U.S. Department of Education 

Institute of Education Sciences 

EFSC 2006-865 

Documentation for 

the NCES 

Comparable 

Wage Index Data 

Files

U.S. Department of Education 

Institute of Education Sciences 

EFSC 2006-865 

Documentation for 

the NCES 

Comparable Wage 

Index Data Files

May 2006 

Lori L. Taylor

Bush School of Government and 

Public Service 

Texas A&M University 

Mark C. Glander 

K-Force Government Solutions 

William J. Fowler, Jr. 

Project Officer 

National Center for 

Education Statistics
U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences 

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Director

National Center for Education Statistics

Mark Schneider 

Commissioner

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

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

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

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

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

foreign countries. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please direct your comments to 

 National Center for Education Statistics 

 Institute of Education Sciences 

 U.S. Department of Education 

 1990 K Street NW 

 Washington, DC 20006-5651 

May 2006 

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

The NCES education finance World Wide Web Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov/edfin. 

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

Suggested Citation 

Taylor, L. L., and Glander, M. (2006). Documentation for the NCES Comparable Wage Index Data File (EFSC 2006-

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

For ordering information on this report, write to 

 U.S. Department of Education 

 ED Pubs 

 PO Box 1398 

 Jessup, MD 20794-1398 

Call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.org. 

Content Contact 

William J. Fowler, Jr. 

202-502-7338 

willaim.fowler@ed.gov
iii 

Contents 

I. Introduction to the NCES Comparable Wage Index Data Files ............................................. 1 

II. Background ............................................................................................................................ 3 

III. User’s Guide ........................................................................................................................... 5 

 A. CWI Geography ................................................................................................................. 5 

 B. Using the Index .................................................................................................................. 5 

 C. Standard Errors .................................................................................................................. 8 

 D. School District CWI File ................................................................................................... 8 

 E. Labor Market CWI File ................................................................................................... 11

 F. State CWI File .................................................................................................................. 12 

 G. Regional CWI File ........................................................................................................... 12 

 H. Related Data Files ............................................................................................................ 13 

 I. File Formats and File Names ........................................................................................... 14 

IV. References ............................................................................................................................ 17 

Appendixes 

Appendix A— Record Layout and Descriptions of Data Elements: 

NCES District CWI Data File ............................................................................ A-1 

Appendix B— Record Layout and Descriptions of Data Elements: 

NCES Labor Market CWI Data File ...................................................................B-1 

Appendix C— Record Layout and Descriptions of Data Elements: 

NCES State CWI Data File .................................................................................C-1 

Appendix D— Record Layout and Descriptions of Data Elements: 

NCES Regional CWI Data File ......................................................................... D-1 

Appendix E— Glossary ..............................................................................................................E-1 

Appendix F— Frequencies and Ranges.......................................................................................F-1 

1 

U.S. Department of Education 

INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES 

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS 

1990 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006 

I. Introduction to the NCES Comparable Wage Index Data Files 

The Comparable Wage Index (CWI) is a measure of the systematic, regional variations in the 

salaries of college graduates who are not educators. It can be used by researchers to adjust 

district-level finance data at different levels in order to make better comparisons across 

geographic areas. 

The CWI was developed by Dr. Lori L. Taylor at the Bush School of Government and Public 

Service, Texas A&M University and William J. Fowler, Jr. at NCES. Dr. Taylor’s research was 

supported by a contract with the National Center for Education Statistics. The complete 

description of the research is provided in the NCES Research and Development “A Comparable 

Wage Approach to Geographic Cost Adjustment” (NCES 2006-321). 

This documentation describes four geographic levels of the CWI, which are presented in four 

separate files. These files are the school district, labor market, state, and a combined regional and 

national file. 

The school district file provides a CWI for each local education agency (LEA) in the NCES 

Common Core of Data (CCD) database. For each LEA there is a series of indexes for the years 

1997–2004. The file can be merged with school district finance data, and this merged file can be 

used to produce finance data adjusted for geographic cost differences. This file also includes four 

agency typology variables. 

The additional files allow for similar cost adjustments for larger geographic areas. 

NCES has sponsored the development of other geographic adjustment indexes in the past; the 

latest was for the 1993–94 school year. For more information on these, and on geographic cost 

adjustments generally, please see this web site—http://nces.ed.gov/edfin/prodsurv/data.asp. 

The remainder of this documentation includes background information, a user’s guide and the 

following appendixes. 

Appendix A—Record layout and descriptions of data elements in the district level file 

Appendix B—Record layout and descriptions of data elements in the labor market file 

Appendix C—Record layout and descriptions of data elements in the state level file 

Appendix D—Record layout and descriptions of data elements in the regional file 
2 

Appendix E—Glossary of terms particular to this data file. 

Appendix F—Frequency counts and descriptive statistics by various categorical variables for the 

district-level data file. 
3 

II. Background 

Geographic cost data for states, metropolitan areas, and school districts are frequently and widely 

requested by the public and school finance research community. In response, the National Center 

for Education Statistics (NCES) has had a long tradition of publishing work that reflects the 

latest research and development of education geographic cost adjustments.1 This report 

documents the newly developed Comparable Wage Index (CWI). 

The basic premise of a comparable wage index is that all types of workers—including teachers—

demand higher wages in areas with a higher cost of living (e.g., San Diego) or a lack of 

amenities (e.g., Detroit, which has a particularly high crime rate) (Federal Bureau of 

Investigation 2003). Therefore, one should be able to measure most of the uncontrollable 

variation in educator pay by observing variations in the earnings of comparable workers who are 

not educators.2 The CWI reflects systematic, regional variations in the salaries of college 

graduates who are not educators. Provided that these noneducators are similar to educators in 

terms of age, educational background, and tastes for local amenities, the CWI can be used to 

measure the uncontrollable component of variations in the wages paid to educators. Intuitively, if 

accountants in the Atlanta metro area are paid 5 percent more than the national average 

accounting wage, Atlanta engineers are paid 5 percent more than the national average 

engineering wage, Atlanta nurses are paid 5 percent more than the national average nursing 

wage, and so on, then the CWI predicts that Atlanta teachers should also be paid 5 percent more 

than the national average teacher wage. 

The CWI was developed by combining baseline estimates from the 2000 U.S. census with annual 

data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) 

survey is a BLS database that contains average annual earnings by occupation for states and 

metropolitan areas from about 400,000 nonfarm businesses, and is available from 1997 to 2004. 

Combining the Census with the OES makes it possible to have yearly CWI estimates for states 

and local labor markets for each year after 1997. OES data are available each May and permit the 

construction of an up-to-date, annual CWI. For a complete description of the methodology, see 

“A Comparable Wage Approach to Geographic Cost Adjustment” (NCES 2006-321). 

