National Cooperative Education Statistics System 

The National Center for Education Statistics established the National Cooperative Education Statistics System 

(Cooperative System) to assist in producing and maintaining comparable and uniform information and data on 

early childhood education and elementary and secondary education. These data are intended to be useful for 

policymaking at the federal, state, and local levels. 

The National Forum on Education Statistics, among other activities, proposes principles of good practice to 

assist state and local education agencies in meeting this purpose. The Cooperative System and the National 

Forum on Education Statistics are supported in these endeavors by resources from the National Center for 

Education Statistics. 

Publications of the National Forum on Education Statistics do not undergo the formal review required for 

products of the National Center for Education Statistics. The information and opinions published here are the 

product of the National Forum on Education Statistics and do not necessarily represent the policy or views of 

the U.S. Department of Education or the National Center for Education Statistics. 

May 2005 

This publication and other publications of the National Forum on Education Statistics may be found at the 

National Center for Education Statistics website. 

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page is http://nces.ed.gov 

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch 

The Forum World Wide Web Home Page is http://nces.ed.gov/forum 

Suggested Citation 

National Forum on Education Statistics. (2005). Forum Guide to Education Indicators (NFES 2005–802). 

U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

For ordering information on this report, write: 

U.S. Department of Education
 

ED Pubs
 

P.O. Box 1398
 

Jessup, MD 20794–1398
 

Or call toll free 1–877–4ED–PUBS; or order online at http://www.edpubs.org
 

Technical Contact: 

Ghedam Bairu 

(202) 502–7304 

Ghedam.Bairu@ed.gov 
Task Force Members 

This document was developed through the National Cooperative Education Statistics System and funded by the 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Department of Education. A volunteer task force of 

the National Forum on Education Statistics (an entity of the National Cooperative Education Statistics System) 

produced this document. Following is a list of the Education Indicators Task Force members: 

Chair 

Steve King 

Wyoming Department of Education 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Members 

Garnet Lavan Dukes 

Florida Department of Education 

Tallahassee, Florida 

Bobby Franklin 

Louisiana Department of Education 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 

Lee Hoffman 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Washington, DC 

Pam Homan 

Sioux Falls School District 

Sioux Falls, South Dakota 

Sherrill Martinez 

Kansas State Department of Education 

Topeka, Kansas 

E. Glenn McClain 

Platte Valley School District, Weld RE–7 

Kersey, Colorado 

Deborah Newby 

Council of Chief State School Officers 

Washington, DC 

Peter Prowda 

Connecticut State Department of Education 

Hartford, Connecticut 

David Weinberger 

Yonkers Public Schools 

Yonkers, New York 

Lonnie Yingst 

Great Falls Public Schools 

Great Falls, Montana 

Consulting Author 

Tom Szuba 

Quality Information Partners 

Charlottesville, Virginia 

Project Officer 

Ghedam Bairu 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Washington, DC 

Task Force Members iii 
Forum Review Procedures 

Task force members review all products iteratively throughout the development process. Documents prepared, 

reviewed, and approved by task force members undergo a formal public review that is designed to reflect the 

nature of the product. Public review can consist of focus groups (of representatives of the product’s intended 

audience), review sessions at relevant regional or national conferences, or technical reviews by acknowledged 

experts in the field. In addition, draft documents are posted on the Forum website prior to publication so that 

other interested individuals or organizations can provide feedback. After task force members oversee the integration 

of public review comments and review the document a final time, all publications are subject to examination by 

members of the Forum standing committee that sponsors the task force. Finally, the entire Forum (approximately 

120 members) must review and vote to formally approve a document prior to final publication. 

Publications of the National Forum on Education Statistics do not undergo the formal review required for 

products of the National Center for Education Statistics. The information and opinions published here are 

the product of the National Forum on Education Statistics and do not necessarily represent the policy or 

views of the U.S. Department of Education or the National Center for Education Statistics. 

iv Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Acknowledgments 

The members of the Education Indicators Task Force of the National Forum on Education Statistics would like to 

thank everyone who took the time to make valuable recommendations and suggestions to ensure that this Guide 

would meet the needs of its intended audiences. In particular, thanks are due to the following individuals who 

reviewed various drafts of this document: 

Margaret Bowles 

Accreditation Accountability Specialist 

Montana Office of Public Instruction 

Helena, Montana 

Bethann Canada 

Director of Information Management 

Virginia Department of Education 

Richmond, Virginia 

Chris Chapman 

Statistician 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Washington, DC 

Mike Chapman 

Assessment Director 

Montana Office of Public Instruction 

Helena, Montana 

Barbara Clements 

Vice President of Education Services 

ESP Solutions Group 

Austin, Texas 

Nancy Coopersmith 

Assistant Superintendent 

Montana Office of Public Instruction 

Helena, Montana 

Cathy Day 

Vice President 

Enrollment and Student Services 

University of Great Falls 

Great Falls, Montana 

Bryan Dunn 

Superintendent 

Great Falls Public Schools 

Great Falls, Montana 

Joe Fontana 

Professor 

University of Great Falls 

Great Falls, Montana 

Cathi Fulton 

Briggsdale Schools RE–10J 

Briggsdale, Colorado 

Robert Good 

Math Assessment Coordinator 

Denver Public Schools 

Denver, Colorado 

BJ Granbery 

Division Administrator Title I 

Montana Office of Public Instruction 

Helena, Montana 

Lynn Hinch 

Bilingual Specialist 

Montana Office of Public Instruction 

Helena, Montana 

Richard King 

Professor and Director 

Educational Leadership & Policy Studies 

University of Northern Colorado 

Greeley, Colorado 

Tammy Lacey 

Principal 

Loy Elementary School 

Great Falls, Montana 

Ranelle Lang 

Executive Director 

Learning Services 

Weld County School District RE–8 

Fort Lupton, Colorado 

Tom Martin 

Education Program Consultant 

Wyoming Department of Education 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Jim McBride 

Ed. Tech Administrator and Title II–D Coordinator 

Wyoming Department of Education 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Joyce R. McLarty 

Executive Director 

Assessment and Testing 

Denver Public Schools 

Denver, Colorado 

Acknowledgments v 
Rick Mondt 

Superintendent 

Briggsdale Schools RE–10J 

Briggsdale, Colorado 

Patty Myers 

Board Member 

Montana State Board of Public Education 

Great Falls, Montana 

Roger Neppl 

Regional Service Team Manager 

Colorado Department of Education 

Denver, Colorado 

Dori Burns Nielson 

Education Consultant 

Missoula, Montana 

Jim Oberembt 

CCD Fiscal Coordinator 

Montana Office of Public Instruction 

Helena, Montana 

Donna O’Neill 

Director 

Measurement and Accountability 

Montana Office of Public Instruction 

Helena, Montana 

Doug Pfau 

Superintendent 

Pawnee Schools RE–12 

Grover, Colorado 

Michael Planty 

Senior Research Scientist 

RTI International 

Washington, DC 

Madalyn Quinlan 

Chief of Staff 

Montana Office of Public Instruction 

Helena, Montana 

Gerard Rainville 

Research Analyst 

American Institutes for Research 

Washington, DC 

Jo Russell 

Associate Principal 

Charles M. Russell High School 

Great Falls, Montana 

Trudi Schmidt 

State Senator 

Montana Legislature 

Great Falls, Montana 

Dana Selzer 

Director 

Learning Services 

Centennial BOCES 

Longmont, Colorado 

Judy Snow 

Assessment Director 

Montana Office of Public Instruction 

Helena, Montana 

Larry Sturgeon 

K–12 Social Studies Coordinator 

Laramie County School District #1 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Cindy Szot 

K–12 Language Arts Coordinator 

Laramie County School District #1 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Vicki Thacker 

CCD Nonfiscal Coordinator 

Montana Office of Public Instruction 

Helena, Montana 

Peggy Windsor 

Eaton RE–2 

Eaton, Colorado 

John Wirt 

Statistician 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Washington, DC 

Jim Woodward 

Education Program Consultant 

Wyoming Department of Education 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Nancy Zadick 

Past President 

Montana PTA 

Great Falls, Montana 

School Indicators and Profiles 

Special Interest Group
 

American Educational Research Association (AERA)
 

vi Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
The task force also acknowledges the support of Frank Johnson of NCES. Jinhee Lee of the Council of Chief 

State School Officers (CCSSO) provided early support. Frances Erlebacher edited the document and The Creative 

Shop provided layout and design services. 

Much of the information in appendix C is excerpted or slightly adapted from the CCSSO publication, 

A Guide to Effective Accountability Reporting (December 2002), prepared by Ellen Forte Fast, Rolf K. Blank, 

Abigail Potts, and Andra Williams. 

Finally, the task force would like to thank the members of the National Forum on Education Statistics for 

their invaluable input and support. 

Acknowledgments vii 
Table of Contents
 

Task Force Members............................................................................................................................iii
 

Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................................v
 

Table of Contents ..............................................................................................................................viii
 

Foreword..............................................................................................................................................xi
 

Who Should Read This Guide? .......................................................................................................xi
 

How to Read this Document .........................................................................................................xii
 

Indicator Layout..........................................................................................................................xiii
 

Additional Conventions ...............................................................................................................xiii
 

Chapter 1. Introduction to Education Indicators and Indicator Systems ............................................1
 

What is an Education Indicator? ......................................................................................................1
 

The Role of Indicators in Education .................................................................................................1
 

Aligning Indicators with Policy Goals and Objectives ........................................................................2
 

Bodies of Indicators........................................................................................................................3
 

Using Context to Interpret Indicator Values ......................................................................................4
 

Generating Indicators .....................................................................................................................5
 

Ideal Indicators and Real World Tradeoffs ........................................................................................6
 

Making Tradeoffs ...........................................................................................................................9
 

Who Develops Indicators ..............................................................................................................10
 

Unintended Consequences ............................................................................................................11
 

Other Important Best Practices ......................................................................................................11
 

Training Users .......................................................................................................................11
 

Reporting Indicator Data.........................................................................................................12
 

Securing Data and Information................................................................................................12
 

Statistical Integrity and Public Presentation..............................................................................13
 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators ......................................................................................15
 

Absence Rate (Class), Teacher........................................................................................................19
 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in Improvement Categories......21
 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Schools in Improvement Categories ...............................23
 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Schools Making............................................................25
 

viii Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Alcohol-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students.......................................................................27
 

Assessment, Average Student Score................................................................................................29
 

Assessment, Percentage Student Participation..................................................................................30
 

Assessment, Percentage Students Demonstrating Proficient or Advanced Performance........................31
 

Certification, Percentage Classes Taught by Teachers Holding Emergency, Provisional, or Out-of-Field ...........33
 

Class Size, Average .......................................................................................................................35
 

College Entrance Testing, Percentage Graduate Participation ............................................................37
 

College Entrance Testing, Student Average Score.............................................................................39
 

Courses (Advanced), Percentage Student Completion .......................................................................41
 

Courses (Advanced), Percentage Student Enrollment........................................................................43
 

Criminal Offense Incidents Reported Per 100 Students ....................................................................45
 

Drug-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students ..........................................................................47
 

Education Level, Mother...............................................................................................................49
 

Education Level, Teacher ..............................................................................................................51
 

Experience Level, Teacher.............................................................................................................53
 

Expulsion Incidents Per 100 Students .............................................................................................55
 

High School Completion/Graduation Rate, Cohort Rate....................................................................57
 

High School Completion/Graduation Rate, Leaver Rate....................................................................59
 

High School Dropout Rate, Annual Student ....................................................................................61
 

High School Dropout Rate, Cohort Rate..........................................................................................63
 

"Highly Qualified" Teachers, Percentage .........................................................................................65
 

Instructional Time, Allotted...........................................................................................................67
 

"Persistently Dangerous" Schools, Percentage ..................................................................................68
 

Placement of Students With Disabilities .........................................................................................69
 

Promotion Rate, Student ...............................................................................................................72
 

"Qualified" Paraprofessionals, Percentage .......................................................................................73
 

Retention Rate, Teacher ................................................................................................................75
 

School Capacity, Percent Used.......................................................................................................77
 

Stability Rate, Student Enrollment .................................................................................................79
 

Student:Instructional Computer Ratio ............................................................................................80
 

Student:Staff Ratio........................................................................................................................82
 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Actions Per 100 Students .....................................................................84
 

Table of Contents ix 
Suspensions (Out-of-School), Average Duration ...............................................................................86
 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Percentage Students Receiving .............................................................88
 

Teacher:Administrator Ratio ..........................................................................................................90
 

Transportation Services, Percentage Students Receiving ...................................................................92
 

Truancy Rate, Schoolwide .............................................................................................................93
 

Violent Incidents Reported Per 100 Students...................................................................................94
 

Vocational/Technical Programs, Percentage Nontraditional Completers ..............................................96
 

Vocational/Technical Programs, Percentage Nontraditional Participation ............................................98
 

Appendix A: Additional Context Measures .......................................................................................101
 

Appendix B: Statistical Terms and Concepts ....................................................................................105
 

Appendix C: Display and Presentation Options for Indicators .........................................................111
 

Appendix D: Data Elements Used to Create Indicators ....................................................................117
 

Appendix E: Additional Resources....................................................................................................129
 

Alphabetical Index............................................................................................................................133
 

Topical Index ....................................................................................................................................137
 

Financial Resources ....................................................................................................................137
 

Opportunity to Learn..................................................................................................................137
 

School Climate ...........................................................................................................................137
 

School Performance ....................................................................................................................137
 

Student/School Characteristics .....................................................................................................138
 

Staff Characteristics....................................................................................................................138
 

x Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Foreword
 

The Forum Guide to Education Indicators will help readers better understand how 

to appropriately develop, apply, and interpret education indicators. More specifically, 

this document strives to 

> describe the appropriate role of indicators as tools for measuring educational 

status and progress; 

> recognize standard definitions and calculations for education indicators; and 

> identify common misuse of education indicators. 

During the early development of this Guide, the Task Force identified 

hundreds of performance and context indicators used throughout the United 

States to assess educational inputs, processes, and outcomes. Among these many 

indicators, however, a core group were commonly used at all levels of the education 

system. This document focuses on those commonly used education indicators. 

More specifically, all of the indicators in this document were selected because 

they met one or more of the following criteria. 

These education indicators 

> help develop a picture of the elementary/secondary education system by 

measuring system inputs, processes, or outcomes; 

> are commonly accepted and frequently used in some form; 

> produce valid and reliable information; 

> provide measures that identify trends and inform policy and practice in a 

timely manner; and 

> can be derived from typical elementary/secondary administrative record 

systems. 

>Education indicators are sometimes 

> confusing (e.g., is Average Class Size the same as Student:Staff Ratio?); 

> defined differently (e.g., does per pupil refer to the student count on a 

given date, the average daily membership over a given period, the 

average daily attendance, or the cumulative enrollment?); and/or 

> misinterpreted (e.g., does Drug-Related Incidents Reported measure all 

drug incidents that actually occurred?). 

Who Should Read This Guide? 

The Forum Guide to Education Indicators will benefit anyone with an interest in 

elementary and secondary education. However, individuals who develop or 

directly use education indicators will obviously find it most useful. The Guide’s 

This Guide focuses on indicator terminology, definitions, and usage as commonly applied in elementary 

and secondary education institutions across the nation. This includes a focus on performance indicators that 

measure the status of, or change in, an education system; and context indicators needed to generate or 

interpret the significance of these performance indicators. 

Foreword xi 
primary audience includes policymakers, legislators, school board members, 

superintendents, and the research and evaluation specialists who support them. In 

addition, the Forum hopes this Guide will also be useful to a much wider audience 

of teachers, principals, parents, members of the media, and even business people— 

in short, anyone who may ask, or be asked, “How good are our local schools?” 

How to Read this Document 

The Guide is divided into two chapters and five appendices. 

Chapter 1: Introduction to Education Indicators and Indicator Systems 

Defines the concept of an education indicator and describes the process of establishing a body of education performance and context indicators that will support 

decisionmaking by supplying useful, valid, reliable, timely, and cost-effective 

information. 

Chapter 2: Catalog of Education Indicators 

Provides encyclopedia-type “entries” for 44 education indicators. Each indicator 

entry contains a definition, a recommended use, a policy question, caveats and 

cautions, additional information, related indicators, data element components, a 

formula, commonly reported subgroups, and display suggestions. 

Chapter 2 contains the bulk of this Guide’s content, including detailed information for developing, applying, and interpreting commonly used education 

indicators. In addition to an alphabetical listing, the indicators are indexed in 

chapter 2 by the following major policy and content strands: 

Inputs 

✓ Student/School Characteristics 

✓ Financial Resources 

✓ Staff Characteristics 

Processes 

✓ School Climate 

✓ Opportunity to Learn 

Outcomes 

✓ School Performance 

Appendix A: Additional Context Measures 

Identifies related measures that help with the interpretation of the education indicators in this document. 

Appendix B: Statistical Terms and Concepts 

Describes statistical terms and concepts commonly used to conceptualize, develop, 

and interpret education indicators. 

Appendix C: Display and Presentation Options for Indicators 

Offers guidance for preparing indicator reports and displaying indicator data. 

Appendix D: Data Elements Used to Create Indicators 

Presents all data elements and definitions identified as components of the education indicators in this document, as available in the NCES Handbooks Online 

(http://nces.ed.gov/programs/handbook/index.asp). 

Appendix E: Additional Resources 

Lists related resources, including web materials, available from the National Forum 

on Education Statistics, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and 

other organizations. 

xii Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
The indicators in this Guide have slightly varying definitions across the nation. Therefore, the definitions, 

formulas, and characteristics of each indicator included here represent examples of good practice used by 

some, but not all, education organizations. This Guide provides recommendations that support the creation of 

useful, valid, reliable, timely, and cost-effective education data. While these recommendations are not a federal 

mandate, for comparability purposes, the task force recommends that consistent definitions be used nationally. 

Indicator Layout 

Each indicator in chapter 2 is described by the following characteristics: 

> Cross References: Lists any alternative title or name commonly used for the 

indicator; these alternatives are listed in the index and cross-referenced to 

the primary indicator name used in this document. 

> Definition: Describes or defines the indicator. 

> Recommended Uses: Provides suggestions for appropriately applying the 

indicator. 

> Policy Questions: Identifies one or more broad policy questions that may be 

supported by the indicator. 

> Caveats and Cautions: Introduces specific issues that should be considered to 

avoid the indicator’s misapplication or misinterpretation. 

> Additional Information: Explains other issues that could influence the use of 

the indicator. 

> Related Indicators: Identifies other indicators that may be used with the listed 

indicator to enhance understanding or provide additional information. 

> Components: Lists the data elements and aggregate, calculated, or derived statistics needed to generate the indicator. To accurately characterize the 

indicator, components may be separated into a numerator and denominator. 

The document also attempts to mention when multiple definitions can be 

used for a given component, although a recommended practice will usually 

be identified. 

> Formula: Provides the actual mathematical formula for computing an 

indicator value. 

> Commonly Reported Subgroups: Identifies subgroups (e.g., student and schoollevel factors such as grade level, disability status, and school type) that are 

frequently reported for an indicator. 

> Display Suggestions: Presents recommendations about the type(s) of graphical 

or tabular display(s) most appropriate for the indicator. Additional details 

about display options, including accepted standards for graphical display and 

formatting, are included in appendix C. 

Additional Conventions 

> With few exceptions, text presented in italics is either the title of a document 

or a term defined somewhere else in the Guide. 

> When the graphic to the right appears for an indicator entry, substantial 

variations exist in the way states define the indicator. In practical terms, this 

signifies that the indicator should not be compared across states. 

Foreword xiii 
Commonly Reported Student Level Subgroups Used in this Guide 

Age: Age at last birthday on, or prior to, a specified date. 

Grade Level: The grade level or primary instructional level at which a student 

receives services in a school or an educational institution. 

Special Population Status: Individuals or groups of students who have been identified 

as being members of special populations. Criteria for identifying special student 

populations might include the following characteristics and classifications: 

> Disability Status: A designation of a physical or cognitive impairment that 

substantially limits one or more major daily life activities. 

> Economic Disadvantage Status: An indication of the inadequate financial 

condition of an individual’s family, as determined by family income; number 

of family members and dependents; participation in public assistance 

programs; and/or other characteristics considered relevant by local, state, 

and federal policy. 

> English Proficiency: An individual’s adeptness at English as indicated by: 

a) reading skills (the ability to comprehend and interpret text); b) listening 

skills (the ability to understand verbal expressions of the language); c) writing 

skills (the ability to produce written text with content and format); and 

d) speaking skills (the ability to use oral language appropriately and effectively). Designations of English proficiency can include: native English speaker, 

fluent English speaker, limited English proficient/English language learner, 

non-English speaking, and redesignated as fully English proficient. 

> Migrant Status: A student who: 

> a) is younger than 22 and has not graduated from high school or does not 

hold a high school equivalency certificate, but b), if the child is too young 

to attend school-sponsored educational programs, is old enough to benefit 

from an organized instructional program; 

> is a migrant agricultural worker or a migrant fisher, or has a parent, spouse, 

or guardian who is a migrant agricultural worker or a migrant fisher; 

> performs, or has a parent, spouse, or guardian who performs, qualifying 

agricultural or fishing employment as a principal means of livelihood; 

> has moved within the preceding 36 months to obtain, or to accompany 

or join a parent, spouse, or guardian to obtain, temporary or seasonal 

employment in agricultural or fishing work; and 

> has moved from one school district to another; or in a state that is comprised 

of a single school district, has moved from one administrative area to 

another within such a district; or resides in a school district of more than 

15,000 square miles, and migrates a distance of 20 miles or more to a 

temporary residence to engage in a fishing activity. 

> Race/Ethnicity: The general racial category that most clearly reflects the individual’s recognition of his or her community or with which the individual 

most identifies. The five federal categories for race currently include: 

American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American; 

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and White. Additionally, a 

separate ethnicity element can be used to identify whether an individual 

traces his or her origin or descent to Hispanic or Latino sources. 

> Sex: A person’s gender, female or male. 

The original source for the above definitions is the NCES Handbooks Online, available
 

from NCES at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/handbook/index.asp.
 

xiv Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
A Cookbook for Education Indicators 

There are deliberate similarities between a cookbook and this Forum 

Guide to Education Indicators. Just as many cookbooks begin by 

discussing the importance of balance in a healthy diet, this document 

begins with the importance of balance when selecting education 

indicators. In other words, matching performance indicators with context indicators 

is vital to ensuring the appropriate interpretation of status and trends in education 

organizations. 

Cookbooks sometimes show more than one way to prepare the same dish (for 

example, with or without meat, more or less spicy, regular or low calorie). Similarly, 

the Guide’s authors acknowledge that multiple ways of calculating the “same” indicator 

may exist (e.g., using the October 1 student count, average daily attendance, average 

daily membership, or cumulative enrollment to define “per pupil”), depending on user 

preference and the requirements of what is being measured. 

Thus, this document is like a “cookbook” for education indicators. This Foreword 

explains how best to use the document. Chapter 1 will help you strike a "balance" 

between performance indicators and related context indicators to make your indicator 

system thorough and robust. And, finally, chapter 2 offers “recipes” for your favorite 

indicators, including descriptions of the “ingredients” and the steps to follow for their 

“preparation”; as well as possible variations to meet your unique tastes, preferences, 

and information needs. 

This Forum Guide to 

Education Indicators 

is a reference tool and 

not a data collection 

instrument. It does 

not represent federal 

reporting requirements. 

Users can modify, 

customize, or 

reproduce any part 

of this document. 

Foreword xv 

Chapter 1 

INTRODUCTION TO EDUCATION INDICATORS 

AND INDICATOR SYSTEMS 

This chapter defines the concept of an “education indicator” and describes 

the process of establishing a body of education performance and context 

indicators that will support decisionmaking by supplying useful, valid, reliable, 

timely, and cost-effective information. 

What is an Education Indicator? 

An education indicator is a measure of the status of, or change in, an educational 

system with regard to its goals. Examples include average student scores on 

assessments, graduation and completion rates, and teacher retention rates. Many 

users of education data focus on performance indicators—those indicators that 

measure the outcomes of the education system (i.e., student achievement and 

success). But because of the complexity of the education enterprise, sound education indicator systems must also include context indicators—those measures of 

system inputs and processes that aid in the interpretation of performance indicator 

(i.e., outcome) data. (See figure 1.) 

The Role of Indicators in Education 

Educators, parents, community members, politicians, business leaders, and the 

media use education indicators to compare schools against themselves over time, 

schools against peers (e.g., within a district or state), districts within states, and 

Figure 1. Education indicator categories as system inputs, processes, and outcomes. 

Inputs Processes Outcomes 

Expenditures Course Choice Achievement 

Student Characteristics Support Services Completion 

Parental Influences School Safety Post-School Success 

Staff Resources 

Instructional Offerings 

Context Indicators Performance Indicators 

An education 

performance indicator 

is a measure of the 

status of, or change 

in, an education 

system with regard 

to its goals. 

Chapter 1. Introduction to Education Indicators and Indicator Systems 1 
The advent of high stakes education indicators requires the generation of high quality indicator data. 

Thus, indicators should be 

> useful (i.e., relevant to the issues in question); 

> valid (i.e., measure what they purport to measure); 

> reliable (i.e., produce consistent measures over time); 

> timely (i.e., available in time to inform decisionmaking); and 

> cost-effective (i.e., produce information that is valuable enough to justify any collection burden). 

states across the nation. To varying degrees, individual school leaders—including 

board members, superintendents, principals, and teachers—support the use of 

education indicators as the primary mechanism for measuring whether elementary 

and secondary schools are accomplishing stated goals. In fact, many local school 

boards, most state legislatures, and the federal government have established 

education accountability systems focused on achieving student and school performance targets. Those who favor using education indicators for accountability 

purposes argue that baselines, standards, and “hard” data are necessary to evaluate 

the status and progress of our education system and its “product,” student learning. 

While education leaders and policymakers appreciate the instructional and 

administrative need for the information provided by education indicators, not 

everyone has expertise in the development of useful, valid, reliable, and timely 

education indicators. Moreover, even properly constructed indicators may be 

misinterpreted. Evaluating education organizations based on sometimes confusing 

terms that are almost always inconsistently defined and interpreted may lead to 

unproductive comparisons of “apples to oranges.” Rarely do such comparisons 

lead to the impartial, data-driven decisionmaking envisioned by educational and 

political leaders. 

Aligning Indicators with Policy Goals and Objectives 

Although the use of indicators should be driven by policy needs, an indicator 

system does not need to answer every policy question. In fact, the considerable 

effort required to develop and refine indicators is warranted only to address ongoing 

policy needs rather than to answer infrequent or even one-time questions. 

Selecting a body of 

education indicators 

should be driven by 

ongoing policy 

questions related to an 

education organization’s 

goals and objectives. 

>Aligning Indicators with Policies, Goals, and Objectives 

Policy Goal: Prepare students to lead successful lives. 

Assumption: To lead successful lives, students need to earn 

a high school diploma. 

Objective: Focus support on keeping students in school. 

Performance Indicators needed to assess efforts: 

Performance Indicator = High School Graduation Rate 

Performance Indicator = High School Completion Rate 

Performance Indicator = High School Dropout Rate 

Context Indicators that might inform the interpretation of performance indicators: 

Context Indicator = Student Stability Rate 

Context Indicator = Student Truancy Rate 

Context Indicator = Student Course Enrollment 

2 Forum Guide to education indicators 
Bodies of Indicators 

Not all indicators provide information about educational performance. Therefore, 

input and process indicators—context indicators—are sometimes needed as building 

blocks for performance indicators. They also offer insight into the interpretation of 

performance indicators. Because a single education indicator cannot possibly supply 

all the information needed to assess the status of, or change in, an education system, 

painting an accurate picture of the K–12 education enterprise requires a body of 

both performance and context indicators, with each individual indicator imparting 

a complementary piece of the puzzle. When a body of indicators is developed, the 

result is a well-integrated, multidimensional indicator system whose total value is 

greater than the sum of its parts. 

For example, figure 2 illustrates how information provided by context indicators 

would enhance the interpretation of two commonly used performance indicators, 

Expenditure Per Pupil and Average Student Test Scores. Taken individually, or even in 

combination, Expenditure Per Pupil and Average Student Test Scores provide a limited 

perspective on what is happening in an education system. A more complete and 

accurate understanding requires additional information provided by context indicators. 

Suppose two schools had roughly the same Average Student Test Scores but 

radically different Expenditures Per Pupil. In the absence of any additional 

context, you might infer that the school with the lower Expenditure Per Pupil was 

run more efficiently. From a policy perspective, you might even determine that this 

school should serve as a model for the one that spent more money per student to 

achieve the same results. While this might be true, student demographics could 

explain the difference as well. For example, a small student population will increase 

a school’s Expenditure Per Pupil because there are fewer students to absorb 

overhead costs (for example, a school needs to have a principal regardless of how 

many students it has). Another explanation for the discrepancy between the two 

schools could be found by comparing indicators describing differences in teacher 

characteristics (for example, teachers with more experience usually earn more 

than teachers with less experience). Or maybe resource supplements from a 

parent–teacher organization could account for some of the disparity. In other 

words, the environments in which schools function may vary substantially. 

Therefore, any information that adds context or meaning to the performance 

indicators will lead to more appropriate data interpretation. 

Figure 2. Context indicators. 

Expenditure Per Pupil 

Provides information about the amount 

of money spent to educate each student. 

Interpretation influenced by: 

✓ Intructional Expenditure Per Pupil 

✓ Direct Classroom Expenditure Per Pupil 

✓ Average Class Size 

✓ Students in Special Populations 

✓ Teacher Education Level 

Average Student Test Scores 

Provides information about student 

achievement in various 

subject matter areas. 

Interpretation influenced by: 

Time Devoted to Intructional Areas ✓ 

Percentage Highly Qualified Teachers ✓ 

Expenditure Per Pupil x Average Student Test Scores Student Stability Rate ✓ 

Assessment Participation Rate Provides information about whether the amount of ✓ 

money spent on educating a student is correlated with Student Promotion Rate ✓ 

student achievement in various subject matter areas. 

Graphical presentation of how the combination of multiple context indicators is necessary to interpret the meaning of even 

apparently straightforward performance indicator findings. 

Chapter 1. Introduction to Education Indicators and Indicator Systems 3 
Numbers versus Information 

A high Total Expenditure Per Pupil may be interpreted as wasteful spending. Another explanation could be a 

large population of special needs students. Or, perhaps, a small total student population has required basic 

overhead costs associated with running a school to be distributed over a smaller number of students. Either 

way, these circumstances may greatly affect the interpretation of this commonly used indicator. They also 

illustrate the importance of using additional context measures to interpret education indicator data. 

Although this document 

focuses on indicators 

derived from administrative 

records systems, other 

resources may provide 

valuable data as well. For 

example, the Youth Risk 

Behavior Surveillance 

System survey provides 

information to policymakers 

that cannot otherwise be 

gathered by administrative 

records systems. 

Using Context to Interpret Indicator Values 

Indicators are value neutral until interpreted in light of their context. For example, 

“air temperature” is an indicator that we use every day, but it is just a number unless 

put into context. After all, 50 degrees would be considered quite balmy on a January 

day in Boston, whereas the same 50 degrees in Los Angeles in June would be considered unseasonably cold. Value judgments about indicators (e.g., whether it is warm 

or cold when it is 50 degrees) are external to indicator measurements and generally 

are assigned during interpretation rather than during collection. 

School and community leaders should therefore consider organizational 

context when establishing appropriate goals and targets for indicator values. 

Doing so demands a thorough understanding of both indicators and the organization. For example, what is the “ideal” value for Teacher Class Absence Rate? 

Zero percent might be an immediate, but ill-considered, reply. After all, teachers 

get sick like everyone else. Moreover, teachers need professional development to 

improve their skills, and this will also cause them to miss class on occasion. Indicator 

developers and interpreters must somehow establish goals that take into account the 

real-world context in which their data are generated. Until they do, an indicator is 

only a number whose significance may or may not be properly interpreted. 

The greatest danger of indicators is the ease with which they can give false 

impressions because they are misunderstood or interpreted in invalid ways. 

—Accountability Mechanisms in Big City School Systems (ERIC/CUE Digest No. 71.). 

Context indicators can also provide a system of checks and balances within 

an accountability reporting effort. For example, a school might be able to report 

improved achievement results if its low-achieving students do not participate in 

an assessment (perhaps because they were retained in a class that was not tested). 

This practice might go undetected unless nonachievement data, such as class 

enrollment, are available to provide additional context about school operations and 

processes. This phenomenon of improving one indicator value at the expense of 

another (intentionally or not) can be quite real and may certainly affect the interpretation of indicator meaning. 

Finally, planners must also be aware that an organization’s context may change 

over time. Student and staff characteristics change under many circumstances, and 

this is especially true in organizations with high student mobility and staff turnover 

rates. Curriculum may also change. Community resources may increase or decrease 

as overall economic conditions fluctuate. In addition to actual changes to traditional 

context indicators, expectations can also change. Meeting this year’s target might be 

interpreted as a victory, but hitting the same target three years in a row could be 

viewed as stagnation. 

Because context is so important in the interpretation of education indicators, 

this document includes context indicators as a vital component of any comprehensive education indicator system (figure 3). 

4 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
The Balloon Effect 

Push a system in one place and it will expand in another place. This “balloon” effect can occur when an organization 

improves one indicator value at the expense of another, whether intentionally or not. For example, a school that 

successfully implements a policy to keep students from dropping out may, in fact, decrease its dropout rate (a good 

thing); but it should not be surprised to find a related decrease in the percentage of students going to college (not such 

a good thing, without an explanation). 

Generating Indicators 

In our education data system, information is collected, analyzed, and reported at 

the local, state, and national levels, most frequently via transfer from the schools 

and school districts where it is collected to state education agencies and the federal 

government. Each level of administration has a different need for the information. 

Schools and school districts certainly need longitudinal records for individually identifiable students to monitor and evaluate the educational services they provide. In 

recent years, however, many state education agencies have also moved to a data 

model that benefits from maintaining individual unit records for students and staff. 

Unit records provide high data resolution when needed (e.g., for tracking highly 

mobile students between districts and verifying data submissions), while also 

allowing for aggregation when analysis and reporting do not require (or permit) individual identification. In fact, the vast majority of public reporting by state agencies 

occurs at the school and district level in the form of aggregate student information 

(e.g., the number of students completing high school in a given school or district). 

This emphasis on aggregate data is virtually complete by the time education data 

reach the U.S. Department of Education, the Bureau of the Census, and other 

federal agencies. Nonetheless, nationally reported aggregates are based on data 

that originated in individual student records in schools and classrooms across the 

country. 

In general terms, a “system”—a national education data system as described 

above, an ecosystem, or even our solar system—is merely a set of regularly interacting parts that form a unified whole. Within an administrative records system in 

Figure 3. Context versus performance indicators. 

Examples of context 

indicators that might 

affect the interpretation 

of performance indicators. 

Chapter 1. Introduction to Education Indicators and Indicator Systems 5 
>
 An aggregate statistic in one data system may be a data element in another. For example, a count of 

student membership in a school district is an aggregate of individual school counts that reside in 

the district data system; this same number stands alone as a data element in a state education 

agency data system. 

Similarly, an aggregate may become a data element even within the same data system. For 

example, Average Daily Membership in a school district might be calculated once for an academic 

year, then stored as a data element for future use. 

an education organization, the “parts” have the highest resolution at the level of 

the “data element.” A data element is the lowest level of information (i.e., data) 

that gets stored. For example, within a student record system (see figure 4), Quiz 1 

Student Score is (1) a singular data element for an individual student on a given 

quiz. This element may then be (2) aggregated for multiple students, creating Quiz 

1 Class Average Score, (3) calculated over time, creating Average Score on Quizzes 

for a Student, (4) combined to derive Class Average Score and, ultimately, (5) 

configured to create the performance indicator Average Student Score. 

