U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

NCES 2006-302

An Examination of the 

Conditions of School 

Facilities Attended by 

10th-Grade Students in 

2002

E.D. TAB
This page is intentionally blank. 
An Examination of the 

Conditions of School 

Facilities Attended by 

10th-Grade Students in 

2002

E.D. TAB 

October 2005

U.S. Department of Education 

Institute of Education Sciences 

NCES 2006-302 

Mike Planty 

Research Triangle Institute 

Jill F. DeVoe 

Education Statistics Services Institute 

Jeffrey A. Owings 

Kathryn Chandler 

Project Officers 

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

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences 

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Director

National Center for Education Statistics

Mark Schneider

Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and 

reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, 

collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and 

publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local 

education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign 

countries. 

NCES activities are designed to address high-priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete, 

and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high-quality data to the U.S. 

Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the 

general public. Unless specifically noted, all information contained herein is in the public domain. 

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety of 

audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information effectively. If you 

have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. 

Please direct your comments to: 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Institute of Education Sciences 

U.S. Department of Education 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006-5651 

October 2005 

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.

Suggested Citation 

Planty, M., and DeVoe, J.F. (2005). An Examination of the Conditions of School Facilities Attended by 10th-Grade 

Students in 2002 (NCES 2006–302). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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 

Content Contact:

Kathryn Chandler 

Project Officer 

202-502-7486

Kathryn.Chandler@ed.gov
iii 

Acknowledgments

Many people contributed to the production of this report and the 2002 Education 

Longitudinal Study (ELS) Facilities data. From the National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES), we would like to thank Project Officers Jeffrey Owings, Associate Commissioner, and 

Kathryn Chandler, Program Director, from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 

for their support of this project. 

We would like to thank Research Triangle Institute (RTI), and in particular, Steven Ingels 

and Ellen Stutts of RTI, who provided the technical appendix to the ELS: 2002 data, to which we 

made only minor revisions to suit this report. Gerard Rainville, formerly of the Education 

Statistics Services Institute (ESSI), performed many of the statistical tests in this report, and we 

are grateful for his contribution. We would also like to thank Deven Carlson and Margaret 

Noonan of ESSI for their revisions and editorial assistance. 

We would like to acknowledge the comments and suggestions from internal and external 

reviewers. The work done by reviewers from NCES, including Marilyn Seastrom, Bill Fowler, 

and John Wirt, is greatly appreciated. Finally, thanks to Duc-Le To, from the Institute of 

Education Sciences, who gave helpful comments on this report. 
iv

This page is intentionally blank. 
v

Table of Contents 

Section Page 

Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................................iii 

Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ v 

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii 

List of Standard Error Tables.......................................................................................................viii 

List of Figures................................................................................................................................ ix 

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

The Current Study ................................................................................................................... 1 

Topics and Concepts ............................................................................................................... 2 

Sample ..................................................................................................................................... 4 

School-level characteristics ............................................................................................. 4 

Student-level characteristics ............................................................................................ 5 

Selected Findings............................................................................................................................ 6 

School Estimates ..................................................................................................................... 6 

Appearance (cleanliness and disrepair) ............................................................................6 

Safety and security measures............................................................................................7 

Noise level ........................................................................................................................8 

Neighborhood conditions..................................................................................................8 

Student Estimates .................................................................................................................... 9 

Exposure to selected school building appearances .........................................................10 

Exposure to selected school safety and security measures .............................................10 

References..................................................................................................................................... 12 

Figures........................................................................................................................................... 13 

Tables............................................................................................................................................ 17 
vi 

Table of Contents (Continued) 

Section Page 

Appendix A. Technical Notes and Glossary................................................................................. 31 

A.1 Overview of the Technical Appendix............................................................................ 33 

A.2 Overview of ELS:2002.................................................................................................. 33 

A.2.1 Study Objectives ..................................................................................................33 

A.2.2 ELS:2002 Research and Policy Issues.................................................................34 

A.3 Overview of ELS:2002 Facilities Checklist .................................................................. 36 

A.4 Sample Design, Weighting, Response Rates, Standard Errors ..................................... 37 

A.4.1 Sampling ..............................................................................................................37

A.4.2 Weighting.............................................................................................................38

A.4.3 Response Rates ....................................................................................................38 

A.4.4 Survey Standard Errors ........................................................................................40 

A.5 Statistical Procedures..................................................................................................... 40 

A.5.1 Student’s t Statistic...............................................................................................40 

A.6 Glossary—Definitions of Variables Used ..................................................................... 41 

A.7 Appendix A Reference .................................................................................................. 43 

Appendix B. Standard Error Tables.............................................................................................. 45 

Appendix C. Education Longitudinal Study: 2002 Facilities Checklist Questionnaire................ 61 
vii 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

1 Percent of 10th-grade schools, by location within school and by specified physical or 

structural condition: 2002 .............................................................................................. 17 

2 Percent of 10th-grade schools with specified physical or structural condition present, 

by selected school characteristics: 2002 .........................................................................18 

3 Percent of 10th-grade schools with a specified safety and security measures, by 

selected school characteristics: 2002 ..............................................................................19 

4 Percent of 10th-grade schools with varying noise levels, by selected school 

characteristics: 2002........................................................................................................21

5 Percent of 10th-grade schools with a specified condition in the surrounding 

neighborhood, by selected school characteristics: 2002.................................................22 

6 Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with specified physical or structural 

condition present, by selected student characteristics: 2002 ..........................................24 

7 Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with specified safety and security measures, 

by selected student characteristics: 2002 ........................................................................26 

A-1 Unweighted school sampling, eligibility, and participation by sampling stratum: 

2002.................................................................................................................................39 

A-2 Summary of ELS:2002 base-year unit response rates: 2002 ..........................................39 

A-3 ELS:2002 variables: Weighted proportion missing and imputed..................................40 
viii 

List of Standard Error Tables 

Table Page 

S1 Standard errors for table 1: Percent of 10th-grade schools, by location within school 

and by specified physical or structural condition: 2002 .................................................47 

S2 Standard errors for table 2: Percent of 10th-grade schools with specified physical or 

structural condition present, by selected school characteristics: 2002 ...........................48 

S3 Standard errors for table 3: Percent of 10th-grade schools with a specified safety and 

security measures, by selected school characteristics: 2002...........................................49 

S4 Standard errors for table 4: Percent of 10th-grade schools with varying noise levels, 

by selected school characteristics: 2002 .........................................................................51 

S5 Standard errors for table 5: Percent of 10th-grade schools with a specified condition in 

the surrounding neighborhood, by selected school characteristics: 2002.......................52 

S6 Standard errors for table 6: Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with specified 

physical or structural condition present, by selected student characteristics: 2002........54 

S7 Standard errors for table 7: Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with specified 

safety and security measures, by selected student characteristics: 2002 ........................56 
ix 

List of Figures 

Figure Page 

1 Percent of 10th-grade schools with a specified physical or structural condition present, 

by urbanicity: 2002 ........................................................................................................13 

2 Percent of 10th-grade schools with specified safety and security measures, by school 

sector: 2002....................................................................................................................14 

3 Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with a specified physical or structural 

condition present, by student composite achievement test scores: 2002.......................15 

4 Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with specified safety and security measures, 

by race/ethnicity: 2002..................................................................................................16 
x 

This page is intentionally blank. 
1

Introduction 

 During the last decade, the U.S. Department of Education has released reports describing 

and evaluating the physical condition of schools (Lewis et al. 2000; U.S. General Accounting 

Office [GAO] 1995). According to a 1995 report from the General Accounting Office, this 

nation has invested hundreds of billions of dollars on school infrastructure so that children are 

properly educated and prepared for the future in school facilities that are well-maintained, clean, 

safe, and secure (U.S. GAO 1995). 

Decent, safe, and secure facilities are essential to successful educational programs. 

Creating a safe school environment is necessary in order for teachers to teach effectively and for 

students to be receptive to learning. While typical thinking regarding “safe school” 

environments often involves a school that is free of weapons, illegal drugs, student intimidation, 

and theft, other factors regarding the physical condition and appearance of school facilities, such 

as noise levels and cleanliness are important to consider as well. 

In 1995, the GAO concluded that about two-thirds of America’s schools reported that all 

buildings were in adequate condition, with most needing preventative or corrective repair (U.S. 

GAO 1995). The remaining one-third of schools, however, reported the need for extensive 

repair or replacement of buildings. Over half of America’s schools reported one major building 

feature in need of repair or replacement. In addition, about half reported at least one 

unsatisfactory environmental condition in their schools, such as poor ventilation or heating, or 

lighting problems, or poor physical security. 

A 1999 survey of public schools conducted by the U.S. Department of Education showed 

that about one-quarter of schools reported that at least one on-site building was in less-thanadequate condition, one-half reported that at least one building feature was in less-than-adequate 

condition, and about 40 percent reported at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition such 

as lighting, heating, acoustics, or physical security (Lewis et al. 2000). Specifically, 20 percent 

of schools reported that the physical security of their school buildings was unsatisfactory in 

1999. 

Together, the GAO and Department of Education surveys documented the need to take a 

closer look at the conditions of our nation’s schools. Clearly, there are many schools that do not 

have adequate conditions for promoting the safety and security necessary for a positive 

educational experience. 

The Current Study 

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Education Longitudinal Study of 

2002 (ELS:2002) is a longitudinal study that follows the same individuals, a cohort of high 

school students, over time. The facilities instrument was administered as a part of the ELS:2002 

and focused on the conditions of school facilities, including disrepair, cleanliness, safety, and 

security measures. The facilities instrument was administered in order to establish a baseline 

measurement of school conditions for students in the ELS:2002 sample. The intent was to use 
2

this baseline in the examination of student academic success and other long-term outcomes. The 

instrument alone, however, provides a unique opportunity to examine the state of school 

facilities of 10th-graders in 2002. Unlike prior reports that focus on school facilities from an 

administrative or facility manager perspective, the ELS:2002 survey included a component that 

allowed for the independent observation of 10th-graders’ school facilities on a given school day. 

In the first year of data collection, the 2002 base year, an interviewer from the larger ELS:2002 

survey effort completed a facilities checklist that described the physical plant and circumstances 

of the sample of schools. In order to maximize comparability of observations across schools, 

survey interviewers were asked to complete the facilities checklist in the middle of the day (for 

example, after a morning session of the larger ELS:2002 survey administration or before an 

afternoon session of the larger ELS:2002 survey administration). Certain items on the facilities 

checklist required interviewers to go to empty classrooms, meaning that they had to check the 

classrooms before classes started, during class change times, or during lunch. Procedures were 

also outlined for inspecting restrooms (e.g., the interviewer was told to enter only the restroom 

appropriate for her or his gender). Specific instructions for the interviewer can be located in the 

data collection instrument (see appendix C) and are noted in the data tables of this E.D. TAB. 

Readers should note that due to the fact that sampled schools are based on 10th-grade 

respondents selected as a part of the ELS:2002 sample, data presented here do not represent all 

schools nationally. Rather, they represent only 10th-grade schools. In general, 10th-grade schools 

are considered high schools, but the sample also contains schools with grade spans including PK12 and 6-12, as well as others. In addition, the sample does not include Department of Defense 

schools outside of the United States, schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and 

certain schools with special populations (e.g., special education schools for students with severe 

disabilities). In total, the sample represents approximately 25,000 schools in the 50 states and 

the District of Columbia and 3.4 million public and private 10th-grade students in the 2001-02 

school year.

Topics and Concepts 

The first issue under investigation involves the cleanliness and maintenance of the school 

facilities for 10th-grade students. Maintenance and cleanliness of school facilities involves more 

than managing resources; it also involves providing clean and safe environments for students. 

Clean and well-maintained school facilities communicate a message of responsibility and respect 

(Szuba and Young 2003). In fact, the California Department of Education (2002) argued that 

school cleanliness and maintenance does more than please the public. It also contributes to the 

health, happiness, and character development of its students. Vandalism and maintenance issues, 

such as broken windows and graffiti, can also pose a safety hazard to students and put a strain on 

school budgets (California Department of Education 2002). The ELS:2002 Facility Checklist 

required that survey interviewers examine several aspects of school cleanliness and also look for 

indications of ineffective maintenance of lighting, broken windows, and poorly maintained 

restroom areas. This report examines structural appearance issues with a specific focus on 

• cleanliness of hallways, classrooms and bathrooms; 

• graffiti on walls, lockers, desks and bathrooms; and 

• maintenance issues, such as ceiling and wall disrepair, broken lights, and chipped paint. 
3 

In addition, the ELS:2002 Facilities Checklist asked interviewers to examine school 

restrooms and to note whether bathroom stalls had doors on them. Doors on bathroom stalls are 

sometimes removed in response to problems related to school safety or misbehavior. Bathroom 

stalls without doors could also be the result of the doors having been ripped off or broken 

without being replaced by school maintenance staff. Regardless of the reason, this condition at 

school most likely reflects a school that is poorly maintained, unsafe, or both. 

A primary focus of the ELS:2002 Facilities Checklist was safety and security measures in 

the school. Locks, measures to improve visibility, traditional security measures, and appropriate 

signage were identified. 

Safety measures guarantee the safety of students inside the school building in the event of 

a threat. Survey interviewers conducting the ELS:2002 Facilities Checklist were asked to 

identify if there were bars on the windows or posters or other materials on the glass in school 

classrooms that might limit an adult’s ability to respond to threats. 

Some schools have turned to advanced security measures and security policies to ensure 

student safety through crime prevention. These measures often focus on monitoring or 

controlling the physical environment of the school. They include metal detectors, security 

cameras, limits on student locker use, and exterior lighting. The premise of such techniques is to 

reduce opportunity for misbehavior and increase the likelihood of apprehension by monitoring 

the entry and movement of individuals while on school grounds. However, despite the fact that 

metal detectors have drawn attention as a potential remedy to weapon carrying in school, the 

1999–2000 School Survey on Crime and Safety, administered to school principals, showed that 

only 1 percent of schools reported requiring students or visitors to pass through metal detectors 

each day (Miller 2003). Seven percent of schools reported performing random metal detector 

sweeps on students. The same survey found that 19 percent of schools use security cameras to 

monitor the school. The ELS:2002 Facilities Checklist asked survey interviewers to note the 

presence of these types of security measures in schools. 

Another approach to controlling visitors and access to the school is to guide the behavior 

of students, staff, and visitors by displaying signs. Information for visitors to the school campus 

about sign-in procedures, trespassing, and policies on weapons and drugs should be clearly 

posted. Appropriate and comprehensive signage minimizes confusion and provides fewer 

excuses for trespassing on campus. 

