NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report August 1998

State Survey on

Racial and Ethnic Classifications

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 98-034
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report August 1998

State Survey on

Racial and Ethnic Classifications

Nancy Carey

Cassandra Rowand

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 98-034
U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

C. Kent McGuire

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

August 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. State Survey on

Racial and Ethnic Classifications, NCES 98-034, by Shelley Burns, Nancy Carey,

Cassandra Rowand, and Elizabeth Farris. Washington DC: 1998.

Contact:

Shelley Burns

(202) 219-1463
iii

The State Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications was

conducted for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the U.S. Department of

Education as part of the research associated with the comprehensive

review of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Statistical

Policy Directive No. 15, “Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal

Statistics and Administrative Reporting” (Executive Office of the

President, 1977). This survey was conducted to inform the OMB

about the quality and utility of the data collected by state

departments of education using the five standard federal categories

of race and ethnicity in use at that time. The issues examined in this

report include the use of classifications that differ from those five

standard categories (white, non-Hispanic; black, non-Hispanic;

Hispanic; Asian or Pacific Islander; American Indian or Alaskan

Native); the impetus for making changes to the classification

categories; the types and origins of complaints received about the

categories; and the effect of possible changes on the collection,

maintenance, and reporting of trend data.

This survey was conducted as a structured telephone interview with

representatives from state departments of education during February

1997. The interview followed different paths depending on the

procedures for collecting data on race and ethnicity in that state’s

data collections. States were divided into three categories: those

that had already made changes to the five standard federal

categories, those that were considering changes, and those that had

made no changes and were not considering changes in the near

future. Interviews were completed with all states except Hawaii.

Throughout this report, the District of Columbia is counted as a

state.

Highlights • Eight states reported using categories other than the five

standard categories used by the federal government (table 1). In

addition to the standard federal categories, five states reported

using a “multiracial” category, two use an “other” category, one

(California) uses “Filipino” as a separate category, and one

(Alaska) breaks the American Indian or Alaskan Native category

into two separate categories (table 2).

• Complaints from parents and school districts were the main

reasons given by states for modifying or considering modifications to the standard federal categories (table 4).

• Three states reported that they were considering making changes

to the standard federal categories for collecting information

(table 1). The remaining 38 states and the District of Columbia

have not made any changes and report none under consideration.
iv

• Thirty-six states reported that the data they receive from school

districts always conform either to the five standard federal

categories or the modified state-approved categories (table 5).

• Of the 40 states that reported receiving comments or complaints

about their current procedures, 24 had heard from both schools

and parents. Of these 24 states, 16 reported that they had

received more comments from one group than another—11

states had received more comments from parents, and 5 states

had received more comments from schools (table 7).

• Adding a “multiracial” category was the most frequently

requested change—31 states reported receiving such requests

(table 8).

• With regard to revising forms, revising computer systems, and

training employees, the expected impact reported by states that

had already made some changes was generally less than the

impact anticipated by states in which no changes had been made

(table 9).

• With respect to the impact on maintaining and reporting trend

data, 17 states indicated that changes to the data categories

would affect their enrollment projections and/or prevent

comparisons across time; 10 states indicated that the impact had

been or would be nonexistant or minimal (table 11).

• Eighteen states maintained that there was no need to change the

current federal system of classifying data on race and ethnicity.

Another 20 states expressed the need either to add additional

categories to reflect the nation’s increased diversity (7 states) or

to add a “multiracial” category to reflect the growing population

of mixed-race individuals (13 states) (table 12).

• Of the 13 states that suggested adding a “multiracial” category, 2

had already made changes (table 12). Of the 7 states that

suggested other new categories to reflect racial diversity, none

had made changes; 2 were considering changes to the current

system.
v

Table of Contents

Page

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

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

To What Extent Are States Using Categories Other Than the Five Standard Federal

Categories? .......................................................................................................................... 4

What Prompted States to Make Changes to the Way Data on Race and Ethnicity Are

Collected?.............................................................................................................................. 7

How Do States Handle Nonconforming Data Received from School Districts?.................. 8

Complaints or Requests for Revisions of the Racial/Ethnic Categories from Parents

and School Districts.............................................................................................................. 10

Impact of Changes to the Standard Federal Categories on Data Collection Procedures...... 13

Time Required to Implement Changes to Data Collection ................................................... 14

Impact on the Ability of States to Maintain and Report Trend Data .................................... 14

Perceived Need to Make Changes to the Current System..................................................... 16

Summary and Conclusions.................................................................................................... 18

List of Appendices

Appendix

A Survey Methodology ..................................................................................................... 19

B Telephone Protocols...................................................................................................... 25
vi

List of Tables

Table

1 Percent minority enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools in 1995

and extent to which states have made revisions to the five standard federal

categories when classifying data on the race and ethnicity of students, by state:

1997 ................................................................................................................................... 5

2 Additional categories used by states to classify data on the race and ethnicity of

students, by state: 1997 .................................................................................................... 6

3 Procedures used by states using additional racial and ethnic categories to report

data in the five standard federal categories to the federal government, by state:

1997 ................................................................................................................................... 6

4 Reasons given for modifying the way racial and ethnic data on students are

classified, by state: 1997 .................................................................................................. 7

5 Procedures used by states for submitting data to the federal government when they

receive data from school districts that do not conform to the five standard federal

categories or the modified state-approved categories, by state: 1997.............................. 9

6 Number of states estimating the volume of complaints or requests for changes they

have received in the past 5 years regarding the categories used to classify data on

the race and ethnicity of students: 1997........................................................................... 10

7 Sources of the complaints or requests for changes received by states in the past 5

years regarding the categories used to classify data on the race and ethnicity of

students, by state: 1997 .................................................................................................... 11

8 Number of states that have received various requests for changes to the categories

used to classify data on the race and ethnicity of students in the past 5 years: 1997....... 12

9 Number of states estimating the degree of impact that changes to the categories

used to classify data on students’ race and ethnicity have had, or would have, on

various data collection procedures: 1997......................................................................... 13

10 Actual and estimated amount of time (in months) required to implement changes to

the categories used to classify data on the race and ethnicity of students, by

number of states: 1997 ..................................................................................................... 14

11 Impact of changes to the five standard categories on states’ abilities to maintain

and report trend data, by state: 1997 ................................................................................ 15

12 Extent to which states reported a perceived need to change their current procedures

used to classify data on students’ race and ethnicity, by state: 1997 ............................... 17
1

Introduction The federal government collects information on race and ethnicity

for a variety of purposes, including monitoring job discrimination

and school segregation. Federal agencies make use of the data they

collect on race and ethnicity for planning, program monitoring,

enforcement, and analyses. While the Census Bureau has included a

question on race in each census since 1790, the content and format of

the question and the method of data collection have changed over the

years.

In 1974, the federal government created an Ad Hoc Committee on

Racial and Ethnic Definitions. The committee was charged with

developing specific terms and definitions for designating race and

ethnicity so that a broad range of data could be collected by federal

agencies on a comparable and nonduplicative basis. In 1977, the

federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued “Race and

Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative

Reporting,” which were contained in Statistical Policy Directive

Number 15 (Executive Office of the President). For the first time,

standard categories and definitions were to be used by all federal

agencies in both collecting and presenting data on racial and ethnic

populations. Directive 15 established four discrete categories for

collecting data on race—American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian

or Pacific Islander; black, and white—and categories for sorting

ethnicity into “Hispanic origin,” and “not of Hispanic origin.” These

categories may be combined into a simple list of five racial and

ethnic classifications: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or

Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; Hispanic; and White,

not of Hispanic origin. These categories were developed largely to

produce data on population groups that historically have suffered

discrimination and differential treatment in the United States because

of their race or ethnicity (Evinger, 1995).

