various categories for classifying students’ race

and ethnicity: 1995................................................................................................................................. 6

3 Percent of public schools indicating use of the five standard federal categories

only, by school characteristics: 1995...................................................................................................... 7

List of Tables

Table

1 Percent of public schools indicating various methods of collecting information

about the race and ethnicity of students, by school characteristics: 1995............................................... 5

2 Percent of public schools using additional racial or ethnic categories,

by school characteristics: 1995............................................................................................................... 8

3 Percent of public schools using “Filipino” as a separate designation, or breaking

down the “Asian and Pacific Islander” category into two separate categories: 1995............................. 9

4 Percent of public schools using additional racial and ethnic classifications, by

various methods schools use to aggregate the data for federal reporting: 1995...................................... 10

5 Percent of public schools indicating enrollment of any students whom they feel

are not accurately described by the standard federal categories, and their estimates

of the percent of their total population for whom this applies, by school

characteristics: 1995............................................................................................................................... 11

6 Percent of public schools indicating the extent to which suggested revisions to the

standard federal categories for classifying race and ethnicity apply to students at

their school: 1995................................................................................................................................... 13

7 Number and percent of responding public schools in the study sample, and estimated

number and percent of public schools the sample represents, by school characteristics:

1995......................................................................................................................................................... 20
1

Introduction When individuals in the United States complete forms for school enrollment, or

applications for jobs, mortgages, college scholarships or other kinds of loans,

they are asked to provide information about their racial or ethnic heritage.

Typically, they are asked to check one of four racial categories: American Indian

or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; black; or white. They are also

asked to indicate whether or not they are of Hispanic origin. In addition, persons

residing in the United States are also asked to check a racial or ethnic category

for the decennial census. This information is used by the federal government for

a variety of purposes, including monitoring job discrimination and school

segregation and determining how to allocate large amounts of federal aid.

The Census Bureau has included a question on race in each census since 1790.

The content and format of the question, in addition to the method of data

collection, have changed over the years. In 1790, four categories were used to

collect data on race—Free White Males, Free White Females, All Other Free

Persons, and Slaves. By 1970, nine categories—white, Negro or black, Indian

(American), Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Korean, and Other race—

were being used. Beginning with the 1970 census, the Census Bureau also

introduced a separate question to collect data on Hispanic origin. By the 1990

census, the race categories had expanded even further to 15 categories—white,

black, Indian (American), Eskimo, Aleut, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Korean,

Vietnamese, Asian Indian, Samoan, Guamanian, Other Asian or Pacific

Islander, and Other race.

In 1974 the Federal Interagency Committee on Education (FICE) created an Ad

Hoc Committee on Racial and Ethnic Definitions to develop specific terms and

definitions for designating race and ethnicity. The purpose of this endeavor was

to create a system so that a broad range of racial and ethnic data could be

collected by federal agencies on a compatible and nonduplicative basis. The

efforts of this committee, along with those of numerous other federal offices and

commissions, resulted in the categories that are currently being used. In 1977

the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued “Race and Ethnic

Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting,” which are

contained in Statistical Policy Directive No. 15. For the first time standard

categories and definitions were to be used by all federal agencies in both

collecting and presenting data on racial and ethnic populations. Directive No.

15 has four racial groups and breaks down ethnicity into “Hispanic origin” and

“Not of Hispanic origin.” The directive also allows agencies to collect data

using a format that combines the racial and ethnic categories, which includes

Hispanic in the list of choices. These categories were
2

developed largely to produce data on population groups that historically had

suffered discrimination and differential treatment in the United States because of

their race or ethnicity (Evinger 1995).

The same five standard federal categories have been used for nearly 20 years.

Yet during the time that the standards have been in effect, the country’s

population has become increasingly diverse, both racially and ethnically.

During the 1980s immigration to the United States reached historic levels, and,

since the 1965 Immigration Act, the flows have shifted from Europe and Canada

to Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Asia (Harrison and

Bennett 1995). Interracial marriages are also beginning to increase the

population that is of mixed race or ethnicity (Evinger 1995). However, the

proportion of these marriages is still relatively small (about 2 percent of all

marriages in the United States). One consequence of these demographic

changes has been concern on the part of data collectors and respondents

themselves that the current standard federal categories no longer reflect the

diversity of the nation’s present population.

In July 1993 OMB announced that it would undertake a comprehensive review

of the current categories, including an analysis of the possible effects of

suggested changes to the categories on the quality and utility of the resulting

data. An integral and essential part of OMB’s review is, therefore, the research

and testing being conducted by a number of federal agencies of alternative

approaches to collecting data on race and ethnicity. For additional information

on the OMB review process see OMB’s Federal Register notices of June 9, 1994

(59FR29831-35) and August 28, 1995 (60FR44674-93). For information on

review efforts by the Census Bureau, see the Bureau of Labor Statistics (1995)

and the Federal Register notice of December 1, 1995 (60FR62010-15).

The survey described in this report is part of this research agenda and provides

information on the collection of racial and ethnic data from the perspective of

administrative records maintained by schools.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the Office for Civil

Rights (OCR) in the Department of Education commissioned the study. The

purpose of the survey was to determine by what methods schools classify

students’ race and ethnicity, what categories they use, and how they report this

information to the federal government. The survey was also designed to identify

any problems schools are experiencing currently in recording and reporting

racial and ethnic information using the current categories.
3

This report presents the findings from the School Survey on Racial and Ethnic

Classifications conducted for NCES by Westat, Inc., a research firm in

Rockville, Maryland. The survey was conducted through the NCES Fast

Response Survey System (FRSS) during spring 1995. FRSS is a survey system

designed to collect small amounts of data with minimal burden placed on

respondents and within a relatively short time frame. Short, three-page

questionnaires were sent to a nationally representative sample of public

elementary and secondary schools. A copy of the questionnaire is included as

appendix C. Survey findings are presented for all public schools, and by the

following school characteristics:

• School enrollment

- Less than 300

- 300-499

- 500-999

- 1,000 or more

• Metropolitan status

- City

- Urban fringe

- Town

- Rural

• Geographic region

- Northeast

- Southeast

- Central

- West

• Percent minority enrollment

- Less than 5

- 5-19

- 20-49

- 50 or more

Data have been weighted to national estimates of public schools. All

comparative statements made in this report have been tested for statistical

significance through chi-square tests or t-tests adjusted for multiple comparisons

using the Bonferroni adjustment and are significant at the .05 level or better.

However, not all significant comparisons have been presented, since some were

not of substantive importance.
4

How Do Public Schools

Collect Information

About Students’ Race

and Ethnicity?

The majority of the nation’s public schools (55 percent) reported that they

collect information about race and ethnicity only when students initially register

at any school in the district (figure 1). Another 17 percent indicated that they

collect this information at initial registration and whenever students change

schools within the district. Only one-quarter of schools collect these data

annually.

Figure 1.—Percent of public schools indicating when information about the

race and ethnicity of students is usually obtained: 1995

17%

25%

3%

55%

Only upon initial 

registration at any school 

in the district

At initial registration and 

when students change 

schools within the 

district

On an annual basis

Other

Race and ethnicity 

information collected:

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System,

“School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,” FRSS 53, 1995.