In this way, a piece of data in an individual student, staff, or education institution record may be aggregated, combined, and calculated until new information 

is derived. When managed in a consistent fashion, each of these pieces of new 

information may, in turn, be scaled by class, school, district, state, and country to 

add other dimensions of analysis from a single data element. The key to aggregating 

data from different records is collecting the data in a consistent manner. While it 

might be reasonable to assume that the registrar, teacher, or school secretary who 

records student attendance in a school does so consistently from day to day, month 

to month, and year to year, the same is not necessarily true across schools, districts, 

and states throughout the nation. For example, some education institutions might 

report that individual students attended school on a given day only when they 

were present for four or more hours. Other institutions might define “attendance” 

as a student being present at any point during the school day. Clearly, the significance of a “95 percent average daily attendance rate” would then vary substantially, 

which illustrates the need for standard data element and indicator definitions if 

statistics from different organizations are to be compared. 

The Forum Guide to Building a Culture of Quality Data: A School and District Resource provides best 

practice recommendations for generating high quality data in schools. It is available at no 

cost at http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2005801.asp. 

Ideal Indicators and Real World Tradeoffs 

The quality of an indicator cannot surpass the quality of its components (data 

elements). In addition to normal data quality issues (e.g., student misreporting, 

entry errors, and changing assessment tools), at least two other factors affect the 

quality of education indicators: (1) the complexity of the issue being measured and 

(2) previous experience studying the issue (Monitoring School Quality: An Indicators 

Report, NCES 2001). One way of assessing the quality of an education indicator is to 

consider its utility, validity, reliability, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness: 

Utility 

An indicator should be useful for answering, or helping to answer (as with a 

context indicator), an important policy question. If the indicator does not provide 

6 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Figure 4. Turning data elements into indicators. 

QUIZ SCORES (in percent correct) 

Quiz 1 Quiz 2 Quiz 3 Quiz 4 Quiz 5 Average Score 

Jose 95 1 95 90 95 90 93 

Emma 95 90 75 85 85 86 

Angelique 90 100 85 90 90 91 1> Singular data element Amy 95 80 95 75 80 85 2> Aggregated (column calculation) Terrence 95 95 90 90 95 933 

3> Calculated (across columns) Nancy 90 90 90 95 100 93 4> Derived (rows and columns)

Paul 100 75 90 90 85 88 5> Performance indicator 

Audrey 100 90 90 85 90 91 

Omar 90 85 75 80 95 85 

Maria 100 100 85 90 90 93 

Class Average 95 2 90 86.5 87.5 90 89.8 4 = Class Average Score 

89.8 5 = Average Student Score 

A single data element (Quiz 1 Student Score1

) may be aggregated (Quiz 1 Class Average Score2), calculated over time 

(Average Score on Quizzes for a Student3

), combined to derive new information (Class Average Score4), and formatted as 

a performance indicator (Average Student Score5

). 

useful information, there is little reason to collect or calculate it, even if doing so 

can be accomplished accurately, reliably, cost-effectively, and in a timely manner. 

Validity 

“To say that any important educational outcome is measurable is not to say 

that satisfactory methods of measurement now exist.” 

—Robert Ebel, Practical Problems in Educational Measurement 

Validity is the degree of correspondence between a measurement and the process 

or product being studied. In other words, is the indicator accurate? Does it 

measure what it purports to measure? Is it free from bias (i.e., a systematic error 

in data generation or collection)? If so, the indicator is considered valid. 

Reliability 

Reliability refers to a measure’s consistency, reproducibility, and dependability. In 

other words, if the same indicator were to be measured multiple times, would the 

same results be generated? Without consistent measurement methods, results from 

How many paper towels per student mile bused does your district use? 

Most state education agencies (SEAs) publish vast amounts of data about their schools and districts. A taxpayer advocacy
 

organization in one state cross-tabulated all the data published by its SEA in order to create a volume of indicators for
 

measuring and comparing the state’s schools and districts. Because the organization compared all available data elements
 

and aggregates, the report included meaningless “indicators” such as Paper Towel Use Per Student Mile Bused.
 

Education indicators grow out of data elements (figure 4), the lowest level of data stored in an administrative records system.
 

But not every data element may be aggregated, calculated, or combined into a piece of information that helps an education
 

organization measure its status or progress in a meaningful way.
 

Haphazard approaches to producing indicators confuse student and school assessment rather than illuminate it, illustrating
 

that considerable thought must go into developing useful education indicators. 


Just because technology enables exhaustive comparisons of data in administrative records systems does not mean that
 

doing so in a random manner is helpful. In fact, it may cloud rather than clarify our understanding of how our schools and
 

students are performing.
 

Chapter 1. Introduction to Education Indicators and Indicator Systems 7 
>
 Straightforward indicators such as Average Teacher Experience and Average Class Size usually 

generate high quality data, as do measures that have been studied for a long time, such as 

Assessment Score Results. Data about new areas of interest, however—including professional 

development, student discipline, and technology availability—generally produce lower quality 

data, as do particularly complex topics such as “leadership” and “pedagogy.” 

—Monitoring School Quality: An Indicators Report (NCES 2001) 

different organizations or even from within the same organization at different points 

in time (e.g., longitudinal or time-series data) cannot be compared. Standard 

or “best practice” collection methods, therefore, are vital to any data/indicator 

system from which information will be drawn for the purpose of making 

comparisons (e.g., among groups of students, schools, school districts, states, 

pedagogical practices, reform strategies, or other entities). Similarly, comparing 

the progress of an individual or institution against itself over time is pointless 

without ensuring that the measurement practice itself has not changed (i.e., it 

is reliable). 

Timeliness 

Data are most valuable when they are readily available for informing decisionmaking, 

which means that the data have to arrive in time to influence decisionmakers (e.g., 

board members should receive fiscal data in time to inform budget planning just 

as teachers should receive test results in time to inform instructional planning). 

At the same time, policymakers should not be hasty in using indicators to make 

changes. Change should not be haphazard. Trends in indicator data are far more 

revealing than findings for a single year. Thus, changes to policies and procedures 

should be in response to indicator trend analysis rather than inferences about 

one or two years’ worth of indicator results. 

Cost-Effectiveness 

Although what is easy to collect may not be what is desirable to collect, expensive 

data collections such as one-time surveys are usually not appropriate as inputs into 

performance indicators that will be generated year after year. Conversely, some good 

data (i.e., important or necessary to have) that are expensive to collect are still worth 

the effort (see figure 5). Data “burden” may be defined as collecting or manipulating data for a requester in a way that is of little value to, or demands significant financial or human resources from, the provider. 

Figure 5. Indicator data collection: utility versus burden. 

Indicator Burden 

Teacher Experience Five-Year Follow-Up of Graduates 

Teacher Height Number of Parents to Visit the School 

High utility data should 

have burden/benefit 

evaluated to determine 

collection value. Indicator Utility 

Low utility data are rarely 

worth collecting 

regardless of burden. 

Indicator utility should be weighed against burden to determine the relative benefit of collection. 

8 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
>Data burden may arise in at least two dimensions: 

Attitudinal: “Why do they want me to collect and report it this way when doing so doesn’t help me and I am so busy?” 

Financial: Money spent directly on a collection or indirectly on staff time and equipment to support a collection. 

In our computer-driven world, even the transfer of electronic records to paper may be perceived as a burden. 

This burden to the provider may be measured in terms of both time and real 

dollars spent on the endeavor. For example, burden arises when a data provider is 

asked (or required) to complete multiple data requests, each for the same type of 

information in a slightly different form—after all, the utility of the information is 

not improved for the provider by taking time to modify its format solely to meet 

the needs of an external request. Placing a burden on data providers should be 

of great concern to data requesters. Data providers who see little value in a 

collection may be less likely to allocate the resources necessary to ensure they 

are collecting and reporting high quality data. 

Making Tradeoffs 

Ideally, indicators in an education data system are useful, valid, reliable, timely, 

and cost-effective. But these, too, are relative terms. What is useful for one 

organization may not be so for another. Similarly, different organizations might 

have differing definitions of what is cost-effective or burdensome. While sharing 

information and expertise is always a good idea, an education institution, with its 

own goals, priorities, policies, and circumstances, simply cannot borrow 

a list of indicators from its neighbor, even if the institutions are peers in many 

respects. Instead, data- and policy-leaders must consider the information needs 

unique to the organization’s goals and priorities and, subsequently, the costs and 

benefits of indicators that may meet those needs. For example, if an indicator is 

particularly useful (e.g., Five-Year Follow-Up of Graduates), maybe a relatively 

substantial burden is worthwhile. Perhaps it is not, however, if the indicator’s 

validity or reliability is questionable, or if data needed to generate the indicator 

are not available in time to be useful. When real world constraints kick in, 

as they generally do, tradeoffs between quality, reliability, and utility become 

inevitable. The job of the indicator system development team is to ensure that 

these tradeoffs are made reasonably and responsibly (see figure 6). 

Figure 6. Selecting good indicators. 

Selecting “good” indicators is like building a 

stool. Consideration must be given to the three 

legs: Quality (Validity, Reliability and Utility), 

Burden, and Timeliness. In the real world, 

tradeoffs may be necessary, but at least two of 

the characteristics must always retain their 

integrity, with as little compromise to the third as 

possible to keep the indicator feasible. 

Chapter 1. Introduction to Education Indicators and Indicator Systems 9 
 

Opening a dialogue between those who make policy and those who develop indicators should: 

> inform indicator developers about policy goals, objectives, and evaluation strategies; and 

> inform policymakers about the capabilities and limitations (including a cost-benefit analysis) of 

various indicator options. 

Who Develops Indicators 

Education indicators should be developed by people who understand the: 

> institution’s policies, goals, and objectives; 

> information needed to evaluate the status of, or progress toward, those 

goals and objectives; 

> capabilities and limitations of the organization’s data system; 

> external reporting demands (e.g., to the school district, state, or federal 

government); and 

> best practices for selecting and developing education indicators. 

Unfortunately, very few individuals have mastered all these areas of expertise. 

On the positive side, however, staff who possess a thorough understanding of the 

organization’s data system, its external reporting responsibilities, and best practices 

for selecting and developing education indicators may be available. Their job 

becomes to communicate with the policymaking personnel in the organization to 

ensure that they (the indicator developers) learn about policies, goals, and objectives 

and their corresponding information needs. In other words, indicator producers 

and indicator users must engage in a discussion. Politicians, policy analysts, board 

members, senior administrators, and researchers must explain their information 

needs to those responsible for developing the indicator system. Conversely, as the 

indicator developers improve their understanding of the policymakers’ information 

needs, they should, in turn, explain the costs, benefits, implications, and limitations of alternative approaches to producing indicators (see Making Tradeoffs). 

For example, suppose school leaders set as a priority the improvement of 

student academic performance on state assessments, and that one approach to 

attaining this goal would be to decrease class sizes in an effort to enrich 

student–teacher interaction. Once the indicator development team understands 

this policy target (learned through dialogue with the policymakers), they may 

explore the policymakers’ information needs: Are policymakers interested in 

Average Class Size, Maximum Class Size, or Median Class Size? Are they focused 

on core subject areas or all courses? Is the interest centered on elementary or 

high school classes? 

Once these and other questions are answered, indicator developers will have 

a much better understanding of policy needs. They can then proceed to explain 

data options to the policymakers. 

For example, they may suggest that class size be measured on a per-class 

basis, but as this is not an indicator the organization currently maintains, calculating it would carry both time and financial burdens. Policymakers might decide 

that assessing the initiative is worth the staff and monetary costs. Alternatively, 

they may choose to use Student:Teacher Ratio as a proxy for Average Class Size 

after the indicator developers explain that calculating it would be relatively 

burden-free (the organization already collects the data element components), it 

would provide a reasonable approximation of Average Class Size (average class 

size corresponds with the total-student-to-total-staff ratio, albeit not perfectly), 

10 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
and it accurately reflects increases and decreases over time (even though it is 

only an approximation). If the indicator development team adequately explains 

the possible indicators and related data elements, policymakers should fully 

understand the utility, validity, reliability, timeliness, and burden aspects of their 

options. They should also understand the capabilities and limitations of the 

indicator data they eventually choose. 

Unintended Consequences 

Many people believe that indicators are simply numbers that represent something 

(e.g., a dropout rate) and that these numbers, on their own, do not inherently 

convey judgment or consequence. Rather, judgment and consequences are imposed 

when indicator values are interpreted and, in response, policies are changed. 

While this is true, the establishment of an indicator can nevertheless result in 

unintended consequences that can be very real. For example, indicators perceived 

to suggest inadequate student achievement might lead to a policy of high-stakes 

testing. While this may seem reasonable, this indicator-driven policy may have the 

unintended consequence of increasing student retention rates as teachers become 

more cautious about promoting students who may not fare well on high-stakes 

assessments. It could also lead to changes in course offerings (e.g., less time for 

subject matter not on the test) or other unintended outcomes. 

While unintended consequences are very hard to predict, planners must 

nevertheless try to explore the potential ramifications of the indicators they use. 

Some ramifications may prove tolerable, others unacceptable. Either way, planners 

should proactively consider the desirable and undesirable effects of indicator use 

and policy response. 

Other Important Best Practices 

Training Users 

As described above, dialogue between data and policy specialists is beneficial for 

an organization on several fronts. Indicator developers are better able to provide 

the right data for informing policy decisions when they learn about information 

needs directly from those responsible for making and evaluating policy. Moreover, 

policymakers learn something as well—the characteristics of the data, including 

capabilities and limitations—which minimizes mistakes in interpretation and use. 

In addition to this initial dialogue, formal training for using and interpreting 

indicators is essential. Staff must be properly prepared to answer questions likely 

to arise about the data (e.g., when a parent or newspaper reporter calls). Indicator 

Staff must be properly 

trained to answer 

questions likely to 

arise about the data. 

Proxy Data 

A “proxy” is basically a substitute for the real thing. For example, in education data, the element Free and 

Reduced Price Meal Eligibility is frequently used as a proxy for a student’s status as economically disadvantaged. 

Admittedly, this (and every) proxy does not correlate perfectly with its principal information target; some children 

(especially high school students) choose not to participate in the meal program even though they are eligible. 

Nonetheless, Free and Reduced Price Meal Eligibility is a reasonable estimation of a student’s status as economically disadvantaged—without carrying the burden of asking families to report their income. 

Indicator systems that use proxy elements must confirm that these proxy elements relate to the principal issue they are meant 

to estimate. This does not mean that a school district must conduct original research to support the relationship, but the 

organization should be able to document the choice with relevant studies or other standards within the field. Moreover, the 

organization should be aware of any limitations associated with using the proxy data. 

Chapter 1. Introduction to Education Indicators and Indicator Systems 11 
staff at the local and state education agency levels have an added training responsibility: they must ensure that data providers (e.g., school or LEA staff) are warned 

about the release of potentially controversial or otherwise high-profile public information. It often makes sense to embargo data for several days to a week (or even a 

month or longer for particularly high-stakes data) so that school and district staff 

may process the data’s implications and prepare to deal with the sometimes very 

public ramifications of releasing indicator results (be they positive or not). 

Reporting Indicator Data 

Indicator data must be reported and shared with the same cautions and concerns 

other education data warrant. If, for example, an education organization collects 

unit records (i.e., individual student or staff records) to generate an education 

indicator, the organization should still comply with the privacy guarantees afforded 

students and staff by local, state, and federal laws. Even if indicators are reported 

in aggregate form, commonly accepted statistical procedures must be followed to 

protect individuals from inadvertent identification. These standard procedures 

include cell size limitations to prevent the identification of individual students 

within small groups of “aggregates.” 

Furthermore, an organization should not tell its data providers it is collecting 

data for a specific purpose, then use the information for a different purpose. For 

example, an SEA should not tell LEAs it is collecting data for federal reporting, then 

use the data to compare LEA performance. In order to reduce the unexpected (or 

unacceptable) use of indicator results, any organization collecting data should 

develop and maintain policies governing the distribution and use of indicator data by 

its own staff as well as by outside agencies and organizations with access to the data. 

The Forum Guide to Protecting the Privacy of Student Information provides best practice recommendations for ensuring the privacy of information collected for, and maintained in, 

student records. It is available at no cost at http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2004330.asp. 

Policies must be 

established to govern 

indicator reporting in 

order to protect the 

privacy of individual 

students and staff. 

Securing Data and Information 

Given the time, energy, and money that goes into collecting data, an organization’s 

information system is one of its most valuable assets. Yet threats to an organization’s 

data exist in the form of natural events (e.g., lightning strikes, floods, aging media), 

intentional acts of destruction (e.g., computer hacking, software viruses, dissatisfied employees), and unintentionally destructive acts (e.g., programming errors, 

spilled coffee). It is no understatement to suggest that the three fundamental goals of 

data security are especially applicable to high-profile and high-stakes indicator data. 

Organizations must ensure data: 

> confidentiality—preventing unauthorized disclosure and use of information; 

> integrity—preventing unauthorized creation, modification, or deletion of 

information; and 

> availability—preventing unauthorized delay or denial of information. 

The Forum Unified Education Technology Suite presents a comprehensive approach to acquiring, 

implementing, managing, securing and using technology in education settings. It is 

available at no cost at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/tech_suite/. 

12 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 

Information (data) is 

one of an education 

organization’s most 

valuable assets. 
Statistical Integrity and Public Presentation 

Two other issues of great importance to developing and preparing indicator data 

are statistical integrity and public presentation. Because these issues are critical to 

the responsible management of indicator systems (but not directly within the 

scope of this Guide), they are addressed in detail in appendices to this document: 

> Appendix B: Statistical Terms and Concepts 

Describes statistical terms and concepts commonly used to conceptualize, 

develop, and interpret education indicators. 

> Appendix C: Display and Presentation Options for Indicators 

Offers guidance for preparing indicator reports and displaying indicator data. 

Chapter 1. Introduction to Education Indicators and Indicator Systems 13 

Chapter 2 

CATALOG OF EDUCATION INDICATORS 

This chapter describes 44 education indicators commonly used to measure 

the status of, or change in, education institutions across the nation. 

Detailed descriptions of education indicators comprise the bulk of this chapter. An 

alphabetical list of common education performance and context indicators is also 

provided, as is an index by topic area. As illustrated in figure 7 below, each indicator 

entry contains a definition, a recommended use, a policy question, caveats and 

cautions, additional information, related indicators, data 

Assessment, Percentage Student Participation 

Participation Rate in Student Assessment 

Percentage Students Participating in State Assessment 

Student Participation Rate in Assessment 

Figure 7. Illustration of the framework and conventions used to describe indicators. 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 15 

Indicator Name Identifies the primary indicator name used in this document. 

Cross References Lists any alternative name that is commonly used for the indicator, 

and is cross-referenced to the indicator in this Guide. 

Definition Describes or defines the indicator. 

Recommended Uses Provides suggestions for the appropriate application of the 

indicator. 

Policy Questions Identifies one or more broad policy questions that may be informed by 

the indicator. 

Caveats and Caution Introduces specific issues to be considered in order to avoid 

misapplication or misinterpretation of the indicator. 

Additional Information Explains other issues that may influence the use of the indicator. 

Related Indicators Identifies other indicators that may be used in conjunction with the 

indicator to provide additional information. 

Components Lists the data elements and aggregate, calculated, or derived statistics 

needed to generate the indicator. 

Formula Provides the actual mathematical formula for computing the indicator value. 

Commonly Reported Subgroups Identifies subgroups commonly reported for the 

indicator. 

Display Suggestions Presents recommendations about the types of graphical or 

tabular display that are appropriate for the indicator (see appendix C). 

Definition 

A measure of student participation on an assessment (i.e., the percentage of students taking a test). “Participation” 

is often measured by the number of exams generating a valid score. 

Recommended Uses 

This indicator may be used to identify whether all students participated in an assessment. It may also be used to 

determine whether performance results might be biased (e.g., if an unusually high number of students did not take 

the exam). 

Policy Question 

Are assessment results based on a fair picture of students in our school or district? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> This indicator does not distinguish between students who were tested without modifications and students who 

took alternative assessments or for whom special test-taking modifications were allowed. 

> Not all states use equivalent definitions to identify students eligible for participation in state assessments. 

> Under some circumstances, organizations may choose to report, in the denominator, the number of “eligible” 

test takers (e.g., excluding students enrolled in the school or district less than a full academic year, or non-English 

speaking students in the United States for one year or less). 

> In some jurisdictions, parents may refuse to allow their children to participate in assessments. 

Additional Information 

> This indicator does not distinguish between students who were tested without modifications and students who 

took alternative assessments or for whom special test-taking modifications were allowed. 

Related Indicators 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Schools Making 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Schools in Improvement Categories 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in Improvement Categories 

Assessment, Average Student Score 

Assessment, Percentage Students Demonstrating Proficient or Advanced Performance 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A or appendix D 

Components include the total number of assessments generating a valid score (i.e., the total number of test takers) 

and the total enrollment on the date of test administration. 

Numerator: Number of assessments generating a valid score 

Denominator: Enrollment on the date of testing. 

Formula 

Assessment, Percentage Student Participation is calculated by dividing the number of assessments generating a valid 

score (i.e., the total numbers of test takers) by the total enrollment on the date the test was administered, and 

multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value. 

Number of assessments generating a valid score 

Student enrollment on test date 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Age, grade level, disability status, economic disadvantage status, English proficiency, migrant status, race, sex, and 

full- versus part-academic year enrollment status. 

Display Suggestions 

Generally presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, this indicator may be displayed in tables or bar 

charts by subgroup. Each subject matter area is usually shown separately, but rates from multiple subjects may be 

compared in the same table or graph. 

x 100 

Sample indicator layout
Page Indicator Name 

(Alphabetical) 

Common Name 

Inputs Processes Outcomes 

Student/SchoolCharacteristics

FinancialResourcesStaffCharacteristics

SchoolClimateOpportunityto Learn

SchoolPerformance 

19 Absence Rate (Class), Teacher 

Adequate Yearly Progress 

Class Absence Rate (Teacher) 

Percentage LEAs in Adequate 

✓ ✓ ✓ 

21 (AYP), Percentage Local 

Education Agencies (LEAs) in 

Improvement Categories 

Adequate Yearly Progress 

Yearly Progress (AYP) 

Improvement Categories 

Percentage Schools in 

✓ 

23 (AYP), Percentage Schools 

in Improvement Categories 

Adequate Yearly Progress 

Adequate Yearly Progress 

(AYP) Improvement 

Categories 

Percentage Schools Making 

✓ 

25 (AYP), Percentage Schools 

Making 

Adequate Yearly Progress 

(AYP) 

✓ 

27 Alcohol-Related Incidents 

Reported Per 100 Students 

Reported Alcohol-Related 

Incidents Per 100 Students ✓ 

29 Assessment, Average Student 

Score 

Average Student Assessment 

Score ✓ 

30 Assessment, Percentage 

Student Participation 

Assessment, Percentage 

Percentage Students 

Participating in State 

Assessment 

Percentage Students 

✓ 

31 Students Demonstrating 

Proficient or Advanced 

Performance 

Certification, Percentage 

Demonstrating Proficient or 

Advanced Performance 

Percentage Classes Taught by 

✓ 

33 Classes Taught by Teachers 

Holding Emergency, 

Provisional, or Out-of-Field 

Teachers Holding Emergency, 

Provisional, or Out-of-Field 

Certificates 

✓ ✓ 

35 Class Size, Average Average Class Size ✓ ✓ ✓ 

37 College Entrance Testing, Percentage Graduate Participation 

Percentage Graduate 

Participation in College 

Entrance Testing 

✓ 

element components, a formula, commonly reported subgroups, and display 

suggestions. In addition to an alphabetical listing, the 44 indicators in this Guide 

have been indexed based on the following major policy and content strands: 

Inputs 

✓ Student/School Characteristics 

✓ Financial Resources 

✓ Staff Characteristics 

Processes 

✓ School Climate 

✓ Opportunity to Learn 

Outcomes 

✓ School Performance 

Table 1. Index of indicators by policy strand. 

16 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Page Indicator Name 

(Alphabetical) 

Common Name 

Inputs Processes Outcomes 

Student/SchoolCharacteristics

FinancialResourcesStaffCharacteristics

SchoolClimateOpportunityto Learn

SchoolPerformance 

39 College Entrance Testing, 

Student Average Score 

Average Student Score on 

College Entrance Testing ✓ 

41 Courses (Advanced), Percentage Student Completion 

Percentage Students Completing (Advanced) Courses ✓ ✓ 

43 Courses (Advanced), Percentage Student Enrollment 

Percentage Students Enrolling in (Advanced) Courses ✓ ✓ 

45 Criminal Offense Incidents 

Reported Per 100 Students 

Reported Criminal Offense 

Incidents Per 100 Students ✓ 

47 Drug-Related Incidents 

Reported Per 100 Students 

Reported Drug-Related 

Incidents Per 100 Students ✓ 

49 Education Level, Mother Mother’s Education Level ✓ 

51 Education Level, Teacher Teacher’s Education Level ✓ 

53 Experience Level, Teacher Teacher’s Experience Level ✓ ✓ ✓ 

55 Expulsion Incidents Per 100 

Students 

Number of Expulsion 

Incidents Per 100 Students ✓ ✓ ✓ 

57 High School Completion/ 

Graduation Rate, Cohort Rate 

Completion Rate/ 

Graduation Rate ✓ ✓ ✓ 

59 High School Completion/ 

Graduation Rate, Leaver Rate 

Completion Rate/ 

Graduation Rate ✓ ✓ ✓ 

61 High School Dropout Rate, 

Annual Student 

Annual High School 

Dropout Rate ✓ ✓ ✓ 

63 High School Dropout Rate, 

Cohort Rate 

Cohort High School 

Dropout Rate ✓ ✓ ✓ 

65 “Highly Qualified” Teachers, 

Percentage 

Percentage “Highly 

Qualified” Teachers ✓ ✓ 

67 Instructional Time, Allotted Allotted Instructional Time ✓ ✓ 

68 “Persistently Dangerous” 

Schools, Percentage 

Percentage Schools Identified 

as “Persistently Dangerous” ✓ 

69 Placement of Students With 

Disabilities 

Disabilities, Placement of 

Students With ✓ ✓ ✓ 

72 Promotion Rate, Student Retention Rate (Student) ✓ 

73 “Qualified” Paraprofessionals, Percentage 

Percentage “Qualified” 

Paraprofessionals ✓ ✓ 

75 Retention Rate, Teacher Teacher Retention Rate ✓ 

77 School Capacity, Percentage 

Used 

Percentage School Capacity 

Used ✓ ✓ 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 17 
Page Indicator Name 

(Alphabetical) 

Common Name 

Inputs Processes Outcomes 

Student/SchoolCharacteristics

FinancialResourcesStaffCharacteristics

SchoolClimateOpportunityto Learn

SchoolPerformance 

79 Stability Rate, Student 

Enrollment 

Student Enrollment Stability 

Rate ✓ ✓ ✓ 

80 Student:Instructional 

Computer Ratio 

Instructional 

Computer:Student Ratio ✓ ✓ 

82 Student:Staff Ratio Student:Teacher Ratio ✓ ✓ ✓ 

84 Suspensions (Out-of-School), 

Actions Per 100 Students 

Number of Out-of-School 

Suspension Actions Per 100 

Students 

✓ ✓ ✓ 

86 Suspensions (Out-of-School), 

Average Duration 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), 

Average Duration of Out-ofSchool Suspension Incidents 

Percentage of Students 

✓ ✓ ✓ 

88 Percentage Students 

Receiving 

Receiving Out-of-School 

Suspensions 

✓ ✓ ✓ 

90 Teacher:Administrator Ratio 

Transportation Services, 

Administrator:Teacher Ratio 

Percentage Students 

✓ 

92 Percentage Students 

Receiving 

Receiving Transportation 

Services 

✓ ✓ 

93 Truancy Rate, Schoolwide Schoolwide Truancy Rate ✓ ✓ ✓ 

94 Violent Incidents Reported 

Per 100 Students 

Vocational/Technical 

Reported Violent Incidents 

Per 100 Students 

Percentage Nontraditional 

✓ 

96 Programs, Percentage Nontraditional Completers 

Vocational/Technical 

Completers of Vocational/ 

Technical Programs 

Percentage Nontraditional 

✓ ✓ 

98 Programs, Percentage Nontraditional Participation 

Participation in Vocational/ 

Technical Programs 

✓ 

18 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Absence Rate (Class), Teacher 

Class Absence Rate 

Faculty/Staff Absence Rate 

Teacher Absence Rate 

Definition 

The class absence rate per Full-Time Equivalency (FTE) teacher. “Class absence” is defined as any time 

a teacher must miss an assigned class (and/or a substitute teacher must replace a teacher in class), even 

when the teacher is performing other assigned duties. This includes professional development days, 

personal days, and extended illnesses and leave. Field trips or other off-campus activities with students 

are not defined as class absences. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator provides information about teachers’ availability to students. Another use might be to 

study whether teacher attendance is related to student achievement results. 

Policy Question 

Are teachers available to students? How much instruction do students receive from their regularly 

assigned teachers? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> This indicator does not measure teacher attendance because professional development days are 

counted as absences. Instead, this indicator is a measure of how often the teacher assigned to a 

classroom is actually in the classroom. 

> Care must be given to establishing targets for this indicator. For example, 100 percent class attendance 

is not a reasonable, or even desirable, goal given that professional development is valuable out-of-class 

time (but still an absence), and some sick leave is unavoidable. 

Additional Information 

> Elementary school environments that do not hold separate “classes” may measure this indicator in 

units of time (e.g., minutes present/total class minutes offered). 

> Decreasing professional development time is not recommended as a method of “improving” the results 

of this indicator. 

> Some organizations may also choose to collect “unexplained class absence rate” for teachers. 

> Full-Time Equivalency (FTE) is the amount of time required to perform an assignment, stated as a proportion 

of a full-time position and computed by dividing the amount of time employed by the time normally required 

for a full-time position. 

Related Indicators 

Instructional Time, Allotted 

Retention Rate, Teacher 

Components All italicized terms are defined in Chapter 2, Appendix A or Appendix D. 

Components include leave substitution status and unique course code or course title (if a unique course 

code is not maintained). 

Numerator: Leave Substitution Status (code = Substitution by an individual with or without proof of 

required credentials), Unique Course Code (Course Title) 

Denominator: Unique Course Code (Course Title) 

Formula 

Absence Rate (Class), Teacher is calculated by dividing the total number of assigned classes in which the 

teacher is not in attendance by the total number of assigned classes held (with the teacher or a substitute 

teacher), and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value. 

Leave Substitution Status (code = Substitution by an individual with or without proof of required credentials) 

for all class meetings for each Unique Course Code (Course Titles) x 100 

Total number of class meetings for all Unique Course Codes (Course Titles) 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 19 
Commonly Reported Subgroups 

School level, subject matter area, absence reason (e.g., sick day, professional development, extracurricular 

activity), day of week absent, school enrollment characteristics (e.g., categories representing percentage of 

students by economic disadvantage status and race/ethnicity), and school locale. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent attendance, and may be displayed 

in a table or bar chart by subgroup. 

20 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage 

Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in Improvement Categories 

Percentage LEAs in AYP School Improvement Categories 

School District AYP Status 

Definition 

The percentage of Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in each Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 

Improvement Category under provisions of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to determine how LEAs are performing in terms of attaining and maintaining 

adequate yearly progress. 

Policy Question 

How well are our LEAs performing? How many LEAs need improvement? How serious is the problem
 

of underperforming LEAs?
 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> Under the provisions of NCLB, AYP Status is determined by demonstrating advanced and proficient,
 

but not basic, student performance on state assessments. However, the meaning behind this designation
 

may vary across states because each state uses its own assessment tools and criteria to define basic,
 

proficient, and advanced performance on assessments.
 

> Improvement category thresholds change from year to year. Longitudinal records should not be used
 

for trend analysis purposes.
 

> This indicator does not identify the reasons that LEAs do not make AYP. Under the provisions of 


the NCLB, reasons may include failure to assess 95 percent of the eligible test taking population, or the
 

performance of a single subgroup within the larger student population.
 

> Under some conditions, AYP Status may not be an appropriate indicator of “success.” For example, 


an alternative district serving only students at risk of dropping out may only graduate 50 percent of its
 

students; this would prevent the district from making AYP, but perhaps still qualify it as “successful”
 

under other criteria. 


> When there is not enough information to make a reliable determination of AYP Status (e.g., too few
 

student test scores), multiple grades’ or multiple years’ worth of data may be combined to construct
 

more statistically reliable information.
 

Related Indicators 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Schools in Improvement Categories 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Schools Making 

Assessment, Average Student Score 

Assessment, Percentage Student Participation 

Assessment, Percentage Students Demonstrating Proficient or Advanced Performance 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of LEAs in each improvement category, as defined in NCLB or 

state-designated equivalents, and the number of LEAs for which AYP is reported. 

Numerator: Number of LEAs in each improvement category: LEA Improvement I, LEA
 

Improvement II, Corrective Action I
 

Denominator: Total number of LEAs for which AYP is reported 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 21 
Formula This is a composite indicator calculated for each improvement category.
 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in Improvement Categories is 


calculated by dividing the number of LEAs in each improvement category by the total number of LEAs
 

for which AYP is reported, and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value.
 

Number LEAs in AYP Improvement Category = LEA Improvement I x 100 

Total number of LEAs for which AYP is reported 

Number LEAs in AYP Improvement Category = LEA Improvement II x 100 

Total number of LEAs for which AYP is reported 

Number LEAs in AYP Improvement Category = LEA Corrective Action I 

x 100 

Total number of LEAs for which AYP is reported 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

LEA enrollment characteristics (e.g., categories representing percentage of students by economic disadvantage status and race/ethnicity), LEA locale, and year in given improvement category. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and may be displayed in tables or 

bar charts by subgroup. A pie chart might be used to show the AYP categories of a complete set of LEAs 

(e.g., in a state): percentage making AYP in addition to percentages in LEA improvement I, LEA 

improvement II, and LEA corrective action I. 

22 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Schools 

in Improvement Categories 

Percentage Schools in AYP Improvement Categories 

School AYP Status 

Definition 

The percentage of schools in each School Improvement Category under the provisions of the No Child 

Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to determine how schools are performing in terms of attaining and maintaining 

adequate yearly progress (AYP). 

Policy Questions 

How well are our schools performing? How many schools need improvement? How serious is the
 

problem of underperforming schools?
 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> Under the provisions of NCLB, AYP Status is determined by demonstrating advanced and proficient,
 

but not basic, student performance on state assessments. However, the meaning behind this designation
 

may vary across states because each state uses its own assessment tools and criteria to define basic,
 

proficient, and advanced performance on assessments.
 

> School improvement category thresholds change from year to year. Longitudinal records should not be
 

used for trend analysis purposes.
 

> School improvement category titles may vary from state to state.
 

> This indicator does not identify the reason that schools do not make AYP. Under the provisions of
 

NCLB, reasons may include failure to assess 95 percent of the eligible test taking population, or the
 

performance of a single subgroup within the larger student population.
 

> Under some conditions, AYP Status may not be an appropriate indicator of “success.” For example,
 

an alternative school serving only students at risk of dropping out may only graduate 50 percent of its
 

students; this would prevent the school from making AYP but perhaps still qualify it as “successful”
 

under other criteria.
 

> When there is not enough information to make a reliable determination of AYP Status (e.g., too few
 

student test scores), multiple grades’ or multiple years’ worth of data may be combined to construct
 

more statistically reliable information.
 

Additional Information
 

> For a school to make AYP under NCLB, 


> each student subgroup must have at least a 95 percent participation rate in the statewide assessments; 

> each student subgroup must meet or exceed the state’s Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs); and 

> the school as a whole must show progress on the Other Academic Indicators (OAI), including graduation rates for public secondary school students and at least one other academic indicator, as determined 

by the state for all public elementary school students. 

> All schools, regardless of grade range, size, or assessment administration, are assigned an AYP Status. 

