NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report May 1998

Status of Education Reform in

Public Elementary and

Secondary Schools:

Principals’ Perspectives

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 98-025
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report May 1998

Status of Education Reform in

Public Elementary and

Secondary Schools:

Principals’ Perspectives

Carin Celebuski

Elizabeth Farris

Westat, Inc.

Shelley Burns

Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 98-025
2

U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Ricky Takai

Acting Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Pascal D. Forgione, Jr.

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.

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

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208–5651

May 1998

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

Suggested Citation

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

Education Reform in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools: Principals’

Perspectives, NCES 98-025, by Carin Celebuski and Elizabeth Farris, Shelley Burns,

project officer. Washington DC: 1998.

Contact:

Shelley Burns

(202) 219-1463
iii

Highlights • Seventy-eight percent of public school principals reported that

their schools use content standards to a moderate or great extent

to guide curriculum and instruction in all four core subjects: 92

percent in mathematics, 90 percent in reading/language arts, 84

percent in science, and 81 percent in history/social studies

(figure 1). Almost two-thirds of principals (64 percent)

reported that their content standards in any subject changed to a

moderate or great extent in the last 3 years (figure 2).

• About 1 in 10 public school principals reported that their

schools were implementing all 10 strategies in support of

comprehensive reform that were asked about on the survey.

Eighty-five percent reported using strategic plans for enabling

all students to achieve to high levels of performance and 84

percent reported using professional development to enable staff

to teach the content students are expected to learn (table 1).

• When asked to indicate the three strategies in support of

comprehensive reform for which they most needed information,

40 percent or more of public school principals reported that they

needed information on the following: using innovative

technologies such as the Internet and telecommunicationssupported instruction that expose students to the content they

are expected to learn (43 percent), professional development

linked to the standards (41 percent), and parent involvement

activities (40 percent) (table 1).

• About half of public school principals cited the following

factors as barriers to the application of high standards to all

students: teaching students who are at different levels (56

percent), the inadequacy of parent involvement (49 percent),

and assessments that do not measure what students can do (48

percent) (table 2).

• Principals reported that they were likely to provide parents with

a school progress report to inform parents of their expectations

for student learning (88 percent); they also frequently provided

an overview of the curriculum (81 percent), examples of

successful student work (76 percent), and an overview of the

content standards (61 percent) (figure 6).

• For decisions related to developing content standards for the

school, similar percentages of public school principals

attributed a moderate or great amount of influence to the state

department of education and to local district administrators

(both 86 percent), to principals and teachers at the school (85

percent), and to the local school board (69 percent) (table 5).
iv

• More than 30 percent of public school principals cited the

following sources as very helpful to them in understanding or

using comprehensive reform strategies or activities: institutes

or workshops (41 percent), other principals (33 percent), the

school district (32 percent), and state- or district-sponsored

education conferences (31 percent). Less frequently cited

sources were the Educational Resource Information Center

(ERIC), U.S. Department of Education regional labs, other U.S.

Department of Education offices or programs, the media, and

teacher organizations (4 percent or less) (table 4).

• Public school principals reported that they used Title I funds for

specific activities, including serving targeted children in a pullout or in-class setting (88 percent), providing extended-time

learning opportunities (64 percent), operating a schoolwide

program (36 percent), and providing summer learning activities

(37 percent). The percentage of principals who operated

schoolwide programs was higher for elementary schools (51

percent) than for middle schools (19 percent) and high schools

(11 percent) (table 7).

• Forty-three percent of public school principals in Title I-funded

schools reported familiarity with eight recent legislative

changes to Title I to a moderate or great extent. More principals

in schools with schoolwide programs (54 percent) than in other

Title I schools (34 percent) were familiar with the eight specific

provisions asked about on the survey. This finding holds true as

well for each of the specific provisions, with principals with

schoolwide programs more likely to report familiarity (table

10).
v

Table of Contents

Page

Highlights .......................................................................................................................... iii

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

Use of Content Standards to Guide Curriculum and Instruction ......................................... 3

Strategies to Support Comprehensive Reform...................................................................... 7

Barriers to Application of High Standards to All Students .................................................. 10

Methods of Informing Parents About the School’s Expectations for Student Learning ...... 12

Sources of Information and Assistance in Using and Understanding Reform Strategies

and Activities................................................................................................................. 13

Groups With Influence Over Decisions Related to Reform ................................................. 15

Federal Title I Program......................................................................................................... 16

Summary ............................................................................................................................... 21

List of Appendices

Appendix

A Survey Methodology and Data Reliability.................................................................... 23

B Reference Tables........................................................................................................... 31

C Tables of Standard Errors for Text Tables and Figures................................................ 63

D Survey Form.................................................................................................................. 77
vi

List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Percent of principals reporting that their schools use content standards to guide

curriculum and instruction in various subjects: 1996 ...................................................... 4

2 Percent of principals reporting that the content standards for any subject in their

schools have changed in the last 3 years, by instructional level: 1996 ............................ 5

3 Percent of principals reporting that none, some, most, or all of their staff are ready to

set or apply new high standards of achievement: 1996.................................................... 6

4 Percent of principals reporting that all staff are ready to set or apply new higher

standards of achievement for their students, by instructional level: 1996 ....................... 7

5 Percent of principals who report that their schools use assessments that are expressed

in terms of students meeting various levels of performance standards, by

instructional level: 1996................................................................................................... 10

6 Percent of principals reporting that their schools inform parents about the schools’

expectations for student learning in various ways: 1996 ................................................. 13

7 Percent of principals selecting various formats as their first choice to receive

information about comprehensive reform strategies or activities: 1996 .......................... 15

List of Text Tables

Table

1 Percent of principals reporting that they are implementing various strategies in

support of comprehensive reform, and percent reporting that they need information

on these strategies: 1996 .................................................................................................. 9

2 Percent of principals reporting various barriers to applying high standards to all

students in the school: 1996 ............................................................................................. 11

3 Percent of elementary school principals reporting various barriers to applying high

standards to all students in the school, by percent of students eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch: 1996..................................................................................... 12

4 Percent of principals reporting that various sources of information or assistance

have been very helpful in understanding or using comprehensive reform strategies

or activities: 1996 ............................................................................................................. 14

5 Percent of principals reporting a moderate or great deal of influence of various

groups over decisions related to reform: 1996 ................................................................ 16

6 Percent of principals reporting their school’s participation in the Title I program:

1996 ................................................................................................................................... 16

7 Percent of principals of Title I schools reporting that they use Title I resources for

various purposes, by instructional level: 1996................................................................. 17
vii

List of Text Tables--Continued

Table Page

8 Percent of principals of Title I elementary schools reporting that they serve targeted

children in a pull-out or in-class setting or operate a schoolwide program, by

percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch: 1996....................... 18

9 Percent of principals of Title I schools who report their programs were identified as

in need of improvement under Title I in school year 1995-96, by various

characteristics: 1996......................................................................................................... 18

10 Percent of principals of Title I schools who report they are familiar with new

provisions in the Title I program and who report that these new provisions will

require changes in their schools: 1996 ............................................................................. 20

List of Reference Tables

Table Page

A-1 Number and percent of responding public schools in the study sample

and estimate number and percent of public schools that the sample

represents, by school characteristics: 1996 ........................................................... 26

B-1 Percent of public schools that use content standards to guide curriculum and

instruction in four subject areas, and percent reporting that the content standards

in any subject changed in the last 3 years: 1996.................................................... 33

B-2 Percent of public schools that use content standards to guide curriculum and

instruction to a moderate or great extent in four subject areas, by school

characteristics: 1996 .............................................................................................. 34

B-3 Percent of public schools that report that the content standards for any subject

have changed in the last 3 years to a moderate or great extent, by school

characteristics: 1996 .............................................................................................. 35

B-4 Percent of public schools reporting the proportion of school staff ready to set

or apply new high standards of achievement for their students, by school

characteristics: 1996 .............................................................................................. 36

B-5 Percent of public schools implementing various strategies in support of

comprehensive reform: 1996 ................................................................................. 37

B-6 Percent of public schools implementing various strategies in support of

comprehensive reform to a moderate or great extent, by school characteristics:

1996 ........................................................................................................................ 38

B-7 Percent of public school principals reporting needing information on up to three

strategies in support of comprehensive reform, by school characteristics: 1996 .. 41
viii

List of Reference Tables--Continued

Table Page

B-8 Percent of public schools whose assessments are expressed in terms of students

meeting various levels of performance standards to a moderate or great extent,

by school characteristics: 1996.............................................................................. 44

B-9 Percent of public school principals who report a moderate to a great deal of

influence of four groups over establishing curriculum for the school,

by school characteristics: 1996.............................................................................. 45

B-10 Percent of public schools that report a moderate to a great deal of influence of

four groups over developing content standards for the school, by school

characteristics: 1996 .............................................................................................. 46

B-11 Percent of public schools that report a moderate to a great deal of influence of

four groups over developing student performance standards for the school,

by school characteristics: 1996.............................................................................. 47

B-12 Percent of public schools that use various methods to inform parents about

the schools’ expectations for student learning, by school characteristics: 1996... 48

B-13 Percent of public school principals who have found various sources of

information or assistance very helpful in understanding or using

comprehensive reform strategies or activities, by school characteristics: 1996.... 49

B-14 Percent of public school principals who report their first choice to receive

information about reform in various formats, by school characteristics: 1996..... 53

B-15 Percent of public schools that report various barriers to the application of high

standards to all students in the school: 1996 ......................................................... 54

B-16 Percent of public school principals who report various barriers to the application

of high standards to all students in the school to a moderate or great extent,

by school characteristics: 1996.............................................................................. 55

B-17 Percent of public schools with various involvement with the federal Title I

program, by school characteristics: 1996 .............................................................. 57

B-18 Percent of Title I public schools that use Title I funds for various purposes,

by school characteristics: 1996.............................................................................. 58

B-19 Percent of public school principals of Title I schools who are familiar to a

moderate or great extent with various provisions in the Title I legislation,

by school characteristics: 1996.............................................................................. 59

B-20 Percent of public school principals of Title I schools who report that changes

in the school would be required to a moderate or great extent to implement

various provisions in the Title I legislation, by school characteristics: 1996........ 61
ix

List of Standard Errors for Text Tables and Figures

Table Page

1a Standard errors of the percent of principals reporting that they are

implementing various strategies in support of comprehensive reform, and

percent reporting that they need information on these strategies: 1996................ 65

2a Standard errors of the percent of principals reporting various barriers to applying

high standards to all students in the school: 1996 ................................................. 66

3a Standard errors of the percent of elementary school principals reporting various

barriers to applying high standards to all students in the school, by percent of

students eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch: 1996 ............................. 67

4a Standard errors of the percent of principals reporting that various sources

of information or assistance have been very helpful in understanding

or using comprehensive reform strategies or activities: 1996 ............................... 68

5a Standard errors of the percent of principals reporting a moderate to a great

deal of influence of various groups over decisions related to reform: 1996 ......... 69

6a Standard errors of the percent of principals reporting their school’s

participation in the Title I program: 1996 ............................................................. 70

7a Standard errors of the percent of principals of Title I schools reporting that

they use Title I resources for various purposes, by instructional level: 1996 ....... 71

8a Standard errors of the percent of principals of Title I elementary schools

reporting that they serve targeted children in a pull-out or in-class setting or

operate a schoolwide program, by percent of students eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch: 1996.......................................................................... 72

9a Standard errors of the percent of principals of Title I schools who report their

programs were identified as in need of improvement under Title I in school

year 1995-96, by instructional characteristics: 1996............................................. 73

10a Standard errors of the percent of principals of Title I schools who report they

are familiar with new provisions in the Title I program and standard errors

of the percent who report that these new provisions will require changes in their

schools: 1996 ......................................................................................................... 74

11 Standard errors for text figures............................................................................... 75
x
1

Introduction National attention is focused on education reform as more state and

local education agencies adopt challenging content and performance

standards for students, decide how to restructure the school day, and

begin to involve parents in all aspects of their children’s education.

These efforts have expanded significantly since the 1994 passage of

the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Under Goals 2000, states

develop education improvement plans that include “strategies for

ensuring that comprehensive, systemic reform is promoted from the

bottom up in communities, local educational associations, and

schools, as well as guided by coordination and facilitation from State

leaders” (section 306).

This study asked nationally representative samples of public school

principals and teachers about their use of content standards and

performance standards and other reform strategies, ties between the

school and home, the role of the Title I program in supporting

reform, and what information they need to help them move ahead

with reform.

This report presents the findings of the principal survey, called the

Public School Survey on Education Reform; a subsequent report,

called Status of Education Reform in Public Elementary and

Secondary Schools: Teachers’ Perspectives, will summarize results

from the teacher survey. The U.S. Department of Education (ED)

will use this information to see how principals and teachers view

reform and reform efforts. Findings from parallel surveys of school

districts and states are reported in Reports on Reform from the Field:

District and State Survey Results.

This report contains information about reform efforts in schools

reported by school principals through a mail survey. The

information has not been objectively measured or independently

verified. Because of the survey questions and collection

methodology used, results should be interpreted carefully. Principals

may have overreported their involvement in reform for the following

reasons:

1. Since all principals do not share the same concept of reform,

survey questions were designed to be inclusive of a wide variety

of activities.

2. The reporting of reform activities has strong demand

characteristics--meaning that principals know that their schools

should be engaged in these activities.

3. As a Fast Response survey, the questionnaire was brief and

could not collect information to judge the accuracy of the

principals’ reports about their reform efforts.
2

Principals were given guidance while completing their surveys in the

form of general definitions of reform and standards. Comprehensive

reform was defined on the questionnaire as “efforts to improve

education for all students by establishing high content and

performance standards and redesigning the various components of

the education system in a coordinated and coherent fashion to

support students learning to the standards.” High standards were

defined as “recent and current education reform activities that seek

to establish more challenging expectations for student achievement

and performance, such as the National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics standards for math, state- or local-initiated standards in

various subjects, and those outlined in Goals 2000.” Further,

“standards go beyond general expectations for student learning in

that they are written, may be externally developed, and are to be

applied uniformly by all teachers.” Note that the survey did not limit

standards to those adopted by states, since schools in states that have

not adopted standards could have locally-developed standards of

their own.

These data were requested by ED’s Planning and Evaluation Service

(PES) to provide descriptive information about reform, principals’

needs for information and assistance, and the role of Title I program

resources in supporting education reform. This study is part of a

larger national assessment of the Title I program. Other parts of the

assessment use methodologies such as site visits to collect additional

detail and to verify school activities.

The study was conducted during the spring of 1996 (with followup

through July of that year) by the Fast Response Survey System

(FRSS) for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) by

Westat, Inc., a research firm in Rockville, Maryland. The survey

asked principals to report for the 1995-96 school year.

The questionnaires were sent to 1,360 principals of a nationally

representative sample of U.S. public schools (see appendix A for

survey methodology). The survey requested information about the

following issues:

• Use of content standards to guide curriculum and instruction;

• Strategies to support comprehensive reform;

• Barriers to the application of high standards to all students;

• Methods of informing parents about the school’s expectations

for student learning;

• Sources of information and assistance in using and

understanding reform strategies and activities;
3

• Groups with influence over decisions related to reform; and

• Understanding of new Title I program provisions supporting

reform.

Survey findings are presented for all schools, and frequently by the

following school characteristics:

• Instructional level (elementary school, middle school, high

school);

• Locale of school (city, urban fringe, town, rural);

• Percent of students in the school eligible for free or reducedprice lunches through the National School Lunch Program

(42 USC 1758 (f)(2)) (less than 35 percent, 35-49 percent,

50-74 percent, 75 percent or more) by instructional level; and

• Title I funding (no Title I, Title I nonschoolwide program,

Title I schoolwide program) by instructional level.

Appendix B contains reference tables of the survey data broken out

by the four school characteristics. These tables were included in the

report because many of the comparisons between types of schools on

the extent of their reform activities did not show the substantively

interesting or statistically significant differences that were

anticipated. Readers can refer to the tables in appendix B to view

comparisons not cited in the text of this report.

Data have been weighted to provide national estimates of public

schools. All comparative statements made in this report have been

tested for statistical significance though chi-square tests or t-tests

adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni adjustment

and are significant at the 0.05 level or better. However, not all

statistically significant comparisons have been presented. It should

be noted that the estimates for elementary schools with between 35

and 49 percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches

are based on a relatively small number of unweighted cases (39)

(appendix table A-1).

Use of Content

Standards to Guide

Curriculum and

Instruction

Written standards that specify the content that students are expected

to learn, that go beyond general expectations, and that are applied

uniformly by all teachers can be valuable education reform tools for

schools (Goals 2000: Educate America Act, section 211). Content

standards are generally subject-specific and may be adopted from an

external source (such as a professional teacher association) or

developed by schools, districts, or states. To find out how pervasive

standards are, the survey asked principals about the use of content

standards in four core subjects: reading/language arts, mathematics,

science, and history/social studies.
4

Seventy-eight percent of public school principals reported that their

schools use content standards to a moderate or great extent to guide

curriculum and instruction in all four core subjects asked about on

the questionnaire (figure 1). These findings generally hold true

across the different types of schools compared in this analysis

(appendix table B-2). By subject, 92 percent of principals reported

their schools used content standards in mathematics, 90 percent in

reading/language arts, 84 percent in science, and 81 percent in

history/social studies. These findings also generally hold true across

different types of schools (appendix table B-2).

Figure 1.—Percent of principals reporting that their schools use

content standards to guide curriculum and

instruction in various subjects: 1996

36 40 40 44

56 50 45 37

7

78

0

20

40

60

80

100

Subject

Percent

92

All four

(moderate or

great)

History/

social

studies

90

84

81

Great extent

Moderate extent

Reading/

language

arts

None

(moderate or

great)

MathematicsScience

NOTE: This survey included only public schools.

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

Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
5

About two-thirds of principals (64 percent) reported that the content

standards in their school for any subject have changed to a moderate

or great extent in the last 3 years (figure 2 and appendix table B-3).

This finding can be interpreted in several ways. Changes to content

standards could mean that schools are updating their curricula to take

advantage of current developments, or alternatively, that schools

view content standards as another in a series of passing fads.

Figure 2.—Percent of principals reporting that the content

standards for any subject in their schools have

changed in the last 3 years, by instructional level:

1996

40 38

45 43

0

20

40

60

80

100

All public

schools

Elementary

school

Middle

school

High

school

Instructional level

Percent

64 66 67

57

24 28 22

14

Changed to a

moderate extent

Changed to a

great extent

NOTE: This survey included only public schools.