The perimeters of the school campus can be defined with fencing to control access at 

entrance and exit points. Fencing may limit student-neighbor interaction by avoiding disruption 

of school stakeholders and reducing the level of student truancy during the school day. Signage 

and fencing around the school perimeter was noted in the ELS:2002 Facilities Checklist by 

survey interviewers. 

Finally, additional concerns with student behavior and the behavior of other potential 

troublemakers can be addressed with restrictions on access to lockers, the provision of adequate 

lighting, and the monitoring or control of school parking lots. The ELS:2002 Facilities Checklist 

investigated each of these issues. Survey interviewers identified whether the school provided 

lockers for its students and noted lighting and parking lot characteristics near the school. 
4

Safety measures related to safety and security mechanisms discussed in this report are 

• signage; 

• security guards, security cameras, metal detectors, and barred windows; 

• fencing; 

• lighting; and 

• parking lot security. 

In 1995, the GAO reported that one-third of schools reported that poor acoustics were 

their most serious environmental concern. ELS:2002 survey interviewers recorded noise levels 

in school hallways. 

While the school buildings and grounds are of importance to school safety and security, 

the neighborhoods surrounding our nation’s schools are not isolated from exerting influence 

(Gottfredson and Gottfredson 1985). As Laub and Lauritsen (1998) suggest, neighborhoods 

exert substantial influence on schools as well as the students in them. Schools often inherit the 

difficulties present in the neighborhoods they serve. The ELS:2002 Facilities Checklist tapped a 

number of social indicators related to neighborhood disorder. Survey interviewers recorded 

information on directly observable indications of neighborhood conditions, including 

• trash and graffiti in the neighborhood; 

• boarded up buildings; and 

• students or strangers loitering around school grounds. 

Sample 

The analysis presented in this report provides estimates on the characteristics of 10thgrade schools. In addition, the number and percentage of 10th-grade students exposed to 

particular school building conditions are provided. The characteristics of interest are 

School-level characteristics 

• school sector (public and private); 

• school urbanicity (urban, suburban, and rural);1

• school enrollment (1–399, 400–799, 800–1199, 1200–1599, and 1600 or more students); 

• grade span (PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 through 12; 6, 7 or 8 through 12; 9 through 10, 11 or 

12; and 10 through 11 or 12); and 

• percent of 10th-grade students eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch (0–5 percent, 6–

20 percent, 21–50 percent, and 51–100 percent). 

 

1

 Urbanicity of school locale was from the Common Core of Data 1999-2000 and the Private School Survey 1999-2000. The 

specific definitions are as follows: Urban: the school is in a large or midsize central city; Suburban: the school is in a large or 

small town or is on the urban fringe of a large or midsize city; and Rural: the school is in a rural area, either inside or outside a 

metropolitan statistical area (MSA). 
5 

Student-level characteristics

• student demographics; 

o sex (female and male); 

o race/ethnicity (American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic; Asian, 

Hawaii/Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic; Black/African American, non-Hispanic; 

Hispanic; Multiracial, non-Hispanic; and White, non-Hispanic); 

o socioeconomic status (lowest quarter, middle two quarters, and highest quarter); 

o native language (non-English and English); 

o urbanicity of the school (urban, suburban, and rural) that each student attends; and 

o sector of the school (public and private) that each student attends. 

• academic program placement (general, college preparatory, vocational); and 

• academic achievement as measured by 10th-grade composite achievement test score 

(lowest quarter, middle two quarters, and highest quarter, where ‘quarters’ are 4 equalsized divisions of the distribution, each containing 25 percent of the total observations).
6

Selected Findings 

This report presents key findings from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 

(ELS:2002) Facilities Checklist for all ELS:2002 public and private schools and students in the 

10th grade. The findings are organized as follows: 

School Estimates 

• appearance (cleanliness and disrepair); 

• safety and security measures; 

• noise level; and 

• neighborhood conditions. 

Student Estimates 

• exposure to selected school building appearances; and 

• exposure to selected school safety and security measures. 

The first section presents findings at the school level. Here, conditions of 10th-grade 

school facilities are described. The second section presents a description of the number and 

percentage of 10th-grade students who attend schools with a particular condition. Appendixes 

discuss the goals and objectives of the ELS:2002 study, the base-year study design and 

methodology. Also, discussions of base-year sampling, weighting, response rates, and standard 

errors follow. Additionally, an account is provided of the statistical procedures employed for 

this report. A glossary is presented and, finally, the facilities checklist instrument is duplicated. 

All comparisons in the text are statistically significant at the .05 level unless otherwise 

noted. Large apparent differences between estimates may not be statistically significant due to 

large standard errors that render them unreliable. The reader is referred to the appendix for 

further details on the statistical methods and variables used in this report. 

School Estimates 

This section presents national estimates on the appearance, safety and security, noise 

levels, and neighborhood conditions for public and private 10th-grade schools in 2002. 

Appearance (cleanliness and disrepair) 

• Nationally, 66 percent of 10th-grade schools had at least one unacceptable physical or 

structural condition related to cleanliness, vandalism, and/or disrepair (table 1 and figure 

1). For example, 

o Sixteen percent of schools had trash on the floor. Six percent had trash 

overflowing somewhere on school property. 
7

o Ten percent had signs of graffiti somewhere in the school—on the walls, lockers, 

desks, and/or in the bathrooms. 

o Thirty-three percent of schools had floors and/or walls that were not considered 

clean. 

o Eleven percent had ceilings that were in disrepair. 

o In 30 percent of the schools, not all bathroom stalls had doors. 

o Three percent of schools had broken lights, and 8 percent had chipped paint on 

walls. 

• However, very few schools were perceived to have multiple conditions of disrepair and 

lack of cleanliness (table 1). For example, 

o Six percent of schools had trash on the hallway floor, 4 percent had trash in the 

classrooms, and another 11 percent had trash on the bathroom floors, but 1 

percent had trash in all three places. 

o Two percent of schools had graffiti in the front hallway, 4 percent in classrooms, 

and 7 percent in the bathrooms, but less than 1 percent had graffiti in all three 

locations. 

• Indicators of the level of school disrepair and cleanliness varied by school characteristics, 

such as sector and urbanicity (table 2). For example, 

o Public schools were more likely than private schools to have graffiti (13 vs. 3 

percent) and ceilings in disrepair (13 vs. 5 percent). 

o Urban schools were more likely than rural schools to have trash on the floor (26 

vs. 12 percent) and graffiti (15 vs. 7 percent) (figure 1). 

Safety and security measures 

• Four percent of schools had bars on classroom windows and 25 percent had posters or 

other materials covering glass windows (table 3). 

• School safety measures varied by school sector and urbanicity (table 3). For example, 

o Urban schools were more likely than both suburban and rural schools to have bars 

on classroom windows (13 vs. 1 percent and 1 percent, respectively). 

• Nationally, 30 percent of 10th-grade schools used security guards, 4 percent used metal 

detectors, 18 percent had security cameras, and 18 percent had fencing around the entire 

school (table 3). 
8

• The prevalence of informational signage varied on school campuses (table 3). Sixty 

percent of schools had signs directing visitors towards the front office. A number of 

schools had signs conveying messages about “no drugs” on school property (26 percent), 

“no weapons” on school property (16 percent), or warnings against “trespassing” on 

school grounds (21 percent). 

• A relatively small percentage of schools monitored the entrances and exits to parking lots 

with cameras (10 percent) and/or by person (17 percent) (table 3). 

• School security measures varied by school sector and urbanicity (table 3). For example, 

o Public schools were more likely than private schools to have security guards (35 

vs. 15 percent) and metal detectors (5 vs. 2 percent) (figure 2). 

o Public schools were more likely than private schools to have signage related to 

drugs (33 vs. 7 percent) and weapons (19 vs. 6 percent) policies on school 

property. 

o Urban schools were more likely than both suburban and rural schools to have 

metal detectors (9 vs. 3 and 3 percent, respectively) and fencing around the entire 

school (36 vs. 13 and 13 percent, respectively). 

o Rural schools were more likely to have “no drugs” signage on campus than urban 

schools (31 vs. 20 percent). 

o Schools with 51–100 percent of 10th-graders eligible for free or reduced-price 

lunch were more likely to have metal detectors and bars on classroom windows 

than schools with 0–5, 6–20 and 21–50 percent of the 10th-grade students eligible 

for free or reduced-price lunch (13 vs. 2, 5, and 3 percent, respectively, having 

metal detectors and 16 vs. 1, 2, and 2 percent, respectively, having bars on 

classroom windows). 

Noise level 

• Nationally, very few 10th-grade schools were considered to have high noise levels. Three 

percent reported noise levels that exceeded the sound of yelling (table 4). Most schools 

had noise levels at about the sound of a whisper (58 percent). 

 

• Sixty-five percent of schools with enrollment from 1 to 399 students had a noise level 

about the sound of a whisper compared to 47 percent of schools with enrollment levels 

from 1,200 to 1,599 and 1,600 or more (table 4). 

Neighborhood conditions 

• Nationally, most schools were located in neighborhoods that were generally perceived to 

be clean and safe (table 5). For example, 
9

o Fifteen percent of schools were in neighborhoods where trash was present. 

o Four percent of schools were located in neighborhoods where graffiti was present. 

o Nine percent of schools were located next to or near boarded up buildings. 

• However, these neighborhood conditions varied by whether the schools were located in 

urban, suburban, or rural areas (table 5). For example, 

o Urban schools were more likely than both suburban and rural schools to be 

located in neighborhoods where trash and litter was present (34 vs. 10 and 10 

percent, respectively). 

o Urban schools were more likely than both suburban and rural schools to be 

located in neighborhoods where graffiti was present (14 vs. 1 and 0.1 percent, 

respectively). 

o Urban schools were more likely than rural schools to be located in neighborhoods 

near boarded up buildings (20 vs. 2 percent). 

o Schools with 51–100 percent of 10th-graders eligible for free or reduced-price 

lunch were more likely to be located in neighborhoods with boarded up buildings 

than schools with 50 percent or less of 10th-graders eligible (33 percent with 51–

100 percent eligible for free or reduced-price lunch compared to 8 percent with 0–

5 percent eligible, 3 percent with 6–20 percent eligible, and 2 percent with 21–50 

percent eligible). 

• Often the condition of the school reflected the surrounding neighborhood’s condition 

(table 5). For example, 

o Schools with trash on the floors were more likely than schools without trash on 

the floors to be located in neighborhoods where litter and trash was prevalent (42 

vs. 10 percent). 

o Schools with graffiti were more likely to be in neighborhoods with graffiti evident 

than schools with no graffiti (10 vs. 3 percent). 

o Schools with broken windows were more likely than schools without broken 

windows to be located in neighborhoods with litter (68 vs. 13 percent). 

Student Estimates 

This section presents national estimates on the number of 10th-grade public and private 

students that attend schools with certain characteristics based on structural appearance and safety 

and security. 
10

Exposure to selected school building appearances 

• Twenty-two percent of public and private school 10th-graders attended schools where 

trash and litter were observed on the floors (table 6 and figure 3). Six percent attended 

schools where the trash was overflowing from trash cans. 

• Thirty-one percent of 10th-graders attended schools where the floors and walls were not 

clean (table 6 and figure 3). 

• Six percent went to schools where graffiti was present (table 6 and figure 3). 

• About a quarter of 10th-graders attended schools that did not have a door on all bathroom 

stalls (table 6 and figure 3). 

• Black students were more likely than White students to attend schools where trash was 

present on the floor (29 vs. 18 percent), graffiti was present (10 vs. 3 percent), and 

ceilings were in disrepair (12 vs. 7 percent) (table 6). 

• Few differences were detected between students of varying socioeconomic levels, with 

one notable exception. Students from the lowest socioeconomic quarter were more likely 

than students from the highest quarter to attend a school where graffiti was a problem (8 

vs. 4 percent) (table 6). 

• Students who placed in the lowest quarter of their composite achievement tests were 

more likely to attend schools with trash on the floors (26 vs. 19 percent) and graffiti (9 

vs. 3 percent) compared to students who placed in the highest composite achievement test 

quarter (table 6 and figure 3). 

• No differences were detected in student exposure to school physical conditions between 

students who liked school a great deal and those who did not (table 6). 

Exposure to selected school safety and security measures 

• Fifty-five percent of 10th-grade students attended schools with security guards, and 7 

percent of students attended schools that used metal detectors (table 7 and figure 4). 

• Thirty-one percent of 10th-grade students attended schools that used security cameras, 

and 5 percent attended schools that had bars on classroom windows (table 7 and figure 4). 

• One third of 10th-grade students attended schools that displayed signage conveying a “no 

drugs” message and 19 percent attended schools with signs conveying a “no weapons” 

message (table 7). 
11

• Black 10th-grade students were more likely than White 10th-grade students to attend 

schools that used security guards (71 vs. 47 percent), had metal detectors (21 vs. 3 

percent), used security cameras (39 vs. 30 percent), and had bars on windows (9 vs. 2 

percent) (table 7 and figure 4). 

• Students from the lowest socioeconomic quarter were more likely than students from the 

highest socioeconomic quarter to attend schools that had metal detectors (10 vs. 5 

percent) (table 7). 

• Non English-speaking 10th-grade students were more likely than English-speaking 10th

grade students to attend schools that used security guards (69 vs. 52 percent), had metal 

detectors (11 vs. 6 percent), had bars on the windows (13 vs. 3 percent), and had fencing 

around the entire school (47 vs. 23 percent) (table 7). 

• Few differences were detected among 10th-grade students’ reports of specified safety and 

security measures and their academic program placement (i.e. general, college 

preparatory, vs. vocational). One exception was that 10th-grade students in vocational 

programs were more likely than their counterparts in general and college preparatory 

programs to report metal detectors in their schools (13 vs. 7 and 6 percent, respectively) 

(table 7). 

• Students who felt safe at school were more likely than students who did not feel safe at 

school to attend schools with security guards (64 vs. 54 percent) and metal detectors (11 

vs. 7 percent) (table 7). 
12

References

California Department of Education. (2002). School Safety and Security. School Safety and 

Violence Prevention Office. Sacramento, CA. 

Gottfredson, G.D., and Gottfredson, D.C. (1985). Victimization in Schools. New York: Plenum. 

Laub, J.H., and Lauritsen, J.L. (1998). School Violence, Neighborhood and Family Conditions. 

In Elliott, D.S., Hamburg, B.A., and Williams, K.R. (Eds.), Violence in American Schools. 

