1 

EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT 

STATE AND LOCAL REPORT CARDS

NON-REGULATORY GUIDANCE

January 2017 

Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress has passed, and the President has signed, a resolution of

disapproval of the accountability and State plans final regulations that were published on November 29,

2016 (81 FR 86076). Because the resolution of disapproval invalidates the accountability and State plan

final regulations, the portions of this guidance document that rely on those regulations are no longer

applicable. To the extent that this document addresses statutory requirements, however, it is unaffected

by the resolution of disapproval.

Archive Information:

This guidance has been formally rescinded by the Department and 

remains available on the web for historical purposes only.
2

Contents

PURPOSE OF THE GUIDANCE ...............................................................................................................3

A. STATE AND LEA REPORT CARD CATEGORY TABLE.......................................................4

B. GENERAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................................6

C. SEA RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................................................................14

D. LEA RESPONSIBILITIES................................................................................................................20

F. REPORTING STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM INFORMATION............................26

G. REPORTING ON USE OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS UNDER ESEA 

SECTION 1003 ...................................................................................................................................33

H. REPORTING DATA FROM THE CRDC....................................................................................35

I. REPORTING ON EDUCATOR QUALIFICATIONS..............................................................41

J. REPORTING PER-PUPIL EXPENDITURES ............................................................................43

K. REPORTING STATE PERFORMANCE ON NAEP................................................................51

L. REPORTING POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT RATES FOR EACH HIGH 

SCHOOL..............................................................................................................................................53

APPENDICES................................................................................................68
3

PURPOSE OF THE GUIDANCE

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student 

Succeeds Act (ESSA),

1

and implementing regulations maintain requirements for SEAs and LEAs to 

prepare and disseminate report cards that provide information on State, LEA, and school

performance and progress in an understandable and uniform format. This guidance is intended to 

assist SEAs and LEAs in implementing the report card requirements under Title I, Part A of the 

ESEA and implementing regulations in 34 C.F.R. §§ 200.30 through 200.37. Although SEAs and 

LEAs may consider this guidance in developing and disseminating report cards, an SEA or LEA is 

free to develop alternative approaches and formats that are consistent with applicable Federal 

statutes and regulations.

This guidance supersedes the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department’s) guidance entitled State 

and Local Report Cards; Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended; 

Non-Regulatory Guidance, issued on February 8, 2013, beginning with State and LEA report cards that 

include information from the 2017-2018 school year. For more detailed information on 

requirements for reporting high school graduation rates on State and LEA report cards under Title I 

of the ESEA, see the document titled High School Graduation Rate Non-Regulatory Guidance

(January 2017) available at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html. 

The Department has determined that this guidance is significant guidance under the Office of 

Management and Budget’s Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices, 72 Fed. Reg. 3432 

(Jan. 25, 2007). See www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-

07.pdf. Significant guidance is non-binding and does not create or impose new legal requirements.

SEAs and LEAs must comply with Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on 

race, color, national origin, sex, disability, and age. These laws include Title VI of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973 (Section 504), and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. 

If you are interested in commenting on this guidance, please email us your comment at 

OESEGuidanceDocument@ed.gov or write to us at the following address:

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

ATTN: Report Card Guidance

400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20202

For further information about the Department’s guidance processes, please visit 

www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/significant-guidance.html. 

 

1 Throughout this document, unless otherwise indicated, citations to the ESEA refer to the ESEA, as 

amended by the ESSA.
4

A. STATE AND LEA REPORT CARD CATEGORY TABLE

Report Card Category Table

To help readers understand and use this guidance, the following table provides an overview of the 

categories of State and LEA report card requirements under Title I of the ESEA. For each category, 

the table provides applicable statutory and regulatory citations and identifies questions in this 

guidance in which the requirements are discussed in detail. Each category of requirements applies to 

both State and LEA report cards. 

Table 1. Categories of State and LEA Report Card Requirements under Title I of the ESEA

Category Applicable Statute and Regulations Relevant

Questions2

Process and 

general 

requirements

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)-(2)

34 C.F.R. §§ 200.30-200.31

B-1 through B-5; B-8 

through B-14; C-1 through 

C-8; D-1 through D-4

Overview 34 C.F.R. § 200.30(b)(2) 

34 C.F.R. § 200.31(b)(2)

B-6, B-7

Student 

achievement data

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(ii)

34 C.F.R. § 200.16(b)(4)(ii)

34 C.F.R. § 200.30(b)(2)(i)(A)

34 C.F.R. § 200.31(b)(2)(i)(A) 

34 C.F.R. § 200.33(a)

E-1 through E-10

Percentages of 

students 

assessed/not 

assessed (i.e., 

participation rates)

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(vii)

34 C.F.R. § 200.33(c)

E-1, E-2, E-8 through E-9

Extent of use of 

alternate 

assessments for 

students with the 

most significant 

cognitive 

disabilities

ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(D)

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(xi)

C-1and D-1

English language 

proficiency of 

English learners

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(iv)

34 C.F.R. § 200.30(b)(2)(ii)

34 C.F.R. § 200.31(b)(2)(i)(A)

C-1 and D-1

 

2 References are to the most significant questions but may not capture every question where a topic is 

referenced. 
5

Category Applicable Statute and Regulations Relevant

Questions2

Performance on 

other academic 

indicator(s)(hereaft

er, the Academic 

Progress indicator)

for schools that are 

not high schools

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(iii)(I)

34 C.F.R. § 200.30(b)(2)(i)(B)

34 C.F.R. § 200.31(b)(2)(i)(A)

F-3

High school 

graduation rates

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(iii)(II)

ESEA section 8101(23), (25) and 

(43)

34 C.F.R. § 200.30(b)(2)(i)(C)

34 C.F.R. § 200.31(b)(2)(i)(A)

34 C.F.R. § 200.34

B-6; also see the document 

titled High School 

Graduation Rate NonRegulatory Guidance

(January 2017) available at

https://www2.ed.gov/policy

/elsec/leg/essa/index.html

Postsecondary 

enrollment rates 

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(xiii)

34 C.F.R. § 200.36

L-1 through L-11

Data from the 

Civil Rights Data 

Collection (CRDC)

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) H-1 through H-14

Performance on 

indicator(s) of 

School Quality or 

Student Success

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(v)

34 C.F.R. § 200.32(c)(4)

F-3

Progress toward 

State-designed 

long-term goals

and measurements 

of interim progress

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(vi)

34 C.F.R. § 200.33(b)

E-1

Educator 

qualifications

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(ix)

34 C.F.R. § 200.37

34 CFR § 299.18(c)(5)

I-1 through I-6

Per-pupil

expenditures

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x)

34 C.F.R. § 200.35

J-1 through J-13

State performance 

on NAEP

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(xii)

34 C.F.R. § 200.11

K-1 through K-7

Information on 

school 

improvement 

funds under ESEA 

section 1003 (State 

report cards only)

ESEA section 1003(i) G-1 through G4

Charter school 

comparison data,

as applicable (State 

report cards only)

34 C.F.R. § 200.30(a)(2)(ii) C-3
6

Category Applicable Statute and Regulations Relevant

Questions2

Description and 

results of State 

accountability 

system 

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i)

34 C.F.R. § 200.15(d)(1)

34 C.F.R. § 200.18(b)(3)-(4)

34 C.F.R. § 200.20(a)(1)(ii)(C) and 

(2)(ii)(C)

34 C.F.R. § 200.32

F-1 through F-9

Additional 

information

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(xiv)

34 C.F.R. § 200.30(a)(2)(iii)

C-2, D-2 

B. GENERAL INFORMATION 

B-1. What are the responsibilities of an SEA and an LEA for preparing a report card?

Each SEA and LEA that receives Title I, Part A funds must prepare and disseminate an annual 

report card. (ESEA section 1111(h)(1) and (h)(2)). Generally, an SEA or LEA must include on its 

report card information about public schools related to a wide variety of student and school

performance metrics, accountability, per-pupil expenditures, and educator qualifications, as well as 

any other information that the SEA or LEA deems relevant. To display this information, State and 

LEA report cards must include (1) an overview section and (2) a detail section. The overview 

section must include information on key metrics of State, LEA, and school performance and 

progress. Question B-6 below identifies the information that State and LEA report cards overviews, 

respectively, must include. The detail sections of State and LEA report cards must include the 

remaining information required in the statute and applicable regulations. Appendix D of this 

guidance identifies the information that State and LEA report card overview and detail sections 

must include. 

State and LEA report cards must be concise and presented in an understandable and uniform 

format accessible to persons with disabilities and, to the extent practicable, provided in a language 

that parents can understand (see questions B-8 through B-10 for more information on the 

accessibility of SEA and LEA report cards). See Sections C and D of this guidance for more detail 

on SEA and LEA responsibilities, respectively.

B-2. When must SEAs and LEAs post annual report cards on their Web sites?

Beginning with information from the 2017–2018 school year3, report cards must be posted annually 

on SEA and LEA4 Web sites on or before December 31 for the preceding school year (e.g., by 

December 31, 2018, for the 2017-2018 school year). (34 C.F.R. §§ 200.30(d)-(e) and 200.31(d)-(e)). 

However, under 34 C.F.R. §§ 200.30(e)(2) and 200.31(e)(2), an SEA or LEA may delay including 

per-pupil expenditure data on State and LEA report cards until no later than June 30 of the 

 

3 See Section L for information on the year of postsecondary enrollment data that needs to be included on 

report cards beginning with information from the 2017–2018 school year. 

4 Note: Under ESEA section 1111(h)(2)(B)(iii)(II), if an LEA does not operate a Web site, it must determine 

another way to provide the LEA report card on or before December 31. 
7

following calendar year. In the event that an SEA or LEA chooses to delay including per-pupil 

expenditure data, the State and LEA report card posted on or before December 31 must briefly

indicate when per-pupil expenditure data will be included in updated report cards (see J-9 and J-10 

for additional information on per-pupil expenditure reporting timelines).

For example, report cards that include information for the 2017–2018 school year must be posted 

on SEA and LEA Web sites on or before December 31, 2018. If an SEA or LEA does not include

per-pupil expenditure data on the report card posted on December 31, 2018, the State or LEA must 

indicate briefly on the posted report card when per-pupil expenditure data will be included, and 

must update the report card with such data by June 30, 2019. 

B-3. What happens if an SEA or an LEA cannot report, by December 31, 2018, information 

from the 2017–2018 school year for some or all of the report card data elements newly 

required under the ESEA?

If an SEA or LEA is unable to meet the December 31, 2018, reporting deadline for some or all of 

the report card data elements newly required under the ESEA, the SEA may request, for itself or on 

behalf of the LEA, a one-time, one-year extension for reporting on those elements. In order to 

receive an extension, the SEA must make a formal request to the Secretary by July 1, 2018. This 

request must include evidence demonstrating that the SEA or LEA cannot meet the original 

deadline, as well as a plan and timeline of the steps that the SEA or LEA will take to meet the 

December 31 deadline with information from the 2018–2019 school year and each year thereafter.

(34 C.F.R. §§ 200.30(e)(3) and 200.31(e)(3)). 

B-4. Is there a particular report card style or format that an SEA or an LEA must use?

State and LEA report cards must be concise, presented in an understandable and uniform format, 

and accessible to the public. (ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(B) and (h)(2)(B); 34 C.F.R. §§ 200.30(a)-(b) 

and 200.31(a)-(b)). In addition, State and LEA report cards must begin with an overview section 

that provides information on key metrics of State, LEA, and school performance (see B-6 for more 

information regarding State and LEA report card overview sections). (34 C.F.R. §§ 200.30(b)(2) and 

200.31(b)(2)). Beyond these requirements, SEAs and LEAs have flexibility to use the report card 

style or format they determine to be most effective in presenting information to stakeholders, 

including parents. 

To help ensure that parents contribute to decisions related to report card style and format, the 

ESEA and its implementing regulations require that SEAs and LEAs consult with parents in 

developing report cards. (ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(B)(ii); 34 C.F.R. §§ 200.30(b) and 200.31(b)). 

The Department issued a Dear Colleague Letter to States on June 22, 2016, that provides 

information and resources on meaningful stakeholder engagement that may be helpful to SEAs and 

LEAs in consulting with parents on report cards. The letter includes the following suggestions: 

 Holding meetings or hearings at varying times during the day, including after the work or 

school day or on the weekends and, if possible, offering child care, so that working parents, 

teachers, school leaders, and other professionals are best able to participate;
8

 Holding multiple meetings or hearings across the State or district, rather than only in the State 

capital or district headquarters, which can limit the ability of stakeholder groups from across 

the State or district to participate;

 Ensuring meetings or committees include a broad range of stakeholder voices, including those 

who have been traditionally left out of such conversations;

 Facilitating broad participation beyond the representatives that will be attending the meetings 

or hearings in person (for example, by working with trusted stakeholders to gather input from 

other stakeholders who may not be able or inclined to attend a hearing);

 Making publicly available the name and contact information of officials and stakeholders who 

will be working on State implementation;

 Allowing all stakeholders who are participating in meetings or hearings to provide substantive 

input; and

 Providing accommodations and supports to ensure meetings or hearings are accessible (e.g., 

translators, interpreters, materials in alternative formats for use by persons with disabilities).

The full letter with links to additional resources can be found here: 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/160622.html

B-5. Are there considerations or principles for displaying student and school performance 

data that may be helpful to SEAs and LEAs as they develop, prepare, and 

disseminate State and LEA report cards?

As noted above, within certain parameters described in the ESEA and its implementing regulations, 

SEAs and LEAs have flexibility to design State and LEA report cards that best suit their particular 

contexts. In determining the design of report cards, SEAs and LEAs should consider the following: 

 Does the report card design take into account feedback provided through the required 

parental consultation? 

 Does the report card reflect feedback based on different presentation formats presented to a 

variety of audiences representing likely consumers of report cards to ensure precise and clear 

communication of the data? If so, did the test audiences evaluate the use of font size, keys, 

graphs, page layout, instructions, and pagination? 

 Is the information on report cards in hard copy form? If so, is it shared online in the same 

format to ensure consistency across communication mediums? 

 Are the data available in both chart/graph and table format?

 Do the graphics and artwork improve readability and maintain user interest?

 Does the report card avoid using jargon not well known to parents?

 Is social media embedded to allow parents to easily share information? 

 Do report cards include a brief narrative summary of relevant information for parents?

 Does the report card link to historical information provided in previous years?

SEAs and LEAs also should consider the following resources related to transparency of report cards 

and presentation of report card information: 

 Transparency for Families and Communities:

http://dataqualitycampaign.org/event/transparency-families-communities/
9

 School Report Cards do not Matter if Parents Can’t Find Them:

https://edexcellence.net/articles/school-report-cards-dont-matter-if-parents-cant-find-them

 An Economist’s Guide to Visualizing Data:

http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.28.1.209

 Resources available from the Data Quality Campaign: 

http://dataqualitycampaign.org/showmethedata/

In addition, it may be helpful to review examples of report cards provided here: 

http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/01/13/58/11358.pdf .

While the information and examples provided may be helpful in considering the design of State and 

LEA report cards overall, they also may offer particular insight into the design of the overview 

section of report cards. Given that the general purpose of the overview section is to provide a quick 

glance at key student performance metrics in States, LEAs, and schools, SEAs and LEAs should 

consider design of this section to achieve that purpose. 

These resources are provided for the reader’s convenience and are included to offer examples of the 

many resources that SEAs and LEAs may find helpful and use at their discretion. The Department

does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this outside 

information. Further, these links to items and examples do not reflect their importance, nor are they 

intended to represent or be an endorsement by the Department of any materials provided.

B-6. What must be in the overview section of a State or LEA report card?

State and LEA report cards must begin with a clearly labeled overview section that is prominently 

displayed. (34 C.F.R. §§ 200.30(b)(2) and 200.31(b)(2)). The overview section of State and LEA 

report cards must include information on key metrics of State, LEA, and school performance and 

progress and is intended to help parents and other stakeholders quickly access and understand such 

information and provide context for the complete set of data included on the State and LEA report 

cards. An SEA or LEA need not include information in the detail section of report cards if it 

includes such information in the overview section (e.g., if report cards include disaggregated student 

achievement information for homeless children and youth, children in foster care, and students with 

a parent who is a member of the Armed forces on active duty, they do not need to repeat this 

information in the detail section of report cards).

The State report card overview must include the following information:

5

 For all students and disaggregated, at a minimum, for economically disadvantaged students,

students from each major racial and ethnic group, children with disabilities, and English 

learners:

o The number and percentage of students at each of three or more levels of achievement 

on each of the academic assessments in mathematics, reading/language arts, and science 

under section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA; 

 

5 Note: The tables in Appendix D of this document identify the information that must be included on both 

State and LEA report card overview sections. 
10

o Results on each measure included within the Academic Progress indicator used in the 

State accountability system for students in public elementary schools and secondary 

schools that are not high schools (see question F-3 below);

o The four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate and, if adopted by the State, any extendedyear adjusted cohort graduation rate consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 200.34;

o Results on each measure included within the School Quality or Student Success 

indicator(s) used in the State accountability system (see question F-3); and 

 The number and percentage of English learners achieving English language proficiency, as 

measured by the State’s English language proficiency assessments under section 

1111(b)(2)(G) of the ESEA.

(34 C.F.R. § 200.30(b)(2)).

The LEA report card overview must include:

 For the LEA as a whole and each school served by the LEA, the same information as 

described above on the State report card overview; 

 For the LEA, how the number and percentage of students at each of three or more levels of 

achievement on each of the academic assessments in mathematics, reading/language arts,

and science under section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA compares to that for students in the State 

as a whole; 

 For each school served by the LEA:

o How the number and percentage of students at each of three or more levels of 

achievement on each of the academic assessments in mathematics, reading/language 

arts, and science under ESEA section 1111(b)(2) compares to that for students in the 

LEA and State as a whole; 

o The summative determination;

o Whether the school is identified for comprehensive or targeted support and 

improvement;

o For each school identified for comprehensive support and improvement, the reason that 

led to such identification; 

o For each school identified for targeted support and improvement, the reason that led to 

such identification; and

o Identifying information including, at a minimum, the name, address, phone number, 

email, student membership count, and status as a participating Title I school. 

(34 C.F.R. § 200.31(b)(2)).

B-7. What are some examples of an overview section format? 

Appendix A of this guidance provides an example of a school overview section. Content and 

format of the overview section will vary depending on the indicators a State includes in its 

accountability system. As part of the requirement to consult with parents on the development of 

State and LEA report cards (ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(B)(ii); 34 C.F.R §§ 200.30(b)(1) and 

200.31(b)(1)), SEAs and LEAs should discuss the format, length, and style of the State, LEA, and 

school overview sections. 

B-8. What must an SEA or LEA ensure with respect to the accessibility of report cards? 
11

State and LEA report cards must be widely accessible to the public. Specifically, report cards must 

be: 

 In an understandable and uniform format; 

 To the extent possible, written in a language that parents can understand or, if it is not 

practicable to provide written translations to a parent with limited English proficiency, orally 

translated for such a parent; and

 Upon request by a parent who is an individual with a disability, as defined by the Americans 

with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12102, provided in an alternative format accessible to 

that parent. 

(ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(B) and (h)(2)(B); 34 C.F.R. §§ 200.21(b)(1)-(3), 200.30(a)-(d) and 

200.31(a)-(d)). 