Procedures for collecting racial and ethnic data at most schools involve a

modified system of self-identification rather than third-party identification. That

is, parents or guardians are generally given the opportunity to identify the race

and ethnicity of their children, as reported by 73 percent of all schools (table 1).

Almost half (44 percent) of all public schools reported that when parents or

guardians provide this information, they are asked to select one of the five

standard federal categories: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or

Pacific Islander; black, not of Hispanic origin; Hispanic; and white, not of

Hispanic origin (table 1). Another 17 percent of public schools ask parents or

guardians to select one of the categories that are being used by the school

district, which would include the five standard federal categories or some

variation thereof, but might also allow reporting in additional categories,

including “other” or “multiracial.” In 12 percent of all public schools, parents or

guardians are allowed to write in their own specifications for the race and

ethnicity of their children, rather than being restricted to selecting from a list of

categories provided by the school district.
5

Table 1.—Percent of public schools indicating various methods of collecting information about the race and

ethnicity of students, by school characteristics: 1995

Parents or guardians can: Teachers

School characteristic

Select one of the five

standard federal

categories

Select one of the

categories used by the

school district

Write in their child’s

specific race or

ethnicity

or administrators

assign students to

categories based on

observation

Other method1

All public schools........ 44 17 12 22 5

Size of enrollment

Less than 300.................. 48 11 15 24 2

300 to 499....................... 36 16 15 26 8

500 to 999....................... 44 21 10 20 4

1,000 or more.................. 53 21 6 16 4

Metropolitan status

City................................. 45 25 13 11 7

Urban fringe.................... 47 21 8 22 2

Town............................... 36 13 16 29 8

Rural............................... 46 9 14 28 3

Geographic region

Northeast......................... 43 4 4 44 5

Southeast......................... 46 18 19 14 4

Central............................ 39 12 12 30 6

West................................ 47 28 13 8 3

Percent minority enrollment

in school2

Less than 5...................... 35 7 11 42 5

5-19 ................................ 50 14 12 22 2

20-49 .............................. 49 25 15 7 3

50 or more....................... 47 22 13 10 9

1

Includes some other procedure at the school (3 percent) and data collection by the central district office (2 percent).

2Minority enrollment data were missing for about 4 percent of the sampled schools. These schools are not listed in this analysis but are included in the total and in analyses

with other school characteristics.

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,”

FRSS 53, 1995.

Some schools rely on third-party identification of students’ race and ethnicity.

Approximately one-quarter of all schools assign students to categories based on

observation by a teacher or administrator. Another 5 percent of schools

indicated either that the school followed some other procedure for collecting

racial and ethnic data, or that this information was not collected at the school but

at the central district office.

Use of some of these procedures varies by the region of the country in which the

school is located, the metropolitan status of the community it serves, and the

percentage of minority students in the school population. For example, in the

nation as a whole, 29 percent of public schools indicated that parents either may

choose from a list containing categories other than the five standard ones or

write in their own specifications. While 41 percent of schools in the West allow

parents these two options, only a small percentage of schools in the Northeast (8

percent) reported providing parents
6

with any option other than selecting one of the five standard federal categories.

In addition, schools in the Northeast and Central regions are more likely to use

third-party identification than schools in the Southeast and West. Schools in

cities are least likely to use this procedure when compared to the other three

types of metropolitan areas. Finally, schools with 20 percent minority

enrollments or more are also less likely to rely on third-party identification of

students’ race and ethnicity than schools with less than 20 percent minority

enrollment.

To What Extent Are

Public Schools

Identifying Race and

Ethnicity With

Categories Other Than

the Five Standard

Categories Used by the

Federal Government?

Schools were asked to report what other categories they use to classify the race or

ethnicity of students. Respondents could check any of six possible alternative

classifications, or specifically indicate that the school uses no additional

categories. Approximately three-quarters of the nation’s public schools specified

that they use only the five standard federal categories to identify students’ race and

ethnicity (figure 2). Fifteen percent of all schools reported using an “other” or

“undesignated” category—10 percent use this classifica-tion and provide space for

identifying a specific racial or ethnic group, while 5 percent use it without space

for specification. A general “multiracial” category is reportedly being used by 5

percent of all schools, while 7 percent of schools are using additional racial and

ethnic designations, such as “Filipino.” Specific combinations of the five standard

federal categories, such as “black/ white,” or an “unknown” category are rarely

used by schools to classify students’ race and ethnicity (2 percent of schools).

Figure 2.—Percent of public schools indicating various categories for

classifying students’ race and ethnicity: 1995

73%

10%

5% 7% 5%

1% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% Use only the five standard federal

categories

Use an "other" or "undesignated" category

with space for specification

Use an "other" or "undesignated" category 

without space for specification

Use additional racial 

and ethnic categories

Use a general 

"multiracial" category

Use specific combinations 

of the five standard federal categories

Use an "unknown" 

category

NOTE: Percents do not sum to 100 because respondents could select any and all categories that applied to their

schools.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System,

“School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,” FRSS 53, 1995.
7

Limiting the classification of racial and ethnic data to the five standard federal

categories also appears to vary somewhat by certain school characteristics

(figure 3). Schools in the Northeast are more likely than those in other regions

of the country to use only the standard federal categories, and schools in rural

areas are more likely than those in cities and urban fringe areas to do so.

Schools with less than 5 percent minority enrollment are also more likely than

those with 20 percent or more to restrict the designations they use to the five

standard federal categories, although 63 percent of schools with more than 50

percent minority enrollment also reported that they use no additional

classifications. Finally, very small schools (less than 300 students) are more

likely to adhere to the five standard federal categories than those with

enrollments of 500 students or more. However, it must be noted that use of only

the five standard categories to classify racial and ethnic data does not necessarily

depend on the data collection procedure used by the school. For example,

schools might use only these categories but have teachers do the assigning, or

they may have parents write in the information but then fit the data into the

standard categories.

Figure 3.—Percent of public schools indicating use of the five standard

federal categories only, by school characteristics: 1995

63

66

77

84

60

76

71

91

85

75

68

63

65

66

75

82

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of schools

Size of enrollment

Metropolitan status

Geographic region

Percent minority enrollment*

<300

300-499 

 500-999

1000+

City

Urban fringe

Town

Rural

Northeast

Southeast

Central

West

Less than 5

 5-19 

20-49

50 or more

*Minority enrollment data were missing for about 4 percent of the sample schools. These schools

are not listed in this analysis but are included in the total and in analyses with other school

characteristics.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System,

“School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,” FRSS 53, 1995.
8

Seven percent of schools reported using additional racial or ethnic designations

(table 2). However, use of additional categories appears to be more prevalent in

schools in the West, schools with 1,000 or more students, those in cities and

urban fringe areas, and those with 20 percent or more minority enrollments.

Adding a separate Filipino category was most frequently mentioned by schools

surveyed, although this only applied to 4 percent of all schools (table 3). Some

schools also reported breaking down the Asian and Pacific Islander category into

two separate categories. Other categories mentioned by schools were Middle

Eastern and various specific Asian nationalities, such as Chinese and Japanese,

but each was reported by less than 1 percent of all schools.