However, the assigned AYP Status may be based on an alternative indicator. For example, a K–2 school 

may be assigned the AYP Status of the school where its students matriculate. 

Related Indicators 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in Improvement Categories 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Schools Making 

Assessment, Average Student Score 

Assessment, Percentage Student Participation 

Assessment, Percentage Students Demonstrating Proficient or Advanced Performance 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 23 
Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of schools in each school improvement category, as defined in NCLB 

or state-designated equivalents, and the number of schools for which AYP is reported. 

Numerator: Number of schools in each improvement category: Alert/Warning, School Improvement 

I, School Improvement II, Corrective Action I, Restructuring I, Restructuring II 

Denominator: Total number of schools for which AYP is reported 

Formula This is a composite indicator calculated for each school improvement category.
 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Schools in Improvement Categories is calculated by dividing the
 

number of schools in each school improvement category by the total number of schools for which AYP
 

is reported, and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value.
 

Number of schools in School Improvement Category = Alert/Warning x 100 

Total number of schools for which AYP is reported 

Number of schools in School Improvement Category = School Improvement I x 100 

Total number of schools for which AYP is reported 

Number of schools in School Improvement Category = School Improvement II x 100 

Total number of schools for which AYP is reported 

Number of schools in School Improvement Category = Corrective Action I 

x 100 

Total number of schools for which AYP is reported 

Number of schools in School Improvement Category = Restructuring I x 100 

Total number of schools for which AYP is reported 

Number of schools in School Improvement Category = Restructuring II x 100 

Total number of schools for which AYP is reported 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

School level, school type (e.g., Title I school), school enrollment characteristics (e.g., categories 

representing percent of students by economic disadvantage status and race/ethnicity), school locale, 

and year in given school improvement category. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and may be displayed in tables 

or bar charts by subgroup. A pie chart could be used to show the AYP categories of a complete set of 

schools: percentage making AYP in addition to percentages in Alert/Warning, School Improvement I, 

School Improvement II, Corrective Action I, Restructuring I, and Restructuring II. 

24 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Schools Making

Percentage Schools Making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 

Definition 

The percentage of schools making adequate yearly progress (AYP). 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to determine how schools are performing in terms of making and maintaining 

adequate yearly progress (AYP). 

Policy Questions 

How well are our schools performing? How many schools need improvement? How serious is the
 

problem of underperforming schools?
 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> Although the term “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP) is frequently associated with the No Child Left
 

Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, it has historically had a broader usage and is not necessarily limited to an
 

NCLB context.
 

> Under the provisions of NCLB, AYP Status is determined by demonstrating advanced and proficient,
 

but not basic, student performance on state assessments. However, the meaning behind this designation
 

may vary across states because each state uses its own assessment tools and criteria to define basic,
 

proficient, and advanced performance on assessments.
 

> School improvement category thresholds change from year to year. Longitudinal records should not be
 

used for trend analysis purposes.
 

> A school may be making academic progress in absolute terms and still not be “making AYP” if
 

student performance is not increasing at the rate required to be designated as “making AYP.”
 

> This indicator does not identify the reason that schools do not make AYP. Under the provisions of
 

NCLB, reasons may include failure to assess 95 percent of the eligible test taking population, or the
 

performance of a single subgroup within the larger student population.
 

> Under some conditions, AYP Status may not be an appropriate indicator of “success.” For example,
 

an alternative school serving only students at risk of dropping out may only graduate 50 percent of its
 

students; this would prevent the school from making AYP but perhaps still qualify it as “successful”
 

under other criteria.
 

> When there is not enough information to make a reliable determination of AYP Status (e.g., too few
 

student test scores), multiple grades’ or multiple years’ worth of data may be combined to construct
 

more statistically reliable information.
 

Additional Information
 

> For a school to make AYP under NCLB,
 

> each student subgroup must have at least a 95 percent participation rate in the statewide assessments; 

> each subgroup must meet or exceed the state’s Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs); and 

> the school as a whole must show progress on the Other Academic Indicators (OAI), including 

graduation rates for public secondary school students and at least one other academic indicator, as 

determined by the state for all public elementary school students. 

Related Indicators 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in Improvement Categories 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Schools in Improvement Categories 

Assessment, Average Student Score 

Assessment, Percentage Student Participation 

Assessment, Percentage Students Demonstrating Proficient or Advanced Performance 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 25 
Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the AYP Status for each school and the total number of schools. 

Numerator: Number of schools making AYP as indicated by their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Status 

Denominator: Total number of schools for which AYP is reported 

Formula 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Schools Making is calculated by dividing the number of schools 

making AYP by the total number of schools for which AYP is reported, and multiplying by 100 to create a 

percentage value. 

Number of schools making AYP as indicated by Adequate Yearly Progress Status x 100 

Total number of schools for which AYP is reported 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

School level, school type (e.g., Title I school), avenue for making AYP (e.g., confidence interval, safe 

harbor, percentage proficient), school enrollment characteristics (e.g., categories representing percentage 

of students by economic disadvantage status and race/ethnicity), and school locale. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and may be displayed in tables or 

bar charts by subgroup. 

26 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Alcohol-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Rate of Alcohol-Related Incidents Reported 

Reported Alcohol-Related Incidents Per 100 Students 

Definition 

The number, per 100 students, of suspected alcohol-related incidents reported to police during a given
 

academic year. Reportable violations of laws or ordinances include the manufacture, sale, purchase,
 

transportation, possession, or consumption of intoxicating alcoholic beverages or substances represented
 

as alcohol.
 

Violations may be specifically coded as: 


> Sale of alcohol—selling alcoholic beverages.
 

> Distribution of alcohol—distributing (i.e., giving away) alcoholic beverages.
 

> Drinking alcohol—drinking alcoholic beverages.
 

> Possession of alcohol—having alcoholic beverages in one’s pocket(s), bag(s), car, locker, etc.
 

> Suspicion of alcohol use—exhibiting behaviors suggesting that an individual consumed alcohol.
 

> Other alcohol—involving an alcohol violation, but unable to be coded in one of the above categories.
 

An incident is “alcohol-related” if the individuals involved were under the influence of alcohol at the
 

time of the incident; if there is evidence, based on testing or investigation by a police officer at the
 

scene, that they have been drinking; or if the incident is somehow related to the possession, use, or sale
 

of alcohol.
 

An “incident” is defined as any offense reported to police that is perpetrated by students at school, on
 

school property, or during a school-sponsored activity. 


Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to help assess school safety and climate. 

Policy Questions 

Is there a substance abuse problem in our schools? Are alcohol education programs effective?
 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> This is an institution-based indicator; it does not present data about individuals or groups of students
 

other than at the institution level.
 

> Only incidents reported to police are included; variation in reporting practices by school staff will
 

therefore affect the indicator’s measure.
 

> Some institutions include all reported incidents regardless of perpetrator (e.g., students and nonstudents
 

alike), thereby increasing the number of incidents. Comparisons between institutions that do and do not
 

distinguish between student and nonstudent perpetrators are discouraged.
 

> Repeat offenders (i.e., individual students suspected of multiple violations) may bias measures.
 

> School Resource Officers (SROs) are legally considered “police officers” in some communities; all
 

incidents involving SROs in these districts have, by definition, been “reported” to the police, increasing
 

the number of “incidents.” Comparisons between institutions with SROs and those that must actively
 

contact an outside authority are therefore discouraged.
 

> This indicator is incident-based rather than student-based.
 

Additional Information
 

> Tobacco and alcohol use generally are reported separately.
 

> The unit of analysis may vary depending on school size. Some organizations may choose to normalize
 

to, and report, “per 1,000 students.”
 

> The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System survey administered by the Centers for Disease Control
 

(see appendix E) may help inform the interpretation of data generated by this indicator.
 

> Alternative indicators include Percentage of Students Involved in Reported Alcohol-Related Incidents.
 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 27 
More information about this issue may be found in Safety in Numbers: Collecting and Using Crime, Violence, and 

Discipline Incident Data to Make a Difference in Schools (NCES 2002–312). This free resource from the National 

Forum on Education Statistics can be accessed at http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2002312.asp. 

Related Indicators 

Criminal Offense Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Drug-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Expulsion Incidents Per 100 Students 

“Persistently Dangerous” Schools, Percentage 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Actions Per 100 Students 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Average Duration 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Percentage Students Receiving 

Violent Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of alcohol-related incidents perpetrated by students at school, on 

school property, or during a school-sponsored activity that have been reported to police during a given 

academic year; and a count of student membership normalized to a “per 100 students” denominator. 

Numerator: The number of alcohol-related incidents perpetrated by students at school, on school 

property, or during a school-sponsored activity that have been reported to police during a given 

academic year. 

Denominator: Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 


Some states or localities may use Average Daily Membership (ADM), Average Daily Attendance (ADA),
 

or Cumulative Enrollment as the denominator.
 

Formula 

Alcohol-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students is calculated by dividing the total number of 

alcohol-related incidents reported by a count of student membership, and multiplying by 100 to 

normalize to a “per 100 students” count. 

Number of alcohol-related incidents reported x 100 

Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

This indicator may be disaggregated by school characteristics. For example, the number of alcoholrelated incidents at elementary, middle, and high schools may be compared. At the institutional level, 

common subgroups include: school level, school type, school size, grade level, school locale, and school 

enrollment characteristics (e.g., categories representing percentage of students by economic disadvantage status and race/ethnicity). 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X, with a notation that the number is “per 

100 students,” and displayed in tables by subgroup. 

28 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Assessment, Average Student Score 

Assessment Results 

Average Student Assessment Score 

Student Performance 

Test Results 

Definition 

The average score earned by students taking an assessment. 

Recommended Uses 

This indicator may be used to measure student performance on an assessment, including student 

subgroup performance and subsequent “achievement gaps.” 

Policy Questions 

Are students meeting academic goals? Is performance improving over time? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> This indicator does not distinguish between students who were tested without modifications and 

students who took alternative assessments or for whom special test-taking modifications were allowed. 

> Average student performance may improve within a reporting category (i.e., basic, proficient, and 

advanced) without students advancing from one reporting category to the next. This may lead Assessment, 

Average Student Score to improve without a corresponding change in Assessment, Percentage Students 

Demonstrating Proficient or Advanced Performance. 

Related Indicators 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in Improvement Categories 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Schools in Improvement Categories 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Schools Making 

Assessment, Percentage Student Participation 

Assessment, Percentage Students Demonstrating Proficient or Advanced Performance 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the score results for all students taking the assessment, and the total number of 

assessments generating a valid score (i.e., the total number of test takers). 

Numerator: Sum of all Score Results 

Denominator: Number of assessments generating a valid score 

Formula 

Assessment, Average Student Score is calculated by dividing the sum of all student scores on an 

assessment by the total number of exams generating a valid score (i.e., the total numbers of test takers). 

Sum of student Score Results 

Total number of assessments generating a valid score 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Age, grade level, disability status, economic disadvantage status, English proficiency, migrant status, 

race, sex, and full- versus part-academic year enrollment. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is often, but not always, presented in the form of XX.X (or other appropriate format 

based on the scoring scale); and displayed in tables or bar charts by subgroup. Generally, each subject 

matter area is shown separately, but scores from multiple subjects may be compared in the same table 

or graph if the subject area assessments use the same scale. 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 29 
Assessment, Percentage Student Participation 

Participation Rate in Student Assessment 

Percentage Students Participating in Assessment 

Student Participation Rate in Assessment 

Definition 

A measure of student participation on an assessment (i.e., the percentage of students taking a test). 

“Participation” is often measured by the number of exams generating a valid score. 

Recommended Uses 

This indicator may be used to identify whether all students participated in an assessment. It may also 

be used to determine whether performance results might be biased (e.g., if an unusually high number of 

students did not take the exam). 

Policy Question 

Are assessment results based on a fair picture of students in our school or district? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> This indicator does not distinguish between students who were tested without modifications and 

students who took alternative assessments or for whom special test-taking modifications were allowed. 

> Not all states use equivalent definitions to identify students eligible for participation in state 

assessments. 

> Under some circumstances, organizations may choose to report, in the denominator, the number of 

“eligible” test takers (e.g., excluding students enrolled in the school or district less than a full academic 

year, or non-English speaking students in the United States for one year or less). 

> In some jurisdictions, parents may refuse to allow their children to participate in assessments. 

Related Indicators 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in Improvement Categories 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Schools in Improvement Categories 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Schools Making 

Assessment, Average Student Score 

Assessment, Percentage Students Demonstrating Proficient or Advanced Performance 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A or appendix D. 

Components include the total number of assessments generating a valid score (i.e., the total number of 

test takers) and the total enrollment on the date of test administration. 

Numerator: Number of assessments generating a valid score 

Denominator: Enrollment on the date of testing 

Formula 

Assessment, Percentage Student Participation is calculated by dividing the number of assessments generating a valid score (i.e., the total numbers of test takers) by the total enrollment on the date the 

test was administered, and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value. 

Number of assessments generating a valid score x 100 

Student enrollment on test date 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Age, grade level, disability status, economic disadvantage status, English proficiency, migrant status, 

race, sex, and full- versus part-academic year enrollment status. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and may be displayed in tables or 

bar charts by subgroup. Each subject matter area is usually shown separately, but rates from multiple 

subjects may be compared in the same table or graph. 

30 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Assessment, Percentage Students Demonstrating Proficient 

or Advanced Performance 

Academic Proficiency 

Assessment Performance 

Percentage Students Demonstrating Proficient or Advanced Performance 

Student Academic Proficiency 

Definition 

The percentage of students demonstrating proficient or advanced performance on an assessment. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to identify student performance on an assessment, including student 

subgroup performance and subsequent “achievement gaps.” 

Policy Questions 

Are our schools succeeding in taking students beyond basic competency? Are all children performing at
 

high levels?
 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> Some states and localities use performance categories other than, or in addition to, basic, proficient,
 

and advanced.
 

> Not all states use equivalent definitions to identify students eligible for participation in state
 

assessments.
 

> Under some circumstances, organizations may choose to report, in the denominator, the number of
 

“eligible” test takers (e.g., excluding students enrolled in the school or district less than a full academic
 

year, or non-English speaking students in the United States for one year or less).
 

> In some jurisdictions, parents may refuse to allow their children to participate in assessments.
 

> Assessment reporting standards may vary depending on the assessment’s purpose or reporting
 

requirement (e.g., all students versus full-year students). 


> Average student performance may improve within a reporting category (i.e., basic, proficient, 


and advanced) without students advancing from one reporting category to the next. This may lead
 

Assessment, Average Student Score to improve without a corresponding change in Assessment, Percentage
 

Students Demonstrating Proficient or Advanced Performance.
 

Additional Information
 

> This indicator’s sensitivity to change will decrease if data for “proficient” and “advanced” performance
 

categories are collapsed into a single, “proficient or advanced” category.
 

Related Indicators 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in Improvement Categories 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Schools in Improvement Categories 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Schools Making 

Assessment, Average Student Score 

Assessment, Percentage Student Participation 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the total number of students taking an assessment who score in the proficient or 

advanced range, based on established thresholds, and the total number of exams generating a valid score 

(i.e., the total number of test takers). 

Numerator: Score Results in Performance Rating (code = Proficient or Advanced) 

Denominator: Number of assessments generating a valid score 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 31 
Formula 

Assessment, Percentage Students Demonstrating Proficient or Advanced Performance is calculated by dividing 

the number of students scoring in the proficient or advanced range by the total number of assessments 

generating a valid score (i.e., the total numbers of test takers), and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value. 

Total number of students with Score Results and 


Performance Rating (code = Proficient or Advanced) on an assessment 


x 100 

Total number of assessments generating a valid score 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Age, grade level, disability status, economic disadvantage status, English proficiency, migrant status, 

race, sex, and full- versus part- academic year enrollment status. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and may be displayed in tables or 

bar charts by subgroup. Each subject matter area is usually shown separately, but rates from multiple 

subjects may be compared in the same table or graph. 

32 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Certification, Percentage Classes Taught by Teachers Holding 

Emergency, Provisional, or Out-of-Field 

Out-of-Field Teaching Assignments 

Percentage Classes Taught by Teachers with Emergency, Provisional, 

or Out-of-Field Certificates 

Percentage Teachers with Emergency, Provisional, or Out-of-Field Certificates

Teaching Assignments Out-of-Field 

Definition 

The percentage of classes with teachers who hold emergency or provisional credentials, or credentials 

that do not match the teaching assignment (i.e., out-of-field). 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to assess the availability of qualified teaching staff. 

Policy Question 

Do students have access to well-qualified teachers?
 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> This indicator does not measure teacher quality but, rather, teacher qualifications for a given class.
 

Teachers with exactly the same credentials may be 100 percent qualified or 0 percent qualified to teach
 

their classes, depending on the teaching assignment.
 

> When calculating this indicator, some education organizations count only teachers of record, even
 

when there is a long-term substitute in a class; others count teachers on the day of a collection, whether
 

they are teachers of record or substitutes.
 

> Indicators that focus on staff rather than courses may be confusing given the complexities associated
 

with prorating teaching loads and multiple class assignments.
 

> The terms “certification,” “licensure,” and “endorsement” are used inconsistently across the nation;
 

this may lead to misreporting or to indicator values that should not be compared across organizations.
 

> This indicator’s validity depends largely on the quality of the data reported for class-by-class teaching
 

assignments.
 

Additional Information
 

> In departmentalized schools, a teacher may have less than complete certification for some, but not all,
 

of the classes assigned. The FTE (Full-time equivalency) of teachers assigned to classes for which they have
 

emergency, provisional, or out-of-field certification divided by the total FTE teachers may be used as a
 

proxy for this indicator.
 

Related Indicators 

Education Level, Teacher 

Experience Level, Teacher 

“Highly Qualified” Teachers, Percentage 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include teaching credential type and teaching field or area authorized for each teacher with 

a classroom assignment, and the total number of classes offered. 

Numerator: Teaching Credential Type (code = Emergency, Provisional, Temporary), Teaching Field or 

Area Authorized, Teaching Assignment 

Denominator: Total number of classes (Unique Course Code or Course Title if unique course codes are 

not maintained) 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 33 
Formula 

Certification, Percentage Classes Taught by Teachers Holding Emergency, Provisional, or Out-of-Field is 

calculated by dividing the number of classes with teachers holding emergency or provisional credentials, 

or credentials that do not match the teaching assignment, by the total number of classes offered; and 

multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value. 

The number of classes with teachers with Teaching Credential Type
 

(code = Emergency, Provisional, Temporary) + the number of classes with teachers 


with a Teaching Field or Area Authorized different than the Teaching Assignment
 x 100 

The total number of classes taught (Unique Course Code or Course Title) 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Subject matter area, school level, school locale, and school enrollment characteristics (e.g., categories 

representing percentage of students by economic disadvantage status and race/ethnicity). 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and may be displayed in tables or 

bar charts by subgroup. 

34 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Class Size, Average 

Average Class Size 

Definition 

Average Class Size is defined as the total number of students enrolled in classes on a given date, divided 

by the total number of classes. 

Recommended Uses 

This indicator may be used to help allocate resources (e.g., teaching positions and classroom space) 

based on student demand for courses. It also may be a factor in assessing the adequacy of the learning 

environment (e.g., it could be correlated with student performance). 

Policy Questions 

Are students getting the teacher attention they need? Are classes the optimal size for instruction?
 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> This measure may be skewed when some classes allow for limited or unlimited enrollment (e.g.,
 

special education, band, gym, and distance learning). Therefore, it is recommended that Class Size,
 

Average be calculated only for academic or core classes.
 

> Student:Teacher Ratio is sometimes used as a proxy for Average Class Size. While the two indicators
 

are not identical, Student:Teacher Ratio is often less burdensome to calculate, and provides a reasonable
 

approximation that reflects increases and decreases in class size over time.
 

> This indicator may be misleading when different courses are taught within the same class setting 


(e.g., one teacher, in one classroom, simultaneously teaching two separately listed courses—
 

“Introduction to Keyboarding” and “Advanced Keyboarding”). 


> Because class organization in elementary schools is homeroom-based and high schools offer
 

departmentalized courses, it may be difficult to compare this indicator between school levels.
 

Additional Information
 

> For students taking multiple courses within the same class (e.g., as above, one teacher, in one
 

classroom, simultaneously teaching “Introduction to Keyboarding” and “Advanced Keyboarding”), 


a “class” may be defined as an instructional offering with a unique course name, class period, and
 

location.
 

> Course titles may be used to identify classes when a unique course code is not maintained. A separate
 

measure is recommended for classes that are limited with respect to class size (e.g., special education
 

classes).
 

> Median class size may present a more meaningful picture of the learning environment.
 

Related Indicators 

Placement of Students with Disabilities 

School Capacity, Percentage Used 

Student:Staff Ratio 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of students enrolled in all classes (often identified in student record 

systems by a unique course code or course title) and the total number of classes offered. 

Numerator: Number of students enrolled in all classes (based on Unique Course Code or 

Course Title) 

Denominator: Total number of classes (based on Unique Course Code or Course Title) 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 35 
Formula 

Class Size, Average is calculated by dividing the total number of students enrolled in a class (for all 

classes) by the total number of classes, and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value. 

Students enrolled in a each Unique Course Code (Course Title) x 100 

Total number of Unique Course Codes (Course Titles) 

Alternatively, Class Size, Average may also be calculated by dividing the sum of enrollment in all classes 

by the total number of classes offered, and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value. 

Sum of student course enrollment 

x 100 

Total number of classes offered (Unique Course Code or Course Title) 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Subject matter area, school level, instructional level, core/noncore classes. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of students per class (XX:1). 

Class-size ranges may help with the interpretation of class-size data. For example, categories might 

include the number of classes that average less than 20 students, the number of classes that average 

20–30 students, and the number of classes that average more than 30 students. Ranges may be displayed 

in tables or bar charts, by subgroup. 

36 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
College Entrance Testing, Percentage Graduate Participation

ACT Participation 

Participation Rate in College Entrance Testing 

Percentage Graduate Participation in College Entrance Testing 

SAT Participation 

Student Participation Rate in College Entrance Testing 

Definition 

The percentage of high school graduates who took a college entrance test such as the American College 

Testing (ACT) exam or the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to identify what portion of graduates has taken a college entrance examination. 

Policy Question 

Are schools preparing students for postsecondary education? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> Rates will be inflated in states that require a college entrance examination score for admission to 

public colleges or universities. 

> This indicator may be misleading for schools with high dropout rates. 

> Because ACT and SAT scores are reported independently, data collectors must be careful not to 

double-count graduates who have taken both tests. 

Related Indicator 

College Entrance Testing, Student Average Score 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the existence of a reported ACT or SAT score for each graduate, and the total 

number of graduates. 

Numerator: Exit/Withdrawal Type (code = Graduated with regular, advanced, International 

Baccalaureate, or other type of diploma), Identification System [code = College Board Admission Testing 

Program (ATP) Number or American College Testing (ACT) Program Number] 

Denominator: Exit/Withdrawal Type (code = Graduated with regular, advanced, International
 

Baccalaureate, or other type of diploma)
 

Formula 

College Entrance Testing, Percentage Graduate Participation is calculated by dividing the number of 

graduates with a reported ACT or SAT score by the total number of graduates, and multiplying by 100 

to create a percentage value. 

(code = Graduated with regular, advanced, International Baccalaureate, 


or other type of diploma) and an Identification System 


[code = College Board Admission Testing Program (ATP) Number 


or American College Testing (ACT) Program Number]
 x 100 

Total number of students with Exit/Withdrawal Type 

(code = Graduated with regular, advanced, 

International Baccalaureate, or other type of diploma) 

The number of students with Exit/Withdrawal Type
 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Disability status, race, sex, economic disadvantage status, test type (i.e., ACT or SAT), and high school 

Grade Point Average (GPA). 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 37 
Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and may be displayed in tables or 

bar charts by subgroup. SAT and ACT percentages are usually presented in separate tables and charts, 

but they may also be compared to each other. 

38 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
College Entrance Testing, Student Average Score 

ACT Scores 

Average Student Score on College Entrance Testing 

College Readiness Testing 

SAT Scores 

Definition 

The average score of students taking a college entrance test such as the American College Testing (ACT) 

exam or the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to identify average student performance on college entrance exams. 

Policy Question 

Are students prepared for postsecondary education?
 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> Average student scores may be affected by participation rates, which may vary considerably. For
 

example, some schools encourage all or most students to take college entrance exams; others recommend the exams only for high-performing, college-bound students. The percentage of students participating in college testing may also vary based on state or local policy, including admission requirements
 

for state or local colleges and universities.
 

> Although the testing companies report scores for the most recent test, some education organizations
 

record all scores a student receives on college entrance tests (i.e., from multiple test dates) while others
 

maintain only the highest score. These different recording practices may lead to “average” scores that
 

are not comparable between institutions.
 

> National average scores are not based on a random sampling of students and, therefore, may not be
 

appropriate for comparison with local or state average college entrance tests scores.
 

> College entrance testing scores (SAT and ACT scores) are a measure of student readiness for college;
 

they should not be used to assess student achievement in secondary schools.
 

> Longitudinal analyses of college entrance scores must address the recent score rescaling of the
 

Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT).
 

Additional Information
 

> Valid comparisons may be made against prior institutional performance.
 

> The testing company often can provide information about the total number of students tested, scores,
 

and other relevant data.
 

Related Indicator 

College Entrance Testing, Percentage Graduate Participation 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include ACT or SAT scores for all test takers, and the total number of test takers. 

Numerator: Score Results for Identification System [code = American College Testing (ACT) Program 

Number or College Board Admission Testing Program (ATP) Number] 

Denominator: Number of students tested (from testing company) 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 39 
Formula 

College Entrance Testing, Student Average Score is calculated by dividing the sum of all student college 

entrance testing scores reported (by test type to ensure scaling consistency) by the total number of 

students taking each test. 

Sum of Score Results for all students with Identification System
 

[code = American College Testing (ACT) Program Number]
 x 100 

Total number of students tested (from testing company) 

Sum of Score Results for all students with Identification System
 

[code = College Board Admission Testing Program (ATP) Number]
 x 100 

Total number of students tested (from testing company) 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Sex, economic disadvantage status, test type (i.e., ACT or SAT), high school GPA, and current 

occupational choice. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number, in the form of XX.X or XXXX, and displayed in tables or bar 

charts by subgroup. Both total and sub-scale scores may be displayed by subgroup. 

40 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Courses (Advanced), Percentage Student Completion 

Advanced Course Completion Patterns 

Percentage Students Completing (Advanced) Courses 

Definition 

The percentage of students completing a given course or sequence of courses. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to identify completion patterns in advanced courses. 

Policy Questions 

Are schools challenging students academically? Are students completing demanding courses? 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> Local authorities determine whether a course is “advanced.”
 

> Course “completion” is not the equivalent of course “enrollment.” 

> The denominator (Cumulative Enrollment) may be limited to eligible students. For example, if AP 

History is only offered to grade 12 students, then cumulative enrollment in grade 12 may be the appropriate denominator. 

> Unless a comprehensive and unified course coding system is in use, the content of courses with the 

same name or code (e.g., Advanced American History or History 102) may vary between education institutions. 

> Some classes permit dual enrollment (e.g., one teacher, in one classroom, simultaneously teaching 

“Advanced U.S. History” and a separately listed course, “AP U.S. History”). To ensure accurate student 

counts, all course enrollment codes must be distinguishable. 

> Enrollment in gifted and talented or other advanced programs may be used for elementary school 

students who do not receive credits for course completion. 

Additional Information 

> This indicator is distinguished from Courses (Advanced), Percentage Student Enrollment by the data 

element Number of Credits Received, which indicates completion rather than enrollment in a course or 

course sequence. 

> Groups of courses other than “advanced” may also be assessed using this formula. 

Related Indicator 

Courses (Advanced), Percentage Student Enrollment 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include course code(s), number of credits received (signifying “completion”), and cumulative 

enrollment. 

Numerator: Course Code(s), Number of Credits Received (i.e., credit > 0 signifies completion) 

Denominator: Cumulative Enrollment 

Some states or localities may use Average Daily Attendance (ADA), Average Daily Membership (ADM), 

or Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) as the denominator. 

Formula 

Courses (Advanced), Percentage Student Completion is calculated by dividing the number of students 

who have received credit for a given course, or course sequence, by the total student membership 

(cumulative enrollment), and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value. 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 41 

(Number of Credits Received > 0 signifies completion) for Course Code(s)
 x 100 

Cumulative Enrollment 

Number of students who received credit 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Age; grade level; disability status; economic disadvantage status; LEP status; migrant status; race; sex; 

and course level, such as Gifted and Talented (GT), Advanced Placement (AP), International 

Baccalaureate (IB), college prep, and advanced. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented in the form of XX.X percent, by subject matter area and subgroup; or displayed 

in a table or bar chart. 

42 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Courses (Advanced), Percentage Student Enrollment 

Advanced Course Enrollment Patterns 

Percentage Students Enrolling in (Advanced) Courses 

Definition 

The percentage of students enrolling in a given course or sequence of courses. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to identify enrollment patterns in advanced courses. 

Policy Questions 

Are schools challenging students academically? Are students enrolling in demanding courses? 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> Local authorities determine whether a course is “advanced.”
 

> Course “enrollment” is not the equivalent of course “completion.” 

> The denominator (Cumulative Enrollment) may be limited to eligible students. For example, if AP 

History is only offered to grade 12 students, then cumulative enrollment in grade 12 may be the 

appropriate denominator. 

> Unless a comprehensive and unified course coding system is in use, the content of courses with the 

same name or code (e.g., Advanced American History or History 102) may vary between education 

institutions. 

> Some classes permit dual enrollment (e.g., one teacher, in one classroom, simultaneously teaching 

“Advanced U.S. History” and a separately listed course, “AP U.S. History”). To ensure accurate student 

counts, all course enrollment codes must be distinguishable. 

Additional Information 

> This indicator is distinguished from Courses (Advanced), Percentage Student Completion by the absence 

of Number of Credits Received, which indicates completion rather than enrollment in a course or course 

sequence. 

> Groups of courses other than “advanced” may also be assessed using this formula. 

Related Indicator 

Courses (Advanced), Percentage Student Completion 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include course code(s) and cumulative enrollment. 

Numerator: Course Code(s)
 

Denominator: Cumulative Enrollment
 

Some states or localities may use Average Daily Attendance (ADA), Average Daily Membership (ADM),
 

or Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) as the denominator.
 

Formula 

Courses (Advanced), Percentage Student Enrollment is calculated by dividing the number of students 

enrolled in a given course, or course sequence, by the total student membership (cumulative 

enrollment), and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value. 

Number of students enrolled in Course Code(s) x 100 

Cumulative Enrollment 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Age; grade level; disability status; economic disadvantage status; LEP status; migrant status; race; sex; 

and course level, such as Gifted and Talented (GT), Advanced Placement (AP), International 

Baccalaureate (IB), college prep, and advanced. 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 43 
Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented in the form of XX.X percent, by subject matter area and subgroup; or 

displayed in a table or bar chart. 

44 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Criminal Offense Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Rate of Criminal Offense Incidents Reported 

Reported Criminal Offense Incidents Per 100 Students 

Definition 

The number, per 100 students, of suspected criminal offense incidents reported to police during a given 

academic year. Reportable violations of laws or ordinances include robbery, theft/larceny, and vandalism. 

An “incident” is defined as any offense reported to police that is perpetrated by students at school, on 

school property, or during a school-sponsored activity. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to help assess school safety and climate. 

Policy Question 

How safe are our schools? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> This is an institution-based indicator; it does not present data about individuals or groups of students 

other than at the institution level. 

> Only incidents reported to police are included; variations in reporting practices by school staff will 

therefore affect the indicator’s measure. 

> Some institutions include all reported incidents regardless of perpetrator (e.g., students and nonstudents alike), thereby increasing the number of incidents. Comparisons between institutions that do 

and do not distinguish between student and nonstudent perpetrators are discouraged. 

> Repeat offenders (i.e., individual students who are suspected of multiple violations) may bias 

measures. 

> School Resource Officers (SROs) are legally considered “police officers” in some communities; all 

incidents involving SROs in these districts have, by definition, been “reported” to the police, increasing 

the number of “incidents.” Comparisons between institutions with SROs and those that must actively 

contact an outside authority are therefore discouraged. 

> This indicator is incident-based rather than student-based. 

Additional Information 

> The unit of analysis may vary depending on school size. Some organizations may choose to normalize 

to, and report, “per 1,000 students.” 

> The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System survey administered by the Centers for Disease Control 

(see appendix E) may help inform the interpretation of data generated by this indicator. 

> Alternative indicators include Percentage of Students Involved in Reported Criminal Offense 

Incidents. 

More information about this issue may be found in Safety in Numbers: Collecting and Using Crime, Violence, and 

Discipline Incident Data to Make a Difference in Schools (NCES 2002–312). This free resource from the National 

Forum on Education Statistics may be accessed at http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2002312.asp. 

Related Indicators 

Alcohol-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Drug-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Expulsion Incidents Per 100 Students 

“Persistently Dangerous” Schools, Percentage 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Actions Per 100 Students 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Average Duration 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Percentage Students Receiving 

Violent Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 45 
Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of criminal offense incidents perpetrated by students at school, on 

school property, or during a school-sponsored activity that have been reported to police during a given 

academic year; and a count student membership normalized to a “per 100 students” denominator. 

Numerator: The number of criminal offense incidents perpetrated by students at school, on school 

property, or during a school-sponsored activity that have been reported to police during a given 

academic year. 

Denominator: Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 

Some states or localities may use Average Daily Membership (ADM), Average Daily Attendance (ADA), 

or Cumulative Enrollment as the denominator. 

Formula 

Criminal Offense Incidents Reported Per 100 Students is calculated by dividing the total number of criminal 

offense incidents reported by a count of student membership, and multiplying by 100 to normalize to a 

“per 100 students” count. 

Number of criminal offense incidents reported x 100 

Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

This indicator may be disaggregated by school characteristics. For example, the number of criminal 

offense incidents at elementary, middle, and high schools may be compared. At the institutional level, 

common subgroups include: school level, school type, school size, grade level, school locale, and school 

enrollment characteristics (e.g., categories representing percentage of students by economic disadvantage status and race/ethnicity). 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X, with a notation that the number is “per 

100 students,” and displayed in tables by subgroup. 

46 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Drug-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Rate of Drug-Related Incidents Reported 

Reported Drug-Related Incidents Per 100 Students 

Definition 

The number, per 100 students, of suspected drug-related incidents reported to police during a given 

academic year. Drugs include any use of illegal substances such as marijuana or cocaine, and unauthorized use of controlled substances such as Demerol or morphine. (Local and state laws should be 

consulted for a complete list of applicable substances.) Reportable violations of laws or ordinances 

include illegal drug possession, sale, use (under the influence), cultivation, manufacture, distribution, 

solicitation, purchase, transportation, or importation. 

Violations may be specifically coded as: 

> Sale of illegal drug—selling illegal drugs. 

> Sale of substance represented as an illegal drug—selling a substance represented as an illegal drug 

(e.g., selling oregano represented as marijuana). 

> Distribution of illegal drug—distributing (i.e., giving away) illegal drugs. 

> Distribution of substance represented as an illegal drug—distributing (i.e., giving away) a substance 

represented as an illegal drug. 

> Use of illegal drug—smoking, snorting, injecting, ingesting, or otherwise using an illegal drug. 

> Possession of illegal drug—having an illegal drug in one’s pocket(s), bag(s), car, locker, etc. 

> Possession of drug paraphernalia—having equipment for using illegal drugs in one’s pocket(s), bag(s), 

car, locker, etc. 

> Suspicion of use—exhibiting behaviors suggesting that an individual used illegal drugs. 

> Other drug offense—involving a drug violation, but unable to be coded in one of the above categories. 

An incident is “drug-related” if the individuals involved were under the influence of drugs at the time of 

the incident; if there is evidence, based on testing or investigation by a police officer at the scene, that 

they have been using drugs; or if the incident is somehow related to the possession, use, or sale of drugs. 