Questions B-9 and B-10 provide further information on ensuring accessibility of report cards. 

B-9. How might an SEA or an LEA ensure that its report card is accessible to parents 

who are limited English proficient? 

State and LEA report cards must be, to the extent practicable, written in a language that parents can 

understand or, if it is not practicable to provide written translations to a parent with limited English 

proficiency, be orally translated for such parent. In addition, an SEA and an LEA have an 

obligation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ensure meaningful access to the 

information included on State and LEA report cards for national origin minority parents who have 

limited English proficiency. SEAs and LEAs have some flexibility in determining what mix of oral 

and written translation services may be necessary and reasonable for communicating the required 

information to parents with limited English proficiency, it will generally be necessary for an SEA or 

LEA that has parents with limited English proficiency to produce versions of its report card in other 

languages. 

To meet this requirement, an SEA or an LEA might translate the report card into the most 

populous languages spoken by the parents served by the SEA or LEA and distribute the translated 

copies to parents who are limited English proficient. 

Parents who are not proficient in English or the most populous languages served by an SEA or an 

LEA must also have meaningful access. An SEA or an LEA may provide this access in the same 

manner as it does for its major language groups, or, if written translations are not practicable, by 

informing parents in writing in a language they can understand of how they can receive free language 

assistance including the translation of the report card upon request, or, in some cases, providing oral 

interpretations of the report card. Posting copies of the report card translations online and, 

additionally, in any other forum likely to reach the intended audiences, as well as providing 

supplements, inserts, or links to the report card in other languages, would also help ensure 

meaningful access.

For clarity regrading SEA and LEA civil rights obligations to limited English proficient parents, see 

the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice Joint Dear Colleague Letter of Jan. 7, 2015, at 

Section J. (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-el-201501.pdf).
12

B-10. How might an SEA or an LEA ensure that its report card is accessible to parents 

with disabilities?

An SEA and an LEA have an obligation under Section 504 and Title II of the ADA to ensure that 

communications with individuals with disabilities are as effective as communications with others. 

Thus, each SEA and LEA must disseminate its annual report cards in a manner that provides 

parents with disabilities and members of the public with disabilities with an equal opportunity to 

access the report cards. To do so, the SEA or LEA may need to take appropriate steps, including 

providing accommodations or modifications when necessary. This is the same requirement that 

applies to any service, program, or activity that an SEA or an LEA provides, including to the SEA’s 

or LEA’s electronic dissemination of information,

6

distribution of print material,

7

and the conduct 

of any related activities, such as public forums or workshops to discuss the report card.8

B-11. How can an SEA or LEA ensure the online accessibility of its report cards?

An SEA must make its report card available on a single webpage of the SEA’s Web site. (ESEA 

section 1111(h)(1)(B)(iii); 34 C.F.R. § 200.30(d)). Similarly, to the extent an LEA has a Web site, it 

must post the LEA report card on such Web site. (ESEA section 1111(h)(2)(B)(iii)(I); 34 C.F.R. §

200.31(d)). To ensure accessibility of State and LEA report cards on Web sites, the Department

strongly encourages SEAs and LEAs to consider modern standards such as the World Wide Web 

Consortium’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA and the Web 

Accessibility Initiative Accessible Rich Internet Applications Suite 1.0 for web content. These 

standards include important criteria that provide comprehensive Web accessibility to individuals 

with disabilities--including those with visual, auditory, physical, speech, cognitive, developmental, 

learning, and neurological disabilities. WCAG 2.0 has been designed to be technology neutral to 

provide Web developers more flexibility to address accessibility of current as well as future Web 

technologies; in addition, Level AA conformance is widely used, indicating that it is generally 

feasible for Web developers to implement. The developers of WCAG 2.0 have made an array of 

technical resources available on the W3C Web site at no cost to assist entities in implementing the 

standard. For more information, see www.w3.org/WAI/.

To the extent practicable, an SEA or LEA should ensure that report cards are accessible on mobile 

devices and provide access to versions of the report card via low bandwidth internet connections.

 

6 For example, in disseminating its annual report card on its Web site, an SEA or an LEA must ensure that 

persons who are blind or have low vision have an equal opportunity to access the information in the report. 

For more information about these requirements in the context of emerging technology, please refer to “Joint 

Dear Colleague Letter: Electronic Book Readers,” issued on June 19, 2010 by OCR and the Department of 

Justice, available at www.ed.gov/ocr/letters/colleague-20100629.html; and “Frequently Asked Questions 

About the June 29, 2010 Dear Colleague Letter” (FAQ document) issued on May 26, 2011, by OCR, available 

at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-ebook-faq-201105.html. 

7 For example, in disseminating print copies of its annual report card, an SEA or an LEA must ensure that, 

upon request for an accessible version by a person with a disability, it provides the report card in alternative 

formats, such as Braille, large print, or electronic format.

8 For example, if an SEA or an LEA schedules public forums for parents, the notices should specify that the 

SEA or the LEA will provide, upon request, auxiliary aids and services to enable parents with disabilities to 

participate. An example would be a request for a sign language interpreter to enable a parent who is deaf to 

participate.
13

An SEA or LEA should also restore access as soon as possible if there are disruptions to a Web site.

B-12. How can an SEA or an LEA ensure that the information on its report card does not 

reveal personally identifiable information about individual students?

When presenting data on a report card, an SEA or an LEA must ensure that it protects the privacy 

of individuals and the privacy of personally identifiable information contained in students’ education 

records. (ESEA section 1111(i); the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. 

1232g; 34 C.F.R. Part 99). Accordingly, the number of students, teachers, principals or other school 

leaders in a category of reported data must generally be sufficient so that it does not reveal 

personally identifiable information about an individual student. (ESEA section 1111(i)(3); 34 C.F.R. 

§§ 200.30(f)(2) and 200.31(f); 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1) and (2); 34 C.F.R. § 99.31).

More generally, an SEA or an LEA must adopt practices to safeguard the privacy of personally 

identifiable information about its students. For example, if using suppression of small subgroups as 

the primary method of protecting privacy, an SEA should determine if the values for any of the data 

suppressed in accordance with the SEA’s “n-size” rule could be recalculated by subtracting other 

reported data from the larger group totals, and apply additional disclosure limitation strategies when 

necessary (e.g., “complementary suppressions” or “complementary blurring”). However, even when 

subgroups meet the minimum n-size, there can be a small number of students in one or more 

categories of a reported outcome measure. The SEA should establish a threshold (e.g., 3 or 5) that 

identifies the minimum number of students required to publish data within a category of a subgroup. 

Categories with fewer students than the number the SEA selects for their threshold should be 

suppressed (i.e., primary suppression), and at least one other nonzero category for the outcome 

measure and subgroup must be suppressed (i.e., complementary suppression) to avoid an 

inadvertent disclosure through subtraction. 

Additionally, an SEA or an LEA must have a strategy to address the situation in which all, or nearly 

all, students in a particular subgroup share an outcome characteristic or score at the same 

achievement level. One solution is to use top-coding and bottom-coding (e.g., reporting data as 

greater or less than a certain percentage) to ensure that the reported percentage (or its inverse) does 

not include all students or all but one or two students. More information and resources on 

protecting student privacy can be found at the links below to the Department’s Privacy Technical 

Assistance Center (PTAC). In addition, the Department’s Institute of Educational Sciences (IES) 

has issued a Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) brief on protecting student privacy here: 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011603.pdf. 

As part of each State’s consolidated State plan or individual program plan, each SEA must specify 

the strategies and methods the State uses to protect the privacy of individual students for each 

purpose for which disaggregated data is required. (34 C.F.R. § 200.17(a)(3)(iii)). These strategies 

may include one or more of a variety of disclosure limitation methods, including primary or 

complementary suppression, rounding, top/bottom-coding, etc., as necessary, to protect individual 

privacy across all data releases. 

The Department’s Chief Privacy Officer maintains the PTAC that serves as a “one-stop” resource 

for education stakeholders seeking to learn about best practices for ensuring the confidentiality and 

security of personally identifiable information and for promoting compliance with FERPA. PTAC 
14

has developed a series of guidance documents on protecting student privacy when using studentlevel data systems for education decision-making and reporting, and will be publishing additional 

guidance on protecting privacy in public reporting over the coming year. Information about the 

PTAC and its resources is available at http://ptac.ed.gov/.

SEA and LEA officials who need technical assistance or have questions on FERPA may contact 

PTAC’s Student Privacy Help Desk by emailing PrivacyTA@ed.gov. 

B-13. May an SEA or an LEA use Title I, Part A funds to prepare and disseminate its 

report card? 

Yes. An SEA or an LEA may use its administrative funds under Title I, Part A to prepare and 

disseminate the report cards required by ESEA section 1111(h). 

B-14. How can an SEA or an LEA ensure the accuracy of its report card data?

It is extremely important that an SEA or an LEA have systematic and uniform data collection 

guidelines, a system of internal controls, and an infrastructure to collect, produce, and report data 

that are accurate, reliable, and high quality. To help promote data quality and the importance of a 

control environment and control procedures, the Department’s IES has published an issue brief and 

training slides available here: https://edfacts.grads360.org/#communities/pdc/documents/12829. 

Further, IES published an issue brief available here: 

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/pdf/Data_Quality_Striking_a_Balance_May2014.pdf. 

Please be aware that individuals and entities responsible for reporting inaccurate data could be 

subject to civil fines and penalties. The intentional reporting of inaccurate data could lead to 

criminal prosecution and penalties in addition to any civil consequences. An SEA or an LEA, and 

all its employees, contractors, and other agents, must promptly refer to the Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) any credible evidence of suspected fraud or the intentional manipulation or reporting 

of incorrect data. Information on how to report suspected fraud to the OIG is available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/hotline.html.

B-15. Must an SEA or an LEA include information for private school students and teachers 

on its report card?

No. The report card requirements in ESEA section 1111(h)(1) and (h)(2) apply only to public 

schools and LEAs.

C. SEA RESPONSIBILITIES

C-1. What information must an SEA include on its State report card?

Each SEA that receives Title I, Part A funds must prepare and disseminate an annual report card.

(ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(A)). The table in Appendix D of this guidance details the information 

that an SEA must include on its State report card, including the information required on the 
15

overview section of its report card and the information required on the full State report card. State 

report cards must include information in the following categories: 

 Description of, and results from, the State accountability system; 

 Student achievement on the academic assessments required under ESEA section 1111(b)(2); 

 Comparative information on the achievement and demographics of students in charter 

schools organized by an authorized public chartering agency; 

 High school graduation rates;

 English learners achieving English language proficiency; 

 Information on the progress of students toward meeting the State-designed long-term goals 

and measurements of interim progress under ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(A) and 34 C.F.R. §

200.13;

 Students assessed and not assessed on the assessments required under ESEA section 

1111(b)(2);

 Information collected and reported in compliance with the CRDC under 20 U.S.C. 

3413(c)(1); 

 Information on educator qualifications;

 Information on per-pupil expenditures; 

 Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who take an alternate assessment 

under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(D), by grade and subject; 

 Results on NAEP;

 Information on postsecondary enrollment; and 

 Any other information that the SEA deems relevant. 

(ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C); 34 C.F.R. § 200.30(a)(2)).

C-2. What additional information might an SEA include on its State report card?

An SEA may include on its State report card any other information it believes will best inform 

parents, students, and other members of the public about the progress of each elementary and 

secondary school. (ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(xiv); 34 C.F.R. § 200.30(a)(2)(iii)). To increase the 

utility of report cards, many SEAs are taking advantage of the full range of available data and are 

producing more comprehensive State report cards that extend beyond the required elements. For 

example, an SEA might include information on the percentage of students requiring or not requiring 

remediation in postsecondary education, the percentage of students attaining career and technical 

certifications, the percentage of students who drop out, or the percentage of first-time 9th graders 

who were promoted on time.

Further, some States may wish to provide student achievement information disaggregated by 

additional subgroups than what the ESEA requires or disaggregated further within subgroups 

required to be reported under the ESEA. For example, States may wish to provide data 

disaggregated by youth in the juvenile justice system or further disaggregate data within the Asian 

American/Pacific Islander subgroup or English learner subgroup (e.g., recently arrived English 

learners, long-term English learners, or English learners who are students with interrupted formal 

education (SIFE)) to help provide a more nuanced picture of the performance of the students in 
16

these subgroups and better target efforts to support student needs. Other optional information an 

SEA could provide on State report cards includes: 

 Teacher workforce characteristics, e.g., average years of teacher experience and annual 

turnover and absentee rates of first- or second-year teachers;

 School readiness of kindergarten students;

 The percentage of students completing accelerated coursework and the rate of students 

attaining a score that provides college credit on accelerated coursework tests (e.g., Advanced

Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), and courses for college credit); 

 The percentage of students taking a college entrance examination and earning a score 

accepted for admission by most of the State’s four-year IHEs; 

 Achievement on other statewide assessments such as assessments in social studies; and

 As noted above, student achievement and other student performance metrics disaggregated 

by subgroups in addition to those required under the ESEA. 

When considering optional information to include, the SEA must ensure that such information does 

not reveal personally identifiable information about individual students (see question B-12 above 

regarding how the SEA can do so). An SEA can make many of these optional data elements more 

meaningful if it accompanies them with comparison data (e.g., LEA averages compared with State 

averages). An SEA can also add significance to report cards by offering longitudinal data for any 

data element to show progress over time. The more contextual information an SEA can provide 

regarding any of these optional components, the more relevance the information will have to the 

reporting audience. 

C-3. In addition to what is required for all public schools and LEAs, is an SEA required to 

include any information with respect to chartering agencies on its State report card

specific to public charter schools?

Yes. Each SEA must include on its State report card the following information for each public

charter school, organized by the respective authorized public chartering agency, in the State: 

 A comparison between the percentage of students in each subgroup defined in section 

1111(c)(2) of the ESEA for each charter school authorized by such agency and such 

percentage for the LEA or LEAs from which the charter school draws a significant portion 

of its students, or the geographic community within the LEA in which the charter school is 

located, as determined by the State; and

 A comparison between the academic achievement under 34 C.F.R. § 200.30(b)(2)(i)(A) for 

students in each charter school authorized by such agency and the academic achievement for 

students in the LEA or LEAs from which the charter school draws a significant portion of 

its students, or the geographic community within the LEA in which the charter school is 

located, as determined by the State. 

(34 C.F.R. § 200.30(a)(2)(ii)).

States have flexibility to determine the appropriate comparison group, which may include the LEA 
17

or LEAs from which the charter school draws a significant portion of its students, or a more 

specific, State-determined geographic community within an LEA. To ensure an appropriate 

comparison, the Department encourages States to consult with the charter school community, 

including authorized public chartering agencies.

C-4. How must an SEA disseminate its State report card?

An SEA must disseminate its annual report card by making it available on a single page of the SEA’s 

Web site. (ESEA section 1111(h)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 200.30(d)). To meet this requirement, an SEA 

would most likely post a static or an interactive version of its report card in a prominent place on its 

Web site. However, because not all parents or members of the public have access to the Internet, an 

SEA might consider additional methods for disseminating its report card. An SEA might enlist its 

LEAs in helping to disseminate the State report card.

The following strategies are offered as additional suggestions for an SEA to promote increased 

dissemination of the State report card. 

 Print the report card and make copies available in local schools, libraries, local parent 

centers, community organizations, and other public locations easily accessible to parents and 

others. 

 E-mail copies to parents of students enrolled in schools who have agreed to receive such 

information.

 Distribute information about the report card and how the public may acquire a copy via 

statewide or local newspapers and other print media, including foreign-language newspapers 

and publications in communities in which languages other than English are predominantly 

spoken.

 Develop public service announcements via radio or television and advertise through local 

access broadcast media, community electronic bulletin boards, and other news sources about 

the report card and how the public may acquire a copy.

 Engage parent advisory groups, including parent-teacher organizations, to provide parents 

copies of the report card and supplementary information about the report card. Rooted in 

the community, such advisory groups have the ability to reach diverse groups of parents, 

including low-income parents, parents with limited English proficiency, and parents with 

disabilities. 

 Develop informational flyers and brochures to provide general information about the State 

report card and distribute them to LEAs, schools, libraries, community organizations, and 

other public locations easily accessible to parents and others.

 Develop smartphone applications or other mobile technologies for parents to access the 

report card overviews and/or all information provided on both the overview and detail 

sections. 

The Department also encourages an SEA to provide parents with information on how to access any 

online, interactive report card Web site, as well as directions on how to use its interactive features to 

understand and use information on schools, student learning, and test performance. Whether it has 

an interactive report card, the SEA should prominently display on its Web site information about 

the report card so that parents can easily access and use this information. Additionally, because a 

Web site can offer a full array of data and have useful features not typically found on paper copies of 
18

the report card (including interactive graphics, advanced analyses of longitudinal trends, etc. ), an 

SEA, in coordination with its LEAs, might offer workshops for parents and community members or 

provide other assistance on how to access and use the features its Web site offers. 

To meet the dissemination requirements, an SEA must make the report card meaningfully accessible 

to parents and stakeholders who are limited English proficient. (34 C.F.R. § 200.30(c)). Please refer 

to B-9 for information on how an SEA might meet this requirement. Additionally, an SEA must 

disseminate its annual report card in a manner that provides parents and members of the public with 

disabilities with an equal opportunity to access the report card. Please refer to B-10 for information

on how an SEA might meet this requirement. As described in questions B-9 and B-10, these

requirements apply to any service, program, or activity of the SEA or LEA, including any activities 

and documents used to promote dissemination of the State report card.

C-5. Must an SEA provide to the public information that can be cross-tabulated by 

student subgroup?

Yes. For certain required State report card elements, an SEA must provide to the public 

information required under ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(c) in an easily accessible and user-friendly 

manner that can be cross-tabulated by student subgroup. (ESEA section 1111(g)(2)(N)). These 

subgroups must include, at a minimum, each major racial and ethnic group, gender, English 

proficiency status, and status as a child with or without disabilities, and may include other 

subgroups, such as subgroups based on migrant status, homeless status, status as a child in foster 

care, or status as a student with a parent who is a member of the Armed Forces on active duty, 

which includes a parent on full-time National Guard duty. In providing information that can be 

cross-tabulated by student subgroup, the SEA must ensure it does not reveal personally identifiable 

information about an individual student or include in any subgroup a number of students that is 

insufficient to yield statistically reliable information (i.e., less than the State’s minimum n-size for 

reporting purposes), and must comply with the requirements of FERPA.

By providing information that can be cross-tabulated by student subgroup, an SEA can help 

stakeholders gain a more nuanced understanding of the performance of students in the State on key 

outcome measures. Although an SEA must provide information that can be cross-tabulated, it is 

not required to publicly report, nor prohibited from publicly reporting, any particular crosstabulation of the information. In addition, an SEA is not required to use any cross-tabulation 

performed by a stakeholder for the purposes of the single statewide accountability system under 

ESEA section 1111(c). (ESEA section 1111(g)(3))

C-6. For which required State report card elements must an SEA provide information that 

can be cross-tabulated by student subgroup?