The standard federal categories for data on race and ethnicity have

been used for more than 20 years. During that time, the country’s

population has become considerably more diverse, both racially and

ethnically. In fact, during the 1980s, immigration to the United

States reached historic levels, and since the 1965 Immigration Act,

the flows have come primarily from Mexico, Central and South

America, the Caribbean, and Asia rather than Europe and Canada

(Harrison and Bennett, 1995). Also, while the proportion of

interracial marriages is still relatively small (about 2 percent of all

marriages in the United States), the numbers of such unions have

been increasing and have resulted in a large increase in the

population of individuals of mixed race or ethnicity (Evinger, 1995).

These demographic changes raised concerns on the part of data

collectors and respondents themselves that the standard federal

categories adopted in 1977 no longer reflect the diversity of the

nation’s population.
2

In July 1993, OMB announced that it would undertake a

comprehensive review of the current categories, including an

analysis of the possible effects of suggested changes to the

categories on the quality and utility of the resulting data. An integral

and essential part of OMB’s review has been research and testing

conducted by a number of federal agencies on alternative approaches

to collecting data on race and ethnicity. The review activities have

included a series of four congressional hearings in 1993 on the

measurement of race and ethnicity in the decennial census (U.S.

House, 1994); a workshop in 1994, organized by the National

Academy of Sciences and attended by representatives of federal

agencies, academia, social science research, interest groups, private

industry, and local school districts; an interagency committee chaired

by OMB; research activities by the Census Bureau (U.S. Department

of Commerce, 1996; 1997), the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the

National Center for Health Statistics on individual identification of

race and ethnicity; and research by the Department of Education on

how information on race and ethnicity is collected in administrative

record data (e.g., schools). This last aspect of the research effort

began with a 1995 survey of public schools designed to provide

information on the collection of racial and ethnic data by schools and

to identify any problems they were experiencing in recording and

reporting these data using the five standard federal categories (U.S.

Department of Education, 1996). As revealed by the findings from

the School Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications:

• Seventy-three percent of schools reported using only the five

standard federal classifications.

• Although 41 percent of schools reported that there were students

for whom the 5 standard federal categories are not accurate, most

schools reported that less than 5 percent of their students were

affected.

• Most respondents (69 percent) reported that adding a

“multiracial category” was not an issue or was a minor issue in

terms of applicability to students enrolled in their schools.

The survey described in this report is also part of this research

agenda. The data collected from this survey were intended to

provide OMB with information on the collection of racial and ethnic

data from administrative records by state departments of education

for their own and federal reporting purposes. The National Center

for Education Statistics (NCES) and the Office for Civil Rights

(OCR) in the Department of Education commissioned the study.

Data on the following issues were collected from 49 states (Hawaii

did not take part in the survey) and the District of Columbia. The

results were shared with OMB and the interagency committee:
3

• The use of any classifications that differ from the five standard

federal categories, and how these additional categories are

reported to the federal government;

• The impetus within states for making changes to the five

standard federal categories;

• Whether or not state departments of education have received

complaints about the current system of data collection and the

nature of these complaints; and

• The effect that changes in collecting race and ethnicity

information have had, or that changes in state or federal laws

would have, on the cost and time required to collect this

information and on the maintenance and reporting of trend data.

In October 1997, OMB released new categories for collecting data on race and

ethnicity (Federal Register, October 1997, 62FR58782-89). The data from

this report were supplied to OMB during its decision making process. To

designate race, the new categories are White; Black or African American;

Asian; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and American Indian or

Alaska Native. To designate ethnicity, the categories are Hispanic or Latino

and Not Hispanic or Latino. While OMB did not add a “multiracial”

category, individuals are allowed to report one or more races when they selfidentify. These new categories were used by the Census Bureau in the 2000

Census Dress Rehearsal conducted in spring 1998 and will be used in the

2000 Census. Other federal programs are encouraged to adopt the standards

as soon as possible, but no later than January 1, 2003.

This report presents the findings from the State Survey on Racial and

Ethnic Classifications conducted for NCES by Westat, Inc., a

research firm in Rockville, Maryland. The survey was conducted

through the NCES Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) during

February 1997. FRSS is a survey system designed to collect small

amounts of data with minimal burden placed on respondents and

within a relatively short timeframe. Telephone interviews were to be

conducted with representatives from the departments of education in

all 50 states and the District of Columbia, but the representative from

Hawaii was unavailable for interview. Throughout this report,

therefore, information is presented on the 49 responding states and

the District of Columbia. For reporting purposes, the District of

Columbia is counted as a state in the tables and discussion of this

report. Details of the survey methodology are presented in appendix

A, and copies of the telephone protocols used for the interviews are

included as appendix B.
4

To What Extent Are

States Using

Categories Other

Than the Five

Standard Federal

Categories?

Eight states reported using any categories other than the five

standard federal categories (table 1), and three states indicated that

modifications to the five standard federal categories are being

considered. The remaining 38 states and the District of Columbia

have neither made changes nor are considering making changes to

the standard federal categories for their information collections. For

informational purposes, column 1 of table 1 presents the percent

minority enrollment of elementary and secondary students in each

state and the District of Columbia as of fall 1995 (U.S. Department

of Education,1997).

Five of the states that have made changes use a “multiracial”

category, and North Carolina uses an “other” category without

specification (table 2). Rhode Island uses “other, with specification”

for special education students and students with limited English

proficiency. Alaska has divided the American Indian or Alaskan

Native category into two separate categories, whereas California has

removed Filipino from the Asian or Pacific Islander category and

made it a separate classification. The three states that were

considering modifications to the categories—Arizona, Kansas, and

Maryland—are each considering the addition of some form of a

“multiracial” or “other” category (not shown in tables).

Six of the eight states using categories other than the standard

federal categories modify the data collected to fit into the federal

categories prior to reporting the racial/ethnic makeup of their student

populations to the federal government (table 3). To do this, three

states, Florida, Georgia, and Indiana, use a formula based on the

proportion of students in each racial/ethnic category to distribute

students into the five standard federal categories; the other three

states collapse additional categories back into the standard federal

categories. Ohio and North Carolina place all multiracial students

into a “non-reported” category.
5

Table 1.—Percent minority enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools in 1995 and

extent to which states have made revisions to the five standard federal categories when