New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Lewis, L., Snow, K., Farris, E., Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., and Kaplan, J. (2000). Condition of 

America’s Public School Facilities: 1999 (NCES 2000-032). U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Miller, A.K. (2003). Violence in U.S. Public Schools: 2000 School Survey on Crime and Safety

(NCES 2003-314). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics. 

Szuba, T., and Young, R. (2003). Planning Guide for Maintaining School Facilities (NCES 

2003-347). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics. 

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). (1995). School Facilities: Condition of America’s 

Schools. Report to Congressional Requestors (GAO/HEHS-95-61). Washington, DC. 
13

Figure 1. Percent of 10th-grade schools with a specified physical or structural condition present, 

by urbanicity: 2002 

# The estimate rounds to zero. 

NOTE: Estimates include the described condition if it was present at any of the observed school locations in question 

(i.e., hallways, classrooms, or bathrooms). See appendix C for specific survey items. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Facilities Checklist of the 

Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002); School Administrator Questionnaire of the Education Longitudinal 

Study of 2002 (ELS:2002). 

16

6

10 11

33

3

8

30

26

10

15

7

33

5

11

1

38

14

6

11 9

34

3

7

1

24

12

3

7

14

31

3

8

#

31

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Trash on

floor

Trash

overflowing

Graffiti

anywhere

Ceiling in

disrepair

Floors/walls

not clean

Broken lights Chipped paint

on walls

Broken

windows

Doors not on

all bathroom

stalls

Physical or structural condition

Percent

Total Urban Suburban Rural

#
14

Figure 2. Percent of 10th-grade schools with specified safety and security measures, by school 

sector: 2002 

NOTE: Estimates include the described condition if it was present at any of the observed school locations in question 

(i.e., hallways, classrooms, or bathrooms). See appendix C for specific survey items. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Facilities Checklist of the 

Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002); School Administrator Questionnaire of the Education Longitudinal 

Study of 2002 (ELS:2002). 

4

30

4

18 18

26

16

3

35

5

19

15

33

19

4

15

2

16

26

7 6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Bars on

windows

Security

guards

Metal

detectors

Security

cameras

Fencing

around

entire

school

"No drugs"

signage

"No

weapons"

signage

Safety and security measures

Percent

Total Public Private
15

Figure 3. Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with a specified physical or structural condition present, 

 by student composite achievement test scores: 2002 

# The estimate rounds to zero. 

NOTE: Estimates include the described condition if it was present at any of the observed school locations in question 

(i.e., hallways, classrooms, or bathrooms). See appendix C for specific survey items. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Facilities Checklist of the 

Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002); Student Questionnaire of the Education Longitudinal Study of 

2002 (ELS:2002).

22

6 6 8

31

4

10

1

25 26

7 9 8

33

4

14

2

26

21

7 5

8

31

4

9

1

25

19

5 3

8

28

4

7

0

23

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Trash on

floor

Trash

overflowing

Graffiti

anywhere

Ceiling in

disrepair

Floors/walls

not clean

Broken lights Chipped paint

on walls

Broken

windows

Doors not on

all bathroom

stalls

Physical or structural condition

Percent

Total Lowest quarter Middle two quarters Highest quarter 

#
16

Figure 4. Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with specified safety and security 

measures, by race/ethnicity: 2002 

55

7

31

5

55

13

27

0

69

8

29

8

71

21

39

9

68

9

26

12

52

8

27

4

63

12

28

0

47

3

30

2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Security guards Metal detectors Security cameras Bars on w indow s

Selected safety and security measures

Percent

Total American Indian Asian Black Hispanic Multiracial Pacific White

# The estimate rounds to zero. 

NOTE: Estimates include the described condition if it was present at any of the observed school locations in question 

(i.e., hallways, classrooms, or bathrooms). See appendix C for specific survey items. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Facilities Checklist of the 

Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002); Student Questionnaire of the Education Longitudinal Study of 

2002 (ELS:2002). 

# #
17

Table 1.

School condition Front hallway 1 Classrooms 2 Bathrooms 3

Condition present in 

hallways, classrooms, 

or bathrooms: At any 

school location

Condition present in 

hallways, classrooms, 

and bathrooms: At all 

school locations

At least one condition present 24.2 38.5 40.8 66.0 †

Trash on floor 6.1 3.9 10.6 16.0 0.7

Trash overflowing 2.2 0.7 3.6 5.6 0.1

Graffiti

Any location 1.7 4.3 6.9 10.4 0.1

Walls 0.8 0.6 1.6 2.5 #

Lockers 1.4 — — 1.4 —

Desks — 4.2 — 4.2 —

Bathroom — — 6.7 6.7 —

Ceiling in disrepair 6.7 6.1 — 10.6 2.1

Floors/walls not clean 9.5 27.2 — 32.7 3.7

Broken lights 2.6 0.8 — 3.2 0.2

Chipped paint on walls 8.3 — — 8.3 —

Broken windows — 0.4 — 0.4 —

Doors not on all stalls — — 29.6 29.6 —

— Data were not collected or not reported. 

† Not applicable. 

# The estimate rounds to zero.

Percent of 10th-grade schools, by location within school and specified physical or structural condition: 2002

3

 Observers were asked to enter any student bathroom appropriate to their own sex during a time when most students were in class (i.e., a class period). 

For each item, they were instructed to indicate if they had observed it or not. See appendix C for specific survey items.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Facilities Checklist of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 

(ELS:2002); School Administrator Questionnaire of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002).

1

 Observers were asked to stand in the main entrance into the school and observe the school’s front hallway(s) during a time when most students are in 

class (i.e., a class period). They were allowed to take as much time as necessary to observe the hallway(s). For each item, they were instructed to 

indicate if they had observed it or not. See appendix C for specific survey items. 

2

 Observers were asked to enter one classroom in which high school students were taught, during a change in classes or other time when the 

classrooms are not in session. For each item, they were instructed to indicate if they had observed it or not in the classroom. See appendix C for 

specific survey items.
18

School characteristic Trash on floor

Trash 

overflowing Graffiti

Ceiling in 

disrepair

Floors/ walls 

not clean Broken lights

Chipped paint 

on walls

Broken 

windows

Doors not on 

all bathroom 

stalls

Total 16.0 5.5 10.4 10.6 32.7 3.2 8.3 0.4 29.6

Sector

Public 17.9 5.2 13.3 12.7 31.8 3.8 9.7 0.6 29.3

Private 10.7 6.5 2.5 5.0 35.4 1.4 4.3 # 30.2

Urbanicity

Urban 26.4 9.6 15.3 7.2 32.8 5.1 11.1 0.8 38.1

Suburban 14.3 5.9 11.0 9.4 34.3 2.7 6.8 0.6 23.8

Rural 11.8 2.8 6.8 14.2 30.8 2.7 8.2 # 31.3

School enrollment

1-399 12.9 2.6 4.0 19.0 37.8 3.8 12.1 # 35.5

400-799 13.3 4.0 15.6 4.7 27.2 2.7 2.9 0.3 29.6

800-1,199 9.8 5.8 9.8 4.1 24.1 2.6 4.4 1.6 20.6

1,200-1,599 16.0 7.9 20.5 7.1 35.0 1.7 11.9 # 19.5

1,600 plus 31.8 9.0 26.8 6.3 29.2 4.5 12.2 # 18.9

Grade span

PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 

 through 12 4.2 3.7 0.5 11.4 39.7 # 4.3 # 24.7

6, 7, or 8 through 12 20.1 8.6 9.3 11.4 26.0 6.8 16.6 0.6 34.4

9 through 10, 11, 12 21.3 5.7 16.2 10.4 32.2 4.1 8.5 0.6 29.9

10 through 11, 12 28.3 6.5 19.0 4.0 7.0 4.0 2.8 # 25.1

Percent of grade 10 

students eligible for a free 

or reduced-price lunch

0-5 percent 14.5 8.5 4.5 4.6 35.2 2.6 4.1 # 26.4

6-20 percent 19.4 6.2 13.4 11.0 30.1 4.8 6.5 0.6 36.5

21-50 percent 9.0 1.2 13.6 16.6 32.9 1.2 7.9 0.7 19.6

51-100 percent 27.4 8.0 10.3 17.4 39.8 6.5 20.6 0.8 40.0

# The estimate rounds to zero.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Facilities Checklist of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002); 

School Administrator Questionnaire of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002).

or bathrooms). See appendix C for specific survey items.

Table 2. Percent of 10th-grade schools with a specified physical or structural condition present, by selected school characteristics: 2002

NOTE: Estimates include the described condition if it was present at any of the observed school locations in question (i.e., hallways, classrooms, 
19

School characteristic

Bars on 

windows

Posters or 

other 

materials on 

glass 

windows

Security 

guards

Metal 

detectors

Security 

cameras

Fencing 

around 

entire 

school

Student 

lockers

Exterior 

lights

Total 3.5 25.3 29.8 4.1 18.3 18.0 83.3 80.9

Sector

Public 3.2 22.5 35.0 5.0 19.1 15.4 89.1 85.5

Private 4.1 32.8 15.1 1.8 16.0 25.5 67.0 67.7

Urbanicity

Urban 12.7 22.4 39.0 8.5 16.4 36.2 84.6 73.9

Suburban 1.4 23.4 33.1 3.1 22.7 13.1 79.9 79.9

Rural 0.8 28.9 20.6 2.8 14.3 13.2 86.6 86.0

School enrollment

1-399 2.4 27.0 16.4 1.2 8.3 10.9 82.7 74.1

400-799 2.7 23.2 24.1 6.5 20.0 18.5 83.7 88.2

800-1,199 8.1 18.0 39.4 3.9 22.4 22.6 83.7 91.0

1,200-1,599 2.9 19.5 62.5 8.5 31.6 15.8 90.9 91.1

1,600 plus 7.6 22.8 70.3 5.1 35.3 42.9 82.2 84.4

Grade span

PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 

 through 12 3.6 31.8 15.1 1.1 11.7 17.1 79.3 80.0

6, 7, or 8 through 12 0.8 25.3 18.9 5.4 15.4 7.8 80.6 74.1

9 through 10, 11, 12 4.3 19.2 41.3 5.7 22.9 21.9 87.9 83.9

10 through 11, 12 # 36.1 30.8 # 27.4 8.9 75.9 95.5

Percent of grade 10 students 

eligible for a free or reducedprice lunch

0-5 percent 1.1 29.2 21.5 1.8 20.3 21.4 77.0 72.9

6-20 percent 1.9 30.1 28.0 4.5 19.1 14.8 89.3 87.8

21-50 percent 1.6 16.6 30.5 2.7 13.6 10.5 91.3 87.2

51-100 percent 16.0 14.3 44.9 12.8 15.6 36.6 82.7 78.6

See notes at end of table.

Table 3. Percent of 10th-grade schools with specified safety and security measures, by selected school 

Table 3. characteristics: 2002

Security measures2 Classroom conditions1
20

Sign providing 

directions to 

front office or 

stating that 

visitors must 

proceed to the 

front office

A sign 

conveying the 

message "no 

drugs"

A sign 

conveying the 

message "no 

trespassing"

A sign 

conveying the 

message "no 

weapons"

Monitored 

by video 

camera

Monitored 

by person

Locked 

during the 

day

Total 60.5 26.3 21.0 15.7 10.2 17.0 11.7

Sector

Public 66.8 33.3 25.4 19.2 9.7 19.9 12.5

Private 42.9 6.8 9.0 5.9 11.8 8.5 9.6

Urbanicity

Urban 61.8 19.9 17.3 13.4 6.9 21.3 11.4

Suburban 57.4 25.5 22.7 18.7 14.2 16.9 17.1

Rural 63.4 31.1 21.3 13.6 7.3 14.8 5.8

School enrollment

1-399 56.5 21.5 17.2 11.9 5.5 9.6 5.5

400-799 67.3 35.8 27.0 21.9 14.4 13.9 11.0

800-1,199 65.0 23.3 21.9 17.4 9.4 18.5 18.0

1,200-1,599 67.4 30.8 26.7 18.7 19.4 31.0 20.0

1,600 plus 65.5 33.7 34.4 19.7 16.8 42.4 24.0

Grade span

PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 

 through 12 55.9 29.2 19.6 12.0 10.9 11.7 5.1

6, 7, or 8 through 12 59.7 20.3 22.4 14.0 6.6 9.0 10.3

9 through 10, 11, 12 63.5 26.3 21.5 18.3 10.6 21.8 15.8

10 through 11, 12 81.5 32.4 26.0 19.7 17.0 25.3 9.0

Percent of grade 10 students eligible for a 

free or reduced-price lunch

0-5 percent 52.0 15.9 13.7 8.0 12.9 13.8 10.1

6-20 percent 68.1 29.1 25.7 13.4 10.4 15.0 18.5

21-50 percent 63.5 32.9 20.3 18.9 7.0 18.0 8.1

51-100 percent 58.5 32.0 30.4 20.9 4.3 21.7 11.4

# The estimate rounds to zero.

Table 3. Percent of 10th-grade schools with specified safety and security measures, by selected school characteristics: 

2002—Continued

Signage3 Parking Lots4

School characteristic

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Facilities Checklist of the Education Longitudinal Study 

of 2002 (ELS:2002); School Administrator Questionnaire of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002).

1

 Observers were asked to enter one classroom in which high school students were taught, during a change in classes or other time when 

the classrooms are not in session. For each item, they were instructed to indicate if they had observed it or not in the classroom. See 

appendix C for specific survey items. 

2

 Observers were asked if they had observed each of the listed security measures over the course of the interview day. See appendix C for 

specific survey items.

3

 Observers were asked to indicate if they observed each sign either inside or outside of the main entrance to the school. Estimates include 

the described condition if it was present either inside or outside of the main entrance. See appendix C for specific survey items. 