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

Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
6

Public school principals were generally confident about the abilities

of their staff members to implement reforms. About three-quarters

(76 percent) reported that all or most of their staff were ready to set

or apply new high standards of achievement for their students

(figure 3 and appendix table B-4). Elementary school principals

(21 percent) were more likely to report that all of their staff were

ready than were high school principals (8 percent) (figure 4 and

appendix table B-4). No differences were observed between schools

with different proportions of students eligible for the free or reducedprice lunch program or between principals by receipt of Title I

funding (appendix table B-4).

These figures on staff abilities match fairly well with the principal

reports of use of content standards. While 78 percent of principals

report their schools used content standards to guide curriculum and

instruction, 76 percent report that most or all of their staff were

ready to set or apply these content standards.

Figure 3.—Percent of principals reporting that, none, some,

most, or all of their staff are ready to set or apply

new high standards of achievement: 1996

Most

None

1 %

All

Some

59%

17%

23%

NOTE: This survey included only public schools.

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

Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
7

Figure 4.—Percent of principals reporting that all staff are

ready to set or apply new high standards of

achievement for their students, by instructional level:

1996

17

21

14

8

0

20

40

60

80

100

All public

schools

Elementary

school

Middle 

school

High 

school

Instructional level

Percent

NOTE: This survey included only public schools.

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

Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.

Strategies to Support

Comprehensive

Reform

The survey asked public school principals about the use of a number

of specific strategies in support of comprehensive reform to provide

a picture of how seriously involved schools were in education

reform. The strategies listed were the following:

• A strategic plan for enabling all students to achieve to high

levels of performance;

• Professional development to enable staff to teach the content

students are expected to learn;

• Instructional materials such as textbooks that expose students

to the content they are expected to learn;

• Innovative technologies such as the Internet and

telecommunication-supported instruction that expose students

to the content they are expected to learn;
8

• Adaptations so that all students (specifically: limited-English

proficient students) are expected to achieve to high levels of

performance;

• Adaptations so that all students (specifically: students with

learning disabilities) are expected to achieve to high levels of

performance;

• Assessments that measure performance against the content

students are expected to learn;

• Assessments that are used for school accountability and

continuous improvement;

• Parent involvement activities that help parents work with their

children to achieve to high levels of performance; and

• Restructuring the school day to teach content in more depth.

For these same strategies, principals also indicated the three for

which they most needed information.

Most principals reported that their schools were active in these areas,

but only about 1 in 10 said their schools were implementing all 10

strategies to a moderate or great extent. These findings also hold

across different types of schools (appendix table B-6). Elementary

schools principals (72 percent) were more likely than middle school

(50 percent) and high school (42 percent) principals to report that

their schools are implementing parent involvement activities (table 1

and appendix table B-6).

Eighty-four percent of principals reported that their schools had

professional development to enable staff to teach the content

students are expected to learn, while 41 percent reported they need

more information on this topic. This finding can be compared to the

76 percent who reported that most or all of their teachers are ready to

set or apply new high standards of achievement for their students.
9

Table 1.—Percent of principals reporting that they are

implementing various strategies in support of

comprehensive reform, and percent reporting that

they need information on these strategies: 1996

All public Instructional level Information

Strategy schools Elementary

school

Middle

school

High

school

needed1

Implementing all 10 strategies

asked about on the survey......... 10 11 8 9 --

Strategic plan ............................... 85 87 90 77 31

Professional development ............ 84 88 88 72 41

Instructional materials.................. 88 89 90 85 13

Innovative technologies................ 60 58 61 63 43

Adaptations for limited-English

proficient students2

................... 75 75 73 75 11

Adaptations for learning

disabled students2..................... 88 90 89 83 13

Assessments matched to

content standards...................... 76 78 77 68 32

Assessments for school

accountability ........................... 79 80 84 72 23

Parent involvement activities....... 62 72 50 42 40

Restructuring the school day........ 53 53 55 51 33

--Not applicable.

1

Principals could select up to three strategies for information.

2

Implementation among schools with these students enrolled.

NOTE: This survey included only public schools. Percentages are for a moderate or great

extent.

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

Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.

Overall, about three-quarters of public school principals (76 percent)

reported that their schools use assessments of student performance

matched to their content standards to a moderate or great extent, and

79 percent reported using assessments for school accountability

(table 1 and appendix table B-6). About two-thirds of all principals

(66 percent) reported that their schools express these performance

assessments in terms of students meeting specified levels, such as

advanced, proficient, and novice (figure 5 and appendix table B-8).

Elementary school principals (69 percent) were more likely than high

school principals (57 percent) to report that their schools express

their assessments in these terms.

Principal reports of use of assessments generally coordinate with

their reports of use of content standards. For example, the 78

percent of principals who reported using content standards in all

subjects matches well with the 76 percent who claimed to use

assessments matched to the standards. However, 32 percent reported

needing more information on matching assessments to content

standards. This figure appears high, considering that 76 percent

reported they currently match assessments to their content standards.
10

Figure 5.—Percent of principals who report that their schools

use assessments that are expressed in terms of

students meeting various levels of performance

standards, by instructional level: 1996

45 46 44 41

16

20

23 21

0

20

40

60

80

100

All public

schools

Elementary

school

Middle

school

High school

Instructional level

Percent

66 69

64

57

Great extent

Moderate extent

NOTE: This survey included only public schools.

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

Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.

Forty percent or more of principals reported that they needed

information on each of the following strategies: using innovative

technologies such as the Internet and telecommunication-supported

instruction that expose students to the content they are expected to

learn (43 percent), professional development linked to the standards

(41 percent), and parent involvement activities (40 percent) (table 1

and appendix table B-7).

Barriers to

Application of

High Standards to

All Students

The survey asked public school principals the extent to which 10

factors were barriers to the application of high standards to all

students in their school (table 2 and appendix table B-16). “All

students” could mean students in all grades, students with limited

English proficiency, or students with disabilities. Findings for this

question provide further detail to help interpret previous findings on

prevalence of reform strategies.
11

Table 2.—Percent of principals reporting various barriers to

applying high standards to all students in the school:

1996

Barrier

Percent of principals

reporting barrier

No barriers reported ............................................................... 10

Teaching students who are at different levels......................... 56

Inadequacy of parent involvement ......................................... 49

Assessments that do not measure what students can do......... 48

Outdated technology .............................................................. 41

Inadequacy of professional development ............................... 38

Inadequacy of guidelines on what standards to use................ 37

High student mobility ............................................................ 35

Diversity of student population.............................................. 29

Outdated textbooks................................................................ 22

Language barriers................................................................... 13

NOTE: This survey included only public schools. Percentages are for a moderate or great

extent.

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

Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.

For all schools, factors cited as moderate or great barriers by close to

half of principals were the following: teaching students who are at

different levels (56 percent), the inadequacy of parent involvement

(49 percent), and assessments that do not measure what students can

do (48 percent). The prevalence of several barriers for different

types of schools varied. For example, principals of elementary

schools with higher proportions of students eligible for free or

reduced-priced lunches reported more problems with inadequacy of

parent involvement, high student mobility, diversity of student

populations, language barriers, teaching students who are at different

levels, and assessments that do not measure what students can do

than principals of schools with the lowest proportion of these

students (table 3 and appendix table B-16).

As mentioned previously, 78 percent of principals say their schools

use content standards in all subjects. The positive picture implied by

this finding contrasts sharply with the 37 percent of principals who

felt the guidelines on standards were inadequate.

The 48 percent of principals who reported the barrier “assessments

not measuring what students can do” contrasts with the 76 percent

who say they match assessments to content standards. During

debriefings held as part of the pretest of the instrument, principals

said that they used this category to report, for example, a situation

where students in a bilingual class were assessed using an Englishlanguage test. The assessment covered the correct content, but the
12

skills of the students were not adequately measured. These

situations may account for a portion of the 48 percent. However, this

figure still makes it appear that 76 percent was an overestimate.

In addition, while 84 percent of principals reported that their schools

engaged in professional development tied to the standards to a

moderate or great extent, 38 percent said that inadequate

professional development was a barrier to the application of high

standards, calling into question the reports of professional

development implementation.

Table 3.—Percent of elementary school principals reporting various barriers to applying high

standards to all students in the school, by percent of students eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch: 1996

Students eligible

for free or reduced-price

school lunch

Inadequacy of

parent

involvement

High student

mobility

Diversity of

student

population

Language

barriers

Teaching

students who are

at different

levels

Assessments

that do not

measure what

students can do

All public elementary schools..... 44 38 30 15 55 45

Less than 35 percent....................... 28 18 19 3 46 35

35 to 49 percent.............................. 36 40 28 6 62 45

50 to 74 percent.............................. 57 43 40 17 48 47

75 percent or more.......................... 72 70 46 45 76 63

NOTE: This survey included only public schools. Percentages are for a moderate or great extent.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.

Methods of

Informing Parents

About the School’s

Expectations for

Student Learning

Parents who know what standards the school expects students to

meet are in a better position to help their children succeed in school

(Goals 2000: Educate America Act, section 102). Schools can

inform parents of their expectations for student learning in a number

of ways. The survey asked public school principals whether their

schools used the following four methods of informing parents:

providing parents with an overview of the curriculum, providing

parents with an overview of the content standards, providing parents

with examples of successful student work, and providing information

about the entire school’s performance and progress in meeting

academic expectations (figure 6 and appendix table B-12). Many

principals reported that their schools provided parents with a school

progress report (88 percent), an overview of the curriculum (81

percent), examples of student work (76 percent), and an overview of

the content standards (61 percent).
13

Figure 6.—Percent of principals reporting that their schools

inform parents about the schools’ expectations for

student learning in various ways: 1996

81

61

76

88

0

20

40

60

80

100

Provide

overview of

curriculum

Provide

overview of

content

standards

Provide

examples of

successful

student work

Provide

school

progress

report

Method of informing parents

Percent

NOTE: Public schools only are included.

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

Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.

Sources of

Information and

Assistance in Using

and Understanding

Reform Strategies

and Activities

Numerous resources are available to school personnel attempting to

implement education reforms. The survey asked public school

principals whether 19 specific sources have been helpful to them in

trying to understand or use comprehensive reform strategies or

activities (table 4 and appendix table B-13). Sources cited as very

helpful by 30 percent or more of principals were institutes or

workshops (41 percent), other principals (33 percent), the school

district (32 percent), and state- or district-sponsored education

conferences (31 percent). Less frequently cited sources were U.S.

Department of Education regional labs, other U.S. Department of

Education offices or programs, the media, and teacher organizations

(each with 3 percent).
14

Table 4.—Percent of principals reporting that various sources of

information or assistance have been very helpful in

understanding or using comprehensive reform

strategies or activities: 1996

Source of information or assistance All public schools

Institutes or workshops ............................................................................. 41

Other principals ........................................................................................ 33

School district ........................................................................................... 32

State- or district-sponsored education conferences................................... 31

Professional journals................................................................................. 29

State-developed content standards............................................................ 27

Other administrators ................................................................................. 26

Professional principal associations ........................................................... 25

State department of education................................................................... 18

Intermediate or regional education agency................................................ 15

National model content standards............................................................. 12

Institutions of higher education................................................................. 12

National Science Foundation-funded initiatives ....................................... 8

Electronic networks/discussion groups..................................................... 5

Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC).................................... 4

U.S. Department of Education regional labs............................................. 3

Other U.S. Department of Education offices or programs ........................ 3

Media........................................................................................................ 3

Teacher unions or organizations ............................................................... 3

NOTE: This survey included only public schools. Percents do not add to 100 because

respondents could indicate more than one source.

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

Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.

About half of public school principals most preferred to receive

information through workshops and summer institutes (52 percent),

and slightly fewer (42 percent) preferred to receive information in

hard copy documents such as journal articles and magazines

(figure 7 and appendix table B-14). A small proportion (6 percent)

preferred to receive information electronically.
15

Figure 7.—Percent of principals selecting various formats as

their first choice to receive information about

comprehensive reform strategies or activities: 1996

Electronic

Workshops 

and summer 

institutes

Hard copy

Other

1%

42%

52%

6%

NOTE: This survey included only public schools. Percents may not sum to 100 because of

rounding.

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

Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.

Groups With

Influence Over

Decisions Related to

Reform

Public school principals were asked to rate on a scale from 0 to 5

(where 0 indicated no influence and 5 a great deal of influence), the

actual influence they thought that four groups—the state department

of education, the local school board, local district administrators, and

principals and teachers at the school—have on three types of

decisions related to reform at their school. The decisions are

establishing curriculum, developing content standards, and

developing student performance standards.

In general, high ratings were given by principals to most groups over

most decisions, with the local school board generally attributed less

influence over each of the three types of decisions (table 5 and

appendix table B-10). For example, for decisions related to

developing content standards for the school, similar percentages of

principals attributed a moderate or great amount of influence to the

state department of education, to local district administrators (both

86 percent), and to principals and teachers at the school (85 percent);

and 69 percent attributed this level of influence to the local school

board.
16

Table 5.—Percent of principals reporting a moderate or great

deal of influence of various groups over decisions

related to reform: 1996

Decision

Group

Establishing

curriculum for

the school

Developing

content standards

for the school

Developing

student

performance

standards for the

school

State department of education................ 81 86 83

Local school board................................. 79 69 70

Local district administrators................... 88 86 84

Principals and teachers at the school...... 87 85 86

NOTE: This survey included only public schools.

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

Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.

Federal Title I

Program

The study estimates from principal reports that about two-thirds of

all public schools (66 percent) received some Title I funds in school

year 1995-96 (table 6 and appendix table B-17). Principal reports of

funding were higher for elementary schools (75 percent) than for

middle schools (53 percent) and high schools (50 percent).

Table 6.—Percent of principals reporting their school’s

participation in the Title I program: 1996

Title I schools

School characteristic

Received

Title I funds

in school year

1995-96

Eligible to

operate a

schoolwide

program in

school year

1995-96

Plan to

operate a

schoolwide

program in

school year

1996-97

Identified as

in need of

improvement

under Title I

in school year

1995-96

 All public schools............ 66 66 57 13

Instructional level

Elementary school ............. 75 65 56 14

Middle school.................... 53 71 63 12

High school........................ 50 64 52 12

Students eligible for the

free or reduced-price lunch

program

Less than 35 percent .......... 45 52 46 10

35 to 49 percent................. 75 40 32 6

50 to 74 percent................. 86 77 67 12

75 percent or more............. 93 95 82 27

NOTE: This survey included only public schools.

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

Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
17

Principals reported that their schools used Title I funds for specific

activities, including serving targeted children in a pull-out or in-class

setting (88 percent), providing extended-time learning opportunities

(64 percent), operating schoolwide programs (36 percent), or

providing summer learning activities (37 percent) (table 7 and

appendix table B-18). Title I-funded schools may operate

schoolwide programs if they meet certain eligibility criteria and

devise a comprehensive plan to ensure implementation. For high

poverty schools, schoolwide programs combine Title I funds with

other federal program funds to support comprehensive reform and

improve the entire educational enterprise for all students at the

school, not just targeted students. The percentage of principals of

Title I schools who reported operating schoolwide programs was

higher for elementary schools (51 percent) than for middle schools

(19 percent) and high schools (11 percent).

Table 7.—Percent of principals of Title I schools reporting that

they use Title I resources for various purposes, by

instructional level: 1996

All Instructional level

Use of Title I resources Title I

schools

Elementary

school

Middle

school

High

school

Serve targeted children in a pull-out or

in-class setting .................................. 88 89 88 86

Provide extended-time learning

opportunities for targeted children..... 64 64 67 64

Improve the entire educational

enterprise through a schoolwide

program ............................................. 36 51 19 11

Provide summer learning opportunities. 37 37 40 32

NOTE: This survey included only public schools.

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

Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.

In addition, principals of Title I elementary schools with 75 percent

or more of their students eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch

program reported least often that they served targeted children in a

pull-out or in-class setting (70 percent) and most often that they ran

schoolwide programs (85 percent) (table 8 and appendix table B-18).
18

Table 8.—Percent of principals of Title I elementary schools

reporting that they serve targeted children in a pullout or in-class setting or operate a schoolwide

program, by percent of students eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch: 1996

Use of Title I

All

Title I

Students eligible for free

or reduced-price school lunch

resources elementary

schools

Less than

35 percent

35 to 49

percent

50 to 74

percent

75 percent

or more

Serve targeted children in a pullout or in-class setting............. 89 98 96 92 70

Improve the entire educational

enterprise through a schoolwide program......................... 51 23 35 60 85

NOTE: This survey included only public schools.

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

Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.

Principals of Title I schools with schoolwide programs were more

likely to report that their schools were identified as in need of

improvement under Title I (table 9 and appendix table B-17), as were

principals of Title I schools with 75 percent or more of their students

eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.

Table 9.—Percent of principals of Title I schools who report

their programs were identified as in need of

improvement under Title I in school year 1995-96, by

various characteristics: 1996

Title I school characteristic

Identified as in need of

improvement under

Title I

Title I funding

Nonschoolwide ........................................................................ 9

Schoolwide program................................................................ 19

Students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch

Less than 35 percent................................................................ 10

35 to 49 percent....................................................................... 6

50 to 74 percent....................................................................... 12

75 percent or more................................................................... 27

NOTE: This survey included only public schools.

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

Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
19

To gauge their familiarity with recent legislative changes to Title I,

principals in Title I-funded schools were asked the extent to which

they were familiar with eight specific provisions (table 10 and

appendix table B-19). Forty-three percent of principals in Title Ifunded schools reported they were familiar with all eight provisions

to a moderate or great extent. More principals in schools with

schoolwide programs (54 percent) than other Title I schools

(34 percent) said they were familiar with all eight provisions. This

finding holds true as well for all the specific provisions, with

principals in schools with schoolwide programs more likely to report

familiarity.

Note that we do not have objective measures of familiarity with the

eight provisions. However, other evidence indicates that principals

are overly confident about their level of familiarity with Title I. An

indirect measure of principals’ understanding of Title I are their

reports of eligibility to operate a schoolwide program. As shown in

table 6 and appendix table B-17, 52 percent of Title I principals in

low poverty schools report that they are eligible for schoolwide

programs, even though they probably are not. Findings about

familiarity should be interpreted cautiously.

Principals reporting familiarity with the provisions were also asked

to gauge how much of a change would be required in their schools in

order to implement the provisions (table 10 and appendix table B20). Generally, between 40 and 50 percent of principals reported

that moderate or great changes would be required in their schools to

implement each provision. There were no substantively interesting

differences in reports of difficulty of implementation between

schools with schoolwide programs and other Title I schools.