classifying data on the race and ethnicity of students, by state: 1997

State

Percent minority

enrollment

States where changes

have been made

States considering

changes

States where no

changes have been

made or are

anticipated

Total............................................. 35

Alabama ........................................... 38 X

Alaska .............................................. 36 X

Arizona............................................. 43 X

Arkansas .......................................... 26 X

California ......................................... 60 X

Colorado........................................... 28 X

Connecticut ...................................... 28 X

Delaware .......................................... 35 X

District of Columbia......................... 96 X

Florida.............................................. 43 X

Georgia............................................. 42 X

Hawaii*............................................ 77

Idaho ................................................ 12 X

Illinois.............................................. 36 X

Indiana ............................................. 14 X

Iowa ................................................. 7 X

Kansas.............................................. 17 X

Kentucky.......................................... 11 X

Louisiana.......................................... 49 X

Maine ............................................... 3 X

Maryland.......................................... 43 X

Massachusetts .................................. 21 X

Michigan .......................................... 24 X

Minnesota......................................... 13 X

Mississippi ....................................... 52 X

Missouri ........................................... 18 X

Montana ........................................... 13 X

Nebraska .......................................... 13 X

Nevada ............................................. 33 X

New Hampshire................................ 3 X

New Jersey ....................................... 37 X

New Mexico..................................... 61 X

New York......................................... 43 X

North Carolina ................................. 35 X

North Dakota.................................... 9 X

Ohio ................................................. 18 X

Oklahoma......................................... 31 X

Oregon.............................................. 15 X

Pennsylvania .................................... 19 X

Rhode Island .................................... 21 X

South Carolina.................................. 44 X

South Dakota.................................... 16 X

Tennessee......................................... 25 X

Texas................................................ 54 X

Utah.................................................. 10 X

Vermont ........................................... 3 X

Virginia ............................................ 33 X

Washington ...................................... 22 X

West Virginia ................................... 5 X

Wisconsin......................................... 17 X

Wyoming.......................................... 11 X

*Hawaii did not respond to the survey.

SOURCE: Data on 1995 enrollment calculated from Table 45 in U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest

of Education Statistics, 1997, NCES 98-015, Washington, DC, 1997; Data on revisions to race and ethnicity categories from U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “State Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,” FRSS

59, 1997.
6

Table 2.—Additional categories used by states to classify data on the race and ethnicity of students, by state:

1997

State

Multiracial,

without

specification

Other, without

specification

Other, with

specification

Filipino

separated from

Asian or Pacific

Islander

category

American Indian

or Alaskan

Native separated

into two

categories

Alaska X

California .................................. X

Florida....................................... X

Georgia ..................................... X

Indiana ...................................... X

North Carolina .......................... X X

Ohio X

Rhode Island ............................. X*

*Used only for limited English proficiency (LEP) and special education students.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “State Survey on Racial and

Ethnic Classifications,” FRSS 59, 1997.

Table 3.—Procedures used by states using additional racial and ethnic categories to report data in

the five standard federal categories to the federal government, by state: 1997

State

Collapsed back into the

standard federal categories*

Formula based on

proportion of students in

each racial/ ethnic category

Multiracial included in

“non-reported” category

Alaska .................................................. X

California ............................................. X

Florida.................................................. X

Georgia ................................................ X

Indiana ................................................. X

North Carolina ..................................... X

Ohio X

Rhode Island ........................................ X

*Alaska combines American Indian and Alaskan Native back into American Indian/Alaskan Native category. California combines Filipino into

Asian or Pacific Islander. Rhode Island only uses an “other” category for limited English proficiency (LEP) and special education students; data

are then placed in the five standard federal categories.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “State Survey on Racial and

Ethnic Classifications,” FRSS 59, 1997.
7

What Prompted

States to Make

Changes to the Way

Data on Race and

Ethnicity Are

Collected?

In half of the eight states where alternative categories are in use, the

changes were prompted by complaints or comments from parents or

school districts (table 4). Florida and North Carolina also mentioned

an increase in the diversity of the state population as a reason for the

change. In Alaska, California, Georgia, and Indiana, revisions in the

state code or the data collection requirements within the state

government prompted the changes.

Complaints from parents and school districts also prompted the

consideration of changes in Arizona, Kansas, and Maryland.

Increasing diversity of the state population was also a factor in

considering changes in Arizona and Kansas. The respondent from

the state education agency in Arizona indicated that there had been

an increase in the number of students falling in the “unclassified”

category, while the respondent from the state education agency in

Kansas mentioned some districts were concerned that some students

did not easily fit into the standard federal categories.

Table 4.—Reasons given for modifying the way racial and ethnic data on students are classified,

by state: 1997

State

Complaints or

comments from

parents and/or school

districts

Data collection

requirements, or

changes in the code,

within the state

government

Change in diversity of

state population Don’t know

States where changes

have been made

Alaska X

California ...................................... X

Florida........................................... X X

Georgia ......................................... X X

Indiana .......................................... X

North Carolina .............................. X X

Ohio X

Rhode Island ................................. X

States considering

changes

Arizona ......................................... X X

Kansas........................................... X X

Maryland....................................... X

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “State Survey on Racial and

Ethnic Classifications,” FRSS 59, 1997.
8

How Do States

Handle Nonconforming Data Received

from School

Districts?

All states were asked how they handled racial/ethnic data obtained

from school districts that did not conform to the categories used by

their states, i.e., the five standard federal categories for the large

majority of states or the modified categories used by eight states.

Nonconforming data could include missing or unreported data. In 36

states, respondents reported that the data they receive from school

districts always conform because their systems of data collection do

not permit any variation from these categories (table 5). Twelve

states reported that when nonconforming or unreported data are

received, the school or school district is contacted and asked to

correct the data by putting them either into the five standard federal

categories or into a state-approved additional category. Kansas and

Oregon submit the nonconforming or unreported data to the federal

government as “missing,” “unidentified,” or “other.” Alaska first

asks schools to correct the data; if that fails, data are reported as

“missing,” “unidentified,” or “other.”
9

Table 5.—Procedures used by states for submitting data to the federal government when they

receive data from school districts that do not conform to the five standard federal

categories or the modified state-approved categories, by state: 1997

State State does not receive

nonconforming data

State asks school or district to

correct data, i.e., put data into the

standard federal categories or

state-approved categories

Data are reported as “missing,”

“unidentified,”

or “other”

States where no changes

have been made

Alabama ............................... X

Arizona................................. X

Arkansas .............................. X

Colorado............................... X

Connecticut .......................... X

Delaware .............................. X

District of Columbia............. X

Hawaii1.................................

Idaho .................................... X

Illinois.................................. X

Iowa ..................................... X

Kansas.................................. X

Kentucky.............................. X

Louisiana.............................. X

Maine ................................... X

Maryland.............................. X

Massachusetts ...................... X

Michigan .............................. X

Minnesota............................. X

Mississippi ........................... X

Missouri ............................... X

Montana ............................... X

Nebraska .............................. X

Nevada ................................. X

New Hampshire.................... X

New Jersey ........................... X

New Mexico......................... X

New York............................. X

North Dakota........................ X

Oklahoma............................. X

Oregon.................................. X

2

Pennsylvania ........................ X

South Carolina...................... X

South Dakota........................ X

Tennessee............................. X

Texas.................................... X

Utah...................................... X

Vermont ............................... X

Virginia ................................ X

Washington .......................... X

West Virginia ....................... X

Wisconsin............................. X

Wyoming.............................. X

States using modified stateapproved categories3

Alaska4................................. X X

California ............................. X

Florida.................................. X

Georgia................................. X

Indiana ................................. X

North Carolina ..................... X

Ohio ..................................... X

Rhode Island ........................ X

1Hawaii did not respond to the survey.

2The students not identified by racial/ethnic categories are included in the total but not in the detail by racial category.

3

Please see table 3 for description of how states using modified categories reclassify these data to report to the federal government.

4Alaska first asks schools to correct data; then reports unreconcilable data as “missing,” unidentified,” or “other.”