An SEA must provide information that can be cross-tabulated by, at a minimum, each major racial 

and ethnic student subgroup, gender, English proficiency status, and children with and without 

disabilities on each of the following:

 Student achievement on the academic assessments in mathematics, reading/language arts,

and science under ESEA section 1111(b)(2) at each level of achievement;
19

 For public elementary and secondary schools that are not high schools, performance on the 

Academic Progress indicator under ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(B)(ii) and 34 C.F.R. § 

200.14(b)(2);

 High school graduation rates, including the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate and, if 

adopted by the State, any extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate; and

 The percentage of students assessed and not assessed on the academic assessments in 

mathematics, reading/language arts, and science under ESEA section 1111(b)(2).

(ESEA section 1111(g)(2)(N)) 

C-7. What does it mean to provide information that can be cross-tabulated by student 

subgroup?

In basic terms, cross-tabulating information on a measure means analyzing and displaying the 

information in a table using multiple discrete variables. Providing information on a measure that 

can be cross-tabulated by student subgroup means, accordingly, that the SEA enables users of the 

information to obtain a table of results on the measure using multiple subgroups. For example, 

through cross-tabulation, a user could obtain the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate for 

students in the State based on a combination of English proficiency and status as a child with a 

disability, as reflected in the following table:

Table 1. Example of Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation 

Rate of English Learner by Disability Status

Data 

Element

All Without 

disability

With disability

Four-year 

adjusted 

cohort 

graduation 

rate

xx % xx % xx %

To meet the requirement to provide information that can be cross-tabulated by student subgroup, 

an SEA must ensure that users can obtain results for any combination of subgroups, provided, as 

discussed in B-11 and C-5, that such combination does not reveal personally identifiable information 

about an individual student, include a number of students that is insufficient to yield statistically 

reliable information, or otherwise violate the requirements of FERPA. 

C-8. Must an SEA provide information that can be cross-tabulated by student subgroup 

on the State report card?

No. To fulfill its responsibility to provide to information publicly that can be cross-tabulated by 

student subgroup, an SEA may, but is not required to, provide such information on the State report 

card. (ESEA section 1111(g)(2)(N)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 200.30(a)(3)). The SEA may choose to publish 

the information in another manner or location, such as on an SEA Web site with sufficient 

functionality to enable cross-tabulations to be performed. If the SEA chooses to publish the 

information separately on an SEA Web site, it should consider including a link on its State report 

card to a single page on its Web site where the information can be found.
20

D. LEA RESPONSIBILITIES

D-1. What information must an LEA include on its report card? 

With limited exceptions, an LEA that receives Title I, Part A funds must report the same 

information on LEA report cards as is required for State report cards in the categories of 

information listed above in question C-1. (ESEA section 1111(h)(2)(C); 34 C.F.R. §§ 200.30(a)(2) 

and 200.31(a)(2)). The table in Appendix D of this guidance details the information that an LEA 

must include on its LEA report card, including the information required on the overview section of 

its report card for the LEA as a whole and each school served by the LEA and the information 

required on the full LEA report card. An LEA must report all information for the LEA as a whole 

and for each school served by the LEA. Individual school report cards are not required, but 

information about each school must be included on the LEA report card. 

LEA report cards must include information in the following categories: 

 As noted, all information listed in question C-1 required on State report cards (except for 

information on the students in charter schools organized by authorized public chartering 

agency); 

 Student achievement comparisons as follows: 

o At the LEA level, information that shows how students served by the LEA achieved on 

the State assessments under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v) in each subject compared to 

students in the State as a whole (ESEA section 1111(h)(2)(C)(i)); 

o At the school level, information that shows how the school’s students achieved on the 

State assessments under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v) in each subject compared to 

students served by the LEA and the State as a whole (ESEA section 1111(h)(2)(C)(ii)).

 Any other information that the LEA deems relevant. 

(ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C) and (h)(2)(C); 34 C.F.R. § 200.31(a)-(b)).

D-2. May an LEA include additional information on its report card?

Yes. In addition to the data elements required by the ESEA, an LEA may include any other 

information it determines to be appropriate, whether or not that information is included on the State 

report card. (ESEA section 1111(h)(2)(D)). When considering optional information to include, the 

LEA must ensure that such information does not reveal personally identifiable information about 

individual students (see question B-12 above regarding how the LEA can do so). For examples of 

additional information an LEA might include on its report card, see question C-2 above.

D-3. How must an LEA disseminate its report card?

An LEA must make the annual LEA report card publicly available on the LEA’s Web site. If an 

LEA does not operate a Web site, the LEA may provide the information to the public in another 

manner determined by the LEA. (ESEA 1111(h)(2)(B)(iii); 34 C.F.R. § 200.31(d)(2)). For example, 

an LEA may make copies of the LEA report card available at the LEA administrative office, each 

school served by the LEA, local libraries or other locations widely accessible to the public. Further, 
21

as described in the following question, an LEA must provide the school level overview directly to 

the parents of students enrolled at each school served by the LEA. (34 C.F.R. § 200.31(d)(3)). 

To meet the dissemination requirements, an LEA must make the report card meaningfully accessible 

to parents and stakeholders who are limited English proficient. (ESEA section 1111(h)(2)(B)(ii); 34 

C.F.R. § 200.31(c)). Please refer to B-8 and B-9 for information on how an LEA might meet this 

requirement. Additionally, an LEA must disseminate its annual report card in a manner that 

provides parents and members of the public with disabilities with an equal opportunity to access the 

report card. As described in B-9 and B-10, these requirements apply to any service, program, or 

activity of the LEA, including any activities and documents used to promote dissemination of the 

LEA report card.

D-4. How may an LEA meet the requirement for disseminating the school overview 

section described in B-6 to parents of students in each school served by the LEA? 

An LEA may meet its responsibility to provide the report card overview to the parents of each 

student enrolled in each school in the LEA directly through the United States mail, e-mail, or 

through other means such as by sending the report card overview home to parents in their child’s 

backpack or distributing the report card overview during parent-teacher conferences. (34 C.F.R. §

200.31(d)(3)). In essence, an LEA may use its regular method of communicating with parents to 

meet the report card overview dissemination requirement, so long as it provides the overview 

directly to all parents in each school served by the LEA by the December 31 timeline discussed 

above in question B-2. 

In setting this policy, an LEA should consider which method of disseminating the report card 

overview is most likely to reach parents and, in doing so, may wish to consider such factors as family 

mobility, student grade level, and access to the internet. An LEA might determine that the particular 

circumstances of the LEA, or of a subgroup of eligible students within the LEA, necessitate using 

one dissemination method over another. The Department encourages an LEA to use multiple 

dissemination methods so as to ensure that parents receive copies of the report card overview for 

their school. An LEA may discuss how to disseminate the report card overview as part of its 

consultation with parents on the development of the report card, as required under 34 C.F.R. §

200.31(b)(1). 

E. REPORTING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA BASED ON 

STATE ASSESSMENTS

E-1. What achievement data based on State assessments must an SEA and an LEA 

include on its report card? 
22

State and LEA report cards must include student achievement data overall and by grade, including 

the percentage of students at each level of achievement as determined by the State under section 

1111(b)(1) of the ESEA, for all students and disaggregated by each major racial and ethnic 

subgroup, gender, disability status, migrant status, English proficiency status, and status as 

economically disadvantaged, status as a homeless student, status as a child in foster care, and 

status as a student with a parent who is a member of the Armed Forces on active duty (which 

includes full-time National Guard duty) (see 34 C.F.R § 200.30(f)) for definitions of status as a 

migrant student, status as a homeless student, status as a child in foster care, and status as a 

military-connected student). (ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(ii) and (h)(2)(C); 34 C.F.R. § 200.33(a)).

In addition, State and LEA report cards must include information on the progress of all students, 

each major racial and ethnic subgroup, disability status, English proficiency status, and status as 

economically disadvantaged, toward meeting the State-designed long-term goals for academic 

achievement in mathematics and reading/language arts. (ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(vi) and 

(h)(2)(C)). The report card must also include the progress of all students and each subgroup of 

students against the State’s measurements of interim progress established under section 

1111(c)(4)(A) of the ESEA and 34 C.F.R. § 200.13. In determining whether the “all students” group 

and each subgroup met or did not meet measurements of interim progress and long-term goals for 

academic achievement, a State must use the proficiency calculation used in the State’s accountability 

system under ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(E)(ii) and 34 C.F.R. § 200.15(b)(1) in which the 

denominator includes the greater of—

 95 percent of all students and 95 percent of each subgroup of students, as applicable, who 

are enrolled in the school, LEA, or State, respectively; or

 The number of all such students enrolled in the school, LEA or State, respectively, who 

participate in these assessments.

(ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(vi); 34 C.F.R. § 200.33(b)).

See question E-2 below for an example of this calculation. 

E-2. How must a State calculate the proficiency rate for the purposes of State and LEA 

report cards? 

State and LEA report cards must include the percentages of students performing at each level of 

achievement on the State’s academic achievement standards using two calculations: 

(1) The method used in the State accountability system under ESEA section 

1111(c)(4)(E)(ii) and 34 C.F.R. § 200.15(b)(1) in which the denominator includes the 

greater of—

 95 percent of all students and 95 percent of each subgroup of students who are 

enrolled in the school, LEA, or State, respectively; or

 The number of all such students participating in the assessments required under 

section 1111(b)(2)(v)(I) of the ESEA; and

(2) The method in which the denominator includes all students with a valid test score. 
23

(34 C.F.R. § 200.33(a)(3)(iii)).

The numerator in both proficiency calculations should include all students with a proficient score or 

above based on the State’s grade-level academic achievement standards.

To illustrate how this requirement is applied, consider a school with 100 students enrolled in third 

grade, in which 80 students participate in the assessment and have a valid test score and in which 50

students of those 80 students are proficient or above: 

Method (1): 

Numerator: 50 (i.e., the number of students who received a determination of 

proficient or above on the assessment)

Denominator: 95 (i.e., the greater of the number equal to 95 percent of students 

enrolled or the number of students that participated in the assessment (80))

The percentage proficient or above for the school based on method 1 is 52.6%. 

Method (2): 

Numerator: 50 (i.e., the number of students who received a determination of 

proficient or above on the assessment)

Denominator: 80 (i.e., the number of students with a valid test score)

The percentage proficient for the school based on method 2 is 63%. 

A State must provide the results of both method 1 and method 2 for the percentage of students 

performing at each achievement level under section 1111(b)(1) of the ESEA. 

E-3. For which subgroups and subjects must an SEA and its LEAs report the required 

proficiency calculations? 

Each SEA and LEA must calculate and report proficiency based on both calculations for the 

mathematics, reading/language arts, and science assessments it administers under ESEA section 

1111(b)(2) for the “all students” group and must disaggregate those data for each major racial and 

ethnic subgroup and by gender, disability status, English proficiency status, status as economically 

disadvantaged, migrant status, homeless status, status as a child in foster care, and status as a student 

with a parent who is a member of the Armed Forces on active duty, which includes a parent who 

serves on full-time National Guard duty. (34 C.F.R. § 200.33(a)(3)(i)-(ii)).

E-4. In reporting student achievement for the English learner subgroup, may an SEA or 

an LEA include results for former English learners?

No. It is important that parents and the public have a clear picture of the academic achievement of 

students who are currently learning English. Therefore, in reporting on the English learner 
24

subgroup, an SEA and an LEA may only include current English learners in reporting on student 

performance on the assessments required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the ESEA. Under § 

200.16(c)(1), an SEA or LEA may, however, include results for former English learners for the 

purpose of providing information on each school’s level of performance on any accountability 

system indicator under 34 C.F.R. § 200.14(b) that uses data from State assessments under section 

1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the ESEA. In addition, for purposes of calculating the four-year adjusted 

cohort graduation rate consistent with § 200.34(e), a State or LEA may include students in the 

English learner subgroup if they were part of the subgroup at any time during the graduation cohort 

period.

For more information on the inclusion of English learners in accountability system indicators, see 

the Department’s non-regulatory guidance, Accountability Under Title I, Part A of the ESEA; 

Frequently Asked Questions (January 2017) available at 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html; for more information on reporting on the 

four- and extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, see the document titled High School 

Graduation Rate Non-Regulatory Guidance (January 2017) available at

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html).) 

See question F-5 below for a discussion of including former English learners in the English learner 

subgroup for the purpose of reporting on certain accountability system indicators.

E-5. In reporting student achievement for the children with disabilities subgroup, may an 

SEA or an LEA include results for former children with disabilities?

No. It is important that parents and the public have a clear picture of the academic achievement of 

students who are currently receiving special education services under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Therefore, in reporting on the children with disabilities 

subgroup, an SEA and an LEA may include only current children with disabilities in reporting on 

student performance on the assessments required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the ESEA.

Under 34 C.F.R. § 200.16(b), an SEA or LEA may, however, include results for former children with 

disabilities for the purpose of providing information on each school’s level of performance on any 

indicator under 34 C.F.R. § 200.14(b) that uses data from State assessments under section 

1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the ESEA. In addition, for purposes of calculating the four-year adjusted

cohort graduation rate consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 200.34(e), a State or LEA may include students in 

the children with disabilities subgroup if they were part of the subgroup at any time during the 

graduation cohort period. 

For more information on the inclusion of children with disabilities in State accountability system

indicators, see the Department’s non-regulatory guidance, Accountability Under Title I, Part A of 

the ESEA; Frequently Asked Questions (January 2017) available at 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html; for more information on reporting on the 

four- and extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, see the document titled High School 

Graduation Rate Non-Regulatory Guidance (January 2017) available at

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html). 

See question F-6 below for a discussion of including former students with disabilities in the students 

with disabilities subgroup for the purpose of reporting accountability determinations. 
25

E-6. If an SEA exempts recently arrived English learners from the first administration of 

its reading/language arts assessment, how is achievement for these students 

reported on State and LEA report cards?

An SEA has the flexibility to exempt English Learners in their first 12 months of schooling in the 

United States from one administration of the reading/language arts assessment. (ESEA 

1111(b)(3)(A)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 200.16(c)(3)(i)(A)). If an SEA takes advantage of this flexibility, both 

the SEA and its LEAs must report on State and LEA report cards, respectively, the number and 

percentage of recently arrived English learners who are exempted from taking the reading/language 

arts assessment. (34 C.F.R. § 200.16(c)(4)(ii)). If an SEA exempts recently arrived English learners

from their first administration of the reading/language arts assessment, an SEA or an LEA need not 

include data for these students in reporting achievement results for reading/language arts in the 

required proficiency calculations described in E-2. However, the SEA and LEA may include these 

students as participants in calculating the participation rate for the State reading/language arts 

assessment if the student takes the State’s English language proficiency assessment. (34 C.F.R. § 

200.15(d)(4)). If an SEA does not exempt recently arrived English Learners from the State’s 

reading/language arts assessment, the SEA and its LEAs must include results for those students in

reporting student achievement. (ESEA section 1111(b)(3)(A)(ii)(I); 34 C.F.R. § 200.16(c)(3)(ii)(A)).

Recently arrived English learners are required to participate in the mathematics and science 

assessments. (34 C.F.R. § 200.7(d)(3)). Accordingly, if a recently arrived English learner receives a 

valid math or science score, his or her results must be included in reporting student achievement for 

those subjects on State and LEA report cards.

As noted below in F-9, under certain circumstances, the SEA has flexibility to exclude the scores of 

recently arrived English learners on the mathematics and the reading/language arts assessments (if 

taken) in reporting on certain accountability system indicators. (34 C.F.R. §§ 200.16(c)(3)(i)(B) and 

200.16(c)(3)(ii)(B)). 

E-7. How must an SEA or an LEA report results for students with the most significant 

cognitive disabilities who take an alternate assessment aligned with alternate 

academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS) under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(D)?

State and LEA report cards must include, in reporting on student achievement, the results for 

students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who take an AA-AAAS under section 

1111(b)(2)(D) of the ESEA and 34 C.F.R. § 300.160(c). Thus, the percentage of students at each 

level of achievement must include students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who take 

an AA-AAAS as authorized under section 1111(b)(2)(D) of the ESEA and 34 C.F.R. § 300.160(c).

In addition, State and LEA report cards must include the number and percentages of students with 

the most significant cognitive disabilities who take an AA-AAAS under ESEA section 1111

(b)(2)(D) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.160(c), by grade and subject. (ESEA sections 1111(h)(1)(C)(xi) and 

1111(h)(2)(C)).

E-8. What information must an SEA or an LEA include on its report card regarding 

participation rates?
26

An SEA or an LEA must report the percentage of all students and each subgroup of students who 

are assessed and not assessed on the State’s mathematics, reading/language arts, and science 

assessments (ESEA sections 1111(h)(1)(C)(vii) and 1111(h)(2)(C)).

E-9. May an SEA or an LEA count students without a valid score as participating in the 

State assessments?

No. A State must determine what constitutes a valid score on the assessment. Only students with a 

valid score, as determined by the State, may be counted as a participant on the State assessments. 

Under both the IDEA and the ESEA, students without a valid score may not be reported as 

participating in State assessments on either the State or LEA report card. In addition, all students 

considered participants by the State must be included in the State’s proficiency calculations 

described in E-2.

E-10. How can an SEA and its LEAs help parents and other stakeholders understand 

student achievement data based on State assessments?

Student achievement data provide valuable information to students, parents, educators, and the 

public about whether all students are meeting the challenging State academic standards. It is 

important that parents and stakeholders receive such information in a timely and easy to understand 

manner. 

The SEA and its LEAs should clearly label and describe both proficiency calculations identified in 

E-2 to help ensure that parents, educators, and the public fully understand student achievement as 

presented on State and LEA report cards. In addition, report cards should include information 

about where parents can find assessment resources including guides on interpreting student 

achievement data and understanding achievement standards. 

F. REPORTING STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM 

INFORMATION

F-1. What information must State and LEA report cards include regarding a description 

of the statewide accountability system? 

State and LEA report cards must include a clear and concise description of the State accountability 

system. (ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i), (h)(2)(C); 34 C.F.R. § 200.32(a)). This information is 

intended to help ensure that parents, teachers, principals, and other key stakeholders have access to 

information on each element of the State accountability system and how the elements work together 

in a coherent system. Such information will support a better understanding of school performance 

and progress based on a State’s particular accountability system and can help focus parent, teacher,

principal, and other stakeholder efforts to meaningfully contribute to school improvement activities 

and initiatives.

The tables in Appendix D of this guidance detail what the description of the State accountability 

system must include for SEA and LEA report cards, respectively. In general, State and LEA report 

cards must include a description of the following elements of the State’s approved accountability 
27

system: 

 The single n-size that a State determines is necessary to include disaggregated data for each 

of the subgroups of students required in the State’s accountability system;

 The State-designed long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for academic 

achievement, graduation rates, and English language proficiency for all students and each 

subgroup of students used in the State’s accountability system; 

 The indicators that the State uses in its accountability system to meaningfully differentiate all 

public schools in the State, including, as applicable, an explanation of its uniform procedure 

for combining data across years or grades;

 The State’s system for annually meaningfully differentiating all public schools in the State, 

including: 

o Specific weight of the accountability indicators;

o Method of factoring in the 95 percent assessment participation requirement;

o Method of differentiation including indicator weighting, indicator performance levels, 

and summative determinations;

o Method of identifying schools as consistently underperforming (including time period 

the State uses to determine consistent underperformance); and 

o Method of identifying schools for comprehensive support and improvement

 The exit criteria established by the State for (1) schools identified for comprehensive support 

and improvement and (2) Title I schools identified for targeted support and improvement 

due to low-performing subgroup(s).