Generally, schools have found that making these changes requires

substantial effort, and that the level of effort required is not

anticipated at the start of the process. Figures presented above

provide evidence that even principals who claim they are familiar

with the provisions are probably not fully aware of what

implementing the changes would entail, and that they are not very far

along in the process of implementation.
20

Table 10.—Percent of principals of Title I schools who report

they are familiar with new provisions in the Title I

program and who report that these new provisions

will require changes in their schools: 1996

Title I provision

Familiar with

provision

Change in school

required*

Familiar with all 8 provisions

All Title I schools ...................................... 43 -

Nonschoolwide program........................ 34 -

Schoolwide program .............................. 54 -

Apply high standards to all students

All Title I schools ...................................... 68 47

Nonschoolwide program........................ 57 43

Schoolwide program .............................. 82 52

Flexibility to identify students for services

All Title I schools ...................................... 75 42

Nonschoolwide program........................ 68 41

Schoolwide program .............................. 85 45

Extend learning time

All Title I schools ...................................... 61 52

Nonschoolwide program........................ 49 52

Schoolwide program .............................. 77 52

Minimize pull-out programs

All Title I schools ...................................... 78 44

Nonschoolwide program........................ 72 43

Schoolwide program .............................. 87 45

Develop a parent involvement policy

All Title I schools ...................................... 85 45

Nonschoolwide program........................ 80 44

Schoolwide program .............................. 91 46

Develop a school-parent compact

All Title I schools ...................................... 74 50

Nonschoolwide program........................ 66 49

Schoolwide program .............................. 83 51

Assess student performance

All Title I schools ...................................... 85 41

Nonschoolwide program........................ 81 38

Schoolwide program .............................. 91 45

Use performance results for school

accountability

All Title I schools ...................................... 84 45

Nonschoolwide program........................ 80 42

Schoolwide program .............................. 90 49

- Not applicable.

*Among principals familiar with provision.

NOTE: This survey included only public schools. Percentages are for a moderate or great

extent.

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

Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
21

Summary The survey findings generally describe a high level of use of content

and performance standards among public schools, according to

principals. Certain strategies in support of reform, such as strategic

plans for enabling all students to achieve to high levels of

performance, were likely to have been implemented already.

However, some barriers to applying high standards to all students

were perceived, especially for schools with higher proportions of

their student populations eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.

These reported barriers include inadequacy of parent involvement,

high student mobility, diversity of student populations, language

barriers, teaching students who are at different levels, and

assessments that do not measure what students can do.

Public school principals found assistance to help them understand

and use comprehensive reform strategies and activities, citing

institutes or workshops, other principals, the school district, and

state- or district-sponsored education conferences as especially

helpful. In fact, about half of principals preferred to receive

information on reform through institutes or workshops. Less

frequently cited sources were U.S. Department of Education regional

labs, other U.S. Department of Education offices or programs, the

media, and teacher organizations.

Principals of Title I-funded schools generally were not different from

those in schools not receiving Title I funds with regard to familiarity

with and implementation of comprehensive reform. Principals in

Title I schools also reported familiarity with new provisions in the

Title I legislation related to comprehensive reform. However,

familiarity with provisions does not imply full awareness of what

implementing the provisions would entail.

Overall, though, the survey found few differences in reform efforts

between different types of schools. Subsequent studies might try to

provide a more detailed picture by asking principals to describe the

specifics of reform implementation at their school.
22
23

Appendix A

Survey Methodology

and

Data Reliability
24
25

Survey

Methodology

and Data

Reliability

Sample Selection

The sampling frame for the FRSS Public School Survey on

Education Reform was constructed from the 1993-94 NCES

Common Core of Data (CCD) public school universe file and

included over 82,000 public elementary, middle, and high schools.

Excluded from the frame were special education, vocational, and

alternative/other schools, schools in the territories, and schools with

the highest grade lower than grade 1.

A stratified sample of 1,360 schools—534 elementary schools, 375

middle schools, and 451 high schools—was selected for the survey.

To select the sample, the schools in the frame were stratified by the

three instructional levels, poverty status (based on the percent of

students eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program as

recorded in the CCD file) within level, and enrollment size class

within poverty status. Within these primary strata, schools were

sorted by region and locale to induce limited additional stratification.

Since free or reduced-price lunch program participation data were

missing for about 24 percent of the schools in the CCD, such schools

were placed in a separate stratum for sampling purposes. (Note that

an item on the survey questionnaire updated this information for all

schools.) High poverty schools were oversampled. Such a design is

reasonably efficient for the analysis of the survey results by poverty

group within instructional level. Within each instructional level and

poverty status group, the sample of schools was selected within size

classes with probabilities roughly proportional to the square root of

the enrollment of the school. The use of the square root of

enrollment to determine the sample allocation is reasonably efficient

for estimating both school-level characteristics and quantitative

measures correlated with enrollment. Further, the proposed sample

allocation permits limited analysis (along a single dimension) by

instructional level, locale, and poverty status within level (table A1).

Respondents and

Response Rates

In April of 1996, questionnaires (see appendix D) were mailed to

1,360 public school principals. Seven schools were found to be out

of scope (no longer at the same location or not serving the same

population), leaving 1,353 eligible schools in the sample. Telephone

followup was initiated in mid-May and data collection was

completed on July 31, with 1,216 respondents. Principals completed

90 percent of the returned questionnaires; the remaining 10 percent

were completed by other administrators at the school. Fifty-five

percent of the surveys were returned by mail and 30 percent by fax,

and about 15 percent of the responses were taken over the telephone.

The final unweighted response rate was 90 percent. The weighted

response rate was also 90 percent. Item nonresponse rates ranged

from 0.0 to 1.0 percent.
26

Table A-1.—Number and percent of responding public schools in the study sample, and estimated

number and percent of public schools the sample represents, by school

characteristics: 1996

Respondent sample National estimate

School characteristic

Number Percent Number Percent

All public schools .................................... 1,216 100 77,717 100

Instructional level

Elementary school ........................................ 470 39 48,035 62

Middle school............................................... 344 28 13,863 18

High school .................................................. 402 33 15,819 20

Locale

City............................................................... 382 31 18,699 24

Urban fringe ................................................. 276 23 18,296 24

Town ............................................................ 301 25 18,974 24

Rural............................................................. 257 21 21,748 28

Percent of students eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent ................................ 398 33 35,578 46

35 to 49 percent ....................................... 153 13 13,716 18

50 to 74 percent ....................................... 310 26 15,579 20

75 percent or more ................................... 344 29 12,510 16

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent ................................ 90 19 19,325 40

35 to 49 percent ....................................... 39 8 8,712 18

50 to 74 percent ....................................... 119 25 10,528 22

75 percent or more ................................... 221 47 9,408 20

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent ................................ 308 42 16,253 55

35 to 49 percent ....................................... 115 16 5,004 17

50 to 74 percent ....................................... 192 26 5,051 17

75 percent or more ................................... 124 17 3,102 11

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds........................................ 434 36 26,548 34

Title I nonschoolwide............................... 362 30 28,772 37

Title I schoolwide..................................... 420 35 22,398 29

Elementary schools

No Title I funds........................................ 66 14 12,104 25

Title I nonschoolwide............................... 128 27 17,448 36

Title I schoolwide..................................... 276 59 18,483 38

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds........................................ 368 49 14,443 49

Title I nonschoolwide............................... 234 31 11,324 38

Title I schoolwide..................................... 144 19 3,915 13

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

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
27

Sampling and

Nonsampling Errors

For estimation purposes, sampling weights were used that reflect

each school’s overall probability of selection. These weights are

also adjusted to compensate for differential nonresponse in the

survey. The findings in this report are estimates based on the sample

selected and, consequently, are subject to sampling variability.

The survey estimates are also subject to nonsampling errors that can

arise because of nonobservation (nonresponse or noncoverage)

errors, errors of reporting, and errors made in the collection of the

data. These errors can sometimes bias the data. Nonsampling errors

include such problems as the differences in the respondents’

interpretations of the meaning of the questions; memory effects;

misrecording of responses; incorrect editing, coding, and data entry;

differences related to the particular time the survey was conducted;

and errors in data preparation. While general sampling theory can be

used in part to determine how to estimate the sampling variability of

a statistic, nonsampling errors are not easy to measure and, for

measurement purposes, usually require that an experiment be

conducted as part of the data collection procedures or that data

external to the study be used.

To minimize the potential for nonsampling errors, the questionnaire

was pretested with knowledgeable respondents like those who

completed the survey. During the design of the survey and the

survey pretest, an effort was made to check for consistency of

interpretation of questions and to eliminate ambiguous terms. The

questionnaire and instructions were extensively reviewed by the

Planning and Evaluation Service and the National Center for

Education Statistics. Manual and machine editing of the

questionnaire responses were conducted to check the data for

accuracy and consistency. Cases with missing or inconsistent items

were recontacted by telephone. Imputations for item nonresponse

were not implemented, as item nonresponse rates were very low.

Data were keyed with 100 percent verification.

Variances The standard error is a measure of the variability of estimates due to

sampling. It indicates the variability of a sample estimate that would

be obtained from all possible samples of a given design and size.

Standard errors are used as a measure of the precision expected from

a particular sample. If all possible samples were surveyed under

similar conditions, intervals of 1.96 standard errors below to 1.96

standard errors above a particular statistic would include the true

population parameter being estimated in about 95 percent of the

samples. This is a 95 percent confidence interval. For example, the

estimated percentage of public schools that use content standards to

a great extent in reading/language arts is 50 percent and the

estimated standard error is 2.3 percent. The 95 percent confidence
28

interval for this statistic extends from [50 - (2.3 x 1.96) to 50 +

(2.3 x 1.96)], or from 45.5 to 54.5.

Estimates of standard errors were computed using a technique known

as jackknife replication. As with any replication method, jackknife

replication involves constructing a number of subsamples

(replicates) from the full sample and computing the statistic of

interest for each replicate. The mean square error of the replicate

estimates around the full sample estimate provides an estimate of the

variance of the statistic. To construct the replications, 50 stratified

subsamples of the full sample were created and then dropped, one at

a time, to define 50 jackknife replicates. A proprietary computer

program (WESVAR), available at Westat, Inc., was used to calculate

the estimates of standard errors.

Background

Information

The survey was conducted under contract with Westat, Inc., using

the NCES Fast Response Survey System (FRSS). Westat’s project

director was Elizabeth Farris, and the survey manager was Carin

Celebuski. Judi Carpenter and Shelley Burns were the NCES project

officers. The data were requested by Nancy Loy and Daphne

Hardcastle of the Planning and Evaluation Service (PES) of the U.S.

Department of Education. The report was reviewed by the following

individuals:

Outside NCES

• Daphne Hardcastle, PES

• Valena Plisko, PES

• Joanne Bogart, PES

• Elois Scott, PES

• Nancy Loy, OERI

Inside NCES

• Edith McArthur

• Mary Frase

For more information about the Fast Response Survey System or the

Public School Survey on Education Reform, contact Shelley Burns,

Elementary/Secondary Statistics Division, Office of Educational

Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics,

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20208-5651,

telephone (202) 219-1463.
29

Terms Defined on the

Survey Questionnaire

Comprehensive reform: Efforts to improve education for all

students by establishing high content and performance standards and

redesigning the various components of the education system in a

coordinated and coherent fashion to support students learning to the

standards.

Disability: An impairment that substantially limits one or more of

the major life activities of individuals.

ERIC: Educational Resources Information Center. ERIC is an

education database, clearinghouse, and document reproduction

service financed by the U.S. Department of Education.

High standards: Refers to recent and current education reform

activities that seek to establish more challenging expectations for

student achievement and performance, such as the National Council

of Teachers of Mathematics standards for math, state- or localinitiated standards in various subjects, and those outlined in Goals

2000.

School-parent compact: Voluntary written agreements between the

school and parents on what each will do to help students succeed in

school.

SSI/USI: National Science Foundation’s Statewide Systemic

Initiatives and Urban Systemic Initiatives programs. For these

programs, NSF has cooperative agreements with states and urban

areas to undertake comprehensive initiatives for education reform in

science, mathematics, and technology.

Classification

Variables

• Locale

- City - a central city of a Metropolitan Statistical Area

(MSA).

- Urban fringe - a place within an MSA of a central city,

but not within its central city.

- Town - a place not within an MSA, but with a population

greater than or equal to 2,500, and defined as urban by the

U.S. Bureau of the Census.

- Rural - a place with a population less than 2,500 and

defined as rural by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
30

• Eligibility for free or reduced-price lunches through the

National School Lunch Program (available for 75 percent of

the sample from the CCD—data for remaining schools taken

from survey questionnaire)

- Less than 35 percent of students in the school eligible

- 35-49 percent of students in the school eligible

- 50-74 percent of students in the school eligible

- 75 percent or more students in the school eligible

• Title I funding

- No Title I - School principal reported on the questionnaire

that the school did not receive Title I funds in school year

1995-96.

- Title I nonschoolwide program - School principal

reported on the questionnaire that the school received

Title I funds in school year 1995-96, but did not operate a

schoolwide program.

- Title I schoolwide program - School principal reported

on the questionnaire that the school received Title I funds

in school year 1995-96 and operated a schoolwide

program.
31

Appendix B

Reference Tables
32
33

Table B-1.—Percent of public schools that use content standards to guide curriculum and instruction in

four subject areas, and percent reporting that the content standards in any subject changed

in the last 3 years: 1996

Not at all Small extent Moderate extent Great extent

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

Reading/language arts............................. 2 0.5 8 1.2 40 2.2 50 2.3

Mathematics............................................ 2 0.4 6 1.0 36 2.0 56 2.0

Science.................................................... 3 0.7 12 1.5 40 2.1 45 2.4

History/social science ............................. 4 0.7 15 1.4 44 2.2 37 2.2

Content standards in any subject

changed in the last 3 years...................... 4 0.9 30 2.0 40 2.3 24 1.6

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.

Subject area
34

Table B-2.—Percent of public schools that use content standards to guide curriculum and instruction to a

moderate or great extent in four subject areas, by school characteristics: 1996

School characteristic

All four subjects

asked about

Reading/

language arts Mathematics Science History/social studies

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools........ 78 1.8 90 1.3 92 1.0 84 1.7 81 1.5

Instructional level

Elementary school ........... 77 2.9 91 1.9 93 1.5 84 2.6 81 2.5

Middle school.................. 84 2.3 92 1.5 94 1.3 90 1.9 85 2.3

High school...................... 75 2.3 85 2.1 87 2.1 82 2.3 77 2.4

Locale

City .................................. 78 3.6 93 1.6 93 2.0 87 3.0 83 3.2

Urban fringe..................... 77 4.6 88 3.3 91 3.0 82 4.7 79 4.4

Town................................ 74 4.0 90 3.2 93 1.8 84 3.3 80 3.2

Rural ................................ 80 3.5 89 2.3 91 2.1 86 3.0 81 3.5

Percent of students eligible

for free or reduced-price

school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent .... 79 3.1 89 2.1 92 1.4 86 2.6 83 2.2

35 to 49 percent ........... 72 6.5 89 3.7 91 3.0 75 6.5 75 6.4

50 to 74 percent ........... 83 2.9 93 1.6 93 2.1 90 2.2 86 2.6

75 percent or more....... 74 3.0 90 2.2 91 2.0 83 2.8 75 3.0

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent .... 79 5.2 89 3.8 93 2.6 86 4.3 85 4.1

35 to 49 percent ........... 68 10.4 92 4.8 96 3.5 72 10.2 73 10.0

50 to 74 percent ........... 84 4.0 95 2.0 94 3.0 91 2.7 88 3.3

75 percent or more....... 72 3.8 90 2.4 91 2.1 81 3.3 73 3.7

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent .... 79 2.2 88 2.1 92 1.8 87 1.9 81 2.2

35 to 49 percent ........... 77 5.2 84 4.8 83 4.7 80 5.1 79 5.1

50 to 74 percent ........... 81 4.3 89 3.5 90 3.5 87 3.7 82 4.4

75 percent or more....... 79 4.3 92 3.6 91 3.5 88 3.8 81 4.4

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds............ 77 3.5 86 2.9 91 2.2 84 3.2 81 2.8

Title I nonschoolwide .. 81 2.5 92 1.5 92 1.6 88 2.2 83 2.6

Title I schoolwide ........ 74 4.1 92 2.2 92 2.1 80 4.4 77 4.0

Elementary schools

No Title I funds............ 73 7.7 83 6.6 92 4.6 83 7.1 81 6.4

Title I nonschoolwide .. 83 3.4 96 1.5 95 2.0 90 2.8 85 3.3

Title I schoolwide ........ 73 5.0 92 2.2 92 2.2 78 5.2 76 4.8

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds............ 80 2.3 89 1.9 91 1.8 86 2.0 81 2.3

Title I nonschoolwide .. 78 3.5 86 2.8 88 2.5 85 2.9 80 3.7

Title I schoolwide ........ 80 4.5 90 4.1 92 3.4 89 4.2 82 4.5

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
35

Table B-3.—Percent of public schools that report that the content standards for any subject have changed

in the last 3 years to a moderate or great extent, by school characteristics: 1996

Content standards changed

Percent s.e.

All public schools.................................................................... 64 2.2

Instructional level

Elementary school ....................................................................... 66 3.4

Middle school.............................................................................. 67 3.2

High school.................................................................................. 57 3.2

Locale

City .............................................................................................. 59 4.4

Urban fringe................................................................................. 70 5.4

Town............................................................................................ 68 4.6

Rural ............................................................................................ 60 4.9

Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent ................................................................ 63 3.5

35 to 49 percent ....................................................................... 65 6.0

50 to 74 percent ....................................................................... 63 5.1

75 percent or more................................................................... 69 3.5

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent ................................................................ 66 6.4

35 to 49 percent ....................................................................... 68 8.4

50 to 74 percent ....................................................................... 62 7.6

75 percent or more................................................................... 69 3.6

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent ................................................................ 60 3.3

35 to 49 percent ....................................................................... 59 6.3

50 to 74 percent ....................................................................... 64 4.5

75 percent or more................................................................... 68 5.5

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds........................................................................ 62 3.2

Title I nonschoolwide .............................................................. 61 4.3

Title I schoolwide .................................................................... 71 3.8

Elementary schools

No Title I funds........................................................................ 57 7.0

Title I nonschoolwide .............................................................. 66 6.5

Title I schoolwide .................................................................... 72 4.4

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds........................................................................ 66 3.3

Title I nonschoolwide .............................................................. 54 3.5

Title I schoolwide .................................................................... 67 5.4

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.