The CWI offers many advantages over the previous NCES geographic cost adjustment 

methodologies.3

 In addition to its obvious timeliness, the clearest advantage of the CWI is that it 

measures costs that are beyond the control of school district administrators. Unlike analyses 

based on school district expenditures, there is no risk that a cost-of-living index confuses highspending school districts with high-cost school districts, and no need to rely on statistical 

technique and researcher judgment to separate controllable from uncontrollable costs. The CWI 

is also appropriate regardless of the competitiveness of teacher labor markets. If a lack of 

competition in the teacher market distorts teacher compensation patterns, then cost indexes based 

on teacher compensation will be biased, but a CWI will not (Hanushek 1999; Goldhaber 1999). 

Another advantage of the comparable wage approach is its general applicability. Because the 

 

1

 For example, see Brazer and Anderson 1983; Chambers 1997; Fowler and Monk 2001; Goldhaber 1999; Taylor 

and Keller 2003. 

2

 See for example, Rothstein and Smith (1997), Guthrie and Rothstein (1999), Goldhaber (1999), Alexander et al. 

(2000), Taylor et al. (2002), and Stoddard (2005). 

3

 For a more detailed discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the CWI, see Taylor and Fowler (2006). 
4 

resulting cost index is based on systematic differences in the general wage level, it can be used to 

measure labor costs not only for public elementary and secondary education, but also for private 

schools, job training programs, and postsecondary institutions. 

There are also a number of disadvantages to using the CWI to measure variations in school 

district costs. First, the CWI is a labor cost index, and labor cost is only part of the total cost of 

education—albeit a very large part.4 Therefore, while it is clearly appropriate to use the CWI to 

adjust for cost variations with respect to teacher salaries or current operating expenditures, it 

could be problematic to apply a labor cost index such as the CWI to school district expenditures 

that are largely unaffected by labor cost differentials, such as energy costs (Smith et al. 2003) or 

capital outlays. 

Second, the methodology underlying the CWI presumes that workers are mobile. If moving costs 

or other barriers to moving slow worker migration, then labor costs may temporarily diverge 

from what is expected given local amenities and the cost of living. Employers in fast-growing 

industries and school districts in fast-growing areas may need to pay a temporary premium to 

attract workers. The CWI cannot capture this effect. 

Finally, the CWI may not capture all of the uncontrollable variations in labor cost. By design, the 

CWI measures cost in a broad labor market like a metropolitan area. It does not capture 

variations in cost across school districts within a labor market. In particular, it does not reflect 

any variations in cost attributable to working conditions in specific school districts. All school 

districts in a given labor market are assigned the same CWI. 

Despite its limitations, the CWI should be a particularly useful tool for researchers and 

policymakers. The CWI offers a timely method for geographic cost adjustment that is undeniably 

outside of school district control. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the gains from cost 

adjustment could be substantial. In 2004, the CWI for Washington, DC was 63 percent higher 

than the CWI for Montana, while the CWI for New York City was 49 percent higher than the 

CWI for Elmira, New York. Given such large differences in the prevailing wage for college 

graduates, cost adjustment is crucial to a complete understanding of important school finance 

issues both across states and within states. 

 

4

 Payroll costs comprise more than 80 percent of current school district expenditures (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). 
5 

III. User’s Guide 

A. CWI Geography 

For this study, 800 labor markets in the U.S. were identified. Except in Hawaii, each labor 

market includes one or more public school districts. Hawaii has a single, state-wide school 

district which includes three separate labor markets, so the state-level index was used for this 

district. 

All labor markets are based on “place-of-work areas” defined by the Census Bureau. Census 

place-of-work areas are geographic regions designed to contain at least 100,000 persons. The 

place-of-work areas do not cross state boundaries and generally follow the boundaries of county 

groups, single counties, or census-defined places (Ruggles et al. 2003). Counties in sparselypopulated parts of the country are clustered together into a single census place-of-work area. 

Whenever possible, places of work in metropolitan areas have been aggregated to correspond to 

Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) as defined by the Office of Management and Budget.5

Places of work that straddled more than one CBSA were treated as separate labor markets. 

The four CWI files provide index values at several geographic levels: 

1. The labor market files provide the CWI for each of the 800 U.S. labor markets under 

analysis. 

2. The school district file provides a CWI for each local education agency (LEA) in the 

NCES Common Core of Data (CCD) database. Each district was matched to its 

corresponding labor market using geographic information from the CCD. For urban 

school districts, this would be the CWI for the corresponding CBSA. For rural districts, 

this would be the CWI for the corresponding census place-of-work. All districts in a 

census place-of-work area have the same CWI. For example, the 22 rural counties in the 

Texas Panhandle are clustered together into a single place-of-work area and therefore all 

districts in those 22 counties have been assigned the same CWI value. 

3. The state level file provides an aggregate CWI for each U.S. state. A state’s CWI is a 

weighted average of the local wages within its borders. 

4. The regional and national file presents similarly aggregate CWIs for census regions and 

the nation as a whole. 

B. Using the Index 

The CWI measures labor cost relative to the national average in 1999 (CWI = 1.0). Therefore, 

when comparing labor costs across locations within a given year, one must take into account 

changes in the price level since 1999. 

 

5 In June 2003, Census and OMB began using the term, Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) instead of Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). See 

Frey, et al. (2004). 
6 

Geographic Adjustment 

To normalize dollar amounts and make them comparable, divide by the index and then multiply 

by the national average CWI for the relevant year. (This example uses expenditure data from the 

NCES Common Core of Data (CCD), School District Finance Survey (Form F-33) for fiscal year 

(FY) 2002). The national CWI for 2002 (from the Regional CWI file) is 1.1547. The CWI for 

New York City in 2002 is 1.4331 (from the School District CWI file), so wages in New York 

City were 24 percent above the national average in 2002 (1.4331/1.1547=1.2411). Thus, the 

$11,605 total current expenditures per pupil in New York City schools for FY 2002, when 

normalized, are equal to $ 9,354 (($11,605 / 1.4331)* 1.1547=$11,605/1.2411). The 2002 total 

current expenditures per pupil by Suwannee County School District in Live Oak, FL (near 

Tallahassee) were $6,050. Normalized to reflect the lower cost of living in this area, they are the 

equivalent of $ 9,753 (($6,050 / 0.7163)*1.1547). The Suwannee County School District 

effectively spent $399 more per pupil than did NYC schools in 2002. 

Geographic Adjustment applied to State Aid 

Since one of the great virtues of the CWI is that it is outside of school district control, another 

application of the CWI is to adjust state aid to a school district for differences in wages. For 

example, consider a program intended to provide an additional $100 per pupil in 2002 dollars, 

adjusted for geographical variations in the cost of education. The national CWI for 2002 is 

1.1547. The NYC CWI in 2002 is 1.4331, or 24 percent higher than the national average for 

2002 (1.4331 / 1.1547=1.24). Therefore New York City Schools would have to receive $124 per 

pupil ($100 *(1.4331 / 1.1547)). The 2002 CWI for the Buffalo City School District is 1.0555. 