An “incident” is defined as any offense reported to police that is perpetrated by students at school, on 

school property, or during a school-sponsored activity. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to help assess school safety and climate. 

Policy Questions 

Is there a substance abuse problem in our schools? Are drug education programs effective? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> This is an institution-based indicator; it does not present data about individuals or groups of students 

other than at the institution level. 

> Only incidents reported to police are included; variation in reporting practices by school staff will 

therefore affect the indicator’s measure. 

> Some institutions include all reported incidents regardless of perpetrator (e.g., students and nonstudents 

alike), thereby increasing the number of incidents. Comparisons between institutions that do and do not 

distinguish between student and nonstudent perpetrators are discouraged. 

> Repeat offenders (i.e., individual students suspected of multiple violations) may bias measures. 

> School Resource Officers (SROs) are legally considered “police officers” in some communities; all 

incidents involving SROs in these districts have, by definition, been “reported” to the police, increasing 

the number of “incidents.” Comparisons between institutions with SROs and those that must actively 

contact an outside authority are therefore discouraged. 

> This indicator is incident-based rather than student-based. 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 47 
Additional Information
 

> Tobacco and alcohol use generally are reported separately.
 

> The unit of analysis may vary depending on school size. Some organizations may choose to normalize to,
 

and report, “per 1,000 students.”
 

> The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System survey administered by the Centers for Disease
 

Control (see appendix E) may help inform the interpretation of data generated by this indicator.
 

> Alternative indicators include Percentage of Students Involved in Reported Drug-Related Incidents.
 

More information about this issue may be found in Safety in Numbers: Collecting and Using Crime, Violence, and 

Discipline Incident Data to Make a Difference in Schools (NCES 2002–312). This free resource from the National 

Forum on Education Statistics may be accessed at http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2002312.asp. 

Related Indicators 

Alcohol-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Criminal Offense Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Expulsion Incidents Per 100 Students 

“Persistently Dangerous” Schools, Percentage 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Actions Per 100 Students 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Average Duration 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Percentage Students Receiving 

Violent Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of drug-related incidents perpetrated by students at school, on school 

property, or during a school-sponsored activity that have been reported to police during a given 

academic year; and a count of student membership normalized to a “per 100 students” denominator. 

Numerator: The number of drug-related incidents perpetrated by students at school, on school 

property, or during a school-sponsored activity that have been reported to police during a given 

academic year. 

Denominator: Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 


Some states or localities may use Average Daily Membership (ADM), Average Daily Attendance (ADA),
 

or Cumulative Enrollment as the denominator.
 

Formula 

Drug-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students is calculated by dividing the total number of drug-related 

incidents reported by a count of student membership, and multiplying by 100 to normalize to a “per 100 

students” count. 

Number of drug-related incidents reported x 100 

Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

This indicator may be disaggregated by school characteristics. For example, the number of drug-related 

incidents at elementary, middle, and high schools may be compared. At the institutional level, common 

subgroups include: school level, school type, school size, grade level, school locale, and school enrollment 

characteristics (e.g., categories representing percentage of students by economic disadvantage status and 

race/ethnicity). 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X, with a notation that the number is “per 

100 students,” and displayed in tables by subgroup. 

48 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Education Level, Mother 

Education Level of Parent 

Mother’s Education Level 

Mother’s Highest Level of Education Completed 

Parent’s Education Level 

Parent’s Highest Level of Education Completed 

Percentage of Mothers with a High School Degree 

Definition 

The percentage of students with mothers who have completed a given level of education, such as less 

than high school, high school, some college—no degree, associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree, and 

graduate degree. 

Recommended Uses 

This indicator may be used to identify students at risk for academic failure, and as a predictor of future 

academic success. 

Policy Question 

How many students may need extra help to succeed in school? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> Although it is commonly used as a proxy for economic disadvantage status, Education Level, Mother 

does not directly measure economic disadvantage status. 

> The education level of mothers with more than one child in an educational institution will be counted 

for each of her children in the student count, rather than just once; their education levels will therefore 

be weighted more heavily in the counts. 

> Policymakers may determine what levels of education, or ways of categorizing levels of education, are 

relevant to their information needs. 

Additional Information 

> This indicator is a commonly used predictor of school success, and is sometimes used as a proxy for 

Percentage Students Receiving Free or Reduced-Price Meals. 

> “Education Level, Father” or “Education Level, Parent” may be used as alternative indicators. 

> Other categories for highest level of education may also be used, including less than high school, high 

school, some college, college degree (two- or four-year), master’s degree, and terminal degree. A 

complete list is included in appendix D, under the data element Highest Level of Education Completed. 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the highest level of education completed by a student’s mother and the total 

student membership. 

Numerator: Number of students with a mother in each category of Highest Level of Education 

Completed (e.g., code = less than high school, high school, some college—no degree, associate’s 

degree, bachelor’s degree, and graduate degree) 

Denominator: Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1)
 

Some states or localities use Average Daily Membership (ADM), Average Daily Attendance (ADA), or
 

Cumulative Enrollment as the denominator.
 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 49 
Formula This is a composite indicator calculated for each education level.
 

Education Level, Mother is calculated by dividing the number of students with mothers in each education
 

level category by the total student membership, and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value.
 

Number of students with 

Mother’s Highest Level of Education Completed < High School x 100 

Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 

Number of students with 

Mother’s Highest Level of Education Completed = High School x 100 

Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 

Number of students with 

Mother’s Highest Level of Education Completed = Some College x 100 

Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 

Number of students with 

Mother’s Highest Level of Education Completed = Associate’s Degree x 100 

Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 

Number of students with 

Mother’s Highest Level of Education Completed = Bachelor’s Degree x 100 

Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 

Number of students with 

Mother’s Highest Level of Education Completed = Graduate Degree x 100 

Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Age, grade level, disability status, economic disadvantage status, LEP status, migrant status, and race; 

also school level. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and may be displayed in tables or 

bar charts by subgroup, or in a stacked bar chart when all education level categories are reported in one 

chart. 

50 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Education Level, Teacher 

Percentage of Teachers with Advanced Degrees 

Teacher Education Level 

Teacher’s Highest Level of Education Completed 

Definition 

The percentage of teachers, by Full-Time Equivalency (FTE), who have completed a given level of 

education, such as associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree, graduate certificate, first-professional degree, 

master’s degree, or doctoral degree. 

Recommended Uses 

This indicator may be used, in conjunction with other information, to measure teacher quality and other 

teaching staff qualifications. It may also be used to predict staff salary obligations, as pay grades often 

reflect academic credentials. 

Policy Question 

Do students have access to well-qualified teachers?
 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> Academic degrees do not necessarily correlate with the quality of instruction provided, although it is
 

generally accepted to be a contributing factor to teacher quality. 


> Academic degree areas may or may not relate to teaching assignments.
 

> Policymakers may determine what levels of education, or ways of categorizing levels of education, are
 

relevant to their information needs. 


> Some vocational teaching credentials do not require postsecondary education but, instead, assign
 

credential credit based on job-related experience (e.g., for an auto mechanic instructor).
 

> This indicator may inform analysis of staff payroll trends because many education payroll systems
 

have stepped increases that correspond to education levels. Thus, teachers with more education often
 

receive higher salaries. 


> This indicator is measured in terms of FTE rather than simple teacher counts (i.e., head counts).
 

Although FTE is a more precise measure, teacher head counts may also be used to calculate this
 

indicator. Indicator values calculated using FTE data should not be compared with values calculated
 

from teacher head counts.
 

> Rapidly increasing or decreasing student populations may affect the number of available teaching
 

positions in a school or district; this may influence teacher demographics and the value of this indicator.
 

Additional Information
 

> A “teacher” is defined as an individual who provides instruction to prekindergarten, kindergarten,
 

grades 1 through 12, or ungraded classes; or an individual who teaches in an environment other than a
 

classroom setting; and who maintains daily student attendance records. 


> Although teacher education level is often linked directly to student performance, this indicator is best
 

used to assess the general academic climate within an educational organization.
 

> Full-Time Equivalency (FTE) is the amount of time required to perform an assignment, stated as
 

a proportion of a full-time position and computed by dividing the amount of time employed by the time
 

normally required for a full-time position.
 

> Other categories for highest level of education may also be used. A complete list is included in
 

appendix D, under the data element Highest Level of Education Completed.
 

Related Indicators 

Certification, Percentage Classes Taught by Teachers Holding Emergency, Provisional, or Out-of-Field 

Experience Level, Teacher 

“Highly Qualified” Teachers, Percentage 

Retention Rate, Teacher 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 51 
Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the employee’s job classification status as a teacher, FTE, highest level of education 

completed, and the total number of full-time equivalent teachers in the organization. 

Numerator: Job Classification (code = Teacher), Full-Time Equivalency, number of teachers in each 

category of Highest Level of Education Completed (e.g., code = associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree, 

graduate certificate, first professional degree, master’s degree, doctoral degree) 

Denominator: Job Classification (code = Teacher), Full-Time Equivalency 

Formula This is a composite indicator calculated for each education level.
 

Education Level, Teacher is calculated by dividing the number of FTE teachers in each education level
 

category by the total number of FTE teachers, and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value.
 

Number of FTE teachers with 

Highest Level of Education Completed = Associate’s Degree x 100 

Total number of FTE teachers 

Number of FTE teachers with 

Highest Level of Education Completed = Bachelor’s Degree x 100 

Total number of FTE teachers 

Number of FTE teachers with 

Highest Level of Education Completed = Graduate Degree x 100 

Total number of FTE teachers 

Number of FTE teachers with 

Highest Level of Education Completed = First Professional Degree x 100 

Total number of FTE teachers 

Number of FTE teachers with 

Highest Level of Education Completed = Master’s Degree x 100 

Total number of FTE teachers 

Number FTE teachers with 

Highest Level of Education Completed = Doctoral Degree x 100 

Total number of FTE teachers 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

School level, subject matter area, school locale, school type (e.g., Title I), and enrollment characteristics (e.g., percentage of students by economic disadvantage status and race/ethnicity). 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and may be displayed in tables or 

bar charts by subgroup, or in a stacked bar chart when all education level categories are reported in 

one chart. 

52 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Experience Level, Teacher 

Average Experience Level of Teachers 

Teacher Experience Level 

Definition 

The percentage of teachers, by Full-Time Equivalency (FTE), who have been teaching a given amount of 

time (e.g., 0–3 years, 4–9 years, 10–15 years, 16–20 years, 21 + years). 

Recommended Uses 

This indicator may be used, in conjunction with other information, to measure teacher quality and other 

teaching staff qualifications. It may also be used to predict staff turnover rates (anticipated retirements) 

and salary obligations, as pay grades often reflect years of experience. 

Policy Questions 

Do students have equal access to experienced teachers? Are we facing a possible teacher shortage
 

because our staff is disproportionately near retirement?
 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> This indicator does not measure all facets of the “quality” of a teacher, but experience is generally
 

accepted to be a factor in determining teacher quality. 


> Policymakers may determine what levels of experience, or ways of categorizing levels of experience,
 

are relevant to their information needs. 


> This indicator may inform analysis of staff payroll trends because many education payroll systems
 

have stepped increases that correspond to years of experience. Thus, teachers with more experience
 

often receive higher salaries. 


> This indicator may inform analysis of the age, and likely retirement schedule, of the teaching staff.
 

> This indicator is measured in terms of FTE rather than teacher counts (i.e., head counts). Although
 

FTE is more precise, teacher head counts may be used as an alternative method to calculate this
 

indicator. Indicator values calculated from FTE data should not be compared with values calculated
 

with teacher count data.
 

> Enrollment trends affect teacher experience. For example, a growing student body requires the hiring
 

of more new teachers, presumably decreasing the faculty’s average years of experience. Conversely, a
 

school or district with declining enrollments may not hire new teaching staff, and this will lead to an
 

increase in its faculty’s average years of experience.
 

> Teacher experience is affected by teacher retirement and turnover rates.
 

Additional Information
 

> A “teacher” is defined as an individual who provides instruction to prekindergarten, kindergarten,
 

grades 1 through 12, or ungraded classes; or an individual who teaches in an environment other than a
 

classroom setting; and who maintains daily student attendance records. 


> Although teacher experience is often linked directly to student performance, this indicator is best used
 

to assess the general academic climate within an educational organization.
 

> Full-Time Equivalency (FTE) is the amount of time required to perform an assignment, stated as a
 

proportion of a full-time position and computed by dividing the amount of time employed by the time
 

normally required for a full-time position.
 

> This indicator is relatively easy to obtain and may be used as a proxy for staff and financial quality.
 

> Organizations may also want to consider variants of this indicator, such as Average Full-Time Teacher
 

Experience and Average Experience in Education Within/Outside the Organization.
 

> Other categories for experience level may be used (for example, 0–5 years, 6–15 years, 16 + years).
 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 53 
Related Indicators 

Certification, Percentage Classes Taught by Teachers Holding Emergency, Provisional, or Out-of-Field 

Education Level, Teacher 

“Highly Qualified” Teachers, Percentage 

Retention Rate, Teacher 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the employee’s job classification status as a teacher, FTE, years of prior teaching 

experience, and the total number of full-time equivalent teachers in the organization. 

Numerator: Job Classification (code = Teacher), Full-Time Equivalency, Years of Prior Teaching
 

Experience (e.g., by category)
 

Denominator: Job Classification (code = Teacher), Full-Time Equivalency 

Formula This is a composite indicator calculated for each experience category.
 

Experience Level, Teacher is calculated by dividing the number of FTE teachers in each experience level
 

category by the total number of FTE teachers, and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value.
 

Number of FTE teachers with 

Years of Prior Teaching Experience = 0–3 years x 100 

Total number of FTE teachers 

Number of FTE teachers with 

Years of Prior Teaching Experience = 4–9 years x 100 

Total number of FTE teachers 

Number of FTE teachers with 

Years of Prior Teaching Experience = 10–15 years x 100 

Total number of FTE teachers 

Number of FTE teachers with 

Years of Prior Teaching Experience = 16–20 years x 100 

Total number of FTE teachers 

Number of FTE teachers with 

Years of Prior Teaching Experience = 21+ years x 100 

Total number of FTE teachers 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

School level, subject matter area, school locale, school type (e.g., Title I), and school enrollment characteristics (e.g., percentage of students by economic disadvantage status and race/ethnicity). 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and may be displayed in tables 

or bar charts by subgroup, or in a stacked bar chart when all experience level categories are reported 

in one chart. 

54 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Expulsion Incidents Per 100 Students 

Number of Expulsion Incidents Per 100 Students 

Definition 

The number of incidents, per 100 students enrolled, resulting in student expulsion. Note that “expulsion” 

is not a placement change but, rather, an action taken by a chief administrator or school board to 

remove a student from the institution. However, expulsion may be temporary with the possibility of 

reinstatement. 

Recommended Uses 

This indicator may be used to assess school climate and safety, and whether students are attending 

school. It may also be used as a measure of disruption to the educational process. 

Policy Questions 

Are students in school? Are schools safe and orderly? Are discipline policies being enforced as intended? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> The unit of expulsion may vary. For example, a student may be expelled from a school (but remain 

eligible for services at another school within the district), a district (but remain eligible for services at 

another district within the state), or a state. 

> Schools need to know whether expulsions affect special education students because these students 

cannot, by law, be refused services for issues related to their disability. 

> Disciplinary sanctions vary from school to school, district to district, and state to state, both as a matter 

of policy and subjective enforcement. Comparisons between dissimilar situations are not recommended. 

> Interpreting this indicator can be complex. For example, a “safe” school may have a low number of 

expulsions because few incidents warranting expulsions occurred, or because previously disruptive 

students were already removed. 

> Expulsion status may change on appeal, or other administrative or legal decision subsequent to the 

execution of an expulsion order. 

Additional Information 

> The unit of analysis may vary depending on school size. Some organizations may choose to normalize 

to, and report, “per 1,000 students.” 

More information about this issue may be found in Safety in Numbers: Collecting and Using Crime, Violence, and 

Discipline Incident Data to Make a Difference in Schools (NCES 2002–312). This free resource from the National 

Forum on Education Statistics is available at http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2002312.asp. 

Related Indicators 

Alcohol-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Criminal Offense Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Drug-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

“Persistently Dangerous” Schools, Percentage 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Actions Per 100 Students 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Average Duration 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Percentage Students Receiving 

Violent Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 55 
Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of incidents that resulted in student expulsion(s) and the total student 

membership, normalized to a “per 100 students” denominator. 

Numerator: Number of incidents that resulted in Disciplinary Action (code = Expulsion) 

Denominator: Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1)
 

Some states or localities may use Average Daily Membership (ADM), Average Daily Attendance (ADA),
 

or Cumulative Enrollment as the denominator.
 

Formula 

Expulsion Incidents Per 100 Students is calculated by dividing the number of incidents that resulted in 

student expulsion(s) by a count of student membership, and multiplying by 100 to normalize to a 

“per 100 students” count. 

Number of incidents resulting in Disciplinary Action (code = Expulsion) x 100 

Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

This indicator may be disaggregated by student or by school characteristics. For example, users may 

compare the number of expulsions for males versus females; or the number of expulsions at elementary, 

middle, and high schools. At the student level, common subgroups include: student disability status, race, 

sex, economic disadvantage status, and high school Grade Point Average (GPA). At the institutional 

level, common subgroups include: incident type, school level, school type, school size, grade level, 

school locale, and school enrollment characteristics (e.g., percentage of students by economic disadvantage status and race/ethnicity). 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X, with a notation that the number is “per 

100 students,” and displayed in tables by subgroup. 

56 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
High School Completion/Graduation Rate, Cohort Rate 

Completion Rate 

Graduation Rate 

Definition 

The percentage of students, typically from a specific 9th grade cohort that is adjusted for verified 

transfers, who leave school as graduates (i.e., who receive regular diplomas) or otherwise complete 

high school as defined by the state. “Completers” include diploma recipients, General Educational 

Development (GED) or other high school equivalency recipients (although some states count GED 

recipients as dropouts), other high school completers (e.g., Certificates of Completion or Attendance), and 

any other completion status or credential approved by appropriate authorities such as the State Board of 

Education. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to assess student success with regard to high school graduation and completion. 

Policy Questions 

Are schools succeeding in educating students? Do an acceptable number of students complete high 

school? Are students completing high school and graduating on time? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> Rates based on all high school completers will be higher than rates based solely on regular diploma 

recipients. Users should be specific about what completion credentials are used in their rates. 

> Some states issue a regular diploma to students who would be considered “other high school completers” in other states. Other states do not recognize GED-based equivalency credentials. Comparisons 

among entities with different definitions of “graduates” and “completers” are discouraged. 

> If the cohort is adjusted to add transfers-in, this indicator’s measure of on-time graduation can be 

affected by transfers–in who have been retained in any of grades 9 through 12. The accuracy of the 

measure also can be affected by failure to account accurately for transfers–out. 

> The completion rate is not the inverse of the dropout rate. Some students take more than the standard 

number of years to complete high school and should not be counted either as dropouts or completers. 

> Some institutions calculate a cohort completion rate by taking the inverse of the cohort dropout rate, 

but this method is not recommended as it does not account for students who did not complete high 

school but are still enrolled. 

> The formula for calculating this indicator requires multiple years of data. Therefore, there may be a 

delay between instituting policies to improve graduation and completion rates, and generating graduationand completion-rate data to assess the effectiveness of such policies. 

> Three-year high schools (in districts where 9th grade is offered in separate middle or junior high 

schools) may complicate the calculation of this indicator. 

> High School Completion and Graduation Rates may be calculated as “leaver rates” or “cohort rates” 

(see High School Completion/Graduation Rate, Leaver Rate). Comparing one organization’s “leaver rate” to 

another’s “cohort rate” is not appropriate. 

> Data accuracy increases when student transfers are verified, but verification may be challenging. 

States with individual student information systems should be able to verify transfers within the state, 

but out-of-state transfers may be difficult to confirm. 

Additional Information 

> GED or other high school equivalency recipients should only be counted as completers when they are 

of comparable age to other students in the cohort. 

> Comparing and contrasting completion and graduation rates within the same organization may yield 

useful information about student achievement. 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 57 
Additional Information Continued 

> For organizations that can accurately track (and verify) individual transfers, and follow students over 

time, a cohort rate is more accurate than a leaver rate. 

> Students who transfer into a school or district should be added to the initial cohort, and appear in the 

denominator of the completion/graduation rate. 

> A “cohort” is a collection of people who jointly experience an event, or series of events, over a period 

of time. In this case, “cohort” refers to a group of students who enrolled in grade 9 at the same time. 

> The “cohort rate” measures what happens to a specific group of students over a period of time. This 

rate is based on repeated measures of a group of students with shared experiences, and reveals how 

many students starting together in a specific grade completed or graduated from high school over time. 

> The cohort rate typically adjusts for students who left before completing high school but were not 

dropouts. Users should specify whether a cohort completion/graduation rate includes transfers–out in 

the denominator. If it does, the completion/graduation rate will be lower than if these students are 

excluded from the initial cohort. “Transfers–out” include any student who left the school but is known 

to be receiving services, as verified by an official request for records transfer: in another public school 

district in the same state, in a nonpublic K–12 school, or out of state. Students who have died may also 

be excluded from the denominator of a completion/graduation rate; however, students temporarily out 

of school due to illness or expulsion are usually included in the denominator. 

Related Indicators 

High School Completion/Graduation Rate, Leaver Rate 

High School Dropout Rate, Annual Student 

High School Dropout Rate, Cohort Rate 

Promotion Rate, Student 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of students from the cohort, adjusted for verified transfers, who 

graduated or otherwise completed schooling; and the number of students in the initial cohort (e.g., 9th 

grade) adjusted for verified transfers. 

Numerator (Completion Rate): Exit/Withdrawal Type (code = Graduated with regular, advanced, 

International Baccalaureate, or other type of diploma + Completed school with other credentials) 

Numerator (Graduation Rate): Exit/Withdrawal Type (code = Graduated with regular, advanced, 

International Baccalaureate, or other type of diploma) 

Denominator: Initial cohort enrollment (e.g., 9th grade) adjusted for verified transfers 

Formula 

High School Completion/Graduation Rate, Cohort Rate is calculated by dividing the number of completers 

(for completion rates), or the number of diploma recipients (for graduation rates), by the total number 

of students in the initial cohort adjusted for verified transfers–out and transfers–in; and multiplying by 

100 to generate a percentage value. 

Cohort (e.g., Grade 9) students who graduated four years later x 100 

Initial cohort enrollment (e.g., 9th grade) adjusted for verified transfers 

Cohort (e.g., Grade 9) students who completed four years later x 100 

Initial cohort enrollment (e.g., 9th grade) adjusted for verified transfers 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Disability status, LEP status, economic disadvantage status and migrant status when exiting; race, 

ethnicity, sex, and on-time/not-on-time graduation or completion. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and may be displayed in tables 

or bar charts by subgroup. 

58 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
High School Completion/Graduation Rate, Leaver Rate 

Completion Rate 

Graduation Rate 

Definition 

The percentage of leavers, typically from a specific 9th grade cohort, who leave school as graduates 

(i.e., who receive regular diplomas) or otherwise complete high school as defined by the state. “Completers” 

include diploma recipients, General Educational Development (GED) or other high school equivalency 

recipients (although some states count GED recipients as dropouts), other high school completers 

(e.g., Certificates of Completion or Attendance), and any other completion status or credential approved by 

appropriate authorities such as the State Board of Education. The completion/graduation rate defined here is 

based on “leavers” (students who leave school as dropouts or graduates) and, unlike a true cohort rate, does 

not require the capacity to track individual students over time. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to assess whether an acceptable proportion of students who leave school are 

"successes" (i.e., are completers rather than dropouts). 

Policy Questions 

Are schools succeeding in educating students? Do an acceptable number of students complete high 

school rather than drop out? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> Rates based on all high school completers will be higher than rates based solely on regular diploma 

recipients. Users should be specific about what completion credentials are used in their rates. 

> Some states issue a regular diploma to students who would be considered “other high school completers” in other states. Other states do not recognize GED-based equivalency credentials. Comparisons 

among entities with different definitions of “graduates” and “completers” are discouraged. 

> Although this rate uses only completers and dropouts, the “leaver” completion rate should not be 

interpreted as the inverse of the dropout rate. Dropout rates based on total student enrollment are more 

accurate and more useful. 

> The High School Completion/Graduation Rate, Leaver Rate does not provide an on-time graduation rate. 

Unlike the Cohort Rate, retained students who eventually graduate will appear in the numerator and the 

denominator of the Leaver Rate. 

> The formula for calculating this indicator requires multiple years’ worth of data. Therefore, there may 

be a delay between instituting policies to improve graduation and completion rates, and generating graduation- and completion-rate data to assess the effectiveness of such policies. 

> Three-year high schools (where 9th grade is offered in multiple, middle, or junior high schools) can 

complicate the calculation of this indicator. 

> High School Completion or Graduation Rates can be calculated as “leaver rates” or as “cohort rates” 

(see High School Completion/Graduation Rate, Cohort Rate). Comparing one organization’s “leaver rate” to 

another’s “cohort rate” is not appropriate. 

Additional Information 

> GED or other high school equivalency recipients should only be counted as completers when they are 

of comparable age to the other students in the graduating cohort. 

> Comparing and contrasting completion and graduation rates within the same organization may yield 

useful information about student achievement. 

> For organizations that can accurately track (and verify) individual transfers, and follow students over 

time, a cohort rate is more accurate than a leaver rate. 

> Cohort rates are more accurate than leaver rates because they account for students who are off 

sequence for their high school class even though they did not “leave” school (e.g., because they repeated or 

skipped a grade). 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 59 
Related Indicators 

High School Completion/Graduation Rate, Cohort Rate 

High School Dropout Rate, Annual Student 

High School Dropout Rate, Cohort Rate 

Promotion Rate, Student 

Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of students from the cohort who graduated or otherwise completed 

schooling and the number of students who discontinued schooling (i.e., the total number of dropouts). 

Numerator (Completion Rate): Exit/Withdrawal Type (code = Graduated with regular, advanced, 

International Baccalaureate, or other type of diploma + Completed school with other credentials) 

Numerator (Graduation Rate): Exit/Withdrawal Type (code = Graduated with regular, advanced, 

International Baccalaureate, or other type of diploma) 

Denominator: Exit/Withdrawal Type (code = Completed grade 12, but did not pass test + Completed 

school with other credentials + Dropped out + Graduated with regular, advanced, International 

Baccalaureate, or other type of diploma + Matriculation to post-secondary school + Reached maximum 

age for services) 

Formula 

High School Completion/Graduation Rate, Leaver Rate is calculated by dividing the number of completers 

(for completion rates), or diploma recipients (for graduation rates), by the number of completers plus 

the number of dropouts, and multiplying by 100 to generate a percentage value. 

High School Completers Year 4 

x 100 

High School Completers Year 4 + Dropouts (Grade 9 Year 1 

+ Grade 10 Year 2 + Grade 11 Year 3 + Grade 12 Year 4) 

High School Graduates Year 4 

x 100 

High School Completers Year 4 + Dropouts (Grade 9 Year 1 

+ Grade 10 Year 2 + Grade 11 Year 3 + Grade 12 Year 4) 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Disability status, LEP status, economic disadvantage status and migrant status when exiting; race, ethnicity, 

and sex. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and may be displayed in tables or 

bar charts by subgroup. 

60 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
High School Dropout Rate, Annual Student 

Annual Dropout Rate 

Dropout Rate 

Definition 

The percentage of students who drop out of high school (grades 9 through 12) in a given year. This 

includes students in grades 9 through 12 who: 

> were enrolled in school at some time during the previous school year (e.g., 2000–2001); 

> were not enrolled at the beginning of the current school year (e.g., 2001–2002); 

> have not graduated from high school or completed a state- or district-approved educational program; 

and 

> do not meet any of the following exclusionary conditions: 

> transfer to another public school district, private school, or state- or district-approved educational 

program (including correctional or health facility programs); 

> temporary absence due to suspension or school-excused illness; or 

> death. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used as a measure of the percentage of students who are at risk of not completing 

school, and allows year-to-year comparisons of dropout rates. 

Policy Questions 

Are schools succeeding in educating students and keeping them in school? Is the dropout rate
 

improving over time?
 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> The annual percentage rate will usually, but not always, be smaller than a cohort rate (High School
 

Dropout Rate, Cohort Rate), because a cohort rate measures the percentage of students who drop out over
 

several years.
 

> This indicator may introduce a bias in schools with highly mobile student populations because
 

tracking and verifying transfers to other schools may be difficult. These schools may report inflated
 

dropout rates.
 

> Students whose transfers to another education institution cannot be verified should be treated as
 

dropouts for reporting purposes. The ability to document transfers to another education institution may
 

vary by state or district and, therefore, can contribute to disparities in this indicator.
 

> Students who are too old to continue receiving services (“age-outs”), or can no longer be served by the
 

education organization for another reason (“push-outs”), are counted as dropouts if they leave without
 

having graduated from high school or completing a state- or district-approved educational program.
 

> Some education institutions calculate aggregate dropout rates for student groups beginning in 9th
 

grade; others prefer a rate that begins in 7th grade. Comparisons among entities that use different grade
 

ranges in their calculations are discouraged.
 

Additional Information
 

> This indicator is based on the NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) survey definition of an “event”
 

dropout rate.
 

Related Indicators 

High School Completion/Graduation Rate, Cohort Rate 

High School Completion/Graduation Rate, Leaver Rate 

High School Dropout Rate, Cohort Rate 

Promotion Rate, Student 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 61 
Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of students with an exit/withdrawal code of “discontinued schooling,” 

and a count of student membership. 

Numerator: Exit/Withdrawal Type (code = Discontinued Schooling) for grades 9–12 

Denominator: Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) for grades 9–12 

Some states or localities use Average Daily Membership (ADM), Average Daily Attendance (ADA), or 

Cumulative Enrollment as the denominator. 

Formula 

High School Dropout Rate, Annual Student is calculated by dividing the number of students in grades 

9–12 with a “discontinued schooling” exit/withdrawal code by a count of student membership in those 

grades, and multiplying by 100 to generate a percentage value. 

Number of grade 9–12 students with 


Exit/Withdrawal Type (code = Discontinued Schooling)
 x 100 

Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) for grades 9–12 

from previous academic year 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Disability status, economic disadvantage status, grade, LEP status, migrant status, race, ethnicity, and sex. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and may be displayed in tables or 

bar charts by subgroup. 

62 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
High School Dropout Rate, Cohort Rate 

Cohort Dropout Rate 

Dropout Rate 

Definition 

The percentage of students from a specific grade cohort (e.g., “grade 9 in 2001” or “the class of 2004”) 

who are dropouts at the time the cohort ends. This includes students who: 

> were enrolled when the cohort was initiated (e.g., at the beginning of 9th grade); 

> were not enrolled at the beginning of the school year following the end of the cohort (in this 

example, the fall following 12th grade); 

> have not graduated from high school or completed a state- or district-approved educational program; 

and 

> do not meet any of the following exclusionary conditions: 

> transfer to another public school district, private school, or state- or district-approved 

educational program (including correctional or health facility programs); 

> temporary absence due to suspension or school-excused illness; or 

> death. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to assess student success with regard to high school completion. 

Policy Questions 

Are schools succeeding in educating students and keeping them in school? Is the dropout rate improving
 

over time? 


Caveats and Cautions
 

> A cohort rate will usually, but not always, be larger than an “annual rate” (High School Dropout Rate,
 

Annual Student), because it includes dropouts from multiple years.
 

> An accurate cohort dropout rate requires a longitudinal student record system because it compares a
 

student’s status at two points in time. A rate that adds the number of dropouts by grade over time (for
 

example, grade 9 dropouts in year 1 plus grade 10 dropouts in year 2, etc.) can be biased by students
 

who drop out and re-enroll, or by net changes in enrollment caused by transfers.
 

> Unless calculated as a “synthetic dropout rate” (see below), this indicator requires several years’ worth
 

of data. 


> This indicator may introduce a bias in schools with highly mobile student populations because tracking
 

and verifying transfers to other schools may be difficult. These schools may report inflated dropout rates.
 

> Students whose transfers to another education institution cannot be verified should be treated as
 

dropouts for reporting purposes. The ability to document transfers to another education institution may
 

vary by state or district and, therefore, can contribute to disparities in this indicator. 


> Some education institutions calculate dropout rates for student groups beginning in 9th grade; others
 

prefer a rate that begins in 7th grade. Comparisons among entities that use different grade ranges in
 

their calculations are discouraged.
 

> Some education institutions calculate a “synthetic cohort dropout rate” that, for example, measures the
 

dropout rate for all grade 9 students, all grade 10 students, all grade 11 students, and all grade 12 students
 

in a single year. In other words, it reflects dropout events in each of four separate grades as a single
 

“synthetic cohort dropout rate.” While this approach has the advantage of generating a single rate in a
 

single year (rather than requiring multiple years’ worth of data for a single cohort), it assumes that the
 

different grade groups reflect substantially the same types of students, with the same types of experiences
 

over time. The calculation of a synthetic cohort dropout rate is shown below.
 

> Some institutions calculate a cohort dropout rate by taking the inverse of the High School Completion
 

Rate, but this method is not recommended as it does not account for students who did not complete
 

high school but are still enrolled.
 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 63 
Additional Information
 

> This indicator is based on the NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) survey definition of dropout.
 

> A “cohort rate” measures what happens to a specific group of students over a period of time. This rate
 

is based on repeated measures of a group of students with shared experiences, and reveals how many
 

students starting together in a specific grade drop out over time.
 

Related Indicators 

High School Completion/Graduation Rate, Cohort Rate 

High School Completion/Graduation Rate, Leaver Rate 

High School Dropout Rate, Annual Student 

Promotion Rate, Student 

Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of students in the cohort with an exit/withdrawal code of “discontinued schooling,” and the number of students in the cohort during the initial year. 

Numerator: Exit/Withdrawal Type (code = Discontinued Schooling) for cohort members 

Denominator: Initial cohort enrollment (e.g., 9th grade) adjusted for verified transfers 

Formula 

High School Dropout Rate, Cohort Rate is calculated by dividing the number of students in a specific 

grade cohort who, throughout their high school career, have an exit/withdrawal (code = Discontinued 

Schooling) by the number of students in the cohort in the initial year adjusted for verified transfers; and 

multiplying by 100 to generate a percentage value. 

Cohort members (throughout the balance of their high school career) with 


Exit/Withdrawal Type (code = Discontinued Schooling)
 x 100 

Initial cohort enrollment (e.g., 9th grade) adjusted for verified transfers 

A synthetic high school dropout rate uses dropout rates from consecutive grades within a single year. 

This rate assumes that dropout rates for various grades do not change substantially over time. 

Synthetic High School Cohort Dropout Rate =
 

1 – [(1 – Grade 9 rate) x (1 – Grade 10 rate) x (1 – Grade 11 rate) x (1 – Grade 12 rate)] x 100
 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Disability status, economic disadvantage status, grade, LEP status, migrant status, race, ethnicity, and sex. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and may be displayed in tables or 

bar charts by subgroup. 

64 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
“Highly Qualified” Teachers, Percentage 

Appropriately Certified Teachers 

Percentage “Highly Qualified” Teachers 

Definition 

The percentage of Full-Time Equivalency (FTE) teachers designated by the state or locality as “highly 

qualified.” 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to assess the quality of the teaching staff, and whether teacher quality is 

improving over time. This indicator will likely generate high public interest. 

Policy Question 

Do students have access to “highly qualified” teachers?
 

Caveats and Cautions 


> Teacher assessments to determine subject area knowledge vary in each state. Thus, comparisons
 

among states are not encouraged.
 

> Public understanding of the term “highly qualified” may not match the precise meaning of “highly
 

qualified” as defined by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).
 

> Teachers may be fully certified in their state but not “highly qualified” if they are teaching out-of-field
 

for some portion of the school day. Prorating “highly qualified” status based on FTE assignments
 

increases the accuracy of indicator data (e.g., 1/6 FTE not “highly qualified” when teaching one of six
 

classes out-of-field).
 