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “State Survey on Racial and

Ethnic Classifications,” FRSS 59, 1997.
10

Complaints or

Requests for

Revisions of the

Racial/Ethnic

Categories from

Parents and School

Districts

Respondents from all state departments of education were asked to

estimate the number of complaints or requests for revisions to the

five standard federal categories that had been received during the

past 5 years. Overall, 40 respondents (80 percent) indicated

awareness of one or more complaints. (It should be noted that this

question asked only for information from the respondent’s

experience; the survey did not attempt to get a comprehensive state

estimate.) The respondent from California (a state that had made

changes) and the respondent from Kansas (a state considering

changes) reported receiving the largest number of complaints—150

and 175, respectively. The estimated number of complaints to the

other respondent states and the District of Columbia ranged from 100

to 0 (table 6). Respondents from Indiana and Rhode Island reported

receiving no complaints or requests for revisions (table 7). Both of

these states have already added some form of “multiracial” or

“other” category to their state systems of collecting racial and ethnic

data.

Table 6.—Number of states estimating the volume of complaints

or requests for changes they have received in the past

5 years regarding the categories used to classify the

race and ethnicity of students: 1997

Estimated number of complaints Number of states

Number of states receiving complaints.................................. 40

More than 100.................................................................... 2

50-100 ............................................................................... 5

20-49 ................................................................................. 4

1-19 ................................................................................... 28

No comments..................................................................... 10

Can’t estimate.................................................................... 1

NOTE: The number of states adds to 50 because Hawaii did not respond to the survey.

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

Response Survey System, “State Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,” FRSS 59, 1997.

Of the 40 states that reported receipt of any complaints or requests

for revisions, 24 had heard from both schools and parents (table 7).

Another 7 had heard from schools or districts only. California and

Georgia added that the districts were responding to pressure from

parents. Nine states had received complaints from parents only. Five

states also noted that they had heard from advocacy groups

representing minorities.
11

Table 7.—Sources of the complaints or requests for changes received by states in the past 5 years

regarding the categories used to classify data on the race and ethnicity of students, by

state: 1997

State Schools Parents Other

More requests received

from a particular group?

Not

applicable, no

knowledge of

Schools Parents any requests

States where changes

have been made

Alaska ................................. X

California ............................ X* X

Florida................................. X X

Georgia ............................... X* X X

Indiana ................................ X

North Carolina .................... X X X

Ohio .................................... X

Rhode Island ....................... X

States considering

changes

Arizona ............................... X X School Board Association

Kansas................................. X

Maryland............................. X X X

States where no changes

have been made or are

anticipated

Alabama.............................. X

Arkansas............................. X X Minority groups X

Colorado ............................. X X X

Connecticut......................... X X

Delaware............................. X

District of Columbia ........... X

Idaho ................................... X X Human Rights Commission, Hispanic communityX

Illinois................................. X State legislature X

Iowa .................................... X X

Kentucky............................. X X X

Louisiana ............................ X X X

Maine .................................. X

Massachusetts..................... X X Parent advisory group X

Michigan............................. X

Minnesota X

Mississippi.......................... X

Missouri.............................. X

Montana .............................. X American Indian group X

Nebraska ............................. X

Nevada ................................ X

New Hampshire .................. X X

New Jersey.......................... X X X

New Mexico........................ X X Jewish teachers and parents

New York............................ X X X

North Dakota ...................... X

Oklahoma............................ X

Oregon ................................ X X

Pennsylvania ....................... X

South Carolina .................... X

South Dakota ...................... X

Tennessee ........................... X X X

Texas................................... X X State legislature X

Utah .................................... X X Universities, Hispanic

community, state

government

Vermont .............................. X

Virginia............................... X X X

Washington ......................... X X

West Virginia...................... X

Wisconsin ........................... X

Wyoming ............................ X

*States indicated that schools were responding to pressure from parents.

NOTE: Hawaii did not respond to the survey.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “State Survey on Racial and

Ethnic Classifications,” FRSS 59, 1997.
12

In the 24 states in which more than one group had contacted the state

education agency on these issues, 16 respondents reported that they

had received more comments from one group than another—11

states had received more comments from parents, and 5 states had

received more comments from schools.

Adding a “multiracial” category was the most frequently requested

change to the five standard federal categories, with 31 states

reporting such requests (table 8). Fifteen states reported requests to

eliminate the collection of racial and ethnic data altogether.

Otherwise, few states indicated that they had received requests to

make other changes to the way racial and ethnic data are currently

classified.

Table 8.—Number of states that have received various requests

for changes to the categories used to classify data on

the race and ethnicity of students in the past 5 years:

1997

Type of requests received Number of states

Add a “multiracial” category ............................................. 31

Eliminate collection of data on race and ethnicity ............. 15

Add an “other” category .................................................... 6

Add an “unknown” category.............................................. 6

Rename existing categories

Black to “African American” ........................................ 4

White to “Caucasian” .................................................... 2

Redefine existing categories

Break down Hispanic into “country of origin” .............. 2

Break down Asian into specific ethnic groups .............. 3

Make American Indian a separate category................... 1

Add specific categories

East Indian..................................................................... 1

White, North African or Middle Eastern ....................... 1

Other comments

Categories are inadequate.............................................. 2

Report language spoken at home ................................... 1

NOTE: The number of states adds to more than 50 because states reported multiple types of

requests. Hawaii did not respond to the survey.

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

Response Survey System, “State Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,” FRSS 59,

1997.
13

Impact of Changes to

the Standard Federal

Categories on Data

Collection

Procedures

States were asked to estimate the impact of possible changes in the

race and ethnicity categories on three aspects of data collection:

revisions to forms, revisions to computer systems, and training of

employees. In the eight states where changes have already been

made, these changes were perceived as having less impact than in

states considering revisions or in those with no plans for revisions

(table 9). In states that had made revisions, the impact of revising

forms was seen as “little or none” or “minimal” for half of the states

(4 of 8), whereas 26 percent of the others (11 of 42) had the same

perceptions. The difference was somewhat greater for revising

computer systems: 63 percent of those that had made revisions

considered the impact to be “little or none” or “minimal” (5 states),

compared to 26 percent (11 states) of those that were considering

revisions or had no plans for revisions. Moreover, over half of the

states that had not made revisions (22 of 42) thought the impact on

computer systems would be “great,” compared with one of the states

that had made changes (12 percent). The impact on employee

training was considered “little or none” or “minimal” by all eight

states that had made changes and by two-thirds (27 of 42) of the

other states.

Table 9.—Number of states estimating the degree of impact that

changes to the categories used to classify data on

students’ race and ethnicity have had, or would have,

on various data collection procedures: 1997

Degree of impact

Revising

forms

Revising

computer

systems

Training

employees

States that have made changes

to their own data collection

categories

Little or none....................................... 4 3 6

Minimal............................................... 0 2 2

Some ................................................... 1 2 0

Great.................................................... 2 1 0

Don’t know, depends on changes........ 1 0 0

States considering changes to

their own data collection

categories

Little or none....................................... 0 0 0

Minimal............................................... 0 0 2

Some ................................................... 1 2 1

Great.................................................... 2 1 0

Don’t know, depends on changes........ 0 0 0

States where no changes have

been made or are anticipated

being made to their own data

collection categories

Little or none....................................... 4 2 6

Minimal............................................... 7 9 19

Some ................................................... 8 5 6

Great.................................................... 16 21 6

Don’t know, depends on changes........ 4 2 2

NOTE: Number of states adds to 50 because Hawaii did not respond to the survey.