An SEA or LEA may provide the Web address or URL of, or a direct link to, a State plan or other 

location on the SEA’s Web site to meet the reporting requirement for a description of the State 

accountability system on State and LEA report cards. 

(ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i), (h)(2)(C); 34 C.F.R. § 200.32(a)). 

F-2 How can SEAs and LEAs meet the requirements to include a description of the State 

accountability system on State and LEA report cards? 

SEAs and LEAs may meet the requirement to provide a description of the State accountability 

system by including such information on State and LEA report cards, respectively. States may also 

meet this requirement by providing the Web address or URL of, or a direct link to, the description 

of the accountability system on the SEA’s Web site, provided it includes all of the accountability 

system description elements detailed in section A of this guidance. (34 C.F.R. § 200.32(b)). 

The Department encourages SEAs and LEAs, in developing their report cards, to consider the 

amount of information needed to help parents and other stakeholders engage in and understand the 

State accountability system. For example, an SEA may wish to indicate its n-size on its report card, 

even though it is available elsewhere, because such information likely facilitates understanding of 

how school performance is measured, while providing the Web address or URL of, or a direct link 

to, some or all of the other required information in the State plan or other location on the SEA’s

Web site.
28

F-3. What information must State and LEA report cards include regarding results of the 

statewide accountability system?

State and LEA report cards must include results of the State’s accountability system. (ESEA section 

1111(h)(1)(C)(i)(V), (h)(2)(C); 34 C.F.R. § 200.32(c)). This is important because it provides parents 

and other key stakeholders with information based on the individual indicators in the State

accountability system (including the measures within those indicators) as well as a school’s 

summative determination based on those indicators.

SEA and LEAs may want to consider use of a “data dashboard,” to display the results of the State 

accountability system, which could include a school’s performance level on each of the State’s

accountability system indicators (i.e., Academic Achievement, Academic Progress for elementary and 

secondary schools that are not high schools, Graduation Rate, Progress in Achieving English 

Language Proficiency, and School Quality or Student Success) and results on the measures within 

the indicators. A data dashboard can provide parents and other stakeholders information about a 

school’s strengths and areas where interventions may be needed by showing a clearer understanding 

of school performance and progress as well as how the State holds schools accountable for 

addressing the needs of all students. 

The table in Appendix D detail the accountability system results that State and LEA report cards, 

respectively, must include. In general, report cards must include the following accountability system 

results: 

State and LEA Report Cards9 must include: 

 The number and names of all public schools in the State or LEA, as applicable, identified for 

comprehensive or targeted support and improvement and the reason(s) that led to such 

identification;

 Overview section of State and LEA report cards:

o Results on each measure within the Academic Progress indicator used in the State 

accountability system for students in public elementary and secondary schools that are 

not high schools; 

 For example, for a State that includes student growth on State assessments as a 

measure within its Academic Progress indicator, report cards could include the 

percentage of students overall and by subgroup making sufficient growth to attain 

proficiency, maintain proficiency, or attain a level of achievement beyond proficiency 

on the State mathematics and reading/language arts assessments, respectively; 

o Results on each measure within any School Quality or Student Success indicator used in 

the State accountability system; for example: 

 For a State that includes chronic absenteeism as a measure within its School Quality 

or Student Success indicator, report cards could include the percentage of students 

overall and by subgroup that were absent 15 days or more during the school year; 

(ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i)(V), (h)(2)(C); 34 C.F.R. §§ 200.30(b)(2)(i), 200.31(b)(2)(i)(A), 

 

9 See question B-6 above and Appendix D of this document for a complete listing of the information that 

must be included on the school overview section for each school served by an LEA. 
29

200.32(c)).

For additional information on accountability system indicators and measures within those 

indicators, see the Department’s non-regulatory guidance, Accountability Under Title I, Part 

A of the ESEA; Frequently Asked Questions (January 2017) available at 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html and the supplemental guidance 

document specifically related to a State’s accountability system indicators, Selecting HighQuality Accountability Measures and Indicators under the ESSA (January 2017) available 

at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html. 

LEA Report Cards also must include: 

For each school served by the LEA: 

 The school’s results on each measure within the Academic Achievement, Graduation Rate, 

and Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency indicators used in the State 

accountability system, as applicable10;

 The school’s performance level on each indicator used in the State accountability system

(i.e., including for the Academic Achievement, Graduation Rate, Academic Progress, 

Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency, and School Quality or Student Success 

indicators); and

 Overview section for each school served by the LEA:

o The school’s summative determination.

(34 C.F.R. § 200.32(c)(4)).

F-4. How does reporting results on measures differ from reporting on performance level 

on indicators? 

A school’s results on each measure within an indicator differ from a school’s performance level on 

the indicator. For example, if a State uses chronic absenteeism as a measure within its School 

Quality or Student Success indicator, results on this measure could be presented as the percentage of 

students chronically absent during the school year at the State, LEA, and school levels. 

A State must also establish at least three distinct and discrete levels of school performance for each 

indicator (but not for each measure within an indicator) in its accountability system and report the 

school’s performance level on each indicator. (34 C.F.R. § 200.18(a)(2)). For example, in a State 

that includes two measures within its School Quality or Student Success indicator, State and LEA 

report cards must include results on each of these two measures separately. In this example, the 

SEA would establish at least three distinct and discrete performance levels for this indicator as a 

whole (that includes these two measures). LEA report cards in this State would include, in addition 

to results on each of the two measures included in this indicator, the level of performance on this 

indicator for each school served by the LEA. 

See the Department’s non-regulatory guidance, Accountability Under Title I, Part A of the 

ESEA; Frequently Asked Questions (January 2017) available at 

 

10 As noted above, the LEA overview section must include the results on each measure in the Academic 

Progress and School Quality or Student Success indicators. 
30

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html and the supplemental guidance document 

specifically related to a State’s accountability system indicators, Selecting High-Quality 

Accountability Measures and Indicators under the ESSA (January 2017) available at 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html for more information on accountability 

system measures and indicators. 

F-5. How does an SEA or LEA meet the requirement to indicate the reason that led to a 

school’s identification as a comprehensive or targeted support and improvement 

school? 

A SEA and LEA must indicate, for each school identified for comprehensive or targeted support 

and intervention, the reason the school was identified. For a comprehensive support and 

improvement school, the State and LEA report card must indicate one of the following three 

reasons: (1) lowest-performing school; (2) low graduation rate school; or (3) one or more chronically 

low-performing subgroups (for these schools, the report card must include the subgroup or 

subgroups that led to such identification. (34 C.F.R. § 200.32(c)(2)). 

For a targeted support and improvement school, the State and LEA report card must indicate one of 

the following three reasons, including the subgroup or subgroups that led to the school’s 

identification: (1) consistently underperforming; (2) low-performing subgroup receiving additional 

targeted support; or, at an SEA’s discretion, (3) missing the accountability system requirement for 95 

percent participation on the State assessments required under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I). (34 

C.F.R. § 200.32(c)(3)).

Understanding the reason for a school’s identification as a comprehensive or targeted support and 

improvement school will help focus efforts of schools, LEAs, and States to target support, 

resources, and technical assistance to address specific needs of students and schools. 

F-6. May an SEA or an LEA include the assessment results for former English learners in 

reporting on any accountability system results for the English learner subgroup?

Yes. An SEA or an LEA may include the assessment results of former English learners on State and 

LEA report cards for not more than four years after such students cease to be identified as English 

learners only for the purposes of calculating and reporting on any indicator in a State’s accountability 

system under 34 C.F.R. § 200.14(b) that uses data from State assessments under ESEA section 

1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) for the English learner subgroup

An SEA or an LEA may not include former English learners in reporting any other information 

required under ESEA section 1111(h), consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 200.16(d)(2), except for reporting 

on graduation rate data for the English learner subgroup consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 200.34(e). If an 

SEA chooses to include the results of former English learners as permitted under 34 C.F.R. § 

200.16(c)(1), it must develop and implement a statewide uniform procedure consistent with 34 

C.F.R. § 200.16(c)(1)(i)-(ii).

For more guidance regarding the inclusion of former English learners in a State’s accountability 

system indicators, see the Department’s non-regulatory guidance, Accountability Under Title I, 

Part A of the ESEA; Frequently Asked Questions (January 2017) available at 

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html and the supplemental guidance document 
31

specifically on English learners, Resource Guide: Accountability for English Learners under 

the ESEA (January 2017) available at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html. 

F-7. May an SEA or an LEA include the assessment results for former children with 

disabilities in reporting accountability determinations for the children with 

disabilities subgroup?

Yes. An SEA or an LEA may include the assessment results of former children with disabilities on 

State and LEA report cards for not more than two years after such students cease to be identified as 

such for the purposes of calculating and reporting on any indicator in a State’s accountability system 

under 34 C.F.R. § 200.14(b) that uses data from State assessments under ESEA section 

1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) for the children with disabilities subgroup.

An SEA or an LEA may not include former children with disabilities in reporting any other 

information required under ESEA section 1111(h), consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 200.16(d)(2), except 

for reporting on graduation rate data for the children with disabilities subgroup consistent with 34 

C.F.R. § 200.34(e). If a State chooses to include the results of former children with disabilities as 

permitted under 34 C.F.R. § 200.16(b), it must develop and implement a statewide uniform 

procedure consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 200.16(b)(1)-(2).

For more guidance on including former students with disabilities in a State’s accountability system, 

see the Department’s non-regulatory guidance, Accountability Under Title I, Part A of the 

ESEA; Frequently Asked Questions (January 2017) available at

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html.

F-8. Must an SEA or an LEA include the results for children with disabilities who take an 

AA-AAAS in calculating and reporting accountability determinations? 

Yes. An SEA or an LEA must include the achievement scores of all students with disabilities, 

including students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who take an AA-AAAS, in 

calculating and reporting accountability determinations. 

F-9. If an SEA exempts recently arrived English learners from its reading/language arts 

assessment, how are these students reported for accountability purposes on State and 

LEA report cards?

Under the ESEA section 1111(b)(3)(B) and 34 C.F.R. § 200.16(c)(3), an SEA has flexibility regarding 

how it includes recently arrived English learners in particular indicators. One option allows 

flexibility for an SEA to exclude recently arrived English learners in their first 12 months of 

schooling in the United States from one administration of the State’s reading/language arts 

assessment. (34 C.F.R. § 200.16(c)(3)(i)). As noted above in question E-6, if an SEA exempts 

recently arrived English learners from one administration of the State’s reading/language arts 

assessment, State and LEA report cards must include the number and percentage of such English 

learners. 

Because an SEA must assess all recently arrived English learners on the State’s mathematics and 

science assessments and the State’s English language proficiency assessments annually, an SEA must 

include their results in reporting on student achievement under ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C). 
32

However, for States choosing the option for inclusion of recently arrived English learners described 

in 34 C.F.R. § 200.16(c)(3)(i), an SEA may exclude their results on the statewide mathematics and 

reading/language arts assessments under ESEA sections 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) and the English 

language proficiency assessment required under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(G) in calculating and 

reporting on certain accountability system indicators required under 34 C.F.R. § 200.14(b) in the 

student’s first year of enrollment in schools in the United States. Under this option, an SEA would 

exclude the results of recently arrived English learners on the mathematics and reading/language 

arts assessments in calculating and reporting on the Academic Achievement indicator and on the 

English language proficiency assessment in calculating and reporting on the Progress in Achieving 

English Language Proficiency indicator. If a State excludes the results of recently arrived English 

learners on the reading/language arts assessment (if taken), the mathematics assessment, and the 

English language proficiency assessment from the accountability system indicators in this way, as

described above, State and LEA report cards must include the number and percentage of such 

English learners. 

If an SEA takes advantage of this particular flexibility, neither the SEA nor its LEAs need to include 

the results of recently arrived English learners in reporting whether these students met or did not 

meet the State goals and measurements of interim progress for academic achievement in 

mathematics and reading/language arts established under 34 C.F.R. § 200.13(a) or English language 

proficiency established under 34 C.F.R § 200.13(c) in their first year of enrollment in schools in the 

United States on their respective report cards. 

For more guidance on including recently arrived English learners in a State’s accountability system, 

see the Department’s non-regulatory guidance, Accountability Under Title I, Part A of the 

ESEA; Frequently Asked Questions (January 2017) available at

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html.

F-10. If an SEA assesses recently arrived English learners in their first year on the State’s 

reading/language arts assessments under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I), how are 

these students reported for accountability purposes on State and LEA report cards? 

As noted above in F-8, under 34 C.F.R. § 200.16(c)(3), an SEA has flexibility regarding how it 

includes recently arrived English learners in its accountability system. An SEA may choose to assess 

recently arrived English learners on the reading/language arts assessments under ESEA section 

1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) (the SEA must assess these students in mathematics), report their results on 

student achievement under ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C), and exclude their results in calculating and 

reporting on the Academic Achievement indicator in these students’ first year of enrollment in a 

school in the United States. 

Under this option, an SEA would then include a measure of these English learners’ growth on the 

mathematics and reading/language arts assessments required under ESEA section 

1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) in calculating and reporting on either the Academic Progress or Academic 

Achievement indicator in their second year of enrollment in a school in the United States. In the 

third year of enrollment in a school in the United States, such students would be fully included in all 

indicators, including Academic Achievement. If an SEA excludes the results of recently arrived 

English learners from particular indicators during their first two years of enrollment in schools in the 

United States, State and LEA report cards must include the number and percentage of recently 

arrived English learners excluded from the Academic Achievement indicator in any year of such an 
33

English learner’s enrollment in a school in the United States. State and LEA report cards should 

clearly label information related to the performance of recently arrived English learners to ensure 

transparency and facilitate understanding of how the results of these students are included in the 

State accountability system. 

If an SEA takes advantage of this particular flexibility, neither the SEA nor its LEAs need to include 

the results of recently arrived English learners in reporting whether these students met or did not 

meet the State goals and measurements of interim progress for academic achievement in 

mathematics and reading/language arts established under 34 C.F.R. 200.13(a) in their first year of 

enrollment in schools in the United States on their respective report cards.

For more guidance on including recently arrived English learners in a State’s accountability system, 

see the Department’s non-regulatory guidance, Accountability Under Title I, Part A of the 

ESEA; Frequently Asked Questions (January 2017) available at

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html and the supplemental guidance document 

specifically on English learners, Resource Guide: Accountability for English Learners under 

the ESEA (January 2017) available at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html.

G. REPORTING ON USE OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS 

UNDER ESEA SECTION 1003

G-1. What information about the use of school improvement funds available under ESEA 

section 1003 must an SEA include on the State report card? 

Under section 1003(a) of the ESEA, an SEA must reserve a portion of its Title I, Part A allocation 

to assist LEAs that serve schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement plans or 

targeted support and improvement plans under ESEA section 1111(d) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 200.21 or 

200.22. Related to this reservation, the State report card must include a list of all the LEAs and 

schools that received section 1003 school improvement funds, including the amount of funds each 

school received and the types of strategies implemented in each school with such funds. (ESEA 

section 1003(i)).

G-2. How might an SEA display on the State report card the required information about 

the use of school improvement funds?

SEAs have flexibility in displaying the required information. One approach would be to create a 

table with columns for the LEA name, school name, type of school, amount of funds received, and 

type of strategy or strategies implemented, as reflected in the following table:
34

Table 2. Receipt and Use of School Improvement Funds by District and School 

LEA Name School 

Name

Type of School Funds 

Received for 

SY 2018–2019

Strategies Implemented 

LEA A School A Targeted Support 

and Improvement 

(low performing 

subgroup)

$323,456  Increasing instructional 

time

 Increasing access to 

effective teachers 

LEA A School B Comprehensive 

Support and 

Improvement

(lowest 

performing—bottom 

five percent) 

$534,567  Increasing access to 

high-quality preschool

 Replacing school 

leadership

 Implementing a new 

instructional model

LEA B School C Targeted Support 

and Improvement 

(low performing 

subgroup)

$145,678  Implementing 

interventions based on 

early warning indicator 

systems

 Adopting incentives to 

recruit and retain 

effective teachers 

G-3. How might an SEA determine and report on the types of strategies an LEA receiving 

school improvement funds is implementing in a particular school?

SEAs have flexibility for determining and reporting on the types of strategies LEAs receiving school 

improvement funds are implementing in schools. In order to increase stakeholder understanding of 

the report card, it may be helpful to create a key defining and explaining each strategy). Following 

are some examples of strategies that may be implemented in schools identified for comprehensive or 

targeted support and improvement:

 Increasing access to effective teachers or adopting incentives to recruit and retain effective 

teachers

 Increasing or redesigning instructional time

 Implementing interventions based on data from early warning indicator systems

 Reorganizing the school to implement a new instructional model

 Implementing strategies designed to increase diversity by attracting and retaining students 

from varying socioeconomic backgrounds

 Replacing school leadership with leaders who are trained for or have a record of success in 

low-performing schools

 In the case of an elementary school, increasing access to high-quality preschool

 Converting the school to a public charter school

 Changing school governance

 Closing the school
35

 In the case of a public charter school, revoking or non-renewing the school's charter by its 

authorized public chartering agency consistent with State charter school law

G-4. What additional information about school improvement funds might an SEA

consider including on the State report card?

To further assist the public in understanding how school improvement funds were distributed to 

and used by its LEAs and schools, an SEA could consider including on the State report card the 

following items: (1) A description of the State’s process for awarding school improvement funds, 

including whether funds were awarded on a formula or competitive basis and, if on a competitive 

basis, the priorities and criteria used;11 (2) Information on the awards to LEAs and schools, such as 

the number, range, and average size of awards; and (3) Information on the characteristics of schools 

being served by LEAs receiving awards, including, for example:

 School identification (i.e., as a comprehensive support and improvement school or targeted 

support and improvement school) 

 School level (e.g., elementary, middle, or high)

 School type (e.g., regular, alternative, special education, or vocational)

 Charter school status

 Urbanicity (e.g., large- or middle-sized city, urban fringe and large town, or small town and 

rural area)

 Poverty level

 Race/ethnicity (e.g., White, African American, Hispanic, Native American, or Asian)

 Total school enrollment

To create even more context for report card readers and allow them to make comparisons, an SEA

could display these characteristics for three groups of schools: (1) The universe of schools in the 

State; (2) Schools eligible for school improvement funds under section 1003; and (3) Schools that are 

served with school improvement funds.

H. REPORTING DATA FROM THE CRDC

H-1. What is the data collected under section 203(c)(1) of the Department of Education 

Organization Act (20 U.S.C. 3413(c)(1)) that SEAs and LEAs must include on report 

cards under ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii)?

The data collected pursuant to section 203(c)(1) of the Department of Education Organization Act 

(20 U.S.C. 3413(c)(1)) is the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC). The CRDC is a biennial (i.e., 

every other school year) survey required by the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Since 

1968, through the CRDC, OCR has collected data on key education and civil rights issues in the 

 

11 Under 34 CFR § 299.17(d)(1), an SEA submitting a consolidated State plan must include in its plan a 

description of its process for awarding school improvement funds to its LEAs. An SEA submitting a 

consolidated State plan might wish to include on its State report card a link to the description in its plan.
36

nation's public schools for use by OCR in its enforcement and monitoring efforts regarding equal 

educational opportunity. The CRDC is also a resource for other Department offices and federal 

agencies, policymakers and researchers, educators and school officials, and the public to analyze 

student equity and opportunity. 