4

 Observers were asked to observe the school parking lot(s’) entrances and exits and to count the security measures present. Entrances and 

exits were defined as roadways into and/or out of parking lots that connect to roads off of school property. Estimates include the described 

condition if one or more of the select conditions were present. See appendix C for specific survey items. 
21

School characteristic

Noise level is about the 

sound of a whisper

Noise level is about the 

sound of a normal 

conversation

Noise level at least the 

sound of yelling

Total 57.8 39.6 2.6

Sector

Public 56.8 40.4 2.8

Private 60.6 37.2 2.2

Urbanicity

Urban 47.8 46.1 6.1

Suburban 59.9 38.6 1.5

Rural 61.6 36.7 1.7

School enrollment

1-399 64.5 32.0 3.5

400-799 54.8 41.4 3.8

800-1,199 58.4 40.9 0.7

1,200-1,599 47.3 51.5 1.1

1,600 plus 46.6 52.1 1.2

Grade span

PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 through 12 64.5 35.5 #

6, 7, or 8 through 12 46.4 46.9 6.7

9 through 10, 11, 12 56.6 40.5 2.9

10 through 11, 12 60.4 37.6 2.0

Percent of grade 10 students eligible for 

a free or reduced-price lunch

0-5 percent 56.5 41.7 1.8

6-20 percent 62.5 34.0 3.5

21-50 percent 62.5 35.9 1.7

51-100 percent 45.9 48.7 5.4

# The estimate rounds to zero.

Table 4. Percent of 10th-grade schools with varying noise levels, by selected school characteristics: 2002

NOTE: Observers were asked to stand in the main entrance into the school and observe the school’s front hallway(s) during a 

time when most students are in class (i.e., a class period). They were then asked to rate the noise level of the school. See 

appendix C for specific survey items.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Facilities Checklist of the Education 

Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002); School Adminisrator Questionnaire of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 

(ELS:2002).
22

School characteristic

Litter/trash in the 

neighborhood

Graffiti in the 

neighborhood

Boarded up 

buildings

Persons 

congregated 

on the streets

Students 

loitering

Total 15.2 3.5 9.2 4.2 5.1

Sector

Public 15.1 2.3 8.5 2.9 6.3

Private 15.3 7.2 11.4 7.9 1.7

Urbanicity

Urban 33.7 13.5 20.0 16.8 15.6

Suburban 10.4 1.4 9.9 1.2 3.0

Rural 9.8 0.1 2.1 0.1 1.5

School enrollment

1-399 14.8 3.8 15.1 3.9 1.8

400-799 6.9 1.4 1.6 1.3 4.2

800-1,199 23.9 8.0 8.6 9.0 5.0

1,200-1,599 21.8 2.3 8.4 3.1 9.2

1,600 plus 19.1 3.8 2.1 5.9 12.4

Grade span

PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 through 12 12.0 5.0 8.3 5.1 #

6, 7, or 8 through 12 13.2 3.9 11.8 5.0 10.0

9 through 10, 11, 12 17.9 2.8 9.5 3.4 6.1

10 through 11, 12 8.8 1.2 # 5.4 15.1

Percent of grade 10 students eligible for a free or 

reduced-price lunch

0-5 percent 14.7 3.4 8.4 4.3 3.6

6-20 percent 10.1 1.3 3.3 2.5 5.7

21-50 percent 9.5 1.0 1.8 1.5 3.6

51-100 percent 33.6 12.8 33.4 12.4 10.1

See notes at end of table.

Table 5. Percent of 10th-grade schools with a specified condition in the surrounding neighborhood, by selected school 

Table 5. characteristics: 2002
23

School characteristic

Litter/trash in the 

neighborhood

Graffiti in the 

neighborhood

Boarded up 

buildings

Persons 

congregated on 

the streets

Students 

loitering

School condition

No trash on floor 10.0 2.7 6.8 3.5 2.5

Trash on floor 42.3 7.8 22.0 7.9 19.0

No trash overflowing 13.5 2.9 7.9 3.6 3.8

Trash overflowing 43.7 14.8 32.6 14.4 27.1

No graffiti 12.4 2.7 9.1 3.6 3.5

Graffiti 38.6 10.4 10.3 9.2 19.0

Ceiling not in disrepair 14.6 3.1 7.7 3.9 4.8

Ceiling in disrepair 19.4 7.1 21.8 7.0 8.0

Floors/walls clean 14.9 3.2 7.6 3.8 5.5

Floors/walls not clean 16.0 4.2 12.8 5.0 4.3

No broken lights 14.5 3.0 8.9 3.6 4.4

Broken lights 36.1 21.1 20.1 22.9 26.1

No chipped paint on walls 14.1 3.3 7.3 3.7 4.2

Chipped paint on walls 25.4 6.9 31.5 9.8 15.4

No broken windows 12.8 3.9 8.7 4.6 5.3

Broken windows 68.3 29.0 # 38.3 45.6

Doors on all bathroom stalls 22.6 7.0 19.4 8.2 7.6

Doors not on all bathroom stalls 12.2 2.2 5.2 2.6 4.2

# The estimate rounds to zero.

NOTE: For each of the five neighborhood conditions, interviewers were asked to stand outside of the school (near the entrance, where most 

visitors arrive), and look at the neighborhood/area surrounding the school. They were asked to record the degree to which they noticed each 

condition: none, a little, some, or a lot. The percents presented here are the sum of a little, some, and a lot.

Table 5. Percent of 10th-grade schools with a specified condition in the surrounding neighborhood, by selected school 

Table 5. characteristics: 2002—Continued

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Facilities Checklist of the Education Longitudinal Study of 

2002 (ELS:2002); School Administrator Questionnaire of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002).
24

Student characteristic

Trash on 

floor

Trash 

overflowing Graffiti

Ceiling in 

disrepair

Floors/

walls not 

clean

Broken 

lights

Chipped 

paint on 

walls

Broken 

windows

Doors not on 

all bathroom 

stalls

Total 21.6 6.4 5.6 7.8 30.5 3.7 9.6 1.0 24.7

Sex

Female 20.9 6.5 5.6 8.1 30.9 3.5 9.6 0.9 25.2

Male 22.3 6.3 5.6 7.5 30.2 4.0 9.7 1.1 24.1

Race/Ethnicity

American Indian, non-Hispanic 18.2 2.5 # 2.5 32.2 6.9 8.0 # 24.0

Asian, non-Hispanic 24.2 7.7 4.5 6.9 26.3 6.1 9.7 0.6 21.8

Black, non-Hispanic 29.2 10.2 10.1 12.0 37.2 5.0 16.3 2.1 32.7

Hispanic 27.9 7.4 12.3 8.8 34.3 3.6 16.4 2.1 23.6

Multiracial, non-Hispanic 22.0 6.0 6.2 8.8 27.5 5.2 11.2 1.6 22.6

Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 12.3 # 9.3 9.3 35.0 4.8 6.4 # 50.4

White, non-Hispanic 18.1 5.3 2.8 6.6 28.4 3.2 6.2 0.4 23.3

Socioeconomic status

Lowest quarter 22.9 6.9 8.2 8.8 32.9 3.7 12.4 1.5 25.5

Middle two quarters 21.6 6.5 5.1 7.8 31.0 3.7 9.3 1.0 24.7

Highest quarter 20.4 5.7 4.0 6.8 27.4 3.9 7.4 0.4 23.8

Sector

Public 22.5 6.8 6.0 8.1 30.8 4.0 10.2 1.1 24.7

Private 11.3 2.1 1.1 4.1 27.6 0.7 3.3 # 23.7

Urbanicity

Urban 27.5 7.9 7.6 9.3 35.0 4.5 16.7 0.9 26.9

Suburban 20.5 5.7 5.8 6.3 29.4 3.2 6.6 1.4 22.7

Rural 15.5 6.0 1.9 9.3 26.5 4.0 6.5 # 26.2

See notes at end of table.

Table 6. Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with a specified physical or structural condition present, by selected student characteristics: 2002
25

Student characteristic Trash on floor

Trash 

overflowing Graffiti

Ceiling in 

disrepair

Floors/

walls not 

clean

Broken 

lights

Chipped paint 

on walls

Broken 

windows

Doors not on 

all bathroom 

stalls

Native language

Non-English 30.1 7.7 11.5 9.3 34.9 4.1 16.4 1.7 23.0

English 20.2 6.1 4.6 7.7 29.7 3.6 8.5 0.8 24.7

High school program

General 22.2 6.3 5.1 8.0 32.3 3.9 9.9 1.0 25.1

College preparatory 21.3 6.4 5.7 7.8 29.2 3.8 9.5 0.8 24.3

Vocational 21.5 7.3 6.8 7.3 30.7 2.6 9.2 1.5 24.8

Composite achievement test

Lowest quarter 26.3 7.0 9.2 8.2 33.4 3.5 13.7 1.6 25.8

Middle two quarters 20.6 6.9 5.0 7.8 30.7 3.7 8.7 0.9 24.8

Highest quarter 19.1 5.0 3.2 7.5 27.5 4.1 7.4 0.4 23.2

Likes school a great deal

Disagree 19.9 6.0 4.5 7.1 28.5 3.5 8.0 1.3 23.8

Agree 21.8 6.4 5.9 8.0 30.8 3.9 9.5 1.0 24.3

Feels safe at school

Disagree 21.5 6.3 5.0 7.8 29.7 3.6 8.9 0.9 24.1

Agree 24.4 7.4 9.5 7.5 35.7 4.0 13.3 1.7 28.0

# The estimate rounds to zero.

Student Questionnaire of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002).

Table 6. Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with a specified physical or structural condition present, by selected student characteristics: 

Table 6. 2002—Continued

NOTE: Estimates include the described condition if it was present at any of the observed school locations in question (i.e., hallways, classrooms, 

or bathrooms). See appendix C for specific survey items.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Facilities Checklist of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002);
26

Total 54.9 7.3 30.5 4.9 26.8 86.4 88.0

Sex

Female 54.0 7.0 30.7 4.7 26.3 86.9 87.6

Male 55.7 7.6 30.4 5.2 27.3 86.0 88.4

Race/Ethnicity

American Indian, non-Hispanic 54.9 13.2 27.4 # 39.4 94.4 83.8

Asian, non-Hispanic 69.1 8.2 28.8 8.3 39.2 80.8 84.7

Black, non-Hispanic 71.2 21.3 39.4 9.3 32.1 88.3 87.6

Hispanic 68.1 9.1 25.8 12.3 51.1 79.0 87.3

Multiracial, non-Hispanic 52.0 7.5 27.2 3.9 22.9 87.3 84.1

Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 62.5 12.1 27.7 # 20.7 88.2 93.5

White, non-Hispanic 46.8 3.3 30.1 1.7 18.5 88.1 88.8

Socioeconomic status

Lowest quarter 58.2 10.4 29.7 7.4 33.9 84.7 88.3

Middle two quarters 54.3 7.0 31.0 4.8 24.6 87.5 88.7

Highest quarter 52.7 4.9 30.4 2.7 24.3 86.0 86.3

Sector

Public 57.1 7.8 31.4 5.2 26.2 86.8 88.6

Private 27.7 1.6 20.0 2.0 33.9 82.1 80.6

Urbanicity

Urban 62.9 14.5 29.6 11.6 39.3 86.7 84.7

Suburban 53.7 4.2 33.3 2.8 23.1 85.6 88.4

Rural 45.7 4.2 25.1 0.5 17.3 88.1 91.9

See notes at end of table. 

Table 7. Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with specified safety and security measures, by selected 

Table 7. student characteristics: 2002

Exterior 

lights

Security measures1

Student characteristic

Security 

guards

Metal 

detectors

Security 

cameras

Bars on 

windows

Fencing 

around 

entire 

school

Student 

lockers
27

Native language

Non-English 68.6 10.7 28.8 12.6 47.2 81.1 85.8

English 52.3 6.4 30.7 3.4 23.4 87.2 88.4

High school program

General 52.7 7.0 28.9 5.4 26.4 87.4 88.3

College preparatory 55.4 6.4 31.1 3.9 26.1 85.6 88.0

Vocational 60.3 12.6 33.7 7.9 31.6 86.8 87.0

Composite achievement test

Lowest quarter 60.7 12.4 30.9 8.8 33.0 85.8 88.0

Middle two quarters 54.3 6.4 31.2 4.2 25.9 86.5 88.2

Highest quarter 50.3 4.1 28.8 2.5 22.7 86.9 87.4

Likes school a great deal

Disagree 49.7 5.9 31.2 3.7 21.1 86.2 87.4

Agree 54.7 6.8 30.3 4.6 26.2 87.0 88.2

Feels safe at school

Disagree 53.5 6.9 30.1 4.4 25.7 86.5 87.5

Agree 63.8 10.9 32.6 7.8 33.4 86.5 91.0

See notes at end of table.

Table 7. Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with specified safety and security measures, by selected student 

Table 7. characteristics: 2002—Continued

Student characteristic

Security 

guards

Metal 

detectors

Security 

cameras

Bars on 

windows

Fencing 

around 

entire 

school

Student 

lockers

Exterior 

lights

Security measures1
28

Sign providing 

directions to 

front office or 

stating that 

visitors must 

proceed to the 

front office

A sign 

conveying the 

message "no 

drugs"

A sign 

conveying the 

message "no 

trespassing"

A sign 

conveying the 

message "no 

weapons"

Monitored by 

video camera

Monitored by 

person

Locked during 

the day

Total 66.7 33.3 28.8 19.4 15.6 30.8 20.0

Sex

Female 66.8 33.2 28.7 18.9 15.2 31.1 20.4

Male 66.5 33.5 28.9 19.9 15.9 30.6 19.6

Race/Ethnicity

American Indian, non-Hispanic 64.4 32.7 41.1 23.7 12.4 17.0 14.6

Asian, non-Hispanic 70.0 36.1 34.3 21.3 18.9 40.1 27.3

Black, non-Hispanic 66.0 35.8 34.0 25.3 20.1 33.7 22.2

Hispanic 57.6 39.0 36.2 23.7 10.9 40.3 23.9

Multiracial, non-Hispanic 70.4 30.1 24.0 17.7 14.4 26.9 20.4

Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 56.0 17.2 36.6 15.5 23.8 23.4 4.2

White, non-Hispanic 68.9 31.4 25.3 16.8 15.7 27.6 18.1

Socioeconomic status

Lowest quarter 65.1 35.8 31.6 21.9 13.9 32.1 22.2

Middle two quarters 67.1 33.0 28.3 19.0 16.3 30.0 19.0

Highest quarter 67.3 31.6 26.9 17.8 15.7 31.1 19.6

Sector

Public 67.2 35.1 29.7 20.4 16.0 31.4 20.0

Private 60.8 12.3 17.9 7.6 9.7 22.7 19.7

Urbanicity

Urban 60.2 29.1 26.6 17.4 12.9 33.0 18.6

Suburban 68.7 35.7 31.9 21.6 19.1 30.9 23.3

Rural 71.5 33.9 24.2 16.9 10.4 27.4 13.5

See notes at end of table.