Table 2.—Percent of public schools using additional racial or ethnic

categories, by school characteristics: 1995

School characteristic

Percent of public schools using

additional categories

All public schools.......................................... 7

Size of enrollment

Less than 300..................................................... 3

300 to 499.......................................................... 5

500 to 999.......................................................... 9

1000 or more...................................................... 16

Metropolitan status

City.................................................................... 13

Urban fringe....................................................... 11

Town.................................................................. 3

Rural.................................................................. 1

Geographic region

Northeast............................................................ (+)

Southeast............................................................ 1

Central............................................................... 1

West................................................................... 22

Percent minority enrollment in school*

Less than 5......................................................... 3

5-19.................................................................... 4

20-49.................................................................. 13

50 or more.......................................................... 12

*Minority enrollment data were missing for about 4 percent of the sample schools. These schools

are not listed in this analysis but are included in the total and in analyses with other school

characteristics.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System,

“School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,” FRSS 53, 1995.
9

Table 3.—Percent of public schools using “Filipino” as a separate

designation, or breaking down the “Asian and Pacific

Islander” category into two separate categories: 1995

Additional categories

Percent of schools that

use any additional

categories1

Percent of all

schools2

Filipino................................................................ 63 4

Asian and Pacific Islander category

separated into two categories............................ 31 2

1Based on the 7 percent of estimated schools (5,420) that reported using any specific additional categories

(unweighted n = 264).

2Based on all schools.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System,

“School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,” FRSS 53, 1995.

For Federal Reporting

Purposes, How Do

Public Schools Provide

Racial Information for

Students Who Are

Reported Using

Designations Other

Than the Five Standard

Federal Categories?

When schools use designations such as “other” or “multiracial” to classify

racial and ethnic data, they are required to use the five standard categories

specified in Directive No. 15 when submitting their data to the federal

government. How do schools convert their records into data that are compatible

with the federal guidelines?

Schools that indicated the use of any racial or ethnic categories other than the

five standard ones were asked to select from a list of six procedures the one

procedure that they use to aggregate the data for federal reporting. Separate

responses were requested for “other,” “undesignated,” or “unknown”

classifications and for “multiracial” or additional racial or ethnic categories

(table 4). Of those public schools that reported using any classifications other

than the five standard federal categories (27 percent of all schools),

approximately half (46-56 percent) indicated that their school district’s central

office handles the aggregating of information for federal reporting (table 4).

Since this survey did not collect district-level information, the procedures these

school districts follow are unknown. For those schools that indicated that the

aggregating is done at the school level, many (35 percent) reported that students

who are classified using any additional categories are distributed among the five

standard federal categories based on which ones the school considers most

appropriate. For example, students classified as Filipino would be aggregated

into the Asian or Pacific Islander category. No more than 19 percent of these

schools reported using any particular alternative procedure, such as determining

the mothers’ race or ethnicity and assigning students accordingly, or distributing

the students by prorating data among the five standard federal categories.
10

Table 4.—Percent of public schools using additional racial and ethnic

classifications, by various methods schools use to aggregate the

data for federal reporting: 1995

Schools that use:

Method schools use to aggregate data for

federal reporting

“Other,”

“undesignated,” or

“unknown”

classifications1

“Multiracial” or

additional racial or

ethnic categories2

Central district office handles this reporting..

46 56

Students are distributed among the five

standard categories based on which ones

the school considers appropriate...............

35 35

Students are prorated or otherwise

distributed by some formula among the

five standard categories............................ 4 2

School ascertains the mother’s race or

ethnicity and assigns the student to that

category.................................................... 10 1

All the students are put into one of the five

standard categories................................... 1 4

Some other action is taken............................. 4 1

1Based on the 16 percent of estimated schools (12,335) that reported using these classifications.

2Based on the 12 percent of estimated schools (9,341) that reported using these classifications.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System,

“School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,” FRSS 53, 1995.

To What Extent Would

Suggested Revisions to

the Five Standard

Federal Categories

Be Applicable to

Students in the Nation’s

Public Schools?

In an effort to further understand the usefulness of the five standard federal

categories for today’s school population, respondents were asked to indicate

whether their enrollments included any students for whom these categories are

not accurately descriptive. If so, respondents were then asked if they could

estimate the number of such students, and those who could were asked to

provide an approximate number. While it would have been preferable to ask all

respondents to provide this estimate, during the pretest of the questionnaire it

was clear that even if there were “hard-to-classify” students at their schools,

some respondents were reticent to provide this information because of a district

requirement to classify all students using only the five standard federal

categories.

Although only 27 percent of public schools indicated that they are going beyond

the five standard federal categories to classify students’ race and ethnicity, a

larger percentage of schools (41 percent) reported that their enrollments include

students whom they feel are not accurately described by these categories (table

5).
11

The standard federal categories seem most appropriate for students in very small

schools, those in rural areas, and those in schools with less than 5 percent

minority enrollment. The categories appear least appropriate for students in

schools with over 300 students, and in schools with 20-49 percent minority

enrollment. Schools with smaller or larger percentages of minority students may

have less difficulty classifying the race and ethnicity of students because their

populations are more racially homogeneous, and this would be an interesting

issue to follow up in future research.

Table 5.--Percent of public schools indicating enrollment of any students whom they feel are not accurately

described by the standard federal categories, and their estimates of the percent of their total population

for whom this applies, by school characteristics: 1995

All schools Schools acknowledging any inaccurately described students

Percent Percent Estimate of percent of students2

School characteristic Percent reporting any

inaccurately described

students

able to estimate

the number of

inaccurately described

students

able to estimate

the number of

inaccurately described

students1

Less than

1

1 - 4.9 5 - 10

More than

10

All public schools........ 41 31 77 34 50 10 6

Size of enrollment

Less than 300.................. 29 23 80 18 53 22 8

300 to 499....................... 45 34 76 34 60 3 2

500 to 999....................... 43 35 82 41 41 11 7

1,000 or more.................. 56 34 60 40 46 5 9

Metropolitan status

City................................. 48 31 66 27 53 8 13

Urban fringe.................... 51 41 81 31 53 10 6

Town............................... 41 34 83 44 44 9 3

Rural............................... 25 21 81 38 48 14 0

Geographic region

Northeast......................... 37 29 78 37 43 11 10

Southeast......................... 43 37 86 47 47 5 1

Central............................ 38 28 74 38 59 1 2

West................................ 45 33 73 19 47 23 11

Percent minority

enrollment in school3

Less than 5...................... 26 23 89 63 35 2 (+)

5-19 ................................ 46 36 78 34 53 8 5

20-49 .............................. 61 42 68 25 56 14 4

50 or more....................... 41 31 76 16 51 19 15

(+) Less than .5 percent.

1Based on the 41 percent of estimated schools (or 24,453 of the 31,699 schools) that reported any inaccurately described students. The same schools are represented in

columns 2 and 3 using different bases for the two percentage distributions.