While the Department publishes CRDC data for access by the stakeholders listed above, the ESEA 

requires that State and LEA report cards include data from certain CRDC data categories for all 

students and student subgroups as required to be reported under the CRDC. (ESEA section 

1111(h)(1)(C)(viii)). Thus, a subset of CRDC data will be readily accessible to a wide range of 

consumers at the State, LEA, and school levels via State and LEA report cards in addition to being 

available via the Department’s regular CRDC dissemination. Specifically, the ESEA requires that 

State and LEA report cards include information on measures of school quality, climate, and safety, 

including information of the following:

 In-school suspensions;

 Out-of-school suspensions;

 Expulsions;

 School-related arrests;

 Referrals to law enforcement;

 Chronic absenteeism, including both excused and unexcused absences; and 

 Incidents of violence, including bullying and harassment.

In addition, State and LEA report cards must include the number and percentage of students 

enrolled in preschool programs and accelerated coursework to earn postsecondary credit while still 

in high school for all students and each student subgroup. Information must be reported at the

State, LEA, and school levels. Table 3 below shows the CRDC items that States may use to meet 

these State and LEA report card requirements. 

H-2. What information regarding the categories of CRDC data required under ESEA 

section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) can SEAs and LEAs include on report cards to meet this 

requirement?

The CRDC collects and reports on several items that an SEA and LEA may include on State and 

LEA report cards to meet the reporting requirement described above in H-1. The following table 

lists these items, including the CRDC item survey code for the 2015-16 CRDC in parenthesis. An 

SEA and LEA may include multiple items within each category listed in the table, but must include 

at least one item within each category. 

Table 3. Items that may be Used to Meet State and LEA CRDC Report Card Requirements

CRDC Data Categories Required

under ESEA and Corresponding 

CRDC Items

Content of Corresponding CRDC Items 

In-school suspensions 

(P2Q21T2): students with disabilities

(P2Q19T2: students without disabilities)

Number of students with* disabilities and without*

disabilities who received one or more in-school 

suspensions

Out-of-school suspensions Number of instances of out-of-school suspensions 
37

CRDC Data Categories Required

under ESEA and Corresponding 

CRDC Items

Content of Corresponding CRDC Items 

(# of instances)

(P2Q24T1): students with disabilities, 

with disabilities for Section 504 only, 

and without disabilities

(P2Q18T1): students with and without 

disabilities

(disaggregated by students (1) with disabilities, (2) with 

disabilities for Section 504 only, and (3) without 

disabilities); number of instances of preschool out-ofschool suspensions (disaggregated by (1) all children and 

(2) children with disabilities) 

Out-of-school suspensions

(one suspension)

(P2Q21T3): students with disabilities

(P2Q19T3): students without disabilities

(P2Q17T1): preschool children

Number of students with*† and without disabilities* who 

received one out-of-school suspension; number of 

preschool children who received one out-of-school 

suspension*‡

Out-of-school suspensions

(more than one suspension)

(P2Q21T4): students with disabilities

(P2Q19T4): students without disabilities

(P2Q17T2): preschool children

Number of students with*† and without disabilities* who 

received more than one out-of-school suspension; number 

of preschool children who received more than one out-ofschool suspension*‡

Expulsions

(P2Q21T5): students with disabilities

(P2Q19T5):students without disabilities

Number of students with*† and without disabilities* who 

received an expulsion with educational services

(P2Q21T6): students with disabilities

(P2Q19T6): students without disabilities

Number of students with*† and without disabilities* who 

received an expulsion without educational services

School-related arrests

(P2Q21T9): students with disabilities

(P2Q19T9): students without disabilities

Number of students with*† and without disabilities* who 

received a school-related arrest

Referrals to law enforcement

(P2Q21T8): students with disabilities

(P2Q19T8): students without disabilities

Number of students with*† and without disabilities* who 

were referred to a law enforcement agency or official

Chronic (student) absenteeism (both 

excused and unexcused absences)

(P2Q9T1)

Number of students absent 10 percent or more of the 

school year*†‡

Incidents (allegations) of 

harassment or bullying

(P2Q29T1)

Allegations of harassment or bullying on the basis of (1) 

sex

12

; (2) race, color, or national origin; (3) disability; (4) 

sexual orientation; or (5) religion

Incidents (allegations) of violence, 

including bullying and harassment 

(Students reported as bullied or 

harassed)

(P2Q30T1)

Number of students reported as harassed or bullied on the 

basis of sex*†‡

 

12 Sex-based harassment or bullying includes sexual harassment (i.e., unwelcome conduct that is sexual in 

nature) and gender-based harassment (i.e., harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and 

nonconformity with gender stereotypes).
38

CRDC Data Categories Required

under ESEA and Corresponding 

CRDC Items

Content of Corresponding CRDC Items 

(P2Q30T2)

Number of students reported as harassed or bullied on the 

basis of race, color, or national origin*†‡

(P2Q30T3)

Number of students reported as harassed or bullied on the 

basis of disability*†‡

Violent Offences

(P2Q26T1)

Number of incidents of the following offenses: (1) rape, 

attempted rape, and other sexual assault; (2) robbery with 

and without a weapon; (3) robbery with a firearm or 

explosive device; (4) physical attack or fight with and 

without a weapon; (5) physical attack or fight with a 

firearm or explosive device; (6) threats of physical attack 

with and without a weapon; (7) threats of physical attack 

with a firearm or explosive device, and 8) possession of a 

firearm or explosive device 

Violent offences—Firearm use

(P2Q27T1)

At least one incident at a school that involved a shooting 

(regardless of whether anyone was hurt)

Violent offences--Homicide

(P2Q28T1)

Any of a school’s students, faculty, or staff having died as a 

result of a homicide committed at the school

Number and percentage of students 

enrolled in preschool programs

(P1Q08T1)

Preschool enrollment*‡ (preschool refers to preschool 

programs and services for children ages 3 through 5)

Number and percentage of students 

enrolled in accelerated coursework 

to earn postsecondary credit while 

still in high school such as AP and 

IB courses and examinations and 

dual or concurrent enrollment 

programs

(P1Q35T1)

Students enrolled in at least one AP course*‡

(P1Q31T1) Students enrolled in the IB Diploma Programme*‡

(P1Q42T1) Students enrolled in dual credit programs*‡

Notes: *Disaggregated groups include the following: (1) race; (2) sex; and (3) limited English proficient. 

†Disaggregated groups include Section 504-only students; ‡Disaggregated groups include IDEA students

H-3. Given that the required preschool data on report cards is based on LEAadministered preschool programs and services, may State and LEA report cards 

include additional preschool enrollment information?

Yes. The CRDC preschool data referenced in Table 3 above includes information on children 

served in the LEA’s preschool program(s) or service(s), including programs and services that are 

provided by a non-LEA facility that has been contracted by the LEA. The CRDC data does not 

include information on children receiving preschool services provided under State-administered 

preschool programs by other entities, such as community-based organizations. In addition to the 

required CRDC data, a State or LEA may choose to include information on enrollment in these 

programs on their report cards. If a State or LEA elects to include such information, it should 

report this information separately and specify each additional data source. 
39

H-4. Do SEAs and LEAs have to use the CRDC data described above to meet the 

reporting requirements regarding measures of school quality, climate, and safety and 

the number and percentage of students enrolled in preschool programs and 

accelerated coursework to earn postsecondary credit while still in high school? 

Yes. At a minimum, SEAs and LEAs must use CRDC data to meet the reporting requirements 

under ESEA sections 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) and 1111(h)(2)(C). To support SEAs and LEAs in doing 

so, the Department will make available to SEAs the CRDC data that they must use to meet this 

reporting requirement (discussed in the questions below). For a State in which LEAs produce LEA 

report cards, the State would be responsible for providing each LEA with the CRDC data that must 

be used to meet this reporting requirement. State and LEA report cards must include the data 

provided by the Department to SEAs and that will be publicly available through the Department’s 

CRDC Web site (http://ocrdata.ed.gov/). 

H-5. Can SEAs and LEAs use the data that they submit for the CRDC or do they have to 

use the data that will be published by the Department when it publishes the CRDC 

data?

State and LEA report cards should include the data provided by the Department to SEAs and that 

will be publicly available through the Department’s CRDC Web site (http://ocrdata.ed.gov/) rather 

than the data that are submitted to the Department. This will ensure consistent reporting of 

information that is provided on State and LEA report cards and that is provided in the 

Department’s public release of CRDC data. 

H-6. Are SEAs and LEAs required to include CRDC data on report cards annually?

Yes. SEAs and LEAs are required to include CRDC data annually on their report cards. (ESEA 

section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) and (h)(2)(C)). Since the CRDC is a biennial data collection, SEAs and 

LEAs may include the same information on report cards over consecutive years, using the most 

recently available data, in order to meet this reporting requirement. However, SEAs and LEAs may 

want to consider including any additional information that they collect annually that represents data 

on the same metrics that LEAs submit for the purpose of the CRDC. See question C-11. Note, 

though, that State and LEA report cards must include the required CRDC data. 

H-7. When will the data that SEAs and LEAs need to include on the report cards be 

available and how can SEAs and LEAs obtain the data file(s)?

State and LEA report cards should include data on school quality, climate, safety, preschool 

enrollment, and accelerated coursework from the most recent CRDC. State and LEA report cards 

that include information from the 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 school years will use the CRDC data 

from the 2015–2016 collection. Individual State-specific files of the State-, LEA-, and school-level 

2015–2016 CRDC data will be available at in summer 2018. The layout for the file (including 

variable names and value ranges) will be available prior to the data being available so that SEAs and 

LEAs can be better prepared for including the CRDC data on report cards. 

H-8. In what format will the data be provided?

Each State-specific CRDC data file, which contains data on all indicators for all LEAs and schools 

that submitted data within the State as well as a statewide record, will be made available in a 
40

commonly used open data format, such as CSV or XML or JSON.

H-9. Where can an SEA or LEA find documentation about the data file(s)?

The User Guide for the CRDC provides information about the purpose of the data collection, the 

target population and respondents, data anomalies and considerations, data collection procedures, 

the data file structure, and data processing (see http://ocrdata.ed.gov/DataFileUsersManual). In 

addition, the CRDC survey forms are also available. All of the data documentation for the CRDC is

available at CRDC.ed.gov. 

H-10. What privacy protections have been implemented in the data files?

The Department applies privacy protection routines to the CRDC data that LEAs submit. The 

CRDC data that are derived from information contained within students’ education records are 

protected by FERPA. (20 U.S.C.1232g; 34 C.F.R. Part 99). In the publicly-available data files, 

statistical disclosure limitation methods have been applied to reduce the risk of disclosure of 

individual student information. The specific rounding methodologies for the privacy protection 

routines are described in the User Guide for the CRDC data file. Non-student information (e.g.,

teacher counts and dollar figures) are not subject to the same privacy provisions and are therefore 

not rounded. The data documentation contains language that SEAs and LEAs may include on their 

report cards to describe the privacy protection rules and important considerations for interpreting 

the privacy-protected data.

H-11. What if an SEA or LEA has more recent data than what was submitted for the 

CRDC?

The Department recognizes that SEAs and LEAs may have access to more recent data on the items 

used to fulfill this reporting requirement than the most recent CRDC. At a minimum, , the ESEA

requires that SEAs and LEAs use the CRDC data when reporting on school quality, climate, safety, 

preschool enrollment, and accelerated coursework on State and LEA report cards (see question H-2

above for a complete list of data items that can be reported on within these categories of CRDC 

data). Using CRDC data helps ensure consistency across States and LEAs in how the data items are 

defined, reported, and protected with respect to privacy. 

As noted above in C-2 and D-2, SEAs and LEAs can include additional information on report cards 

if they wish to do so. Therefore, an SEA or LEA may include on report cards information that they

collect annually that represents data on the same metric that LEAs submit for the purposes of the 

CRDC. For example, some States or LEAs may collect chronic absenteeism data annually and may 

choose to report such information on report cards. However, for meeting the requirement under 

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii), State and LEA report cards must include the data provided by the 

Department to SEAs and that will be publicly available through the Department’s CRDC Web site 

(http://ocrdata.ed.gov/). 

H-12. What should an SEA do if the data that submitted for the CRDC appear to be 

incorrect or incomplete?

SEAs in which an LEA is missing from the CRDC data file must still report the required data to 

produce a State-level report card based on the LEAs that are included in the file that the 

Department provides to SEAs. The SEA may choose to annotate the report card to indicate that 
41

data for a particular LEA are missing (especially if the LEA is large enough to measurably influence 

statewide indicators). Furthermore, missing data must be publicly indicated on LEA report cards. 

H-13. What is the role of an LEA in ensuring high quality, accurate CRDC data?

The Department encourages LEAs to engage in accuracy checks prior to submitting and certifying 

their data for any CRDC collection. The Department has many processes in place to help LEAs

ensure they submit accurate data, including edit checks programmed into the data submission 

system, technical support during the pre-collection and the data submission process, and data 

summary reports prior to certification. 

 LEAs have year-round access to a communities of practice Web site that provides technical 

assistance guides, best practices, and training workshops/webinars (see 

https://crdc.grads360.org/). 

 During the data submission window for the 2015-2016 CRDC, there is a technical support 

center to respond to questions from LEAs and help them submit data accurately and in a 

timely manner (855-255-6901 or crdc@aemcorp.com).

 After submission but prior to certification, LEAs are provided with the opportunity to 

review their data. LEAs should thoroughly review these reports prior to certification of their 

data. 

 Ultimately, the quality of the CRDC data depends on accurate collection and reporting by 

the LEAs.

H-14. What is the role of an SEA in ensuring high quality, accurate CRDC data?

The CRDC data are submitted to the Department by LEAs.

13 However, SEAs can play a critical 

role in helping LEAs to submit high quality CRDC data. Some SEAs are already supporting their 

LEAs by pre-populating LEA-level data elements during the submission period. Many SEAs collect 

this information for State reporting purposes and are able to provide a file with this information to 

assist the LEA. Additional roles for SEAs are:

 Participating in training/webinars;

 Providing technical assistance on data management and reporting to the Department;

 Helping provide consistency across LEA submissions; and

 Reviewing LEA submissions prior to LEA certification.

I. REPORTING ON EDUCATOR QUALIFICATIONS

I-1. What information must State and LEA report cards include on educator qualifications?

Each State and LEA report card must include, in the aggregate and disaggregated by high-poverty 

and low-poverty schools, the number and percentages of (1) inexperienced teachers, principals, and 

other school leaders; (2) teachers teaching with emergency and provisional credentials; and (3) 

teachers who are not teaching in the subject or field for which the teacher is certified or licensed

 

13 Except in Florida, where the SEA submits data for all its LEAs.
42

(i.e., out-of-field teachers). (ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(ix), (h)(2)(C); 34 C.F.R. § 200.37(a)). 

I-2. How is “inexperienced” defined for purposes of reporting educator qualifications?

Each SEA must adopt a uniform, statewide definition of the term “inexperienced” in order to 

ensure consistency and comparability within the State with respect to reporting on the professional 

qualifications of teachers, principals, and other school leaders. (34 C.F.R. § 200.37(b)(3)). To 

further promote consistency, SEAs must include the definition of “inexperienced” as part of the

State plan requirements for educator equity. (34 C.F.R. § 299.18(c)(2)(iii)). Ensuring that these 

terms have consistent meaning when reported will increase understanding of staffing needs in highpoverty and difficult-to-staff schools, and will encourage SEAs to target efforts to recruit, support, 

and retain excellent educators in these schools. One way an SEA may choose to define an 

“inexperienced” educator is an educator who is in his or her first year of practice; research 

demonstrates that the greatest increase in educator effectiveness occurs after one year on the job. 

I-3. How are “other school leaders” defined for purposes of reporting?

Section 8101(44) of the ESEA defines a school leader as a principal, assistant principal, or other 

individual who is: (1) An employee or officer of an elementary school or secondary school, LEA, or 

other entity operating an elementary school or secondary school; and (2) Responsible for the daily 

instructional leadership and managerial operations in the elementary school or secondary school 

building. Please see page 17 of the Department’s non-regulatory guidance for Title II, Part A for 

additional discussion of personnel included in “other school leaders”: 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essatitleiipartaguidance.pdf. 

I-4. How are “teachers who are not teaching in the subject or field for which the teacher 

is certified or licensed” defined for purposes of reporting?

Each SEA must adopt a uniform, statewide definition of the term “teachers who are not teaching in 

the subject or field for which the teacher is certified or licensed” in order to ensure consistency and 

comparability within the State with respect to reporting on the professional qualifications of 

teachers. (34 C.F.R. § 200.37(b)(3)). To further promote consistency, an SEA must include the 

definition of “out-of-field teacher” (i.e., “teachers who are not teaching in the subject or field for 

which the teacher is certified or licensed”) as part of the State plan requirements for educator equity.

(34 C.F.R. § 299.18(c)(ii)). Ensuring that these terms have consistent meaning when reported will 

increase public understanding of staffing needs in high-poverty and difficult-to-staff schools and will 

encourage SEAs to target efforts to recruit, support, and retain excellent educators in these schools.

I-5. How must an SEA and its LEAs report information on “inexperienced” educators 

and “teachers who are not teaching in the subject or field for which the teacher is 

certified or licensed” on their report cards?

Information about “inexperienced” educators and “teachers who are not teaching in the subject or 

field for which the teacher is certified or licensed” must be disaggregated by high-poverty and lowpoverty schools. (34 C.F.R. § 200.37(a)). A “high poverty school” is a school in the top quartile of 

poverty in the State, and a “low poverty school” is a school in the bottom quartile of poverty in the 

State. (34 C.F.R. § 200.37(b)(1)-(2)). This information will be a key indicator of equitable access to 
43

non-novice, qualified teachers, and school leaders in schools across the State.

I-6. How must an SEA and its LEAs disaggregate the professional qualifications of 

educators by high-poverty compared to low-poverty schools?

State and LEA report cards must include information on the number and percentage of: (1) 

Inexperienced teachers, principals, and other school leaders; (2) Teachers teaching with emergency 

or provisional credentials; and (3) Teachers who are not teaching in the subject or field for which the 

teacher is certified or licensed. (ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(ix) and (h)(2)(C); 34 C.F.R. 

§ 200.37(a)). This section requires that the information be presented in the aggregate and 

disaggregated by high-poverty compared to low-poverty schools. A “high-poverty school” is 

defined as a school in the top quartile of poverty in the State, and a “low-poverty school” is defined 

as a school in the bottom quartile of poverty in the State. (34 C.F.R. § 200.37(b)(1)-(2)). This 

information will be a key indicator of equitable access to non-novice, qualified teachers and school 

leaders in schools across the State.

I-7. May an SEA and its LEAs with systems in place to measure and report designations 

of teacher effectiveness report this information in lieu of educator quality 

information?

An SEA or an LEA that receives Title I, Part A funds must include on its report card the educator 

qualification information specified in ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii). The Department 

encourages an SEA or an LEA that has systems in place to measure and report designations of 

educator effectiveness to report educator effectiveness data on its report card in addition to the 

required educator qualification data. However, regardless of whether an SEA or an LEA elects to 

report this information on its report card, please note that, consistent with 34 C.F.R. 