Additional Information
 

> A “teacher” is defined as an individual who provides instruction to prekindergarten, kindergarten,
 

grades 1 through 12, or ungraded classes; or an individual who teaches in an environment other than a
 

classroom setting; and who maintains daily student attendance records. 


> According to NCLB (but subject to additional state criteria and interpretation), teachers in “core
 

academic subjects” (English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics
 

and government, economics, arts, history, and geography) must meet the following three criteria to be
 

considered highly qualified:
 

> Hold a bachelor’s degree. 

> Obtain full state certification, as defined by the state. 

> Demonstrate competency, as defined by the state, in each core academic subject taught. 

> NCLB calculations are limited to teachers in the above “core academic subjects.” 

> This indicator is measured in terms of FTE rather than simple teacher counts (i.e., head counts). 

Although FTE is a more precise measure, teacher head counts may also be used to calculate this 

indicator. Indicator values calculated using FTE data should not be compared with values calculated 

from teacher head counts. 

> Full-Time Equivalency (FTE) is the amount of time required to perform an assignment, stated as a 

proportion of a full-time position and computed by dividing the amount of time employed by the time 

normally required for a full-time position. 

Related Indicators 

Certification, Percentage Classes Taught by Teachers Holding Emergency, Provisional, or Out-of-Field 

Education Level, Teacher 

Experience Level, Teacher 

“Qualified” Paraprofessionals, Percentage 

Retention Rate, Teacher 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 65 
Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include identification of employee job classification status as a teacher, FTE, highest level 

of education completed, teaching assignment, certification type, and assessment score results; and the 

total number of full-time equivalent teachers. 

Numerator: Job Classification (code = Teacher), Full-Time Equivalency, Highest Level of Education 

Completed, Teaching Credential Type Teaching Assignment, Score Results 

Denominator: Job Classification (code = Teacher), Full-Time Equivalency 

Formula 

“Highly Qualified” Teachers, Percentage is calculated by dividing the FTE number of “highly qualified” 

teachers (determined for, and weighted by, each teaching assignment) by the total number of FTE 

teachers, and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value. 

Number FTE “highly qualified” teachers (weighted by teaching assignment) x 100 

Total number of FTE teachers 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Race, sex, age, and program area assignment. Statistics are also commonly reported by school locale, 

level, size, and enrollment characteristics (e.g., categories representing percentage of students by 

economic disadvantage status and race/ethnicity). 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and displayed in tables or bar 

charts by subgroup. 

66 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Instructional Time, Allotted 

Allotted Instructional Time 

Instructional Minutes 

Instructional Time Per Year 

Time of Instruction 

Definition 

The amount of time allotted to students for scheduled instructional activities (i.e., the sum of scheduled 

class time), per unit of time. This indicator is commonly reported in hours and minutes per day, per 

week, per session, or per year. Homeroom time may be counted when it is supervised by a certified 

teacher and used for structured activities such as viewing specialized programming (e.g., Channel One), 

guidance activities, or student information activities (e.g., announcements). For elementary and middle 

schools, a recess period may be counted when it includes structured instructional activities under the 

supervision of a certified teacher (e.g., physical education instruction). Unstructured homeroom and 

recess, class changing, and meal time are not counted as allotted instructional time. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to determine the amount of instructional time allotted to students. 

Policy Question 

How much instructional time is being provided to students?
 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> Given the difficulty of determining precisely what students are doing in a classroom at a given time,
 

this indicator measures the time allotted for instructional activities rather than the time engaged in, or
 

participating in, instructional activities.
 

> Variation in units of time (e.g., minutes versus hours) and in the measurement window (e.g., per day,
 

per week, per session, per year) may be confusing and, therefore, must be accurately represented. Units
 

should be adjusted before comparing data from different reporting entities.
 

> Logically, the amount of instructional time allotted in a day cannot be equal to or greater than the
 

amount of time reported as the length of student school day.
 

> In an integrated curriculum, it may not be possible to differentiate time spent on specific subject areas.
 

Additional Information
 

> The unit of time may vary depending on the school calendar. 


> Instructional Time, Allotted may influence per-pupil expenditures and other financial indicators.
 

> Common reporting units include minutes per session, hours per session, minutes per year, and hours per year.
 

Related Indicator 

Absence Rate (Class), Teacher
 

Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D.
 

Components include time allotted for instructional activities per unit of time (e.g., minutes per year). 

Instructional Minutes—The total number of instructional minutes in a given unit of time, e.g., day, 

week, or session. 

Formula 

Instructional Time, Allotted is calculated by determining the total amount of time allotted for instructional 

activities, per unit of time. 

The sum of allotted Instructional Minutes per unit of time (e.g., per day, week, or session). 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

School level, instructional level, core/noncore classes, and subject area. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number (in units of time) per unit time, although tables and bar graphs 

may make sense to display subgroups. 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 67 
“Persistently Dangerous” Schools, Percentage 

Percentage Schools Identified as “Persistently Dangerous” 

Definition 

The percentage of schools identified as “persistently dangerous,” as defined by the No Child Left Behind 

Act of 2001 (NCLB) and the state. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to assess school climate and safety, and whether conditions are improving 

over time. This indicator will likely generate high public interest. 

Policy Question 

Are our schools safe places for children? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> Each state has its own definition of “persistently dangerous school”; thus, there may be great variation 

in what is considered a “persistently dangerous” school in different states. Comparisons should not be 

made across states. 

Additional Information 

> A “school” is defined as an institution that provides preschool, elementary, and/or secondary 

instruction; has one or more grade groupings or is ungraded; has one or more teachers to give 

instruction and care; is located in one or more buildings; and has an assigned administrator(s). 

Related Indicators 

Alcohol-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Criminal Offense Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Drug-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Expulsion Incidents Per 100 Students 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Actions Per 100 Students 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Average Duration 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Percentage Students Receiving 

Violent Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of schools designated as “persistently dangerous,” as defined by state 

criteria in accordance with NCLB; and the total number of schools. 

Numerator: Number of schools designated as “persistently dangerous,” as defined by state criteria 

Denominator: Total number of schools 

Formula 

“Persistently Dangerous” Schools, Percentage is calculated by dividing the number of schools designated as 

“persistently dangerous,” as defined by state criteria in accordance with NCLB, by the total number of 

schools; and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value. 

Number of schools designated as 


“Persistently Dangerous,” as defined by state criteria
 x 100 

Total number of schools 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

School locale, level, size, and enrollment characteristics (e.g., categories representing percentage of 

students by economic disadvantage status and race/ethnicity). 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and may be displayed in tables or 

bar charts by subgroup. 

68 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Placement of Students With Disabilities 

Alternative Environment Placements 

Disabilities, Placement of Students With 

Students With Disabilities Placement 

Definition 

The percentage of students with disabilities placed in various learning or care environments. Service 

settings include: early intervention classroom/center, homebound placement instruction, hospital 

placement instruction, itinerant services outside the home, outpatient service facility, private residential 

placement, private separate day school placement, public residential placement, public separate day school 

placement, regular nursery school/child care center, regular school campus/regular class placement, 

residential facility, resource room placement (pullout program), respite care, reverse mainstream 

setting, separate class placement, and short-term detention facility. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to identify the percentage of students with disabilities who have been placed 

in alternative learning environments. 

Policy Questions 

How much instruction do students with disabilities receive in regular classroom settings? How much
 

instruction do students with disabilities receive in alternative settings?
 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> Special education may be age-based rather than grade-based.
 

> Some placement categories are limited to early childhood. 

> Because a student may be placed in more than one setting, the sum of the percentages from all 

settings can be more than 100 percent. 

Additional Information 

> This indicator may be adapted for other groups of students served in alternative environments 

(e.g., pregnant students, violent offenders, etc.). 

Related Indicators 

Class Size, Average 

Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include disability status and service setting. 

Numerator: Number of students with a Disability Status in each category of Service Setting (see codes 

below) 

Denominator: Number of students with a Disability Status 

Formula This is a composite indicator calculated for each service setting.
 

Placement of Students With Disabilities is calculated by dividing the number of students with disabilities
 

placed in various learning environments (service settings) by the total number of students with disabilities, and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value.
 

Number of students with disabilities (Disability Status)
 

in early intervention classrooms/centers (Service Setting)
 x 100 

Total number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

Number of students with disabilities (Disability Status)
 

in homebound placement instruction (Service Setting) 
 x 100 

Total number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

Number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 


in hospital placement instruction (Service Setting)
 x 100 

Total number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 69 
Formula Continued 

Number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

in itinerant services outside the home (Service Setting) x 100 

Total number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

Number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

in outpatient service facilities (Service Setting) x 100 

Total number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

Number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

in private residential placement (Service Setting) x 100 

Total number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

Number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

in private separate day school placement (Service Setting) x 100 

Total number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

Number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

in public residential placement (Service Setting) x 100 

Total number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

Number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

in public separate day school placement (Service Setting) x 100 

Total number of students with disabilities (Disability Status)
 

Number of students with disabilities (Disability Status)
 

in regular nursery schools/child care centers (Service Setting)
 x 100 

Total number of students with disabilities (Disability Status)
 

Number of students with disabilities (Disability Status)
 

in regular school campus/regular class placement (Service Setting)
 x 100 

Total number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

Number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

in residential facilities (Service Setting) x 100 

Total number of students with disabilities (Disability Status)
 

Number of students with disabilities (Disability Status)
 

in resource room placement (pullout program) (Service Setting)
 x 100 

Total number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

Number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

in respite care (Service Setting) x 100 

Total number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

Number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

in reverse mainstream settings (Service Setting) x 100 

Total number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

Number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

in separate class placement (Service Setting) x 100 

Total number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

Number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

in short-term detention facilities (Service Setting) x 100 

Total number of students with disabilities (Disability Status) 

70 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Disability status and type, time in placement, placement type, age, and grade. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and may be displayed in tables or 

bar charts by subgroup. 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 71 
Promotion Rate, Student 

Retention Rate, Student 

Student Promotion 

Student Retention Rate 

Definition 

The percentage of students promoted to the next grade level at the end of a school session. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to identify promotion and retention rates. 

Policy Question 

Are students progressing academically? 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> Using enrollment counts as the denominator incorporates transfers and dropouts into the rate,
 

decreasing the apparent promotion rate. Thus, the desired denominator should be the number of
 

students promoted plus the number of students retained.
 

> Students in ungraded classes are not considered “not promoted” unless (and until) they are asked to
 

spend more than the usual amount of time in the ungraded class.
 

> States and localities may have different promotion policies. For example, some organizations may limit
 

the number of times a student can be retained in a given span of grades, while others may promote
 

strictly on the basis of academic progress or assessment. Comparing promotion or nonpromotion
 

rates between education organizations with different promotion policies is discouraged.
 

Additional Information
 

> Retention Rate = 1 – Promotion Rate 


Related Indicators 

High School Completion/Graduation Rate, Cohort Rate 

High School Completion/Graduation Rate, Leaver Rate 

High School Dropout Rate, Annual Student 

High School Dropout Rate, Cohort Rate 

Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of students promoted to the next grade level at the end of the session, 

and the number of students not promoted to the next grade level at the end of the session. 

Numerator: Number of students promoted (entry for Promotion Type) to the next grade level at the 

end of the session. 

Denominator: Number of students not promoted (entry for Nonpromotion Reason) to the next grade 

level at the end of the session, plus the number of students promoted (entry for Promotion Type) to 

the next grade level at the end of the session. 

Formula 

Promotion Rate, Student is calculated by dividing the number of students promoted to the next grade 

level at the end of the session by that number plus the number of students not promoted to the next 

grade level at the end of the session, and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value. 

Number of students promoted (entry for Promotion Type) x 100 

Number of students promoted (entry for Promotion Type) 

+ Number of students not promoted (entry for Nonpromotion Reason) 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Race, sex, age, status as academically disadvantaged, and grade level. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and may be displayed in tables or 

bar charts by subgroup. 

72 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
 

“Qualified” Paraprofessionals, Percentage 

Appropriately “Qualified” Paraprofessionals 

Percentage “Qualified” Paraprofessionals 

Definition 

The percentage of Full-Time Equivalency (FTE) instructional paraprofessionals with responsibilities in 

core academic, special education, bilingual education, and English as a Second Language (ESL) 

courses who have been designated as “qualified” by the state or locality. According to the No Child 

Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Title I paraprofessionals must meet one of the following three criteria 

to be considered highly qualified: 

> Complete at least two years of study at an institution of higher education. 

> Obtain an associate’s (or higher) degree. 

> Pass a state or local assessment that demonstrates knowledge of, and the ability to assist with 

instruction in, reading, writing, and math (or, as appropriate, reading, writing, and mathematics 

readiness). 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to assess the quality of the paraprofessional staff, and whether paraprofessional 

quality is improving over time. This indicator will likely generate high public interest. 

Policy Question 

Do students have access to “qualified” paraprofessional staff? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> Assessments administered to paraprofessionals to determine whether they are “qualified” vary by 

state. Thus, comparisons among states are not encouraged. 

> Public understanding of the term “qualified” may not match the precise definition of “qualified” under 

NCLB. 

> This indicator is measured in terms of FTE rather than simple paraprofessional counts (i.e., head 

counts). Although FTE is a more precise measure, head counts are sometimes used to calculate this 

indicator. Indicator values calculated using FTE data should not be compared with values calculated 

from paraprofessional head count data. 

Additional Information 

> Full-Time Equivalency (FTE) is the amount of time required to perform an assignment, stated as a 

proportion of a full-time position and computed by dividing the amount of time employed by the time 

normally required for a full-time position. 

> NCLB calculations are limited to paraprofessional staff with responsibilities in core academic, special 

education, bilingual education, and English as a Second Language (ESL) courses only. 

Related Indicators 

“Highly Qualified” Teachers, Percentage 

Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include identification of employee job classification status as a paraprofessional, FTE, 

highest level of education completed, and assessment score results; and the total number of full-time 

equivalent paraprofessionals in the organization. 

Numerator: Job Classification (code = Paraprofessional), Full-Time Equivalency, Highest Level of 

Education Completed, Score Results 

Denominator: Job Classification (code = Paraprofessional), Full-Time Equivalency 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 73 
Formula 

“Qualified” Paraprofessionals, Percentage is calculated by dividing the FTE number of “qualified” paraprofessionals by the total number of FTE paraprofessionals, and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage 

value. 

Number FTE “qualified” paraprofessionals x 100 

Total number of FTE paraprofessionals 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Race, sex, age, and program area assignment. Statistics are also commonly displayed by school locale, 

level, size, and enrollment characteristics (e.g., categories representing percentage of students by 

economic disadvantage status and race/ethnicity). 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and displayed in tables or bar 

charts by subgroup. 

74 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Retention Rate, Teacher 

Teacher Retention Rate 

Definition 

The percentage of Full-Time Equivalency (FTE) teachers currently on staff who were retained as 

employees after a specified amount of time. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to assess staff availability and job satisfaction. It is also used as an indicator 

of organizational climate. 

Policy Questions 

How healthy is our organizational climate? Does our system retain teachers? Do students have access to
 

well-qualified teachers?
 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> Staff members may end employment with an education organization for many reasons. A few
 

examples might be a retirement bulge due to an incentive package, transfers to a better paying school
 

district, an unpleasant working environment, or a new supervisor negatively affecting job satisfaction.
 

Without additional information about causation, conclusions about job satisfaction are difficult to
 

ascertain. Conclusions about staff supply may still be valid, however, because the staff are no longer
 

employed regardless of the reason.
 

> Reconstituted schools will show low staff retention rates upon reassignment of teaching staff.
 

> Context indicators are particularly important for interpreting the meaning behind this indicator’s value.
 

For example, school leaders might wish to see a high retention rate for their most effective teaching staff—
 

unless they decide to distribute their best teachers to multiple schools to serve as role models. On the
 

other hand, a low retention rate might be desirable when a school’s teaching staff has not been effective.
 

> This indicator is measured in terms of FTE rather than simple teacher counts (i.e., head counts).
 

Although FTE is a more precise measure, teacher head counts may also be used to calculate this
 

indicator. Indicator values calculated using FTE data should not be compared with values calculated
 

from teacher head counts.
 

Additional Information
 

> A “teacher” is defined as an individual who provides instruction to prekindergarten, kindergarten,
 

grades 1 through 12, or ungraded classes; or an individual who teaches in an environment other than a
 

classroom setting; and who maintains daily student attendance records. 


> This indicator may be used to determine retention rates of other types of staff as well.
 

> The compound indicator Retention of “Highly Qualified” Staff could provide useful information to an
 

education organization, although it may be more difficult to collect.
 

> Full-Time Equivalency (FTE) is the amount of time required to perform an assignment, stated as a proportion of a full-time position and computed by dividing the amount of time employed by the time normally
 

required for a full-time position.
 

Related Indicators 

Absence Rate (Class), Teacher 

Assessment, Average Student Score 

Certification, Percentage Classes Taught by Teachers Holding Emergency, Provisional, or Out-of-Field 

Education Level, Teacher 

Experience Level, Teacher 

“Highly Qualified” Teachers, Percentage 

“Persistently Dangerous” Schools, Percentage 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 75 
Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include identification of employee job classification status as a teacher, FTE, and 

employment start date; and the total number of FTE teachers in the organization. 

Numerator: Job Classification (code = Teacher), Full-Time Equivalency, Employment Start Date (prior 

to relevant previous point in time) 

Denominator: Job Classification (code = Teacher), Full-Time Equivalency 

Formula 

Retention Rate, Teacher is calculated by dividing the number of FTE teachers with an employment start 

date prior to a relevant previous point in time by the total number of current FTE teachers, and multiplying 

by 100 to create a percentage value. 

Number of FTE teachers with an 


Employment Start Date (date = prior to relevant previous point in time)
 x 100 

Total number of current FTE teachers 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Race, sex, subject matter area, school, school level, local economic factors, age groups, program, 

experience, and reason for leaving. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and may be displayed in tables or 

bar charts by subgroup. 

76 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
School Capacity, Percentage Used 

Excess Public School Capacity 

Excess Public School Membership 

Percentage School Capacity Used 

Definition 

The degree to which public school membership is in excess of, or less than, the “normal” student 

capacity for accessible publicly owned school plants in use, as defined by local authorities. This 

includes any public school students housed in non-publicly owned quarters, and makeshift or improvised 

facilities; as well as students in permanent publicly owned school plants that are in excess of, or below, 

normal capacity. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to determine whether schools are operating above, below, or at enrollment 

capacity. 

Policy Question 

Are our schools overcrowded? Are we using our school facilities as efficiently as possible?
 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> “School enrollment capacity” is defined by local authorities and may vary based on “best practices,”
 

room sizes, building configuration, state regulations, and even union contracts. Thus, this indicator
 

should not be used to compare organizations with different definitions of school enrollment capacity.
 

> Average Daily Membership (ADM) is sometimes confused with Average Daily Attendance (ADA), Count
 

of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) and Cumulative Enrollment. Each of these is slightly different; they
 

should not be used interchangeably to assess the value of this indicator. 


> Average Daily Attendance (ADA) may give a better picture of actual school crowding than does Average
 

Daily Membership (ADM), because students who are enrolled but absent do not take up space. However,
 

ADM is the preferred numerator because it reflects the number of students for whom a school is
 

required to provide space.
 

Additional Information
 

> A “school” is defined as an institution that provides preschool, elementary, and/or secondary
 

instruction; has one or more grade groupings or is ungraded; has one or more teachers to give
 

instruction and care; is located in one or more buildings; and has an assigned administrator(s).
 

> In a secondary school, both basic classrooms and specialty instructional spaces such as art or music
 

rooms are counted toward capacity because regular classrooms are not unoccupied while students
 

receive art or music instruction. In elementary schools, only basic classrooms are counted toward
 

capacity. Two identical school buildings could have different capacities if they offer different types
 

of programs, or are subject to different capacity limitations set by state law or teacher contracts. An
 

optimal utilization rate recognizes that it is not possible to utilize every classroom every period. For
 

example, an advanced science classroom may be able to accommodate 20 students, but there may be
 

only 10 students in the fifth period class. In this scenario, even if some other classes are over capacity,
 

the school utilization rate may not be over 100 percent.
 

> Elementary School Enrollment Capacity = Number of classrooms x number of students assignable to
 

classrooms
 

> Secondary School Enrollment Capacity = Number of classrooms x number of students per assignable
 

classroom x optimal utilization rate
 

More information about this issue can be found in Facilities Information Management: A Guide for State and Local 

Education Agencies (NCES 2003–400). This free resource from the National Forum on Education Statistics can be 

accessed at http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2003400.asp. 

Related Indicators 

Class Size, Average 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 77 
Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the Average Daily Membership (ADM) and the school enrollment capacity as 

defined locally (based on the number of classrooms, the number of students assignable to each type of 

classroom, and the optimal utilization rate). 

Numerator: Average Daily Membership (ADM) 

Some states or localities use Average Daily Attendance (ADA), Cumulative Enrollment, or Count of 

Student Membership (e.g., October 1) as the numerator. 

Denominator: School Enrollment Capacity (as established by local authorities) 

Formula 

School Capacity, Percentage Used is calculated by dividing ADM by the school enrollment capacity, and 

multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value. 

Average Daily Membership (ADM) x 100 

School enrollment capacity 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

School level, quartiles or quintiles representing percentage of students by economic disadvantage status 

and race/ethnicity, and school locale. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator may be displayed as a table or bar chart showing the percentage of capacity utilized by 

subgroup. 

78 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Stability Rate, Student Enrollment 

Mobility Rate 

School Year Stability Rate 

Student Enrollment Stability Rate 

Definition 

The percentage of students attending the same education institution (e.g., a school, district, or state) 

during a given period of time. 

Recommended Uses 

This indicator may be used to assess the student population turnover over time. It may also be used as a 

measure of school climate. 

Policy Questions 

Do schools have to deal with a lot of student turnover? Do students stay in the same school long enough 

to make academic gains? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> One organization’s Stability Rate should not be compared to another’s Mobility Rate because 

tracking students who have left an institution is presumably more difficult than accounting for 

students still in an institution, possibly introducing a bias in the converse indicator. 

Additional Information 

> If the period of measurement extends beyond one academic year, the lowest grade in the institution 

should be excluded from the count because there would not be students in the grade for both counting 

windows in the formula. 

> All grades can be included in the denominator even though the highest grade will not be present the 

following year, because students who exit due to promotion are considered part of the stability measure. 

> Stability Rate and Mobility Rate are closely related, however, Stability Rate may be easier to implement 

as an indicator given that many organizations are better able to track students who are currently enrolled 

than students who have already withdrawn. 

> Some organizations may choose to substitute “membership” for “enrollment” in the formula. 

Related Indicators 

Promotion Rate, Student 

Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of students enrolled at time B, and the number of students continuously enrolled since a previous time A. 

Numerator: Enrollment Status (continuous since time A) 

Denominator: Enrollment Status (at time B) 

Formula 

Stability Rate, Student Enrollment is calculated by dividing the number of students who were continuously enrolled since time A by the number students enrolled at time B, and multiplying by 100 to 

create a percentage value. 

Number of students continuously enrolled (Enrollment Status) since time A 

x 100 

Total number of students enrolled (Enrollment Status) at time B 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

School level, quartiles or quintiles representing percentage of students by economic disadvantage status 

and race/ethnicity, and school locale. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and may be displayed in tables or 

bar charts by subgroup. 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 79 
Student:Instructional Computer Ratio 

Computer:Student Ratio 

Instructional Computer:Student Ratio 

Definition 

A measure of the relationship between the number of students and the number of instructional computers in an education institution. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to assess and compare instructional computer allocation in education institutions, and often generates high public interest. 

Policy Question 

Do students have adequate access to instructional technology? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> Computer capacity and speed do not factor into the identification of instructional computers as long as 

the equipment meets the curriculum needs of instructional staff. Thus, the identification of “instructional 

computers” may vary in different education institutions. “Old” computers may not be able to meet some 

students’ curricular demands while meeting the needs of others. For example, a 486 computer may run 

instructional software for elementary students, but may not be able to process advanced mathematical 

software used in a high school curriculum; thus the same 486 computer would be counted as an 

“instructional computer” in the elementary school but not the high school. 

> This count does not include computers dedicated to administrator or teacher use. Instructional computers 

must be accessible to students. This requires that instructional computers counts be at a specific time in 

order to avoid counting machines in the repair shop or otherwise inaccessible to students. 

> Some organizational circumstances demand more or fewer computers than others. For example, a magnet 

school for technology may require more instructional computers per student than a regular school. 

> Staff other than teachers may supervise instructional activities. For example, students using computers 

to work on an assignment in the library may be supervised by the librarian. 

> The Student:Instructional Computer Ratio does not address how well, how often, how much, or how 

effectively technology is used as a teaching and learning tool. 

Additional Information 

The Forum Unified Education Technology Suite presents a comprehensive approach to acquiring, implementing, managing, 

securing and using technology in education settings. It is available at no cost at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/tech_suite/. 

Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include a count of student membership; and the number of computers accessible to, and 

used by, students during instructional activities and under an instructor’s supervision. 

Numerator: Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1)
 

Some states or localities use Average Daily Membership (ADM), Average Daily Attendance (ADA), or
 

Cumulative Enrollment as the numerator.
 

Denominator: The number of computers accessible to, and directly used by, students during 

instructional activities and under an instructor’s supervision. (Computer capacity and speed do not 

factor into the identification of instructional computers, as long as the equipment meets the curriculum 

needs of the instructional staff.) 

Formula 

Student:Instructional Computer Ratio is calculated by dividing a count of student membership by the 

number of computers accessible to, and used by, students during instructional activities and under an 

instructor’s supervision. 

80 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) x 100 

Number of instructional computers (e.g., on October 1) 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

School level, quartiles or quintiles representing percentage of students by economic disadvantage status 

and race/ethnicity, school locale, room type (e.g., classroom, media center, library), Internet 

connected/not, multimedia capable/not, operating system type, and machine age. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a numerical ratio in the form of XXX students/1 computer (or XXX:1), 

although tables may make sense to display subgroups. 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 81 
Student:Staff Ratio 

Staff:Student Ratio 

Student:Teacher Ratio 

Definition 

A measure of the relationship between the number of students and the number of Full-Time 

Equivalency (FTE) staff in an education institution. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to assess the availability of staff resources relative to student demand in 

education institutions, and often generates high public interest. 

Policy Question 

How efficiently and effectively are we staffing our schools?
 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> Job classifications vary between organizations, even for employees with similar duties. For example,
 

a “curriculum coordinator” may be designated as either an administrative or an instructional staff
 

member depending on the organizational chart.
 

> Some circumstances demand more or fewer staff than others. For example, a young instructional staff
 

or a disadvantaged student population may require more administrative support. Similarly, some circumstances demand more or fewer teachers than others. For example, a bilingual student population
 

may require smaller classes (to encourage language practice) and therefore relatively more teachers.
 

> The terms “certification,” “licensure,” and “endorsement” are not used consistently across the nation,
 

which may lead to misreporting. Indicator values should not be compared among organizations with
 

different definitions.
 

Additional Information
 

> Student and staff counts should be taken at the same time.
 

> Student:Teacher Ratio may be used as a proxy for class size. While this is not ideal, Student:Teacher
 

Ratio is easier to calculate, requires less burden, and provides a reasonable approximation that reflects
 

increases/decreases in class size over time.
 

> “Staff” may be categorized further as “official–administrative,” “professional–educational,”
 

“professional–other,” “paraprofessional,” “technical,” “office/clerical/administrative support,” “crafts and
 

trades,” “operative,” “labor,” and “service work.” 


A complete list of administrative and professional–educational job classifications, including specific job titles 

within each classification category below, may be found in appendix H of the NCES Handbooks Online at 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/handbook/index.asp. 

> Official–Administrative staff perform management activities that require developing broad policies, 

and executing those policies through direction of individuals at all levels. This includes high-level 

administrative activities performed directly for policymakers. 

> Professional–Educational staff perform duties requiring a high degree of knowledge and skills generally 

acquired through a baccalaureate or higher degree (or its equivalent obtained through special study 

and/or experience), including skills in the field of education, educational psychology, educational 

social work, or an education therapy field. 

> Professional–Other staff perform assignments requiring a high degree of knowledge and skills 

usually acquired through a baccalaureate or higher degree (or its equivalent obtained through special 

study and/or experience), but not necessarily requiring skills in the field of education. 

> Paraprofessional staff work alongside and assist professional staff. 

82 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
> Technical staff perform tasks requiring a combination of basic scientific knowledge and manual skills 

that can be obtained through approximately two years of postsecondary education such as that offered 

in community/junior colleges and technical institutes, or through equivalent special study and/or onthe-job training. 

> Office/Clerical/Administrative Support staff prepare, transfer, transcribe, systematize, or preserve communications, records, and transactions. 

> Crafts and Trades staff perform tasks requiring high level manual skills acquired through on-the-job 

training and experience, or through apprenticeship or other formal training programs. This assignment 

requires considerable judgment, and a thorough and comprehensive knowledge of the processes 

involved in the work. 

> Operative staff perform tasks requiring an intermediate level of manual skills that can be mastered 

in a few weeks through limited training. This includes bus drivers and vehicle operators. 

> Labor staff perform manual tasks that require no special training. This includes individuals performing 

lifting, digging, mixing, loading, and pulling operations. 

> Service work staff perform tasks regardless of level of difficulty relating to both protective and 

nonprotective supportive services. 

> Full-Time Equivalency (FTE) is the amount of time required to perform an assignment, stated as a 

proportion of a full-time position and computed by dividing the amount of time employed by the time 

normally required for a full-time position. 

Related Indicators 

Class Size, Average 

Teacher:Administrator Ratio 

Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include a count of student membership, employee job classification, and FTE. 

Numerator: Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1)
 

Some states or localities use Average Daily Membership (ADM), Average Daily Attendance (ADA), or
 

Cumulative Enrollment as the numerator.
 

Denominator: Job Classification, Full-Time Equivalency
 

Formula 

Student:Staff Ratio is calculated by dividing a count of student membership by the FTE number of staff in an 

education institution. “Staff” may be categorized further, based on job classification as desired (see above). 

Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) x 100 

Number of FTE staff (by Job Classification categories) 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Staff type (e.g., student:administrator, student:instructional staff, and student:teacher). Each staff type 

may be disaggregated further by school level, quartiles or quintiles representing percentage of students 

by economic disadvantage status and race/ethnicity, school locale, and (for teachers) subject area. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a numerical ratio in the form of XX students/1 staff (or XX:1), although 

tables may make sense to display subgroups. 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 83 
Suspensions (Out-of-School), Actions Per 100 Students 

Number of Out-of-School Suspension Actions Per 100 Students 

Definition 

The number of actions, per 100 students enrolled, in which students were disciplined by out-of-school 

suspension (with or without services). 

Recommended Uses 

This indicator may be used to assess school climate and safety, and whether students are attending 

school. It may also be used as a measure of disruption to the educational process. 

Policy Questions 

Are students in school? Are schools safe and orderly? How well is our discipline policy working? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> Administration of disciplinary sanctions varies from school to school, district to district, and state to 

state, both as a matter of policy and subjective enforcement. Comparisons between different situations 

are not recommended. 

> Repeat offenders (i.e., students disciplined on multiple occasions) may bias the number of out-of-school 

suspensions. 

> If a student is suspended until an expulsion hearing is held and then is ultimately expelled, it may 

lead to a double count of a single student. 

> Although special restrictions exist with respect to suspending special education students, all out-ofschool suspensions should be counted, including those of special education students. In-school suspensions 

are not counted for any students. 

> Interpreting this indicator can be complex. For example, a “safe” school may have a low number of 

suspensions because there were few incidents worthy of suspension, or a because students who previously caused trouble have already been removed. 

> This indicator is often interpreted in light of its related indicators (see below) to ascertain the relative 

severity of incidents and determine whether they arise from across the student population or from a 

smaller group of students (are multiple incidents caused by the same students?). 

Additional Information 

> The unit of analysis may vary depending on school size. Some organizations may normalize to, and 

report, “per 1,000 students.” 

> This formula may be used to assess in-school suspensions, depending on the organization’s information needs. 

More information about this issue may be found in Safety in Numbers: Collecting and Using Crime, Violence, and 

Discipline Incident Data to Make a Difference in Schools (NCES 2002–312). This free resource from the National 

Forum on Education Statistics can be accessed at http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2002312.asp. 

Related Indicators 

Alcohol-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Criminal Offense Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Drug-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Expulsion Incidents Per 100 Students 

“Persistently Dangerous” Schools, Percentage 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Average Duration 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Percentage Students Receiving 

Violent Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

84 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of disciplinary actions resulting in suspension, and a count of student 

membership normalized to a “per 100 students” denominator. 

Numerator: Number of actions resulting in Disciplinary Action (code = Suspension) 

Denominator: Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 

Some states or localities use Average Daily Membership (ADM), Average Daily Attendance (ADA), or 

Cumulative Enrollment as the denominator. 

Formula 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Actions Per 100 Students is calculated by dividing the number of disciplinary 

actions resulting in suspensions by a count of student membership, and multiplying by 100 to normalize 

to a “per 100 students.” 

The number of incidents resulting 

in Disciplinary Action (code = Suspension) x 100 

Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

This indicator may be disaggregated by student or school characteristics. For example, users may 

compare the number of suspension actions for males and females or the number of suspension 

actions at elementary, middle, and high schools. At the student level, common subgroups include: 

disability status, race, sex, economic disadvantage status, and high school grade point average. At the 

institutional level, common subgroups include: incident type, school level, school type, school size, 

grade level, school locale, and school enrollment characteristics (e.g., categories representing percentage 

of students by economic disadvantage status and race/ethnicity). 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X, with a notation that the number is “per 

100 students,” and displayed in tables by subgroup. 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 85 
Suspensions (Out-of-School), Average Duration 

Average Duration of Out-of-School Suspension Incidents 

Total Number of Days Out-of-School Suspension Incidents 

Definition 

The average number of suspension days served by students during an out-of-school suspension incident. 

Recommended Uses 

This indicator may be used to assess school climate and safety, and whether students are attending 

school. It may also be used as a measure of disruption to the educational process. 

Policy Questions 

Are students in school? Are schools safe and orderly? How well is our discipline policy working? How 

much school are students missing because of discipline problems? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> Administration of disciplinary sanctions varies from school to school, district to district, and state to 

state, both as a matter of policy and subjective enforcement. Comparisons between different situations 

are not recommended. 

> If a student is suspended until an expulsion hearing is held and then is ultimately expelled, it may 

lead to a double count of a single student. 

> Although special restrictions exist with respect to suspending special education students, all out-of-school 

suspensions should be counted, including those of special education students. In-school suspensions are not 

counted for any students. 

Additional Information 

> The unit of analysis may vary depending on school size. Some organizations may normalize to, and 

report, “per 1,000 students.” 

> This formula may be used to assess in-school suspensions, depending on the organization’s information needs. 

More information about this issue may be found in Safety in Numbers: Collecting and Using Crime, Violence, and 

Discipline Incident Data to Make a Difference in Schools (NCES 2002–312). This free resource from the National 

Forum on Education Statistics can be accessed at http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2002312.asp. 

Related Indicators 

Alcohol-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Criminal Offense Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Drug-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Expulsion Incidents Per 100 Students 

“Persistently Dangerous” Schools, Percentage 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Actions Per 100 Students 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Percentage Students Receiving 

Violent Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of disciplinary actions resulting in suspension, the disciplinary action 

start date, and disciplinary action end date. 

Numerator: Disciplinary Action (code = Suspension), Disciplinary Action Start Date, Disciplinary 

Action End Date 

Denominator: Total number of incidents [Disciplinary Action (code = Suspension)] 

86 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Formula 

Suspension (Out-of-School), Average Duration is calculated by dividing the total number of days of 

student suspensions (ending dates minus beginning dates) for all disciplinary actions that resulted in 

a suspension by the total number of out-of-school suspensions administered. 