2Based on the estimated schools (24,453) that reported the ability to estimate the number of students who are not accurately described by the five standard federal categories.

3Minority enrollment data were missing for about 4 percent of the sampled schools. These schools are not listed in this analysis but are included in the total and in analyses

with other school characteristics.

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,”

FRSS 53, 1995.
12

Of the 41 percent of schools that acknowledged having any of these “hard-toclassify” students, 77 percent (31 percent of all public schools) indicated that

they could provide an estimate of how many such students were enrolled in their

schools. The majority of these schools (84 percent) reported that less than 5

percent of their student population was considered to be inaccurately described

by the standard federal categories (table 5).

Suggested Revisions to

Directive No. 15 and

Their Relevance to

Schools

During 1993 the House Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, and Postal

Personnel held a series of four hearings, focusing primarily on the measurement

of race and ethnicity in the decennial census, at which OMB announced a review

of Directive No. 15. As a first step, OMB requested the Committee on National

Statistics to convene the workshop held in February 1994 to discuss the issues

surrounding a review of the categories in Directive No. 15. In June 1994 OMB

published a notice in the Federal Register soliciting public comment on the

adequacy of the current categories, and as part of the comment period held four

hearings in Boston, Denver, San Francisco, and Honolulu. During the

workshop, the hearings, and the public comment period, OMB received a

number of suggestions for revisions to the Directive. In the present survey, eight

of the most prominent of these suggested changes were listed and schools were

asked to indicate the extent to which each was applicable for students enrolled at

their schools.

In general, most respondents (69 to 93 percent) reported that these revisions to

Directive No. 15 either were not an issue or were only a minor issue in terms of

their applicability to students enrolled in their schools (table 6). Between 3 and

12 percent of schools indicated that any of these issues were significant in terms

of their applicability to students. Adding a “multiracial” category was reported

as a significant issue by 12 percent of schools, allowing individuals to write in

their own designations and changing the name of the “black” category to

“African American” were viewed as significant issues in 10 percent of schools,

and changing the name of the “American Indian or Alaskan Native” category to

“Native American” was considered significant in 9 percent of schools.

Relatively few schools (1 to 11 percent) reported that they had already included

or were planning to implement any of these revisions. Nevertheless, many states

are aware of implementation problems with the current classifications, and

some, such as Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio, have enacted laws

requiring the addition of new categories. Information concerning such state laws

or regulations will be collected in a followup survey addressed to state-level

educational officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
13

Table 6.—Percent of public schools indicating the extent to which suggested revisions to the standard federal

categories for classifying race and ethnicity apply to students at their school: 1995

Suggested revision Not an issue

A minor issue A moderate

issue

A significant

issue

Already

included, or

soon to be

implemented

Adding a general “multiracial” category.................................. 46 23 13 12 6

Allowing individuals to write in a racial or ethnic designation.

55 14 12 10 9

Adding an “other” category..................................................... 56 17 9 6 11

Changing the name of the “black” category to “African

American”........................................................................... 57 16 12 10 4

Changing the name of the “American Indian or Alaskan

Native” category to “Native American”.............................. 63 14 11 9 4

Adding specific combinations of the current categories............

64 19 10 5 1

Including Native Hawaiian as a separate category or as part of

a “Native American” category............................................. 83 10 4 3 1

Adding additional racial or ethnic designations........................ 88 4 4 3 1

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,”

FRSS 53, 1995.

Other Issues Related to

the Collection of Data on

Race and Ethnicity

Respondents were asked to comment on any additional issues regarding racial

and ethnic classifications that they felt were significant for their schools. Of the

926 school personnel who completed questionnaires, about 15 percent provided

some written comments.

Many of these comments reiterated some of the information already included

elsewhere in the questionnaire. For example, several respondents commented on

the need for a multiracial, biracial, or multinational category. Others indicated

that they felt it would be important to allow individuals either to mark a category

that meets their identity or to let them write in their own specific racial or ethnic

designation, with no categories provided. About 10 percent of the comments

implied that no changes are warranted. These comments often were from

respondents who acknowledged that because of the homogeneity of the

population at their particular schools, they were not experiencing any problems

with the current standards. Finally, a slightly higher number of comments were

from individuals who expressed displeasure with the entire process of collecting

data on race and ethnicity and suggested eliminating this system of identifying

and categorizing this population characteristic entirely.

Summary and

Conclusions

The federal government collects racial and ethnic data for a variety of purposes.

The most widely known collection is in the decennial census. Racial and ethnic

categories are also found on many forms individuals are asked to complete,

including school enrollment forms. Disparities among racial and ethnic groups

in social and economic status, credit experience, educational attainment, health

outcomes, and availability of health services, to name a few areas, can reveal

underlying civil rights problems. For example, the OCR in the Department of

Education uses racial and ethnic data to detect possible racial discrimination in

ability grouping, discipline, athletics, financial aid, and programs for special

populations.
14

According to recent censuses, the

U.S. population is becoming

increasingly diverse primarily as a

result of immigration from all

parts of the world. The federal

government has therefore

undertaken the task of reviewing

and possibly modifying the way

racial and ethnic data are collected

and reported. Some members of

the public are even questioning

the usefulness of these data and

whether it is reasonable for the

government to collect racial and

ethnic information.

In response to OMB’s June 1994

Federal Register notice, a large

number of comments came from

parents of multiracial children

who are dissatisfied with selecting

one racial category when

registering their children in

school. This survey does not

suggest that such complaints are

widespread at the local level, or

that the majority of public schools

have seen the need to modify the

way they collect data on students’

race and ethnicity. While most

schools did not report that making

particular changes to the current

categories would be applicable to

a significant number of students in

their schools, some changes have

been initiated to enable parents

either to use an “other” category

or to write in their own

designations.

The majority of public schools

collect racial and ethnic data when

students initially register at any

school in the district. Some of

these schools also update this

information whenever students

change schools in the district.

About three-quarters of public

schools leave it up to parents or

guardians to identify the race and

ethnicity of their children,

typically giving parents and

guardians the opportunity to select

one of the five standard federal categories. Ten percent of schools use the

standard categories but also use an “other” category with space for providing a

specific designation; another 5 percent use an “other” category without space for

specification. Five percent of schools indicated that they use a general

“multiracial” category. When categories such as “other” or “multiracial” are

used, schools typically aggregate these data into the one of the five standard

federal categories that is deemed most appropriate by school staff before

reporting the information to
15

the federal government. However, in about half of the schools that use

classifications other than those in Directive No. 15, the central district office is

responsible for aggregating and submitting these data to the federal government.

When respondents were presented with a list of suggested changes to the current

federal categories for race and ethnicity, a small percentage (11 percent or less)

of them indicated that any of the changes had been, or soon would be, made at

their schools. Another small percentage indicated that any of these issues were

significant in terms of their applicability to students enrolled at their schools (3-

12 percent). These data are corroborated by the finding that, of the 31 percent of

schools reporting that they could estimate the number of students not accurately

described by the five standard categories, 84 percent estimated that this was the

case for fewer than 5 percent of their student population.