Table 7. Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with specified safety and security measures, by selected student 

Table 7. characteristics: 2002—Continued

Student characteristic

Signage2 Parking lots3
29

Sign providing 

directions to 

front office or 

stating that 

visitors must 

proceed to the 

front office

A sign 

conveying the 

message "no 

drugs"

A sign 

conveying the 

message "no 

trespassing"

A sign 

conveying the 

message "no 

weapons"

Monitored by 

video camera

Monitored by 

person

Locked during 

the day

Native language

Non-English 59.5 35.8 34.8 21.1 14.1 37.7 23.7

English 68.0 32.9 27.8 18.9 15.8 29.6 19.3

High school program

General 65.8 32.2 28.2 18.9 14.6 30.2 18.4

College preparatory 67.6 33.1 29.1 19.2 15.9 31.7 21.1

Vocational 65.5 38.6 29.4 22.2 17.6 28.7 20.3

Composite achievement test

Lowest quarter 62.3 34.2 29.6 20.4 14.1 31.2 19.2

Middle two quarters 68.3 34.1 29.3 20.2 16.6 31.5 20.5

Highest quarter 67.7 31.1 26.9 16.8 14.9 29.0 19.8

Likes school a great deal

Disagree 68.1 33.4 27.1 19.4 15.6 28.4 17.8

Agree 67.1 33.1 29.1 19.2 15.8 31.3 20.0

Feels safe at school

Disagree 66.6 32.8 27.9 18.8 15.4 30.1 19.6

Agree 67.4 35.2 32.3 21.5 15.2 33.8 20.9

# The estimate rounds to zero.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Facilities Checklist of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002);

Student Questionnaire of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002).

as roadways into and/or out of parking lots that connect to roads off of school property. Estimates include the described condition if one or more of the select 

conditions was present. See appendix C for specific survey items. 

1 Observers were asked if they had observed each of the listed security measures over the course of the interview day. See appendix C for specific survey items. 

2

 Observers were asked to indicate if they observed each sign either inside or outside of the main entrance to the school. Estimates include the described condition

 if it was present either inside or outside of the main entrance. See appendix C for specific survey items. 

3

 Observers were asked to observe the school parking lot(s’) entrances and exits and to count the security measures present. Entrances and exits were defined 

Table 7. Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with specified safety and security measures, by selected student characteristics: 2002—Continued

Student characteristic

Parking lots3 Signage2
30

This page is intentionally blank. 
31

Appendix A 

Technical Notes and Glossary 
32

This page is intentionally blank. 
33

A.1 Overview of the Technical Appendix 

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Department of 

Education has collected longitudinal data for more than 30 years. Starting in 1972 with the 

National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972 (NLS:72), and continuing to the 

most recent study, the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), NCES has provided to 

education policymakers and researchers longitudinal and trend data that link secondary school 

educational achievement and experiences with important downstream outcomes, such as entry 

into the labor market and postsecondary educational access and attainment. 

The base year of ELS:2002 represents the first stage of a major effort designed to provide 

data about critical transitions experienced by students as they proceed through high school and 

into postsecondary education or their careers. The 2002 sophomore cohort will be followed, 

initially at 2-year intervals, to collect policy-relevant data about educational processes and 

outcomes, especially as such data pertain to student learning, predictors of dropping out, and 

high school effects on students’ access to, and success in, postsecondary education and the 

workforce. 

The first section of this appendix details ELS:2002 study objectives; lists some of the 

major research and policy issues that the study addresses; provides an overview of the facilities 

checklist instrument and collection procedures; and supplies an overview of the base-year study 

design and methodology. This section is followed by discussions of base-year sampling, 

weighting, response rates, and standard errors. Next, an account is provided of the statistical 

procedures employed for this report. Finally, a glossary is provided that documents the specific 

variables used in the analyses in this report. 

A.2 Overview of ELS:2002 

A.2.1 Study Objectives 

ELS:2002 is a longitudinal study, in which the same units are surveyed repeatedly over 

time. Individual students will be followed until about age 30; the base-year schools will be 

surveyed twice (they were surveyed in 2002 and will be surveyed again in 2004). In the high 

school years, ELS:2002 is an integrated multilevel study, involving multiple respondent 

populations, including students, their parents, their teachers, and their schools (from which data 

are collected at three levels: from the principal, the librarian, and from a facilities checklist). 

This multilevel focus will supply researchers with a comprehensive picture of the home, 

community, and school environments and their influences on the student. This multiplerespondent perspective is unified by the fact that, for most purposes, the student is the basic unit 

of analysis.1

 

 

1

 Base-year school interviewer, library media center, and facilities data can be used to report on the nation’s schools with 10th

grades in the 2001–02 school year. However, the primary use of the school-level data (and the purpose of parent and teacher 

surveys) is to provide further contextual information on the student. 
34

Key elements in the ELS:2002 longitudinal design are summarized by wave below. 

Base Year (2002) 

• Baseline survey of high school sophomores completed in spring term 2002. 

• Cognitive tests in reading and mathematics completed. 

• Surveys of parents, English teachers, and math teachers completed. School 

administrator questionnaires also collected. 

• Additional components for this study included a school facilities checklist and a 

media center (library) questionnaire. 

• Sample sizes of approximately 750 schools and over 17,000 students. Schools were 

the first-stage unit of selection, with sophomores randomly selected within schools. 

• Oversampling of Asians and private schools. 

• Design linkages with the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and 

the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and score reporting 

linkages to the prior longitudinal studies. 

First Follow-up (2004) 

• Follow-up in 2004, when most sample members are seniors, but some are dropouts or 

in other grades. 

• Student questionnaire, dropout questionnaire, assessment in mathematics, and school 

administrator questionnaire to be administered. 

• Return to the same schools, but separately follow transfer students. 

• Freshening for a 2004 senior cohort. 

• High school transcript component in 2004 (coursetaking records for grades 9–12 at 

minimum). 

Second Follow-up (2006) 

• Post-high school follow-ups using computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI). 

Further Follow-ups 

• Number of (and dates for) further CATI follow-ups to be determined.

A.2.2 ELS:2002 Research and Policy Issues 

Apart from helping to describe the status of high school students and their schools, 

ELS:2002 will provide information to help address a number of key policy and research 

questions. The study is intended to produce a comprehensive dataset for the development and 

evaluation of educational policy at all government levels. Part of its aim is to inform 

decisionmakers, educational practitioners, and parents about the changes in the operation of the 

educational system over time and the effects of various elements of the system on the lives of the 

individuals who pass through it. Issues that can be addressed with data collected in the high 

school years include the following: 
35

• Students’ academic growth in mathematics. 

• The process of dropping out of high school—determinants and consequences. 

• The role of family background and the home education support system in fostering 

students’ educational success. 

• The features of effective schools (e.g., school structural or organizational features or 

practices associated with higher levels of achievement gain, after controls have been 

imposed for student background and other factors). 

• The impact of coursetaking choices on success in the high school years (and 

thereafter). 

• The equitable distribution of educational opportunities as registered in the distinctive 

school experiences and performance of students from various policy-relevant 

subgroups. Such subgroups include 

o students in public and private high schools; 

o language minority students; 

o students with disabilities; 

o students in urban, suburban, and rural settings; 

o students in different regions of the country; 

o students from upper, middle, and lower socioeconomic status levels; 

o male and female high school students; and 

o students from different racial or ethnic groups. 

• Steps taken to facilitate the transition from high school to postsecondary education or 

the world of work. 

After ELS:2002 students have completed high school, a new set of issues can be 

examined. These issues include 

• the later educational and labor market activities of high school dropouts; 

• the transition of those who do not go directly on to postsecondary education or to the 

world of work; 

• access to, and choice of, undergraduate and graduate educational institutions; 

• persistence in attaining postsecondary educational goals; 

• rate of progress through the postsecondary curriculum; 

• degree attainment; 

• barriers to persistence and attainment; 

• entry of new postsecondary graduates into the workforce; 
36

• social and economic rate of return on education to both the individual and society; 

and 

• adult roles, such as family formation and civic participation. 

A.3 Overview of ELS:2002 Facilities Checklist 

Estimates in this report examine the following conditions of school facilities: 

• Cleanliness 

• Graffiti 

• Disrepair 

• Lighting 

• Bathrooms 

• Safety measures: 

o Locks controlled from the inside 

o Bars on windows 

o Posters or other materials on glass windows 

• Security measures: 

o Security guards 

o Metal detectors 

o Security cameras 

o Signage 

o Fencing around school 

o Student lockers 

o Exterior lights 

• Controlled access to campus: 

o Monitoring of parking lots 

o Locking of parking lots 

• Noise levels 

• Surrounding neighborhood conditions: 

o Litter 

o Graffiti 

o Boarded up buildings 

o Loiterers 
37

The facilities checklist was completed by an ELS:2002 survey interviewer while at the 

school.2

 Interviewers were trained at in-person sessions just prior to the start of data collection. 

They were familiarized with the instrument, its purpose, and its place in the larger context of 

ELS:2002. In order to maximize comparability of observations across schools, survey 

interviewers were asked to complete the facilities checklist in the middle of the day (for example, 

after the group administration for a morning session; before the group administration for an 

afternoon session). Certain items on the facilities checklist required interviewers to go to empty 

classrooms, meaning that they had to check the classrooms before classes started, during class 

change times, or during lunch. Procedures were also outlined for inspecting restrooms (e.g., the 

interviewer was told to enter only the restroom appropriate for her or his gender). 

A.4 Sample Design, Weighting, Response Rates, Standard Errors 

ELS:2002 was carried out on a national probability sample of 752 participating (of 1,221 

eligible contacted) public, Catholic, and other private schools, in the spring term of the 2001–02 

school year. Of 17,591 eligible selected sophomores, 15,362 completed a base-year 

questionnaire, as did 13,481 of their parents and 7,135 of their teachers.3

 Of the 752 

participating schools, 743 principals, and 718 librarians completed questionnaires, and 

interviewers completed facility checklists at each of the 752 participating schools. 

Further details of the instrumentation, sample design, data collection results, data 

processing, and the data files available for analysis may be found in the Education Longitudinal 

Study of 2002: Base Year Data File User’s Manual (Ingels, Pratt, Rogers, Siegel, and Stutts et 

al. 2003).4

 

A.4.1 Sampling 

The ELS:2002 base-year sample design began with a nationally representative, two-stage 

stratified probability sample. The first stage of selection was schools; schools were selected with 

probability proportional to size (PPS). The public school sample was stratified by the nine U.S. 

Census divisions, and by urbanicity (metropolitan status of urban, suburban, or rural). Private 

schools (Catholic and other private) were stratified by four levels of geography (Census region) 

and urbanicity; private schools were oversampled. The target sample size was 800 schools. 

Cooperation was sought from 1,221 eligible selections. The realized sample comprised 752 

participating 10th-grade schools. The second stage of selection was students. Of 17,591 sampled 

students in the schools, 15,362 students participated. Some groups (e.g., Asians) were 

oversampled. 

 

2

 The sex composition of the interviewers has not been determined. 

3

 Note that the participating student sample defines the eligible parent and teacher samples. The 7,135 teacher completions are

those linked to student respondents. Of the 15,362 student participants, 14,081 had at least one associated teacher-provided 

student report. 

4

 See appendix reference list (section A.6) for full citation. The manual can be downloaded from the NCES web site: 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
38

A.4.2 Weighting 

The general purpose of the weighting scheme was to compensate for unequal 

probabilities of selection of schools and students into the base-year sample and to adjust for the 

fact that not all schools and students selected into the sample actually participated. Three sets of 

weights were computed: a school weight, a weight for student questionnaire completion, and a 

contextual data weight for the “expanded” sample of questionnaire-eligible and questionnaireineligible students.5

 School and student weights were adjusted for nonresponse, and these 

adjustments were designed to significantly reduce or eliminate nonresponse bias for data 

elements known for most respondents and nonrespondents. In addition, school weights were 

poststratified to known population totals. The estimates in this report were produced using 

BYSCHWT, a cross-sectional weight that generalizes to all regular high schools with 10th grades 

in the United States in the spring term of the 2001-02 school year, and BYSTUWT, a crosssectional weight that generalizes to the population of 10th-graders in regular U.S. high schools in 

the spring term of the 2001–02 school year. 

A.4.3 Response Rates 

Of 1,221 eligible contacted schools, 752 participated in the study, for a unit weighted 

school participation rate of approximately 68 percent (62 percent unweighted). Of 17,591 

selected eligible students, 15,362 participated, for a unit weighted student response rate of 

approximately 87 percent. Thus, the overall unit response rate for students was 59 percent (68 

percent multiplied by 87 percent). School and student unit nonresponse bias analyses were 

performed, as well as an item nonresponse bias analysis for the questionnaires. The school-level 

bias due to nonresponse prior to weighting and after weighting was estimated based on the data 

collected from both respondents and nonrespondents, as well as sampling frame data. At the unit 

level (but not the item level), weighting techniques were employed to reduce detected bias, and 

after final nonresponse adjustments, the relative bias was reduced for schools and students. In 

general, when the relative bias was large before nonresponse adjustment, it was almost always 

reduced dramatically after nonresponse adjustment. When the relative bias was small before 

nonresponse adjustment, it stayed small after nonresponse adjustment, with occasional small 

increases. The data user should exercise caution in using the data because bias was not estimated 

and corrected for all variables. Unweighted school-level response by stratum is summarized in 

table A-1. Second-stage unit response rates by component are summarized in table A-2, and the 

weighted proportions for missing data that were imputed are shown in table A-3. 

Key variables were imputed statistically primarily to reduce the bias of survey estimates 

caused by missing data. These items include the variables listed in table A-3. The primary 

imputation procedure was a weighted sequential hot deck procedure. No item from the facilities 

checklist was imputed. A more complete discussion of the imputation procedures can be found 

in Ingels et al. (2003). 

 

5

 The expanded sample weight generalizes to the population of all sophomores, regardless of whether they were capable of 

completing the questionnaire. The regular student questionnaire weight (BYSTUWT) generalizes only to the population of 

students who were eligible to complete the student questionnaire, i.e., those who were not judged incapable of participation by

virtue of a severe disability or lack of proficiency in the English language. Base weights for schools and students are initially 

unadjusted, but are subsequently adjusted for nonresponse. 
39

Table A-1. Unweighted school sampling, eligibility, and participation by sampling stratum: 2002 

Sampled schools Eligible schools Participating schools 

School sampling stratum Number Percent1 Number Percent2 Number Percent3

 Total 1,268 100.00 1,221 96.29 752 61.59

Public 953 75.16 926 97.17 580 62.63

Catholic 140 11.04 140 100.00 95 67.86

Other private 175 13.80 155 88.57 77 49.68

Urban 434 34.23 414 95.39 250 60.39

Suburban 630 49.68 609 96.67 361 59.28

Rural 204 16.09 198 97.06 141 71.21

1

 Percent is based on overall total within column. 

2

 Percent is based on number sampled within row. 