That district would need to receive an additional $91 per pupil ($100*(1.0555 / 1.1547)). 

Although the School District CWI file provides an index for each school district, it must be 

remembered that the CWI is a measure of wages in labor markets. It does not capture variations 

within labor markets or other costs of education. These other factors should be kept in mind 

when comparing districts in the same labor market, since both the advantaged school district and 

its disadvantaged cross-town rival will have the same CWI. 

Inflation Adjustment 

It is tempting to use the CWI as a deflator to correct for inflation. The CWI offers a very 

different perspective on the changing cost of education than does the Consumer Price Index 

(CPI). Where the CPI rose nearly 18 percent between 1997 and 2004, the CWI rose by 34 

Table 1. National Comparable Wage Index, by fiscal year 

 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

0.9161 0.9534 1.0000 1.0562 1.0959 1.1547 1.1850 1.2275 

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

Comparable Wage Index, Regional File (v. 1a). 
7 

percent. (See figure 1.) The rate of change in the CWI is much more consistent with the change 

in the BLS’ Employment Cost Index (ECI) than with the change in the CPI.6 

It is not surprising that the ECI and the CWI yield similar estimates of the rate of increase in 

wages. Changes over time in the CWI reflect changes in a weighted average of predicted wages 

by occupation from regression analyses of OES data. (Occupations that are held only rarely by 

college graduates are given little weight in the construction of the CWI, while occupations that 

employ college graduates intensively are given greater weight. See Taylor and Fowler 2006.) In 

turn, the OES relies on occupation-specific estimates of the ECI to adjust its multi-year sample 

for inflation (BLS 2003). Therefore, much of the information in the ECI is imbedded in the CWI. 

The NCES does not recommend the use of the CWI as a deflator because the BLS does not 

encourage the use of the OES for time series analysis. The BLS is concerned that the OES 

estimates are based on a multi-year panel and the underlying occupational and industrial 

Figure 1. The CWI and Inflation:1997-2004

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

CWI ECI CPI

NOTE: The ECI is the employment cost index for the wages and salaries of private, white-collar occupations 

(excluding sales occupations). 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Comparable Wage Index data 

file, 2006, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index data file, 2006, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

Consumer Price Index data file, 2006. 

 

6

 The ECI used in this analysis is the employment cost index for wage and salary compensation for white collar 

workers in the private sector. 
8 

classification systems have changed over time (http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_ques.htm). Arguably, 

the research method used in the construction of the CWI addresses many of the BLS’ concerns. 

However, the extent of the remaining measurement error is unknown, and caution is warranted. 

C. Standard Errors 

The CWI is estimated by dividing the predicted wage level in each labor market by the national 

average predicted wage for 1999, or $47,836. Dividing one standard error of each predicted 

wage by $47,836 yields the standard error of the baseline CWI. It ranges from 0.003 in Los 

Angeles to 0.050 in rural Texas. 

As discussed in Taylor and Fowler (2006), the log predicted wage for noncensus years is 

estimated by adding the change in log predicted wages in each labor market to the baseline log 

predicted wage. Annual regression analysis of OES data yields log predicted wages (population 

marginal means) and their corresponding standard errors for all U.S. states and for the 

metropolitan areas covered by the OES survey. Thus, for those labor markets, the log predicted 

wage in 2000 equals the baseline log predicted wage plus the difference between the OES-based 

log predicted wages in 2000 and 1999 (the baseline year). Similarly, the standard error of the log 

predicted wage for 2000 is the quadratic sum of the standard errors for the baseline log predicted 

wage, the OES-based log predicted wage for 2000 and the OES-based log predicted wage for 

1999. As with the baseline estimates, dividing one standard error of the predicted wage by 

$47,836 yields the standard error of the CWI. 

Except in the census year (1999), predicted wages for nonmetropolitan areas cannot be measured 

directly. Instead, they are imputed by assuming that wage growth in a state is a weighted average 

of the wage growth in its metropolitan areas and its other places of work. There is no way to 

accurately report the standard error for those estimates. 

D. School District CWI File 

For the school district CWI file, each CCD school district (local education agency) has been 

mapped to its corresponding labor market. This file provides the CWIs for each school district. 

Data Elements 

There are 27 data elements in the School District CWI file. 

• LEAID and name. The LEAID code uniquely identifies each local education agency in 

the CCD database. It consists of seven characters: the two-digit state FIPS code (see table 

1) followed by a five-digit number that is unique to each agency within the state. Also 

included in the file is the LEA name. 

• Labor Market. Labor markets are the units of analysis for the Comparable Wage Index 

study. These are geographic regions (either Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) or 

Places of Work) that have the same value for a comparable wage index. For CBSAs, the 

labor market is the five digit CBSA code defined by OMB (see 
9 

Table 2.—Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) state codes, by state abbreviation and state name 

State abbreviation State name FIPS State code 

AL Alabama 1 

AK Alaska 2 

AZ Arizona 4 

AR Arkansas 5 

CA California 6 

CO Colorado 8 

CT Connecticut 9 

DE Delaware 10 

DC District of Columbia 11 

FL Florida 12 

GA Georgia 13 

HI Hawaii 15 

ID Idaho 16 

IL Illinois 17 

IN Indiana 18 

IA Iowa 19 

KS Kansas 20 

KY Kentucky 21 

LA Louisiana 22 

ME Maine 23 

MD Maryland 24 

MA Massachusetts 25 

MI Michigan 26 

MN Minnesota 27 

MS Mississippi 28 

MO Missouri 29 

MT Montana 30 

NE Nebraska 31 

NV Nevada 32 

NH New Hampshire 33 

NJ New Jersey 34 

NM New Mexico 35 

NY New York 36 

NC North Carolina 37 

ND North Dakota 38 

OH Ohio 39 

OK Oklahoma 40 

OR Oregon 41 

PA Pennsylvania 42 

RI Rhode Island 44 

SC South Carolina 45 

SD South Dakota 46 

TN Tennessee 47 

TX Texas 48 

UT Utah 49 

VT Vermont 50 

VA Virginia 51 

WA Washington 53 

WV West Virginia 54 

WI Wisconsin 55 

WY Wyoming 56 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Computer Systems 

Laboratory. Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 5-2, Codes for the Identification of the 

States, The District of Columbia and the Outlying Areas of the United States, and Associated Areas. 

Gaithersburg, MD: 1970. 
10 

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/0312msa.txt). For Places of 

Work, the labor market is coded as 8 characters, formatted “ST_99999” where “ST” is 

the two-digit FIPS state code (see table 2) and “99999” is the five-digit Census code for 

the place of work. 

• CBSA name. The name used for CBSAs are from the Census document, 

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/0312msa.txt. The CBSA_NAME 

field is blank for places of work, because there are no names assigned to these places. In 

lieu of a name for places of work, a sense of the geographic area involved can be 

obtained from the county names associated with the school districts within the labor 

market. Note, however, that this is not exact; school districts may span counties and 

places of work may split counties. 