This survey was designed by OCR and NCES to be part of the research

associated with OMB’s review of Directive No. 15. The results of the survey

have provided important data on this complex issue from the perspective of

public schools, which represent one of the largest groups of institutions required

to collect data on the race and ethnicity of the U.S. population. As such, schools

would bear the considerable cost and burden of incorporating any changes to the

categories should they be adopted by OMB. A followup state-level survey will

provide additional information about the existence of any state laws, regulations,

or guidelines concerning collecting information about the race and ethnicity of

students. Together, the two surveys should provide valuable input to OMB

about administrative record issues surrounding the collection of race and

ethnicity information in schools.
16
17

Appendix A

Survey Methodology

and

Data Reliability
18

Survey

Methodology

and Data

Reliability

Sample Selection

The sampling frame for the FRSS School Survey on Racial and Ethnic

Classifications was constructed from the 1992-93 NCES Common Core of

Data (CCD) public school universe file and included over 79,000 public

elementary and secondary schools. Excluded from the frame were special

education, vocational, and alternative/other schools, schools outside the 50 states

and the District of Columbia, and schools whose highest grade was less than

first grade.

A stratified sample of 1,000 schools—500 elementary and 500 secondary—was

selected for the survey. The sample was stratified by geographic region

(Northeast, Southeast, Central, and West), metropolitan status (city, urban

fringe, town, and rural), percent minority enrollment (less than 5, 5-19, 20-49,

and 50 or greater), and school size (less than 300, 300-499, 500-999, and 1,000

or more). The sample sizes were then allocated to the primary strata in rough

proportion to the aggregate square root of the enrollment of schools in the

stratum. The use of the square root of enrollment to determine the sample

allocation was expected to be reasonably efficient for estimating both schoollevel characteristics (e.g., percentage of schools that use additional racial and

ethnic classifications) and quantitative measures correlated with enrollment

(e.g., the number of students whom they feel are not accurately described by the

five standard federal categories). Further, the sample sizes were large enough to

permit analyses of the questionnaire (along one dimension) by the four regions,

four urbanicity classes, four levels of minority enrollment, and four enrollment

size classes (table 7).

Respondents and Response Rates
19

In early May 1995, questionnaires (see appendix C) were mailed to 500 public elementary school principals and 500

secondary school principals. The principal was asked either to complete the questionnaire or to have it completed by the

person in his or her school who was most knowledgeable about the collection, record- ing, and reporting of information

regarding the race and ethnicity of the school’s student body. Principals completed 72 percent of the questionnaires, other

administrators completed 24 percent, district representatives completed 4 percent of the questionnaires, and teachers

completed less than 1 percent. Eight schools were found to be out of scope (no longer at the same location or serving the

same population), leaving 992 eligible schools in the sample. Telephone followup of nonrespondents was initiated in midMay; data collection was completed by June 1995. Sixty percent of the questionnaires were returned by mail, 25 percent

were completed by phone, and 16 percent were submitted by fax. A total of 926 schools completed the survey. Thus, the

final response rate was 93 percent. The weighted response rate was also 93 percent. Item nonresponse ranged from 0.0 to

0.9 percent.
20

Table 7.—Number and percent of responding public schools in the study sample, and estimated number and

percent of public schools the sample represents, by school characteristics: 1995

Respondent sample National estimate

School characteristic Number Percent Number Percent

All public schools........................... 926 100 77,636 100

Size of enrollment

Less than 300.................................. 141 15 20,685 27

300 to 499....................................... 207 22 22,322 29

500 to 999....................................... 360 39 27,519 35

1,000 or more.................................. 218 24 7,110 9

Metropolitan status

City................................................. 253 27 19,065 25

Urban fringe.................................... 244 26 19,454 25

Town............................................... 223 24 18,379 24

Rural............................................... 206 22 20,738 27

Geographic region

Northeast......................................... 165 18 13,910 18

Southeast......................................... 222 24 17,599 23

Central............................................ 265 29 23,585 30

West................................................ 274 30 22,542 29

Percent minority enrollment in

school*

Less than 5...................................... 300 32 27,424 32

5-19 ................................................ 226 24 18,549 24

20-49 .............................................. 191 21 14,784 19

50 or more....................................... 209 23 16,879 22

*Minority enrollment data were missing for about 4 percent of the sample schools. These schools are not listed in this analysis but are included in the total and in analyses

with other school characteristics.

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Population estimates determined using data from CCD.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,”

FRSS 53, 1995.

Sampling and

Nonsampling Errors

The response data were weighted to produce national estimates. The weights

were designed to adjust for the variable probabilities of selection and differential

nonresponse. The findings in this report are estimates based on the sample

selected and, consequently, are subject to sampling variability.

The survey estimates are also subject to nonsampling errors that can arise

because of nonobservation (nonresponse or noncoverage) errors, errors of

reporting, and errors made in collection of the
21

data. These errors can sometimes bias the data. Nonsampling errors may

include such problems as the differences in the respondents' interpretation of the

meaning of the questions; memory effects; misrecording of responses; incorrect

editing, coding, and data entry; differences related to the particular time the

survey was conducted; or errors in data preparation. While general sampling

theory can be used in part to determine how to estimate the sampling variability

of a statistic, nonsampling errors are not easy to measure and, for measurement

purposes, usually require that an experiment be conducted as part of the data

collection procedures or that data external to the study be used.

To minimize the potential for nonsampling errors, the questionnaire was

pretested with public school principals. During the design of the survey and the

survey pretest, an effort was made to check for consistency of interpretation of

questions and to eliminate ambiguous items. The questionnaire and instructions

were extensively reviewed by staff at the National Center for Education

Statistics. Manual and machine editing of the questionnaire responses were

conducted to check the data for accuracy and consistency. Cases with missing

or inconsistent items were recontacted by telephone. Imputations for item

nonresponse were not implemented, as item nonresponse rates were very low

(less than 1 percent). Data were keyed with 100 percent verification.

Variances The standard error is a measure of the variability of estimates due to sampling.

It indicates the variability of a sample estimate that would be obtained from all

possible samples of a given design and size. Standard errors are used as a

measure of the precision expected from a particular sample. If all possible

samples were surveyed under similar conditions, intervals of 1.96 standard

errors below to 1.96 standard errors above a particular statistic would include

the true population parameter being estimated in about 95 percent of the

samples. This is a 95 percent confidence interval. For example, the estimated

percentage of public schools reporting that they only use the five standard federal

categories for collecting race and ethnicity information is 73 percent, and the

estimated standard error is 1.4 percent. The 95 percent confidence interval for

the statistic extends from [73 - (1.4 x 1.96) to 73 + (1.4 x 1.96)], or from 70.2 to

75.4.

Estimates of standard errors were computed using a technique known as

jackknife replication, which accounts for the complexities of the sample design.

As with any replication method, jackknife replication involves constructing a

number of subsamples (replicates) from the full sample and computing the

statistic of interest for each replicate. The mean square error of the replicate

estimates around the full sample estimate provides an estimate of
22

the variance of the statistic (see Wolter 1985, Chapter 4). To construct the

replications, 50 stratified subsamples of the full sample were created and then

dropped one at a time to define 50 jackknife replicates (see Wolter 1985, page

183). A proprietary computer program (WESVAR), available at Westat, Inc.,

was used to calculate the estimates of standard errors. The software runs under

IBM/OS and VAX/VMX systems.