School characteristic
36

Table B-4.—Percent of public schools reporting the proportion of school staff ready to set or apply new

high standards of achievement for their students, by school characteristics: 1996

All Most Some None

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools......................... 17 1.9 59 2.4 23 2.1 1 0.2

Instructional level

Elementary school ............................ 21 2.9 60 3.6 19 3.0 1 0.3

Middle school................................... 14 2.5 56 3.4 29 2.7 1 0.6

High school....................................... 8 1.9 61 3.4 31 3.3 (+) 0.2

Locale

City ................................................... 23 5.0 57 4.6 19 2.6 (+) 0.1

Urban fringe...................................... 16 4.1 64 4.7 19 3.7 1 0.4

Town................................................. 16 4.6 59 4.9 24 3.8 1 0.9

Rural ................................................. 15 3.4 56 5.2 28 4.9 (+) 0.1

Percent of students eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent ..................... 16 3.1 62 3.5 22 3.0 (+) 0.2

35 to 49 percent ............................ 22 5.6 51 6.9 26 6.3 1 0.6

50 to 74 percent ............................ 13 3.3 65 4.5 22 3.9 1 0.9

75 percent or more........................ 22 3.9 54 3.4 23 3.1 (+) 0.3

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent ..................... 20 5.5 64 5.9 16 4.7 (+) (+)

35 to 49 percent ............................ 26 8.6 51 10.2 23 9.3 1 1.0

50 to 74 percent ............................ 14 4.6 67 6.5 17 5.6 1 1.4

75 percent or more........................ 27 5.2 51 4.4 22 3.6 (+) (+)

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent ..................... 11 2.0 59 4.0 30 3.5 1 0.5

35 to 49 percent ............................ 15 4.2 51 5.6 33 5.9 1 0.6

50 to 74 percent ............................ 9 3.5 60 5.4 31 5.6 (+) 0.3

75 percent or more........................ 9 3.0 63 6.1 29 5.4 0 0.0

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds............................. 18 3.7 58 3.6 23 2.8 (+) 0.2

Title I nonschoolwide ................... 15 2.7 61 4.2 23 3.9 1 0.6

Title I schoolwide ......................... 19 3.8 58 4.7 23 3.9 (+) 0.2

Elementary schools

No Title I funds............................. 26 7.7 58 7.4 16 4.8 0 0.0

Title I nonschoolwide ................... 19 4.5 63 6.4 17 5.6 1 0.9

Title I schoolwide ......................... 20 4.8 58 5.8 22 4.7 (+) 0.2

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds............................. 12 2.3 59 2.9 29 2.6 (+) 0.3

Title I nonschoolwide ................... 10 2.3 58 4.7 31 4.0 1 0.6

Title I schoolwide ......................... 11 3.4 58 5.4 31 5.0 (+) 0.3

 (+) Less than 0.5 percent.

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.

School characteristic
37

Table B-5.—Percent of public schools implementing various strategies in support of comprehensive

reform: 1996

Not at all Small extent Moderate extent Great extent

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

Strategic plan........................................ 3 1.1 12 1.4 46 2.5 39 2.5

Professional development..................... 1 0.4 14 1.5 47 2.5 37 2.2

Instructional materials.......................... 1 0.3 11 1.5 44 2.6 44 2.6

Innovative technologies........................ 10 1.5 30 1.7 36 2.4 23 2.3

Adaptations for limited-English

proficient students*........................... 2 0.5 24 2.6 48 2.9 27 2.1

Adaptations for learning disabled

students* ........................................... (+) 0.2 11 1.6 51 2.6 38 2.7

Assessments matched to content

standards........................................... 1 0.3 23 1.9 44 2.4 32 2.4

Assessments for school accountability . 1 0.5 19 2.1 44 2.4 36 2.3

Parent involvement activities ............... 4 0.7 34 1.9 48 2.5 14 1.7

Restructuring the school day ................ 18 1.6 29 2.2 37 2.6 16 1.4

(+) Less than 0.5 percent.

*Among schools with these students enrolled.

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.

Strategy in support of reform
38

Table B-6.—Percent of public schools implementing various strategies in support of comprehensive

reform to a moderate or great extent, by school characteristics: 1996

School characteristic

All 10 strategies

asked about

Strategic

plan

Professional

development

Instructional

materials

Innovative

technologies

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools........ 10 1.3 85 1.5 84 1.4 88 1.5 60 2.1

Instructional level

Elementary school ........... 11 2.1 87 2.4 88 2.0 89 2.3 58 3.3

Middle school.................. 8 1.6 90 1.8 88 1.7 90 1.8 61 3.0

High school...................... 9 1.6 77 3.1 72 3.5 85 2.7 63 3.7

Locale

City .................................. 15 3.3 91 2.7 89 2.6 88 2.8 64 4.3

Urban fringe..................... 15 3.0 89 2.4 90 2.7 92 3.7 60 5.0

Town................................ 6 1.5 85 2.7 85 3.3 85 3.3 59 4.8

Rural ................................ 6 2.7 76 4.4 75 3.7 88 2.7 56 4.1

Percent of students eligible

for free or reduced-price

school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent .... 7 1.5 84 2.6 83 2.6 89 2.3 60 3.3

35 to 49 percent ........... 7 2.7 83 5.2 83 4.7 84 4.9 65 5.8

50 to 74 percent ........... 17 4.6 84 3.6 82 3.1 92 2.9 59 4.7

75 percent or more....... 14 2.2 94 1.6 92 1.7 88 2.1 53 3.9

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent .... 8 2.7 86 4.2 88 3.9 88 3.8 55 5.9

35 to 49 percent ........... 6 4.0 85 7.9 88 6.2 86 7.0 73 8.4

50 to 74 percent ........... 20 6.8 83 5.0 85 4.2 92 4.1 60 6.4

75 percent or more....... 14 2.9 93 2.1 92 1.9 88 2.1 49 5.1

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent .... 7 1.3 81 2.4 79 3.0 89 2.1 65 3.4

35 to 49 percent ........... 9 3.1 78 5.7 76 5.3 80 5.8 52 5.8

50 to 74 percent ........... 10 2.7 86 3.7 77 4.4 90 3.5 58 5.4

75 percent or more....... 13 3.9 95 1.9 92 2.3 85 4.2 65 4.8

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds............ 10 1.9 86 2.1 84 3.1 87 3.0 57 3.8

Title I nonschoolwide .. 7 2.3 86 2.5 86 2.4 89 1.8 62 3.4

Title I schoolwide ........ 14 2.4 83 4.3 84 3.1 89 3.3 59 4.4

Elementary schools

No Title I funds............ 10 4.0 90 4.1 88 5.2 81 6.4 50 7.8

Title I nonschoolwide .. 9 3.8 91 3.6 93 2.9 93 2.8 64 5.3

Title I schoolwide ........ 14 2.9 80 5.0 83 3.7 90 3.8 58 5.1

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds............ 10 1.7 83 2.3 80 2.8 91 1.6 63 3.2

Title I nonschoolwide .. 5 1.7 78 3.3 75 3.6 83 2.9 60 4.2

Title I schoolwide ........ 13 3.4 96 1.5 87 4.3 84 4.7 63 5.0
39

Table B-6.—Percent of public schools implementing various strategies in support of comprehensive

reform to a moderate or great extent, by school characteristics: 1996 (continued)

School characteristic

Adaptations for limitedEnglish proficient students*Adaptations for learning

disabled students*

Assessments matched to

content standards

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools............ 75 2.7 88 1.6 76 1.9

Instructional level

Elementary school ............... 75 3.8 90 2.0 78 2.6

Middle school...................... 73 3.8 89 1.5 77 2.6

High school.......................... 75 3.6 83 2.7 68 2.8

Locale

City ...................................... 81 4.6 91 2.4 78 4.0

Urban fringe......................... 80 4.8 90 3.9 76 4.5

Town.................................... 66 6.4 85 3.0 76 4.1

Rural .................................... 68 7.4 89 2.2 74 4.6

Percent of students eligible for

free or reduced-price school

lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent ........ 67 4.5 89 2.6 75 3.1

35 to 49 percent ............... 80 7.1 88 3.5 72 6.0

50 to 74 percent ............... 81 5.7 88 2.9 79 4.4

75 percent or more........... 83 3.1 87 2.2 79 2.2

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent ........ 66 7.4 92 3.8 80 4.7

35 to 49 percent ............... 78 10.4 92 5.4 71 9.1

50 to 74 percent ............... 80 8.5 87 4.2 80 5.7

75 percent or more........... 83 4.0 88 2.7 79 2.8

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent ........ 68 4.0 86 2.4 68 2.8

35 to 49 percent ............... 82 5.7 82 4.9 75 4.8

50 to 74 percent ............... 82 3.8 90 2.1 77 4.5

75 percent or more........... 82 5.4 83 4.3 78 4.8

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds................ 75 4.0 90 2.4 76 3.2

Title I nonschoolwide ...... 72 5.6 88 2.9 74 3.8

Title I schoolwide ............ 78 4.4 88 2.7 78 3.4

Elementary schools

No Title I funds................ 76 8.0 92 4.2 80 6.0

Title I nonschoolwide ...... 72 8.0 90 3.8 77 5.4

Title I schoolwide ............ 77 5.4 88 3.2 78 3.9

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds................ 74 3.8 88 2.1 72 2.4

Title I nonschoolwide ...... 71 5.0 83 3.1 70 3.2

Title I schoolwide ............ 84 4.4 88 3.1 79 6.4
40

Table B-6.—Percent of public schools implementing various strategies in support of comprehensive

reform to a moderate or great extent, by school characteristics: 1996 (continued)

School characteristic

Assessments for

school accountability

Parent

involvement activities

Restructuring

the school day

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools........ 79 2.1 62 2.1 53 2.4

Instructional level

Elementary school ........... 80 3.2 72 3.3 53 3.6

Middle school.................. 84 2.0 50 3.0 55 3.0

High school...................... 72 3.2 42 2.8 51 3.1

Locale

City .................................. 79 4.0 65 3.8 57 4.6

Urban fringe..................... 81 4.5 69 4.5 53 5.1

Town................................ 80 2.9 62 4.1 55 4.4

Rural ................................ 77 4.3 53 4.4 48 5.2

Percent of students eligible

for free or reduced-price

school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent .... 77 3.2 64 3.2 51 4.4

35 to 49 percent ........... 83 4.9 53 6.1 47 5.2

50 to 74 percent ........... 80 4.5 60 4.3 54 4.9

75 percent or more....... 83 4.2 68 3.5 63 3.9

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent .... 78 5.2 77 5.0 52 7.2

35 to 49 percent ........... 84 7.1 66 8.2 40 8.2

50 to 74 percent ........... 80 6.2 66 6.1 56 7.0

75 percent or more....... 81 5.6 74 3.8 64 4.7

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent .... 75 3.1 49 3.2 51 3.0

35 to 49 percent ........... 81 4.5 31 5.1 58 5.3

50 to 74 percent ........... 80 4.2 49 4.7 50 5.7

75 percent or more....... 87 3.9 49 5.3 62 5.2

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds............ 78 3.4 58 3.7 54 3.8

Title I nonschoolwide .. 80 3.2 61 3.6 47 4.8

Title I schoolwide ........ 80 4.1 67 4.3 59 4.6

Elementary schools

No Title I funds............ 77 6.5 74 6.9 54 7.4

Title I nonschoolwide .. 83 4.8 74 5.6 46 7.1

Title I schoolwide ........ 80 4.8 69 5.3 59 5.4

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds............ 79 2.8 45 2.9 54 3.4

Title I nonschoolwide .. 74 3.2 43 3.7 48 4.4

Title I schoolwide ........ 84 4.3 60 4.1 62 5.2

*Among schools with these students enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
41

Table B-7.—Percent of public school principals reporting needing information on up to three strategies

in support of comprehensive reform, by school characteristics: 1996

School characteristic Strategic plan Professionaldevelopment

Instructional

materials

Innovative

technologies

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools............................ 31 2.2 41 2.4 13 1.6 43 2.2

Instructional level

Elementary school ............................... 30 3.2 40 3.4 12 2.3 42 3.6

Middle school...................................... 34 3.1 37 3.1 19 3.0 50 3.4

High school.......................................... 32 3.1 47 3.4 12 2.0 41 3.0

Locale

City ...................................................... 33 4.3 43 4.8 10 1.6 49 4.8

Urban fringe......................................... 27 4.4 36 4.8 10 2.4 45 4.4

Town.................................................... 37 4.6 36 3.9 12 2.3 40 4.8

Rural .................................................... 28 4.4 47 5.9 21 4.6 40 4.5

Percent of students eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 31 3.3 40 3.6 11 2.2 42 3.6

35 to 49 percent ............................... 30 5.2 43 7.3 12 4.2 42 6.3

50 to 74 percent ............................... 38 5.3 43 5.9 15 4.1 41 4.3

75 percent or more........................... 25 3.1 36 3.4 20 3.1 53 3.6

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 30 5.2 37 5.3 10 3.2 43 6.0

35 to 49 percent ............................... 25 8.2 46 10.9 13 6.3 38 9.9

50 to 74 percent ............................... 38 7.1 41 7.8 13 5.9 34 6.1

75 percent or more........................... 26 3.8 38 4.3 16 3.2 53 5.1

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 32 3.2 44 2.9 12 2.4 40 2.6

35 to 49 percent ............................... 38 5.3 39 7.1 11 3.8 49 5.9

50 to 74 percent ............................... 37 4.5 48 5.8 20 4.7 54 4.1

75 percent or more........................... 24 4.6 33 4.8 31 5.9 51 5.8

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds................................ 32 3.5 42 3.2 12 2.1 48 3.7

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 31 4.0 35 4.2 10 2.6 40 4.4

Title I schoolwide ............................ 30 4.3 45 4.5 19 3.2 42 4.3

Elementary schools

No Title I funds................................ 36 6.8 37 6.4 10 4.1 49 7.4

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 27 5.7 34 6.3 9 3.9 40 6.6

Title I schoolwide ............................ 29 5.0 47 5.3 17 3.6 40 5.2

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds................................ 29 2.2 47 3.1 14 1.9 47 2.9

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 38 4.0 38 3.7 13 3.0 40 4.0

Title I schoolwide ............................ 35 5.6 39 5.9 28 6.6 51 4.9
42

Table B-7.—Percent of public school principals reporting needing information on up to three strategies

in support of comprehensive reform, by school characteristics: 1996 (continued)

School characteristic

Adaptations for limited-English

proficient students*

Adaptations for learning

disabled students*

Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools............ 11 1.4 13 1.7

Instructional level

Elementary school ............... 12 2.2 15 2.8

Middle school...................... 10 1.7 11 1.8

High school.......................... 9 1.5 11 2.6

Locale

City ...................................... 14 2.8 9 2.2

Urban fringe......................... 14 4.1 15 4.4

Town.................................... 10 2.6 13 3.4

Rural .................................... 6 2.3 15 4.7

Percent of students eligible for

free or reduced-price school

lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent ........ 8 1.7 16 2.8

35 to 49 percent ............... 13 4.9 14 5.7

50 to 74 percent ............... 10 3.1 12 4.5

75 percent or more........... 16 2.5 7 1.4

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent ........ 7 3.0 19 5.1

35 to 49 percent ............... -- -- 15 8.4

50 to 74 percent ............... 12 4.7 13 6.2

75 percent or more........... 17 3.2 6 1.5

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent ........ 9 1.5 12 2.5

35 to 49 percent ............... 9 2.9 11 3.7

50 to 74 percent ............... 5 1.4 10 3.0

75 percent or more........... 14 2.8 8 2.5

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds................ 11 2.2 12 2.6

Title I nonschoolwide ...... 9 2.3 14 3.1

Title I schoolwide ............ 12 2.6 14 4.2

Elementary schools

No Title I funds................ 11 4.5 12 5.1

Title I nonschoolwide ...... 11 3.2 16 5.1

Title I schoolwide ............ 13 3.2 14 4.9

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds................ 11 1.7 12 2.5

Title I nonschoolwide ...... 6 1.6 11 2.6

Title I schoolwide ............ 9 2.3 10 2.8
43

Table B-7.—Percent of public school principals reporting needing information on up to three strategies

in support of comprehensive reform, by school characteristics: 1996 (continued)

School characteristic

Assessments

matched to

content standards

Assessments for

school

accountability

Parent

involvement

activities

Restructuring

the school day

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools............................ 32 2.3 23 2.2 40 2.4 33 2.1

Instructional level

Elementary school ............................... 32 3.0 25 3.3 36 3.4 35 3.2

Middle school...................................... 28 3.2 17 2.2 52 3.1 29 2.8

High school.......................................... 35 2.9 21 3.0 43 3.0 31 3.5

Locale

City ...................................................... 26 3.6 29 5.0 40 3.6 31 3.8

Urban fringe......................................... 31 4.5 24 4.4 43 5.0 41 5.7

Town.................................................... 36 5.0 25 4.2 44 4.5 29 3.5

Rural .................................................... 34 5.7 14 3.5 36 5.3 31 4.6

Percent of students eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 34 4.0 26 3.3 39 3.6 37 3.7

35 to 49 percent ............................... 33 6.2 17 5.0 37 5.8 28 6.1

50 to 74 percent ............................... 28 4.8 19 4.5 44 5.7 31 4.7

75 percent or more........................... 28 3.3 24 4.7 44 3.5 30 3.3

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 31 6.7 30 5.6 33 5.7 42 6.6

35 to 49 percent ............................... 33 9.3 14 7.2 31 7.6 30 9.1

50 to 74 percent ............................... 37 7.0 23 6.7 41 7.5 31 6.8

75 percent or more........................... 28 3.9 28 6.1 42 4.6 29 4.3

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 37 3.0 22 2.7 46 2.7 32 2.6

35 to 49 percent ............................... 33 6.4 22 5.1 46 6.1 24 5.3

50 to 74 percent ............................... 13 2.4 11 2.7 49 5.7 31 4.1

75 percent or more........................... 30 5.8 13 3.6 53 5.3 33 5.4

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds................................ 33 3.6 24 3.4 43 3.4 27 3.1

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 33 4.6 21 3.3 40 4.4 37 4.0

Title I schoolwide ............................ 29 3.5 23 4.1 37 3.8 34 4.9

Elementary schools

No Title I funds................................ 36 6.8 31 6.8 36 6.9 27 6.3

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 30 6.7 21 5.1 38 6.4 40 6.0

Title I schoolwide ............................ 31 4.5 25 4.9 35 4.8 35 6.1

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds................................ 31 2.9 19 2.6 49 2.6 28 2.2

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 36 4.0 22 3.4 44 4.5 33 3.7

Title I schoolwide ............................ 20 3.8 14 3.2 48 5.5 32 4.0

--Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

*Among schools with these students enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
44

Table B-8.—Percent of public schools whose assessments are expressed in terms of students meeting

various levels of performance standards to a moderate or great extent, by school

characteristics: 1996

Assessments expressed in terms of levels

Percent s.e.