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

Response Survey System, “State Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,” FRSS 59,

1997.
14

Time Required to

Implement Changes

to Data Collection

States were asked to report the approximate number of months it had

taken, or they believed it would take, to implement changes in their

system of collecting and classifying information on the race and

ethnicity of students. Of the eight states that have made changes

already, five states reported that it had taken 6 months or less to

implement changes, two reported a year or less, and one state did not

know how long it had taken (table 10). In the 42 states that have not

made any changes to the five standard federal categories, these

estimates tended to be somewhat higher. Although 13 states (31

percent) estimated that the process would take 6 months or less, 16

states (38 percent) estimated that it would take between 1 and 2

years, and 2 states (5 percent) estimated more than 2 years.

Table 10.—Actual and estimated amount of time (in months)

required to implement changes to the categories used

to classify data on the race and ethnicity of students,

by number of states: 1997

Number of months

States where

changes have

been made

States

considering

changes

States where no

changes have

been made or are

anticipated

6 or less...................... 5 0 13

7-12 ........................... 2 0 10

13-18 ......................... 0 1 7

19-24 ......................... 0 1 7

More than 24.............. 0 0 2

Don’t know................ 1 1 0

NOTE: Number of states adds to 50 because Hawaii did not respond to the survey.

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

Response Survey System, “State Survey on Racial and Ethnic Classifications,” FRSS 59, 1997.

Impact on the Ability

of States to Maintain

and Report Trend

Data

Each of the 49 states and the District of Columbia reported that

historical files on students’ race and ethnicity are maintained. All

but three—Arizona, the District of Columbia, and South Carolina—

issue reports on these data. Respondents were asked to assess the

effect any changes to the state classification system have had and the

influence any future changes might have on their recordkeeping

processes. A variety of responses were elicited (table 11). About

one-third of the states (17) indicated that changes would affect their

enrollment projections and/or prevent comparisons across time.

However, 10 states (one-fifth) indicated that the impact had been or

would be “none or minimal.” Thirteen states (about one-fourth)

suggested that the impact would depend on the kinds of changes

implemented. Although Illinois believed that changes would require

starting anew with these procedures, four states (8 percent) reported

that changes would improve their data.
15

Table 11.—Impact of changes to the five standard categories on states’ abilities to maintain and

report trend data, by state: 1997

State

Changes

would have no

or minimal

impact on

trend data

Degree of

impact would

depend on

type of

changes made

Would have to

start anew

Would throw

off enrollment

projections

and/or prevent

comparisons

Improvement Other

States where changes

have been made

Alaska .............................................. X

California ......................................... X

Florida.............................................. X

Georgia............................................. X

Indiana ............................................. X

North Carolina ................................. X

Ohio ................................................. X

Rhode Island .................................... X

States considering changes

Arizona............................................. X

1

Kansas.............................................. X

Maryland.......................................... X

States where no changes have

been made or are anticipated

Alabama ........................................... X

Arkansas .......................................... X

Colorado X

Connecticut ...................................... X

Delaware .......................................... X

District of Columbia......................... X

1

Idaho ................................................ X

Illinois.............................................. X

Iowa ................................................. X

Kentucky.......................................... X

Louisiana.......................................... X

Maine ............................................... X

Massachusetts .................................. X

Michigan .......................................... X

Minnesota......................................... X

Mississippi ....................................... X

Missouri ........................................... X

Montana ........................................... X

Nebraska .......................................... X

Nevada ............................................. X

New Hampshire................................ X

New Jersey ....................................... X

New Mexico..................................... X

New York......................................... X

North Dakota.................................... X

Oklahoma......................................... X

Oregon X

2

Pennsylvania .................................... X

South Carolina.................................. X

1

South Dakota.................................... X

Tennessee......................................... X

Texas................................................ X

Utah.................................................. X

Vermont ........................................... X

Virginia ............................................ X

3

Washington ...................................... X

West Virginia ................................... X

Wisconsin......................................... X

Wyoming.......................................... X

1Not applicable. State does not issue reports on historical trends.

2 “Would be difficult.”

3

“Some impact.”

NOTE: Hawaii did not respond to the survey.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “State Survey on Racial and

Ethnic Classifications,” FRSS 59, 1997.
16

Again, these data look somewhat different when broken down by

whether or not any changes to the categories had already been

implemented. In the states where changes have been made, only

Indiana felt that the changes had disrupted their enrollment

projections and/or prevented comparisons across time, whereas 4 of

the 8 states felt that the impact had been none or minimal (table 11).

In contrast, in the states where changes have not been made, 15 out

of 42 (36 percent) felt that changes would disrupt enrollment

projections, while 6 states (14 percent) felt the impact would be none

or minimal.

Perceived Need to

Make Changes to the

Current System

About one-third of the states (18) were of the opinion that there was

no need to change the current system of classifying race and

ethnicity, and that any problems with the five standard federal

categories were minor (table 12). Three of these states had already

implemented use of a “multiracial” category. In Georgia, the

addition had been made in response to requests primarily from

parents; in Ohio, the parent of a multiracial child had gone to the

state legislature advocating the change; and in Indiana, the change

came about as a result of a change in the state code, but the

respondent did not know why the code had been changed and

personally saw no need for change. Another four of the respondents

who shared this view—representatives from Idaho, Mississippi,

Nevada, and Wyoming—qualified this opinion by noting that there

was little racial or ethnic diversity in their student population.

Respondents from 20 states expressed the belief that new categories

were needed either to reflect the increased racial diversity in the

nation (7 states) or the growing number of individuals with mixed

racial heritage (13 states). Of the seven states that suggested new

categories were needed to reflect racial diversity, none had already

made changes, and two were considering making changes. Of the

13 states that suggested adding a “multiracial” category, 2 had

already made changes.

Alabama and Montana expressed a need for an “unknown” or

“other” category. Six states indicated that they considered there to

be some need for changes to the system, and another four states

considered there to be a great need for change, but were not specific

about the changes needed.
17

Table 12.—Extent to which states reported a perceived need to change their current procedures

used to classify data on students’ race and ethnicity, by state: 1997

State

Minor

problem, no

need to

change

New

categories

needed to

reflect racial

diversity

“Multiracial”

needed to

reflect mixedrace

population

Need

“unknown” or

“other”

Some need for

change

Great need for

change

States where changes

have been made

Alaska .............................................. X

California ......................................... X

Florida.............................................. X

Georgia............................................. X

1 X1

Indiana ............................................. X

North Carolina ................................. X

Ohio ................................................. X

Rhode Island .................................... X

States considering changes

Arizona............................................. X

Kansas.............................................. X

Maryland.......................................... X

States where no changes have

been made or are anticipated

Alabama ........................................... X

Arkansas .......................................... X

Colorado........................................... X

Connecticut ...................................... X

Delaware ..........................................

District of Columbia......................... X

Idaho ................................................ X

2

Illinois.............................................. X

3

Iowa ................................................. X

Kentucky.......................................... X

Louisiana.......................................... X

Maine ............................................... X

Massachusetts .................................. X

Michigan .......................................... X

Minnesota......................................... X

Mississippi ....................................... X

2

Missouri ........................................... X

Montana ........................................... X

Nebraska .......................................... X

Nevada ............................................. X

2

New Hampshire................................ X

New Jersey ....................................... X

New Mexico..................................... X

4

New York......................................... X

North Dakota.................................... X

Oklahoma......................................... X

Oregon.............................................. X

Pennsylvania .................................... X

South Carolina.................................. X

South Dakota.................................... X

Tennessee......................................... X

Texas................................................ X

Utah.................................................. X

Vermont ........................................... X

Virginia ............................................ X

Washington ...................................... X

West Virginia ................................... X

Wisconsin......................................... X

Wyoming.......................................... X

2

1Not sure.