• County code and name. This is the five digit Federal Information Processing Standards 

(FIPS) code and name of the county where the school district’s offices are located. The 

first two digits of the FIPS code indicate the state; the last three digits uniquely identify 

the county within the state. Table 2 on the previous page lists FIPS state codes by state 

name and state abbreviation. 

• State name. 

• Agency typologies. Four agency typology codes are included on this file. The values for 

these fields are listed in appendix A. 

CCD agency type is the seven-level typology from the CCD nonfiscal agency universe 

file. 

The school level code (F33_SCHLEV) has been carried over from the Local Education 

Agency Finance Data File (F-33) data file. It is the most recent value for the LEA in the 

years covered in these data files. 

The FINANCE_TYPE was developed for the NCES Longitudinal School District FiscalNonfiscal File (see http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005863). 

It identifies categories of financially comparable LEAs. It is the most recent value for the 

LEA in the years covered in these data files. This typology will assist those researchers 

who wish to perform geographic cost adjustments to a particular class of school districts 

(such as special education, which are not separately identified from vocational school 

districts in the CCD F-33 district typology). 

 

The government type code (GOVT_TYPE) indicates the LEAs dependency status and 

level of government. This code is the third digit of the CENSUSID field. (The 

CENSUSID is the unique school district identifier assigned by the Census Bureau to 

LEAs in the F-33 survey. It is not included in this data file). 

• STD_CWI_yyyy. These 8 fields are the standard errors for the extended comparable wage 

index, where ‘yyyy’ indicates the year (1997–2004). 
11 

• CCWI_yyyy. These 8 fields are the extended comparable wage index values, where 

‘yyyy’ indicates the year (1997–2004). 

Missing Data 

There are several fields that are missing values in some records. 

• F33_SCHLEV is missing in 29 records. These LEAs, most of them charter school 

districts, are part of the CCD universe, but are not included in the Census Bureau’s 

universe of local government agencies. It is the Census Bureau’s finance survey of local 

government agencies that is the source of this datum. These records are also missing 

values for GOVT_TYPE. 

• GOVT_TYPE is missing in 727 records. These LEAs, all but 8 of which are charter 

school districts, are not included in the Census Bureau’s universe of local government 

agencies. Because of that, these LEAs are not assigned a CENSUSID, from which the 

GOVT_TYPE is derived. 

• STD_CWI_yyyy (standard errors for CWIs) for years other than 1999 are not included 

for 8,073 LEAs. In these cases, the growth rate used to extend the CWI to these years was 

imputed from the difference between the state growth rate and the metro growth rate in 

the state and a meaningful standard error cannot be derived. 

• CBSA_NAME is blank for the 8,460 LEAs located in rural places of work or in places of 

work that straddle more than one CBSA. 

E. Labor Market CWI File 

The Labor Market CWI file includes 18 data elements. 

• Labor Market. Labor markets are the units of analysis for the Comparable Wage Index 

study. These are geographic regions (either Core Based Statistical Areas or Places of 

Work) that have the same value for a comparable wage index. For CBSAs, the labor 

market is the five digit CBSA code defined by OMB (see 

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/0312msa.txt). For Places of 

Work, the labor market is coded as 8 characters, formatted “ST_99999” where “ST” is 

the two-digit FIPS state code (see table 2) and “99999” is the five-digit Census code for 

the place of work. 

• CBSA Name. The name used for CBSAs are from the Census document, 

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/0312msa.txt. This field is blank 

for places of work, because there are no names assigned to these places. In lieu of a 

name for places of work, a sense of the geographic area involved can be had from the 

district file, using the county name associated with the school districts within the labor 

market. Note however, that this is not exact; school districts may span counties and 

places of work may split counties. 
12 

• STD_CWI_yyyy. These 8 fields are the standard errors for the extended comparable wage 

index, where ‘yyyy’ indicates the year (1997–2004). 

• CWI_yyyy. These 8 fields are the extended comparable wage index values, where ‘yyyy’ 

indicates the year (1997–2004). 

F. State CWI File 

The State CWI file includes 18 data elements. 

• State FIPS Code. This is the two-digit Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 

code for the state. 

• State Name.

• STD_CWI_yyyy. These 8 fields are the standard errors for the extended comparable wage 

index, where ‘yyyy’ indicates the year (1997–2004). 

• CWI_yyyy. These 8 fields are the extended comparable wage index values, where ‘yyyy’ 

indicates the year (1997–2004). 

G. Regional CWI File 

The Regional CWI file includes 17 data elements. 

• Region Name. This file provides CWI data at the national level as well as at the four 

regional levels (in bold below) and nine divisional levels (in parentheses below) used in 

the Current Population Survey (CPS). These regions and divisions are as follows. 

Northeast Midwest

(New England) (East North Central)

Maine Ohio 

New Hampshire Indiana 

Vermont Illinois 

Massachusetts Michigan 

Rhode Island Wisconsin 

Connecticut 

 

(Middle Atlantic) (West North Central)

New York Minnesota 

New Jersey Iowa 

Pennsylvania Missouri 

 North Dakota 

 South Dakota 

 Nebraska 

 Kansas 
13 

 

South West

(South Atlantic) (Mountain)

Delaware Montana 

Maryland Idaho 

District of Columbia Wyoming 

Virginia Colorado 

West Virginia New Mexico 

North Carolina Arizona 

South Carolina Utah 

Georgia Nevada 

Florida 

 

(East South Central) (Pacific)

Kentucky Washington 

Tennessee Oregon 

Alabama California 

Mississippi Alaska 

 Hawaii 

 

(West South Central) 

Arkansas 

Louisiana 

Oklahoma 

Texas 

• STD_CWI_yyyy. These 8 fields are the standard errors for the extended comparable wage 

index, where ‘yyyy’ indicates the year (1997–2004). 

• CWI_yyyy. These 8 fields are the extended comparable wage index values, where ‘yyyy’ 

indicates the year (1997–2004). 

H. Related Data Files 

Common Core of Data (CCD) 

The CCD is a comprehensive, annual, national, statistical database of information concerning 

all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts (LEAs). CCD consists of five 

surveys: Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe, Local Education Agency (School 

District) Universe, State Nonfiscal, National Public Education Finance Survey (NPEFS), and the 

Local Education Agency Finance Data File (F-33) surveys. All CCD data are provided by the 

state education agencies and are edited by NCES. When merging the F-33 data file with other 

CCD data files, data users are encouraged to use the F-33 count for student membership. The 

student membership count has been changed on some records to more closely reflect the count of 

students enrolled in the schools in the LEA.

The LEAID links all these surveys together. It is shared by both the LEA file and the F33 file. 