All public schools.................................................................... 66 2.1

Instructional level

Elementary school ....................................................................... 69 3.6

Middle school.............................................................................. 64 2.4

High school.................................................................................. 57 3.0

Locale

City .............................................................................................. 70 4.1

Urban fringe................................................................................. 68 4.7

Town............................................................................................ 66 4.2

Rural ............................................................................................ 60 4.2

Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent ................................................................ 63 3.6

35 to 49 percent ....................................................................... 65 6.3

50 to 74 percent ....................................................................... 70 3.7

75 percent or more................................................................... 69 4.2

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent ................................................................ 66 6.2

35 to 49 percent ....................................................................... 69 9.1

50 to 74 percent ....................................................................... 73 5.0

75 percent or more................................................................... 71 5.6

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent ................................................................ 59 2.9

35 to 49 percent ....................................................................... 59 6.6

50 to 74 percent ....................................................................... 66 5.1

75 percent or more................................................................... 60 5.6

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds........................................................................ 66 3.2

Title I nonschoolwide .............................................................. 60 4.6

Title I schoolwide .................................................................... 72 4.4

Elementary schools

No Title I funds........................................................................ 78 6.1

Title I nonschoolwide .............................................................. 59 7.1

Title I schoolwide .................................................................... 74 5.1

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds........................................................................ 57 2.9

Title I nonschoolwide .............................................................. 62 4.1

Title I schoolwide .................................................................... 64 6.6

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.

School characteristic
45

Table B-9.—Percent of public school principals who report a moderate to a great deal of influence of

four groups over establishing curriculum for the school, by school characteristics: 1996

School characteristic

State department

of education

Local school

board

Local district

administrators

Principals and

teachers at the

school

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools............................ 81 2.1 79 2.2 88 1.5 87 2.1

Instructional level

Elementary school ............................... 80 3.0 79 3.1 88 2.2 84 3.1

Middle school...................................... 80 2.4 80 2.5 90 1.8 90 1.7

High school.......................................... 84 2.3 78 3.2 86 2.4 93 1.5

Locale

City ...................................................... 83 4.0 75 4.3 84 3.7 82 4.0

Urban fringe......................................... 84 3.4 84 2.8 87 3.6 83 5.2

Town.................................................... 77 4.0 83 2.8 88 3.5 94 1.9

Rural .................................................... 80 4.8 74 5.2 92 1.9 88 4.5

Percent of students eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 81 3.2 80 3.0 90 2.4 88 3.1

35 to 49 percent ............................... 74 6.1 78 6.2 88 3.7 85 6.0

50 to 74 percent ............................... 82 4.3 81 3.2 90 2.2 90 2.0

75 percent or more........................... 87 2.3 75 3.9 81 4.2 80 4.5

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 80 5.3 78 4.9 89 4.3 83 5.8

35 to 49 percent ............................... 70 10.0 84 8.3 92 5.1 82 9.1

50 to 74 percent ............................... 80 5.8 81 4.3 91 3.0 92 2.8

75 percent or more........................... 89 2.7 76 5.3 80 5.3 77 5.8

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 81 2.7 83 2.3 90 1.7 94 1.3

35 to 49 percent ............................... 82 4.4 69 5.8 81 4.4 88 4.2

50 to 74 percent ............................... 86 3.4 80 4.0 88 2.7 88 3.3

75 percent or more........................... 83 4.3 70 5.3 84 4.2 90 2.3

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds................................ 85 2.8 84 2.7 86 2.6 86 2.7

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 76 4.0 78 4.4 89 2.4 86 4.2

Title I schoolwide ............................ 82 4.0 75 4.2 89 3.0 87 2.9

Elementary schools

No Title I funds................................ 85 5.8 84 5.0 85 5.6 82 6.0

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 76 5.8 80 6.1 89 3.8 81 6.3

Title I schoolwide ............................ 81 4.8 76 5.0 89 3.4 87 3.4

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds................................ 84 2.2 83 2.3 87 2.0 90 1.5

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 78 3.4 76 3.8 89 2.9 94 1.9

Title I schoolwide ............................ 87 3.7 70 4.1 87 3.4 87 3.3

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
46

Table B-10.—Percent of public schools that report a moderate to a great deal of influence of four groups

over developing content standards for the school, by school characteristics: 1996

School characteristic

State department

of education

Local school

board

Local district

administrators

Principals and

teachers at the

school

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools............................ 86 1.7 69 2.4 86 1.9 85 2.0

Instructional level

Elementary school ............................... 85 2.5 70 3.4 87 2.6 82 2.9

Middle school...................................... 88 2.2 70 2.3 88 1.8 90 1.8

High school.......................................... 87 2.2 65 3.5 82 2.8 89 2.0

Locale

City ...................................................... 88 3.1 70 4.6 80 4.2 74 5.0

Urban fringe......................................... 85 3.6 79 3.1 88 3.5 87 3.7

Town.................................................... 84 3.8 66 4.2 88 3.5 91 2.6

Rural .................................................... 86 4.3 62 5.6 87 3.3 86 4.6

Percent of students eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 85 2.9 70 3.2 87 2.7 88 3.0

35 to 49 percent ............................... 83 5.5 65 6.7 84 5.4 76 6.3

50 to 74 percent ............................... 86 3.6 70 4.4 88 3.4 88 3.4

75 percent or more........................... 91 2.1 70 3.6 81 4.0 80 4.1

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 83 4.8 70 5.6 88 4.5 86 4.8

35 to 49 percent ............................... 80 8.8 69 9.5 88 8.4 71 9.5

50 to 74 percent ............................... 85 4.7 69 6.1 89 4.8 88 4.9

75 percent or more........................... 92 2.3 72 5.1 79 5.3 77 5.3

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 87 1.8 71 2.7 86 2.1 91 1.9

35 to 49 percent ............................... 87 4.4 57 5.6 77 4.3 85 5.0

50 to 74 percent ............................... 89 3.3 70 4.6 86 3.0 87 3.4

75 percent or more........................... 87 4.0 64 5.3 85 4.4 89 2.9

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds................................ 87 2.6 78 2.6 85 2.6 86 2.8

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 84 3.4 61 4.2 84 3.4 81 3.9

Title I schoolwide ............................ 87 3.2 69 4.1 88 2.8 88 2.9

Elementary schools

No Title I funds................................ 86 5.8 83 5.0 86 5.8 82 5.7

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 82 4.8 60 6.5 84 5.1 75 5.9

Title I schoolwide ............................ 86 3.8 70 4.8 89 3.3 88 3.3

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds................................ 87 2.0 73 2.7 85 2.1 89 1.6

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 87 3.3 61 4.1 84 3.2 90 2.4

Title I schoolwide ............................ 89 3.7 62 4.9 85 3.4 86 3.4

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
47

Table B-11.—Percent of public schools that report a moderate to a great deal of influence of four groups

over developing student performance standards for the school, by school characteristics:

1996

School characteristic

State department

of education

Local school

board

Local district

administrators

Principals and

teachers at the

school

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools............................ 83 2.0 70 2.1 84 2.2 86 2.0

Instructional level

Elementary school ............................... 83 2.8 73 3.2 85 3.0 84 3.0

Middle school...................................... 85 2.3 68 2.7 85 2.2 89 1.9

High school.......................................... 83 2.4 66 3.5 82 2.9 91 1.8

Locale

City ...................................................... 87 3.1 72 4.3 85 3.3 82 4.4

Urban fringe......................................... 84 3.6 76 3.4 84 4.8 87 4.8

Town.................................................... 81 4.0 69 3.7 86 3.7 88 2.7

Rural .................................................... 83 5.1 66 4.9 82 4.4 88 4.4

Percent of students eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 81 3.2 70 2.9 85 3.5 88 3.3

35 to 49 percent ............................... 80 5.7 67 6.3 77 6.1 78 5.9

50 to 74 percent ............................... 86 3.5 70 4.3 89 2.0 88 3.4

75 percent or more........................... 89 2.2 77 2.8 85 2.1 88 2.1

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 80 5.1 72 5.0 86 5.7 86 5.6

35 to 49 percent ............................... 80 8.8 70 9.4 78 9.4 71 9.1

50 to 74 percent ............................... 85 4.7 71 5.9 90 2.7 89 5.0

75 percent or more........................... 90 2.4 79 3.4 86 2.4 87 2.9

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 82 2.5 67 2.9 84 2.3 90 2.1

35 to 49 percent ............................... 81 5.6 63 6.2 76 4.4 91 2.1

50 to 74 percent ............................... 89 2.8 68 4.6 86 2.9 86 3.4

75 percent or more........................... 86 4.2 68 5.6 83 4.3 93 2.3

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds................................ 83 2.7 76 2.5 85 2.6 87 2.7

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 82 3.7 63 3.8 80 4.5 81 4.4

Title I schoolwide ............................ 86 3.3 74 3.5 90 1.7 92 1.6

Elementary schools

No Title I funds................................ 82 5.7 80 4.9 86 5.5 85 5.4

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 82 5.1 63 5.9 78 6.4 74 6.5

Title I schoolwide ............................ 85 3.9 77 4.1 91 1.8 93 1.6

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds................................ 83 2.4 72 2.5 84 2.1 90 1.7

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 84 3.6 63 4.1 82 3.2 91 2.1

Title I schoolwide ............................ 88 3.7 60 5.4 84 3.6 89 3.2

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
48

Table B-12.—Percent of public schools that use various methods to inform parents about the schools’

expectations for student learning, by school characteristics: 1996

School characteristic

Provide overview

of curriculum

Provide overview

of content

standards

Provide examples

of successful

student work

Provide school

progress report

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools............................ 81 1.9 61 2.6 76 2.1 88 1.5

Instructional level

Elementary school ............................... 80 3.1 62 3.8 79 3.2 87 2.4

Middle school...................................... 80 2.6 61 3.2 73 2.7 93 2.0

High school.......................................... 87 2.5 55 3.3 68 3.3 89 2.3

Locale

City ...................................................... 87 2.8 69 3.4 76 4.7 92 2.7

Urban fringe......................................... 86 3.9 64 4.5 76 3.4 91 2.9

Town.................................................... 77 4.2 64 4.7 77 3.4 91 2.4

Rural .................................................... 76 3.9 48 5.5 74 3.9 80 4.6

Percent of students eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 82 3.0 64 3.7 76 3.4 87 3.0

35 to 49 percent ............................... 82 5.2 51 8.0 73 5.2 90 3.4

50 to 74 percent ............................... 76 4.7 58 5.1 76 4.4 91 3.1

75 percent or more........................... 84 1.9 67 3.1 80 4.3 89 1.9

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 80 5.2 64 6.1 81 5.7 83 5.1

35 to 49 percent ............................... 82 7.4 55 10.8 76 8.0 90 5.1

50 to 74 percent ............................... 73 6.5 61 7.3 77 6.6 88 4.5

75 percent or more........................... 85 2.2 68 3.4 82 5.8 91 2.2

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 86 2.3 64 3.2 69 2.6 91 2.1

35 to 49 percent ............................... 82 5.9 44 5.3 68 4.9 90 3.4

50 to 74 percent ............................... 83 3.9 50 5.9 75 4.4 96 1.3

75 percent or more........................... 79 4.3 65 5.2 74 4.8 84 4.7

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds................................ 85 3.4 68 3.1 73 3.3 92 2.2

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 78 3.4 55 5.0 75 3.8 84 3.5

Title I schoolwide ............................ 80 3.2 60 4.0 81 3.7 89 2.5

Elementary schools

No Title I funds................................ 84 6.3 74 6.4 80 6.7 92 4.3

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 77 5.5 57 7.4 75 6.0 81 5.4

Title I schoolwide ............................ 80 3.8 60 4.8 83 4.3 88 2.9

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds................................ 87 2.2 63 2.8 67 2.9 92 1.6

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 81 3.4 52 3.5 74 3.4 89 2.7

Title I schoolwide ............................ 82 4.0 60 5.3 70 6.6 90 3.1

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
49

Table B-13.—Percent of public school principals who have found various sources of information or

assistance very helpful in understanding or using comprehensive reform strategies or

activities, by school characteristics: 1996

School characteristic Other principals

Professional

principal

associations

Teacher unions or

organizations

Other

administrators School district

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools........ 33 1.8 25 1.7 3 1.0 26 2.0 32 2.0

Instructional level

Elementary school ........... 36 3.1 24 2.6 4 1.5 26 2.8 34 3.3

Middle school.................. 32 2.5 27 2.7 3 0.9 29 2.7 33 2.7

High school...................... 27 2.6 27 2.8 3 1.1 24 2.6 27 2.6

Locale

City .................................. 40 4.3 28 4.1 5 2.1 33 4.5 41 4.7

Urban fringe..................... 38 4.6 25 4.1 2 0.7 36 4.5 37 4.6

Town................................ 31 3.3 32 3.9 1 0.4 18 2.9 30 4.5

Rural ................................ 26 4.5 16 3.0 5 2.7 19 4.0 22 3.8

Percent of students eligible

for free or reduced-price

school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent .... 34 3.7 29 3.3 1 0.4 29 3.6 36 3.7

35 to 49 percent ........... 33 5.8 18 4.0 4 3.0 21 4.9 31 7.2

50 to 74 percent ........... 27 4.3 19 3.7 5 3.6 18 3.0 22 3.5

75 percent or more....... 40 3.8 27 4.4 6 2.0 34 4.2 35 4.1

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent .... 40 7.1 30 5.4 (+) 0.4 32 5.9 42 6.7

35 to 49 percent ........... 35 8.8 13 5.7 3 3.4 18 6.9 32 10.7

50 to 74 percent ........... 24 5.7 17 5.1 6 5.3 14 3.8 19 4.8

75 percent or more....... 41 4.5 27 5.2 7 2.7 34 5.0 35 5.9

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent .... 27 2.4 28 3.1 2 0.7 27 3.0 30 2.6

35 to 49 percent ........... 29 5.2 28 5.4 5 3.0 25 4.9 30 5.4

50 to 74 percent ........... 33 4.8 23 4.4 4 1.6 26 4.2 27 3.7

75 percent or more....... 37 5.4 28 4.9 3 1.8 32 5.4 35 5.1

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds............ 38 3.4 34 3.2 3 1.2 29 3.3 38 3.9

Title I nonschoolwide .. 27 3.8 20 3.3 2 0.8 23 3.7 27 3.1

Title I schoolwide ........ 35 4.2 22 3.5 5 2.6 27 3.7 33 3.8

Elementary schools

No Title I funds............ 48 7.0 35 7.0 2 2.6 32 6.8 47 7.1

Title I nonschoolwide .. 29 6.0 19 4.7 2 1.0 21 5.3 26 5.3

Title I schoolwide ........ 35 4.8 21 3.9 6 3.1 26 4.1 32 4.5

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds............ 32 2.4 32 3.0 3 0.9 26 2.7 30 2.7

Title I nonschoolwide .. 24 3.1 22 3.2 3 1.4 25 3.4 29 3.4

Title I schoolwide ........ 36 5.6 24 5.7 3 1.6 32 5.0 35 4.9
50

Table B-13.—Percent of public school principals who have found various sources of information or

assistance very helpful in understanding or using comprehensive reform strategies or

activities, by school characteristics: 1996 (continued)

School characteristic

Intermediate or

regional education

agency

State department

of education

U.S. Department

of Education

Regional Labs

U.S. Department

of Education

Educational

Resources Information Center

Other U.S.