The total number of days of student suspensions 

[Disciplinary Action End Date(s) – Disciplinary Action Start Date(s)]
 

resulting from Disciplinary Action (code = Suspension)
 x 100 

Total number of incidents [Disciplinary Action (code = Suspension)] 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

This indicator may be disaggregated by student or school characteristics. For example, users may 

compare the average number of suspension days for males and females or the average number of 

suspension days at elementary, middle, and high schools. At the student level, common subgroups 

include: disability status, race, sex, economic disadvantage status, and high school grade point average. 

At the institutional level, common subgroups include: incident type, school level, school type, school 

size, grade level, school locale, and school enrollment characteristics (e.g., categories representing 

percentage of students by economic disadvantage status and race/ethnicity). 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X, and may be displayed in tables by subgroups. 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 87 
Suspensions (Out-of-School), Percentage Students Receiving 

Percentage of Students Receiving Out-of-School Suspensions 

Definition 

The percentage of students who have been disciplined by out-of-school suspensions. 

Recommended Uses 

This indicator may be used to assess school climate and safety, and whether students are attending 

school. It may also be used as a measure of disruption to the educational process. 

Policy Questions 

Are students in school? Are schools safe and orderly? How well is our discipline policy working? How 

many students are missing school because of discipline problems? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> Administration of disciplinary sanctions varies from school to school, district to district, and state to 

state, both as a matter of policy and subjective enforcement. Comparisons between different situations 

are not recommended. 

> This is a student-based indicator. Care must be taken not to double count any single student for 

subsequent (multiple) offenses within a single reporting period. 

> If a student is suspended until an expulsion hearing is held and then is ultimately expelled, it may 

lead to a double count of a single student. 

> Although special restrictions exist with respect to suspending special education students, all students 

with out-of-school suspensions should be counted, including special education students. In-school 

suspensions are not counted for any students. 

> This indicator is often interpreted in light of its related indicators (see below) to ascertain the relative 

severity of incidents and determine whether they arise from across the student population or from a 

smaller group of students (are multiple incidents caused by the same students?). 

Additional Information 

> This formula may be used to assess in-school suspensions, depending on the organization’s information 

needs. 

More information about this issue may be found in Safety in Numbers: Collecting and Using Crime, Violence, and 

Discipline Incident Data to Make a Difference in Schools (NCES 2002–312). This free resource from the National 

Forum on Education Statistics can be accessed at http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2002312.asp. 

Related Indicators 

Alcohol-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Criminal Offense Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Drug-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Expulsion Incidents Per 100 Students 

“Persistently Dangerous” Schools, Percentage 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Average Duration 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Actions Per 100 Students 

Violent Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of disciplinary actions resulting in suspensions, and a count of student 

membership. 

Numerator: Disciplinary Action (code = Suspension)
 

Denominator: Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 


Some states or localities may use Average Daily Membership (ADM), Average Daily Attendance (ADA),
 

or Cumulative Enrollment as the denominator.
 

88 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Formula 

Suspension (Out-of-School), Percentage Students Receiving is calculated by dividing the number of students 

receiving a suspension as a disciplinary action by a count of student membership, and multiplying by 

100 to create a percentage value. 

An unduplicated count of students receiving Disciplinary Action (code = Suspension) x 100 

Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

This indicator may be disaggregated by student or school characteristics. For example, users may compare 

the percentage of males and females suspended or the percentage of students suspended at elementary, 

middle, and high schools. At the student level, common subgroups include: disability status, race, sex, 

economic disadvantage status, and high school grade point average. At the institutional level, common 

subgroups include: incident type, school level, school type, school size, grade level, school locale, 

and school enrollment characteristics (e.g., categories representing percentage of students by economic 

disadvantage status and race/ethnicity). 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, although it may be displayed in 

tables, nested tables (e.g., race within grade level), or bar charts by subgroup. 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 89 
Teacher:Administrator Ratio 

Administrator:Teacher Ratio 

Definition 

A measure of the relationship between the Full-Time Equivalency (FTE) number of teachers and the 

FTE number of administrators in an education institution. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to evaluate the span of control and supervisory responsibilities of education 

institutions, and often generates high public interest. 

Policy Question 

Do schools have too many (or too few) nonteaching staff?
 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> Job classifications vary between organizations, even for staff who perform similar duties. For example,
 

a “curriculum coordinator” may be designated as either an administrative or an instructional staff
 

member depending on the organizational chart.
 

> When determining the number of administrators, some organizations may choose not to combine staff
 

with office/clerical/administrative support job titles with official–administrative job titles. 


> Some circumstances demand more or fewer staff than others. For example, a young instructional staff
 

or a disadvantaged student population may require more administrative support. Similarly, some circumstances demand more or fewer teachers than others. For example, a bilingual student population
 

may require smaller classes (to encourage language practice) and therefore relatively more teachers.
 

Additional Information
 

> A “teacher” is defined as an individual who provides instruction to prekindergarten, kindergarten,
 

grades 1 through 12, or ungraded classes; or an individual who teaches in an environment other than a
 

classroom setting; and who maintains daily student attendance records. 


A complete list of administrative and professional–educational job classifications, including specific job titles 

within each classification category below, may be found in appendix H of the NCES Handbooks Online at 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/handbook/index.asp. 

> Official–Administrative job categories include administrative/supervisory/ancillary services officer, 

board of education/school board/board of trustees member, commandant of cadets, dean/dean of 

instructions/dean of students/dean of boys/dean of girls/dean of student activities, deputy/associate/vice­

/assistant principal, deputy/associate/assistant superintendent/ commissioner, executive assistant, instructional 

program director/coordinator/consultant, manager, noninstructional program director/coordinator/consultant, ombudsperson, principal/headmaster/headmistress/head of school, school president, school site 

council member, and superintendent/commissioner. 

> Office/Clerical/Administrative Support job categories include bookkeeping/accounting/auditing clerk, 

cashier, computer operator, data entry clerk, dispatcher, duplicating/photocopying assistant, file clerk, 

general office clerk, mail clerk, messenger, office manager, receptionist, records clerk, secretary, stenographer, stores/supplies handler, switchboard/PBX operator, and typist/word processor. 

> Other job classifications or job categories may be substituted depending on the organization’s information needs. 

> Full-Time Equivalency (FTE) is the amount of time required to perform an assignment, stated as a 

proportion of a full-time position and computed by dividing the amount of time employed by the time 

normally required for a full-time position. 

90 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Related Indicators 

Class Size, Average 

Education Level, Teacher 

Experience Level, Teacher 

“Highly Qualified” Teachers, Percentage 

Retention Rate, Teacher 

Student:Staff Ratio 

Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of FTE teachers and the FTE number of administrators. 

Numerator: Job Classification (code = Teacher), Full-Time Equivalency 

Denominator: Job Classification (code = Official–Administrative and Office/Clerical/Administrative 

support), Full-Time Equivalency 

Formula 

Teacher:Administrator Ratio is calculated by dividing the number of FTE teachers by the FTE number of 

administrators in an education institution. “Administrators” may be categorized further, based on job 

classification as desired (see above). 

Number of FTE staff with Job Classification (code = Teacher) x 100 

Number of FTE staff with Job Classification 

(code = Official–Administrative and Office/Clerical/Administrative Support) 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

School level, school size, quartiles or quintiles representing percentage of students by economic disadvantage status and race/ethnicity, and school locale. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a numerical ratio, in the form of XX teachers/1 administrator or XX:1, 

and may be displayed in tables by subgroups. 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 91 
Transportation Services, Percentage Students Receiving 

Percentage Students Receiving Transportation Services 

Student Transportation 

Transportation at Public Expense 

Definition 

The percentage of students transported at public expense; transported at reduced public expense; or 

provided room, board, or payment in lieu of transportation. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to assess what portion of students are transported to or from school at 

public expense. 

Policy Questions 

How many students are transported to or from school at public expense? What noninstructional costs
 

are important in the district’s budget? 


Caveat and Caution
 

> Due to the wide range of geographic and demographic features in communities across the nation,
 

student transportation costs may vary substantially even for organizations with a similar percentage of
 

students being transported at public expense.
 

Additional Information
 

> According to the No Child Left Behind Actof of 2001 (NCLB), school districts may be required to
 

provide transportation services to students who choose to attend a new school because their school does
 

not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) during consecutive years, even if they otherwise would not
 

have received services.
 

Related Indicators 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage Schools in Improvement Categories 

Placement of Students With Disabilities 

Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include student transportation status and a count of student membership 

Numerator: The number of students with Transportation Status (code = At Public Expense; At
 

Reduced Public Expense; or Provided Room, Board, or Payment in Lieu of Transportation).
 

Denominator: Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1)
 

Some states or localities may use Average Daily Membership (ADM), Average Daily Attendance (ADA),
 

or Cumulative Enrollment as the denominator.
 

Formula 

Transportation Services, Percentage Students Receiving is calculated by dividing the number of students 

transported at public expense; transported at reduced public expense; or provided room, board, or 

payment in lieu of transportation by a count of student membership, and multiplying by 100 to create a 

percentage value. 

Number of students with Transportation Status (code = At Public Expense; 


At Reduced Public Expense; or Provided Room, Board, or Payment in Lieu of Transportation) x 100
 

Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

School level and school characteristics. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a percentage although tables may make sense to display subgroups. 

92 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Truancy Rate, Schoolwide 

Schoolwide Truancy Rate 

Definition 

The percentage of students in a school who are “truant,” as defined by local or state authorities (e.g., 

“students subject to compulsory attendance who have been absent without valid cause”). 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to assess the significance of missed class time. 

Policy Question 

Are we succeeding in keeping students in school? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> There is no national standard defining “truancy,” or “excused” versus “unexcused” absences. Thus, the 

truancy rates of different states or localities generally are not comparable. 

> Various definitions of “truancy” include more than 4 unexcused absences per month, more than 12 

days unexcused absences per year, and less than 90 percent attendance. 

Additional Information 

> This indicator is required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) to meet new federal 

Uniform Management Information Reporting System (UMIRS) requirements set forth in NCLB Subpart 

1 – State Grants, Section 4112(c)(3). 

Related Indicators 

High School Dropout Rate, Annual Student 

High School Dropout Rate, Cohort Rate 

Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of students who are truant, as defined by local or state authorities 

(based on the number of days of attendance and the total days in session), and a count of student 

membership. 

Numerator: The number of students who are truant 

Note that Number of Days in Attendance divided by Total Days in Session can determine whether a 

student is a truant if there is a "threshold" absence rate that defines truancy. 

Denominator: Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1)
 

Some states or localities may use Average Daily Membership (ADM), Average Daily Attendance (ADA),
 

or Cumulative Enrollment as the denominator.
 

Formula 

Truancy Rate, Schoolwide is calculated by dividing the number of students who are truant, as defined by 

local or state authorities, by a count of student membership; and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage 

value. 

Number of students who are truant, as defined by local or state authorities 


(e.g., based on Number of Days in Attendance and Total Days in Session)
 x 100 

Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Age, disability status, grade level, migrant status, race, and sex; and school level, size, quartiles or quintiles 

representing percentage of students by economic disadvantage status and race/ethnicity, safety, and locale. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a percentage although tables may make sense to display subgroups. 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 93 
Violent Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Rate of Violent Incidents Reported 

Reported Violent Incidents Per 100 Students 

School Violence Incidents Reported 

Violence in Schools 

Definition 

The number, per 100 students, of suspected violent incidents reported to police during a given academic 

year. “Violent” incidents include battery, fighting (mutual), homicide (murder or manslaughter), kidnapping 

(abduction), physical attack with a weapon, physical attack without a weapon, rape/sexual battery, and 

threat/intimidation. 

An “incident” is defined as any offense reported to police that is perpetrated by students at school, on 

school property, or during a school-sponsored activity. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to help assess school safety and climate. 

Policy Question 

How safe are our schools? 

Caveats and Cautions 

> This is an institution-based indicator; it does not present data about individuals or groups of students 

other than at the institution level. 

> Only incidents reported to police are included; variation in reporting practices by school staff will 

affect this indicator’s measure. 

> Repeat offenders (i.e., individual students suspected of multiple violations) may bias measures. 

> School Resource Officers (SROs) are legally considered “police officers” in some communities; all 

incidents involving SROs in these districts have, by definition, been “reported” to the police, increasing 

the number of “incidents.” Comparisons between institutions with SROs and those that must actively 

contact an outside authority are therefore discouraged. 

> This indicator is incident-based rather than student-based. 

Additional Information 

> The unit of analysis may vary depending on school size. Some organizations may choose to normalize 

to, and report, “per 1,000 students.” 

> The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System survey administered by the Centers for Disease Control 

(see appendix E) may help inform the interpretation of data generated by this indicator. 

> Alternative indicators include Percentage of Students Involved in Reported Violent Incidents. 

More information about this issue can be found in Safety in Numbers: Collecting and Using Crime, Violence, and 

Discipline Incident Data to Make a Difference in Schools (NCES 2002–312). This free resource from the National 

Forum on Education Statistics can be accessed at http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2002312.asp. 

Related Indicators 

Alcohol-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Criminal Offense Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Drug-Related Incidents Reported Per 100 Students 

Expulsion Incidents Per 100 Students 

“Persistently Dangerous” Schools, Percentage 

Suspension (Out-of-School), Actions Per 100 Students 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Average Duration 

Suspensions (Out-of-School), Percentage Students Receiving 

94 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of violent incidents perpetrated by students at school, on school 

property, or during a school-sponsored activity that have been reported to police during a given 

academic year, and a count of student membership normalized to a “per 100 students” denominator. 

Numerator: The number of violent incidents perpetrated by students at school, on school property, 

or during a school-sponsored activity that have been reported to police during a given academic 

year. 

Denominator: Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 

Some states or localities may use Average Daily Membership (ADM), Average Daily Attendance (ADA), 

or Cumulative Enrollment as the denominator. 

Formula 

Violent Incidents Reported Per 100 Students is calculated by dividing the total number of violent incidents 

reported by a count of student membership, and multiplying by 100 to normalize to a “per 100 students” 

count. 

Number of violent incidents reported x 100 

Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 

Commonly Reported Subgroups 

This indicator may be disaggregated by school characteristics. For example, the number of violent 

incidents at elementary, middle, and high schools may be compared. At the institutional level, common 

subgroups include: school level, school type, school size, grade level, school locale, and school enrollment 

characteristics (e.g., categories representing percentage of students by economic disadvantage status and 

race/ethnicity). 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X, with a notation that the number is “per 

100 students,” and displayed in tables by subgroup. 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 95 
Vocational/Technical Programs, Percentage Nontraditional Completers 

Nontraditional Completers of Vocational/Technical Programs 

Percentage Nontraditional Completers of Vocational/Technical Programs 

Definition 

The percentage of nontraditional students completing “career/technical” programs or “clusters,” as 

defined by the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. Students are designated “nontraditional” when members of their sex comprise less than 25 percent of the individuals employed in the 

occupation or field associated with the area of study. Because of geographical variation in labor markets, 

local authorities assign “nontraditional” status. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to identify nontraditional completion rates of vocational/technical programs 

or clusters, as defined by the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. 

Policy Question 

Are schools succeeding in preparing all students equally for occupations traditionally dominated by
 

members of one sex? Are our schools ensuring that young men and women have the same occupational
 

choices?
 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> Because of geographical variation in labor markets, local authorities define and designate programs as
 

“nontraditional.”
 

> Content broached in a course with the same name/code (e.g., Plumbing I) may vary between institutions,
 

unless a comprehensive and unified course coding system is being used.
 

Additional Information
 

> The U.S. Department of Education Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) identifies 16 


career “clusters”: Agriculture and Natural Resources, Arts/Audio/Video Technology and Communications,
 

Architecture and Construction, Business and Administration, Education and Training, Finance,
 

Government and Public Administration, Health Science, Hospitality and Tourism, Human Services,
 

Information Technology Services, Law and Public Safety, Manufacturing, Retail/Wholesale Sales and
 

Services, Scientific Research and Engineering, and Transportation Distribution and Logistics (Source:
 

Sixteen Career Clusters: Securing Futures, U.S. Department of Education and OVAE, 2001). 


Related Indicators 

Vocational/Technical Programs, Percentage Nontraditional Participation 

Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of nontraditional completers (by sex), course codes, and number of 

credits received (i.e., “credit > 0” signifies completion); and a count of all vocational/technical program 

completers. 

Numerator: Sex, Course Code, Number of Credits Received (i.e., credit > 0 signifies completion) 

Denominator: Course Code, Number of Credits Received (i.e., credit > 0 signifies completion) 

Formula 

Vocational/Technical Programs, Percentage Nontraditional Completers is calculated by dividing the number 

of nontraditional students who received credit for completing career/technical programs or career clusters 

by the total number of students (i.e., traditional and nontraditional) who completed career/technical 

programs or career clusters, and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value. 

96 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 

Number of nontraditional students (by Sex) who completed
 

(Number Credits Received > 0 signifies completion) 


a vocational/technical course or course sequence (Course Code) 
 x 100 

Total number of students who completed (Number Credits Received > 0 signifies completion) 

a vocational/technical course or course sequence (Course Code) 
Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Sex, program, or career cluster. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and displayed in tables or bar 

charts by subgroup. 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 97 
Vocational/Technical Programs, Percentage Nontraditional Participation 

Percentage Nontraditional Participation in Vocational/Technical Programs 

Definition 

The percentage of nontraditional students participating in “career/technical” programs or “clusters” 

regardless of their completion status, as defined by the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical 

Education Act. Students are designated “nontraditional” when members of their sex comprise less than 

25 percent of the individuals employed in the occupation or field associated with the area of study. 

Because of geographical variation in labor markets, local authorities assign “nontraditional” status. 

Recommended Use 

This indicator may be used to identify nontraditional participation in vocational/technical programs or 

clusters, as defined by the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. 

Policy Question 

Are schools succeeding in preparing all students equally for occupations traditionally dominated by
 

members of one sex? Are our schools ensuring that young men and women have the same occupational
 

choices?
 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> Because of geographical variation in labor markets, local authorities define and designate programs as
 

“nontraditional.”
 

> Content broached in a course with the same name/code (e.g., Plumbing I) may vary between institutions,
 

unless a comprehensive and unified course coding system is being used.
 

Additional Information
 

> The U.S. Department of Education Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) identifies 16
 

career “clusters”: Agriculture and Natural Resources, Arts/Audio/Video Technology and Communications,
 

Architecture and Construction, Business and Administration, Education and Training, Finance,
 

Government and Public Administration, Health Science, Hospitality and Tourism, Human Services,
 

Information Technology Services, Law and Public Safety, Manufacturing, Retail/Wholesale Sales and
 

Services, Scientific Research and Engineering, and Transportation Distribution and Logistics (Source:
 

Sixteen Career Clusters: Securing Futures, U.S. Department of Education and OVAE, 2001).
 

Related Indicators 

Vocational/Technical Programs, Percentage Nontraditional Completers 

Components All italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of nontraditional participants (by sex), course codes, and a count of all 

vocational/technical program participants. 

Numerator: Sex, Course Code 

Denominator: Course Code 

Formula 

Vocational/Technical Programs, Percentage Nontraditional Participation is calculated by dividing the 

number of nontraditional students participating in career/technical programs or career clusters by the 

total number of students (i.e., traditional and nontraditional) participating in career/technical programs 

or career clusters, and multiplying by 100 to create a percentage value. 

98 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 

Number of nontraditional students (by Sex) participating in a 


vocational/technical course or course sequence (Course Code) 
 x 100 

Total number of students participating in a 

vocational/technical course or course sequence (Course Code) 
Commonly Reported Subgroups 

Sex, program, or career cluster. 

Display Suggestions 

This indicator is presented as a number in the form of XX.X percent, and displayed in tables or bar 

charts by subgroup. 

Chapter 2. Catalog of Education Indicators 99 

Appendix A: 

Additional Context Measures 

Some statistics are used to calculate the indicators listed in the Guide. 

Appendix A describes how these statistics are defined when used in the 

document. 

Average Daily Attendance (ADA) 

ADA 

Definition 

The average number of students “attending,” or present, during a given reporting period (usually a 

regular school session). Only days when students are under the guidance and direction of teachers 

should be considered “in session.” 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of students in attendance on all days that school was in session during 

a given reporting period, and the total number of days that school was in session during the reporting 

period. 

Numerator: Number of Days in Attendance (for each student) 

Denominator: Total Days in Session 

Formula 

Attendance, Average Daily (ADA) is calculated by dividing the total number of days in attendance during 

a given reporting period for all students by the total number of days on which school is in session 

during the reporting period. 

∑ Number of Days in Attendance for each student 

Total Days in Session 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> ADA is not defined uniformly because some states count absent students with a written excuse for a
 

school day as “in attendance” while others do not. Similarly, “in attendance” may be defined as “in
 

homeroom” in many high schools, whereas it might require 4.5 hours of school day participation in an
 

elementary school setting. Because of these and other definition differences, caution is necessary when
 

trying to compare ADA reports from different schools, school districts, and state education agencies.
 

> ADA is sometimes confused with Average Daily Membership (ADM), Count of Student Membership (e.g.,
 

October 1), and Cumulative Enrollment. Each item measures something slightly different and they should
 

not be used interchangeably.
 

Additional Information
 

> ADA can be used to determine Title I funding. 


Appendix A: Additional Context Measures 101 
Average Daily Membership (ADM) 

ADM 

Definition 

The average daily count of students enrolled in school during a given reporting period. Only days when 

students are under the guidance and direction of teachers should be considered “in session.” 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of students enrolled on all days that school was in session during a given 

reporting period, and the total number of days that school was in session during the reporting period. 

Numerator: Enrollment Status (code = Currently Enrolled) for each student on each day in session 

Denominator: Total Days in Session 

Formula 

Membership, Average Daily (ADM) is calculated by dividing the total number of students enrolled on 

each day in session during a given reporting period by the total number of days school is in session 

during the reporting period. 

∑ Enrollment Status (code = Currently Enrolled) for each student on each day in session 

Total Days in Session 

Caveats and Cautions
 

> ADM is sometimes confused with Average Daily Attendance (ADA), Count of Student Membership (e.g.,
 

October 1), and Cumulative Enrollment. Each item measures something slightly different and they should not
 

be used interchangeably.
 

> This measure may also be referred to as “Average Daily Enrollment (ADE).”
 

> This measure may be complicated by the placement of special education students in alternative
 

learning environments administered outside an education organization’s authority.
 

Additional Information 

For groups of schools with varying lengths of terms (e.g., within a state or local education agency), 

ADM is the sum of the individual schools’ Average Daily Memberships. 

Contract Days of Service per Year 

Number of Service Days 

Definition 

The number of days per year that teachers are expected to work, as described in their employment agreement. 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of service days in the teacher contract. 

Contract Days of Service per Year 

Formula 

Contract Days of Service per Year is the number of service days in the teacher contract. 

Contract Days of Service per Year 

Caveats and Cautions 

> A teaching contract may include both instructional and noninstructional (e.g., professional development 

and preparation) days. 

102 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1) 

October 1 Count of Student Membership 

Definition 

The count of students on the current roll taken on a specific school day (for example the date closest 

to October 1) by using either the sum of original entries and re-entries, minus total withdrawals; or the 

sum of the total students present and the total students absent. 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the enrollment status for all students. 

Enrollment Status (code = Currently Enrolled) 

Formula 

Membership, Student Count (e.g., October 1) is the number of students enrolled on a given date (e.g., October 1) 

∑ Enrollment Status (code = Currently Enrolled) on a given date (e.g., October 1) 

Caveats and Cautions 

> Although many organizations take a Count of Student Membership on October 1, the components 

and formula may be applied to any date. For example, some organizations report a “Fall count” (taken, 

for example, on September 15), or an average of a fall and spring attendance count, as their Count of 

Student Membership. 

> Membership, Student Count (e.g., October 1) is sometimes confused with Average Daily Attendance 

(ADA), Average Daily Membership (ADM), and Cumulative Enrollment. Each item measures something 

slightly different and they should not be used interchangeably. 

Cumulative Enrollment 

Definition 

The total number of students enrolled at any point during a specified window of time. Cumulative 

Enrollment includes enrollment at the beginning of the specified period, and transfers into the 

school or program during the specified period. In an individual student record system, Cumulative 

Enrollment is the count of all enrollments during the school year with an exit date greater than the 

entry date. 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the enrollment status of all students. 

Enrollment Status (code = Currently Enrolled) at any point during the measurement window for all 

students 

Formula 

Cumulative Enrollment is the sum of students enrolled at any point during the measurement window 

(e.g., an academic year). 

∑ Enrollment Status (code = Currently Enrolled) at any point during the measurement window for all students 

Caveats and Cautions 

> Cumulative Enrollment is sometimes confused with Average Daily Attendance (ADA), Average Daily 

Membership (ADM), and Count of Student Membership (e.g., October 1). Each item measures something 

slightly different and they should not be used interchangeably. 

Appendix A: Additional Context Measures 103 
Noninstructional Service Days, Number of Teacher 

Number of Noninstructional Teacher Service Days 

Definition 

The number of noninstructional days teachers are required to attend school, including professional 

development days, curriculum development days, planning days, and parent-teacher conference days. 

Components Italicized terms are defined in chapter 2, appendix A, or appendix D. 

Components include the number of days in the teacher contract, and the length of the student school year. 

Contract Days of Service per Year; School Year, Length of Student 

Formula 

Noninstructional Service Days, Number of Teacher is calculated by subtracting the number of instructional 

days in the student school year from the number of service days in the teacher contract. 

Contract Days of Service per Year – School Year, Length of Student 

Caveats and Cautions 

Noninstructional days do not refer to work days that a teacher is removed from a classroom and 

replaced by a substitute teacher. 

104 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Appendix B: 

Statistical Terms and Concepts 

Appendix B describes several statistical terms and concepts commonly used 

to conceptualize, develop, and interpret education indicators. To limit the 

length of this appendix, only terms and concepts explicitly or implicitly 

referred to in this Guide are included. 

The following documents served as resources during the preparation of 

appendix B: 

> Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures 

(Third Edition) by David Sheskin (Chapman and Hall/CRC 2003) 

> HyperStat Online: An Introductory Statistics Textbook 

and Online Tutorial for Help in Statistics by David M. Lane 

(http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/) 

> Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology by Gene V. Glass and 

Kenneth D. Hopkins (Prentice Hall 1984) 

Introduction 

This document defines an education indicator as a measure of the status of, or 

change in, an education system with regard to its goals. Because statistical methods 

play an integral role in the development, use, and interpretation of education 

indicators, definitions of commonly used methods are useful for both generators 

and users of indicator data. This appendix presents basic statistical terms and 

concepts that commonly arise when conceptualizing, developing, or interpreting 

education indicators. These terms and concepts include: 

> Average 

> Cohort 

> Confidence Interval 

> Data 

> Error 

> Grade Equivalent 

> Mean 

> Median 

> Mode 

> Normal Curve Equivalent 

> Observation 

> Percentage 

> Percentile Rank 

> Population 

> Random Error 

> Random Sample 

> Range 

> Rank Order 

> Ratio 

> Sample 

> Standard Deviation 

> Standard Error 

> Standard Score 

> Stanines 

> Systematic Error 

> Variable 

> Variance 

> Z-Score 

“One must always be wary of “statisticulation,” the art of lying with statistics while 

maintaining an appearance of objectivity and rationality.” 

—Gene Glass and Kenneth Hopkins 

Appendix B: Statistical Terms and Concepts 105 
Population Sampling 

A “population” is an entire set of subjects, items, units, or observations in a group. 

The identification of a population usually includes explicit restrictions to a specified 

“universe” that is limited in space or time. For example, all students in a school 

district’s high schools during the 2000–2001 academic year might be a “population” 

studied by education researchers. 

A representative sample of 100 may be preferable to an unrepresentative 

sample of 1,000,000! 

—Gene Glass and Kenneth Hopkins 

A “sample” is a subset of a population that is selected to represent the population for the purpose of inferring information about the entire population. The 

criteria for selecting a sample from a population (i.e., “sampling”) are very 

important to satisfy assumptions implicit in many statistical methods. For example, 

in a “random sample,” each element of the population should have an equal probability of being included in the sample. In a “biased sample,” on the other hand, the 

method used to select the sample generates a sample that does not truly represent 

the population. For example, the principle of independent sampling may be violated 

when the selection of one member increases or decreases the probability that 

another member will be selected. Such a sample is said to “lack representativeness.” 

However, a random sample with different characteristics than the population 

universe is not necessarily a biased sample: if the difference is not the result of a 

systematic bias in the selection process, such a sample is merely randomly different. 

Another type of group is a “cohort” group, a collection of people who jointly 

experience an event or series of events over a period of time. For example, a group 

of kindergarten students entering school at the same time and promoted together 

over time could serve as a cohort. 

Observing and Describing a Sample 

Researchers often refer to the fundamental unit of analysis as an “observation,” 

which is a measurement or value recorded for a characteristic of a subject in a 

sample. These characteristics, or “variables,” may be quantitative or qualitative in 

nature. A body of observations about a variable becomes “data.” 

As stated above, “statistics” is a branch of mathematics that deals with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of data. Methods for describing 

data sets are classified in the field of statistics as “descriptive statistics.” Descriptive 

statistics involve summarizing, tabulating, organizing, and graphing values in data 

sets (i.e., observations) for purely descriptive purposes. No effort is made to infer 

meaning to parts of a population that have not been observed. There are many 

ways to present data, including: 

Grade Equivalents 

“Grade equivalents” represent the typical performance of students tested at a given 

point in a school year. However, they do not indicate the level of material a student 

has mastered. For example, if a fourth grade student obtains a grade equivalent of 

6.9 on a reading test designed for fourth graders, this does not mean that the student 

has mastered sixth grade material. Rather, the grade equivalent of 6.9 means that the 

student’s score is about the same as what the typical score of sixth graders would 

have been had they taken the fourth-grade test in the ninth month of the year. Thus, 

grade equivalents are of limited utility for measuring academic growth. In addition, 

like percentile ranks, grade equivalents represent unequal units. 

106 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Normal Curve Equivalents 

“Normal curve equivalents” are derived from percentile ranks. Because they are presented in an equal-interval scale, any differences (e.g., 6 raw score points) have the 

same meaning regardless of the part of the scale being referenced. Thus, they can 

be used when test scores need to be averaged, or to make gain/loss comparisons. 

Percentage 

A “percentage” is a part of a whole expressed in hundredths. In other words, the 

value represents some portion of a larger value that has been normalized to 100 

parts. For example, if a student answered 32 questions correctly on a 40-question 

exam, the percentage correct would be (32/40) x 100 = 80 percent. 

Percentile Ranks 

A “percentile rank” is a value ranging from 1 to 99 that indicates the percentage of a 

distribution equal to or less than a value. Percentile ranks are used to indicate the 

relative standing of a student in comparison with other students in the same grade 

or norm group who took the test at the same time of year. However, they do not 

represent equal interval units along the score scale, and tend to accumulate in the 

middle of the scale and spread out towards the ends of the scale. This means that 

an increase of only one or two raw score points might translate into a fairly substantial increase of percentile rank in the middle of the scale, and a quite small 

percentile rank increase (if any) at either end of the scale. Percentile ranks are best 

used for reporting position (higher, lower, same) in the reference group and should 

not be averaged, added, or subtracted. 

Rank Order 

A “rank order” is a presentation of values in a data set, by order of magnitude. For 

example, a rank order of teachers’ salaries would begin with the smallest or largest 

salary. 

Ratio 

A “ratio” is an expression of the quantity, amount, value, or size of two entities. 

For example, a student:teacher ratio of 15:1 means that there are 15 students 

for every teacher. Ratios can bridge relationships based on different units (e.g., 

a student:computer ratio links people to equipment). However, because of this 

feature, ratios should not be added, multiplied, divided, or otherwise mathematically combined. While under specific conditions the math may be appropriate, 

the subsequent presentation of data can be confusing to many readers. 

Standard Scores 

A “standard score” is a series of scores that have been converted to a scale with a 

specific mean and standard deviation. A z-score is a commonly used standard 

score that has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. 

Stanines 

“Stanine” stands for a “STAndard score with a scale of NINE units” (i.e., ranging 

from one to nine). Stanines occur on an equal-interval scale, and may be averaged 

and used to make gain/loss comparisons. They measure achievement in broad categories and generally do not reflect small differences in achievement very well. 

Z-Scores 

A “z-score” is the most widely used standard score in statistics. Raw scores are 

converted to z-scores based on the properties of the normal curve so that the 

mean score and standard deviation are fixed and known to users. Otherwise, 

raw data can be difficult to interpret (e.g., a score of 78 means relatively little 

unless information about the associated mean score and standard deviation is 

conveyed as well—as is done with z-scores and other standard scores). 

Appendix B: Statistical Terms and Concepts 107 
Measures of Central Tendency: Mean, Median, and Mode 

Mean (i.e., Arithmetic Mean) 

Commonly called an “average,” the “arithmetic mean” is calculated by dividing the 

sum of all the individual observations by the total number of observations in the 

sample. For example, suppose ten students have assessment scores of 99, 100, 97, 

71, 73, 80, 77, 74, 79, and 70. The mean, or average, score is calculated by adding 

all values in the data set (generating a value of 820). This number would then be 

divided by 10 (the total number of values in the data set), yielding a mean value of 

82. Interestingly, only three students in the example had scores above the average, 

which demonstrates that using a mean as a measure of central tendency is sometimes 

misleading. Another limitation of the descriptive value of the mean statistic stems 

from data sets that vary in range. For example, a data set with values of 20, 85, 95, 

and 100 has a mean value of 75. However, so does a data set with values of 71, 73, 

77, and 79. In the first data set, the low value of 20 skews the other high scores 

(such a value is called an “outlier”). Thus, using the mean statistic as a measure of 

central tendency requires additional information (such as the median, mode, or 

standard deviation) for proper interpretation. Under most circumstances, mean 

values should not be added, subtracted, multiplied or divided. Nor should they be 

used to calculate the average of a series of averages; rather, the original (i.e., raw) 

data should be used to generate the mean value of a series of means. 

Median 

The “median” is the middle of a distribution (i.e., half the scores are above the 

median and half are below it). In other words, if sample observations are arranged 

in order, from smallest to largest, the median is the point above and below which 

an equal number of cases fall. The median is less sensitive to extreme scores than 

the mean, making it a better measure for highly skewed distributions. For example, 

if observation values are 23, 25, 27, 29, 31 (group A), the median is 27 and so is 

the mean. If, however, observation values are 23, 25, 27, 29, 51 (group B), the 

median is still 27 while the mean increases to 31. Replacing the last observation in 

group A (the value 31) with 51 in group B does not change the median value, but 

does change the mean value. 

Mode 

The “mode” is defined as the value that occurs most frequently in a data set. 

Although the concept of a mode is fairly unambiguous, it is of limited value as a 

measure of central tendency because it is subject to random sampling fluctuations 

(i.e., it takes on different values for different samples due simply to random 

variation). Also, data sets can have zero, one, two, or more modes. For example, if 

observation values are 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, there is not a mode. If observation values 

are 4, 5, 5, 7, 8, 9, the mode is 5 (“unimodal”). If observation values are 4, 5, 5, 8, 

8, 9, the modes are 5 and 8 (“bimodal”). And if observation values are 4, 5, 5, 8, 8, 

9, 9, the modes are 5, 8, and 9 (“multimodal”). Obviously, large data sets may 

generate multimodal values that are not particularly useful. 

Measures of Spread (Dispersion) 

Range 

The “range” is the difference between the largest and the smallest values in a data 

set (i.e., the largest sample value minus the smallest sample value). It is a useful 

measure of spread because it is so easily understood and calculated. However, it 

has the disadvantage of using only two of the observations in the sample (the 

largest and smallest), which means that it disregards much of the information 

available in the sample and is particularly sensitive to extreme scores (see Mean). 

108 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Finally, the meaning of a range value may be unclear depending on the unit of 

measure reported. Thus, a range should almost never be used as the only measure 

of spread, but can be informative if used as a supplement to other measures. 