The first two digits of the LEAID are the state FIPS code, facilitating the aggregation of data 
14 

from agency level to state level. The LEAID is also included in the School universe file, making 

it possible to aggregate school-level data to the agency or state level. 

The CCD Local Education Agency (School District) Universe contains data on students and 

staff, as well as dropout and graduate counts. 

The Local Education Agency Finance Data File (F-33) survey is part of the Census Bureau’s 

Annual Survey of Local Government Finances—School Systems. (The shorthand reference, “F33” is the form number used for the data collection.) Unlike the CCD LEA universe, the F33 

universe (i.e. local government school systems) does not include state or federally operated 

school districts, or school districts in the outlying territories. Charter school districts are also 

defined differently in the F33 survey than they are in CCD. 

The NPEFS component of CCD collects state totals of public education finance data. NPEFS 

includes expenditures for the outlying territories, special state-run schools and charter schools 

that may not be included in the F-33. NPEFS data are used in determining state funding 

allocations for a number of federal education programs including those authorized by Title I of 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. 

Data from the most recent NCES files can be accessed on the web at the U.S. Department of 

Education/NCES web site at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd. 

Fiscal-nonfiscal longitudinal files 

These files contain district-level fiscal and nonfiscal data for each year from 1989–90 to 1999–

2000, for the universe of regular public elementary and secondary school districts. The database 

is available in two forms. The primary longitudinal Fiscal-Nonfiscal (FNF) file in the database 

contains a separate record for each regular school district that was open some years in the 1990s. 

The other longitudinal file, the Unified Fiscal-Nonfiscal file (UFNF), combines data from 

separate elementary districts with the secondary districts they feed, so that each record contains 

data for a Unified K–12 “pseudo-district.” (“Elementary” districts typically covered the grades 

K–8, while “secondary” districts typically covered the grades 9–12.) The database is designed 

for research use in testing hypotheses about longitudinal trends in school districts over this 

period. To facilitate analysis, all missing data have been replaced by statistical imputations, and 

clearly erroneous responses have been edited and replaced by plausible values. Please see the 

web site http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005863 for more information. 

I. File Formats and File Names 

Data File Formats. The data files are available in two formats—SAS (.sas7bdat), and a tab 

delimited text file (.txt). The names of these datasets are: 

CWI_Distict_1a.sas7bdat (SAS)

 CWI_District_1a.txt (Tab-delimited text file) 
15 

CWI_Lbr_Mrkt_1a.sas7bdat (SAS)

 CWI_ Lbr_Mrkt _1a.txt (Tab-delimited text file) 

CWI_State_1a.xls (MS Excel)

 CWI_State_1a.txt (Tab-delimited text file) 

CWI_Regional_1a.xls (MS Excel)

 CWI_Regional_1a.txt (Tab-delimited text file) 

The last 2 characters of the file name indicate the file version. “1” indicates a public release by 

NCES, and “a” indicates this is the first release of this file by NCES. 

Complete information on layout (variable name, data type—alpha or numeric, and variable 

description) can be found in the appendixes A–D. 

17 

IV. References 

Alexander, C.D., Gronberg, T., Jansen, D., Keller, H., Taylor, L., and Treisman, P.U. (2000). A 

Study of Uncontrollable Variations in the Costs of Texas Public Education. Summary 

report prepared for the 77th Texas Legislature. Austin, TX: Charles A. Dana Center, 

University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved May 19, 2005, from 

http://www.utdanacenter.org. 

Brazer, H. & Anderson, A. (1983). A Cost Adjustment Index for Michigan School Districts. In 

E. Tron (Ed.), Selected Papers in School Finance, 1975. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of 

Education. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2003). Technical Notes for the May 2003 OES Estimates. Retrieved 

May 19, 2005, from http://stats.bls.gov/oes/2003/may/oes_tec.htm. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2006). Consumer Price Index. Retrieved April 6, 2006 from 

http://stats.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2006). Employment Cost Index. Retrieved April 6, 2006 from 

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?ec. 

Chambers, J.G. (1997). Measuring Inflation in Public Schools Costs (NCES 97-43). U.S. 

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

Working Paper. 

Chambers, J.G. (1998). Geographic Variations in Public Schools Costs (NCES 98-04). U.S. 

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

Working Paper. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (2003). Crime in the United States. Uniform Crime Reports. 

Retrieved May 19, 2005, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm. 

Fowler, W.J., and Monk, D.H. (2001). A Primer for Making Cost Adjustments in Education

(NCES 2001-323). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Statistics. 

Frey, W.H., Wilson, J.H., Berube, A., and Singer. A. (2004). Tracking Metropolitan America 

into the 21st Century: A Field Guide to the New Metropolitan and Micropolitan 

Definitions. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. 

Goldhaber, D. (1999). An Alternative Measure of Inflation in Teacher Salaries. In W.J. Fowler 

(Ed.), Selected Papers in School Finance (NCES 1999-334) (pp.29-54). U.S. Department 

of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 
18 

Guthrie, J., and Rothstein, R. (1999). Enabling ‘Adequacy’ to Achieve Reality: Translating 

Adequacy into State School Finance Distribution Arrangements. In H.F. Ladd, R. Chalk, 

and J.S. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance (pp. 209–259).

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Hanushek, E.A. (1999). Adjusting for Differences in the Costs of Educational Inputs. In W.J. 

Fowler (Ed.), Selected Papers in School Finance, 1997–99 (NCES 1999–334) (pp. 13–

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

Statistics. 

Rothstein, R., and Smith, J.R. (1997). Adjusting Oregon Education Expenditures for Regional 

Cost Differences: A Feasibility Study. Submitted to the Confederation of Oregon School 

Administrators. Sacramento, CA: Management Analysis & Planning Associates, LLC. 

Ruggles, S., Sobek, M., Alexander, T., Fitch, C., Goeken, R., Hall, P., King, M., and Ronnander, 

C. (2004). Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 3.0 (machine-readable 

database). Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Population Center. Available at 

http://www.ipums.org. 

Smith, T., Porch, R., Farris, E., and Fowler, W.J. (2003). Effects of Energy Needs and 

Expenditures on U.S. Public Schools (NCES 2003-018). U.S. Department of Education. 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Stoddard, C. (2005). Adjusting Teacher Salaries for the Cost of Living: The Effect on Salary 

Comparisons and Policy Conclusions. Economics of Education Review, 24(3): 323–339. 

Taylor, L.L., Alexander, C., Gronberg, T., Jansen, D., and Keller, H. (2002). Updating the Texas 

Cost of Education Index. The Journal of Education Finance, 28(2): 267–284. 

Taylor, L.L., and Fowler, W.J. (2006). A Comparable Wage Approach to Geographic Cost 

Adjustment (NCES 2006-321). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Statistics. 

Taylor, L.L., and Keller H. (2003). Competing Perspectives on the Cost of Education. In W.J. 