Department of

Education offices

or programs

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools........ 15 1.8 18 1.6 3 0.6 4 0.9 3 0.6

Instructional level

Elementary school ........... 16 2.8 18 2.4 2 0.9 5 1.3 3 1.0

Middle school.................. 16 2.1 16 1.9 3 1.3 6 1.2 2 0.8

High school...................... 9 2.0 18 2.4 4 1.5 3 0.7 1 0.4

Locale

City .................................. 12 2.8 20 3.2 4 1.7 8 2.8 7 2.3

Urban fringe..................... 6 1.3 19 3.4 3 1.6 3 1.7 1 0.6

Town................................ 19 3.9 20 4.3 2 0.7 4 1.1 1 0.5

Rural ................................ 21 4.8 12 3.2 2 1.1 3 1.6 1 0.7

Percent of students eligible

for free or reduced-price

school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent .... 16 3.0 18 2.9 3 1.1 5 1.4 1 0.9

35 to 49 percent ........... 10 3.3 17 3.9 1 0.6 4 2.2 (+) 0.1

50 to 74 percent ........... 18 5.0 16 4.1 3 1.9 5 2.2 4 2.0

75 percent or more....... 14 2.2 21 2.4 3 0.9 5 0.8 8 1.9

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent .... 19 5.7 20 4.6 2 1.7 6 2.7 2 1.6

35 to 49 percent ........... 8 5.0 17 6.2 0 0.0 4 3.4 0 0.0

50 to 74 percent ........... 20 7.4 16 6.1 3 2.8 3 2.8 5 2.9

75 percent or more....... 14 2.8 19 2.9 3 1.1 4 1.1 7 2.4

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent .... 12 2.0 16 2.2 4 1.5 3 0.9 1 0.3

35 to 49 percent ........... 12 3.9 17 3.7 3 1.4 3 1.4 (+) 0.3

50 to 74 percent ........... 14 2.7 16 2.9 3 1.6 8 2.9 2 1.0

75 percent or more....... 14 3.7 25 4.6 4 1.9 6 2.4 10 3.3

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds............ 9 2.0 23 3.8 3 1.3 7 2.2 4 1.6

Title I nonschoolwide .. 22 3.6 18 3.0 2 0.9 3 1.3 1 0.4

Title I schoolwide ........ 13 3.1 11 2.0 3 1.3 3 0.8 4 1.1

Elementary schools

No Title I funds............ 9 4.5 29 7.2 3 2.6 11 5.0 6 3.6

Title I nonschoolwide .. 24 5.8 20 4.8 1 0.8 4 2.0 1 0.7

Title I schoolwide ........ 13 3.5 10 2.0 3 1.6 2 0.6 4 1.2

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds............ 9 1.4 19 2.3 3 1.1 4 1.0 2 0.6

Title I nonschoolwide .. 18 2.9 14 2.5 4 2.0 2 0.9 (+) 0.4

Title I schoolwide ........ 12 2.9 20 4.5 2 1.0 10 3.6 5 2.3
51

Table B-13.—Percent of public school principals who have found various sources of information or

assistance very helpful in understanding or using comprehensive reform strategies or

activities, by school characteristics: 1996 (continued)

School characteristic

NSF-funded

initiatives

National model

content standards

State-developed

content standards

Institutions of

higher education

Professional

journals

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools........ 8 1.2 12 1.8 27 2.1 12 1.5 29 2.4

Instructional level

Elementary school ........... 7 1.9 15 2.8 27 3.4 13 2.3 34 3.8

Middle school.................. 9 1.8 7 1.8 31 2.7 12 1.9 21 2.2

High school...................... 9 1.6 7 1.4 23 2.6 7 1.3 24 2.7

Locale

City .................................. 11 2.6 14 3.8 32 4.4 14 3.7 33 4.7

Urban fringe..................... 5 1.1 13 3.2 27 3.3 12 3.1 43 5.2

Town................................ 12 4.0 11 2.7 30 4.0 16 3.9 28 5.3

Rural ................................ 3 1.0 10 4.2 19 4.1 6 1.4 16 3.7

Percent of students eligible

for free or reduced-price

school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent .... 8 2.1 16 3.4 28 3.6 12 2.4 35 3.7

35 to 49 percent ........... 6 2.7 6 3.4 33 6.6 6 2.5 26 6.1

50 to 74 percent ........... 9 2.8 8 2.6 20 3.3 12 3.2 17 3.1

75 percent or more....... 9 1.8 11 1.7 23 2.7 16 4.0 32 4.3

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent .... 6 3.7 24 6.3 29 6.4 17 4.6 44 6.3

35 to 49 percent ........... 6 3.9 7 5.3 38 10.8 6 3.7 30 9.8

50 to 74 percent ........... 9 4.0 10 3.7 16 4.2 12 4.3 16 4.3

75 percent or more....... 8 2.2 10 2.3 23 3.7 15 5.6 35 5.9

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent .... 9 1.5 8 1.8 27 2.8 7 1.6 24 2.5

35 to 49 percent ........... 5 3.4 3 1.7 26 4.7 7 3.0 20 4.8

50 to 74 percent ........... 9 2.5 5 1.2 28 4.1 14 3.6 18 3.2

75 percent or more....... 13 3.5 14 3.9 23 4.1 18 4.2 25 3.9

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds............ 10 2.7 13 2.6 28 3.4 14 2.8 37 3.9

Title I nonschoolwide .. 6 1.8 13 3.2 28 4.0 9 2.2 21 3.1

Title I schoolwide ........ 7 1.2 10 2.7 23 3.3 14 3.1 30 4.7

Elementary schools

No Title I funds............ 11 6.0 18 5.5 25 6.6 20 6.2 50 8.1

Title I nonschoolwide .. 5 2.8 18 5.2 34 6.0 10 3.6 24 4.7

Title I schoolwide ........ 6 1.4 10 3.3 21 4.0 12 3.6 32 5.8

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds............ 10 1.6 8 1.5 30 2.9 9 1.6 27 2.4

Title I nonschoolwide .. 6 2.1 6 2.1 21 3.3 6 1.9 18 3.2

Title I schoolwide ........ 12 3.5 9 2.8 31 5.1 21 4.2 21 4.2
52

Table B-13.—Percent of public school principals who have found various sources of information or

assistance very helpful in understanding or using comprehensive reform strategies or

activities, by school characteristics: 1996 (continued)

School characteristic

State or district

sponsored

education

conferences

Institutes or

workshops

Electronic

networks/

discussion groups

Media Other source

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools........ 31 2.0 41 2.3 5 0.7 3 0.7 3 0.9

Instructional level

Elementary school ........... 30 3.1 42 3.6 3 1.2 4 1.1 4 1.4

Middle school.................. 37 2.6 42 2.5 10 2.0 2 0.6 3 1.2

High school...................... 31 3.2 36 3.3 4 1.0 3 1.0 1 0.6

Locale

City .................................. 28 3.7 44 4.4 5 1.7 6 1.8 4 1.4

Urban fringe..................... 39 4.6 52 5.0 6 2.4 3 1.7 3 1.7

Town................................ 31 3.8 40 4.9 2 0.9 3 0.8 5 3.1

Rural ................................ 27 4.2 29 4.0 4 1.2 2 0.9 1 0.6

Percent of students eligible

for free or reduced-price

school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent .... 32 3.5 39 3.5 4 1.3 3 1.3 4 1.9

35 to 49 percent ........... 29 6.3 41 6.9 3 1.3 0 0.0 1 0.9

50 to 74 percent ........... 30 4.7 38 5.2 6 2.3 4 1.5 1 0.9

75 percent or more....... 35 3.1 49 4.2 6 1.5 6 1.4 4 1.0

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent .... 29 6.2 38 6.3 4 2.2 4 2.2 6 3.5

35 to 49 percent ........... 29 9.8 45 10.5 (+) (+) 0 0.0 0 0.0

50 to 74 percent ........... 30 6.7 40 7.1 4 3.1 5 2.0 2 1.4

75 percent or more....... 33 4.0 49 4.8 5 1.7 6 1.8 5 1.3

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent .... 35 3.0 39 2.8 6 1.3 2 0.9 2 0.8

35 to 49 percent ........... 29 5.7 34 5.7 7 3.5 0 0.0 4 2.5

50 to 74 percent ........... 31 3.8 34 4.8 8 3.2 3 1.3 1 0.8

75 percent or more....... 40 5.7 51 5.8 11 3.8 7 2.6 2 1.4

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds............ 36 4.1 45 3.8 6 1.7 3 1.4 5 2.5

Title I nonschoolwide .. 26 3.4 32 3.8 3 0.8 1 0.5 2 0.7

Title I schoolwide ........ 33 3.5 46 4.5 5 1.7 6 1.7 2 0.6

Elementary schools

No Title I funds............ 37 8.5 52 8.3 6 3.6 4 2.6 10 5.5

Title I nonschoolwide .. 22 5.4 31 6.2 1 0.7 1 0.4 1 0.8

Title I schoolwide ........ 34 4.4 46 5.2 4 2.0 6 2.0 2 0.7

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds............ 35 3.0 40 2.8 6 1.3 3 0.9 2 0.6

Title I nonschoolwide .. 32 3.4 35 3.8 5 1.8 1 1.0 3 1.4

Title I schoolwide ........ 33 5.1 45 6.0 13 4.4 3 1.5 2 1.1

(+) Less than 0.5 percent.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
53

Table B-14.—Percent of public school principals who report their first choice to receive information

about reform in various formats, by school characteristics: 1996

School characteristic

Hard copy (e.g., journal

articles, magazines)

Workshops and

summer institutes

Electronic

(e.g., e-mail, Internet)

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools............ 42 2.6 52 2.4 6 1.0

Instructional level

Elementary school ............... 40 4.1 55 4.0 4 1.5

Middle school...................... 45 3.2 46 3.0 8 1.7

High school.......................... 42 3.6 48 3.5 8 2.0

Locale

City ...................................... 44 4.5 52 4.5 4 1.1

Urban fringe......................... 54 5.4 39 5.0 6 1.9

Town.................................... 36 4.8 58 4.8 5 1.4

Rural .................................... 33 4.2 57 4.4 7 2.6

Percent of students eligible for

free or reduced-price school

lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent ........ 47 3.7 48 3.6 4 1.1

35 to 49 percent ............... 31 6.3 58 6.3 11 4.3

50 to 74 percent ............... 39 5.0 56 5.1 5 1.6

75 percent or more........... 41 3.9 52 3.6 5 1.3

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent ........ 47 6.8 50 6.7 3 1.8

35 to 49 percent ............... 27 9.3 64 10.0 9 6.3

50 to 74 percent ............... 37 7.7 60 7.7 2 1.4

75 percent or more........... 42 5.1 52 4.8 4 1.5

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent ........ 46 2.9 46 2.8 5 1.4

35 to 49 percent ............... 37 5.3 48 6.8 15 5.6

50 to 74 percent ............... 41 4.3 48 5.4 9 3.4

75 percent or more........... 38 5.8 53 5.6 8 2.5

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds................ 42 4.0 52 3.8 6 1.4

Title I nonschoolwide ...... 39 4.1 54 4.0 6 2.2

Title I schoolwide ............ 44 5.3 50 5.0 4 1.4

Elementary schools

No Title I funds................ 43 7.3 53 7.3 4 2.8

Title I nonschoolwide ...... 35 6.5 61 6.7 4 3.3

Title I schoolwide ............ 44 6.1 51 5.9 4 1.4

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds................ 41 2.8 51 2.9 6 1.2

Title I nonschoolwide ...... 46 3.4 42 3.3 9 2.8

Title I schoolwide ............ 44 5.0 47 4.8 9 3.4

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
54

Table B-15.—Percent of public schools that report various barriers to the application of high standards to

all students in the school: 1996

Not at all Small extent Moderate extent Great extent

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

Inadequacy of guidelines on which

standards to use................................. 27 2.1 36 2.4 27 2.3 10 1.5

Inadequacy of parent involvement ....... 17 1.8 35 2.2 29 2.0 20 1.4

Inadequacy of professional

development...................................... 27 2.1 35 2.1 29 1.9 8 1.1

Outdated textbooks............................... 45 2.5 33 2.2 16 1.6 6 0.8

Outdated technology ............................ 32 2.8 27 1.9 22 2.2 18 1.8

High student mobility........................... 27 1.8 39 2.0 19 1.5 16 1.4

Diversity of student populations........... 35 1.9 36 2.1 21 2.1 8 1.0

Language barriers................................. 61 2.1 26 1.8 9 1.2 4 0.7

Students at different levels................... 12 1.6 32 2.3 39 2.3 17 1.5

Assessments that do not measure what

students can do ................................. 14 2.0 38 2.7 31 2.3 17 1.7

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.

Barrier to application of high standards
55

Table B-16.—Percent of public school principals who report various barriers to the application of high

standards to all students in the school to a moderate or great extent, by school

characteristics: 1996

School characteristic

Inadequacy of

guidance on what

standards to use

Inadequacy of

parent

involvement

Inadequacy of

professional

development

Outdated

textbooks

Outdated

technology

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools......... 37 2.4 49 2.1 38 2.1 22 1.8 41 2.7

Instructional level

Elementary school............ 37 3.6 45 3.5 37 3.4 18 2.7 40 3.9

Middle school................... 38 3.5 56 3.1 35 3.1 27 2.5 38 2.6

High school ...................... 38 3.4 56 3.6 43 3.4 27 2.6 43 3.0

Locale

City................................... 31 3.8 59 4.2 32 3.5 19 2.8 44 4.7

Urban fringe ..................... 30 4.4 38 4.2 33 4.4 21 4.0 33 4.4

Town ................................ 38 4.3 50 4.2 41 4.7 24 4.4 47 5.3

Rural................................. 48 5.1 48 4.2 44 5.2 22 3.4 38 5.0

Percent of students eligible

for free or reduced-price

school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent..... 34 3.2 36 3.5 36 3.9 21 2.9 43 3.8

35 to 49 percent............ 48 6.3 47 5.8 44 6.3 23 5.0 33 5.2

50 to 74 percent............ 40 5.2 61 5.1 41 4.8 18 3.4 32 4.2

75 percent or more........ 30 3.2 72 3.7 34 3.1 25 3.1 53 3.9

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent..... 34 6.2 28 5.8 36 6.5 19 5.0 43 6.5

35 to 49 percent............ 51 9.9 36 8.9 39 9.4 20 7.8 29 8.3

50 to 74 percent............ 39 6.9 57 7.2 39 7.2 9 2.7 31 5.6

75 percent or more........ 28 3.8 72 4.7 35 3.7 25 3.7 56 4.9

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent..... 35 2.8 46 3.7 35 3.3 24 2.8 43 3.0

35 to 49 percent............ 43 5.1 65 5.6 53 6.0 29 5.4 41 5.5

50 to 74 percent............ 42 5.1 69 4.0 45 4.6 36 6.2 34 4.3

75 percent or more........ 37 5.6 73 5.5 31 5.9 27 5.0 45 5.0

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds............ 30 3.1 42 3.9 41 3.7 27 3.3 43 4.0

Title I nonschoolwide... 47 4.4 46 3.7 38 4.3 16 2.6 40 3.9

Title I schoolwide......... 34 4.0 62 4.5 34 3.8 22 3.3 39 4.3

Elementary schools

No Title I funds............ 23 5.9 27 7.4 42 7.4 29 7.0 43 7.7

Title I nonschoolwide... 50 6.9 40 6.3 36 6.4 8 3.3 39 5.8

Title I schoolwide......... 33 4.8 60 5.6 35 4.4 21 3.8 40 5.3

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds............ 35 3.0 54 3.3 41 3.0 26 2.9 43 3.0

Title I nonschoolwide... 42 3.4 54 3.3 40 3.9 27 3.7 41 3.8

Title I schoolwide......... 39 5.3 71 4.4 29 5.6 28 5.1 35 3.5
56

Table B-16.—Percent of public school principals who report various barriers to the application of high

standards to all students in the school to a moderate or great extent, by school

characteristics: 1996 (continued)

School characteristic High student

mobility

Diversity of

student

populations

Language

barriers

Teaching students

who are at

different levels

Assessments that

do not measure

what students can

do

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools......... 35 2.1 29 2.4 13 1.5 56 2.2 48 2.6

Instructional level

Elementary school............ 38 3.3 30 3.5 15 2.1 55 3.2 45 4.0

Middle school................... 33 2.6 33 2.8 13 1.5 64 2.8 49 2.8

High school ...................... 27 2.9 21 2.1 9 1.5 54 3.6 56 2.8

Locale

City................................... 51 4.5 34 4.5 27 4.2 59 3.8 53 4.1

Urban fringe ..................... 29 3.8 27 3.7 11 2.2 52 4.7 52 5.7

Town ................................ 36 4.3 32 4.1 11 2.1 65 4.2 52 4.5

Rural................................. 24 3.4 24 4.3 6 1.9 51 5.2 36 4.4

Percent of students eligible

for free or reduced-price

school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent..... 19 2.8 19 2.8 5 1.2 49 3.3 42 3.4

35 to 49 percent............ 39 6.7 30 6.6 8 3.2 63 6.4 47 6.6

50 to 74 percent............ 43 5.4 38 5.0 16 3.4 52 5.2 47 5.2

75 percent or more........ 66 3.0 44 4.7 41 5.1 75 2.9 64 3.8

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent..... 18 4.7 19 4.8 3 1.7 46 5.9 35 6.0

35 to 49 percent............ 40 10.0 28 9.7 6 4.9 62 9.9 45 9.8

50 to 74 percent............ 43 7.7 40 7.0 17 5.0 48 6.4 47 7.1

75 percent or more........ 70 3.5 46 5.8 45 6.1 76 3.4 63 4.7

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent..... 19 2.9 20 2.7 6 1.4 53 3.6 51 3.1

35 to 49 percent............ 37 5.4 33 5.7 11 2.8 64 5.4 51 6.1

50 to 74 percent............ 42 4.4 36 3.8 13 2.3 60 4.6 49 4.3

75 percent or more........ 54 5.2 35 5.5 28 5.2 74 5.4 67 5.7

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds............ 19 2.3 20 2.5 8 1.6 49 3.5 50 3.7

Title I nonschoolwide... 36 3.3 29 3.6 9 1.8 57 4.3 43 4.4

Title I schoolwide......... 52 4.8 40 5.0 25 4.0 65 4.7 51 5.1

Elementary schools

No Title I funds............ 10 3.6 13 4.5 6 2.8 41 7.2 45 7.6

Title I nonschoolwide... 41 6.0 31 6.2 10 2.6 54 6.3 39 6.5

Title I schoolwide......... 52 6.0 41 5.9 26 4.5 65 5.3 50 6.1

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds............ 26 2.6 26 2.5 9 1.5 55 3.4 54 3.0

Title I nonschoolwide... 28 3.3 25 3.0 7 1.5 61 4.0 49 3.6

Title I schoolwide......... 48 5.1 33 4.4 24 4.6 64 6.1 56 4.5

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996
57

Table B-17.—Percent of public schools with various involvement with the federal Title I program, by

school characteristics: 1996

Title I schools

School characteristic

Receive Title I

funds

Eligible to operate

a schoolwide

program

Plan schoolwide

program for next

year

Identified as in

need of

improvement

under Title I

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools............................ 66 2.2 66 3.3 57 3.4 13 1.6

Instructional level

Elementary school ............................... 75 3.6 66 4.1 56 4.4 14 2.2

Middle school...................................... 53 2.7 71 4.0 63 4.4 12 2.2

High school.......................................... 50 3.0 64 5.3 52 5.0 12 2.3

Locale

City ...................................................... 64 4.2 72 5.4 66 5.3 20 3.9

Urban fringe......................................... 48 5.8 67 9.2 60 9.5 10 3.8

Town.................................................... 66 4.4 69 5.1 56 5.5 14 3.4

Rural .................................................... 82 3.4 59 6.8 50 6.3 10 2.7

Percent of students eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 45 3.9 52 6.6 46 6.4 10 3.6

35 to 49 percent ............................... 75 4.7 40 9.3 32 8.5 6 3.2

50 to 74 percent ............................... 86 2.3 77 5.5 67 5.7 12 3.5

75 percent or more........................... 93 1.8 95 0.9 82 2.4 27 2.8

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 49 7.0 49 10.1 45 10.2 13 6.0

35 to 49 percent ............................... 83 7.0 35 11.1 26 10.6 6 4.5

50 to 74 percent ............................... 94 2.9 76 7.2 67 7.3 10 4.6

75 percent or more........................... 98 1.1 95 1.2 81 2.8 24 3.4

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 39 3.4 56 6.3 48 5.9 5 2.3

35 to 49 percent ............................... 60 5.0 53 9.0 44 8.4 4 2.6

50 to 74 percent ............................... 68 4.7 80 4.7 66 4.8 15 4.2

75 percent or more........................... 78 5.1 97 1.9 88 4.3 37 6.1

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds................................ 0 0.0 - - - - - -

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 100 0.0 47 4.2 33 3.7 9 2.2

Title I schoolwide ............................ 100 0.0 91 3.2 87 3.2 19 2.7

Elementary schools

No Title I funds................................ 0 0.0 - - - - - -

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 100 0.0 39 5.8 24 4.8 10 3.7