§ 299.13(c)(1)(iii)(A)-(D), an SEA must publish and annually update: the statewide differences in 

rates required under § 299.18(c)(3); the percentage of teachers categorized in each LEA at each 

effectiveness level established as part of the definition of “ineffective teacher” under § 

299.18(c)(2)(i), consistent with applicable State privacy policies; the percentage of teachers 

categorized as out-of-field teachers consistent with § 200.37; and the percentage of teachers 

categorized as inexperienced teachers consistent with § 200.37. 

J. REPORTING PER-PUPIL EXPENDITURES

J-1. What information must State and LEA report cards include on per-pupil 

expenditures? 

State and LEA report cards must include per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds, 

disaggregated by source of funds. (ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x); 34 C.F.R. § 200.35(a)(1)(i) and 

(b)(1)(i)). To facilitate inclusion of this data, SEAs must develop a single, statewide procedure that 

LEAs must use to calculate and report LEA-level per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local 

funds, and a separate single, statewide procedure that LEAs must use to calculate and report schoollevel per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds. (34 C.F.R. § 200.35(c)). An SEA and 

its LEAs are also required to provide on State and LEA report cards the Web address or URL of, or 

direct link to, a description of the uniform procedure for calculating per-pupil expenditures. (34 
44

C.F.R. § 200.35(a)(1)(ii) and (b)(1)(ii)).

J-2. How should per-pupil expenditures information be disaggregated on State and LEA 

report cards? 

An SEA and its LEAs must report per-pupil expenditures in total (i.e., including all Federal, State, 

and local funds) and disaggregated by (1) Federal funds, and (2) State and local funds. (ESEA 

section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x); 34 C.F.R. § 200.35(a)(i) and (b)(i)). For disaggregation purposes, SEAs and 

LEAs must include Federal funds intended to replace local tax revenues with State and local funds, 

rather than including those funds with Federal funds. In addition, State and local funds must not 

include funds received from private sources. (34 C.F.R. § 200.35(a)(i)(B)(2) and (b)(i)(B)(2)). An

SEA and its LEAs are also required to separately report the amount of current expenditures per 

pupil that were not included in school-level per-pupil expenditure data for public schools (e.g., pupil 

transportation services not allocated to individual schools). (34 C.F.R. § 200.35(a)(2) and (b)(2)).

J-3. What must be included in the numerator and denominator when calculating perpupil expenditures for State and LEA report cards? 

In alignment with existing NCES data collection procedures, the numerator of the calculation 

consists of current expenditures, which means actual personnel costs (including actual staff salaries) 

and actual nonpersonnel expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds used for public education. 

(34 C.F.R. § 200.35(c)(1)). Current expenditures are comprised of expenditures for the day-to-day 

operation of schools and LEAs for public elementary and secondary education, including, but not 

limited to, expenditures for: 14

 Administration

 Instruction

 Instructional support

 Student support services

 Pupil transportation services

 Operation and maintenance of plant

 Fixed charges 

 Preschool

 Net expenditures to cover deficits for food services and student body activities

The numerator may also include additional current expenditure categories, as designated by the SEA

in its uniform statewide procedures, but may not include the following:

 Community services

 

14 An SEA’s uniform procedures will clarify for LEAs how to identify and track expenditure data for inclusion 

on annual LEA report cards (e.g., the procedures should clarify if payments to private schools and payments 

to charter schools outside the LEA are excluded from current expenditures, as they are under F-33 NCES 

reporting). If an SEA’s uniform procedures identify one of the current expenditure functions (e.g., pupil 

transportation services) for only LEA level reporting, then those costs would only be included in the LEA 

per-pupil expenditure figure (See Appendices B and C for sample formatting options).
45

 Capital outlay (e.g., purchases of land, school construction, and equipment)

 Debt service

(34 C.F.R. § 200.35(c)(1)).

The denominator of the calculation consists of the aggregate number of students enrolled in 

preschool through grade 12 to whom the SEA and LEA provide free public education on, or about, 

October 1, consistent with the student membership data collected annually by the SEA for 

submission to NCES. (34 C.F.R. § 200.35(c)(2)). 

J-4. What is the difference between a uniform statewide procedure for calculating current 

expenditures per pupil at the school level and at the LEA level? 

In general, all current expenditures, as outlined in J-3, must be included in LEA-wide per-pupil 

calculations, but an SEA’s uniform procedures will determine which costs are included in school 

level calculations. Question J-9 provides additional information on how an SEA can approach the 

development of its uniform statewide per-pupil expenditure procedures.

J-5. Do the per-pupil expenditure reporting requirements align with existing Federal data 

collections on education spending?

The NCES National Public Education Financial Survey (NPEFS) and the School District Finance 

Survey (F-33) data collections are the primary sources for comparable reporting on education 

spending nationally. The NPEFS and F-33 surveys collect similar data items and utilize common

definitions for detailed account classifications, as described in the NCES Handbook, but vary 

slightly by item type and collection method.15 NCES and the Economic Reimbursable Surveys 

Division of the U.S. Census Bureau collaborate to collect public education finance data, with the 

Census Bureau acting as the primary collection agent for the NPEFS survey. The Census Bureau 

also acts as the primary collection agent for the F-33 data collection and produces two data files: one 

 

15 The NCES Accounting handbook is periodically updated and has been incorporated by most 

States into their uniform financial reporting requirements for their public elementary and secondary 

school systems. The use of the accounting handbook by SEAs facilitates the comparability of data 

across States and LEAs and describes functions and objects. For reference, a function describes the 

activity for which a service or material object is acquired. The expenditure functions include 

instruction, instructional staff support services, pupil support services, general administration, school 

administration, operations and maintenance, student transportation, other support services (such as 

business services), food services, enterprise operations, and total current expenditures. An object is 

used to describe the service or commodity obtained as a result of a specific expenditure. Objects 

reported within a function include salaries, employee benefits, purchased services, supplies, and 

equipment.

NCES Accounting handbook citation provided below:

Allison, G.S. (2015). Financial Accounting for Local and State School Systems: 2014 Edition 

(NCES 2015-347). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

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

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015347.pdf
46

for distribution and reporting by the Census Bureau; and the other for distribution and reporting by 

NCES. NCES refers to this data collection as the F-33 and the Census Bureau refers to this data 

collection as the Annual Survey of Local Government Finances: School Systems. A full explanation 

of the key differences between the two surveys can be found by reviewing the Forum Guide to Core 

Finance Data Elements, available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007801

J-6. How should SEAs and LEAs treat Federal funds intended to replace local tax 

revenues?

SEAs and LEAs must include Federal funds intended to replace local tax revenues with State and 

local funds rather than Federal funds. (34 C.F.R. § 200.35(a)(i)(B)(2) and (b)( i)(B)(2)). One

program operated by the Department, Impact Aid, is a Federal program that meets this definition, as 

it is designed to replace lost tax revenue for LEAs that are burdened financially by certain activities 

of the Federal Government. As a result, expenditures from Impact Aid funds must be reported with 

expenditures of State and local funds. 

Other Federal programs that are intended to replace local tax revenue and must be reported with 

State and local funds for the purposes of per-pupil expenditure disaggregation, include the 

following:

 Department of Defense: 

o The Impact Aid for Military Connected School Districts program is operated by the 

Department of Defense Education Activity's (DoDEA) Educational Partnership and,

like Impact Aid, replaces local tax revenue for military-connected LEAs.

 Department of the Interior: 

o “Payments in Lieu of Taxes” (PILT) are payments to local governments that help offset 

losses in property taxes due to non-taxable Federal lands within their boundaries. 

There may be other Federal programs that generate Federal funds for LEAs that are also intended to 

replace lost local tax revenues. Expenditures of these Federal funds by LEAs also must be included 

with State and local funds if such funds are used for education. To ensure transparent presentation 

of Federal payments that are reported as State and local expenditures, an SEA should include in its 

description of statewide uniform procedures for calculating LEA and school-level current 

expenditures per pupil the list of Federal program funds reported with State and local funds rather 

than Federal funds. An SEA may also, at its discretion, separately report the amount of State and 

local funding in each LEA and school that is attributable to Federal funding sources intended to 

replace local tax revenues. 

J-7. When should expenditures of funds distributed across multiple State fiscal years be 

reported? 

Expenditures should be reported in the fiscal year they occur regardless of which fiscal year 

payments may have generated the funds that are spent. In some years legislative appropriations and 

resulting expenditures will span multiple fiscal years. For example, an LEA might receive and spend 

portions of Impact Aid payments from four different fiscal years during a single fiscal year. If the 

report card fiscal year were 2016, then an LEA should report its total expenditures from Impact Aid 

during the 2016 fiscal year, regardless of which fiscal year generated the payments spent. 
47

J-8. How should expenditures be reported if they are consolidated under a schoolwide 

program? 

A Title I schoolwide program school has the flexibility to consolidate funds from Title I and other 

Federal education programs with State and local funds, which means those Federal funds lose their 

individual identity when the schoolwide program is implemented. In such a scenario, a school 

would spend the consolidated funds for any activities included in its schoolwide program plan, but 

would be unable to track expenditures of Federal funds separate from State and local funds. In 

order to report per-pupil expenditures disaggregated by (1) Federal and (2) State and local sources in

the schoolwide program school, an LEA would first determine the percentage that Federal funds 

constitute of the total funds available to the schoolwide program school. The LEA would next

multiply that percentage by the total expenditures in the schoolwide program school, excluding any 

expenditure for community services, capital outlay, and debt service, to derive total Federal 

expenditures and, by subtracting the derived Federal expenditures from total expenditures, derive 

State and local expenditures for the schoolwide program school. These figures would then be used

by the LEA to report per-pupil expenditures by (1) Federal and (2) State and local funds for the 

schoolwide program school that consolidates Federal, State, and local funds. 

J-9. What types of expenditures might an SEA consider including in school-level perpupil expenditure data when developing its uniform statewide procedure for 

calculating current expenditures per pupil? 

Under the ESEA, how an LEA reports per-pupil expenditure data on annual report cards depends 

on an SEA’s uniform statewide per-pupil expenditure procedures. SEAs and their LEAs will use 

those procedures to establish business rules that assign costs at the school and LEA level, or just at 

the LEA level, depending on the cost. 

Under any scenario, applying an SEA’s uniform procedures should result in the reporting of funds 

actually spent in a particular school as expenditures for that school (e.g., the salary of a teacher who 

is assigned to that school). With regard to funds spent centrally by an LEA, or for services provided 

to multiple schools in an LEA, there are a variety of uniform procedures an SEA could establish, 

which generally fall into two categories of approaches. 

One approach would be to assign expenditures to the school level only if those costs are related to 

instruction and support functions (e.g., teacher salaries, professional development). The advantage 

of this approach is that it resembles site-based budgeting principles that recognize that school 

leaders rarely control much of what happens outside of the classrooms in their school. This 

approach also acknowledges that the benefit of some expenditures (e.g., superintendent salary) is not 

easily allocated to accurately identify how individual schools benefit from those expenditures, and if 

prorated equally across schools, may mask between-school resource inequities. If an SEA develops

uniform procedures that follow this approach, then all costs that are not related to instruction and 

support functions (e.g., facilities operations, maintenance, transportation, or food services) would be 

reported at the LEA level under the State-determined uniform procedure. 

This is generally the approach NCES followed with a pilot study of school-level finance (SLFS) 

collection, which expanded from the F-33 in the 2013–2014 school year to include voluntary 

submission of school-level data on “personnel” expenditures and “non-personnel” expenditures.

NCES selected this approach for its ease of implementation and its ability to provide an accurate 
48

picture of the resources spent as expenditures at the school level. The SLFS collection includes four 

personnel variables (instructional staff salaries, student support service salaries, instructional staff 

support services salaries, and school administration salaries) and five non-personnel variables 

(instructional staff support, nontechnology-related supplies and purchased services, technologyrelated supplies and purchased services, nontechnology-related equipment, and technology-related 

equipment). If an SEA elected to align its school-level uniform procedure with the SLFS collection, 

it would require these nine variables to be reported at the school level (the SEA could also choose to 

require additional variables). Provided below is an example of expenditure function classifications 

that would follow under this approach.

Table 4. School vs. LEA Reporting Expenditure Reporting (by function)

School-level current expenditures per pupil LEA-level current expenditures per pupil

Function Function

1000 Instruction 1000 Instruction

2100 Support Services – Students 2100 Support Services – Students

2200 Support Services – Instruction 2200 Support Services – Instruction

2300 Support Services – General 

Administration

2400 Support Services – School 

Administration

2400 Support Services – School 

Administration

2500 Central Services

2600 Operation and Maintenance of Plant

2700 Student Transportation

2900 Other Support Services 2900 Other Support Services

3100 Food Services Operations

3200 Enterprise Operations

An alternate approach would attribute all of an LEA’s expenditures to individual schools in the

LEA, including expenditures for things that typically are considered LEA-level functions (e.g.,

superintendent’s salary, facilities operations). These LEA-level expenditures would be prorated to 

each school based on metrics deemed appropriate for each type of expenditure, such as the number 

of students served in the school (e.g., for the superintendent’s salary), the percentage of time 

allocated by LEA personnel to each school (e.g., for staff who serve multiple schools), square 

footage (e.g., for utility costs), or other measures or formulas determined by the SEA. An SEA 

using this approach would choose whether, in its uniform procedure, to require that personnel 

expenditures that are often paid by an LEA on behalf of employees (e.g., pension and benefits 

expenditures) are attributed to each school on a prorated basis or assigned to a school based on 

actual individual employee pension and benefits expenditures.16 This approach attempts to provide 

the public with a full accounting of all LEA expenditures down to the school level, which may be

appropriate because the essential outcome of all LEA activities, even those that are administrative or 

recorded centrally, is to provide educational services to students. This approach to reporting school-

 

16 Consistent with 2 C.F.R. § 200.431, when reporting benefit expenditures, SEAs and LEAs should include the costs of 

leave (vacation, family-related, sick or military), employee insurance, pensions, and unemployment benefit plans in perpupil expenditure calculations, as they are part of the cost of personal services. As part of its uniform procedures, an 

SEA may find reporting on such expenditures to be more practicable at the LEA level only, consistent with NCES’s 

administration of the F-33, NPEFS, and SLFS collections. 
49

level expenditure data is discussed in the NCES Accounting handbook (see pp. 151-158). Using this 

approach would result in aggregate school-level expenditures equaling LEA-level expenditures, as all 

expenditures would be reported at the both the school and LEA level. 

Under any approach adopted by an SEA, community services, capital outlay, debt service, and 

expenditures from private revenue sources (e.g.,. non-governmental donations) must be excluded 

from the school and LEA per-pupil expenditure calculation, the amount of current expenditures per 

pupil not allocated to the school-level must be clearly identified, and a description of the uniform 

procedure must be accessible to the public. An SEA should determine which cost functions are 

applied to which entity level, in order to ensure comparable reporting occurs across all schools and 

LEAs in the State. 

J-10. What should per-pupil expenditures data look like to the public, as required on State 

and LEA report cards under the ESEA?

LEAs are accustomed to reporting financial data using expenditure classifications of fund, function, 

and object in annual public reports. These classifications allow for easy comparisons across districts 

for financial professionals, but are of limited utility to a parent who asks the question, “how much 

money is spent at my child’s school”? Under the ESEA, school leaders are required to answer that 

question in a format that is understandable to parents. Although there are many potential formats 

through which this information can be presented, Appendixes B and C provide two sample perpupil expenditure reports that demonstrate how school and LEA information could be presented on 

annual report cards.

J-11. Is the timeline different for reporting current expenditures per pupil on report cards 

than for reporting other data on report cards?

Yes. While report cards must be published by December 31 for the previous school year, States and 

LEAs have six additional months within which to add per pupil expenditure data to those report 

cards. For example, the 2017-2018 school year report cards must be published by December 31, 

2018, but per pupil expenditure data from the 2017-2018 school year can be added to those report 

cards at any time before June 30, 2019, although the Department encourages SEAs to report as early 

as possible. (34 C.F.R. §§ 200.30(e)(2) and 200.31(e)(2)). 

J-12. What is the first fiscal year for which SEAs and LEAs must report current 

expenditures per pupil on report cards? 

Fiscal year 2018 (i.e., the 2017–2018 school year). The fiscal year 2018 current expenditures per 

pupil data must be reported no later than the June 30, 2019, although the Department encourages 

SEAs to report as early as possible. Additionally, an SEA or LEA may request a one-time, one year 

delay in reporting per-pupil expenditure information on report cards. If granted by the Secretary, an 

SEA and its LEAs would report the fiscal year 2019 current expenditures per pupil data no later 

than the June 30, 2020. (34 C.F.R. §§ 200.30(e) and 200.31(e)). For more information on the 

process for applying for a one-time, one year extension see question B-3. 

Although SEAs and LEAs are familiar with the practice of collecting and reporting school-level 

expenditure data because of regular CRDC submissions, the 2009 American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) data collection, and the pilot SLFS collection, local entities will still need 
50

to refine systems and processes in order to accurately report per-pupil expenditures. As a result, 

SEAs and LEAs should begin transition planning as soon as possible. In particular, to comply with 

minimum requirements, SEAs and LEAs will need to align expenditure account codes, conduct 

outreach to stakeholders to prepare them for reporting new data items, and budget for staff training 

and updates to existing hardware and software systems. 

J-13. Where can an SEA or LEA learn more about public reporting of school financial 

data? 

Reporting on education spending occurs most frequently through regular financial management 

reporting processes which all public institutions are subject to, in adherence with the Generally 

Accepted Accounting Principles established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. 

These requirements ensure financial information such as education spending data and 

comprehensive annual financial reports are comparable and made available to the public in a 

comprehensive and uniform manner. Beyond the standard requirements for government 

accounting systems, which help determine what type of information is made public, local and State 

policymakers often establish varied public reporting requirements on education spending. For 

example, in 2013 the Education Commission of the States found that 11 States included per-pupil 

expenditures on State and LEA report cards. 

Starting with data from fiscal year 2018 (the 2017–2018 school year), all State and LEA report cards 

will include, as required by ESEA, “the per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds, 

including actual personnel expenditures and actual nonpersonnel expenditures of Federal, State, and 

local funds, disaggregated by source of funds, for each LEA and each school in the State for the 

preceding fiscal year.”

The NPEFS and the F-33 data collections are the primary sources for comparable reporting on 

education spending nationally. The NPEFS survey provides state-level aggregate finance data for 

revenues and expenditures for public elementary and secondary education. The F-33 survey 

provides finance data for all LEAs that provide free public elementary and secondary (preschool 

through grade 12) education in the United States. The F-33 data file does not include national and 

State totals. In addition to the annual fiscal LEA and State reports, NCES also publishes summaries 

of trends in elementary and secondary education spending as part of the Conditions of Education 

annual report delivered annually to Congress and the White House. The U.S. Census Bureau also 

independently publishes elementary and secondary school system finance data from their Annual 

Survey of School System Finances collection. Helpful links include:

NCES District Fiscal Reports: https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pub_pubdistricts.asp

NCES State Fiscal Reports: https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pub_rev_exp.asp

NCES Conditions of Education: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/

NCES Digest: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/

NCES blog: http://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces

U.S. Census Bureau School System Finance Report and Data: 
51

http://www.census.gov/govs/school/

CRDC: http://ocrdata.ed.gov/

ARRA School level Expenditures Report and Data: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title

K. REPORTING STATE PERFORMANCE ON NAEP

K-1. What is NAEP?