Background Information The survey was performed under contract with Westat, Inc., using the NCES

Fast Response Survey System (FRSS). Westat's Project Director was Elizabeth

Farris, and the Survey Manager was Nancy Carey. Judi Carpenter was the

NCES Project Officer. The data were requested by Edith McArthur of NCES

and Sharon Tuchman of OCR in the Department of Education.

This report was reviewed by the following individuals:

Outside NCES

• Suzann Evinger and Katherine Wallman, Office of Management and

Budget

• Nampeo McKenney and Claudette Bennett, Bureau of the Census

• Lavan Dukes, Florida Department of Education

Inside NCES

• Kathryn Chandler, Bill Freund, and Lee Hoffman, Survey and Cooperative

Systems Group

• Mary Frase, Data Development and Longitudinal Surveys Group

For more information about the Fast Response Survey System or the School

Survey of Racial and Ethnic Classifications , contact Judi Carpenter,

Elementary/Secondary Education Statistics Division, Office of Educational

Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics, 555 New

Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20208-5651, telephone (202) 219-1333.
23

References and

Additional Readings

Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. “1996 Race and

Ethnic Targeted Test” (RAETT) and its Content Reinterview,

Also Identified as the 1996 Census Survey. Federal Registrar

(60FR62010-15).

Evinger, S. 1995. “How Shall We Measure Our Nation’s Diversity?” Chance,

Winter, 7-14.

Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget.

“Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and

Ethnicity,” Federal Register (59FR298 31-35 and 60FR44674-93).

Harrison, R., and Bennett, C. 1995. “Racial and Ethnic Diversity.” Chapter 4

in State of the Union, America in the 1990s, Vol. 2, Social Trends.

1990 Monograph Series. Ed. R. Farley, Russell Sage Foundation, New

York.

Hodgkinson, H. 1995. “What Should We Call People?” Phi Delta Kappan,

October, 173-179.

The WESVAR Procedures. 1989. Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1995. “A CPS

Supplement for Testing Methods of Collecting Racial and Ethnic

Information: May 1995.”

Wolter, K. 1985. Introduction to Variance Estimation.Springer-Verlag.

Directive No. 15

Categories and

Definitions

Terms Defined on the Survey

Questionnaire

American Indian or Alaskan Native - A person having origins in any of the

original peoples of North America, and who maintains cultural identification

through tribal affiliations or community recognition.

Asian or Pacific Islander - A person having origins in any of the original

peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific

Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the

Philippine Islands, and Samoa.

Black, not of Hispanic origin - A person having origins in any of the black

racial groups of Africa.

Hispanic - A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South

American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

White, not of Hispanic origin - A person having origins in any of the original

peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.
24

Sample Universe and

Classification Variables

The following classification variables come from NCES’s Common

Core of Data (CCD).

Metropolitan Status

Urban - a central city of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).

Urban fringe - a place within an MSA of a central city, but not primarily its

central city.

Town - a place not within an MSA, but with a population greater than or equal

to 2,500, and defined as urban by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Rural - a place with a population less than 2,500 and defined as rural by the

U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Geographic Region

Northeast - Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode

Island, and Vermont.

Southeast - Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West

Virginia.

Central - Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,

Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

West - Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,

Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and

Wyoming.
25

Appendix B

Tables of Standard Errors
26
27

List of Tables with Standard Errors

Table Page

1a Standard errors of the percent of public schools indicating various methods of

collecting information about the race and ethnicity of students, by school

characteristics: 1995......................................................................................................................... 29

2a. Standard errors of the percent of public schools using additional racial or

ethnic categories, by school characteristics: 1995............................................................................. 30

3a Standard errors of the percent of public schools using “Filipino” as a separate

designation, or breaking down the “Asian and Pacific Islander” category into

two separate categories: 1995........................................................................................................... 31

4a Standard errors of the percent of public schools using additional racial and

ethnic classifications, by various methods schools use to aggregate the data

for federal reporting: 1995................................................................................................................ 32

5a Standard errors of the percent of public schools indicating enrollment of any

students whom they feel are not accurately described by the standard federal

categories, and their estimates of the percent of their total population for whom

this applies, by school characteristics: 1995..................................................................................... 33

6a Standard errors of the percent of public schools indicating the extent to which

suggested revisions to the standard federal categories for classifying race and

ethnicity apply to students at their school: 1995............................................................................... 34

7a Estimates and standard errors for the figures: 1995.......................................................................... 35
28
29

Table 1a.—Standard errors of the percent of public schools indicating various methods of collecting information

about the race and ethnicity of students, by school characteristics: 1995

Parents or guardians can: Teachers or

School characteristic

Select one of the five

standard federal

categories

Select one of the

categories used by

the school district

Write in their child’s

specific race or

ethnicity

administrators assign

students to categories

based on observation

Some other

procedure is followed

All public schools........ 1.9 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2

Size of enrollment

Less than 300.................. 3.9 2.7 3.4 2.9 2.2

300 to 499....................... 3.7 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.9

500 to 999....................... 3.2 2.6 1.8 2.4 1.5

1,000 or more.................. 4.4 2.4 1.5 3.5 1.6

Metropolitan status

City................................. 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.3 2.7

Urban fringe.................... 3.6 2.7 2.2 2.7 1.2

Town............................... 3.6 2.6 2.9 3.6 2.9

Rural............................... 4.2 2.0 2.9 2.7 1.3

Geographic region

Northeast......................... 4.5 1.9 1.6 5.2 2.3

Southeast......................... 4.5 2.7 3.2 2.3 2.0

Central............................ 3.4 2.1 2.6 3.1 2.9

West................................ 3.1 3.5 2.4 1.8 1.7

Percent minority

enrollment in school*

Less than 5...................... 3.0 1.7 2.2 3.1 1.7

5-19 ................................ 4.1 2.8 2.4 3.1 1.1

20-49 .............................. 4.5 3.7 3.0 2.2 1.7

50 or more....................... 4.2 3.4 2.9 2.1 3.0

*Minority enrollment data were missing for about 4 percent of the sampled schools. These schools are not listed in this analysis but are included in the total and in analyses

with other school characteristics.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,”

FRSS 53, 1995.
30

Table 2a.—Standard errors of the percent of public schools using additional racial or ethnic categories, by school

characteristics: 1995

School characteristic

Percent of public schools using

additional categories

All public schools.......................................... 0.9

Size of enrollment

Less than 300..................................................... 1.5

300 to 499.......................................................... 1.7

500 to 999.......................................................... 1.9

1000 or more...................................................... 2.2

Metropolitan status

City.................................................................... 2.9

Urban fringe....................................................... 2.1

Town.................................................................. 1.3

Rural.................................................................. 0.7

Geographic region

Northeast............................................................ 0.3

Southeast............................................................ 0.7

Central............................................................... 0.5

West................................................................... 2.8

Percent minority enrollment in school*

Less than 5......................................................... 0.9

5-19 ................................................................... 1.5

20-49 ................................................................. 2.6

50 or more.......................................................... 2.5

*Minority enrollment data were missing for about 4 percent of the sampled schools. These schools are not listed in this analysis but are included in the total and in analyses

with other school characteristics.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,”