2Not an issue in this state; little diversity.

3 “Does not want to see a greatly expanded list; will make things worse.”

4

“State is predominately Hispanic.”

NOTE: Hawaii did not respond to the survey.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System, “State Survey on Racial and

Ethnic Classifications,” FRSS 59, 1997.
18

Summary and

Conclusions

In response to Federal Register notices issued by OMB in June 1994

(59FR29831-35) and August 1995 (60FR44674-93) requesting

comments on the standards for the classification of federal data on

race and ethnicity, a large number of comments came from parents of

children with mixed racial heritage who said that selecting one racial

category when registering their children for school did not allow the

children to express the racial heritage of both their parents. The

results of this survey suggest that state departments of education

have also received comments from parents and school districts

requesting that alternatives be provided to the five standard federal

categories currently in use. A majority of states reported they had

received comments that involved requests for the inclusion of a

“multiracial” category. A total of eight states have modified the

categories used to classify students, and five of these states have

added a “multiracial” category.

Respondents varied in their opinions about the impact changes to the

five standard federal categories would have on the maintenance and

reporting of trend data. While 17 states expressed the concern that

changes would affect their enrollment projections and/or prevent

comparisons over time, 10 states indicated that the impact had been,

or would be, minimal. In general, states that had already

implemented changes were less concerned about the effects of

changes on these and other procedures than were those states which

had not made changes but were asked to consider the impact of

possible changes to the federal system. States also varied in their

opinions about the need to make changes to the current system.

Eighteen states expressed the view that no changes were warranted

or necessary. Twenty states indicated that changes were needed to

reflect the nation’s racial and ethnic diversity and the increasing

number of students of mixed-race backgrounds. Two states

indicated a need for an “unknown” or “other” category. The

remaining 10 states expressed the opinion that there was a need for

change but had no specific recommendations (Georgia’s respondent

was “not sure” whether current procedures needed to change.)
19

Appendix A

Survey Methodology
20
21

Survey Methodology

Respondents

In February 1997, FRSS Coordinators in the 50 states and the

District of Columbia were sent letters concerning an upcoming

telephone survey on the state collection of racial and ethnic

information from public schools, along with a list of issues that

would be addressed. These letters were followed up with phone

calls to determine the individual in the state department of education

who would be most knowledgeable about these issues. Once the

designated respondent was contacted, a structured telephone

interview, which allowed for different paths of questioning

depending on answers to previous questions, was conducted.

Interviews were completed with representatives from 49 states and

the District of Columbia. Hawaii did not respond in the survey.

Background Information The survey was performed 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 Nancy

Carey. Judi Carpenter, Edith McArthur, and Shelley Burns were the

NCES Project Officers. The data were requested by Edith

McArthur of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

and Sharon Tuchman (retired), of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR)

in the Department of Education. The survey was developed by

NCES and the OCR in the Department of Education as part of the

research associated with the review of the Office of Management and

Budget’s Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, “Race and Ethnic

Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting.”

This report was reviewed by the following individuals:

Outside NCES

• Suzann Evinger, Office of Management and Budget

• Roderick Harrison, Bureau of the Census

Inside NCES

• Robert Burton, Statistical Standards and Services Group

• Charles Hammer and Lee Hoffman, Survey and Cooperative

Systems Group

• Holly Spurlock, Assessment Group

For more information about the Fast Response Survey System or the

State Survey of Racial and Ethnic Classifications, contact Shelley

Burns, Data Development and Longitudinal Studies Group, National

Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and

Improvement, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC

20208-5651, telephone (202) 219-1463. This and other NCES

reports are available on the Internet at www.nces.ed.gov/.
22

References Evinger, S. (1995). How Shall We Measure Our Nation’s Diversity?

Chance, 8, 1, Winter, 7-14.

Evinger, S. (1996). How To Record Race. American

Demographics, May, 36-41.

Evinger, S. (1996). Results of the CPS Research on the

Measurement of Race and Ethnicity. Chance, 9, 2, Spring, 53-

56.

Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and

Budget. (1977). Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, Race and

Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative

Reporting.

Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and

Budget. Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on

Race and Ethnicity. Federal Register, June 9, 1994 (59FR

29831-35) and Federal Register, August 28, 1995 (60FR

44674-93) and Federal Register, October 30, 1997

(62FR5872-89).

Harrison, R., and Bennett, C. (1995). Racial and Ethnic Diversity.

Chapter 4 in State of the Union, America in the 1990s, Vol. 2:

Social Trends, edited by R. Farley. 1990 Monograph Series.

New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Hodgkinson, H. (1995). What Should We Call People? Phi Delta

Kappan, October, 173-179.

U.S. House. (1994). Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.

Review of Federal Measurements of Race and Ethnicity.

Hearings before the Subcommittee on Census Statistics and

Postal Personnel of the Committee on Post Office and Civil

Service, April 14, June 30, July 29, and November 3, 1993.

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

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (1996).

Findings on Questions on Race and Hispanic Origin Tested in

the 1996 National Content Survey. Population Division

Working Paper No. 15. Washington, DC: Department of

Commerce.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (1997).

Results of the 1996 Race and Ethnic Targeted Test.

Population Division Working Paper No. 18. Washington, DC:

Department of Commerce.

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

Statistics. (1996). Racial and Ethnic Classifications Used by

Public Schools. Statistical Analysis Report (NCES 96-092).

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
23

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

Statistics. (1997). Digest of Education Statistics. NCES 98-

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

Wallman, K., and Hodgdon, J. (1977). Race and Ethnic Standards

for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting.

Statistical Reporter, July, 450-454.
24
25

Appendix B

Telephone Protocols
26
PROTOCOL FOR TELEPHONE INTERVIEW

STATE SURVEY ON RACIAL AND ETHNIC CLASSIFICATIONS

SCREENER

1. Do you use only the five standard federal categories to classify the race and ethnicity of students

in your state?

Yes, this state uses only the five standard federal categories......... 1 (GO TO Q2)

No, this state has made revisions to the federal categories............ 2 (GO TO Q3)

2. Is this state considering revising the categories used to classify racial and ethnic data?

Yes, revisions are scheduled for implementation

or are being considered................................................................. 1 (BLUE FORM)

No, revisions are not anticipated ................................................... 2 (GREEN FORM)

3. In addition to the revisions already implemented, are any additional revisions being considered?

Yes, additional revisions are scheduled for

implementation or are being considered..................................... 1 (PINK FORM)

No, additional revisions are not anticipated.................................. 2 (YELLOW FORM)

1

GREEN FORM

THIS FORM IS TO BE USED ONLY FOR STATES WHERE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS

APPLY:

ONLY THE 5 STANDARD CATEGORIES ARE USED, and

NO REVISIONS ARE ANTICIPATED.

1. In the past 5 years, approximately how many complaints or requests for revisions to the categories

used to classify students’ race and ethnicity are you aware of receiving in your state?

Number of complaints_________

(IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS “NONE,” SKIP TO Q4A)

2A. From whom have these requests or complaints come? For instance, have you heard from:

Yes No

A1. Schools or school districts? .................................................... 1 2

A2. Parents?................................................................................... 1 2

A3. Organizations? ........................................................................ 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A3a)

A3a. Which ones?