NAEP is the largest nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America’s students 

know and can do in various subject areas. Assessments are conducted periodically in mathematics, 

reading, science, writing, the arts, civics, economics, geography, and U.S. history. Often called the 

“Nation’s Report Card,” NAEP provides information about trends in State and national student 

achievement over time and allows educational achievement to be compared across States. Since 

2002, the ESEA has required States, and LEAs if selected, to participate in the fourth and eighth 

grade NAEP assessments in reading and mathematics as a condition of receiving Title I funds.

(ESEA sections 1111(g)(2)(D) and 1112(c)(3); 34 C.F.R.

§ 200.11(a) and (b)). General information about NAEP is available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.

K-2. What information from NAEP must be included on a State or an LEA report card?

Under 34 C.F.R. § 200.11(c), an SEA or an LEA must report the most recent available academic 

statewide achievement results in grades four and eight on the State’s NAEP reading and 

mathematics assessments. Additionally, an SEA or an LEA must report the statewide NAEP 

participation rates for students with disabilities and English Learners. This participation rate data is 

instructive because, although NAEP encourages States to assess all students selected as a part of its 

sampling process, school personnel are permitted to make the decision to exclude certain students 

with disabilities or English Learners from the NAEP assessment. For example, if a student would 

require an accommodation to participate that is not allowable under the NAEP administration, such 

as giving the reading assessment in a language other than English, then school personnel may elect 

not to have that student participate. 

The requirements for reporting State NAEP results differ slightly between State and LEA report 

cards. The illustration below specifies the NAEP data to be reported on each type of report card.

Table 5. Reporting State NAEP Data on State and LEA Report Cards

NAEP data State

report cards

LEA

report cards

The percentage of students at each NAEP achievement level 

(below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced) in the aggregate

 

The percentage of students at each NAEP achievement level  (Not 
52

NAEP data State

report cards

LEA

report cards

(below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced) disaggregated by 

the following: 

 Major racial and ethnic groups

 Students with disabilities

 English learners 

 Economically disadvantaged students

required)

Participation rate for students with disabilities  

Participation rate for English learners  

Although an SEA must report data on the above subgroups for NAEP, an SEA may also report 

other data it already collects through its statewide data system. For example, an SEA that collects 

data on the gender of students who participate in NAEP may include this information on its report 

card.

K-3. What are the key differences between State assessments and State NAEP? 

State assessments measure student performance against the State’s own curriculum standards (the 

standards that specify what the State considers important for students to know and be able to do). 

State assessments allow comparisons of results over time within the State and produce individual 

student scores so that parents can know how their child is performing. State tests do not allow 

comparisons of results with other States or with the Nation as a whole. Since NAEP assessments 

are administered uniformly using the same sets of test booklets across the nation, NAEP results 

serve as a common metric for all States and selected urban districts, but NAEP is administered to 

only a sample of students and does not produce individual scores. Together, the State assessments 

and NAEP help educators and policymakers develop a comprehensive picture of student 

performance in their State. 

K-4. How can an SEA or an LEA clearly articulate the differences between NAEP 

and State assessments in a manner that is easily understandable to parents and 

the public?

Providing parents and the public with information about the differences between NAEP and State 

assessments, in a manner that is easily accessible and understandable, is essential in helping them 

interpret the data reported on State and local report cards. Because simple comparisons of student 

performance on NAEP and State assessments cannot be made without some understanding of the 

key differences between the two assessments, the Department encourages SEAs and LEAs to 

provide information on interpreting NAEP results. 

NCES has put together web-based informational packets that SEAs and LEAs may use to inform 

parents, students, teachers, and the general public about NAEP. These informational packets also 

discuss the similarities and differences between State assessments and NAEP assessments. 

Additionally, they serve as an excellent resource to SEAs and LEAs in crafting language to discuss 

the relationship of State assessments with NAEP. These informational packets are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/infofor.asp.
53

K-5. May an SEA or an LEA provide a web link to NAEP results on its report card in lieu 

of reproducing the actual NAEP results?

No. It is not sufficient for an SEA or an LEA to provide a link to the State NAEP results posted on 

the NCES Web site. The SEA and its LEAs must include on their report cards the information 

required under 34 C.F.R. § 200.11(c). Including NAEP results on State and local report cards

provides greater transparency and gives parents easy access to an important tool for assessing the 

educational performance of students in their State. 

K-6. How can an SEA or an LEA ensure the timely release of its report card and still 

report the most current State NAEP results for reading and mathematics?

Typically, State NAEP mathematics and reading results are released six months after the 

administration of the assessment, which is administered biennially. For example, for the spring 2015 

State NAEP administration, the results were released in October 2015. So, a 2015 and 2016 report 

card would likely report the spring 2015 NAEP data. If an SEA or an LEA would normally release 

its report card before the State NAEP results are available, however, it should not delay that release 

to include the most recent NAEP results. 

K-7. May an SEA or an LEA include other NAEP assessment results, such as writing and 

science, on its report card?

Yes. Although not required, an SEA or an LEA may include the results of additional State NAEP 

subject assessments, such as writing and science, on its report card. 

L. REPORTING POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT RATES FOR

EACH HIGH SCHOOL

L-1. What postsecondary data must an SEA and its LEAs include on its report card?

Reports cards must include rates of postsecondary enrollment at the State, LEA, and school level 

for the cohort of students that enroll in programs of postsecondary education in the first 

academic year that begins after the students’ graduation. The SEA and its LEAs must report the 

information: 

 where available for programs of public postsecondary education in the State; and 

 if available and to the extent practicable for programs of private postsecondary education in the 

State and programs of postsecondary education outside the State.

The SEA and its LEAs must report postsecondary enrollment for “all students” group and must 

disaggregate those data by students in each racial and ethnic subgroup, disability status, English

learner status, and status as economically disadvantaged. (ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(xiii) and 

(2)(C); 34 C.F.R. § 200.36).
54

L-2. How must an SEA and its LEAs define a “cohort” for purposes of reporting on 

postsecondary enrollment?

The cohort for the purposes of reporting postsecondary enrollment must consist of all students 

who graduated from high school in a given school year (which consists of the regular school year 

and can also include the summer session immediately following the regular school year). 

Specifically, the cohort must include: (1) students who graduated with a regular high school 

diploma, and (2) students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who were assessed using 

an AA-AAAS and awarded a State-defined alternate diploma. (ESEA section 8101(23)(A)(ii) and 

(25)(A)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 200.36(b)(2)). SEAs and LEAs should not include students earning a 

general equivalency diploma or other type of certificate in the cohort. 

L-3. How must an SEA and its LEAs calculate a postsecondary enrollment rate?

To calculate the postsecondary enrollment rate, an SEA and its LEAs should divide the number of 

students who enroll in programs of postsecondary education by the cohort of graduates. The 

cohort must include all graduates receiving the diploma types specified above; it is not permissible 

to exclude a student from the cohort if an SEA or LEA cannot track the student’s postsecondary 

action. (ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(xiii) and (2)(C)). However, since SEAs may not be able to 

easily track students who go to school out of State or who do not enroll in a postsecondary 

program, an SEA and its LEAs should make sure it is clear in the reported data that the 

denominator includes students whom they were unable to track. 

An SEA is free to determine the method it uses to display these data, but could consider a variety 

of options, including: (1) a clear data note explaining students who are included in the numerator 

versus the denominator; (2) separate counts for students enrolling in programs of postsecondary 

education, students not enrolling in programs of postsecondary education, and students whose 

actions the SEA is unable to track; and (3) additional calculations beyond the required calculation, 

which provide more nuanced information about postsecondary actions.

L-4. What is a “program of postsecondary education” for the purposes of reporting 

postsecondary enrollment?

For the purposes of reporting on postsecondary enrollment, a “program of postsecondary 

education” has the same meaning as “institution of higher education” under section 101(a) of the 

Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). (34 C.F.R. § 200.36(a)(2)). Under section 101(a) 

of the HEA, an institution of higher education must meet specific criteria; for example, it must be 

accredited (or preaccredited, as specified under section 101(a)(5)), it must be a public or non-profit 

institution, and it must award a bachelor’s degree or provide a 2-year program that is acceptable for 

full credit toward such a degree.

L-5. Must an SEA and its LEAs report postsecondary enrollment for in-state and out-ofstate institutions?

An SEA and its LEAs must report data, where available, for programs of public postsecondary 

education in the State. They also must report data, if available and to the extent practicable, for 

programs of private postsecondary education in the State and for programs of public and private 

postsecondary education outside the State. For purposes of reporting postsecondary enrollment,
55

information is considered “available” if the State is routinely obtaining the information, or if the 

information is obtainable by the State on a routine basis. In other words, an SEA and its LEAs must 

continue reporting postsecondary enrollment data if they are doing so already, and if they are not 

already reporting postsecondary data, they must start reporting the data if they are obtainable. (ESEA 

section 1111(h)(1)(C)(xiii), (h)(2)(C); 34 C.F.R. § 200.36(c)).

An SEA is free to obtain data from any source that will provide it with accurate information about 

postsecondary outcomes. SEAs that currently report on postsecondary outcomes obtain data from a 

variety of sources, including the National Student Clearinghouse, and data sharing agreements or 

memoranda of understanding with other agencies. SEAs engaging in data sharing agreements may 

contribute data to centralized repositories (centralized model), or store data separately and link data 

on demand (federated model).

17 Since 2005, 47 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 

have been awarded State Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) grants, designed to increase their capacity 

to link data systems.18 According to information from the Data Quality Campaign (DQC), at least 

48 States can currently produce high school feedback reports, which are reports that provide 

information on a class of high school graduates and their postsecondary outcomes. Of those, DQC 

data indicate that 45 States include data on postsecondary enrollment in their feedback reports.19 

This indicates that most SEAs will be able to meet the requirement to track postsecondary outcomes 

for some, if not all, students in a graduating class.

While most SEAs are able to report data on postsecondary outcomes, it continues to be easier for 

SEAs to track student enrollment in public, in-state institutions than private or out-of-state 

institutions. The Department believes that reporting on enrollment in programs of postsecondary 

education in the State is easier for SEAs because they can more easily link existing State longitudinal 

data systems to postsecondary institutions within the State, and may have existing data sharing 

agreements with the university system within the State. This is less likely to be true for private or 

out-of-state institutions. As a result of this difference, statutory language specifies different 

requirements for reporting on programs of public postsecondary education in the State, versus 

programs of private postsecondary education in the State or programs of public and private 

postsecondary education outside the State. SEAs must report available data on enrollment in public 

programs of postsecondary education within the State, even if they cannot report on private 

programs of postsecondary education or programs of public and private postsecondary education 

outside the State.

L-6. Must an SEA and its LEAs report postsecondary enrollment by type of institution 

(e.g., public, private, two-year, or four year)?

An SEA and its LEAs are not required to report postsecondary enrollment by type of institution. 

However, disaggregation by institution type will improve transparency for parents and other 

stakeholders. An SEA and its LEAs are encouraged to report on postsecondary enrollment 

separately for two- and four-year institutions, which is standard practice for entities that collect and 

 

17 “Centralized vs. Federated – State approaches to P-20W Data Systems.” NCES 2013. 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/pdf/federated_centralized_print.pdf

18 SLDS Map. NCES 2016. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/stateinfo.asp

19 “State Capacity to Link K-12/Postsecondary Data Systems and Report Key Indicators.” Data Quality Campaign.

2016. http://dataqualitycampaign.org/resource/state-capacity-link-k-12postsecondary-data-systems-report-keyindicators/
56

report on postsecondary data. Two- and four-year institutions differ in cost, course offerings, and 

degrees granted; making transparent the differences in enrollment in those institution types may 

inform parent choices and program and policy decisions at the State or LEA level. 

Similarly, it is a best practice to report separately on enrollment in public institutions and enrollment 

in private institutions. An SEA and its LEAs may also want to separately report on enrollment in 

out-of-state institutions to provide the most comprehensive data available about student actions 

after their high school graduation. Providing this disaggregation also creates an opportunity for an 

SEA and its LEAs to document differences in the completeness of their data depending on the type 

of institution, since private and out-of-state enrollment will likely be more challenging to track than 

enrollment in public, in-state institutions. 

If an SEA and its LEAs cannot disaggregate data by all of these categories, the SEA and its LEAs 

should disaggregate by the categories that are available. Similarly, within these categories an SEA

should include the data for each required subgroup of students, but if data are not available for some 

subgroups by institution type, the SEA should report subgroups that are available and clearly 

document whether any missing subgroups are not available or not applicable.

L-7. When reporting postsecondary enrollment, what academic terms may be included?

An SEA and its LEAs must report on students enrolling in programs of postsecondary education in 

the first academic year following a student’s high school graduation. (ESEA section 

1111(h)(1)(C)(xiii) and (2)(C); 34 C.F.R. § 200.36(b)(1)). An academic year typically consists of a fall, 

spring, and summer term (or fall, winter, spring, and summer, if the institution uses a quarter 

system). As such, for purposes of reporting on postsecondary enrollment, States are permitted to 

include students who enroll in any term in the academic year that immediately follows their high 

school graduation. If a student enrolls in a program of postsecondary education during the summer 

of their graduation year (i.e., the summer preceding the fall term that would start the next academic 

year), the student should be included in the count of students enrolling in programs of 

postsecondary education. 

L-8. For which graduating class must an SEA and its LEAs report postsecondary data on 

their report cards?

An SEA and its LEAs must report on students who enroll in programs of postsecondary education 

at any time in the first academic year that follows the students’ high school graduation. (ESEA 

section 1111(h)(1)(C)(xiii) and (2)(C); 34 C.F.R. § 200.36(b)(1)). Annual State and LEA report cards 

must be published early in the school year, so an SEA and its LEAs will not yet know the complete 

number of students who enrolled in programs of postsecondary education from the immediately 

preceding graduating class, since the spring and summer semesters will not yet have taken place. To 

allow an SEA and its LEAs to meet the State and LEA report card requirements by late fall and still 

report complete data, an SEA and its LEAs may lag the postsecondary enrollment data by one year 

for its inclusion on State and LEA report cards.

For example, State and LEA report cards on the SY2017-2018 school year will be due in December 

of 2018. Students graduating from high school in the spring of 2018 will be counted in the 

postsecondary enrollment metric if they enroll in summer 2018, fall 2018, spring 2019, or summer 

2019. This timing will make it impossible to report accurate data on the class of 2018 by the 
57

December 2018 report card deadline. Instead, the SY2017-2018 report card should include students 

who graduated in the spring or summer of 2017 (graduates associated with the 2016-2017 school 

year), and started enrolling in programs of postsecondary education during the 2017-2018 academic 

year. The class that graduated in 2018 would then be included in the report card published in 

December of 2019.

L-9. What should an SEA and its LEAs report if they do not currently collect or have 

postsecondary enrollment data?

If an SEA and its LEAs do not currently collect or have postsecondary enrollment data, or only 

have partial data, they must include on the report card the school year in which they expect the 

information to be fully available. (34 C.F.R. § 200.36(c)(2)). If an SEA and its LEAs only have 

partial data, they should ensure that they include sufficient information to allow users to accurate 

interpret the data. This could include providing information on the number of students for whom

they do not have data and guidance for properly interpreting the data. We suggest that SEAs and 

their LEAs include all information, regardless of whether they have data to report, in a clearly 

labeled section near related content where parents and other stakeholders might logically expect to 

find postsecondary information. 

If an SEA and its LEAs do not currently collect or have postsecondary enrollment data for private 

institutions or out-of-state institutions, they must still include available data for public, in-state 

institutions. Regardless of the types of institutions, an SEA and its LEAs should report all data they 

have, even if they are not complete. Missing data cannot be used as a reason to report no 

postsecondary enrollment data on State and LEA report cards. (34 C.F.R. § 200.36(c)(2)).

L-10. May an SEA and its LEAs report on additional indicators related to programs of 

postsecondary education, such as remediation or persistence?

Yes. An SEA and its LEAs are encouraged to report additional indicators related to 

postsecondary education, such as remediation or persistence, if available. Information on 

remediation and persistence provides additional measures of student readiness for postsecondary 

education, and ensures that schools and their communities understand how well students are 

prepared to succeed in and persist through postsecondary programs. 

The cohort reported should be the same cohort of students reported for purposes of 

postsecondary enrollment, where practicable. For example, if the SEA is reporting postsecondary 

enrollment for the graduating class of 2017, the SEA may be able to report the number and 

percentage of students in the graduating class of 2017 enrolling in remedial courses. If reporting 

additional indicators, the SEA and its LEAs should include the “all students” group and should 

disaggregate the data by race/ethnicity, disability status, English learner status, and status as

economically disadvantaged.

L-11. May an SEA and its LEAs report on other indicators that provide a more complete 

picture of students’ postsecondary actions (e.g., students entering into career or 

technical education programs or joining the military)?

Yes. An SEA and its LEAs are encouraged to report other indicators of postsecondary actions, 
58

such as students entering into career or technical programs or joining the military, if available. 

Not all high school graduates will enter into a postsecondary institution, and an SEA and its 

LEAs should recognize the postsecondary path of all students. Reporting these additional 

indicators ensures that an SEA and its LEAs are reporting on the postsecondary steps of as many 

graduates as possible. 

The cohort reported should be the same cohort of students reported for purposes of 

postsecondary enrollment, where practicable. For example, if the SEA is reporting postsecondary 

enrollment for the graduating class of 2017, the SEA may be able to report the number and 

percentage of students in the graduating class of 2017 entering the military. If reporting 

additional indicators, the SEA and its LEAs should include the “all students” group and should 

disaggregate the data by race/ethnicity, disability status, English learner status, and status as

economically disadvantaged.
59

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Sample LEA Overview for Middle School Served by the LEA

Notes: 

The Department provides the sample overview that follows as a static example only to illustrate 

what must be included on an overview section for each school served by an LEA. LEAs may wish 

to provide these overviews online, in interactive formats. Such formats would allow parents to 

compare more easily school-level results with LEA- and State-level results. The samples 

referenced earlier in question B-5 provide examples of such online, interactive formats. 

The overview for each school served by an LEA must display the school’s summative 

determination consistent with the State’s accountability system. This sample overview reflects a 

State accountability system that generates A-F summative determinations. Whatever type of 

summative determinations a State’s accountability system generates (e.g., a red-yellow-green 

stoplight system or a system that uses the categories of comprehensive and targeted support as 

outlined in the statute), the overview section for each school served by an LEA must align with 

that system. The Department will strive to identify and disseminate additional resources to 

support SEAs and LEAs in designing, developing, and disseminating State and LEA report cards. 