FRSS 53, 1995.
31

Table 3a.—Standard errors of the percent of public schools using “Filipino” as a separate designation, or breaking

down the “Asian and Pacific Islander” category into two separate categories: 1995

Additional categories

Percent of schools that use any

additional categories

Percent of all schools

Filipino.............................................................................................................. 6.5 0.8

Asian and Pacific Islander separated into two categories.................................... 6.1 0.5

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,”

FRSS 53, 1995.
32

Table 4a.—Standard errors of the percent of public schools using additional racial and ethnic classifications, by

various methods schools use to aggregate the data for federal reporting: 1995

Method schools use to aggregate data for federal reporting

“Other,” “undesignated,” or

“unknown” classifications1

“Multiracial” or additional

racial or ethnic categories2

Central district office handles this reporting....................................................... 4.7 4.6

Students are distributed among the five standard categories based on which

ones the school considers appropriate............................................................. 4.2 5.1

Students are prorated or otherwise distributed by some formula among the five

standard categories........................................................................................ 2.2 1.2

School ascertains the mother’s race or ethnicity and assigns the student to that

category......................................................................................................... 2.8 1.4

All the students are put into one of the five standard categories......................... 0.4 1.7

Some other action is taken................................................................................. 2.0 0.7

1Based on the 16 percent of estimated schools (12,335) that reported using these classifications.

2Based on the 12 percent of estimated schools (9,341) that reported using these classifications.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,”

FRSS 53, 1995.
33

Table 5a.—Standard errors of the percent of public schools indicating enrollment of any students who are not

accurately described by the standard federal categories, and their estimates of the percent of their

total population for whom this applies, by school characteristics: 1995

All schools Schools acknowledging any inaccurately described students

Percent Percent Estimate of percent of students2

School characteristic Percent reporting any

inaccurately described

students

able to estimate

the number of

inaccurately described

students

able to estimate

the number of

inaccurately described

students1

Less than

1

1 - 4.9 5 - 10

More than

10

All public schools........ 1.6 1.7 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.1 1.6

Size of enrollment

Less than 300.................. 3.9 3.9 7.7 6.6 9.7 7.1 5.5

300 to 499....................... 3.8 3.9 5.4 5.7 5.7 2.4 1.8

500 to 999....................... 2.8 2.8 3.4 4.4 4.3 3.1 2.9

1,000 or more.................. 3.4 3.6 5.1 6.3 6.8 3.3 4.0

Metropolitan status

City................................. 3.3 3.3 4.7 5.5 6.0 3.9 4.3

Urban fringe.................... 3.5 3.8 4.0 5.4 5.2 3.0 2.4

Town............................... 4.0 4.2 5.5 6.3 6.8 4.4 3.0

Rural............................... 3.2 3.2 5.7 7.7 8.9 6.7 0.0

Geographic region

Northeast......................... 5.1 4.2 6.0 8.1 9.0 2.1 4.4

Southeast......................... 3.8 4.0 3.6 6.0 6.2 4.4 1.2

Central............................ 3.1 3.0 5.0 6.6 7.2 1.2 1.6

West................................ 3.8 3.8 4.3 4.5 5.4 1.6 4.5

Percent minority

enrollment in school3

Less than 5...................... 2.2 2.2 4.0 6.3 6.6 1.6 0.5

5-19 ................................ 3.5 4.0 5.6 7.1 7.0 4.8 3.1

20-49 .............................. 4.3 4.7 5.8 5.8 5.6 4.9 2.3

50 or more....................... 3.8 3.9 5.5 4.9 6.7 7.2 5.8

1Based on the 41 percent of estimated schools (or 24,453 of the 31,699 schools) that reported any inaccurately described students. The same schools are represented in

columns 2 and 3 using different bases for the two percentage distributions.

2Based on the estimated schools (24,453) that reported the ability to estimate the number of students who are not accurately described by the five standard federal categories.

3Minority enrollment data were missing for about 4 percent of the sampled schools. These schools are not listed in this analysis but are included in the total and in analyses

with other school characteristics.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,”

FRSS 53, 1995.
34

Table 6a.—Standard errors of the percent of public schools indicating the extent to which suggested revisions to the

standard federal categories for classifying race and ethnicity apply to students at their school: 1995

Suggested revision Not an issue

A minor issue A moderate

issue

A significant

issue

Already

included, or

soon to be

implemented

Adding a general “multiracial” category.................................. 1.6 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.0

Allowing individuals to write in a racial or ethnic designation.

2.3 1,4 1.3 1.3 1.2

Adding an “other” category..................................................... 1.8 1.5 1.1 0.9 1.0

Changing the name of the “black” category to “African

American”........................................................................... 1.9 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.7

Changing the name of the “American Indian or Alaskan

Native” category to “Native American”.............................. 1.8 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.7

Adding specific combinations of the current categories............

1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 0.6

Including Native Hawaiian as a separate category or as part of

a “Native American” category............................................ 1.4 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.4

Adding additional racial or ethnic designations....................... 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.4

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,”

FRSS 53, 1995.
35

Table 7a.—Estimates and standard errors for the figures: 1995

Figures Estimate

Standard error

Figure 1: Percent of public schools indicating when information about the race and ethnicity of students is usually

obtained: 1995

Only upon initial registration at any school in the district .............................................................................................. 55 1.9

At initial registration and when students change schools within the district ................................................................... 17 1.3

On an annual basis........................................................................................................................................................ 25 1.9

Other............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 0.8

Figure 2: Percent of public schools indicating various categories for classifying students’ race and ethnicity: 1995

Use only the five standard categories............................................................................................................................ 73 1.4

Use an “other” or “undesignated” category with space for specification........................................................................ 10 1.2

Use an “other” or “undesignated” category without space for specification................................................................... 5 0.9

Use additional racial and ethnic categories................................................................................................................... 7 0.9

Use a general “multiracial” category............................................................................................................................. 5 0.8

Use specific combinations of the five standard categories............................................................................................. 1 0.4

Use an “unknown” category.......................................................................................................................................... 1 0.2

Figure 3: Percent of public schools indicating use of the five standard federal categories only, by school

characteristics: 1995

Geographic region

Northeast............................................................................................................................................................. 91 2.2

Southeast............................................................................................................................................................. 71 3.1

Central ................................................................................................................................................................ 76 2.8

West.................................................................................................................................................................... 60 3.5

Metropolitan status

City ..................................................................................................................................................................... 63 3.3

Urban fringe........................................................................................................................................................ 68 3.5

Town................................................................................................................................................................... 75 3.2

Rural................................................................................................................................................................... 85 2.3

Percent minority enrollment*

0-4....................................................................................................................................................................... 87 2.2

5-19..................................................................................................................................................................... 77 3.3

20-49................................................................................................................................................................... 66 3.9

50-100................................................................................................................................................................. 63 3.7

*Minority enrollment data were missing for about 4 percent of the sampled schools. These schools are not listed in this analysis but are included in the total and in analyses

with other school characteristics.