3

 Percent is based on number eligible within row. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 

(ELS:2002). 

Table A-2. Summary of ELS:2002 base-year unit response rates: 2002 

Instrument Selected Participated 

Unweighted 

percent 

Weighted 

percent 

Overall weighted 

percent1

Student questionnaire 17,591 15,362 87.33 87.28 59.35 

Student assessment2 15,362 14,543 94.67 95.08 64.65 

Parent questionnaire3

 15,362 13,488 87.80 87.45 59.47 

Teacher ratings of students4

 15,362 14,081 91.66 91.64 62.32 

School interviewer questionnaire 752 743 98.80 98.53 67.00 

Library media center questionnaire 752 718 95.48 95.93 65.23 

Facilities checklist 752 752 100.00 100.00 68.00 

1

The overall weighted response rate is the weighted questionnaire response rate times the first stage weighted school response 

rate (68 percent). 

2

Percentage of cases for which a student questionnaire was obtained for which a cognitive test was also obtained. Note that test 

scores have been imputed where missing so that test scores are available for all 15,362 questionnaire completers. 3

Indicates a coverage rate, or the proportion of participating students with a parent report. More parents participated; these 

completion rates reflect the number of records in the public-use data file, where parent (and teacher) data were excluded for 

students who did not complete a base-year student questionnaire. 4

Indicates a coverage rate or the proportion of participating students with a rating from at least one teacher. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 

(ELS:2002). 
40

Table A-3. ELS:2002 variables: Weighted proportion missing and imputed 

Variable1

 Percent imputed 

Student sex 0.06 

Student race/ethnicity 0.05 

Mother’s educational attainment2

 4.06 

Mother’s occupation2

 5.70 

Father’s educational attainment2

 10.00 

Father’s occupation2 14.57 

Family income2

 22.51 

Student ability estimates (theta) for reading3

 6.26 

Student ability estimates (theta) for mathematics3 5.33 1

For key classification variables, missing data were replaced with imputed values. 2

Used to construct socioeconomic status (SES). 3

Used to construct normative (quartile) and proficiency scores. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 

(ELS:2002). 

A.4.4 Survey Standard Errors 

Because the ELS:2002 sample design involved stratification, the disproportionate 

sampling of certain strata, and clustered (i.e., multistage) probability sampling, the resulting 

statistics are more variable than they would have been if they had been based on data from a 

simple random sample of the same size. 

The calculation of exact standard errors for survey estimates can be difficult. Several 

procedures are available for calculating precise estimates of sampling errors for complex 

samples. Procedures such as Taylor Series approximations, Balanced Repeated Replication 

(BRR), and Jackknife Repeated Replication (JRR), which can be found in advanced statistical 

programs such as SUDAAN, AM, or WESVAR, produce similar results. The ELS:2002 

analyses included in this report used AM (http://am.air.org) and the Taylor Series procedure to 

calculate standard errors.

A.5 Statistical Procedures 

A.5.1 Student’s t Statistic 

Comparisons that have been drawn in the text of this report have been tested for 

statistical significance to ensure that the differences are larger than those that might be expected 

due to sampling variation. The statistical comparisons in this report were based largely on the t

statistic. Whether the statistical test is considered significant or not is determined by calculating 

a t value for the difference between a pair of means or proportions and comparing this value to 

published tables of values, called critical values (cv). The alpha level is an a priori statement of 

the probability that a difference exists in fact rather than by chance. 

The t statistic between estimates from various subgroups presented in the tables can be 

computed by using the following formula: 
41

( ) 2

2

2

1

1 2

SE SE

x x

t

+

− = , 

where x1 and x2 are the estimates to be compared (e.g., the means of sample members in two 

groups), and SE1 and SE2 are their corresponding standard errors.

A.6 Glossary—Definitions of Variables Used 

Each row variable used in the analyses for this report is described below, separately for 

the school and student-level analyses. More detailed information about derived or composite 

variables can be found in the ELS User’s Manual (see Ingels et al. 2003). 

SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS 

SECTOR (BYSCTRL): Type of school: Public or Private. This is taken directly from 

ELS:2002 sampling data. 

URBANICITY/LOCATION (BYURBAN): Metropolitan status of the school from the 

ELS sampling data: Urban, Suburban, or Rural. Urbanicity of school locale was from the 

Common Core of Data 1999–2000 and the Private School Survey 1999–2000. The specific 

definitions are as follows: Urban: the school is in a large of midsize central city; Suburban: the 

school is in a large or small town or is on the urban fringe of a large or midsize city; and Rural: 

the school is in a rural area, either inside or outside a metropolitan statistical area. 

SCHOOL ENROLLMENT (BYSCENP): Total school enrollment from school 

questionnaire (categorical). Response categories were combined as follows to create five 

categories: 1–399; 400–599 and 600–799; 800–999 and 1000–1199; 1200–1599; 1600–1999 and 

2000–2499 and 2500+ students. 

GRADE SPAN (BYSPANP): Grade span of 10th-grade school from the school 

administrator questionnaire: PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 through 12; 6, 7, or 8 through 12; 9 through 

10, 11, or 12; 10 through 11 or 12. 

GRADE 10 PERCENT FREE LUNCH (BY10FLP): Percent of 10th-graders eligible for 

free or reduced-price lunch from the school administrator questionnaire (categorical). Response 

categories were combined as follows to create four categories: 0–5 percent; 6–10 percent and 

11–20 percent; 21–30 percent and 31–50 percent; 51–75 percent and 76–100 percent. 

STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS 

SEX (SEX): This variable was constructed from BYS14 on the base-year student 

questionnaire or, where missing, from (in order of preference) the school roster, logical 

imputation based on first name, or statistical imputation. 
42

RACE/ETHNICITY (RACE_R): The race/ethnicity variable for this report was based on 

RACE_R with one simplification: “Hispanic/Latino, race specified” and “Hispanic/Latino, no 

race specified” are combined into one category, “Hispanic or Latino.” The resulting categories 

were: (1) American Indian or Alaska Native; (2) Asian or Pacific Islander, including Native 

Hawaiian; (3) Black, non-Hispanic, including African American; (4) Hispanic or Latino; (5) 

More than one race or Multiracial; and (6) White, non-Hispanic. All race categories exclude 

individuals of Hispanic ethnicity. 

RACE reflects new federal standards for collecting race and ethnicity data that allow 

respondents to mark more than one choice for race. RACE was obtained from the student 

questionnaire (BYS15, BYS17A, BYS17B, BYS17C, BYS17D, and BYS17E) when available or 

from (in order of preference) the sampling roster, the parent questionnaire if the parent 

respondent was a biological parent, or logical imputation based on other questionnaire items 

(e.g., surname, native language). 

SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS (SES2QU): The socioeconomic status (SES) variable 

used in this report combines the middle two categories of the SES2QU variable, which divides 

SES2 into quarters based on the weighted marginal distribution. Three categories result: (1) 

lowest quarter of SES2 (i.e., students below the 25th percentile rank for SES); (2) middle two 

quarters of SES2 (i.e., students whose SES percentile rank was at least 25th and below 75th); and 

(3) highest quarter of SES2 (i.e., students whose SES percentile rank was at least 75th). 

SES2 is a composite variable constructed from parent questionnaire data when available, 

and from imputation or student substitutions when not. SES is based on five equally weighted, 

standardized components: father’s/guardian’s education (FATHED), mother’s/guardian’s 

education (MOTHED), family income (INCOME), father’s/guardian’s occupational prestige 

score (from OCCUFATH), and mother’s/guardian’s occupational prestige score (from 

OCCUMOTH). 

SECTOR (BYSCTRL): Type of school for each student: Public or Private. This is 

taken directly from ELS:2002 sampling data. 

URBANICITY (BYURBAN): Metropolitan status of the school for each student from 

the ELS sampling data: Urban, Suburban, or Rural. Urbanicity of school locale was from the 

Common Core of Data 1999–2000 and the Private School Survey 1999–2000. The specific 

definitions are as follows: Urban: the school is in a large or midsize central city; Suburban: the 

school is in a large or small town or is on the urban fringe of a large or midsize city; and Rural: 

the school is in a rural area, either inside or outside a metropolitan statistical area. 

NATIVE LANGUAGE/LANGUAGE MINORITY STATUS (STLANG): The data for 

STLANG were taken directly from the student questionnaire (BYS67) when available. 

Otherwise, they were imputed. 

COMPOSITE ACHIEVEMENT TEST (BYTXCQU): This is the standardized test 

composite score (reading and mathematics) quarter. The composite score is the average of the 

math (BYTXMSTD) and reading (BYTXRSTD) standardized scores, restandardized to a 

national mean of 50.0 and standard deviation of 10.0. Some students had scores for only the 
43

math test or reading test, but not both. For students who did not have both scores, the composite 

is based on the single score that was available. The standardized t score provides a normreferenced measurement of achievement, that is, an estimate of achievement relative to the 

population (spring 2002 10th-graders) as a whole. It provides information on status compared to 

peers (as distinguished from the IRT-estimated number-right score, which represents status with 

respect to achievement on a particular criterion set of test items). The quarter score divides the 

weighted (population estimate) achievement distributions into four equal groups. The middle 

two groups were combined for the analyses in this report, resulting in three categories: the lowest 

quarter, the middle two quarters, and the highest quarter. 

Please note at a point in time when this report was in a late stage of preparation, an error 

was found in the reading scores of a subset of the base-year student sample. An investigation of 

the impact of the error established that estimates based on the erroneous scores differed by very 

little from corrected estimates (where there was an effect at all, it was generally in the low tenths 

of one percent range) and affected no conclusions of this or other NCES reports then being 

drafted or reviewed. Nonetheless, because the base year error has now been corrected, data users 

employing the corrected files will find that they cannot replicate precisely the reading score 

estimates in this report. 

HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM (SCHPROG): Type of school program reported by the 

student: General, College preparatory, or Vocational. 

 FEELS SAFE AT SCHOOL (BYS20J): This variable is derived from an item that asks 

whether students “Strongly agree,” “Agree,” “Disagree,” or “Strongly disagree” with the 

following statement: “I don't feel safe at this school.” For this report, the four response options 

were collapsed into two: “Agree” and “Disagree.” 

LIKES SCHOOL A GREAT DEAL (BYS28): This variable is derived from an item that 

asks how much students like school. The three response options are “Not at all,” “Somewhat,” 

and “A great deal.” For this report, the response options “Not at all” and “Somewhat” were 

collapsed into one option. 

A.7 Appendix A Reference 

Ingels, S.J., Pratt, D.J., Rogers, J., Siegel, P.H., and Stutts, E.S. (2003). Education 

Longitudinal Study of 2002: Base Year Data File User’s Manual (NCES 2004-405). 

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

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
44

This page is intentionally blank. 
45

Appendix B 

Standard Error Tables 
46

This page is intentionally blank.
47

School condition Front hallway Classrooms Bathrooms

Condition present in 

hallways, classrooms, 

or bathrooms: At any 

school location

Condition present in 

hallways, classrooms, 

and bathrooms: At all 

school locations

At least one condition present 2.60 3.20 3.05 2.96 †

Trash on floor 1.26 1.00 1.74 2.10 0.36

Trash overflowing 0.90 0.29 0.98 1.28 0.09

Graffiti

Any location 0.05 0.94 1.04 1.38 0.10

Walls 0.30 0.36 0.39 0.53 †

Lockers 0.46 — — 0.46 —

Desks — 0.88 — 0.88 —

Bathroom — — 1.00 1.00 —

Ceiling in disrepair 1.87 1.79 — 2.37 0.85

Floors/walls not clean 1.50 3.00 — 3.00 1.00

Broken lights 0.89 0.35 — 0.94 0.14

Chipped paint on walls 1.80 — — 1.80 —

Broken windows — 0.14 — 0.14 —

Doors not on all stalls — — 3.00 3.00 —

— Data were not collected or not reported. 

† Not applicable. 

Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002); School Administrator Questionnaire of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002

(ELS:2002).

Table S1. Standard errors for table 1: Percent of 10th-grade schools, by location within school and by 

NOTE: Estimates include the described condition if it was present at any of the observed school locations in question

(i.e., hallways, classrooms, or bathrooms). See appendix C for specific survey items. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Facilities Checklist of the Education 

 specified physical or structural condition: 2002
48

School characteristic Trash on floor

Trash 

overflowing Graffiti

Ceiling in 

disrepair

Floors/walls 

not clean Broken lights

Chipped paint 

on walls

Broken 

windows

Doors not on 

all bathroom 

stalls

Total 2.10 1.30 1.40 2.40 3.00 0.90 1.80 0.10 3.00

Sector

Public 2.56 1.20 1.80 3.08 3.40 1.20 2.30 0.20 3.53

Private 3.50 3.30 0.90 2.00 6.70 1.10 2.00 † 5.69

Urbanicity

Urban 5.80 3.70 3.20 1.89 5.15 2.55 2.39 0.34 6.07

Suburban 2.50 2.00 1.89 3.14 4.56 1.04 2.99 0.33 3.83

Rural 3.20 1.10 2.40 5.19 5.76 1.70 3.31 † 6.01

Enrollment

1-399 3.93 1.57 1.77 5.39 5.88 1.91 4.13 † 6.01

400-799 3.44 2.65 3.88 1.65 4.67 0.53 1.14 0.31 4.62

800-1,199 2.71 1.99 2.88 1.75 4.28 1.40 1.98 1.15 4.16

1,200-1,599 3.72 2.87 3.95 1.94 4.66 0.94 3.09 † 3.78

1,600 plus 3.88 1.95 3.73 1.91 3.58 1.44 2.32 † 2.71

Grade span

PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 

 through 12 2.76 2.71 0.52 5.63 8.13 † 3.27 † 6.95

6, 7, or 8 through 12 6.18 4.29 4.05 4.53 6.73 4.04 5.29 0.07 7.32

9 through 10, 11, 12 2.98 1.42 2.21 2.89 3.30 1.31 2.41 0.30 3.45

10 through 11, 12 10.12 2.19 9.72 3.01 3.88 3.96 2.07 † 12.25

Percent of grade 10 

students eligible for a free 

or reduced-price lunch

0-5 percent 3.62 3.34 1.92 1.83 5.85 1.37 1.74 † 4.89

6-20 percent 4.62 2.10 3.87 4.00 5.18 2.06 2.40 0.57 6.95

21-50 percent 2.46 0.52 2.76 6.14 6.63 0.64 3.81 0.32 4.27

51-100 percent 8.56 4.23 2.73 8.29 9.43 3.84 8.25 0.59 10.01

 † Not applicable.