Fowler (Ed.), Developments in School Finance (NCES 2003-403). U.S. Department of 

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

U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). 2002 Census of Governments, Volume 4, Number 1, Government 

Finances, GC02(4)-1. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics 

Administration. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
Appendix A—Record Layout and Descriptions of Data Elements: 

NCES District CWI Data File 

A-1 

File name=CWI_District_1a.txt 

Number of Variables=27 

Record Length = variable (tab-delimited) 

Number of Observations= 16,011 

Release: 1a, April 2006 

This is a tab-delimited file. 

Position Variable Name Length Type Variable Description 

1 LEAID 7 Char Unique Agency ID (NCES Assigned) 

2 LEA_NAME 33 Char LEA Name 

3 LABORMARKET 14 Char Applicable area of wage index 

4 CBSA_NAME 71 Char Core Based Statistical Area Name (Census) 

5 CNTY_CODE 5 Char FIPS State-County Code 

6 CNTY_NAME 32 Char County Name 

7 STATE_NAME 20 Char State Name 

8 CCD_TYPE 1 Char CCD Agency Type 

 1 = Local education agency 

 2 = Supervisory Union component 

 3 = Supervisory Union admin. center 

 4 = Regional 

 5 = State 

 6 = Federal 

 7 = Other 

9 F33_SCHLEV 2 Char School Level (F33) 

(blank) = missing 

 01 = Elementary School System only 

 02 = Secondary School System only 

 03 = Elementary/secondary School System 

 05 = Vocational or Special Education School System 

 06 = Nonoperating School System 

 07 = Education Service Agency 

10 FINANCE_TYPE 2 Char Finance Type 

 ‘RG’ = ‘Regular LEA - full grade range’ 

 ‘MB’ = ‘Elem LEA linked to Sec LEA’ 

 ‘OR’ = ‘Other Regular - w/o full grade range’ 

 ‘CH = ‘Charter school district’ 

 ‘PD’ = ‘Pseudo - Sec LEA linked with Elem LEA’ 

 ‘ES’ = ‘Educational Service Agency’ 

 ‘SE’ = ‘Special Education Agency’ 

 ‘VE’ = ‘Vocational Education Agency’ 

 ‘UK’ = ‘Unknown Type’ 

 ‘OS’ = ‘Out of Scope for F33’ 

 ‘NO’ = ‘Nonoperating district’ 

11 GOVT_TYPE 1 Char Government Type (F33) 

(blank) = missing 

 0 = State dependent 

 1 = County dependent 

 2 = City dependent 

 3 = Township dependent 

 5 = Independent 

12 STD_CWI_1997 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 1997 

13 STD_CWI_1998 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 1998 

14 STD_CWI_1999 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 1999 
Appendix A—Record Layout and Descriptions of Data Elements: 

NCES District CWI Data File 

A-2 

Position Variable Name Length Type Variable Description 

15 STD_CWI_2000 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2000 

16 STD_CWI_2001 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2001 

17 STD_CWI_2002 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2002 

18 STD_CWI_2003 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2003 

19 STD_CWI_2004 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2004 

20 CWI_1997 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 1997 

21 CWI_1998 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 1998 

22 CWI_1999 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 1999 

23 CWI_2000 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2000 

24 CWI_2001 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2001 

25 CWI_2002 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2002 

26 CWI_2003 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2003 

27 CWI_2004 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2004 
Appendix B—Record Layout and Descriptions of Data Elements: 

NCES Labor Market CWI Data File 

B-1 

File name=CWI_LBR_MRKT_1a.txt 

Number of Variables=18 

Record Length = variable (tab-delimited) 

Number of Observations= 800 

Release: 1a, April 2006 

This is a tab-delimited file. 

Position Variable Name Length Type Variable Description 

1 LABORMARKET 14 Char Applicable area of wage index 

2 CBSA_NAME 71 Char Core Based Statistical Area Name (Census) 

3 STD_CWI_1997 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 1997 

4 STD_CWI_1998 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 1998 

5 STD_CWI_1999 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 1999 

6 STD_CWI_2000 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2000 

7 STD_CWI_2001 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2001 

8 STD_CWI_2002 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2002 

9 STD_CWI_2003 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2003 

10 STD_CWI_2004 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2004 

11 CWI_1997 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 1997 

12 CWI_1998 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 1998 

13 CWI_1999 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 1999 

14 CWI_2000 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2000 

15 CWI_2001 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2001 

16 CWI_2002 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2002 

17 CWI_2003 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2003 

18 CWI_2004 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2004 

Appendix C—Record Layout and Descriptions of Data Elements: 

NCES State CWI Data File 

C-1 

File name=CWI_State_1a.txt 

Number of Variables=18 

Record Length = variable (tab-delimited) 

Number of Observations= 51 

Release: 1a, April 2006 

This is a tab-delimited file. 

Position Variable Name Length Type Variable Description 

1 ST_FIPS 2 Char State FIPS Code 

2 ST_NAME 20 Char State Name 

3 STD_CWI_1997 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 1997 

4 STD_CWI_1998 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 1998 

5 STD_CWI_1999 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 1999 

6 STD_CWI_2000 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2000 

7 STD_CWI_2001 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2001 

8 STD_CWI_2002 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2002 

9 STD_CWI_2003 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2003 

10 STD_CWI_2004 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2004 

11 CWI_1997 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 1997 

12 CWI_1998 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 1998 

13 CWI_1999 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 1999 

14 CWI_2000 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2000 

15 CWI_2001 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2001 

16 CWI_2002 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2002 

17 CWI_2003 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2003 

18 CWI_2004 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2004 

Appendix D—Record Layout and Descriptions of Data Elements: 

NCES Regional CWI Data File 

D-1 

File name=CWI_Regional_1a.txt 

Number of Variables=17 

Record Length = variable (tab-delimited) 

Number of Observations= 14 

Release: 1a, April 2006 

This is a tab-delimited file. 

Position Variable Name Length Type Variable Description 

1 REG_NAME 25 Char Region Name 

2 STD_CWI_1997 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 1997 

3 STD_CWI_1998 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 1998 

4 STD_CWI_1999 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 1999 

5 STD_CWI_2000 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2000 

6 STD_CWI_2001 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2001 

7 STD_CWI_2002 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2002 

8 STD_CWI_2003 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2003 

9 STD_CWI_2004 8 Num STD ERR CWI for 2004 

10 CWI_1997 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 1997 

11 CWI_1998 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 1998 

12 CWI_1999 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 1999 

13 CWI_2000 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2000 

14 CWI_2001 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2001 

15 CWI_2002 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2002 

16 CWI_2003 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2003 

17 CWI_2004 8 Num Comparable Wage Index for 2004 

Appendix E —Glossary 

NCES Comparable Wage Index Data File 

E-1 

Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA). These are the metropolitan statistical areas and 

metropolitan divisions defined by the Office of Management and Budget, December 2003, and 

disseminated by the Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau (Last Revised: January 6,2004; 

Internet Release Date: February 25, 2004 

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/0312msa.txt ). Comparable wage 

indexes are based on Core Based Statistical Areas or Places of Work. 