A3a1. ____________________________________

A3a2. ____________________________________

A4. Anyone else?. ........................................................................ 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A4a)

A4a. Who else?

__________________________________________

2B. Have you received more complaints from any one particular

group? .............................................................................................. 1 2 IF YES, ASK B1)

B1. Which group is that?

_____________________________________________________
2

3. What kinds of requests or complaints you have received?

For example, have you received requests to modify the five standard federal categories by:

A. Adding a generalized category, such as: Yes No

A1. “Multiracial” or “multi-ethnic?” ........................... 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A1a)

A1a. With space for specification? ................... 1 2

A2. “Other” or “undesignated?” .................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A2a)

A2a. With space for specification? ................... 1 2

A3. “Unknown?”.......................................................... 1 2

A4. Some other general category? ............................... 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A4a)

A4a. What is that category?

_______________________________________

B. Adding specific racial or ethnic categories, such as

Filipino? ................................................................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK B1)

B1. Please tell me which specific categories.

B1a. __________________________________

B1b. __________________________________

B1c. __________________________________

B1d. __________________________________

C. Renaming any existing categories?................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK C1)

C1. Please tell me which existing categories, and their

suggested names.

C1a. __________________________________

C1b. __________________________________
3

Yes No

D. Redefining any existing categories? .............................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK D1)

D1. Please tell me which existing categories and their

suggested new definitions.

D1a. __________________________________

D1b. __________________________________

E. Eliminating the collection of these data?........................ 1 2

F. Any other requests or complaints? ................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK F1)

F1. What are they?

F1a. __________________________________

F1b. __________________________________

4A. How does your Department of Education obtain racial and ethnic data from school districts?

On paper forms................................................................................ 1

On diskette....................................................................................... 2

By E-mail......................................................................................... 3

Other (specify) _____________________________________ ..... 4

4B. Are you aware of your state’s Department of Education receiving from school districts any racial

and ethnic data that differ from the five standard federal categories?

Yes ............................................................................................ 1 (GO TO 4C)

No ............................................................................................ 2 (SKIP TO Q5)

4C. Can you tell me any specific categories that you are aware of? For example, are there school

districts that use a generalized category, such as “other” or “multiracial,” or some specific

alternative racial or ethnic categories, such as Filipino?

Yes ............................................................................................ 1 (GO TO C1)

No ............................................................................................ 2 (SKIP TO Q5)

C1. Please tell me the ones you recall.

C1a. _________________________________________________

C1b. _________________________________________________

C1c. _________________________________________________

C1d. _________________________________________________
4

5. Does your state accept data from schools or school districts that differ from the five standard

federal categories, or do you require schools or districts to aggregate or otherwise modify their

data prior to submitting it to the state department of education?

State accepts variations from schools/districts................................ 1

State requires prior aggregation by schools/districts....................... 2

6. Does your state provide schools and school districts with guidelines or instructions for modifying

data that differ from the five standard federal categories?

Yes................................................................................................... 1 (GO TO Q7)

No .................................................................................................... 2 (SKIP TO Q8A)

7. What kind of guidelines do you provide? That is, do you request school districts to prorate

students among the five standard categories by some formula, or by some other kind of

aggregating system? Please describe your guidelines.

(IF ANY CATEGORIES WERE IDENTIFIED IN Q4B, PROBE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT

EACH.)

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

8A. What does your state do with data it receives from school districts that do not conform to the five

standard federal categories?

The data are aggregated or otherwise modified .............................. 1 (GO TO 8B)

The data are left as submitted.......................................................... 2 (SKIP TO Q9)

8B. Please describe any procedures your state uses to modify these data.

(IF ANY CATEGORIES WERE IDENTIFIED IN Q4B, PROBE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT

EACH.)

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
5

9. If state or federal laws were changed concerning how racial and ethic data are classified, what do

you think would be the impact of implementing these changes on the following procedures:

A. Revising forms? ____________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

B. Revising computer systems? __________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

c. Training employees? ________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

10. In general, approximately how many months do you think it would take to implement any

changes?

NUMBER OF MONTHS 

11. Do you maintain historical files on the racial and ethnic data collected in your state?

Yes................................................................................................... 1 (GO TO Q12)

No .................................................................................................... 2 (SKIP TO Q13)

12. Do you issue reports on these data?

Yes................................................................................................... 1 (GO TO Q13)

No .................................................................................................... 2 (SKIP TO Q14)

13. How do you think changes to the current system would affect your state’s ability to report trends

in the racial/ethnic makeup of students?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
6

14. Given what you know about the demographics of your state’s student population, or your

awareness of changes or trends in these demographics, such as immigration or migration trends, to

what extent do you think there is a need to change the current system of classifying racial and

ethnic data?

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
1

PINK FORM

THIS FORM IS TO BE USED ONLY FOR STATES WHERE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY:

REVISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE, and

ADDITIONAL REVISIONS ARE SCHEDULED FOR IMPLEMENTATION OR

ARE BEING CONSIDERED.

1. What modifications to the five standard federal categories have been made and what others are being considered in

your state?

For each possible modification that I will describe to you, please indicate if it has been made, is scheduled for

implementation, is being considered, or if none of these options apply to your state.

Already Scheduled for Under None

made implementation consideration apply

A. Add generalized categories, such as:

A1. “Multiracial” or “multi-ethnic?”.... 1 2 3 4 (IF 1-3, ASK A1a)

A1a. With space for specification?

YES 

 NO 

A2. “Other” or “undesignated?”........... 1 2 3 4 (IF 1-3, ASK A2a)

A2a. With space for specification?

YES 

 NO 

A3. “Unknown?” .................................. 1 2 3 4

A4. Some other general category?........ 1 2 3 4 (IF 1-3, ASK A4a)

A4a. What is the name of this category?

 

B. Add specific racial or ethnic categories, such as Filipino?

(RECORD ALL SPECIFIC CATEGORIES NAMED)

B1. 1 2 3

B2. 1 2 3

B3. 1 2 3

B4. 1 2 3

C. Rename any existing categories?

(RECORD THE CATEGORY AND NEW NAME)

C1. 1 2 3

C2. 1 2 3
2

Already Scheduled for Under

made implementation consideration

D. Redefine any existing categories?

(RECORD THE CATEGORY AND

THE KIND OF REDEFINITION)

D1. 1 2 3

D2. 1 2 3

E. Are there any other modifications

that I didn’t name? If so, please describe

them to me and indicate if they have

been made, are scheduled to be

implemented, or are being considered?

E1. 1 2 3

E2. 1 2 3

2A. Does your state provide schools/school district with specific definitions of the modifications or additions that have

already been made?

Yes................................................................................................... 1 (GO TO 2B)

No .................................................................................................... 2 (SKIP TO Q3)

2B. Can you send us a copy of these definitions?

Yes................................................................................................... 1 (GIVE ADDRESS OR FAX #)

No .................................................................................................... 2

3. Does your state modify racial and ethnic data classified according to the revised categories you are using prior to

reporting the data to the federal government (i.e., in order to conform to the federal categories)?

Yes................................................................................................... 1 (GO TO Q4)

No, data are left as submitted .......................................................... 2 (SKIP TO Q5)

4. What procedures does your state follow to modify these data? That is, do you prorate students among the five

standard categories by some formula, or by some other kind of aggregating system? Please describe the

procedures you use to modify these data.

(PROBE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ANY REVISED CATEGORIES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS

“ALREADY MADE” IN Q1.)