School Administrator Questionnaire of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002).

Table S2. Standard errors for table 2: Percent of 10th-grade schools with a specified physical or structural condition present, by selected school 

Table S2. characteristics: 2002

NOTE: Estimates include the described condition if it was present at any of the observed school locations in question (i.e. hallways, classrooms, or bathrooms). 

See appendix C for specific survey items.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Facilities Checklist of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002); 
49

School characteristic

Bars on 

windows

Posters or 

other 

materials 

on glass 

windows

Security 

guards

Metal 

detectors

Security 

cameras

Fencing 

around 

entire 

school

Student 

lockers

Exterior 

lights

Total 1.06 2.98 2.44 0.76 2.11 2.10 2.29 2.66

Sector

Public 0.88 3.24 3.00 0.96 2.07 1.87 1.79 2.69

Private 3.08 6.68 3.95 1.03 5.56 5.81 6.46 6.49

Urbanicity

Urban 4.41 4.19 4.75 1.96 3.37 5.13 3.76 5.92

Suburban 0.71 2.79 3.48 1.02 3.03 1.94 3.58 3.78

Rural 0.71 6.60 4.62 1.30 4.06 4.22 3.84 4.29

Enrollment

1-399 1.66 6.17 4.31 0.50 3.43 4.00 4.48 5.56

400-799 1.73 4.02 3.92 2.42 4.47 3.37 3.57 4.45

800-1,199 7.15 3.66 4.94 1.04 3.85 6.03 6.18 2.58

1,200-1,599 2.02 3.44 5.12 2.78 4.59 3.53 2.48 2.39

1,600 plus 1.91 3.40 3.44 1.33 3.46 3.65 2.80 2.80

Grade span

PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 through 12 2.86 7.62 5.67 0.83 5.51 5.58 5.48 5.69

6, 7, or 8 through 12 0.67 5.50 5.22 2.86 5.26 2.99 6.84 7.97

9 through 10, 11, 12 1.21 2.53 2.94 1.03 2.00 2.35 1.92 2.84

10 through 11, 12 † 10.30 10.27 † 10.05 5.56 12.80 3.57

Percent of grade 10 students eligible 

for a free or reduced-price lunch

0-5 percent 0.84 5.36 3.83 0.90 4.70 4.62 4.86 5.21

6-20 percent 0.80 7.64 3.99 1.40 3.65 2.98 3.76 4.44

21-50 percent 1.02 4.89 5.29 0.96 2.94 2.29 2.82 4.13

51-100 percent 6.93 3.80 8.61 3.94 3.20 8.27 6.32 8.11

See notes at end of table.

Table S3. Standard errors for table 3: Percent of 10th-grade schools with specified safety and security 

 measures, by selected school characteristics: 2002

Classroom conditions Security measures
50

Sign providing 

directions to 

front office or 

stating that 

visitors must 

proceed to the 

front office

A sign 

conveying the 

message "no 

drugs"

A sign 

conveying the 

message "no 

trespassing"

A sign 

conveying the 

message "no 

weapons"

Monitored by 

video camera

Monitored by 

person

Locked during 

the day

Total 3.30 3.04 2.58 2.24 1.95 2.17 1.46

Sector

Public 3.71 3.80 3.31 2.82 1.63 2.77 1.59

Private 6.29 3.03 2.46 2.96 6.05 2.47 3.37

Urbanicity

Urban 5.57 4.07 3.49 3.16 1.51 4.37 1.82

Suburban 4.45 3.36 3.04 3.28 2.83 2.18 2.75

Rural 6.86 6.91 5.90 4.50 3.92 4.71 1.64

Enrollment

1-399 6.54 6.33 5.16 4.33 3.40 3.79 2.19

400-799 5.35 5.69 4.92 4.64 5.13 3.54 3.13

800-1,199 5.97 4.00 3.67 3.25 2.79 3.49 4.18

1,200-1,599 5.12 4.33 3.95 3.60 3.66 3.69 3.83

1,600 plus 3.75 3.85 3.70 3.23 2.62 3.66 2.79

Grade span

PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 

through 12 7.90 8.05 6.93 5.55 6.04 5.69 3.03

6, 7, or 8 through 12 7.11 6.05 6.35 5.41 2.98 3.56 3.33

9 through 10, 11, 12 3.55 2.72 2.40 2.52 1.31 2.41 1.86

10 through 11, 12 7.68 9.86 9.32 7.11 7.28 8.81 4.58

Percent of students eligible 

for a free or reduced-price 

lunch

0-5 percent 5.73 3.67 2.66 2.81 5.02 2.70 2.24

6-20 percent 5.77 7.00 7.42 3.78 2.39 2.87 4.09

21-50 percent 6.57 6.79 5.10 5.38 1.52 5.22 2.17

51-100 percent 9.45 7.65 7.66 5.81 2.20 8.09 4.01

† Not applicable.

Table S3. Standard errors for table 3: Percent of 10th-grade schools with specified safety and security 

 measures, by selected school characteristics: 2002—Continued

Signage Parking Lots

School characteristics

NOTE: Estimates include the described condition if it was present at any of the observed school locations in question (i.e., hallways, 

classrooms, or bathrooms). See appendix C for specific survey items.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Facilities Checklist of the Education Longitudinal Study of 

2002 (ELS:2002) School Administrator Questionnaire of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002).
51

School characteristic

Noise level is about the 

sound of a whisper

Noise level is about the 

sound of a normal 

conversation

Noise level at least the 

sound of yelling

Total 2.98 2.95 0.81

Sector

Public 3.44 3.39 0.94

Private 5.99 6.00 1.55

Urbanicity

Urban 5.61 5.64 3.00

Suburban 4.13 4.09 0.95

Rural 5.59 5.57 0.41

Enrollment

1-399 5.80 5.71 1.82

400-799 5.77 5.81 1.23

800-1,199 5.40 5.37 0.68

1,200-1,599 5.02 5.03 1.14

1,600 plus 3.78 3.79 0.44

Grade span

PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 through 12 7.31 7.31 †

6, 7, or 8 through 12 7.10 7.11 2.29

9 through 10, 11, 12 3.23 3.15 1.38

10 through 11, 12 10.80 10.59 2.01

Percent of grade 10 students eligible for 

a free or reduced-price lunch

0-5 percent 5.19 5.23 1.33

6-20 percent 5.16 4.85 1.21

21-50 percent 6.10 6.01 1.21

51-100 percent 9.52 9.27 4.09

† Not applicable.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Facilities

Checklist of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002); School Administrator 

Questionnaire of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002).

Table S4. Standard errors for table 4: Percent of 10th-grade schools with varying noise levels, 

NOTE: Observers were asked to stand in the main entrance into the school and observe the school’s 

front hallway(s) during a time when most students are in class (i.e., a class period). They were then

asked to rate the noise level of the school. See appendix C for specific survey items. 

 by selected school characteristics: 2002
52

 surrounding neighborhood, by selected school characteristics: 2002

School characteristic

Litter/trash in 

the 

neighborhood

Graffiti in the 

neighborhood

Boarded up 

buildings

Persons 

congregated 

on the streets

Students 

loitering

Total 2.29 1.20 2.30 1.24 0.96

Sector

Public 2.44 0.81 2.60 0.85 1.26

Private 5.41 3.92 4.84 4.07 0.97

Urbanicity

Urban 6.64 5.13 6.75 5.17 3.80

Suburban 2.35 0.59 3.63 0.58 0.61

Rural 3.10 0.11 1.51 0.12 1.03

Enrollment

1-399 4.42 2.24 4.70 2.33 1.35

400-799 2.59 1.06 1.10 1.06 2.49

800-1,199 6.36 6.28 6.24 6.22 1.65

1,200-1,599 4.32 1.58 2.35 1.38 2.62

1,600 plus 2.85 1.31 0.97 1.75 2.71

Grade span

PK, K, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 through 12 5.11 3.43 4.31 3.54 †

6, 7 or 8 through 12 4.96 2.18 5.01 2.49 4.51

9 through 10, 11, 12 2.89 1.06 3.32 1.08 1.25

10 through 11, 12 5.53 1.19 † 2.30 6.90

Percent of grade 10 students eligible for a free or 

reduced-price lunch

0-5 percent 4.45 2.52 3.69 2.64 1.96

6-20 percent 3.80 1.14 1.63 1.24 2.02

21-50 percent 2.33 0.46 1.20 0.53 0.89

51-100 percent 9.21 6.17 10.65 6.19 4.31

See notes at end of table.

Table S5. Standard errors for table 5: Percent of 10th-grade schools with a specified condition in the 
53

School characteristic

Litter/trash in 

the 

neighborhood

Graffiti in the 

neighborhood

Boarded up 

buildings

Persons 

congregated 

on the streets

Students 

loitering

School condition

No trash on floor 1.92 1.26 2.10 1.30 0.47

Trash on floor 7.31 3.59 8.05 3.67 5.19

No trash overflowing 2.22 1.13 2.24 1.17 0.63

Trash overflowing 12.11 9.37 12.98 9.34 11.42

No graffiti 2.40 1.31 2.53 1.34 0.83

Graffiti 6.43 2.95 4.12 3.02 5.42

Ceiling not in disrepair 2.43 1.31 2.18 1.34 1.03

Ceiling in disrepair 7.04 3.23 10.71 3.43 3.12

Floors/walls clean 2.74 1.34 2.46 1.40 1.33

Floors/walls not clean 4.05 2.43 4.75 2.52 1.22

No broken lights 2.31 1.13 2.32 1.16 0.84

Broken lights 13.05 13.53 13.85 15.01 13.14

No chipped paint on walls 2.41 1.30 2.08 1.32 0.99

Chipped paint on walls 8.11 3.02 12.89 4.00 4.98

No broken windows 1.96 1.33 2.23 1.37 1.06

Broken windows 19.51 17.36 † 16.62 18.63

Doors on all bathroom stalls 5.80 3.20 6.18 3.36 2.78

Doors not on all bathroom stalls 1.97 1.06 1.75 1.11 0.77

† Not applicable.

Table S5. Standard errors for table 5: Percent of 10th-grade schools with a specified condition in the surrounding 

Table S5. neighborhood, by selected school characteristics: 2002—Continued

NOTE: For each of the five neighborhood conditions, interviewers were asked to stand outside of the school (near the entrance, where 

most visitors arrive), and look at the neighborhood/area surrounding the school. They were asked to record the degree to which they 

noticed each condition: none, a little, some, or a lot. The percents presented here are the sum of a little, some, and a lot.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Facilities Checklist of the Education Longitudinal Study 

of 2002 (ELS:2002); School Administrator Questionnaire of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002).

 
54

Student characteristic

Trash on 

floor

Trash 

overflowing Graffiti

Ceiling in 

disrepair

Floors/walls 

not clean

Broken 

lights

Chipped 

paint on 

walls

Broken 

windows

Doors not on 

all bathroom 

stalls

Total 1.84 0.95 1.05 1.18 1.94 0.83 1.27 0.41 1.74

Sex

Female 1.84 0.99 1.05 1.23 1.98 0.78 1.25 0.33 1.82

Male 1.93 0.98 1.09 1.22 2.01 0.90 1.36 0.51 1.78

Race

American Indian, non-Hispanic 6.35 1.61 † 1.47 9.67 4.39 4.70 † 10.31

Asian, non-Hispanic 3.98 2.17 1.41 2.39 3.80 2.76 2.68 0.39 3.46

Black, non-Hispanic 3.32 2.32 2.34 2.28 3.34 1.60 2.70 0.74 3.41

Hispanic 3.99 1.81 3.61 2.73 3.83 0.99 3.60 1.64 3.23

Multiracial, non-Hispanic 2.87 1.35 1.43 1.96 2.94 1.60 2.16 0.69 2.59

Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 6.37 † 6.75 6.58 11.00 4.65 6.23 † 11.27

White, non-Hispanic 1.80 0.94 0.70 1.27 2.15 1.00 1.15 0.28 1.86

Socioeconomic Status

Lowest quarter 2.43 1.27 1.90 1.69 2.57 0.85 2.05 0.78 2.21

Middle two quarters 1.89 1.00 1.00 1.20 2.07 0.85 1.28 0.38 1.87

Highest quarter 2.11 1.04 0.96 1.21 2.22 1.02 1.23 0.16 2.10

Control

Public 1.98 1.03 1.13 1.27 2.08 0.90 1.37 0.44 1.86

Private 2.40 1.00 0.65 1.40 3.62 0.50 1.24 † 2.93

Urbanicity

Urban 3.78 2.13 2.36 2.37 3.73 1.51 3.00 0.31 3.29

Suburban 2.56 1.18 1.45 1.48 2.72 1.18 1.52 0.79 2.44

Rural 3.14 1.91 1.11 2.85 4.02 1.86 2.13 † 3.75

See notes at end of table.

Table S6. Standard errors for table 6: Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with a specified physical or structural 

 condition present by selected 
55

Table S6.

Student characteristic

Trash on 

floor

Trash 

overflowing Graffiti

Ceiling in 

disrepair

Floors/walls 

not clean

Broken 

lights

Chipped 

paint on 

walls

Broken 

windows

Doors not on 

all bathroom 

stalls

Native Language

Non-English 3.91 1.80 3.24 2.75 3.50 1.06 3.41 1.20 2.89

English 1.73 0.93 0.83 1.16 1.94 0.87 1.13 0.34 1.73

High school program

General 2.04 1.02 1.00 1.37 2.31 1.04 1.44 0.46 1.97

College preparatory 1.85 0.99 1.08 1.18 1.92 0.91 1.29 0.37 1.79

Vocational 2.44 1.53 1.73 1.63 2.75 0.68 1.72 0.69 2.64

Composite achievement test

Lowest quarter 2.61 1.33 1.86 1.47 2.56 0.81 2.05 0.76 2.27

Middle two quarters 1.80 1.09 0.98 1.19 1.99 0.86 1.16 0.36 1.82

Highest quarter 2.02 0.89 0.73 1.33 2.17 1.24 1.30 0.20 2.07

Likes school a great deal

Disagree 2.15 1.21 0.94 1.35 2.27 1.11 1.48 0.51 2.09

Agree 1.90 0.94 1.16 1.24 2.02 0.90 1.33 0.45 1.76

Feels safe at school

Disagree 1.84 0.94 0.95 1.17 1.94 0.81 1.20 0.39 1.73

Agree 2.63 1.47 2.03 1.45 2.76 0.95 2.18 0.73 2.54

† Not applicable.

Standard errors for table 6: Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with a specified physical or structural condition present, 

by selected student characteristics: 2002—Continued

Student Questionnaire of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002).