Variance 

By far the most widely used measure of spread, “variance” is based on the deviations of the sample observations from the sample mean. Thus, it reflects every 

observation in the sample by weighing each observation by its distance from the 

center of the distribution. Variance is scaled in squared units of the original 

observation, which is not very user-friendly for the lay reader. Since a measure 

of spread scaled in the original units is often desirable, another useful sample 

statistic is calculated by taking the square root of the variance. This measure, 

called the ”standard deviation,“ is scaled in the original units. 

Standard Deviation 

A “standard deviation” describes how widely the values in a data set are spread 

apart. A large standard deviation suggests that the data are fairly widespread, 

whereas a small standard deviation shows that the data values are tightly 

bunched together. Mathematically, the standard deviation is the square root of 

the variance, and is expressed in the original units of measurement. It is simply 

the spread of the individual observations about the arithmetic mean. In a normally 

distributed population (a frequently used assumption with large sample populations), approximately two-thirds (68 percent) of the observations fall within one 

standard deviation above and one standard deviation below the mean; about 95 

percent fall within two standard deviations above and below the mean; and about 

99 percent fall within three standard deviations above and below the mean. 

Having Confidence in the Data 

All statistics-based indicators have error associated with them. This does not mean 

that they are wrong. Rather, it means that one can never be 100 percent certain 

that a sample is a perfect replica of the group or condition it represents. For 

example, tests are not perfect measures of student knowledge, random samples are 

not perfect reflections of greater populations, and statistical methods are not 

perfect summaries of the underlying raw data. This reality sets limits on how 

confident users can be in relying upon data to inform their decisions. Fortunately, 

there are ways to verify the accuracy and precision of most assessment instruments. 

Similarly, statisticians have determined ways to deal with random fluctuations in 

populations. “Error” is present, but the indicator data can still be useful. 

Error arises in statistics in two broad forms: random error and systematic 

error (bias). Put simply, “random error” is precisely that—random, by chance, and, 

ultimately, inevitable (e.g., any time a sample is measured, it may vary from the 

greater population based on purely random chance; the only way to eliminate this 

possibility is to measure the entire population). Random error can be accounted for 

through advanced statistical techniques that are based largely on the concepts of 

mean values, standard deviations, and confidence intervals (see below). While 

these statistical tools do not eliminate random error, they do identify and quantify 

it so that researchers can know how confident they can be of the data informing 

their decisionmaking. 

“Systematic error,” on the other hand, is not inevitable; rather, it is introduced 

during the process of data collection and analysis, causing measurements to skew 

in a consistent and repeatable manner. In other words, some systematic inaccuracies are a function of methods, equipment, or design (e.g., a poorly calibrated 

scale that weighs “heavy” will add the same “extra” weight to every measurement, 

no matter how many times the measurement is taken). Systematic error can be 

Appendix B: Statistical Terms and Concepts 109 
 

identified and corrected through a host of validation procedures (e.g., using 

multiple tools to calibrate measurements or confirming random and independent 

sampling methods). 

Confidence Intervals 

A “confidence interval” is a gauge to help readers know how certain they can be of 

the results reported. Because of random error, users can never be sure the data do 

not reflect some error (and, in fact, they probably do). The question then becomes, 

how much error might there be (and how reliable are the findings). Statisticians 

and educational researchers often recognize a 95 percent confidence level (i.e., a 

95 percent probability that the findings for a sample reflect the entire population) 

as acceptable. Sometimes they report at the 99 percent level. A confidence interval 

is presented as a range of values around (i.e., half above and half below) the 

finding in which there is a 95 percent (or 99 percent) probability that the actual 

value for the greater population is contained. 

Standard Error 

“Standard error” establishes the likelihood that a single piece of data will fall within 

a standard deviation (or two standard deviations) of its predicted value. Standard 

errors are useful because they indicate how much the value of a statistic might 

fluctuate from sample to sample. In general, the larger the sample the smaller the 

standard error, which is not surprising as standard error is a measure of how well 

the sample value reflects the greater population. 

110 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Appendix C: 

Display and Presentation Options 

for Indicators 

Appendix C provides guidance about preparing indicator reports and 

displaying indicator data. 

Much of the material in this appendix was adapted from A Guide to Effective 

Accountability Reporting by Ellen Forte Fast, Rolf K. Blank, Abigail Potts, and 

Andra Williams (Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC, with 

support from the U.S. Department of Education). Some modifications have been 

made to the original text so that the appendix better reflects the style and information needs of the Forum Guide to Education Indicators. To download the original 

document, visit http://www.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=56. 

Summary: To assist state and local educators, the Council of Chief State 

School Officers (CCSSO) developed the monograph, A Guide to Effective 

Accountability Reporting, through the Accountability Systems and Reporting 

State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (ASR SCASS). It is 

intended to serve as a resource for State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Local 

Education Agencies (LEAs) responsible for producing state, district, or school 

report cards of the type required under many state or district accountability 

systems, as well as under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). It is 

not intended to present an academic discussion of the nature of indicators and 

indicator systems, nor is it meant to cover the broad range of accountability 

issues in their entirety. Rather, it is meant to provide a resource for agencies 

and help practitioners as accountability reporting systems are tooled to 

meet NCLB requirements. 

How to Design an Indicator Report 

Good report design reflects clear thinking. Effective reports are: 

> easy to read and clearly state a well-defined message that readers can 

understand and use; 

> accessible to the target audiences, both physically and linguistically; 

> accompanied by adequate interpretive information; 

> supported by evidence; and 

> coordinated with other resources from within the reporting organization or 

system. 

Indicator reports are both stand-alone documents and a part of a larger system 

for providing information to stakeholders. As stand-alone documents, they 

should present a full story by themselves. Stakeholders, especially parents and 

the public, should not have to search for important information. Printed reports 

should be self–contained and accompanied by all information necessary for 

proper interpretation; web-based reports should include links to additional 

information (e.g., brief definitions, prompts, etc.) as available to support the 

message. 

Appendix C: Display and Presentation Options for Indicators 111 
Audience needs should drive indicator report development. For example: 

> Non-English-speaking parents and stakeholders should have access to the 

same information as English speakers. Depending on local needs, it may 

be necessary to produce a report in multiple languages. 

> Professional development materials for educators should include information 

about the indicators and how to interpret them. 

Three key points in the process of presenting indicator data are: 

> crafting the language so that it is clear and easily understood; 

> using graphics to highlight important information without cluttering the page 

or distracting the reader; and 

> aligning reports with other documents, such as Spanish-language versions or 

interpretive information. 

Crafting the Language 

Once the overall message of an indicator report has been determined, but before 

the text is written, it is important to think about the report’s audience. In many 

cases, the target audience will have a wide range of linguistic needs, technical 

sophistication, access to technology, and motivation to seek out and act on information in the document. The report must therefore be crafted so that readers with 

no knowledge with educational terminology or evaluation concepts can understand 

the message as well as seasoned professional educators. Given this wide range of 

stakeholders, efforts should also be made to present content in a clear and easy-toread format that is free of jargon (both verbal and numerical). 

Consider the following recommendations: 

> The language used within a report card should be jargon-free: 

> Do not use lingo, such as “disaggregated,” “alternate assessment,” “performance index”; or idiomatic words or terms without providing a brief 

but clear definition. 

> Do not use acronyms, such as “AYP,” “FTE,” “CRT”; or any abbreviations 

without first spelling and defining them. 

> Do not use statistical or psychometric terms, such as “chi-square,” 

“p-value,” or “coefficient,” unless absolutely necessary (the best way to 

demonstrate technical sophistication is by explaining a complex concept 

simply and elegantly). 

> Do not use unnecessary terminology or statistics. 

> Any text included in the report should be easy to read and understand. 

> Keep the most important information at the forefront (e.g., larger text) 

to help the reader quickly skim the graphic and see patterns. 

> Use a combination of sentence lengths and avoid long and overlypunctuated sentences. 

> Keep paragraphs short. 

> Use an active voice rather than a passive one. 

> Surround text by white space. 

> Spell out all words in full so the reader does not have to refer to a separate 

key. 

> Choose a font that is easy to read. 

> Avoid boldface except in headings and to highlight specific words or 

phrases. 

112 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
> Do not combine font styles, such as boldface and italics, except perhaps for 

headings. 

> Choose fonts that reproduce well. 

> Use as few fonts as possible. 

> Carefully use color to illustrate points rather than distract from them. 

> Subject the text to multiple reviews. 

> Use the design team to review the text for readability and clarity. 

> Have teachers and parents connected with a diverse range of schools read 

the text and provide feedback. 

Using Graphics 

When used well, graphics can be a powerful tool to illustrate data. As a general rule, 

the more complex a concept is, the more likely a good graphic will help convey it. 

Conversely, if a series of numbers can be described in one sentence without any 

qualifiers, do not bother to graph them. 

Graphics are such useful interpretive tools that readers sometimes look at a 

graphic before (or instead of) reading text. In addition, people tend to copy a 

graphic—sometimes without including the accompanying text. Thus, regardless of 

the type of graphic (i.e., a bar chart, line chart, pie chart, table, or other graphical 

presentation of information) a graphic should stand alone—all information needed 

to understand the main points in a graphic should be included in it (compare figures 

A-1 and A-2 and figures A-3 and A-4). Figure A-2 and A-4 are superior because they 

contain all the information needed to understand the main points, including: 

> a concise, accurate, and descriptive title; 

> axis or chart labels, including units of measure; 

> time periods of measure; and 

> data source(s). 

Moreover, figures A-2 and A-4 are superior because they retain their integrity even 

when photocopied (i.e., black and white reproduction). In figure A-1, the color key 

would be useless in a black and white presentation. In figure A-3, the solid lines that 

represent data values for male and female (originally red and orange) became shades of 

gray when reproduced in black and white. However, in figure A-4, a dashed line allows 

the figure to retain its meaning, even in black and white. 

Deciding how best to present data in a graphical format is often the difference 

between simply complying with dissemination and accessibility requirements, and 

effectively conveying a message about indicator findings, interpretation, and 

significance. 

Figure A-1 Figure A-2 Figure A-3 Figure A-4 

Appendix C: Display and Presentation Options for Indicators 113 
When deciding whether to use a graphic, consider whether the space and 

ink used in the picture (e.g., figure B) is necessary compared to the amount of 

information that could be conveyed in the same space in a table (e.g., figure C). 

Another option is to combine tables and graphics, as illustrated in figure D. 

In about the same amount of space used for figure B, figure D graphically 

indicates the proportion of students scoring at or above the proficient level for 

each of five years, and also provides numerically the proportion of students in 

each of the three performance levels. Further, the simple horizontal line representing 

the total scale, with the tick mark indicating the proportion above and below the 

proficient score, allows for quick comparisons between actual performance and 

the goal (100 percent proficient or advanced), as well as across years. This example 

shows how a few content and graphic modifications to data presentation can make 

a big difference in how much information can be conveyed in a limited space. 

With figure D, stakeholders will easily see what is important. 

How to Graph 

Once the decision is made on what to graph, the next step is to think about how to 

graph. 

> Graphic displays do not have to take up a whole page, or even a significant 

portion of a page. In fact, bigger is usually not better. Rather than filling a 

large portion of the page with a graph, consider using a series of smaller 

graphs to highlight comparisons across time or groups. 

> Do not accept the stated limits of graphic programs. If there is a better way 

to make a point, and someone can draw it, it can be programmed. 

> Integrate graphics with words and numbers on the page. Place them in the 

appropriate context rather than in an appendix or on a separate page. 

> When appropriate, remove “%” symbols within the data cells and round 

numbers to the nearest whole. Results may be reported to the tenth decimal 

place, but such detail makes a table difficult to read. 

> Minimize the text that accompanies a graph—limit it to definitions (e.g., 

assessment terms) and cautions (e.g., to readers about making comparisons 

across groups). 

> Every mark on the graph should be as small but as clear as possible. 

Minimize unnecessary words, numbers, pictures, graphics, and lines; and 

allow less necessary elements (e.g., lines on tables) to recede into the background by making them as pale as possible. 

> Create a style book that defines how each graphic should look: specify font 

styles and sizes, use of color and pattern, etc. For best results, create templates for each graphic and distribute these templates electronically to 

anyone who may need to produce graphics for reports. 

10

30

50

70

80

60

40

20

0

Figure B 

62 80 76 81 82 

58 67 69 73 75 

53 56 56 55 58 

60 65 72 73 72 

64 67 68 66 73 

Figure (Table) C 

18 63 19 

19 59 22 

24 55 21 

20 55 25 

38 44 18 

Figure (Table) D 

Example A 

If figure D effectively illustrates student proficiency levels for each of five years, 

then figure E is an example of how not to display these numbers. Figure E does not 

tell a clear story. In fact, understanding anything in figure E is difficult. 

> Using 3-D (three dimensional) graphics in the two-dimensional space of 

paper makes little sense. 

> There is so much information that some of the columns (data) are hidden. 

> The shading does not add anything to the graphic. Use as little color as necessary, and none on the background if possible. 

> The grid lines are distracting. Use them sparingly, if at all. 

Figure E 

114 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
> The legend is redundant. As part of the goal to integrate words, numbers, 

and images, try to just name columns, bars, or lines directly (which is 

already done). 

An alternate way to handle this type of complex data is to use a table. In 

figure F, notice that the grid lines are not thick—the horizontal lines have been 

lightened to reduce distraction from the numbers, and some vertical lines have 

been deleted altogether. This table shows the proportion of students scoring above 

and below the proficient point. However, to save even more space, just one 

column may be enough, since they should always add to 100. 

In order to highlight changes proportionally over time, a table may contain 

small graphics similar to those in figure D. In figure G, for example, a simple line 

is used to reflect the total student population tested (100 percent), and a block represents the proportion of students at or above proficiency. Cross-year comparisons 

may easily be made by scanning down the column for each content area. The 

reader may also make comparisons across content areas, though not as easily. 

Figure (Table) F 

38 62 20 80 24 76 

42 58 33 67 31 69 

47 53 44 56 44 56 

40 60 35 65 28 72 

36 64 33 67 32 68 

Figure (Table) G 

82 75 58 72 73 

18 25 2 28 27 

81 73 55 73 66 

19 27 45 27 34 

76 69 56 72 68 

24 31 44 28 32 

80 67 56 65 67 

20 33 44 35 33 

62 58 53 60 64 

38 42 47 40 36 

Example B 

Pie charts are useful presentation tools when the pieces of information (i.e., the 

“slices”) add up to 100 percent (i.e., the “whole” pie). When using a pie chart, 

however, having a legible labeling scheme is critical. In figure H, for example, 

the large number of sections results in visual confusion because of the arrows and 

labels. In this case, another type of graphic may make sense, such as the bar chart 

in figure I. 

Figure H 

Appendix C: Display and Presentation Options for Indicators 115 

Figure I 
A Final Note About Color 

Used strategically, color can enhance a report by drawing attention to critical 

information. However, caution is recommended when deciding how much color 

to use. 

Color can be distracting and can reduce the accessibility of a report’s information. For example, some popular colors, including red, may be difficult to read. 

Further, when colors in charts are very bright they may be distracting and it may 

be difficult to see the differences in bar heights, line lengths, and other shapes. 

Even with categorical data that might be clumped together, such as scores for each 

of several different schools for each of several years, using a different color for each 

school is not necessary. As long as the number of schools represented in the chart is 

small, the order of appearance is probably enough for readers to identify any 

patterns or trends. 

Moreover, because of the very nature of indicator reports, some users will likely 

want to make photocopies of the report or print a web report without a color printer. 

Therefore, coloring the graphic so that all information is clear in a black and white 

copy is important. 

Additional Tips for Preparing Color Reports 

> Consider using only one color other than black. Shades of two colors provides a
 

wide range of possible combinations for graphs and accents. 


> For printed reports, consider using white or off-white paper; it provides a strong
 

contrast for text and graphics and will not discolor when copied. 


> Test printed reports by copying them on photocopiers of varying quality. Make
 

sure color, text, and graphics transfer without affecting the amount or quality of
 

information conveyed. 


Some general rules:
 

> The more complex a concept is, the more likely a good graph can help convey it.
 

> Graphical displays should reflect the critical elements of the message. 


> Graphs are good for reporting trends, but not for conveying the actual numbers
 

behind them.
 

> Graphs should “stand alone” (i.e., not be dependent on accompanying text) and
 

meet the information and presentation needs of their intended audience.
 

> Test web reports by printing them out on printers of varying qualities—including
 

some with color and some without. Again, make sure color, text, and graphics
 

print without affecting the amount or quality of information conveyed. 


116 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Appendix D: 

Data Elements Used to Create Indicators 

Appendix D lists all data elements, definitions, and code sets 

(option lists) used to construct indicators throughout this document. 

The original source of this material is the NCES Handbooks Online, 

available from the National Center for Education Statistics at 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/handbook/index.asp. 

Data Elements: The Building Blocks of Indicators 

A data element is a specific piece of information that can be defined and measured. Data elements often 

serve as the constituent components of indicators. For example, the indicator Placement of Students With 

Disabilities is calculated using the following formula: 

x 100 

us) 

Number of students with disabilities (using the data element Disability Status)

placed in various environments (using the data element Service Setting) 

Total number of students with disabilities (using the data element Disability Stat

Where the data element Disability Status is defined as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially 

limits one or more major daily life activities” and the data element Service Setting is defined as “the setting 

and circumstance in which a student is served. (e.g., the educational placement of the student)” with a code 

list that includes early intervention classroom/center, homebound placement, hospital placement, itinerant 

services outside the home, etc. 

Appendix D lists all data elements, definitions, and option lists used to construct indicators in this document. Data element 

characteristics have been gathered from the NCES Handbooks Online (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/handbook/index.asp).

The format of the data element entries in appendix D is as follows: 

Data Element Name 

The name of the data element as referred to in this document and the NCES
 

Handbooks Online.
 

> Definition: A description of the meaning of a word or concept.
 

> Element Number: The four-digit number assigned to a data element for coding and
 

organizational purposes in the NCES Handbooks Online.
 

> Element Type: A description of the form or qualities (i.e., the “type”) of the data
 

that constitutes the element. Data element “types” include: 


>	 Alpha/Numeric (AN): A data element for which any letter or number (or combination of letters and numbers) is appropriate. Generally, this data element 

type is used when no standard code list of related options (see below) exists, 

or where descriptive information is desired. 

>	 Date (DT): A data element type that is specifically defined as a date. The
 

format in the NCES Handbooks Online generally is MMDDYYYY 


(field length = 8), although it may vary.
 

>	 Floating Decimal (R): A data element type in which a decimal must be included in 

the numeric value. If it does not appear, the number is assumed to be whole. 

Floating Decimal (R) values might, for example, appear as 4.1 (signifying four digits 

to the left of the decimal and one digit to the right of the decimal) or 3.2 (signifying 

three digits to the left of the decimal and two digits to the right of the decimal). 

Appendix D: Data Elements Used to Create Indicators 117 
>	 Identifier (ID): A data element that is defined by a code set of related options 

(see below). A code set is provided for most of the data elements identified as 

“ID” in the NCES Handbooks Online. 

>	 Numeric (N): A data element that must be a numeric value. Decimals 

themselves are not included in the value [see Floating Decimal (R) above], 

although a decimal is implied in the right-most place to signify a whole 

number. 

> Field Length: The recommended maximum number of places that the value of 

a data element would require in an automated record system. For example, a 

descriptive Alpha/Numeric (AN) element might require 60 letters or numbers for a 

response, whereas a Date (DT) would require 8 digits (MMDDYYYY). Only a 

maximum suggested field length has been included here. In designing a data collection system, a minimum length is also generally specified. All field length recommendations are illustrative, not mandated. 

> Related Options: A recommended code list that serves as a response for a data 

element. For example, “Female” and “Male” are options under the data element 

“Sex.” Options are listed in either alphabetical order or in a logical sequence, and 

have assigned code numbers. 

Adequate Yearly Progress Status 

> Definition: An indication as to whether the education institution meets Adequate 

Yearly Progress (AYP) standards. 

> Element Number: 0028 

> Element Type: ID 

> Field Length: 4 

> Related Options: 

0911 Does not meet AYP standards
 

0910 Meets AYP standards
 

Contract Days of Service Per Year 

> Definition: The number of days per year that an individual is expected to work 

as outlined specifically in his or her employment agreement. 

> Element Number: 0473 

> Element Type: R 

> Field Length: 3.2 

Course Code 

> Definition: The actual code that identifies the organization of subject matter and 

related learning experiences provided for the instruction of students. (Note: For courses 

at the secondary level only, a list of course codes and titles can be found in Appendix 

N of the NCES Handbooks Online (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/handbook/index.asp). 

> Element Number: 0102 

> Element Type: AN 

> Field Length: 10 

Course Title 

> Definition: The descriptive name given to a course of study offered in a school or 

other institution or organization. In departmentalized classes at the elementary, 

secondary, and postsecondary levels (and for staff development activities), this 

refers to the name by which a course is identified (e.g., American History, English 

III). For elementary and other nondepartmentalized classes, it refers to any portion 

118 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
of the instruction for which a grade or report is assigned (e.g., reading, composition, 

spelling, and language arts). 

> Element Number: 0107 

> Element Type: AN 

> Field Length: 45 

Disability Status 

> Definition: A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more 

major daily life activities. [Public Law 101–336, the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA), prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities as regards 

employment, public accommodations, and certain public services.] 

> Element Number: 0331 

> Element Type: AN 

> Field Length: 60 

Disciplinary Action 

> Definition: Identifies the consequences of an incident for the student(s) involved in 

an incident as perpetrator(s). 

> Element Number: 1054 

> Element Type: ID 

> Field Length: 4 

> Related Options: 

3071 Bus suspension 

3072 Change of placement (long-term) 

3073 Change of placement (reassignment), pending an expulsion hearing 

3074 Change of placement (reassignment), resulting from an expulsion hearing 

3075 Change of placement (reassignment), temporary 

3076 Community service 

3077 Conference with and warning to student 

3078 Conference with and warning to student and parent/guardian 

3079 Confiscation of contraband 

3080 Conflict resolution or anger management services mandated 

3081 Corporal punishment 

3082 Counseling mandated 

3083 Demerit 

3084 Detention 

3085 Expulsion recommendation 

3086 Expulsion with services 

3087 Expulsion without services 

3088 Juvenile justice referral 

3089 Law enforcement referral 

3090 Letter of apology 

3091 Loss of privileges 

3105 No action 

9998 None 

9999 Other 

3092 Physical activity 

3158 Removal by a hearing officer 

3093 Reprimand 

3094 Restitution 

3095 Saturday school 

Appendix D: Data Elements Used to Create Indicators 119 
3096 School probation 

3097 Substance abuse counseling mandated 

3098 Substance abuse treatment mandated 

3099 Suspension after school 

3100 Suspension, in-school 

3154 Suspension, out of school, greater than 10 consecutive school days 

3155 Suspension, out of school, separate days cumulating to more than 10 school days 

3101 Suspension, out-of-school, with services 

3102 Suspension, out-of-school, without services 

3157 Unilateral removal—Drug incident 

3156 Unilateral removal—Weapon incident 

9997 Unknown 

3103 Unsatisfactory behavior grade 

3104 Work detail 

Disciplinary Action End Date 

> Definition: The month, day, and year through which the disciplinary action is in effect. 

> Element Number: 1056 

> Element Type: DT 

> Field Length: 8 

Disciplinary Action Start Date 

> Definition: The month, day, and year on which the disciplinary action begins. 

> Element Number: 1055 

> Element Type: DT 

> Field Length: 8 

Employment Start Date 

> Definition: The month, day, and year on which an individual began self-employment 

or employment with an organization or institution. 

> Element Number: 0431 

> Element Type: DT 

> Field Length: 8 

Enrollment Status 

> Definition: An indication as to whether a student‘s name was, is, or will be officially 

registered on the roll of a school or schools. 

> Element Number: 0615 

> Element Type: ID 

> Field Length: 4 

> Related Options: 

1812 Concurrently enrolled
 

1811 Currently enrolled
 

1810 Previously enrolled
 

1813 Transferring (will enroll) 


Exit/Withdrawal Type 

> Definition: The circumstances under which the student exited from membership 

in an educational institution. 

> Element Number: 0644 

120 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
> Element Type: ID 

> Field Length: 4 

> Related Options 

1928 Completed grade 12, but did not pass test 

1922 Completed school with other credentials 

1927 Discontinued schooling 

1921 Graduated with regular, advanced, International Baccalaureate, or other type 

of diploma 

1920 Matriculation to another school 

1931 Moved, not known to be continuing 

1926 Reached maximum age for services 

1923 Student death 

1925 Student expulsion 

1924 Student illness 

1918 Transfer to a charter school 

1930 Transfer to a postsecondary education institution 

1911 Transfer to a private, non-religiously-affiliated school in a different Local 

Education Agency (LEA) in the same state 

1912 Transfer to a private, non-religiously-affiliated school in a different state 

1910 Transfer to a private, non-religiously-affiliated school in the same LEA 

1914 Transfer to a private, religiously-affiliated school in a different LEA in the same state 

1915 Transfer to a private, religiously-affiliated school in a different state 

1913 Transfer to a private, religiously-affiliated school in the same LEA 

1908 Transfer to a public school in a different LEA in the same state 

1909 Transfer to a public school in a different state 

1907 Transfer to a public school in the same LEA 

1916 Transfer to a school outside of the country 

1917 Transfer to an institution 

1929 Transfer to GED program 

1919 Transfer to home schooling 

9997 Unknown 

9999 Other 

Full-Time Equivalency (FTE) 

> Definition: The ratio between the hours of work expected in a position and the 

hours of work normally expected in a full-time position in the same setting. 

> Element Number: 0475 

> Element Type: R 

> Field Length: 1.2 

Highest Level of Education Completed 

> Definition: The extent of formal instruction an individual has received (e.g., the 

highest grade in school completed or its equivalent or the highest degree received). 

> Element Number: 0332 

> Element Type: ID 

> Field Length: 4 

> Related Options: 

1809 Twelfth grade, no diploma 

1046 Adult Basic Education Diploma 

1050 Associate’s degree (two years or more) 

1051 Bachelor’s (Baccalaureate) degree (e.g., B.A., A.B., B.S.) 

1057 Doctoral (Doctor’s) degree (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D) 

Appendix D: Data Elements Used to Create Indicators 121 
0798 Eighth grade 

0801 Eleventh grade 

0794 Fifth grade 

0790 First grade 

1053 First-professional degree (e.g., D.C. or D.C.M., D.D.S. or D.M.D., M.D., 

O.D., D.O., D. Phar., Pod.D., D.P.M., D.V.M., L.L.B., J.D., M.Div., M.H.L. 

1047 Formal award, certificate or diploma (less than one year) 

1048 Formal award, certificate or diploma (more than or equal to one year) 

0793 Fourth grade 

1052 Graduate certificate 

2408 High school completers (e.g., certificate of attendance) 

1044 High school diploma 

2409 High school equivalency (e.g., GED) 

0805 Kindergarten 

1054 Master‘s degree (e.g., M.A., M.S., M. Eng., M.Ed., M.S.W., M.B.A., M.L.S.) 

0799 Ninth grade 

1043 No school completed 

1056 Postprofessional degree 

0789 Prekindergarten 

0791 Second grade 

0796 Seventh grade 

0795 Sixth grade 

1049 Some college but no degree 

1055 Specialist's degree (e.g., Ed.S) 

0800 Tenth grade 

0792 Third grade 

0819 Vocational certificate 

9999 Other 

Identification System
 

> Definition: A coding scheme that is used for identification and record-keeping
 

purposes by schools, social services, or other agencies to refer to an individual,
 

organization, or institution.
 

> Element Number: 0147
 

> Element Type: ID
 

> Field Length: 4
 

> Related Options:
 

0254 American College Testing (ACT) Program number 

0243 College Board Admission Testing Program (ATP) number 

0175 College Board/ACT code set of prekindergarten-grade 12 institutions 

0593 District-assigned number 

0328 Driver’s license number 

0276 Dun and Bradstreet number (e.g., DUNS number) 

0164 Family unit number 

0264 Federal identification number 

0339 Health record number 

0233 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) number 

0186 LEA number for school 

0338 Medicaid number 

0879 Migrant number 

0216 NCES number for LEA 

0208 NCES number for school 

0222 Other agency number (e.g., Roman Catholic diocese or association number) 

122 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
0764 Other federally assigned number 


0154 Personal identification number 


0399 Professional certificate or license number 


0495 School-assigned number 


0763 State Education Agency (SEA) number for LEA 


0197 SEA number for school 


0780 Selective Service number 


0004 Social Security Administration number 


0686 State-assigned number 


0873 Statute number 


0936 Sub-test number 


0307 Test contractor-assigned assessment number 


0113 U.S. government Visa number 


9999 Other
 

Instructional Minutes 

> Definition: The total number of instruction minutes in a given session. 

> Element Number: 0150 

> Element Type: N 

> Field Length: 5 

Job Classification 

> Definition: A description of the specific group of duties and responsibilities 

of a position. (A list of options and their codes can be found at 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/handbook/data/pdf/Appendices_H.pdf). 

> Element Number: 0557 

> Element Type: ID 

> Field Length: 4 

> Related Options: See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/handbook/data/pdf/Appendices_H.pdf. 

Leave Substitution Status 

> Definition: An indication of the type of substitution provided for an individual's 

job assignment during the period of his/her absence. 

> Element Number: 0544 

> Element Type: ID 

> Field Length: 4 

> Related Options: 

1608 No substitution 


1610 Substitution by an individual with proof of required credentials 


1609 Substitution by an individual without proof of required credentials
 

Nonpromotion Reason 

> Definition: The primary reason why a staff member determined that a student 

should not be promoted (or be demoted). 

> Element Number: 0673 

> Element Type: ID 

> Field Length: 4 

> Related Options: 

1979 Failed to meet testing requirements 


1980 Illness 


1981 Immaturity 


Appendix D: Data Elements Used to Create Indicators 123 
1982 Inadequate performance 


1983 Insufficient credits 


1984 Prolonged absence 


9999 Other 


Number of Credits Received 

> Definition: The number of credits a student earned for completing a given course. 

> Element Number: 0656 

> Element Type: R 

> Field Length: 2.1 

Number of Days in Attendance 

> Definition: The number of days an individual is present when school is in session 

during a given reporting period. 

> Element Number: 0637 

> Element Type: R 

> Field Length: 3.1 

Performance Rating 

> Definition: Indicator of performance status in relation to benchmarks (e.g., score, grade). 

> Element Number: 0206 

> Element Type: AN 

> Field Length: 60 

Promotion Type 

> Definition: The nature of the student‘s promotion or progress at the end of a given 

school term. 

> Element Number: 0672 

> Element Type: ID 

> Field Length: 4 

> Related Options: 

1974 Accelerated promotion 


1975 Continuous promotion 


1976 Probationary promotion 


1973 Regular promotion 


1977 Social promotion 


1978 Variable progress 


9999 Other 


Score Results 

> Definition: The description of a meaningful raw score or statistical expression of 

the performance of a student or group of students on an assessment. 

> Element Number: 0259 

> Element Type: AN 

> Field Length: 35 

Service Setting 

> Definition: The setting and circumstance in which a student is served. (e.g., the 

educational placement of the student). 

124 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
> Element Number: 0307 

> Element Type: ID 

> Field Length: 4 

> Related Options: 

0127 Early intervention classroom/center 


0128 Homebound placement instruction 


0129 Hospital placement instruction 


0140 Itinerant services outside the home 


0356 Outpatient service facility 


0132 Private residential placement 


0358 Private separate day school placement 


0134 Public residential placement 


0135 Public separate day school placement 


0365 Regular nursery school/child care center 


0130 Regular school campus/regular class placement 


0756 Residential facility 


0136 Resource room placement (pullout program) 


0367 Respite care 


0143 Reverse mainstream setting 


0137 Separate class placement 


0364 Short-term detention facility 


Sex 

> Definition: A person‘s gender. 

> Element Number: 0851 

> Element Type: ID 

> Field Length: 4 

> Related Options: 

1631 Female 


1632 Male 


Teaching Assignment 

> Definition: The teaching field taught by an individual. 

> Element Number: 0436 

> Element Type: ID 

> Field Length: 4 

> Related Options: See Teaching Field or Area Authorized 

Teaching Credential Type 

> Definition: An indication of the category of a legal document giving authorization 

to perform teaching assignment services. 

> Element Number: 0394 

> Element Type: ID 

> Field Length: 4 

> Related Options: 

1229 Emergency 


1234 Intern 


1226 Master 


1230 Nonrenewable 


1223 Probationary/initial 


Appendix D: Data Elements Used to Create Indicators 125 
1225 Professional 

1224 Provisional 

1222 Regular/standard 

1231 Retired 

1227 Specialist 

1232 Substitute 

1233 Teacher assistant 

1228 Temporary 

9999 Other 

Teaching Field or Area Authorized 

> Definition: An indication of a teaching field within which an individual is authorized 

to teach by an active teaching credential. In a departmentalized organization, a 

teaching field is a major subdivision of the educational program such as language 

arts, mathematics, music, distributive education, or physical education. In a nondepartmentalized situation or in a self-contained classroom, a general teaching level such as 

elementary or secondary may be the most accurate designation of a teaching field. 

> Element Number: 0421 

> Element Type: ID 

> Field Length: 4 

> Related Options: 

1305 Accounting 

1362 Agriculture or natural resources 

1333 American Indian/Native American studies 

1334 Anthropology 

1311 Architecture or environmental design 

1150 Area, ethnic, and cultural studies 

1348 Autism 

1346 Basic skills or remedial education 

0251 Bilingual education 

1325 Biology or life science 

1306 Business and management 

1363 Business/office 

1364 Career education 

1326 Chemistry 

1315 Chinese 

1335 Civics 

1153 Communications technologies 

1324 Computer Science 

1366 Cosmetology 

0068 Curriculum and instruction 

0684 Dance 

1349 Deaf and hard of hearing 

1350 Developmentally delayed 

1312 Drama/theater 

1296 Early childhood 

1351 Early childhood special education 

1327 Earth/space science/geology 

1336 Economics 

0097 Educational administration 

0120 Educational psychology 

1304 Elementary 

1352 Emotionally disturbed or behavior disorders 

1157 Engineering 

126 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
0256 English as a Second Language 

1162 English language and literature/letters 

1308 English or language arts 

1367 Family and consumer science (home economics) 

1368 Food services 

2371 Foreign language and literature 

1316 French 

1328 General science 

0547 Geography 

1317 German 

2381 Gifted and talented 

0302 Guidance counseling 

1329 Health education 

1369 Health professions and occupations 

0550 History 

1337 Humanities 

1318 Italian 

1319 Japanese 

1309 Journalism/communications 

0805 Kindergarten 

1320 Latin 

1338 Law 

1353 Learning disabilities 

1163 Liberal arts and sciences, general studies, and humanities 

1164 Library science 

1166 Mathematics 

1354 Mentally disabled 

2400 Middle 

1355 Mildly/moderately disabled 

0557 Military science 

0558 Multi/interdisciplinary studies 

1313 Music 

1356 Orthopedically impaired 

9999 Other 

1344 Other area or ethnic studies 

1307 Other business 

1323 Other languages 

1332 Other natural sciences 

1345 Other social studies/social sciences 

1361 Other special education 

1371 Other vocational/technical education 

1339 Philosophy 

0559 Physical education 

1330 Physical science 

1331 Physics 

1340 Political science and government 

0789 Prekindergarten 

1181 Psychology 

1183 Public administration and services 

0560 Reading 

1342 Religion 

1321 Russian 

2403 Secondary 

1357 Severely/profoundly disabled 

Appendix D: Data Elements Used to Create Indicators 127 
0563 Social studies 

1343 Sociology 

1322 Spanish 

2043 Special education 

1310 Speech 

1358 Speech/language impaired 

1370 Trades and industry (e.g., CADD, electronics repair, mechanics, precision 

production) 


1359 Traumatically brain-injured 


1314 Visual arts 


1360 Visually impaired
 

Total Days in Session 

> Definition: The total number of days in a given session. Also included are days on which 

the education institution facility is closed and the student body as a whole is engaged in 

planned activities off-campus under the guidance and direction of staff members. 