This is a sample overview does not reflect the full set of information required on the detail section 

of State and LEA report cards. 
60
61
62
63
64
65

Appendix B: Per-Pupil Expenditures Example—All Expenditures Reported at the School Level 

School Report

Expenditure Report by Revenue Source, Year Ending June 30, 2018

School Direct instruction costs

Salaries Benefits 

Purchased 

services

Materials 

and 

supplies

Other 

expenses

School 

indirect

LEA

indirect Total 

Membership 

Count

Per-pupil 

Expenditures

Jefferson - 0001 

(Federal) $86,786 $24,639 $9,037 $4,942 $1,036 $67,373 $180,000 $373,812 190 $1,967 

Jefferson - 0001 

(State and local) $781,072 $221,747 $81,332 $44,475 $9,325 $691,684 $484,862 $2,314,498 190 $12,182

Jefferson - 0001 

(Total) $867,858 $246,386 $90,369 $49,417 $10,361 $759,057 $664,862 $2,688,310 190 $14,149 

School indirect costs are functionally distributed as reported below:

2100 Student Support Services $108,084 2310 Board of Education $0 2580 Administrative 

Technology

$0 

2220 Library Services $48,294 2320 Executive Administration $0 2610 Operation of Building $218,282 

2212 Instruction & Curriculum 

Development Services

$0 2400 School Administration $177,953 2630 Maintenance $118,450 

2213 Instructional Staff Training $2,671 2510 Fiscal Services $0 2700 Student Transportation $85,323 

3100 Food Service $0

LEA indirect costs are functionally distributed as reported below:

2100 Student Support Services $0 2310 Board of Education $10,230 2580 Administrative 

Technology

$35,317 

2220 Library Services $0 2320 Executive Administration $55,000 2610 Operation of Building $0 

2212 Instruction & Curriculum 

Development Services

$14,862 2400 School Administration $0 2630 Maintenance $0 

2213 Instructional Staff Training $0 2510 Fiscal Services $39,453 2700 Student Transportation $0 

3100 Food Service $510,000

Total amount of current expenditures per pupil (from private sources) that were not included in school-level per-pupil expenditure data for Jefferson - 0001 ($53), Uniform Procedure 

for Calculating Per-pupil Expenditures: Available at http://state.gov/expenditure.procedure
66

LEA Report

Adams Unified Expenditure Report by School and Revenue Source, Year Ending June 30, 2018

School Direct instruction costs

Salaries Benefits 

Purchased 

services

Materials 

and 

supplies

Other 

expenses

School 

indirect

LEA

indirect Total 

Membership 

Count

Per-pupil 

Expenditur

es

Washington - 0001 $1,023,451 $284,114 $110,000 $41,021 $35,012 $1,501,221 $154,862 $3,149,681 240 $13,123 

Jefferson - 0001 $867,858 $246,386 $90,369 $49,417 $10,361 $759,057 $664,862 $2,688,310 190 $14,149 

Lincoln – 0001 $1,045,333 $286,812 $70,124 $51,123 $5,123 $712,312 $154,862 $2,325,689 173 $13,443 

Adams Unified 

(Federal)

$293,664 $81,731 $27,049 $14,156 $5,050 $263,844 $546,707 $1,232,201 603 $2,043 

Adams Unified 

(State and local)

$2,642,978 $735,581 $243,444 $127,405 $45,446 $2,708,746 $1,472,651 $7,976,251 603 $13,228 

Adams Unified 

(Total)

$2,936,642 $817,312 $270,493 $141,561 $50,496 $2,972,590 $2,019,358 $9,208,452 603 $15,271

School indirect costs are functionally distributed as reported below:

2100 Student Support Services $423,274 2310 Board of Education $0 2580 Administrative 

Technology

$0 

2220 Library Services $189,127 2320 Executive Administration $0 2610 Operation of Building $854,828 

2212 Instruction & Curriculum 

Development Services

$0 2400 School Administration $696,893 2630 Maintenance $463,869 

2213 Instructional Staff Training $10,460. 2510 Fiscal Services $0 2700 Student 

Transportation

$334,139 

3100 Food Service $0 

LEA indirect costs are functionally distributed as reported below:

2100 Student Support Services $0 2310 Board of Education $31,071 2580 Administrative 

Technology

$107,267 

2220 Library Services $0 2320 Executive Administration $167,049 2610 Operation of Building $0 

2212 Instruction & Curriculum 

Development Services

$45,140 2400 School Administration $0 2630 Maintenance $0 

2213 Instructional Staff Training $0 2510 Fiscal Services $119,829 2700 Student 

Transportation

$0 

3100 Food Service $1,549,002 

Total amount of current expenditures per pupil (from private sources) that were not included in school-level per-pupil expenditure data for public schools in the LEA ($58), Total 

Expenditures not reported at the school level ($0), Uniform Procedure for Calculating Per-pupil Expenditures: Available at http://state.gov/expenditure.procedure
67

Appendix C: Per-Pupil Expenditures Example—Only Direct Instruction Costs Reported at the School Level 

School Report

Expenditure Report by Revenue Source, Year Ending June 30, 2018

School Direct instruction costs

Salaries Benefits 

Purchased 

services

Materials 

and 

supplies

Other 

expenses

School 

indirect

LEA

indirect Total 

Membership 

Count

Per-pupil 

Expenditures

Jefferson - 0001 

(Federal) $86,786 $0 $9,037 $4,942 $1,036 $0 $0 $101,801 190 $536

Jefferson - 0001 

(State and local) $781,072 $0 $81,332 $44,475 $9,325 $0 $0 $916,205 190 $4,822

Jefferson - 0001 

(Total) $867,858 $0 $90,369 $49,417 $10,361 $0 $0 $1,018,005 190 $5,358

Total amount of current expenditures per pupil (from private sources) that were not included in school-level per-pupil expenditure data for Jefferson - 0001 ($53)

Uniform Procedure for Calculating Per-pupil Expenditures: Available at http://state.gov/expenditure.procedure
68

LEA Report

Adams Unified Expenditure Report by School and Revenue Source, Year Ending June 30, 2018

School Direct instruction costs

Salaries Benefits 

Purchased 

services

Materials 

and 

supplies

Other 

expenses

School 

indirect

LEA

indirect Total 

Membership 

Count

Per-pupil 

Expenditures

Washington - 0001 $1,023,451 $0 $110,000 $41,021 $35,012 $0 $0 $1,209,484 240 $5,040

Jefferson - 0001 $867,858 $0 $90,369 $49,417 $10,361 $0 $0 $1,018,005 190 $5,358

Lincoln – 0001 $1,045,333 $0 $70,124 $51,123 $5,123 $0 $0 $1,171,703 173 $6,773

Adams Unified 

(Federal)

$293,664 $81,731 $27,049 $14,156 $5,050 $263,844 $546,707 $1,232,201 603 $2,043 

Adams Unified 

(State and local)

$2,642,978 $735,581 $243,444 $127,405 $45,446 $2,708,746 $1,472,651 $7,976,251 603 $13,228 

Adams Unified 

(Total)

$2,936,642 $817,312 $270,493 $141,561 $50,496 $2,972,590 $2,019,358 $9,208,452 603 $15,271

School indirect costs are functionally distributed as reported below:

2100 Student Support Services $423,274 2310 Board of Education $0 2580 Administrative 

Technology

$0 

2220 Library Services $189,127 2320 Executive Administration $0 2610 Operation of Building $854,828 

2212 Instruction & Curriculum 

Development Services

$0 2400 School Administration $696,893 2630 Maintenance $463,869 

2213 Instructional Staff Training $10,460. 2510 Fiscal Services $0 2700 Student 

Transportation

$334,139 

3100 Food Service $0 

LEA indirect costs are functionally distributed as reported below:

1000-

200

Personal Services –

Employee Benefits

$817,312 2310 Board of Education $31,071 2580 Administrative 

Technology

$107,267 

2100 Student Support Services $0 2320 Executive Administration $167,049 2610 Operation of Building $0 

2220 Library Services $0 2400 School Administration $0 2630 Maintenance $0 

2212 Instruction & Curriculum 

Development Services

$45,140 2510 Fiscal Services $119,829 2700 Student 

Transportation

$0 

2213 Instructional Staff Training $0 3100 Food Service $1,549,002 

Total amount of current expenditures per pupil (from private sources) that were not included in school-level per-pupil expenditure data for public schools in the LEA ($58)

Total amount of current expenditures per pupil that were not included in school-level per-pupil expenditure data for public schools in the LEA ($9,633)

Uniform Procedure for Calculating Per-pupil Expenditures: Available at http://state.gov/expenditure.procedure
69

Appendix D: State and LEA Report Card Checklists

State and LEA Report Card Checklists

To assist SEAs and LEAs in preparing and disseminating report cards, the checklists below identify individual report card elements and 

indicate when disaggregated reporting by student subgroup is required20 (Checklist 1 and 2) and State and LEA report card process 

requirements (Checklist 3). In addition, Checklist 4 identifies other public reporting requirements under the ESEA that an SEA or LEA 

may, but is not required to, address through State or LEA report cards.

These checklists use the following abbreviations for student subgroups: 

 ALL = All students

 MREG = Each major racial and ethnic groups

 CWD = Children with disabilities

 ELL = English learners

 ECD = Economically disadvantaged students

 GEN = Gender

 MIG = Migrant students

 HOM = Homeless children and youth

 FOS = Children in foster care

 AFD = Students with a parent who is a member of the Armed Forces on active duty, which includes a parent on full-time National 

Guard duty. 

A State and its LEAs must also consider the following process requirements in creating their report cards: (1) Developed in consultation 

with parents; (2) Concise; (3) Understandable and uniform format; (4) Accessible; (5) On a single webpage (or, for an LEA that does not 

operate a Web site, providing the information to the public in another manner determined by the LEA)

 

20 If a State uses in its accountability system a student subgroup in addition to those required under 34 C.F.R. § 200.16(a), the State and its LEAs may, 

but are not required to, include on State and LEA report cards information disaggregated for that subgroup including, for example, student 

achievement data, information on the percentage of students assessed and not assessed, and performance on indicators within the statewide 

accountability system.
70

How to Read Checklists:

The following checklists show which individual report card elements and student subgroup disaggregation are required at the State, LEA, 

and school levels. The first column indicates the report card element; the second column indicates the disaggregation required for each 

element; and the third column indicates whether an element must be reported at the State, LEA, and/or school levels. Gray boxes in the 

third column indicate elements that are not required at the State, LEA, or school levels. Subsections within the second column indicate 

when disaggregation requirements differ between State, LEA, and individual school report cards. Similarly, bullets within the first column 

indicate when information required at the State, LEA, and school levels vary. 

State and LEA Checklist 1. Report Card Overview Sections

Element Disaggregation or Reporting 

Level Required

Checklist 

State LEA School

 Student achievement data (i.e., the number and percentage of 

students at each level of achievement on the State mathematics, 

reading/language arts, and science assessments)21

o LEA: Including how achievement in the LEA compares to the 

State as a whole

o Each School Served by the LEA: Including how achievement 

in the school compares to the LEA and the State as a whole

ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, ECD, 

[GEN, MIG, HOM, FOS, AFD]†

 English language proficiency of English learners (i.e., number and 

percentage of English learners achieving English language proficiency 

as measured by the State’s English proficiency assessment)

Not applicable

 Performance on each measure within the Academic Progress 

indicator used in the State accountability system for schools that are 

not high schools

ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, ECD

 High school graduation rates

 

21 State and LEA report cards must include two proficiency calculations in reporting on student achievement (see question E-2 above). If an SEA or 

LEA does not include both proficiency calculations on the overview section of State and LEA report cards, it must include the other calculation on the 

detail section of the report card (including all required subgroup disaggregation).

† The overview section of report cards may but does not have to include disaggregated data for the student subgroups in brackets. Data for these 

subgroups must be included in the detail section of report cards if it is not included in the overview section. In general, any information included in the 

overview section of report cards need not also be included in the detail section of report cards.
71

Element Disaggregation or Reporting 

Level Required

Checklist 

State LEA School

o Four-year adjusted cohort ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, ECD, 

[HOM, FOS]† 

o Extended-year adjusted cohort (if State chooses) ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, ECD, 

[HOM, FOS]†

 Performance on each measure within any School Quality or Student 

Success indicator used in the State accountability system ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, ECD

 School identifying information, including student membership count 

and Title I participation status

Not applicable

 Summative determination Not applicable

 Whether the school was identified for comprehensive support and 

improvement or targeted support and improvement and the reason(s) 

for such identification 

Not applicable

†The overview section of report cards may but does not have to include disaggregated data for the student subgroups in brackets. Data for 

these subgroups must be included in the detail section of report cards if it is not included in the overview section. In general, any 

information included in the overview section of report cards need not also be included in the detail section of report cards.
72

State and LEA Checklist 2. State Report Card Elements: Detail Sections

Element Disaggregation or Reporting 

Level Required

Checklist 

State LEA School

 Student achievement data (i.e., the number and percentage of students 

at each level of achievement on the State mathematics, reading/ 

language arts, and science assessments)3

o LEA: Including how achievement in the LEA compares to the State 

as a whole

o Schools: Including how achievement in the school compares to the 

LEA and the State as a whole

[GEN, MIG, HOM, FOS, AFD]

†

 Percentages of students assessed and not assessed in each subject (i.e., 

participation rates)

ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, ECD, 

GEN, MIG

 Extent of use of AA-AAAS for students with the most significant 

cognitive disabilities (i.e., number and percentage of students assessed 

on AAAA-AS, by grade and subject)

Not Applicable

 As applicable, number and percentage of recently arrived English 

learners exempted from one administration of the reading/language arts 

assessments or whose results are excluded from certain State 

accountability system indicators

Not Applicable

 High school graduation rates

o Four-year adjusted cohort [HOM, FOS]

†

o Extended-year adjusted cohort (if State chooses) [HOM, FOS]

†

 Postsecondary enrollment rates for each high school

o Public postsecondary institutions ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, ECD

 

†If the overview section of report cards includes data for these subgroups, State and LEA report cards do not need to repeat the data in the detail 

sections. However, as described in footnote 20, State and LEA report cards must include two proficiency calculations in reporting on student 

achievement (see question E-2 above). If an SEA or LEA does not include both proficiency calculations in the overview section of State and LEA 

report cards, it must include the other calculation on the detail section of the report card (including all required subgroup disaggregation--ALL, MREG, 

CWD, ELL, ECD, GEN, MIG, HOM, FOS, AFD).
73

Element Disaggregation or Reporting 

Level Required

Checklist 

State LEA School

o Private and out-of-state postsecondary institutions ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, ECD

 Data from the CRDC

o School climate

 In-school suspensions ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, GEN

 Out-of-school suspensions ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, GEN

 Expulsions ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, GEN

 School-related arrests ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, GEN

 Referral to law enforcement ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, GEN

 Chronic absenteeism (excused and unexcused) ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, GEN

 Incidents of violence (including bullying and harassment) ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, GEN

o Other CRDC indicators

 Number and percentage of students enrolled in preschool ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, GEN

 Number and percentage of students enrolled in accelerated 

coursework (e.g., AP and IB) ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, GEN

 Progress toward State-designed long-term goals for academic 

achievement, graduation rates, and English learners achieving English 

language proficiency (including measurements of interim progress)

For academic achievement and 

graduation rates:

ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, ECD

 Level of performance on each indicator included in the State 

accountability system, including, as applicable, results on each 

individual measure within each indicator not already included in the 

school overview section (i.e., for the Academic Achievement, 

Graduation Rate, and Progress in Achieving English Language 

Proficiency Indicators) 

For each measure within each 

indicator:

ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, ECD

 Educator qualifications

o Inexperienced High- and low-poverty schools

o With emergency/provisional credentials High- and low-poverty schools
74

Element Disaggregation or Reporting 

Level Required

Checklist 

State LEA School

o Not teaching in subject/field of certification/licensure High- and low-poverty schools

 Per-pupil expenditures – actual personnel and actual non-personnel; 

for each LEA and each school

o In aggregate SEA, LEA, and School

o Disaggregated:

 Federal

 State/local

SEA, LEA, and School

o Expenditures not allocated to public schools SEA LEA

o Web address to the procedures for calculation Not applicable

 State performance on the NAEP – math and reading, grades 4 and 8 SEA LEA

ALL, MREG, 

CWD, ELL, ECD All Statewide

 Information on school improvement funds under ESEA section 1003

by LEA and school

o Names of entities receiving school improvement funds Not applicable

o Amount of funds received Not applicable

o Types of strategies implemented by school Not applicable

 Charter school comparison data 

o Demographics ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, ECD

o Student achievement ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, ECD

 Description22 and Results of State accountability system

 

22 A State or LEA may provide the Web address or URL of, or a direct link to, a State plan or other location on the SEA’s Web site to meet 

the reporting requirement for a description of the State accountability system. 
75

Element Disaggregation or Reporting 

Level Required

Checklist 

State LEA School

o Minimum number of students (i.e., n-size) for use in accountability 

system

Not applicable

o Long-term goals ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, ECD

o Measurements of interim progress ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, ECD

o Indicators to differentiate among all public schools in the State, 

including, as applicable, an explanation of its uniform procedure for 

combining data across years or grades 

Not applicable

o System for meaningful differentiation among schools Not applicable

 Specific weight of the accountability indicators Not applicable

 Method of factoring in the 95 percent assessment participation 

requirement

Not applicable

 Method of differentiation, including indicator weighting, 

indicator performance levels, and summative determinations Not applicable

 Method of identifying schools as consistently underperforming, 

including time period the State uses to determine consistent 

underperformance Not applicable

 Method of identifying schools for comprehensive support and 

improvement

Not applicable

o Exit criteria established by the State for (1) schools identified for 

comprehensive support and improvement and (2) Title I schools 

identified for targeted support and improvement due to lowperforming subgroup(s)

Not applicable

o Number and names of all schools identified for comprehensive 

support and improvement and the reason for such identification Not applicable

o Number and names of all schools identified for targeted support 

and improvement and the reason(s) for such identification

Not applicable
76

Element Disaggregation or Reporting 

Level Required

Checklist 

State LEA School

 Level of performance on each indicator included the State accountability 

system, including, as applicable, results on each individual measure 

within each indicator not already included in the school overview 

section (i.e., for the Academic Achievement, Graduation Rate, and 

Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency indicators)

For each measure within each 

indicator:

ALL, MREG, CWD, ELL, ECD

 Additional information best-suited to convey the progress of each 

school

State-determined

An SEA or LEA may report other required information on report cards. In lieu of doing so, an SEA or LEA may wish to provide a link to 

where other such information can be found. The table below describes the other federally required information to be publicly reported. 

State and LEA Checklist 3. Other ESEA Public Reporting Requirements that may be Addressed through Report Cards

Other Public Reporting Requirements Checklist 

SEA LEA

 User-friendly information that can be cross-tabulated for each major racial and ethnic group, gender, 

English proficiency status, and status as a child with or without disabilities, on student achievement on 

academic assessments, performance on the other academic indicator for elementary and secondary 

schools that are not high schools, high school graduation rates, and the percentage of students assessed 

and not assessed on academic assessments (ESEA section 1111(g)(2)(N))

 Educator equity information as required under section 1111(g)(1)(B) and (2)(A) of the ESEA

o Differences in rates and disproportionalities (as described in 34 C.F.R. § 299.18(c)(3))

o Percentage of teachers categorized in each LEA at each effectiveness level established under 34 

C.F.R. § 299.18(c)(2)(i)

 Results of the audit of the State assessment system and of the audits of LEAs receiving funds under the 

State Assessment Grants program (ESEA section 1202(e)(1)(C))

 Methodology for the calculation of per-pupil expenditure (may be via Web link)

 Information, for each grade served by the LEA, on each assessment required by the State as described 

in ESEA section 1112(e)(2)(B)
77

 Results of direct student service providers in improving relevant student outcomes under ESEA section 

1003A (if applicable)