Title I schoolwide ............................ 100 0.0 91 3.8 87 3.7 17 3.2

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds................................ 0 0.0 - - - - - -

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 100 0.0 59 4.5 47 4.2 8 1.9

Title I schoolwide ............................ 100 0.0 91 3.5 88 3.6 25 5.0

- Schools not receiving Title I funds were not asked these questions.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
58

Table B-18.—Percent of Title I public schools that use Title I funds for various purposes, by school

characteristics: 1996

School characteristic

Serve targeted

children in a pullout or in-class

setting

Provide extendedtime learning

opportunities for

targeted children

Improve the entire

educational

enterprise through

a schoolwide

program

Provide summer

learning

opportunities

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools receiving Title

 I funds............................................ 88 1.3 64 2.9 36 2.4 37 2.4

Instructional level

Elementary school ............................... 89 1.7 64 3.8 51 4.1 37 3.6

Middle school...................................... 88 2.0 67 4.1 19 2.2 40 4.1

High school.......................................... 86 2.9 64 4.5 11 1.9 32 4.7

Locale

City ...................................................... 77 4.7 74 4.5 50 5.0 48 6.1

Urban fringe......................................... 91 2.7 59 8.0 33 7.2 31 5.5

Town.................................................... 89 2.8 61 5.2 29 4.1 36 4.5

Rural .................................................... 93 1.5 62 6.0 32 4.8 32 5.6

Percent of students eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 96 1.4 63 7.1 9 2.9 32 5.5

35 to 49 percent ............................... 94 3.0 48 7.6 21 6.6 29 7.5

50 to 74 percent ............................... 91 2.0 71 4.1 59 5.9 36 5.9

75 percent or more........................... 70 4.0 72 3.0 84 2.4 51 4.0

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 98 1.2 64 11.3 23 8.3 30 9.8

35 to 49 percent ............................... 96 4.1 44 11.1 35 10.9 26 9.8

50 to 74 percent ............................... 92 2.5 71 5.3 60 7.4 40 7.8

75 percent or more........................... 70 4.9 70 3.3 85 2.8 50 4.6

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent ........................ 92 2.8 61 5.7 0 0.0 35 5.9

35 to 49 percent ............................... 90 4.6 56 8.5 0 0.0 35 7.9

50 to 74 percent ............................... 88 3.0 71 3.8 58 6.9 26 4.9

75 percent or more........................... 68 5.9 79 5.3 79 4.6 51 6.4

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds................................ - - - - - - - -

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 94 1.4 59 4.4 0 0.0 30 3.8

Title I schoolwide ............................ 80 2.9 70 4.5 100 0.0 45 4.2

Elementary schools

No Title I funds................................ - - - - - - - -

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 96 2.0 58 6.7 0 0.0 29 6.0

Title I schoolwide ............................ 82 3.2 69 5.2 100 0.0 45 4.9

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds................................ - - - - - - - -

Title I nonschoolwide ...................... 92 1.8 61 3.8 0 0.0 33 4.3

Title I schoolwide ............................ 74 4.6 78 4.4 100 0.0 43 4.6

NOTE: Figures in table are for schools receiving Title I funds.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
59

Table B-19.—Percent of public school principals of Title I schools who are familiar to a moderate or

great extent with various provisions in the Title I legislation, by school characteristics:

1996

School characteristic

Familiar with all

eight provisions

asked about

Apply high

standards to all

students

Flexibility to

identify students

for services

Extend learning

time

Minimize pull-out

programs

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools

 receiving Title I funds 43 3.1 68 2.8 75 2.4 61 2.9 78 2.1

Instructional level

Elementary school ........... 48 4.3 71 3.4 80 3.1 64 4.2 87 2.6

Middle school.................. 32 3.9 64 5.0 69 3.9 53 4.3 58 4.3

High school...................... 29 4.6 57 5.6 59 5.2 54 5.1 59 5.2

Locale

City .................................. 58 5.3 77 5.1 82 4.3 73 5.1 89 2.1

Urban fringe..................... 50 8.4 76 6.9 75 6.7 65 9.4 86 4.4

Town................................ 33 4.4 66 5.2 65 5.6 51 4.7 69 4.3

Rural ................................ 36 5.4 59 5.8 78 3.5 58 5.8 74 4.2

Percent of students eligible

for free or reduced-price

school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent .... 36 6.9 58 6.0 67 5.0 47 6.7 69 5.4

35 to 49 percent ........... 36 7.4 56 8.2 67 6.9 63 6.5 79 5.2

50 to 74 percent ........... 41 6.0 74 4.8 83 3.4 63 5.3 84 3.3

75 percent or more....... 59 3.8 86 2.2 86 2.2 76 3.4 84 2.1

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent .... 42 11.3 61 9.1 73 7.9 51 10.6 80 8.1

35 to 49 percent ........... 39 9.8 59 10.9 74 9.1 66 9.2 91 5.9

50 to 74 percent ........... 45 7.8 75 6.1 86 4.7 63 6.8 88 4.3

75 percent or more....... 63 4.2 88 2.5 88 2.5 78 3.8 90 2.0

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent .... 26 5.8 54 6.2 58 5.5 43 5.7 52 6.0

35 to 49 percent ........... 28 8.2 49 8.7 51 8.1 55 7.6 52 8.1

50 to 74 percent ........... 31 7.6 72 6.7 74 5.4 63 7.2 73 5.1

75 percent or more....... 44 5.3 77 5.1 78 4.2 66 5.8 63 5.7

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds............ - - - - - - - - - -

Title I nonschoolwide .. 34 4.4 57 4.4 68 3.6 49 4.0 72 3.6

Title I schoolwide ........ 54 4.2 82 3.5 85 3.1 77 3.6 87 2.4

Elementary schools

No Title I funds............ - - - - - - - - - -

Title I nonschoolwide .. 38 7.2 59 6.8 74 5.5 49 6.8 83 4.7

Title I schoolwide ........ 57 5.1 82 4.1 86 3.6 79 4.1 90 2.6

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds............ - - - - - - - - - -

Title I nonschoolwide .. 28 4.2 54 4.6 58 3.8 48 4.2 53 4.1

Title I schoolwide ........ 39 4.6 79 4.3 78 4.7 70 5.2 74 4.2
60

Table B-19.—Percent of public school principals of Title I schools who are familiar to a moderate or

great extent with various provisions in the Title I legislation, by school characteristics:

1996 (continued)

School characteristic

Develop a parent

involvement policy

Develop a schoolparent compactAssess student

performance

Use performance

results for school

accountability

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools

 receiving Title I funds 85 2.0 74 2.4 85 1.5 84 1.9

Instructional level

Elementary school ........... 91 2.5 80 3.4 91 1.9 90 2.7

Middle school.................. 70 4.5 62 4.5 73 4.4 76 4.0

High school...................... 70 5.2 55 5.2 71 5.0 68 5.5

Locale

City .................................. 89 3.9 82 4.6 87 3.6 89 3.6

Urban fringe..................... 91 3.3 76 7.1 92 2.7 86 5.5

Town................................ 86 2.1 73 4.0 81 4.1 79 3.8

Rural ................................ 78 4.4 67 4.7 84 3.1 84 3.2

Percent of students eligible

for free or reduced-price

school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent .... 77 5.0 63 5.7 84 3.3 83 3.6

35 to 49 percent ........... 81 5.8 71 6.6 83 4.5 85 4.4

50 to 74 percent ........... 92 1.8 78 4.6 83 4.1 80 4.8

75 percent or more....... 91 1.5 86 2.8 90 2.0 91 2.3

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent .... 86 7.8 73 9.3 93 3.9 93 4.1

35 to 49 percent ........... 86 7.6 76 8.8 93 4.9 94 4.7

50 to 74 percent ........... 97 1.7 83 5.8 85 5.4 80 6.6

75 percent or more....... 94 1.6 88 3.2 92 2.1 93 2.7

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent .... 63 5.8 49 5.5 71 5.0 68 6.0

35 to 49 percent ........... 70 7.8 59 8.8 59 8.6 64 8.7

50 to 74 percent ........... 77 4.8 64 6.6 78 4.4 80 4.6

75 percent or more....... 80 4.7 78 4.6 83 4.4 81 5.4

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds............ - - - - - - - -

Title I nonschoolwide .. 80 3.0 66 3.3 81 2.6 80 3.1

Title I schoolwide ........ 91 2.2 83 3.5 91 1.8 90 2.1

Elementary schools

No Title I funds............ - - - - - - - -

Title I nonschoolwide .. 90 4.8 74 5.6 89 3.7 87 4.9

Title I schoolwide ........ 92 2.4 86 3.9 93 2.2 92 2.5

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds............ - - - - - - -- -

Title I nonschoolwide .. 66 3.8 55 3.8 68 3.6 68 3.9

Title I schoolwide ........ 83 4.1 71 4.9 82 3.8 84 4.2

-Schools not receiving Title I funds were not asked these questions.

NOTE: Figures in table are for schools receiving Title I funds.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
61

Table B-20.—Percent of public school principals of Title I schools who report that changes in the school

would be required to a moderate or great extent to implement various provisions in the

Title I legislation, by school characteristics: 1996

School characteristic

Changes required

for all eight

provisions asked

about

Apply high

standards to all

students

Flexibility to

identify students

for services

Extend learning

time

Minimize pull-out

programs

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools

 receiving Title I funds 12 2.0 47 3.3 42 3.2 52 3.6 44 2.8

Instructional level

Elementary school ........... 13 2.5 46 4.2 43 4.4 53 4.6 45 3.4

Middle school.................. 9 2.6 48 5.4 41 4.3 51 5.3 42 4.5

High school...................... 14 3.5 47 5.8 41 4.9 49 6.3 39 5.3

Locale

City .................................. 22 5.4 53 6.0 55 6.3 54 5.8 46 6.5

Urban fringe..................... 8 3.9 44 9.8 39 7.2 62 6.5 51 7.6

Town................................ 14 3.8 50 6.3 43 5.7 49 7.0 47 6.2

Rural ................................ 7 1.9 42 5.8 35 5.5 47 6.3 37 5.3

Percent of students eligible

for free or reduced-price

school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent .... 6 2.5 41 7.8 35 6.8 47 7.4 40 6.4

35 to 49 percent ........... 12 4.8 49 9.3 33 7.6 54 10.1 38 7.7

50 to 74 percent ........... 10 3.1 40 5.9 46 5.6 45 5.5 49 6.0

75 percent or more....... 24 4.0 59 3.5 57 3.6 63 3.4 49 3.6

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent .... 3 3.5 47 12.9 39 10.6 51 10.8 43 9.1

35 to 49 percent ........... 14 6.7 47 11.6 -- -- -- -- 38 9.6

50 to 74 percent ........... 9 3.8 33 6.3 43 6.9 42 7.3 51 7.8

75 percent or more....... 25 5.1 59 4.3 56 4.6 63 4.3 49 4.7

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent .... 9 3.2 32 7.0 29 5.3 41 6.7 35 5.5

35 to 49 percent ........... 8 4.4 55 10.2 38 8.6 55 10.2 40 9.3

50 to 74 percent ........... 11 4.8 60 8.2 52 6.2 54 6.3 43 5.6

75 percent or more....... 21 5.7 59 7.6 60 6.3 60 6.8 50 7.3

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds............ - - - - - - - - - -

Title I nonschoolwide .. 10 2.1 43 5.0 41 4.7 52 4.8 43 4.8

Title I schoolwide ........ 15 3.3 52 4.4 45 3.8 52 4.7 45 4.6

Elementary schools

No Title I funds............ - - - - - - - - - -

Title I nonschoolwide .. 10 3.1 43 7.8 44 7.1 55 7.2 46 6.4

Title I schoolwide ........ 15 3.8 50 5.0 42 4.4 51 5.5 45 5.3

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds............ - - - - - - - - - -

Title I nonschoolwide .. 10 2.6 42 4.8 36 4.3 47 4.7 39 4.6

Title I schoolwide ........ 15 3.6 61 7.2 57 5.6 57 5.5 43 5.0
62

Table B-20.—Percent of public school principals of Title I schools who report that changes in the school

would be required to a moderate or great extent to implement various provisions in the

Title I legislation, by school characteristics: 1996 (continued)

School characteristic

Develop a parent

involvement policy Develop a schoolparent compact

Assess student

performance

Use performance

results for school

accountability

Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e. Percent s.e.

All public schools

 receiving Title I funds 45 3.1 50 2.9 41 2.8 45 3.8

Instructional level

Elementary school ........... 45 4.2 49 3.6 40 3.8 44 4.5

Middle school.................. 42 4.8 51 4.8 40 4.9 43 4.9

High school...................... 45 5.7 50 5.9 47 5.6 52 5.8

Locale

City .................................. 58 5.9 58 5.5 48 5.7 53 5.8

Urban fringe..................... 38 8.8 47 6.8 36 5.7 36 5.5

Town................................ 47 5.1 55 5.6 39 5.1 38 6.5

Rural ................................ 37 5.1 42 6.4 40 6.0 49 7.1

Percent of students eligible

for free or reduced-price

school lunch

All public schools

Less than 35 percent .... 34 6.4 42 7.1 42 6.2 43 8.1

35 to 49 percent ........... 40 8.2 43 8.3 32 7.0 44 9.2

50 to 74 percent ........... 51 5.7 58 6.3 37 5.4 38 6.0

75 percent or more....... 56 3.5 57 3.6 53 3.7 56 3.5

Elementary schools

Less than 35 percent .... 35 9.7 38 9.3 43 9.0 41 10.4

35 to 49 percent ........... 40 9.9 -- -- -- -- -- --

50 to 74 percent ........... 49 7.0 58 7.8 36 7.0 36 7.3

75 percent or more....... 56 4.6 57 4.7 53 5.1 55 4.8

Middle/high schools

Less than 35 percent .... 34 5.9 50 7.2 39 6.7 47 7.4

35 to 49 percent ........... 39 9.1 40 8.9 50 9.8 43 9.8

50 to 74 percent ........... 56 6.7 56 8.4 38 6.3 44 5.8

75 percent or more....... 55 6.5 57 6.5 53 6.7 59 7.5

Title I funding

All public schools

No Title I funds............ - - - - - - - -

Title I nonschoolwide .. 44 4.7 49 4.4 38 3.9 42 5.5

Title I schoolwide ........ 46 4.5 51 4.5 45 3.7 49 4.0

Elementary schools

No Title I funds............ - - - - - - - -

Title I nonschoolwide .. 46 7.0 49 6.1 36 6.0 40 7.0

Title I schoolwide ........ 44 5.4 49 5.2 44 4.4 48 4.8

Middle/high schools

No Title I funds............ - - - - - - - -

Title I nonschoolwide .. 39 4.3 48 5.0 42 4.5 46 4.7

Title I schoolwide ........ 57 5.2 59 6.5 47 6.3 52 6.4

-- Too few cases for a reliable estimate.

- Schools not receiving Title I funds were not asked these questions.

NOTE: Figures in table are for schools receiving Title I funds.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
63

Appendix C

Tables of Standard Errors for

Text Tables and Figures
64
65

Table 1a.—Standard errors of the percent of principals reporting that they are implementing various

strategies in support of comprehensive reform, and percent reporting that they need

information on these strategies: 1996

Instructional level

Strategy Elementary

school

Middle

school

High

school

Information

needed1

Implementing all 10 strategies asked about on the

survey ........................................................................ 1.3 2.1 1.6 1.6 --

Strategic plan............................................................. 1.5 2.4 1.8 3.1 2.2

Professional development.......................................... 1.4 2.0 1.7 3.5 2.4

Instructional materials............................................... 1.5 2.3 1.8 2.7 1.6

Innovative technologies............................................. 2.1 3.3 3.0 3.7 2.2

Adaptations for limited-English proficient students22.7 3.8 3.8 3.6 1.4

Adaptations for learning disabled students2.............. 1.6 2.0 1.5 2.7 1.7

Assessments matched to content standards............... 1.9 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.3

Assessments for school accountability ...................... 2.1 3.2 2.0 3.2 2.2

Parent involvement activities .................................... 2.1 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.4

Restructuring the school day ..................................... 2.4 3.6 3.0 3.1 2.1

-- Not applicable.

1

Principals could select up to three strategies.

2

Implementation among schools with these students enrolled.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.