(+) Less than .5 percent.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,”

FRSS 53, 1995.
36
37

Appendix C

Survey Form
38
39

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS O.M.B. No.: 1850-0718

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20208-5651 EXPIRATION DATE: 6/96

SCHOOL SURVEY ON RACIAL AND

ETHNIC CLASSIFICATIONS

FAST RESPONSE SURVEY SYSTEM

This survey is authorized by law (20 U.S.C. 1221e-1). While you are not required to respond, your cooperation is

needed to make the results of this survey comprehensive, accurate, and timely.

DEFINITIONS FOR THIS SURVEY:

Standard Federal Categories - The basic racial and ethnic classifications and labels for federal statistics and program administrative reporting are

currently under review. The five standard federal categories that are currently used are:

American Indian or Alaskan Native - A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintains cultural

identification through tribal affiliations or community recognition.

Asian or Pacific Islander - A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or

the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, India, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.

Black, not of Hispanic origin - A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.

Hispanic - A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American or other Spanish Culture or origin, regardless of race.

White, not of Hispanic origin - A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.

AFFIX LABEL HERE

IF ABOVE INFORMATION IS INCORRECT, PLEASE CORRECT DIRECTLY ON LABEL.

Name of person completing form:_____________________________________________________ Telephone: _________________

Title: __________________________________________________________________________ Fax #: _____________________

Best days and times to reach you (in case of questions): ________________________________________________________________________

RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO: IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONTACT:

WESTAT Nancy Carey

1650 Research Boulevard 1-800-937-8281, Ext. 4467

Rockville, Maryland 20850 Fax #: 1-301-517-4134

Attention: 900142 E-mail: CAREYN1@WESTAT.COM

The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data

resources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time

estimate or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202-4651.

FRSS Form No. 53a, 4/95
40

1. When is information about the race or ethnicity of students at your school usually obtained? (Circle one.)

Only upon initial registration at any school in the district ................................................................................................................. 1

Upon initial registration and when a student changes schools within the district ............................................................................. 2

On an annual basis.............................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Other. (Please specify)__________________________________________________________________________ ......... 4

2. How does your school collect information about the race or ethnicity of its student population? (Circle one.)

Parents or guardians are asked to select one of the five standard federal categories of

race and ethnicity (as defined on the cover page of this questionnaire) ........................................................................ 1

Parents or guardians are asked to select one of the classifications that this school district

uses, including categories such as "other" or multiracial ............................................................................................... 2

Parents or guardians are allowed to write in their own specification of their child's race

or ethnicity...................................................................................................................................................................... 3

A teacher or administrator assigns the student to a category based on observation ...................................................... 4

Some other procedure is followed (Please specify) _____________________________________________ ..... 5

This information is not collected at the school, but at the central district office ............................................................ 6

3. In addition to the five standard federal categories (see cover page), what other categories does your school use to classify the race or ethnicity of its

students? Please check as many categories as are used. We are also interested in the different labels schools are actually using. Please provide the

specific labels your school uses, as needed.

Label

One general "multiracial" category.

Please write in the specific label your school uses. .......................................................... _____________________________________

Specific combinations of the five standard federal categories

(e.g., "Asian/White"). Please write in any combinations

your school uses............................................................................................................... _____________________________________

_____________________________________

Additional racial or ethnic categories. Please specify.

(If more than 3, attach a list.)........................................................................................... _____________________________________

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

An "unknown" category for undetermined race or ethnicity.

An "other" or "undesignated" category for race or ethnicity not covered in the list your school uses, with space for race or ethnicity to be

specified.

An "other" or "undesignated" category for race or ethnicity not covered in the list your school uses, without space for specification.

This school uses no additional categories. (Skip to Question 5.)
41

4. How does your school report to the federal government racial or ethnic classifications that are not one of the five standard federal categories?

(Circle one.)

a. For "other," "unknown," or "undesignated" classifications:

Not applicable. These classifications are not used at this school ...................................................................................................... 1

The students are prorated or otherwise distributed by some formula among the five standard federal

 categories...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

The students are distributed among the five standard federal categories based on school judgment

 about which category is most appropriate. .................................................................................................................................... 3

All the students are put into one of the five standard federal categories.

 (Please specify which one) _______________________________________________________________________ ..... 4

The school ascertains the mother's race or ethnicity and assigns the student to the appropriate

 classification................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Some other action is taken. (Please specify)____________________________________________________________ ..... 6

The central district office handles this reporting. .............................................................................................................................. 7

b. For "multiracial," combined (e.g., "White/Asian"), or alternative racial or ethnic classifications (Circle one.)

(such as "Filipino"):

Not applicable. These classifications are not used at this school ...................................................................................................... 1

The students are prorated or otherwise distributed by some formula among the five standard federal

 categories....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

The students are distributed among the five standard federal categories based on school judgment

 about which category is most appropriate. .................................................................................................................................... 3

All the students are put into one of the five standard federal categories.

 (Please specify which one) _______________________________________________________________________ ..... 4

The school ascertains the mother's race or ethnicity and assigns the student to the appropriate

 classification................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Some other action is taken. (Please specify)____________________________________________________________ ..... 6

The central district office handles this reporting. .............................................................................................................................. 7

5. To help us understand the extent to which the five standard federal categories of race and ethnicity accurately describe your school's 1994-95

student population, please provide the following information.

a. What is the total student enrollment?............................................. ______________

b. Does your school have students who are not accurately

described by the five standard federal categories

because of ethnic heritages not mentioned, or who

are multiracial or biracial?............................................................... Yes No (Skip to Question 6.)

c. Can you estimate how many of these students your

school has?...................................................................................... Yes No (Skip to Question 6.)

d. Approximately how many students are not accurately

described by the five standard federal categories? .......................... ______________
42

6. Below are listed several suggestions that the federal government has received about revising the five standard federal categories. For each

suggestion, please indicate to what extent it would apply to children enrolled in your school. If your school already has implemented a listed

change, or intends to do so soon, please indicate this by circling "1." (Circle one response on each row.)

Already

included,

or soon A A A Not

to be significant moderate minor an

implemented issue issue issue issue

a. Adding a general "multiracial" category......................... 1 2 3 4 5

b. Adding an "other" category............................................ 1 2 3 4 5

c. Adding specific combinations of current

categories (e.g., "Asian/White")..................................... 1 2 3 4 5

d. Changing the name of the "Black"

category to "African American"..................................... 1 2 3 4 5

e. Changing the name of the "American

Indian or Alaskan Native" category

to "Native American"...................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

f. Including Native Hawaiians as a

separate category or as part of a

"Native American" category........................................... 1 2 3 4 5

g. Adding additional racial or ethnic

designations, such as "Middle

Eastern" (Please list.)

___________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5

h. Allowing individuals to write in a

racial or ethnic designation............................................. 1 2 3 4 5

i. Other (Please describe.)_______________________ 1 2 3 4 5

_________________________________________

7. If you think there are any other issues related to race and ethnicity that are important to your school, please list them below.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU!