NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

U.S. Department of Education ■ Office of Educational Research and Improvement

NCES 2002–011
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

U.S. Department of Education ■ Office of Educational Research and Improvement

NCES 2002–011
ent of Education

ational Research and Improvement

hurst

ary

er for Education Statistics

ssioner

enter for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United

r nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in

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

proving their statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in other countries.

are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of education status

 report timely, useful, and high quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers,

ata users, and the general public.

ke our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best

ccess in communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other U.S. Department of Education,

r for Education Statistics product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to:

onal Center for Education Statistics

e of Educational Research and Improvement

Department of Education

 K Street, NW

hington, DC 20006-5651

d Wide Web Home Page is: http://nces.ed.gov

d Wide Web Electronic Catalog is: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

ation:

t of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education 2002 in Brief, NCES 2002–011, by John Wirt and Andrea

hington, DC: 2002.

nformation, contact John Wirt, National Center for Education Statistics (phone: 202-502-7478; e-mail: john.wirt@ed.gov).

ublication or the complete volume, write:

t of Education, ED Pubs, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794–1398

1–877–4ED–PUBS.

olume also appears on the NCES Web site (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe).
What’s Inside

on contains a sample of the 44 indicators in The Condition of Education 2002. To order the entire printed edition of The

omplete and return the enclosed card or call ED PUBS (1-877-4ED-PUBS).

rs in this publication are numbered sequentially, rather than according to their numbers in the complete edition. The

ge offers a cross reference between the two publications.

he federal government has gathered data about students, teachers, schools, and education funding. As mandated by

e U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) annually publishes a statistical report on

d progress of education in the United States. The Condition of Education includes data and analysis on a wide variety of

dicators in the 2002 edition are in six sections:

cipation in Education

ner Outcomes

ent Effort and Educational Progress

texts of Elementary and Secondary Education

texts of Postsecondary Education

etal Support for Learning

rs in The Condition of Education use data from government and private sources. The complete publication includes two

ses: one on private elementary and secondary schools and the other on nontraditional undergraduates. It also contains

bles and notes related to each indicator.

on of Education in Brief and the complete edition are available on the NCES Web site (http://nces.ed.gov).
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Contents

Indicator 1 Enrollment in Early Childhood Education Programs (Indicator 1) ................................................................................. 2Indicator 2 Past and Projected Elementary and Secondary School Enrollments (Indicator 2) .................................................. 3Indicator 3 Poverty Among School-Aged Children (Indicator 4) ......................................................................................................... 4Indicator 4 Past and Projected Undergraduate Enrollments (Indicator 5) ....................................................................................... 5Indicator 5 Mathematics Performance of Students in Grades 4, 8, and 12 (Indicator 10) ............................................................ 6Indicator 6 Poverty and Student Achievement (Indicator 11) .............................................................................................................. 7Indicator 7 Trends in the Achievement Gap in Reading Between White and Black Students (Indicator 8) ........................ 8Indicator 8 International Comparisons of Reading Literacy (Indicator 9) ......................................................................................... 9Indicator 9 12th-Graders’ Effort and Interest in School (Indicator 18) ............................................................................................... 10Indicator 10 Status Dropout Rates, by Race/Ethnicity (Indicator 19) .................................................................................................. 11Indicator 11 Immediate Transition to College (Indicator 20) ............................................................................................................... 12

Indicator 12 High School Academic Preparation and Postsecondary Progress (Indicator 23) ................................................. 13Indicator 13 Trends in Science and Mathematics Coursetaking (Indicator 26) .............................................................................. 14Indicator 14 Inclusion of Students With Disabilities in Regular Classrooms (Indicator 28) ........................................................ 15Indicator 15 Parental Choice of Schools (Indicator 29) ............................................................................................................................... 16

Indicator 16 Academic Background of College Graduates Who Enter and Leave Teaching (Indicator 31) .......................... 17Indicator 17 Perceived Impact of Work on Postsecondary Learning (Indicator 37) ...................................................................... 18Indicator 18 Student Participation in Distance Education (Indicator 38) ......................................................................................... 19Indicator 19 Status of Women and Minority Faculty (Indicator 39) ..................................................................................................... 20Indicator 20 Public Effort to Fund Education (Indicator 42) ................................................................................................................... 21Indicator 21 Change in Public School Revenue Sources (Indicator 43) ............................................................................................. 22Indicator 22 International Comparisons of Expenditures for Education (Indicator 41) ............................................................... 23

mes

and

ogress

ementary

 Education

Education

rt
ENROLLMENT IN PREPRIMARY EDUCATION: Percentage of children ages 3–5 who were enrolled in center-based early

childhood care and education programs, by poverty status: Selected years 1991–2001

Between 1991 and 2001, the percentage of children ages 3–5 who had not yet entered kindergarten and whoattended center-based early childhood care and education programs—such as Head Start, nursery school, andprekindergarten—rose from 53 to 56 percent. Some groups of children enroll in these programs at higher ratesthan others. Children living in families that are below poverty are less likely to participate in early childhoodeducation programs than children in families living at or above poverty. The difference in rates of participationbetween children from poor and nonpoor families was 12 percentage points in 2001 (47 versus 59 percent). Nostatistically significant change in this difference has occurred since 1991.

nt in Early

d Education

s

ased on children who had not entered

based programs include day care cen

hool, nursery school, prekindergarten,

ood programs.

ment of Education, NCES. National

Surveys Program (NHES), “Parent In

s years.

Participation in Education

Enrollment rates for 3- to 5-year-olds in early childhood education programs were higher in 2001than 1991. Children from poor families enroll at lower rates than those from nonpoor families.

0

20406080

100

1030507090

Percent

Year

Total

Below poverty

At or above poverty

1991 1993 1995 1996 1999 2001

Condition of Education 2002 in Brief
he “baby boom echo” and rising immigration, public elementary and secondary school enroll

d in the latter part of the 1980s and in the 1990s, reaching an estimated 47.2 million in 2001.

rst half of this decade, public enrollment for grades K–12 is projected to continue increasing to

h of 47.5 million in 2005, and then to begin declining slightly. Between 2001 and 2011, public

grades K–8 is projected to decrease slowly through 2008 and then to increase slowly, whereas

ent in grades 9–12 is projected to increase through 2006 and then to decrease slowly.

Past and Projected

Elementary and

Secondary School

Enrollments

LMENT: Public elementary and secondary school enrollment in grades K–12 (in thousands), by grade level,

s: Fall 1965–2011

NOTE: Includes most kindergarten and some nursery schoolenrollment.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, NCES. Common Coreof Data (CCD), various years, and (2001) Projections of Education Statistics to 2011 (NCES 2001–083).

on in Education Indicator 2

ntary and secondary enrollment is projected to reach 47.4 million in 2002, and to

ugh 2005, before decreasing slowly.

0

000000000000000

mber (in thousands)

Fall of year

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2011

Projected

Grades 9–12

Grades K–8

Total

The Condition of Education 2002 in Brief | Page 3
mong School

dren

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION: Percentage of related children ages 5–17 in poverty, by region andurbanicity: 1997

metropolitan statistical area. To de

au of the Census uses a set of money

at vary by family size and composition

poor. If a family’s income is less than

then that family, and every individual

or. The poverty thresholds are updated

using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

ment of Education, NCES. Common

Public School District Universe Sur

S. Department of Commerce, Current

mall Area Income and Poverty esti

ty Database, 1997.

Participation in Education

Poor children can be found across the United States, but the extent to which they are concentrated in variousareas differs appreciably. In 1997, the school-age poverty rate in public school districts ranged from 29 percenton average in U.S. central cities within large metropolitan areas to an average of 13 percent in suburbs withinlarge and small metropolitan areas. Whereas the suburbs and “exurbs” (rural areas within metropolitan areas)in the Northeast and Midwest had rates that were about half the national rate, in the South and West, rateswere similar to the national rate. A third of all school-aged children in U.S. central cities within largemetropolitan areas in the Northeast lived in poverty in 1997.Although school-aged children who are poor live in all areas of the United States, they are moreheavily concentrated in some areas than others.

Urbanicity Total Northeast Midwest South West Total 18.3 17.7 14.5 20.2 19.8Central city within large MSA 28.5 34.3 28.6 24.7 27.9Central city within small MSA 22.0 29.5 18.9 22.3 20.2Suburb within large MSA 12.1 10.2 7.3 13.5 15.6Suburb within small MSA 14.9 9.7 9.4 18.6 17.4Large town 19.3 18.7 16.0 23.2 18.6Small town 20.3 16.0 14.5 25.7 19.7Rural not within MSA 20.6 16.2 16.0 24.1 22.6Rural within MSA (exurbs) 12.2 9.6 8.9 15.9 16.3

Region

Condition of Education 2002 in Brief
Indicator 4

Past and Projected

Undergraduate

Enrollments

ATE ENROLLMENT: Total undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting 2- and 4-year postsecondary

thousands), by sex, enrollment status, and type of institution, with projections: Fall 1970–2011

NOTE: Projections are based on the middle alternative assumptions concerning the economy.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, NCES. (2001). Digestof Education Statistics 2000 (NCES 2001–034), and Projections of Education Statistics to 2011 (NCES 2001–083).

on in Education

ent (in thousands)

Projected Projected Projected

1970–99: Actual 2000–2011: Projected

1970 1980 1990 2000 2011 1970 1980 1990 2000 2011 1970 1980 1990 2000 2011

Female

Male

Full-time

Part-time

4-year2-year

Year

ecades, total undergraduate enrollments in degree-granting postsecondary institutions generally

re projected to continue doing so throughout this decade. These increases have been accompanied

he enrollment status of students, the type of institution they attend, and the proportion of students

n. Over this decade, undergraduate enrollment is expected to grow faster at 4-year institutions

nstitutions. Also, the growth rate for full-time undergraduate enrollment is expected to increase

-time enrollment, and women’s enrollment, which now exceeds that of men, is projected to grow

than men’s, reaching a new high in this decade.

te enrollment in 4-year institutions is projected to increase faster than enrollment in 2-year

this decade. Women’s enrollment is expected to continue increasing faster than men’s.

The Condition of Education 2002 in Brief | Page 5
atics

nce of Students

4, 8, and 12

t from 2000.

ment of Education, NCES. (2001). The

Mathematics 2000 (NCES 2001–517).

MATHEMATICS PERFORMANCE: Average mathematics scale scores for 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-graders: 1990, 1992, 1996, and 2000

Learner Outcomes

Scale score

Year

200250300175

0

225275325

Grade 12

Grade 8Grade 4

1990 1992 1996 2000

294* 299

304*272* 268*

263*

213*

220* 224* 228

275301

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has assessed mathematics performance in grades 4,8, and 12 since 1990. Students in grades 4 and 8 showed steady growth in mathematics achievement from 1990to 2000. In contrast, 12th-graders in 2000 scored higher than in 1990 but lower than in 1996. Males, on

average, scored higher than females in grades 8 and 12 in 2000, but not in grade 4. Of 36 states and otherjurisdictions participating in NAEP in 4th grade, 26 had a higher average score and 1 had a lower score in 2000

than in 1992. Of 31 states and other jurisdictions participating in grade 8, 27 had a higher score, and none hada lower score in 2000 than in 1990.

The mathematics performance of 4th- and 8th-graders increased steadily from 1990 to 2000, while12th-graders’ performance increased from 1990 to 1996 but then declined between 1996 and 2000.

Condition of Education 2002 in Brief
Indicator 6

Poverty and Student

Achievement

CHIEVEMENT: Average scale score of all public school students in 4th-grade mathematics, by the percentage

he school eligible for free or reduced-price lunch: 2000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, NCES. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), unpublished dataprovided by the Educational Testing Service, 2000.

tcomes

0

228 218

207

234

243

80

200220240260

Scale score

Percentage of students in school eligible for free or reduced-price lunch

0–10 11–25 26–50 51–75 More than 75

>

<

r levels of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch were generally associated with lower

NAEP 4th-grade mathematics assessment. Students in schools with more than 50 percent of

e for subsidized lunch had a lower average score than students in schools with a quarter or fewer

le. Relative to the total 4th-grade population, there was a lower percentage of White students

ercentage of Black and Hispanic students in the highest poverty schools. Also, these schools had

 student absenteeism, a lower percentage of students with a “very positive” attitude toward

evement, and less parental involvement than did schools with the least poverty.

th students in low-poverty public schools, students in high-poverty public schools have

ement scores in 4th-grade mathematics.

The Condition of Education 2002 in Brief | Page 7
the

ment Gap in

Between White

k Students

ermined by subtracting the average

average White score at each grade for

ment of Education, NCES. (2000). NAEP

mic Progress: Three Decades of Student

000–469) and National Assessment of

(NAEP), 1999 Long-Term Trend As

ed data produced by the Educational

Learner Outcomes

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has assessed trends in students’ reading performancesince the early 1970s. NAEP thus provides a picture of how student performance in reading has changed overtime, specifically the gap in achievement between Black and White students. The average difference betweenthe reading scores of Black and White students has changed since 1971, with an overall narrowing in the gap,most of which is due to decreases that occurred before 1988. For example, between 1971 and 1988, the BlackWhite score gap decreased for all 13- and 17-year-olds, while between 1988 and 1999, it increased for 13-yearolds. The apparent increases for 9- and 17-year-olds, however, were not significant.While White students score higher than Black students in reading, the gaps decreased between theearly 1970s and the late 1980s. Since then, the gaps have remained relatively stable or increased.

30

0

10

20406050

Scale score difference

Year

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999

Age 17Age 13Age 9

READING ACHIEVEMENT GAP: Difference in average reading scale scores of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old White and Black students:1971–99

Condition of Education 2002 in Brief
Indicator 8

International

Comparisons of Reading

Literacy

*The international average is the average of OECD countries only and thus excludes Brazil, Latvia, Liechtenstein,and the Russian Federation.NOTE: The variation of students’ scores within each countrywas determined by computing the standard deviation oftheir combined reading literacy scale scores. In a normaldistribution, 68 percent of scores fall within plus or minusone standard deviation of the mean, and 95 percent fallwithin plus or minus two standard deviations of the mean.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, NCES. (2001).Outcomes of Learning: Results from the 2000 Program forInternational Student Assessment of 15-Year-Olds in Reading, Mathematics, and Science Literacy (NCES 2002–115).

tcomes

or International Student Assessment (PISA) reports on the reading literacy of 15-year-olds in 27

rganization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) industrialized countries and 4

untries assessed in 2000. The average U.S. reading literacy score was similar to the international

27 OECD countries. U.S. students had a lower average score than students in 3 countries and a

score than students in 4 OECD and 3 non-OECD countries. Countries differ in the extent to which

 are distributed above and below the national average. Fifteen countries showed less variation from

ore than the United States, no country had more variation, and 15 countries had similar variation.

olds performed at the international average in reading literacy in 2000, scored below the

countries, and above the average of 4 industrialized countries.

Australia 528 Iceland 507 Spain 493Ireland 527 France 505 Czech Republic 492Korea, Republic of 525 Norway 505 Italy 487United Kingdom 523 United States 504 Germany 484Japan 522 International average* 500 Liechtenstein 483Sweden 516 Denmark 497 Hungary 480Austria 507 Switzerland 494 Poland 479Belgium 507Greece 474 Latvia 458 Mexico 422Portugal 470 Luxembourg 441 Brazil 396Russian Federation 462

y lower

cantly

nt

 higher

e relative

d States Country and score

Finland 546 Canada 534 New Zealand 529

L READING LITERACY: Average reading literacy score of 15-year-olds, by country: 2000

The Condition of Education 2002 in Brief | Page 9
INTEREST IN SCHOOL: Percentage of 12th-graders who expressed various opinions about their school experience: 1983, 1990,1995, and 2000

ers’ Effort and

n School

ot meet NCES standards for response

Michigan, Institute for Social Research.

12th-Grade Study: 1983, 1990, 1995,

Student Effort and Educational Progress

Seniors’ valuation of their learning activities and reports on their efforts do not indicate that higher proportionsare more engaged in school or trying harder than previously. Indeed, 12th-graders’ interest in school declined

from 1983 to 2000. While 40 percent of 1983 seniors said their school work was “often or always meaningful,”28 percent said so in 2000. Similarly, the proportion of seniors who said most of their courses were “quite orvery interesting” declined, as did the percentage who said what they were learning will be “quite or veryimportant later in life.” In contrast, the proportion who said they “often or always try to do their best work”did not show any measurable change since 1990.

Over the past 2 decades, 12th-graders’ interest in school has declined, while the effort they apply toschool has generally shown no measurable change over the past decade.

102030406050

Percent

0

School learning will be 

quite or very important 

in later life

Courses are quite 

or very interesting

School work is often 

or always meaningful

1983 1990 1995 2000

40

36

31 28

35

29

24

21

51

47

41 39

e Condition of Education 2002 in Brief
Indicator 10

Status Dropout Rates, by

Race/Ethnicity

UTS: Dropout rates of 16- to 24-year-olds, by race/ethnicity: October 1972–2000

NOTE: Due to relatively small sample sizes, American Indians/Alaska Natives and Asians/Pacific Islanders are includedin the total but are not shown separately. In addition, theerratic nature of the Hispanic status rates reflects, in part, thesmall sample size of Hispanics. Data have been reportedseparately for Asian/Pacific Islanders since 1998. In 2000,they had a dropout rate of 4 percent (U.S. Department ofEducation, NCES. [2001]. Dropout Rates in the United States:2000 [NCES 2002–114]).SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. October Current Population Surveys, 1972–2000.

ort and Educational Progress

pout rate represents the percentage of an age group not enrolled in school and without a high

a, GED, or other completion certificate. According to this measure, 11 percent of 16- to 24-year

of school without a high school credential in 2000. Although the status dropout rate remained

t from 1992 to 2000, it declined for young adults overall between the early 1970s and 2000; the

 however, varied for Whites and Blacks. Between 1972 and 2000, the White rate was lower each

lack or Hispanic rate, and the White and Black rates declined by nearly 40 percent each, while

ate remained fairly constant.

e status dropout rates for Whites and Blacks ages 16–24 have declined; the rates for

ve not declined and remain higher than those for other racial/ethnic groups.

ent

Year

Hispanic

Black

White

Total

1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000

The Condition of Education 2002 in Brief | Page 11
ages 16–24 completing high school

values are 1-year averages calculated

ulation Survey (CPS). The trend values

of these average values over the time

94, the survey instrument for the CPS

ghts were adjusted.

ment of Commerce, Bureau of the Cen

Population Surveys, 1972–2000.

COLLEGE ENROLLMENT RATES: Immediate enrollment in postsecondary education, by race/ethnicity: October 1972–2000

te Transition to

Student Effort and Educational Progress

The percentage of high school completers who immediately enroll in college reflects the accessibility of highereducation and the value they place on college. Paralleling the immediate enrollment rates of high schoolcompleters overall, the rates for Whites increased between 1972 and 2000. For blacks, the rates remained fairlyconstant between 1972 and 1978, decreased between 1978 and 1982, and increased between 1983 and 2000.Since 1983, rates for Blacks have increased faster than those for Whites, reducing the gap between the twogroups. For Hispanics, the rates remained relatively constant between 1972 and 2000. Thus, while White ratesrose during the 1980s and 1990s, stagnant Hispanic rates resulted in a widening of the Hispanic-White gap.Immediate college enrollment upon completing high school has increased since 1972, but the gap inimmediate enrollment between Whites and Hispanics has widened during the past 2 decades.

20

0

406080

Percent

1972 1978 1983 1990 2000

White

Black 

White

Hispanic Actual

Trend

Rates

Year

1972 1980 1990 2000

e Condition of Education 2002 in Brief
High School Academic

Preparation and

Postsecondary Progress

RACK: Percentage of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students who persisted toward a bachelor’s

academic rigor of their secondary school curriculum and first-generation status: June 1998

NOTE: First-generation students are those whose parents haveno postsecondary education. The Core curriculum includes 4years of English and 3 years each of mathematics, science, andsocial science. The “rigorous” curriculum includes at least 4years of English and mathematics (including precalculus), 3years each of science (including biology, chemistry, and physics) and social studies, 3 years of foreign language, and 1honors/AP course or AP test score. Students who stay on thepersistence track either remain at the initial 4-year institution in which they enroll or make a lateral transfer to a new4-year institution with no break in enrollment.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, NCES. BeginningPostsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, “First Follow-up”(BPS:1996/1998).

ort and Educational Progress Indicator 12

of education is associated with students’ persistence in postsecondary education, but rigorous

aration in high school narrows the persistence gap between first-generation and other students.

condary students who had taken no more than the Core curriculum in high school and enrolled in

tion in 1995–96, first-generation students were less likely to stay on the persistence track toward

gree in 1998 than their counterparts with a parent who has a bachelor’s degree (55 versus 69

ntrast, among students who had taken rigorous coursework in high school, no measurable differ

ted between first-generation and other students (81 versus 89 percent).

demic preparation in high school narrows the gap in postsecondary persistence

generation students and their peers with a parent who has a bachelor’s degree.

Percent

0 20 40 60 80 100

s

r

l

m

At least one parenthas bachelor’s degreeFirst-generation

89

81

69

55

75

65

The Condition of Education 2002 in Brief | Page 13
Contexts of Elementary and Secondary Education

Science and

atics

king

COURSE-TAKING LEVELS: Percentage of high school graduates who completed middle or advanced level science andmathematics courses, by level of highest course completed: Selected years 1982 to 1998

ment of Education, NCES. High School

nal Study of 1980 Sophomores, “First

980/1982); National Education Lon

988, “High School Transcript Study”

and National Assessment of Educa

High School Transcript Studies, 1987,

8.

Since the 1980s, the percentage of high school graduates completing some advanced coursework in science andmathematics has increased. In 1982, 35 percent of graduates had completed advanced science courses; by1998, 62 percent had done so. Between 1982 and 1998, the percentage completing chemistry I or physics Idoubled (from 15 to 30 percent), and the percentage completing chemistry I and physics I increased from 6 to16 percent. During this period, the percentage of graduates completing courses in advanced academic mathematics also increased (from 26 to 41 percent). Moreover, the percentage completing advanced level II tripled(from 5 to 15 percent), while the percentage completing advanced level III doubled (from 6 to 12 percent).

The percentage of high school graduates who completed advanced coursework in science andmathematics increased between 1982 and 1998.

0

20406080

100

Percent Science Mathematics

1982 1987 1990 1992 1994 1998 1987 1990 1992 1994 1998

Level IIILevel IILevel ILevel IILevel IChemistry II or physics II  or advanced biology

 Advanced academic Advanced academic Middle academic Middle academic

Chemistry I and physics IChemistry I or physics IGeneral biology

Mathematics

Science

1982

Year

e Condition of Education 2002 in Brief
Indicator 14

Inclusion of Students

With Disabilities in

Regular Classrooms

ATION: Percentage distribution of students ages 6–21 with disabilities, by educational environment:

998–99

*Congress first required that students with disabilities receive an education in the “least restrictive environment” inthe Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L.94-142). This requirement is still in effect under section612(a)(5) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act(IDEA) Amendments of 1997 (P.L. 105-17).NOTE: Students counted as disabled are those students servedunder Part B of the IDEA in the United States and outlyingareas. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of SpecialEducation and Rehabilitative Services. (2000). 22nd AnnualReport to Congress on the Implementation of the Individualswith Disabilities Education Act; and U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2001). 23rd Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

f Elementary and Secondary Education

ongress has required that students with disabilities receive an education in the “least restrictive

* Data suggest that, since 1988, U.S. schools have found the regular education classroom to be

rictive environment” for increasing numbers of students with disabilities. In 1998–99, states

7 percent of students with disabilities spent 80 percent or more of the day in a regular education

le in 1988–89, only 31 percent did so. The increase in the percentage of students with disabilities

ular classrooms is noteworthy because the number of such students has been growing faster than

rollments. The size of the increase varied by type of disability.

es for students of almost all disability types have increased over the past decade.

00

20304050

ercent

Percentage of day in a regular education classroom

31

47

39

28

24

20

6 4

1988–89 1998–99

Not in a 

regular school

80 or more 79–40 Less than 40 

The Condition of Education 2002 in Brief | Page 15
Choice of

DIFFERENCES IN PARENTAL CHOICE: Percentage distribution of students in grades 1–12, by school type: 1993 and 1999

e programs “allow public school stu

her school or district outside their at

t justification based on special needs”

ducation, NCES. [1998]. Public School

States: A Statistical Profile: 1987–88 to

203]). These programs can include

of-district school choice options (which

chools and magnet schools).

nts who are home schooled and not

private school for 9 hours or more per

account for 1.7 percent of the popula

ildren (U.S. Department of Education,

rends in the Use of School Choice [NCES

ges may not add to 100.0 due to round

ment of Education, NCES. National

urveys Program (NHES), “School Readi

School Safety and Discipline” survey,

mily Involvement” survey, 1996; and

vey, 1999.

Although public school choice programs* are not available everywhere, the percentage of school districts thatallow parents to send their children to a public school other than their assigned school (i.e., to a “chosen school”)increased between 1993 and 1999. This increase may explain the fact that the percentage of 1st- through 12thgraders whose parents sent them to their assigned public school declined from 80 to 76 percent over these years.Most of this decline can be attributed to parents enrolling their children in chosen public schools. The percentageof children enrolled in chosen public schools increased from 11 to 14 percent during this period, whereas thepercentage enrolled at private, not church-related schools increased from 1.6 to 2.3 percent.The proportion of children enrolled in chosen public schools and in private, not church-relatedschools increased between 1993 and 1999.

Contexts of Elementary and Secondary Education

0 20 40 60 80 100

Public, assigned Public, chosen Private, church-related Private, not church-related

Percent

19991993

75.9 14.5 7.3 2.3

79.9 11.0 7.5 1.6

Percent Percentage

School type 1993 1999 difference changePublic, assigned 79.9 75.9 3.99 -4.99Public, chosen 11.0 14.5 3.47 31.49Private, church-related 7.5 7.3 0.26 -3.46Private, not church-related 1.6 2.3 0.77 49.36

e Condition of Education 2002 in Brief
Indicator 16

Academic Background of

College Graduates Who

Enter and Leave Teaching

*Graduates classified as “prepared to teach” had completeda student-teaching assignment or had earned a teachingcertificate.NOTE: The “teacher pipeline” is an analytic framework thatorganizes graduates by the number of steps they have takento become teachers. “Pipeline-eligible” refers to all graduates who were not teachers before receiving their bachelor’sdegree. “Entering the pipeline” refers to taking some steps tobecome a teacher.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, NCES. Baccalaureateand Beyond Longitudinal Study, “Second Follow-up”(B&B:1993/1997).

BER: Percentage distribution of all 1992–93 college graduates and those who became teachers, in the top

artile of SAT or ACT scores

tes who were in the bottom quartile of SAT or ACT scores were more likely than those in the top

e taught before 1997 (14 versus 10 percent) and about twice as likely to predict they would be

me by 2000 (10 versus 4 percent). They were also more likely to have majored in education (15

nt) and have prepared to teach,* regardless of whether they actually taught (12 versus 6 percent)

s 3 percent). Among graduates who taught, those who scored in the bottom quartile were more

se in the top quartile to still be teaching in 1997 (84 versus 68 percent).

nts with low college entrance examination scores are more likely than students with

 prepare to become teachers, enter teaching, and remain in the profession.

Percent

All graduates according to their status in the “teacher pipeline” by 1997

Graduates who became teachers according to their teaching status in 1997

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pipeline-eligible, but did not enter pipelineConsidered teaching or applied to teachPrepared but had not taught*Had taught but not preparedPrepared and had taught*

Still teachingNo longer teaching

84 16

68 32

59 6 12

68 3 6

21

19 4

2

f Elementary and Secondary Education

The Condition of Education 2002 in Brief | Page 17
d Impact of Work

econdary

EFFECTS OF WORKING: Among undergraduates who considered themselves primarily students but worked to help payfor school expenses, the percentage reporting various effects of work on their schooling and the percentage who borrowed, by average hours worked per week: 1999–2000

ts at 4- and less-than-4-year institu

ment of Education, NCES. National

t Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Contexts of Postsecondary Education

As the number of hours worked per week increased for those who identified themselves primarily as students,so did their likelihood of indicating that work negatively affected their academic performance and limited theirnumber of classes, class schedule, access to the library, and class choice. Among students working to pay forschool expenses, 16 percent of those working 1–15 hours per week in 1999–2000 indicated that working hada negative effect on their grades, as did 30 percent who worked 16–20 hours and nearly half who worked 35or more hours. Of those who were primarily students, the percentage borrowing to pay for school decreased asthe hours worked per week increased.Undergraduates who work but identify themselves primarily as students are more likely to report thatworking negatively affects their academic performance as the hours worked per week increases.

Effects of working

Limited Limited Limited Reduced Negative Borrowed

number of class access to class effect on to pay for

Hours worked per week classes schedule library choice grades education Total 38.6 46.1 30.1 32.9 34.6 39.41–15 14.5 19.6 12.2 12.1 16.2 48.816–20 29.0 37.4 23.3 25.6 30.2 41.321–34 41.3 50.7 32.4 35.7 39.9 37.835 or more 63.3 70.0 47.9 53.0 47.9 31.7

e Condition of Education 2002 in Brief
Indicator 18

Student Participation in

Distance Education

CATION PARTICIPATION: Percentage of undergraduates who participated in distance education classes at

nstitutions, and percentage of participants with various experiences with distance education: 1999–2000

1Denominator is total undergraduate population.2The denominator in the rows below is the number of undergraduate students who participated in distance education

classes.

3Type of distance education categories are not mutually exclusive.

NOTE: Includes students who participated in distance education at either the institution at which they were enrolledor both the institution at which they were enrolled and another institution. Students who participated in distance education only at an institution other than the one at which theywere primarily enrolled were excluded. Percentages maynot add to 100.0 due to rounding.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, NCES. NationalPostsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

f Postsecondary Education

id increase in enrollments, course offerings, and the availability of distance education during the

nt of undergraduates enrolled in such classes at postsecondary institutions in 1999–2000. A

age of students at public 2-year colleges than at 4-year institutions participated in distance

ses (9 versus 7 percent). Of the undergraduates who participated, more used the Internet (60

ve audio or television (37 percent) or prerecorded audio or television (39 percent). Finally, of the

s who enrolled in these offerings, a higher proportion were less satisfied than more satisfied with

nstruction they received in their distance education classes compared with their regular classes.

roliferation of distance education offerings, fewer than one in 10 undergraduates enroll

es.

2-year Private

cation characteristics Total public Total Public not-for-profit

tage participating1 7.6 9.0 6.6 6.9 6.1

participants2

nce education3

io 37.3 39.3 34.1 36.6 27.5

d audio/TV 39.3 43.8 33.2 31.5 37.7

60.1 56.4 64.3 61.6 71.5

m available through distance

29.0 28.8 27.8 27.1 29.8

faction with distance education

pared with regular classes

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

sfied 22.6 24.0 19.9 20.2 19.1

atisfied 47.1 45.1 51.2 51.1 51.6

fied 29.6 30.0 28.2 28.2 28.1

4-year

The Condition of Education 2002 in Brief | Page 19
Women and

Faculty

STATUS OF WOMEN AND MINORITY FACULTY: Percentage of full-time instructional faculty and staff having selected characteristics and their average base salary (in constant 1998 dollars), by sex and race/ethnicity: Fall 1992 and 1998

s did not have the option of selecting

category, while in 1998 they did.

udes only full-time instructional fac

V degree-granting institutions who had

ties for credit. Instructional duties in

more classes for credit or advising or

academic activities. Base salary esti

992 were adjusted to constant 1998

sumer Price Index.

ment of Education, NCES. National

ndary Faculty (NSOPF:1993 and

Between 1992 and 1998, full-time female faculty increased their representation in public doctoral, research, andmedical institutions. Also, greater percentages of full-time female faculty held the rank of full professor and adoctoral or first-professional degree in 1998 than in 1992. The average base salary for full-time female facultyincreased from $45,580 in 1992 (in constant 1998 dollars) to $48,370 in 1998, while the salary of their malecounterparts remained about the same. Despite the improvement for females, a salary gap remains: full-time malefaculty earned about $13,000 more than their female colleagues in 1998. Even after controlling for characteristicsassociated with higher pay, full-time female faculty would have earned about $5,000 less than men.During the 1990s, women advanced their faculty status, including salary. At the end of thedecade, however, a gap in salary between male and female faculty remained.

Contexts of Postsecondary Education

Facultycharacteristics 1992 1998 1992 1998 1992 1998 1992 1998 1992 1998 Total 31.9 34.9 30.4 30.7 54.2 53.1 65.1 67.0 $56,240 $56,850Sex

Male 35.5 38.0 37.9 38.2 61.3 59.7 72.9 74.2 61,540 61,680Female 24.7 29.4 15.2 17.6 39.7 41.6 49.6 54.3 45,580 48,370

Race/ethnicity*

White 32.1 34.8 31.5 32.2 55.6 54.3 65.2 66.6 56,450 57,000Black 20.3 23.2 19.6 17.5 43.5 43.9 53.2 57.5 48,410 50,360Asian/Pacific Islander 40.6 46.8 28.1 25.9 47.1 49.1 79.3 84.5 62,770 62,800Hispanic 32.3 34.8 21.7 25.3 44.9 48.5 63.2 64.0 50,120 54,370American Indian/ Alaska Native 21.7 34.2 16.1 17.8 43.0 29.4 48.1 53.2 63,990 48,090