All public

schools
66

Table 2a.—Standard errors of the percent of principals reporting various barriers to applying high

standards to all students in the school: 1996

Barrier Schools reporting barrier

No barriers reported .................................................................................. 1.4

Teaching students who are at different levels ........................................... 2.2

Inadequacy of parent involvement ............................................................ 2.2

Assessments that do not measure what students can do............................ 2.6

Outdated technology................................................................................. 2.7

Inadequacy of professional development .................................................. 2.1

Inadequacy of guidelines on what standards to use................................... 2.4

High student mobility ............................................................................... 2.1

Diversity of student population................................................................. 2.4

Outdated textbooks................................................................................... 1.8

Language barriers ..................................................................................... 1.5

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
67

Table 3a.—Standard errors of the percent of elementary school principals reporting various barriers to

applying high standards to all students in the school, by percent of students eligible for free

or reduced-price school lunch: 1996

Students eligible

for free or reduced-price

school lunch

Inadequacy of

parent

involvement

High student

mobility

Diversity of

student

population

Language

barriers

Teaching

students who are

at different

levels

Assessments

that do not

measure what

students can do

All public elementary

 schools ............................. 3.5 3.3 2.4 2.1 3.2 4.0

Less than 35 percent ............... 5.8 4.7 4.8 1.7 5.9 6.0

35 to 49 percent...................... 8.9 10.0 9.7 4.9 9.9 9.8

50 to 74 percent...................... 7.2 7.7 7.0 5.0 6.4 7.1

75 percent or more.................. 4.7 3.5 5.8 6.1 3.4 4.7

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
68

Table 4a.—Standard errors of the percent of principals reporting that various sources of information or

assistance have been very helpful in understanding or using comprehensive reform strategies

or activities: 1996

Source of information or assistance All public schools

Institutes or workshops.................................................................... 2.3

Other principals ............................................................................... 1.8

School district.................................................................................. 2.0

State- or district-sponsored education conferences.......................... 2.0

Professional journals........................................................................ 2.4

State-developed content standards................................................... 2.1

Other administrators ........................................................................ 2.0

Professional principal associations .................................................. 1.7

State department of education.......................................................... 1.6

Intermediate or regional education agency....................................... 1.8

National model content standards.................................................... 1.8

Institutions of higher education ....................................................... 1.5

NSF-funded initiatives..................................................................... 1.2

Electronic networks/discussion groups............................................ 0.7

ERIC................................................................................................ 0.9

ED regional labs .............................................................................. 0.6

Other ED offices or programs.......................................................... 0.6

Media............................................................................................... 0.7

Teacher unions or organizations...................................................... 1.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
69

Table 5a.—Standard errors of the percent of principals reporting a moderate to a great deal of

influence of various groups over decisions related to reform: 1996

Decision

Group Establishing

curriculum for the

school

Developing content

standards for the

school

Developing student

performance

standards for the

school

State department of education................................................................... 2.1 1.7 2.0

Local school board.................................................................................... 2.2 2.4 2.1

Local district administrators ..................................................................... 1.5 1.9 2.2

Principals and teachers at the school ........................................................ 2.1 2.0 2.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
70

Table 6a.—Standard errors of the percent of principals reporting their school’s participation in the Title I

program: 1996

Title I schools

Instructional level

Received

Title I funds

in school year

1995-96

Eligible to operate a

schoolwide program

in school year

1995-96

Plan to operate a

schoolwide program

in school year

1996-97

Identified as

in need of

improvement under

Title I in school year

1995-96

 All public schools ............................... 2.2 3.3 3.4 1.6

Elementary school .................................... 3.6 4.1 4.4 2.2

Middle school........................................... 2.7 4.0 4.4 2.2

High school .............................................. 3.0 5.3 5.0 2.3

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
71

Table 7a.—Standard errors of the percent of principals of Title I schools reporting that they use Title I

resources for various purposes, by instructional level: 1996

All Instructional level

Use of Title I resources Title I

schools

Elementary

school

Middle

school

High

school

Serve targeted children in a pull-out or in-class setting........................ 1.3 1.7 2.0 2.9

Provide extended-time learning opportunities for targeted children..... 2.9 3.8 4.1 4.5

Improve the entire educational enterprise through a schoolwide

program............................................................................................. 2.4 4.1 2.2 1.9

Provide summer learning opportunities................................................ 2.4 3.6 4.1 4.7

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
72

Table 8a.—Standard errors of the percent of principals of Title I elementary schools reporting that they

serve targeted children in a pull-out or in-class setting or operate a schoolwide program, by

percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch: 1996

Use of Title I

All

Title I

Percent of students eligible for free or

reduced-price school lunch

resources elementary

schools

Less than 35

percent

35 to 49

percent

50 to 74

percent

75 percent or

more

Serve targeted children in a pull-out or in-class setting ................. 1.7 1.2 4.1 2.5 4.9

Improve the entire educational enterprise through a schoolwide

program........................................................................................ 4.1 8.3 10.9 7.4 2.8

NOTE: Public schools only are included.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
73

Table 9a.—Standard errors of the percent of principals of Title I schools who report their programs were

identified as in need of improvement under Title I in school year 1995-96, by various

characteristics: 1996

Title I school characteristic

Identified as in need of

improvement under Title I

Title I funding

Nonschoolwide.......................................................................................................................... 2.2

Schoolwide................................................................................................................................ 2.7

Percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch

Less than 35 percent.................................................................................................................. 3.6

35 to 49 percent......................................................................................................................... 3.2

50 to 74 percent......................................................................................................................... 3.5

75 percent or more..................................................................................................................... 2.8

NOTE: This survey included only public schools.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
74

Table 10a.—Standard errors of the percent of principals of Title I schools who report they are familiar

with new provisions in the Title I program and standard errors of the percent who report that

these new provisions will require changes in their schools: 1996

Title I provision Familiar with provision Change in school required*

Familiar with all 8 provisions

All Title I schools........................................................................................... 3.1 -

Nonschoolwide program............................................................................. 4.4 -

Schoolwide program................................................................................... 4.2 -

Apply high standards

All Title I schools........................................................................................... 2.8 3.3

Nonschoolwide program............................................................................. 4.4 5.0

Schoolwide program................................................................................... 3.5 4.4

More flexibility in identification

All Title I schools........................................................................................... 2.4 3.2

Nonschoolwide program............................................................................. 3.6 4.7

Schoolwide program................................................................................... 3.1 3.8

Extend learning time

All Title I schools........................................................................................... 2.9 3.6

Nonschoolwide program............................................................................. 4.0 4.8

Schoolwide program................................................................................... 3.6 4.7

Minimize pull-out programs

All Title I schools........................................................................................... 2.1 2.8

Nonschoolwide program............................................................................. 3.6 4.8

Schoolwide program................................................................................... 2.4 4.6

Develop a parent involvement policy

All Title I schools........................................................................................... 2.0 3.1

Nonschoolwide program............................................................................. 3.0 4.7

Schoolwide program................................................................................... 2.2 4.5

Develop a school-parent compact

All Title I schools........................................................................................... 2.4 2.9

Nonschoolwide program............................................................................. 3.3 4.4

Schoolwide program................................................................................... 3.5 4.5

Assess student performance

All Title I schools........................................................................................... 1.5 2.8

Nonschoolwide program............................................................................. 2.6 3.9

Schoolwide program................................................................................... 1.8 3.7

Use performance results for school accountability

All Title I schools........................................................................................... 1.9 3.8

Nonschoolwide program............................................................................. 3.1 5.5

Schoolwide program................................................................................... 2.1 4.0

*Among principals familiar with provision.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
75

Table 11.—Standard errors for text figures

Estimate Standard error

Figure 1: Percent of principals reporting that their schools use content standards to

guide curriculum and instruction in various subjects: 1996

None................................................................................................................................... 7 1.0

All four............................................................................................................................... 78 1.8

Mathematics....................................................................................................................... 92 1.0

Reading/language arts........................................................................................................ 90 1.3

Science ............................................................................................................................... 84 1.7

History/social studies ......................................................................................................... 81 1.5

Figure 2: Percent of principals reporting that the content standards for any subject

in their schools have changed in the last 3 years, by instructional level: 1996

All public schools

Moderate extent ............................................................................................................. 40 2.3

Great extent.................................................................................................................... 24 1.6

Moderate or great extent ................................................................................................ 64 2.2

Elementary schools

Moderate extent ............................................................................................................. 38 3.5

Great extent.................................................................................................................... 28 2.7

Moderate or great extent ................................................................................................ 66 3.4

Middle schools

Moderate extent ............................................................................................................. 45 3.0

Great extent.................................................................................................................... 22 2.5

Moderate or great extent ................................................................................................ 67 3.2

High schools

Moderate extent ............................................................................................................. 43 3.6

Great extent.................................................................................................................... 14 2.2

Moderate or great extent ................................................................................................ 57 3.2

Figure 3: Percent of principal reporting that none, some,most, or all of their staff are

ready to set or apply new high standards of achievement: 1996

None................................................................................................................................... 1 0.2

Some................................................................................................................................... 23 2.1

Most ................................................................................................................................... 59 2.4

All....................................................................................................................................... 17 1.9

Figure 4: Percent of principals reporting all staff are ready to set or apply

new higher standards of achievement for their students, by instructional level: 1996

All public schools............................................................................................................... 17 1.9

Elementary school .............................................................................................................. 21 2.9

Middle school..................................................................................................................... 14 2.5

High school ........................................................................................................................ 9 1.9

Figure 5: Percent of principals who report that their schools use assessments that are

expressed in terms of students meeting various levels of performance standards, by

instructional level: 1996

All public schools............................................................................................................... 66 2.1

Elementary school .............................................................................................................. 69 3.6

Middle school..................................................................................................................... 63 2.4

High school ........................................................................................................................ 57 3.0

Figure 6: Percent of principals reporting that their schools inform parents about the

schools’ expectations for student learning in various ways: 1996

Provide overview of curriculum ......................................................................................... 81 1.9

Provide overview of content standards............................................................................... 61 2.6

Provide examples of successful student work..................................................................... 76 2.1

Provide school progress report ........................................................................................... 88 1.5

Figure 7: Percent of principals selecting various formats as their first choice to

receive information about comprehensive reform strategies or activities: 1996

Electronic ........................................................................................................................... 6 1.0

Workshops and summer institutes...................................................................................... 52 2.4

Hard copy........................................................................................................................... 42 2.6

Other .................................................................................................................................. 1 0.3

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “Public School Survey on

Education Reform,” FRSS 54, 1996.
76
77

Appendix D

Survey Form
78
Please refer to definitions on the front cover.

79

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

O.M.B. No.: 1850-0727

EXPIRATION DATE: 5/31/96

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20208-5651

PUBLIC SCHOOL SURVEY ON

EDUCATION REFORM

FAST RESPONSE SURVEY SYSTEM

This survey is authorized by law (P.L. 103382). While you are not required to respond, your cooperation is needed

to make the results of this survey comprehensive, accurate, and timely.

DEFINITIONS FOR THIS SURVEY:

Comprehensive reform: Efforts to improve education for all students by establishing high content and

performance standards and redesigning the various components of the education system in a coordinated and

coherent fashion to support students learning to the standards.

Disability: An impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of individuals.

ERIC: Educational Resources Information Center. ERIC is an education database, clearinghouse, and document

reproduction service financed by the U.S. Department of Education.

High standards: Refers to recent and current education reform activities that seek to establish more challenging

expectations for student achievement and performance, such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

standards for math, state- or local-initiated standards in various subjects, and those outlined in Goals 2000.

School-parent compact: Voluntary written agreements between the school and parents on what each will do to

help students succeed in school.

SSI/USI: National Science Foundation’s Statewide Systemic Initiatives and Urban Systemic Initiatives programs.

For these programs, NSF has cooperative agreements with states and urban areas to undertake comprehensive

initiatives for education reform in science, mathematics, and technology.

AFFIX LABEL HERE

IF ABOVE INFORMATION IS INCORRECT, PLEASE MAKE CORRECTIONS DIRECTLY ON LABEL.

Name of person completing form: _______________________________ Title: _________________________

Telephone: _________________ Fax: ________________________ E-mail: _______________________

Best days and times to reach you (in case of questions): _____________________________________________

PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO:

WESTAT

1650 Research Boulevard

Rockville, Maryland 20850

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays

a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1850-0727. The time required to

complete this information collection is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search

existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments

concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of

Education, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of

this form, write directly to: National Center for Education Statistics, 555 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20208.

FRSS Form No. 54, 4/96
Please refer to definitions on the front cover.

80

Currently, there is discussion of the need to establish new high standards for student achievement both in the content that

students are expected to learn (content standards) and in the level of performance that students are expected to achieve

(performance standards, e.g., proficient, advanced, novice). Standards go beyond general expectations for student

learning in that they are written, may be externally developed, and are to be applied uniformly by all teachers.

1. To what extent does your school use content standards to guide curriculum and instruction...

Not

at all

Small

extent

Moderate

extent

Great

extent

a. In reading/language arts ....................................................... 1 2 3 4

b. In mathematics...................................................................... 1 2 3 4

c. In science.............................................................................. 1 2 3 4

d. In history/social studies ......................................................... 1 2 3 4

2. To what extent have the content standards for any subjects in your school changed in the last three years?

No change............. 1 Small extent.......... 2 Moderate extent.... 3 Great extent.......... 4

No content

standards ............5

3. About what proportion of the staff in your school would you say are ready to set or apply new high standards of

achievement for their students?

None.......................... 1 Some........................ 2 Most.......................... 3 All .............................. 4

4. Various strategies are being proposed and developed to support comprehensive reform. In column A, indicate the

extent to which the following strategies are being implemented in your school. In column B, indicate the areas

where information is most needed. For e1 and e2 check the “none enrolled” box if your school does not have those

students.

A. Extent to which your

school is implementing strategy

B. Information

most needed

Strategy to support comprehensive reform

Not

at all

Small

extent

Moderate

extent

Great

extent

(Check

three)

a. A strategic plan for enabling all students to achieve to

high levels of performance............................................ 1 2 3 4 ______

b. Professional development to enable staff to teach the

content students are expected to learn......................... 1 2 3 4 ______

c. Instruction materials such as textbooks that expose

students to the content they are expected to learn ....... 1 2 3 4 ______

d. Innovative technologies such as the Internet and

telecommunications-supported instruction that

expose students to the content they are expected to

learn .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 ______

e. Adaptations so that all students are expected

to achieve to high levels of performance, None

specifically: enrolled

e1. Limited-English proficient students................

e2. Students with learning disabilities..................

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

______

______

f. Assessments that measure performance against the

content students are expected to learn......................... 1 2 3 4 ______

g. Assessments that are used for school accountability

and continuous improvement........................................ 1 2 3 4 ______

h. Parent involvement activities that help parents work

with their children to achieve to high levels of

performance.................................................................. 1 2 3 4 ______

i. Restructuring the school day to teach content in more

depth ............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 ______

5. In which of the following ways does your school inform parents about the school’s expectations for student learning?

Yes No

a. Parents are provided with an overview of the school curriculum ................................................ 1 2

b. Parents are provided with an overview of content standards...................................................... 1 2

c. Parents are provided with examples of successful student work................................................ 1 2

d. Parents are provided with information about the entire school’s performance and progress

in meeting academic expectations.............................................................................................. 1 2
Please refer to definitions on the front cover.

81

6. To what extent are assessments that your school uses expressed in terms of students meeting various levels of

performance standards (e.g., proficient, advanced, novice)?

Not at all.................... 1 Small extent.............. 2 Moderate extent........ 3 Great extent .............. 4

7. Using the scale 0 to 5, where 0 is “None” and 5 is a “Great deal,” indicate how much actual influence you think each

group or person has on decisions concerning A) establishing curriculum in your school, B) developing content

standards for your school, and C) developing student performance standards for your school.

A. Establishing B. Developing C. Developing student

curriculum content standards performance standards

Great Great Great

None deal None deal None deal

a. State department

of education ......... 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

b. Local school

board.................... 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

c. Local district

administrators ...... 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

d. Principals and

teachers at the

school................... 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

8. How helpful have the following sources of information or assistance been in helping you understand or use

comprehensive reform strategies or activities such as those mentioned in question 4?

Not

used

Not at all

helpful

Somewhat

helpful

Very

helpful

a. Other principals..................................................................... 1 2 3 4

b. Professional principal associations ....................................... 1 2 3 4

c. Teacher unions or organizations........................................... 1 2 3 4

d. Other administrators ............................................................. 1 2 3 4

e. School district........................................................................ 1 2 3 4

f. Intermediate or regional education agency ........................... 1 2 3 4

g. State department of education.............................................. 1 2 3 4

h. U.S. Department of Education Regional Labs ...................... 1 2 3 4

i. U.S. Department of Education's ERIC .................................. 1 2 3 4

j. Other U.S. Department of Education offices or programs .... 1 2 3 4

k. National Science Foundation-funded initiatives

(e.g., SSI, USI)...................................................................... 1 2 3 4

l. National model content standards ........................................ 1 2 3 4

m. State-developed content standards ...................................... 1 2 3 4

n. Institutions of higher education ............................................. 1 2 3 4

o. Professional journals............................................................. 1 2 3 4

p. State- or district-sponsored education conferences.............. 1 2 3 4

q. Institutes or workshops ......................................................... 1 2 3 4

r. Electronic networks/discussion groups ................................. 1 2 3 4

s. Media (e.g., newspapers, television)..................................... 1 2 3 4

t. Other (specify) ___________________________________ 1 2 3 4

9. In what format do you prefer to receive information? Please rank the following in order of your preference from 1 to

4, with 1 = 1st choice; 2 = 2nd choice; 3 = 3rd choice; and 4 = 4th choice. If you do not have access to format “c”

(electronic), circle “no access.”

Rank

a. Hard copy (e.g., journal articles, magazines)...................................................................... ___

b. Workshops and summer institutes...................................................................................... ___

c. Electronic (e.g., e-mail, Internet, electronic bulletin boards, micro cards) .......................... ___ No access

d. Other (specify) ______________________________________________________ ..... ___

10. What percent of the students in your school are eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program? ________%
Please refer to definitions on the front cover.

82

11. Did your school receive federal Title I funds in school year 1995-96?

Yes................... 1

No.................... 2

](If “No” or “Don’t know,” skip to question 17) Don’t know....... 3

12. Is your school eligible to operate a Title I schoolwide program?

Yes.................... 1 No..................... 2 Don’t know ....... 3

13. Does your school plan to operate a Title I schoolwide program in school year 1996-97?

Yes.................... 1 No..................... 2 Don’t know ....... 3

14. Was your school identified in school year 1995-96 as in need of improvement under Title I?

Yes.................... 1 No..................... 2 Don’t know ....... 3

15. How is your school using Title I resources?

Yes No

a. To serve targeted children in a pull-out or in-class setting.......................................................... 1 2

b. To provide extended time learning opportunities for targeted children ....................................... 1 2

c. To improve the entire educational enterprise through a schoolwide program ............................ 1 2

d. To provide summer learning opportunities.................................................................................. 1 2

16. Recent federal legislation made changes to Title I that affect schools in a number of ways. For each item below,

indicate:

In column A, the extent to which you are familiar with the Title I change.

If you are familiar with the change, in column B indicate the extent to which you feel it requires changes in

your school.

Rate on a scale from 1 to 4, where 1 = not at all; 2 = small extent; 3 = moderate extent; 4 = great extent.

Title I change:

A. Familiar with

Title I change

B. Changes in school

required

a. Apply high state-approved standards to all students............... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

b. More flexibility to identify students for services ....................... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

c. Extend learning time ............................................................... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

d. Minimize pull-out programs ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

e. Develop a parent involvement policy....................................... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

f. Develop a school-parent compact........................................... 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

g. Assess student performance .................................................. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

h. Use student performance results for school accountability

and continuous improvement.................................................. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

17. To what extent are the following items barriers to applying high standards to all students in your school?

Not at

all

Small

extent

Moderate

extent

Great

extent

a. Inadequacy of guidance on what standards to use........................ 1 2 3 4

b. Inadequacy of parent involvement ................................................. 1 2 3 4

c. Inadequacy of professional development....................................... 1 2 3 4

d. Outdated textbooks........................................................................ 1 2 3 4

e. Outdated technology ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4

f. High student mobility...................................................................... 1 2 3 4

g. Diversity of student populations ..................................................... 1 2 3 4

h. Language barriers.......................................................................... 1 2 3 4

i. Teaching students who are at different levels................................ 1 2 3 4

j. Assessments that do not measure what students can do ............. 1 2 3 4

k. Other (specify) __________________________________ ...... 1 2 3 4

18. Are you aware that schools can request waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements in federal elementary and

secondary education programs?

Yes................... 1 No..................... 2