> Element Number: 0285 

> Element Type: N 

> Field Length: 3 

Transportation Status 

> Definition: Information about whether or not a student is transported to and/or 

from school or receives services, aid, or payment in lieu of transportation. 

> Element Number: 0719 

> Element Type: ID 

> Field Length: 4 

> Related Options: 

2064 Not transported 


2063 Provided room, board, or payment in lieu of transportation 


2060 Transported at public expense 


2061 Transported at reduced public expense 


2062 Transported, but not at public expense 


9999 Other 


Unique Course Code 

> Definition: A unique number that identifies the classroom, the subjects taught, and 

the instructors that are assigned. 

> Element Number: 0292 

> Element Type: AN 

> Field Length: 30 

Years of Prior Teaching Experience 

> Definition: The total number of years that an individual has previously held a 

teaching position in one or more education institutions. 

> Element Number: 0438 

> Element Type: N 

> Field Length: 2.1 

128 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Appendix E: 

Additional Resources 

Appendix E lists related resources, including web materials, available from 

the National Forum on Education Statistics, the National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES), and other organizations. 

Accountability Mechanisms in Big City School Systems. 

ERIC/CUE Digest No. 71. 

http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9220/big.htm 

Accountability has always been a basic concept in public education, although 

ideas about how to accomplish it have changed. In recent years, the urgent need 

to improve big city schools has been a powerful incentive for the adoption of 

accountability systems. This digest explores the strengths and weaknesses of 

various accountability tools, the use and misuse of indicators, and ways to create 

genuine accountability at the school level. 

Facilities Information Management: A Guide for State and Local 

Education Agencies (NCES 2003–400) 

National Forum on Education Statistics (2003) 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC 

http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2003400.asp 

This free Guide provides a framework for identifying a basic set of school facilities 

data elements and definitions that will meet the information needs of school and 

community decisionmakers, school facility managers, and the general public. It 

presents recommendations for designing and maintaining an information system 

about the condition, design, use, management, and financing of elementary/ 

secondary education facilities. Commonly used measures, data elements, and a 

list of additional resources for the practitioner are also included. 

Forum Guide to Building a Culture of Quality Data: A School and 

District Resource (NCES 2005–801) 

National Forum on Education Statistics (2005) 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC 

http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2005801.asp 

This free Guide asserts that good data, like good students, come from schools. While 

it is undeniably harder to teach a student than it is to collect statistics, certain procedures can help to achieve goals in both cases. Recently, there has been a 

growing awareness that effective teaching, efficient schools, and quality data are 

linked. The quality of information used to develop an instructional plan, run a 

school, plan a budget, or place a student in a class depends on the school data clerk, 

teacher, counselor, and/or school secretary who enter data into a computer. With that 

in mind, the focus of this report is on data entry—getting things right at the source. 

Forum Guide to Protecting the Privacy of Student Information: State and 

Local Education Agencies (NCES 2004–330) 

National Forum on Education Statistics (2004) 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC 

http://nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2004330.asp 

Appendix E: Additional Resources Appendix E 129 
This free Guide presents a general overview of privacy laws and professional 

practices that apply to information collected for, and maintained in, student 

records. The document also provides an overview of key principles and concepts 

governing student privacy; summarizes federal privacy laws including recent 

changes; identifies issues concerning the release of information to both parents 

and external organizations; and suggests good data management practices for 

schools, districts, and state education agencies.. 

Forum Unified Education Technology Suite 

National Forum on Education Statistics (2005) 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/tech_suite/ 

This free resource combines material from four previously published National 

Center for Education Statistics/National Forum on Education Statistics publications 

(Safeguarding Your Technology, Technology @ Your Fingertips, Technology in Schools, 

and Weaving a Secure Web Around Education) into one comprehensive document 

that will be updated periodically as an ongoing web resource. The document 

presents a practical, comprehensive, and tested approach to assessing, acquiring, 

instituting, managing, securing, and using technology in education settings. 

Guide to Effective Accountability Reporting 

Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington DC 

http://www.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=56 

To assist state and local educators, the Council of Chief State School Officers 

(CCSSO) developed this monograph through the Accountability Systems and 

Reporting State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (ASR SCASS). 

It is intended to serve as a resource for State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Local 

Education Agencies (LEAs) responsible for producing state, district, or school 

report cards of the type required under many state or district accountability 

systems, as well as under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). This 

Guide does not present an academic discussion about the nature of indicators 

and indicator systems, nor is it meant to cover the broad range of accountability 

issues in its entirety. It is meant to provide a resource for agencies, and to spur 

the thought of practitioners, as accountability reporting systems are tooled to 

meet the requirements of NCLB. 

Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures 

(Third Edition) 

Author: David Sheskin (2003) 

Chapman and Hall/CRC: Boca Raton 

This document offers students and researchers practical information for analysis 

and research. It emphasizes statistical application over theory, and examines over 

130 statistical procedures and tests. 

HyperStat Online: An Introductory Statistics Textbook and Online 

Tutorial for Help in Statistics 

Author: David M. Lane (2003) 

http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/ 

This resource is an online introductory statistics textbook and tutorial. 

Monitoring School Quality: An Indicators Report (NCES 2001–030) 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001030 

130 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
This free NCES report explores why some schools may be better than others at 

helping students learn. It reviews 13 characteristics of schools, classrooms, and 

teachers that are most likely related to school quality and student learning. For 

each indicator, the report identifies where national data are currently available and 

reliable. It assesses the current status of our schools by examining and critiquing 

these national indicator data. The report is designed for policymakers, researchers, 

and others interested in assessing the strength of our schools. While it is relevant 

for those interested in standards or accountability, it is not about test scores and is 

not a guide for education reform. 

NCES Handbooks Online 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/handbook/index.asp 

The free NCES Handbooks Online define standard education terms for students, 

staff, schools, LEAs, intermediate education agencies, and SEAs. They are intended 

to serve as reference documents for public and private organizations (including 

education institutions and early childhood centers), as well as education researchers 

and other users of education data. This web-based tool allows users to view and 

download Handbook information via an electronic table of contents, a drill-down 

finder, element-name and first-letter searches, and advanced query options. 

Practical Problems in Educational Measurement 

Author: Robert L. Ebel (1980) 

DC Heath and Company: Lexington, MA 

This document presents a brief introduction to the practical application of educational 

tests and measurement techniques. It addresses topics such as accountability, testing 

bias, grading, and standard tests. 

Safety in Numbers: Collecting and Using Crime, Violence, and Discipline 

Incident Data to Make a Difference in Schools (NCES 2002–312) 

National Forum on Education Statistics (2002) 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC 

http://www.nces.ed.gov/forum/pub_2002312.asp 

This free resource is designed for use by school, district, and state staff to improve 

the effectiveness of their efforts to collect and use disciplinary incident data. It 

provides recommendations on what types of data to collect, why it is critical to 

collect such data, and how the data maybe used to improve school safety and 

answer policy questions relating to school improvement and the safety of students. 

School District Demographics 

Developed under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Education National 

Center for Education Statistics 

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sdds/index.asp 

The School District Demographics (SDD) is an electronic library containing 

social, economic and administrative data for each of the 15,274 public school 

districts in the United States. It contains the most comprehensive demographic 

database of the nation‘s children ever developed. The SDD enables users to: 

examine the demographics, operations, and finances of any school district; assess 

special needs of the children and households served; plan for growth or decline 

in student membership; compare characteristics of one school district to another; 

locate districts within a region with certain characteristics; draw a thematic map 

to examine geographic distributions; extract data that may be manipulated and 

used with other data; and use reference features as a handy electronic library. 

Appendix E: Additional Resources 131 
Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology 

Authors: Gene V. Glass and Kenneth D. Hopkins (1984) 

Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ 

This document is written for students who hope to improve their functional 

literacy in the field of statistics, develop skills in statistical methods, and apply statistics as a part of a broader research program. 

Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System 

http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/index.htm 

The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) was developed in 1990 

to monitor priority health risk behaviors that contribute markedly to the leading 

causes of death, disability, and social problems among youth and adults in the 

United States. These behaviors, often established during childhood and early 

adolescence, include tobacco use, unhealthy dietary behaviors, inadequate 

physical activity, alcohol and other drug use, sexual behaviors that contribute 

to unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV 

infection), and behaviors that contribute to unintentional injuries and violence. 

The YRBSS includes national, state, and local school-based surveys of representative 

samples of 9th through 12th grade students. 

132 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Alphabetical Index
 

Absence Rate (Class), Teacher, 19, 

67, 75 

Academic Proficiency (see 

Assessment, Percentage Students 

Demonstrating Proficient Or 

Advanced Performance) 

ACT Participation (see College 

Entrance Testing, Percentage Graduate 

Participation) 

ACT Scores (see College Entrance 

Testing, Student Average Score) 

ADA (see Average Daily Attendance) 

Additional Information, xiii, 15 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), 

Percentage Local Education 

Agencies (LEAs) In Improvement 

Categories, 21, 23, 25, 29, 30, 31 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), 

Percentage Schools In Improvement 

Categories, 21, 23, 25, 29, 30, 31, 92 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), 

Percentage Schools Making, 21, 23, 

25, 29, 30, 31 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 

Status, 26, 118 

ADM (see Average Daily Membership) 

Administrator:Teacher Ratio (see 

Teacher:Administrator Ratio) 

Advanced Course Completion 

Patterns [see Courses (Advanced), 

Percentage Student Completion] 

Advanced Course Enrollment 

Patterns (see Courses (Advanced), 

Percentage Student Enrollment) 

Alcohol-Related Incidents Reported 

Per 100 Students, 27, 45, 48, 55, 68, 

84, 86, 88, 94 

Allotted Instructional Time (see 

Instructional Time, Allotted) 

Alpha/Numeric, 117 

Alternative Environment 

Placements (see Placement of 

Students With Disabilities) 

Annual Dropout Rate (see High 

School Dropout Rate, Annual Student) 

Appropriately Certified Teachers 

(see “Highly Qualified” Teachers, 

Percentage) 

Appropriately “Qualified” 

Paraprofessionals (see “Qualified” 

Paraprofessionals, Percentage) 

Assessment, Average Student Score, 

21, 23, 25, 29, 30, 31, 75 

Assessment, Percentage Student 

Participation, 21, 23, 25, 29, 30, 31 

Assessment, Percentage Students 

Demonstrating Proficient or 

Advanced Performance, 21, 23, 25, 

29, 30, 31 

Assessment Performance (see 

Assessment, Percentage Students 

Demonstrating Proficient Or 

Advanced Performance) 

Assessment Results (see Assessment, 

Average Student Score) 

Attendance, Average Daily (see 

Average Daily Attendance) 

Average, 108
 

Average Class Size (see Class Size,
 

Average)
 

Average Daily Attendance (ADA), 28,
 

41, 43, 46, 48, 49, 56, 62, 64, 77,
 

78, 80, 83, 85, 88, 92, 93, 95, 101,
 

102, 103
 

Average Daily Membership (ADM),
 

28, 41, 43, 46, 48, 49, 56, 62, 64, 77,
 

78, 80, 83, 85, 88, 92, 93, 95, 101,
 

102, 103
 

Average Duration Of Out-Of-School
 

Suspension Incidents [see Suspensions
 

(Out-of-School), Average Duration]
 

Average Experience Level Of
 

Teachers (see Experience Level,
 

Teacher)
 

Average Student Assessment Score
 

(see Assessment, Average Student 

Score) 

Average Student Score On College 

Entrance Testing (see College 

Entrance Testing, Student Average 

Score) 

AYP Status (see Adequate Yearly 

Progress Status) 

Burden, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 82 

Caveats and Cautions, xiii, 15 

Certification, Percentage Classes 

Taught By Teachers Holding 

Emergency, Provisional, Or Out-OfField, 33, 51, 54, 54, 65, 75 

Class Absence Rate, 19 

Class Size, Average, 35, 69, 77, 83, 91 

Cohort, 57, 63, 106 

Cohort Dropout Rate (see High 

School Dropout Rate, Cohort Rate) 

College Entrance Testing (see College 

Entrance Testing, Percentage Graduate 

Participation and College Entrance 

Testing, Student Average Score) 

College Entrance Testing, Percentage 

Graduate Participation, 37, 39 

College Entrance Testing, Student 

Average Score, 37, 39 

College Readiness Testing (see College 

Entrance Testing, Percentage Graduate 

Participation and College Entrance 

Testing, Student Average Score) 

Commonly Reported Subgroups, 

xiii, 15 

Completion Rate (see High School 

Completion/Graduation Rate, Cohort 

Rate, and High School Completion/ 

Graduation Rate, Leaver Rate) 

Components, xiii, 15
 

Computer:Student Ratio (see
 

Student:Instructional Computer Ratio)
 

Confidence Intervals, 110
 

Context Indicators, xi, xii, xv, 1, 2,
 

3, 4, 5, 15
 

Contract Days of Service per Year,
 

102, 104, 118
 

Cost-Effectiveness, 6, 8
 

Count of Student Membership (e.g.,
 

October 1), 28, 41, 43, 46, 48, 49,
 

56, 62, 64, 77, 78, 80, 83, 85, 88,
 

89, 92, 93, 95, 101, 102, 103
 

Course Code, 41, 43, 96, 98, 118
 

Course Title, 19, 33, 34, 35, 36, 118
 

Courses (Advanced), Percentage
 

Student Completion, 41, 43
 

Courses (Advanced), Percentage
 

Student Enrollment, 41, 43
 

Criminal Offense Incidents Per 100
 

Students, 28, 45, 48, 55, 68, 84, 86,
 

88, 94
 

Index 133 
Cross References, xiii, 15 

Cumulative Enrollment, 28, 41, 43, 

46, 48, 49, 56, 62, 64, 77, 78, 80, 83, 

85, 88, 92, 93, 95, 101, 102, 103 

Data, 106 

Data Elements, 117 

Date, 117 

Definition, xiii, 15 

Disabilities, Placement Of Students 

With (see Placement of Students With 

Disabilities) 

Disability Status, xiv, 69, 119
 

Disciplinary Action, 56, 85, 88, 89,
 

119
 

Disciplinary Action End Date, 86,
 

87, 120
 

Disciplinary Action Start Date, 86,
 

87, 120
 

Display Suggestions, xiii, 15, 111
 

Dropout Rate (see High School
 

Dropout Rate, Annual Student and 

High School Dropout Rate, Cohort 

Rate) 

Drug-Related Incidents Reported 

Per 100 Students, 28, 45, 47, 55, 68, 

84, 56, 88, 94 

Economic Disadvantage Status, xiv 

Education Indicator, xi, xv, 1, 2, 3, 

4, 10, 15 

Education Level, Mother, 49 

Education Level, Parent (see 

Education Level, Mother) 

Education Level, Teacher, 33, 51, 

54, 65, 75, 91 

Element Number, 117 

Element Type, 117 

Employment Start Date, 76, 120 

English Proficiency, xiv 

Enrollment (see Cumulative 

Enrollment) 

Enrollment Status, 79, 102, 103, 120 

Error, 109 

Ethnicity (see Race/Ethnicity) 

Excess Public School Capacity (see 

School Capacity, Percentage Used) 

Excess Public School Membership 

(see School Capacity, Percent Used) 

Exit/Withdrawal Type, 37, 58, 60, 

62, 64, 120 

Experience Level, Teacher, 33, 51, 

65, 75, 91 

Expulsion Incidents Per 100 

Students, 28, 45, 48, 55, 68, 84, 86, 

88, 94 

Faculty/Staff Absence Rate [see 

Absence Rate (Class),Teacher] 

Field Length, 118 

Financial Resources, 16 

Floating Decimal, 117 

Formula, xiii, 15 

FTE (see Full-Time Equivalency) 

Full-Time Equivalency (FTE), 19, 

33, 51, 52, 53, 54, 65, 66, 73, 74, 

75, 76, 82, 83, 90, 91, 121 

Grade Equivalents, 106 

Graduation Rate (see High School 

Completion/Graduation Rate, Cohort 

Rate and High School Completion/ 

Graduation Rate, Leaver Rate) 

Graphing, 113, 114 

High School Completion/Graduation 

Rate, Cohort Rate, 57, 60, 61, 64, 72 

High School Completion/Graduation 

Rate, Leaver Rate, 58, 59, 61, 64, 72 

High School Dropout Rate, Annual 

Student, 58, 60, 61, 64, 72, 93 

High School Dropout Rate, Cohort 

Rate, 58, 60, 61, 63, 72, 93 

Highest Level Of Education 

Completed, 49, 52, 66, 73, 121 

“Highly Qualified” Teachers, 

Percentage, 33, 51, 54, 65, 73, 75, 91 

Identification System, 37, 39, 40, 

122 

Identifier, 118 

Indicator Layout, xiii 

Instructional Computer:Student 

Ratio (see Student:Instructional 

Computer Ratio) 

Instructional Minutes, 67, 123 

Instructional Time, Allotted, 19, 67 

Instructional Time Per Year, 67 

Job Classification, 52, 54, 66, 73, 

76, 83, 91, 123 

Leave Substitution Status, 19, 123 

Mean, 108 

Median, 108 

Membership, Average Daily (see 

Average Daily Membership) 

Membership, Student Count (e.g., 

October 1) [see Count of Student 

Membership (e.g., October 1)] 

Migrant Status, xiv 

Mobility Rate, 79 

Mode, 108 

Mother’s Education Level (see 

Education Level, Mother) 

Mother’s Highest Level Of 

Education Completed (see Education 

Level, Mother) 

Noninstructional Service Days, 

Number Of Teacher, 104 

Nonpromotion Reason, 72, 123 

Nontraditional Completers Of 

Vocational/Technical Programs 

(see Vocational/Technical Programs, 

Percentage Nontraditional Completers) 

Nontraditional Participation Rate 

In Vocational/Technical Programs 

(see Vocational/Technical Programs, 

Percentage Nontraditional 

Participants) 

Normal Curve Equivalents, 107
 

Number Of Credits Received, 41,
 

43, 96, 124
 

Number Of Days In Attendance, 93,
 

101, 124
 

Number Of Expulsion Incidents Per
 

100 Students (see Expulsion Incidents
 

Per 100 Students)
 

Number Of Noninstructional
 

Teacher Service Days, 104
 

Number Of Out-Of-School
 

Suspension Actions Per 100
 

Students (see Suspensions (Out-Of-


School), Actions Per 100 Students)
 

Number Of Service Days, 102
 

Numeric, 118
 

Observation, 106
 

Opportunity To Learn, 16
 

Out-Of-Field Teaching Assignments
 

(see Certification, Percentage Classes 

Taught By Teachers Holding 

Emergency, Provisional, Or Out-OfField) 

Parent’s Education Level (see 

Education Level, Mother) 

134 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Parent’s Highest Level Of Education 

Completed (see Education Level, 

Mother) 

Participation Rate In College 

Entrance Testing (see College 

Entrance Testing, Percentage 

Graduate Participation) 

Participation Rate In Student 

Assessment (see Assessment, 

Percentage Student Participation) 

Percentage, 107
 

Percentage Classes Taught By
 

Teachers With Emergency,
 

Provisional, Or Out-Of-Field
 

Certificates (see Certification,
 

Percentage Classes Taught By
 

Teachers Holding Emergency,
 

Provisional, Or Out-Of-Field)
 

Percentage Graduate Participation 

In College Entrance Testing (see 

College Entrance Testing, Percentage 

Graduate Participation) 

Percentage “Highly Qualified” 

Teachers (see “Highly Qualified” 

Teachers, Percentage) 

Percentage LEAs In AYP School 

Improvement Categories [see 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), 

Percentage Local Education Agencies 

(LEAs) In Improvement Categories] 

Percentage Mothers With A High 

School Degree (see Education Level, 

Mother) 

Percentage Nontraditional 

Completers Of Vocational/Technical 

Programs (see Vocational/Technical 

Programs, Percentage Nontraditional 

Completers) 

Percentage Nontraditional 

Participating In Vocational/Technical 

Programs (see Vocational/Technical 

Programs, Percentage Nontraditional 

Participants) 

Percentage “Qualified” 

Paraprofessionals (see “Qualified” 

Paraprofessionals, Percentage) 

Percentage School Capacity Used 

(see School Capacity, Percent Used) 

Percentage Schools Identified As 

“Persistently Dangerous,” (see 

“Persistently Dangerous” Schools, 

Percentage) 

Percentage Schools In AYP 

Improvement Categories (see 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), 

Percentage Schools In Improvement 

Categories) 

Percentage Schools Making 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 

(see Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), 

Percentage Schools Making) 

Percentage Students Completing 

(Advanced) Courses [see Courses 

(Advanced), Percentage Student 

Completion] 

Percentage Students Demonstrating 

Proficient Or Advanced 

Performance (see Assessment, 

Percentage Students Demonstrating 

Proficient or Advanced Performance) 

Percentage Students Enrolling In 

(Advanced) Courses (see Courses 

(Advanced), Percentage Student 

Enrollment) 

Percentage Students Participating 

In Assessment (see Assessment, 

Percentage Student Participation) 

Percentage Students Receiving 

Out-Of-School Suspensions (see 

Suspensions (Out-Of-School), 

Percentage Students Receiving) 

Percentage Students Receiving 

Transportation Services (see 

Transportation Services, Percentage 

Students Receiving) 

Percentage Teachers With Advanced 

Degrees (see Education Level, 

Teacher) 

Percentage Teachers With 

Emergency, Provisional, Or Out-OfField Certificates (see Certification, 

Percentage Classes Taught By 

Teachers Holding Emergency, 

Provisional, Or Out-Of-Field) 

Percentile Ranks, 107
 

Performance Indicators, xi, xv, 1, 2,
 

3, 5, 8
 

Performance Rating, 31, 32, 124
 

“Persistently Dangerous” Schools,
 

Percentage, 28, 45, 48, 55, 68, 75,
 

84, 86, 88, 94
 

Placement Of Students With
 

Disabilities, 69, 92
 

Policy Questions, xiii, 15 

Population, 106 

Presentation Options, 111 

Promotion Rate, Student, 58, 60, 61, 

64, 72, 79 

Promotion Type, 72, 124 

Public Presentation, 13 

“Qualified” Paraprofessionals, 

Percentage, 65, 73 

Race/Ethnicity, xiv 

Random Error, 109 

Random Sample, 106 

Range, 108 

Rank Order, 107 

Rate Of Alcohol-Related Incidents 

Reported (see Alcohol-Related 

Incidents Reported Per 100 Students) 

Rate Of Criminal Offense Incidents 

Reported (see Criminal Offense 

Incidents Reported Per 100 Students) 

Rate Of Drug-Related Incidents 

Reported (see Drug-Related Incidents 

Reported Per 100 Students) 

Rate Of Violent Incidents Reported 

(see Violent Incidents Reported Per 

100 Students) 

Ratio, 107 

Recommended Use, xiii, 15 

Related Indicators, xiii, 15 

Related Options, 118 

Reliability, 7 

Reported Alcohol-Related Incidents 

Per 100 Students (see Alcohol-Related 

Incidents Reported Per 100 Students) 

Reported Criminal Offense 

Incidents Per 100 Students (see 

Criminal Offense Incidents Reported 

Per 100 students) 

Reported Drug-Related Incidents 

Per 100 Students (see Drug-Related 

Incidents Reported Per 100 Students) 

Reported Violent Incidents Per 100 

Students (see Violent Incidents 

Reported Per 100 Students) 

Reporting, 12, 111 

Retention Rate, Student (see 

Promotion Rate, Student) 

Retention Rate, Teacher, 19, 51, 54, 

65, 75, 91 

Index 135 
Sample, 106 

SAT Participation (see College 

Entrance Testing, Percentage 

Graduate Participation) 

SAT Scores (see College Entrance 

Testing, Student Average Score) 

School AYP Status [see Adequate 

Yearly Progress (AYP), Percentage 

Schools In Improvement Categories] 

School Capacity, Percentage Used,
 

35, 77
 

School Climate, 16
 

School District AYP Status [see
 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP),
 

Percentage Local Education Agencies
 

(LEAs) In Improvement Categories]
 

School Enrollment Capacity, 77
 

School Performance, 16
 

School Violence Incidents Reported
 

(see Violent Incidents Reported Per 

100 Students) 

School Year, Length Of Student, 104
 

School Year Stability Rate (see 

Stability Rate, Student Enrollment) 

Schoolwide Truancy Rate (see 

Truancy Rate, Schoolwide) 

Score Results, 29, 31, 39, 66, 73, 124
 

Securing Data, 12
 

Service Setting, 69, 124
 

Sex, xiv, 96, 98, 125
 

Stability Rate, Student Enrollment,
 

79
 

Staff Characteristics, 16
 

Staff:Student Ratio (see Student:Staff
 

Ratio) 

Standard Deviation, 109
 

Standard Error, 110
 

Standard Scores, 107
 

Stanines, 107
 

Statistical Integrity, 13
 

Statistics, 105
 

Student Academic Proficiency, 31
 

Student:Instructional Computer
 

Ratio, 80
 

Student Participation Rate In
 

Assessment (see Assessment,
 

Percentage Student Participation)
 

Student Participation Rate In 

College Entrance Testing (see College 

Entrance Testing, Percentage 

Graduate Participation) 

Student Performance, 29
 

Student Promotion, 72
 

Student Retention Rate, 72
 

Student/School Characterisitics, 16
 

Student Stability Rate, 79
 

Student:Staff Ratio, 35, 82, 91
 

Student:Teacher Ratio (see
 

Student:Staff Ratio)
 

Student Transportation (see
 

Transportation Services, Percentage
 

Students Receiving)
 

Students With Disabilities Placement 

(see Placement Of Students With 

Disabilities) 

Suspensions (Out-Of-School),
 

Actions Per 100 Students, 28, 45,
 

48, 55, 68, 54, 86, 88, 94
 

Suspensions (Out-Of-School),
 

Average Duration, 28, 45, 48, 55,
 

68, 54, 86, 88, 94
 

Suspensions (Out-Of-School),
 

Percentage Students Receiving, 


28, 45, 48, 55, 68, 54, 86, 88, 94
 

Synthetic High School Cohort
 

Dropout Rate, 64
 

Systematic Error, 109
 

Teacher Absence Rate [see Absence
 

Rate (Class), Teacher]
 

Teacher:Administrator Ratio, 83, 90
 

Teacher Education Level (see 

Education Level, Teacher) 

Teacher Experience Level (see 

Experience Level, Teacher) 

Teacher Retention Rate (see 

Retention Rate, Teacher) 

Teacher’s Highest Level Of 

Education Completed (see Education 

Level, Teacher) 

Teaching Assignment, 33, 66, 125
 

Teaching Assignments Out-Of-Field
 

(see Certification, Percentage Classes 

Taught By Teachers Holding 

Emergency, Provisional, Or Out-OfField) 

Teaching Credential Type, 33, 66,
 

125
 

Teaching Field Or Area Authorized,
 

33, 126
 

Test Results, 29
 

Time Of Instruction, 67
 

Timeliness, 8
 

Total Days In Session, 93, 101, 103,
 

128
 

Total Number Of Days Out-Of-


School Suspension Incidents [see
 

Suspensions (Out-Of-School), Average
 

Duration]
 

Training Users, 11
 

Transportation At Public Expense
 

(see Transportation Services, 

Percentage Students Receiving) 

Transportation Services, Percentage 

Students Receiving, 92
 

Transportation Status (see
 

Transportation Services, Percentage
 

Students Receiving)
 

Truancy Rate, Schoolwide, 93, 128
 

Unique Course Code, 19, 33, 34,
 

35, 36, 128
 

Utility, 6
 

Validity, 7
 

Variables, 106
 

Variance, 109
 

Violence In Schools (see Violent
 

Incidents Reported Per 100 Students) 

Violent Incidents Reported Per 100
 

Students, 28, 45, 48, 55, 68, 84, 86,
 

88, 94
 

Vocational/Technical Programs,
 

Percentage Nontraditional
 

Completers, 96, 98
 

Vocational/Technical Programs,
 

Percentage Nontraditional
 

Participants, 96, 98
 

Years of Prior Teaching Experience,
 

54, 128
 

Z-Scores, 107
 

136 Forum Guide to Education Indicators 
Topical Index 

Financial Resources 

Class Size, Average, 35, 69, 77, 

83, 91 

School Capacity, Percentage Used, 

35, 77 

Student:Instructional Computer 

Ratio, 80 

Student:Staff Ratio, 35, 82, 91 

Teacher:Administrator Ratio, 83, 90 

Transportation Services, Percentage 

Students Receiving, 92 

Opportunity to Learn 

Absence Rate (Class), Teacher, 19, 

67, 75 

Certification, Percentage Classes 

Taught By Teachers Holding 

Emergency, Provisional, Or Out-OfField, 33, 51, 54, 54, 65, 75 

Class Size, Average, 35, 69, 77, 83, 91 

Courses (Advanced), Percentage 

Student Completion, 41, 43 

Courses (Advanced), Percentage 

Student Enrollment, 41, 43 

Experience Level, Teacher, 33, 51, 65, 

75, 91 

Expulsion Incidents Per 100 

Students, 28, 45, 48, 55, 68, 84, 86, 

88, 94 

High School Completion/Graduation 

Rate, Cohort Rate, 57, 60, 61, 64, 72 

High School Completion/Graduation 

Rate, Leaver Rate, 58, 59, 61, 64, 72 

High School Dropout Rate, Annual 

Student, 58, 60, 61, 64, 72, 93 

High School Dropout Rate, Cohort 

Rate, 58, 60, 61, 63, 72, 93 

“Highly Qualified” Teachers, 

Percentage, 33, 51, 54, 65, 73, 75, 91 

Instructional Time, Allotted, 19, 67 

Placement Of Students With 

Disabilities, 69, 92 

“Qualified” Paraprofessionals, 

Percentage, 65, 73 

Stability Rate, Student Enrollment, 79 

Student:Instructional Computer 

Ratio, 80 

Student:Staff Ratio, 35, 82, 91
 

Suspensions (Out-Of-School),
 

Actions Per 100 Students, 28, 45,
 

48, 55, 68, 54, 86, 88, 94
 

Suspensions (Out-Of-School),
 

Average Duration, 28, 45, 48, 55,
 

68, 54, 86, 88, 94
 

Suspensions (Out-Of-School),
 

Percentage Students Receiving, 28,
 

45, 48, 55, 68, 54, 86, 88, 94
 

Truancy Rate, Schoolwide, 93, 128
 

Vocational/Technical Programs,
 

Percentage Nontraditional
 

Completers, 96, 98
 

Vocational/Technical Programs,
 

Percentage Nontraditional
 

Participants, 96, 98
 

School Climate 

Absence Rate (Class), Teacher, 19, 

67, 75 

Alcohol-Related Incidents Reported 

Per 100 Students, 27, 45, 48, 55, 68, 

84, 86, 88, 94 

Class Size, Average, 35, 69, 77, 83, 91 

Criminal Offense Incidents Per 100 

Students, 28, 45, 48, 55, 68, 84, 86, 

88, 94 

Drug-Related Incidents Reported 

Per 100 Students, 28, 45, 47, 55, 68, 

84, 56, 88, 94 

Experience Level, Teacher, 33, 51, 65, 

75, 91 

Expulsion Incidents Per 100 

Students, 28, 45, 48, 55, 68, 84, 86, 

88, 94 

Instructional Time, Allotted, 19, 67 

“Persistently Dangerous” Schools, 

Percentage, 28, 45, 48, 55, 68, 75, 

84, 86, 88, 94 

Placement Of Students With 

Disabilities, 69, 92 

Stability Rate, Student Enrollment, 79 

Suspensions (Out-Of-School), 

Actions Per 100 Students, 28, 45, 

48, 55, 68, 54, 86, 88, 94 

Suspensions (Out-Of-School), 

Average Duration, 28, 45, 48, 55, 

68, 54, 86, 88, 94 

Suspensions (Out-Of-School), 

Percentage Students Receiving, 28, 

45, 48, 55, 68, 54, 86, 88, 94 

Truancy Rate, Schoolwide, 93, 128 

Violent Incidents Reported Per 100 

Students, 28, 45, 48, 55, 68, 84, 86, 

88, 94 

School Performance 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), 

Percentage Local Education 

Agencies (LEAs) In Improvement 

Categories, 21, 23, 25, 29, 30, 31 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), 

Percentage Schools In Improvement 

Categories, 21, 23, 25, 29, 30, 31, 

92 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), 

Percentage Schools Making, 21, 23, 

25, 29, 30, 31 

Assessment, Average Student Score, 

21, 23, 25, 29, 30, 31, 75 

Assessment, Percentage Student 

Participation, 21, 23, 25, 29, 30, 31 

Assessment, Percentage Students 

Demonstrating Proficient or 

Advanced Performance, 21, 23, 25, 

29, 30, 31 

College Entrance Testing, 

Percentage Graduate Participation, 

37, 39 

College Entrance Testing, Student 

Average Score, 37, 39 

Courses (Advanced), Percentage 

Student Completion, 41, 43 

Courses (Advanced), Percentage 

Student Enrollment, 41, 43 

Expulsion Incidents Per 100 

Students, 28, 45, 48, 55, 68, 84, 86, 

88, 94 

High School Completion/Graduation 

Rate, Cohort Rate, 57, 60, 61, 64, 72 

High School Completion/Graduation 

Rate, Leaver Rate, 58, 59, 61, 64, 72 

Topical Index 137 
High School Dropout Rate, Annual 

Student, 58, 60, 61, 64, 72, 93 

High School Dropout Rate, Cohort 

Rate, 58, 60, 61, 63, 72, 93 

Promotion Rate, Student, 58, 60, 61, 

64, 72, 79 

Suspensions (Out-Of-School), 

Actions Per 100 Students, 28, 45, 

48, 55, 68, 54, 86, 88, 94 

Suspensions (Out-Of-School), 

Average Duration, 28, 45, 48, 55, 

68, 54, 86, 88, 94 

Suspensions (Out-Of-School), 

Percentage Students Receiving, 28, 

45, 48, 55, 68, 54, 86, 88, 94 

Truancy Rate, Schoolwide, 93, 128 

Vocational/Technical Programs, 

Percentage Nontraditional 

Completers, 96, 98 

Student/School Characteristics 

Education Level, Mother, 49 

High School Completion/ 

Graduation Rate, Cohort Rate, 57, 

60, 61, 64, 72 

High School Completion/ 

Graduation Rate, Leaver Rate, 58, 

59, 61, 64, 72 

High School Dropout Rate, Annual 

Student, 58, 60, 61, 64, 72, 93 

High School Dropout Rate, Cohort 

Rate, 58, 60, 61, 63, 72, 93 

Placement Of Students With 

Disabilities, 69, 92 

School Capacity, Percentage Used, 

35, 77 

Stability Rate, Student Enrollment, 79 

Transportation Services, Percentage 

Students Receiving, 92 

Staff Characteristics 

Absence Rate (Class), Teacher, 19, 

67, 75 

Certification, Percentage Classes 

Taught By Teachers Holding 

Emergency, Provisional, Or Out-OfField, 33, 51, 54, 54, 65, 75 

Education Level, Teacher, 33, 51, 

54, 65, 75, 91 

Experience Level, Teacher, 33, 51, 65, 

75, 91 

“Highly Qualified” Teachers, 

Percentage, 33, 51, 54, 65, 73, 75, 91 

“Qualified” Paraprofessionals, 

Percentage, 65, 73 

Retention Rate, Teacher, 19, 51, 54, 

65, 75, 91 

Student:Staff Ratio, 35, 82, 91 

Teacher:Administrator Ratio, 83, 90 

138 Forum Guide to Education Indicators