NOTE: Estimates include the described condition if it was present at any of the observed school locations in question (i.e., hallways, classrooms, or bathrooms). 

See appendix C for specific survey items. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Facilities Checklist of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002);
56

Table S7.

Student characteristic

Total 1.92 0.98 1.80 1.01 1.70 1.41 1.28

Sex

Female 2.01 0.95 1.88 1.00 1.75 1.42 1.38

Male 1.97 1.08 1.90 1.08 1.77 1.50 1.28

Race

American Indian, non-Hispanic 10.08 7.89 8.06 † 11.27 3.03 8.26

Asian, non-Hispanic 3.65 1.95 3.19 3.04 3.92 3.09 2.78

Black, non-Hispanic 2.78 2.99 3.36 2.34 3.17 2.08 2.22

Hispanic 3.63 1.83 3.22 2.93 3.82 3.49 2.42

Multiracial, non-Hispanic 3.04 1.55 2.94 1.21 2.71 2.09 2.42

Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic 10.64 7.16 9.29 † 9.04 6.32 3.84

White, non-Hispanic 2.21 0.87 2.12 0.60 1.61 1.36 1.41

Socioeconomic Status

Lowest quarter 2.46 1.45 2.20 1.63 2.48 2.01 1.53

Middle two quarters 2.04 0.96 2.04 1.06 1.79 1.47 1.28

Highest quarter 2.36 1.11 2.29 0.81 1.87 1.69 1.96

Control

Public 2.05 1.06 1.97 1.09 1.81 1.50 1.36

Private 3.68 0.85 3.40 1.59 3.84 3.14 3.13

Urbanicity

Urban 3.38 2.22 3.10 2.58 3.45 2.49 2.48

Suburban 2.78 1.33 2.83 1.28 2.38 2.15 1.81

Rural 4.39 1.36 3.59 0.45 2.97 2.57 2.59

See notes at end of table. 

Standard errors for table 7: Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with specified safety and 

security measures, by selected student characteristics: 2002

Exterior 

lights

Security 

guards

Metal 

detectors

Security 

cameras

Bars on 

windows

Fencing 

around 

entire 

school

Student 

lockers

Security measures
57

Table S7.

Native 

Language

Non-English 3.35 1.92 2.84 2.69 3.41 2.89 2.48

English 1.96 0.95 1.90 0.79 1.58 1.37 1.28

High school 

program

General 2.19 0.95 2.06 1.14 1.96 1.48 1.37

College preparatory 2.03 1.07 1.93 0.89 1.73 1.51 1.32

Vocational 2.66 2.41 2.80 1.90 2.49 1.98 2.49

Composite achievement test

Lowest quarter 2.41 1.82 2.31 1.89 2.55 1.95 1.50

Middle two quarters 2.00 0.92 1.91 0.93 1.75 1.44 1.31

Highest quarter 2.28 1.13 2.27 0.72 1.87 1.59 1.77

Likes school a great deal

Disagree 2.49 1.09 2.38 1.00 1.92 1.87 1.69

Agree 1.98 0.96 1.88 1.02 1.75 1.40 1.29

Feels safe at school

Disagree 1.92 0.98 1.84 0.94 1.67 1.40 1.34

Agree 2.48 1.52 2.64 2.00 2.68 2.13 1.38

See notes at end of table.

Bars on 

windows

Security measures

Standard errors for table 7: Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with specified safety and security 

measures, by selected student characteristics: 2002—Continued

Student characteristic

Fencing 

around 

entire 

school

Student 

lockers

Exterior 

lights

Security 

guards

Metal 

detectors

Security 

cameras
58

Table S7.

Sign providing 

directions to 

front office or 

stating that 

visitors must 

proceed to the 

front office

A sign 

conveying the 

message "no 

drugs"

A sign 

conveying the 

message "no 

trespassing"

A sign 

conveying the 

message "no 

weapons"

Monitored by 

video camera

Monitored by 

person

Locked during 

the day

Total 2.04 2.00 1.97 1.63 1.49 1.81 1.59

Sex

Female 2.06 2.02 2.01 1.62 1.50 1.86 1.66

Male 2.15 2.10 2.06 1.73 1.55 1.87 1.62

Race/Ethnicity

American Indian, non-Hispanic 9.61 10.75 10.89 10.07 5.00 4.67 3.69

Asian, non-Hispanic 3.71 4.29 4.67 3.82 3.39 4.03 3.74

Black, non-Hispanic 3.50 3.30 3.15 3.01 2.88 3.22 2.80

Hispanic 4.03 4.07 3.96 3.55 2.44 3.95 3.58

Multiracial, non-Hispanic 2.80 2.86 2.68 2.36 2.37 2.76 2.50

Pacific, non-Hispanic 11.23 6.27 11.17 5.52 9.64 9.83 2.18

White, non-Hispanic 2.24 2.19 2.17 1.71 1.67 2.04 1.67

Socioeconomic status

Lowest quarter 2.62 2.53 2.44 2.10 1.75 2.28 2.34

Middle two quarters 2.16 2.13 2.08 1.70 1.65 1.94 1.59

Highest quarter 2.53 2.39 2.31 1.85 1.79 2.20 1.88

Control

Public 2.19 2.14 2.12 1.75 1.59 1.93 1.69

Private 4.14 2.87 3.43 2.26 2.30 3.19 3.40

Urbanicity

Urban 3.73 3.80 3.40 2.81 2.46 3.10 2.65

Suburban 2.95 2.80 2.95 2.39 2.37 2.62 2.41

Rural 4.29 4.23 4.03 3.55 2.37 4.14 3.11

See notes at end of table.

Student characteristic

Signage Parking lots

Standard errors for table 7: Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with specified safety and security measures, 

by selected student characteristics: 2002—Continued
59

Sign providing 

directions to 

front office or 

stating that 

visitors must 

proceed to the 

front office

A sign 

conveying the 

message "no 

drugs"

A sign 

conveying the 

message "no 

trespassing"

A sign 

conveying the 

message "no 

weapons"

Monitored by 

video camera

Monitored by 

person

Locked during 

the day

Native Language

Non-English 3.61 3.51 3.58 2.70 2.25 3.14 3.19

English 2.05 2.00 1.95 1.64 1.51 1.86 1.56

High school program

General 2.31 2.26 2.25 1.83 1.60 1.99 1.72

College preparatory 2.09 2.07 2.02 1.69 1.57 1.95 1.71

Vocational 3.02 3.09 3.04 2.79 2.71 2.51 2.44

Composite achievement test

Lowest quarter 2.75 2.57 2.45 2.06 1.75 2.32 2.02

Middle two quarters 2.04 2.06 2.04 1.73 1.59 1.92 1.63

Highest quarter 2.51 2.32 2.40 1.78 1.81 2.05 1.90

Likes school a great deal

Disagree 2.44 2.57 2.51 2.19 1.92 2.27 1.84

Agree 2.09 2.05 2.03 1.67 1.53 1.87 1.62

Feels safe at school

Disagree 2.04 1.99 1.97 1.62 1.48 1.81 1.56

Agree 2.78 2.72 2.67 2.19 2.01 2.54 2.47

† Not applicable.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Facilities Checklist of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002);

Student Questionnaire of the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002).

NOTE: Estimates include the described condition if it was present at any of the observed school locations in question (i.e., hallways, classrooms, or bathrooms). 

See appendix C for specific survey items.

Table S7. Standard errors for table 7: Percent of 10th-grade students in schools with specified safety and security measures, by 

Student characteristic

Signage Parking lots

 selected student characteristics: 2002—Continued
60

This page is intentionally blank.
61

Appendix C 

Education Longitudinal Study: 2002 

Facilities Checklist Questionnaire
62

This page is intentionally blank.
63

EDUCATION LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF 2002 

FACILITIES CHECKLIST 

Sponsored by: 

U.S. Department of Education 

National Center for Education Statistics 

Conducted by: 

RTI 

This checklist is to be completed by the ELS:2002 Survey Interviewer 

 SA Name: 

 SA ID: 
64
65

1. Standing at the main entrance into the school, observe the school’s front hallway(s) 

during a time when most students are in class (i.e., a class period). Take as much time 

as necessary to observe the hallway(s). For each item listed, indicate whether you 

observed it or not. 

 (MARK ONE RESPONSE ON EACH LINE) 

 Yes, No, 

 observed did not observe 

a. Trash on the floors.................................................Ο....................Ο

b. Trash overflowing from trashcans .......................Ο....................Ο

c. Broken lights...........................................................Ο....................Ο

d. Graffiti on the walls/doors/ceilings.......................Ο....................Ο

e. Graffiti on the lockers............................................Ο....................Ο

f. Visible fire or emergency alarms..........................Ο....................Ο

g. Chipped paint on the walls/doors/ceilings ...........Ο....................Ο

h. Ceilings in disrepair (e.g., falling in, water 

 damage, missing tiles or plaster) .......................... Ο....................Ο

i. Visible exit signs ..................................................... Ο....................Ο

j. Floors and walls appear clean............................... Ο....................Ο 

2. Standing in the same place as in Question 1, during the same time, when students are in 

class, please rate the noise level of the school. 

 (MARK ONE RESPONSE) 

Noise level is about the sound of a whisper............................Ο

Noise level is about the sound of a normal conversation......Ο

Noise level is about the sound of yelling.................................Ο

Noise level is about the sound of a busy street.......................Ο

3. For each item listed, indicate whether you see this sign inside and outside the main 

entrance to the school. 

 (MARK ALL THAT APPLY ON EACH LINE) 

 Yes, Yes, No, 

 observed observed did not 

 inside outside observe 

a. A sign providing directions to 

 the front office or stating that 

 visitors must proceed to the front 

 office ........................................................................Ο....................Ο....................Ο

b. A sign conveying the message 

 "no drugs" ..............................................................Ο....................Ο....................Ο

c. A sign conveying the message 

 "no trespassing".....................................................Ο....................Ο....................Ο

d. A sign conveying the message 

 "no weapons" .........................................................Ο....................Ο....................Ο
66

4. During a time when most students are in class (i.e., a class period), enter any student

bathroom appropriate to your sex. For each item listed, indicate whether you observed 

it or not. 

 (MARK ONE RESPONSE ON EACH LINE) 

 Yes, No, 

 observed did not observe 

a. Graffiti on walls and ceilings ................................ Ο....................Ο

b. Graffiti on bathroom stall doors or walls ............ Ο....................Ο

c. Trash on the floors.................................................Ο....................Ο

d. Trash overflowing from trash cans ...................... Ο....................Ο

e. Doors on all stalls ...................................................Ο....................Ο

f. Student(s) loitering.................................................Ο....................Ο

g. Student(s) smoking.................................................Ο....................Ο

5. During a change in classes or other time when classrooms are not in session, enter one 

classroom in which high school students are taught. For each item listed, indicate 

whether you observed it in the classroom. If the room has no windows, mark "Not 

applicable" for items i, j, and k. 

 (MARK ONE RESPONSE ON EACH LINE) 

 Yes, No, Not 

 observed did not observe applicable 

 a. Locks controlled from inside of door.......................Ο....................Ο

 b. Ceiling in disrepair (e.g., falling in, water 

 damage, missing tiles or plaster)..............................Ο....................Ο

 c. Broken lights............................................................Ο....................Ο

 d. Graffiti on walls, ceilings, doors..............................Ο....................Ο

 e. Graffiti on desks.......................................................Ο....................Ο

 f. Trash on floors .........................................................Ο....................Ο

 g. Trash overflowing from trash cans ..........................Ο....................Ο

 h. Floors and walls appear clean..................................Ο....................Ο

 i. Posters or other materials on glass windows ...........Ο....................Ο....................Ο

 j. Bars on windows......................................................Ο....................Ο....................Ο

 k. Broken windows ......................................................Ο....................Ο....................Ο
67

6. Do a majority of the following individuals wear identification cards/badges? 

 (MARK ONE RESPONSE ON EACH LINE) 

 

 Yes No 

a. Students...................................................................Ο....................Ο

b. Teachers..................................................................Ο....................Ο

c. Other Personnel .....................................................Ο....................Ο

d. Visitors ....................................................................Ο....................Ο

7. Does this school have one or more parking lots? 

 Yes .............................................................................................Ο Æ(Go to question 8)

 No...............................................................................................Ο Æ(Skip to question 

9)

8. Now observing the school parking lot(s') entrances and exits, please answer each 

question below based on what you observe. By "entrances/exits" we mean roadways into 

and/or out of parking lots that connect to roads off of school property.

a. Count the number of entrances/exits in the 

 school's parking lot(s) that connect to roads 

 off of school property. How many are there?................... 

b. Of these entrances/exits in the school's 

 parking lot(s), how many are monitored by a 

 video camera?....................................................................... 

c. Of these entrances/exits, how many 

 are monitored by a person during the day? ...................... 

d. Of these entrances/exits, how many are 

 locked during the day? ........................................................ 
68

9. While you are standing outside of the school (near the entrance where most visitors 

arrive), look at the neighborhood/area surrounding the school. Please indicate to 

what degree you notice the following factors in the neighborhood/area surrounding 

this school.

 (MARK ONE RESPONSE ON EACH LINE) 

 None A little Some A lot 

a. Litter/trash......................................Ο....................Ο....................Ο....................Ο

b. Graffiti ............................................Ο....................Ο....................Ο.................... Ο

c. Boarded up buildings.....................Ο....................Ο....................Ο.................... Ο

d. Persons congregated on streets.....Ο....................Ο....................Ο....................Ο

e. Students loitering ...........................Ο....................Ο....................Ο.................... Ο

10. For each of the following security measures, indicate whether you observed it today. 

 (MARK ONE RESPONSE ON EACH LINE) 

 Yes, No, 

 observed did not observe 

a. Security guard ........................................................Ο....................Ο 

b. Metal detectors.......................................................Ο....................Ο

c. Security cameras ....................................................Ο....................Ο

d. Fencing around the entire school..........................Ο....................Ο

e. Sign-in policies........................................................Ο....................Ο

f. Visitors are greeted and directed by an adult to 

 sign in at office........................................................Ο....................Ο

g. Fire alarms..............................................................Ο....................Ο

h. Fire extinguishers...................................................Ο....................Ο

i. Fire sprinklers ........................................................Ο....................Ο

j. Exterior lights.........................................................Ο....................Ο

k. Student lockers....................................................... Ο....................Ο

l. Student uniforms....................................................Ο....................Ο

m. Signs at exterior doors stating alarm will go off 

 if door is opened .....................................................Ο....................Ο