Taught at

public

doctoral,

research,

and medical

institutions

Ranked

as a full

professor Had tenure

Had a

doctorate

or firstprofessional

degree

Average base

salary of fulltime instructional faculty

and staff

Percentage of all full-time instructional faculty and staff who:

e Condition of Education 2002 in Brief
Indicator 20

AL SUPPORT: Indicators of public effort to fund elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education:

950–99

NOTE: Public funds for postsecondary education may beused at many types of institutions, both publicly and privately controlled. Enrollment in both publicly and privatelycontrolled institutions is included. All values for total public revenue for education at both the elementary and secondary and postsecondary levels are in 1999 constantdollars.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, NCES. (2002). Digest of Education Statistics 2001 (NCES 2002–134); (2001)Digest of Education Statistics 2000 (NCES 2001–034); (various years: 1964–1997) Digest of Education Statistics;(1993) 120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait (NCES 93–442).

Public Effort to Fund

Education

f public support for education is the level of public investment per student. Overall, public revenue

the elementary/secondary level has increased between 1950 and 1999, reflecting the generally

e in total public revenue in inflation-adjusted dollars for elementary/secondary education than in

he patterns in public revenue per student for postsecondary education between 1950 and 1996

se for elementary/secondary education. After rising from 1950 to the mid-1970s, public revenue per

ctuated within a narrow band (from $3,200 to $4,000). The lack of a consistent increase since then

partly with a general increase in private effort, including the tuition and fees charged to students.

tary and secondary level, public revenue per student has increased since the mid-1970s.

condary level, it has fluctuated slightly without showing a consistent increase.

pport for Learning

Year

nstant 1999 dollars)

Public revenue per student for 

elementary and secondary education

1960 1970 1980 1990 1999

Year

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1999

Public revenue per student for 

postsecondary education

The Condition of Education 2002 in Brief | Page 21
n Public School

Sources

ent of Education, NCES. Common Core

al Public Education Financial Survey

98–99.

CHANGE IN REVENUE SOURCES: Percentage distribution of total revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, byregion and revenue source: 1989–90 to 1998–99

Societal Support for Learning

Over the years, states have differed in the proportions of state and local funding they receive. The proportionof total revenue that states received from local sources decreased slightly between 1989–90 and 1998–99,while the proportion from federal and state sources increased slightly. During this period, the proportion ofrevenue from local sources increased in the West, but decreased substantially in the Midwest, where it droppedfrom 1993–94 to 1994–95 and has not changed since then. This decrease was also accompanied by a largeincrease in state funding. In the Northeast and South, no shifts were observed. Historic differences, wherebythe Northeast relied more on local funding than the South and West, persisted.Traditional differences in the proportion of local funding to state and federal funding generallypersist across the United States, though changes have occurred in the West and Midwest.

0

20406080

100

Federal

Percent

StateLocal

School years

 Northeast Midwest West South

1989–90

1992–93

1995–96

1998–99

1989–90

1992–93

1995–96

1998–99

1989–90

1992–93

1995–96

1998–99

1989–90

1992–93

1995–96

1998–99

e Condition of Education 2002 in Brief
Indicator 22

L EXPENDITURES FOR EDUCATION: Educational expenditures per student in relation to GDP per capita, by

on for selected OECD countries: 1998

NOTE: Per student expenditures are calculated based onpublic and private full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollmentfigures and expenditures from both public and private sourceswhere data are available. Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)indices are used to convert other currencies to U.S. dollars.Within-country consumer price indices are used to adjust thePPP indices to account for inflation because the fiscal yearhas a different starting date in different countries.SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Center for Educational Research and Innovation.(2001). Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators, 2001.

pport for Learning

International

Comparisons of

Expenditures for

Education

penditures for education are positively related to GDP per capita. In 1998, wealthier countries,

ent more per student for primary, secondary, and postsecondary education than did less wealthy

easured by GDP per capita. Annual expenditures per student at the primary level among OECD

ed from $863 in Mexico to $6,713 in Denmark, and at the secondary level, from $1,438 in

48 in Switzerland. U.S. spending on primary and secondary education ranked high compared

D countries, $6,043 and $7,764, respectively. At $19,802 per student, U.S. postsecondary

were higher than those of any other OECD country and over twice those of 16 OECD countries.

ures on primary and secondary education rank high compared with those of other

. spending on postsecondary education is the highest of all the OECD countries.

GDP per capita 

PrimarySecondaryPostsecondaryeducation

United 

States

Sweden

Spain

Poland

Mexico

Korea

Hungary

France Germany

Denmark

Czech 

Republic

Belgium

Austria

Country 

mean

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

Switzerland

The Condition of Education 2002 in Brief | Page 23
tates

of Education

dy Court

20794–1398

ness

rivate Use, $300

Postage and Fees Paid

U.S. Department of Education

Permit No. GÒ17