Common Core of Data (CCD). A group of public elementary/secondary education surveys of 

NCES. CCD data are collected from each state’s department of education, from their 

administrative records data systems. 

Charter Schools. Charter schools are public schools that are exempted from significant state or 

local rules that normally govern the operation and management of public schools. A charter 

school is created by a developer as a public school, or is adapted by a developer from an existing 

public school. It operates in pursuit of a specific set of education objectives determined by the 

school’s developer and agreed to by the public chartering agency and provides a program of 

elementary or secondary education, or both. It meets all applicable federal, state, and local health 

and safety requirements; complies with federal civil rights laws and operates in accordance with 

state law. Charter schools may be operated by a regular school district, or they may be selfgoverning entities. 

Dependent LEA. A local education agency that lacks either fiscal or administrative 

independence. Dependent LEAs are classified by the Census Bureau as subunits of other 

government units, such as a state, county, municipality, or township. See the description of 

GOVT_TYPE in the User’s Guide and appendix A.

Elementary/Secondary Education. Programs providing instruction, or assisting in providing 

instruction, for students in prekindergarten, kindergarten, grades 1 through 12, and ungraded 

programs. 

Fiscal Year. The 12-month period to which the annual operating budget applies. At the end of 

the fiscal year, the agency determines its financial condition and the results of its operations. 
Appendix E —Glossary 

NCES Comparable Wage Index Data File 

E-2 

Geographic Region / Division. 

One of the regions or divisions used by the U.S. Bureau of the Census in Current Population 

Survey tabulations, as follows: 

Northeast Midwest

(New England) (East North Central)

Maine Ohio 

New Hampshire Indiana 

Vermont Illinois 

Massachusetts Michigan 

Rhode Island Wisconsin 

Connecticut 

 

(Middle Atlantic) (West North Central)

New York Minnesota 

New Jersey Iowa 

Pennsylvania Missouri 

 North Dakota 

 South Dakota 

 Nebraska 

 Kansas 

 

South West

(South Atlantic) (Mountain)

Delaware Montana 

Maryland Idaho 

District of Columbia Wyoming 

Virginia Colorado 

West Virginia New Mexico 

North Carolina Arizona 

South Carolina Utah 

Georgia Nevada 

Florida 

 

(East South Central) (Pacific)

Kentucky Washington 

Tennessee Oregon 

Alabama California 

Mississippi Alaska 

 Hawaii 

 

(West South Central) 

Arkansas 

Louisiana 

Oklahoma 

Texas 
Appendix E —Glossary 

NCES Comparable Wage Index Data File 

E-3 

Independent LEA. A local education agency that has both fiscal and administrative 

independence. See the description of GOVT_TYPE in the User’s Guide and appendix A.

Labor Market. Labor markets are the units of analysis for the Comparable Wage Index study. 

These are geographic regions (either Core Based Statistical Areas or Places of Work) that have 

the same value for a comparable wage index.

LEA. Local Education Agency, often called school districts, an education agency at the local 

level whose primary responsibility is to operate public schools or to contract for public school 

services. 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). An organization within the Institute of 

Education Sciences (IES), part of the U.S. Department of Education. NCES is the primary 

federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to education. 

Place of Work. A geographic area defined by the Census Bureau. Comparable wage indexes are 

based on either Core Based Statistical Areas or Places of Work. 

Public School Systems. Includes independent school district governments and dependent school 

systems. Independent school district governments are organized local entities providing public 

elementary, secondary, special, and vocational/technical education. Dependent school systems 

are classified by the Census Bureau as sub-units of some other governmental unit such as a 

county, municipality, township, or the state. 

Appendix F —Frequencies and Ranges 

NCES Comparable Wage Index data file 

F-1 

Frequencies for the District CWI data file 

 CCD Agency Type 

 Cumulative Cumulative 

 CCD_TYPE Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 

 _______________________________________________________________________________ 

 1-Local Education Agency 12997 81.18 12997 81.18 

 2-Sup. Union Member 1747 10.91 14744 92.09 

 3-Supervisory Union Center 159 0.99 14903 93.08 

 4-Regional 610 3.81 15513 96.89 

 7-Other 498 3.11 16011 100.00 

 F33 School Level 

 Cumulative Cumulative 

 F33_SCHLEV Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 

 _______________________________________________________________________________________ 

 1-Elementary School District 3396 21.25 3396 21.25 

 2-Secondary School District 669 4.19 4065 25.43 

 3-Elem/Sec School District 10866 67.99 14931 93.42 

 5-Vocational / Special Ed District 210 1.31 15141 94.74 

 6-Non-operating District 255 1.60 15396 96.33 

 7-Education Service Agency 586 3.67 15982 100.00 

 Frequency Missing = 29 

 Finance Type 

 Cumulative Cumulative 

 FINANCE_TYPE Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 

 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 Charter school district (CH) 911 5.69 911 5.69 

 Educational Service Agency (ES) 365 2.28 1276 7.97 

 Elem LEA linked to Sec LEA (MB) 2854 17.83 4130 25.79 

 Non-operating district (NO) 239 1.49 4369 27.29 

 Other Regular - w/o full grade range (OR) 136 0.85 4505 28.14 

 Out of Scope for F33 (OS) 2 0.01 4507 28.15 

 Pseudo - Sec LEA linked with Elem LEA (PD) 1294 8.08 5801 36.23 

 Regular LEA - full grade range (RG) 9777 61.06 15578 97.30 

 Special Education Agency (SE) 193 1.21 15771 98.50 

 Vocational Education Agency (VE) 240 1.50 16011 100.00 

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

District CWI File, 2005. 

 
Appendix F —Frequencies and Ranges 

NCES Comparable Wage Index data file 

F-2 

Frequencies for the District CWI data file 

 Level of Government 

 Cumulative Cumulative 

 GOVT_TYPE Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 

 _________________________________________________________________________ 

 0-State dependent 177 1.16 177 1.16 

 1-County dependent 444 2.90 621 4.06 

 2-City dependent 225 1.47 846 5.54 

 3-Township dependent 596 3.90 1442 9.43 

 5-Independent 13842 90.57 15284 100.00 

 Frequency Missing = 727 

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

 District CWI File, 2005. 

 

 Ranges of numeric variables, District Comparable Wage Index File 

 The MEANS Procedure 

 Variable Label Minimum Maximum Mean 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 STD_CWI_1997 Standard error of 1997 CWI 0.0052200 0.0508400 0.0165593 

 STD_CWI_1998 Standard error of 1998 CWI 0.0056800 0.0516200 0.0170939 

 STD_CWI_1999 Standard error of 1999 CWI 0.0031900 0.0497900 0.0191643 

 STD_CWI_2000 Standard error of 2000 CWI 0.0067400 0.0702500 0.0215009 

 STD_CWI_2001 Standard error of 2001 CWI 0.0069100 0.0726900 0.0221808 

 STD_CWI_2002 Standard error of 2002 CWI 0.0073500 0.0745500 0.0232909 

 STD_CWI_2003 Standard error of 2003 CWI 0.0075700 0.0778500 0.0239333 

 STD_CWI_2004 Standard error of 2004 CWI 0.0077600 0.0790700 0.0247062 

 CWI_1997 1997 Comparable Wage Index 0.6034000 1.1400000 0.8184769 

 CWI_1998 1998 Comparable Wage Index 0.6044000 1.1853000 0.8521805 

 CWI_1999 1999 Comparable Wage Index 0.7032000 1.2436000 0.8968679 

 CWI_2000 2000 Comparable Wage Index 0.7173000 1.3506000 0.9451202 

 CWI_2001 2001 Comparable Wage Index 0.7278000 1.4226000 0.9779844 

 CWI_2002 2002 Comparable Wage Index 0.7163000 1.5139000 1.0273657 

 CWI_2003 2003 Comparable Wage Index 0.7624000 1.5648000 1.0559382 

 CWI_2004 2004 Comparable Wage Index 0.7676000 1.6276000 1.0910625 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

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

District CWI File, 2006. 

 

 Ranges of numeric variables, Labor Market Comparable Wage Index File 

 The MEANS Procedure 

 Variable Label Minimum Maximum Mean 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 STD_CWI_1997 Standard error of 1997 CWI 0.0052200 0.0508400 0.0234612 

 STD_CWI_1998 Standard error of 1998 CWI 0.0056800 0.0516200 0.0241278 

 STD_CWI_1999 Standard error of 1999 CWI 0.0031900 0.0497900 0.0237951 

 STD_CWI_2000 Standard error of 2000 CWI 0.0067400 0.0702500 0.0305199 

 STD_CWI_2001 Standard error of 2001 CWI 0.0069100 0.0726900 0.0315435 

 STD_CWI_2002 Standard error of 2002 CWI 0.0073500 0.0745500 0.0331014 

 STD_CWI_2003 Standard error of 2003 CWI 0.0075700 0.0778500 0.0340072 

 STD_CWI_2004 Standard error of 2004 CWI 0.0077600 0.0790700 0.0351261 

 CWI_1997 1997 Comparable Wage Index 0.6034000 1.1400000 0.7988985 

 CWI_1998 1998 Comparable Wage Index 0.6044000 1.1853000 0.8322310 

 CWI_1999 1999 Comparable Wage Index 0.7032000 1.2436000 0.8768106 

 CWI_2000 2000 Comparable Wage Index 0.7173000 1.3506000 0.9229992 

 CWI_2001 2001 Comparable Wage Index 0.7278000 1.4226000 0.9548191 

 CWI_2002 2002 Comparable Wage Index 0.7163000 1.5139000 1.0015973 

 CWI_2003 2003 Comparable Wage Index 0.7624000 1.5648000 1.0300080 

 CWI_2004 2004 Comparable Wage Index 0.7676000 1.6276000 1.0635634 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

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

 Labor Market CWI File, 2006. 

 
Appendix F —Frequencies and Ranges 

NCES Comparable Wage Index data file 

F-3 

Ranges of numeric variables, State Comparable Wage Index File 

 The MEANS Procedure 

 Variable Label Minimum Maximum Mean 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 STD_CWI_1997 Standard error of 1997 CWI 0.0044500 0.0235000 0.0106716 

 STD_CWI_1998 Standard error of 1998 CWI 0.0045200 0.0238800 0.0109306 

 STD_CWI_1999 Standard error of 1999 CWI 0.0018400 0.0134500 0.0066402 

 STD_CWI_2000 Standard error of 2000 CWI 0.0060700 0.0319600 0.0144706 

 STD_CWI_2001 Standard error of 2001 CWI 0.0062800 0.0326100 0.0149202 

 STD_CWI_2002 Standard error of 2002 CWI 0.0066300 0.0336800 0.0156429 

 STD_CWI_2003 Standard error of 2003 CWI 0.0068500 0.0344400 0.0161247 

 STD_CWI_2004 Standard error of 2004 CWI 0.0068900 0.0353100 0.0165729 

 CWI_1997 1997 Comparable Wage Index 0.7092000 1.0884000 0.8627451 

 CWI_1998 1998 Comparable Wage Index 0.7332000 1.1316000 0.8970824 

 CWI_1999 1999 Comparable Wage Index 0.7479000 1.1545000 0.9376529 

 CWI_2000 2000 Comparable Wage Index 0.7809000 1.2259000 0.9896824 

 CWI_2001 2001 Comparable Wage Index 0.8167000 1.2864000 1.0276863 

 CWI_2002 2002 Comparable Wage Index 0.8578000 1.3524000 1.0811059 

 CWI_2003 2003 Comparable Wage Index 0.8744000 1.3911000 1.1092588 

 CWI_2004 2004 Comparable Wage Index 0.9107000 1.4823000 1.1500353 

 __________________________________________________________________________________________ 

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

 State CWI File, 2006. 

 Ranges of numeric variables, Regional Comparable Wage Index File 

 The MEANS Procedure 

 Variable Label Minimum Maximum Mean 

 ____________________________________________________________________________ 

 STD_CWI_1997 STD_CWI_1997 0.0041600 0.0066800 0.0052800 

 STD_CWI_1998 STD_CWI_1998 0.0042200 0.0068300 0.0054007 

 STD_CWI_1999 STD_CWI_1999 0.0025600 0.0059500 0.0040679 

 STD_CWI_2000 STD_CWI_2000 0.0054100 0.0081700 0.0066829 

 STD_CWI_2001 STD_CWI_2001 0.0055900 0.0083800 0.0068879 

 STD_CWI_2002 STD_CWI_2002 0.0058700 0.0088300 0.0072336 

 STD_CWI_2003 STD_CWI_2003 0.0060600 0.0090400 0.0074479 

 STD_CWI_2004 STD_CWI_2004 0.0061100 0.0092500 0.0075929 

 CWI_1997 CWI_1997 0.8131000 1.0013000 0.9055714 

 CWI_1998 CWI_1998 0.8489000 1.0381000 0.9424429 

 CWI_1999 CWI_1999 0.8905000 1.0879000 0.9884357 

 CWI_2000 CWI_2000 0.9428000 1.1453000 1.0440286 

 CWI_2001 CWI_2001 0.9778000 1.1804000 1.0834429 

 CWI_2002 CWI_2002 1.0299000 1.2465000 1.1413571 

 CWI_2003 CWI_2003 1.0589000 1.2775000 1.1714571 

 CWI_2004 CWI_2004 1.0947000 1.3185000 1.2130714 

 ____________________________________________________________________________ 

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

 Regional CWI File, 2006.