 

 

 
3

5. To what institutions or agencies do the revisions that have already been made apply?

Yes No

A. All school districts? ................................................................ 1 2

B. Entire department of education?............................................. 1 2

C. State agency that deals with K-12 schools? .................................... 1 2

D. Other state agencies or departments? ..................................... 1 2 (IF YES, ASK D1)

D1. What are the other agencies?

D1a. 

D1b. 

D1c. 

6. To what institutions or agencies will the revisions that are scheduled for implementation apply?

Yes No

A. All school districts? ................................................................ 1 2

B. Entire department of education?............................................. 1 2

C. Other state agencies or departments? ..................................... 1 2 (IF YES, ASK C1)

C1. What are the other agencies?

C1a. 

C1b. 

C1c. 

7. How have these revisions or additions been authorized -- by state law, state regulation, state guidelines issued to

schools? When were they passed, and when were they adopted for use?

If yes,

Date passed Date adopted

Yes No (MO/YR) (MO/YR)

A. State law passed.................................... 1 2 __________ __________

B. State regulation adopted ....................... 1 2 __________ __________

C. State guidelines issued to schools......... 1 2 __________ __________

D. Some other procedure........................... 1 2 __________ __________ (IF YES, ASK D1)

D1. Please describe the procedure
4

8. What has prompted your state to revise or add to the five standard federal categories?

Yes No

A. For instance, was it prompted by requests or complaints from

outside the state government, such as parents or school districts? 1 2

B. Did data collection requirements from within

the state government prompt the revisions? ............................. 1 2

C. Are there any other reasons why your state made these

revisions?.................................................................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK C1)

C1. Please explain any other reasons.

 

 

(IF RESPONDENT ANSWERED NO TO Q8A, GO TO Q9; OTHERWISE, SKIP TO Q10A)

9. In the past 5 years, approximately how many complaints or requests for revisions to the categories used to classify

students’ race and ethnicity are you aware of receiving in your state?

Number of complaints __________

(IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS “NONE,” SKIP TO Q12A)
5

10A. From whom have these requests or complaints come? For instance, have you heard from:

Yes No

A1. Schools or school districts?................................................... 1 2

A2. Parents? ................................................................................. 1 2

A3. Organizations?....................................................................... 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A3a)

A3a. Which ones?

A3a1. ____________________________________

A3a2. ____________________________________

A4. Anyone else?. ........................................................................ 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A4a)

A4a. Who else?

__________________________________________

10B. Have you received more complaints from any one particular

group? .............................................................................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK B1)

B1. Which group is this?

____________________________________________________
6

11. What kinds of requests or complaints have you received?

For example, have you received requests to modify the current categories by:

A. Adding a generalized category, such as: Yes No

A1. “Multiracial” or “multi-ethnic?” ........................... 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A1a)

A1a. With space for specification? ................... 1 2

A2. “Other” or “undesignated?” .................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A2a)

A2a. With space for specification? ................... 1 2

A3. “Unknown?”.......................................................... 1 2

A4. Some other general category? ............................... 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A4a)

A4a. What is that category?

_______________________________________

B. Adding specific racial or ethnic categories, such as

Filipino? .................................................................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK B1)

B1. Please tell me which specific categories.

B1a. __________________________________

B1b. __________________________________

B1c. __________________________________

B1d. __________________________________

C. Renaming any existing categories?................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK C1)

C1. Please tell me which existing categories, and the

suggested names.

C1a. __________________________________

C1b. __________________________________
7

Yes No

D. Redefining any existing categories? .............................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK D1)

D1. Please tell me which existing categories and their

suggested new definitions.

D1a. __________________________________

D1b. __________________________________

E. Eliminating the collection of these data?........................ 1 2

F. Any other requests or complaints? ................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK F1)

F1. What are they?

F1a. __________________________________

F1b. __________________________________

12A. How does your Department of Education obtain racial and ethnic data from school districts?

On paper forms................................................................................ 1

On diskette....................................................................................... 2

By E-mail......................................................................................... 3

Other (specify) _____________________________________ ..... 4

12B. Are you aware of your state’s Department of Education receiving from school districts any racial and ethnic data

that differ from the categories your state now uses?

Yes ............................................................................................ 1 (GO TO 12C)

No ............................................................................................ 2 (SKIP TO Q13)

12C. Can you tell me any specific categories that you are aware of? For example, are there school districts that use a

generalized category, such as “other” or “multiracial,” or some specific alternative racial or ethnic categories, such

as Filipino?

Yes ............................................................................................ 1 (GO TO C1)

No ............................................................................................ 2 (SKIP TO Q13)

C1. Please tell me the ones you recall.

C1a. 

C1b. 

C1c. 

C1d. 
8

13. Does your state accept data from schools or school districts that differ from the categories your state uses, or do

you require schools or districts to aggregate or otherwise modify their data prior to submitting it to the state

department of education?

State accepts variations by schools/districts.................................... 1

State requires prior aggregation by schools/districts....................... 2

14. Does your state provide schools and school districts with guidelines or instructions for modifying data that differ

from the categories your state uses?

Yes ............................................................................................ 1 (GO TO Q15)

No ............................................................................................ 2 (SKIP TO Q16A)

15. What kind of guidelines do you provide? That is, do you request school districts to prorate students among other

categories by some formula, or by some other kind of aggregating system? Please describe your guidelines.

(IF ANY CATEGORIES WERE IDENTIFIED IN Q12B, PROBE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT EACH.)

 

 

 

16A. What does your state do with data it receives from schools or school districts that do not conform to the categories

your state uses?

The data are aggregated or otherwise modified............................... 1 (GO TO 16B)

The data are left as submitted.......................................................... 2 (SKIP TO Q18)

16B. Please describe the procedures your state uses to modify these data.

(IF ANY CATEGORIES WERE IDENTIFIED IN Q12B, PROBE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT EACH.)

 

 

 

 
9

17. What has been the impact of implementing the modifications that your state has made on the following procedures:

A. Revising forms? 

 

 

B. Revising computer systems? 

 

 

C. Training employees? 

 

 

18. In general, approximately how many months did it take to fully implement these changes?

NUMBER OF MONTHS 

19. Do you maintain historical files on the racial and ethnic data collected in your state?

Yes ............................................................................................ 1 (GO TO Q20)

No ............................................................................................ 2 (SKIP TO Q21)

20. Do you issue reports on these data?

Yes ............................................................................................ 1 (GO TO Q21)

No ............................................................................................ 2 (SKIP TO Q22)

21. How have the changes you have made affected your state’s ability to report trends in the racial/ethnic makeup of

students?

 

 
10

22. Given what you know about the demographics of your state’s student population, or your awareness of changes or

trends in these demographics, such as immigration or migration trends, to what extent do you think there is a need

to change the current system of classifying racial and ethnic data?

 

 
1

BLUE FORM

THIS FORM IS TO BE USED ONLY FOR STATES WHERE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY:

ONLY THE 5 STANDARD CATEGORIES ARE USED, but

REVISIONS ARE SCHEDULED FOR IMPLEMENTATION OR ARE BEING

CONSIDERED.

1. What modifications to the five standard federal categories are scheduled for implementation or are being

considered in your state?

For each possible modification that I will describe to you, please indicate if it is scheduled for implementation, is being

considered, or if neither of these options apply to your state.

Scheduled for Under None

implementation consideration apply

A. Adding a generalized category, such as:

A1. “Multiracial” or “multi-ethnic?”................ 1 2 3 (IF 1 OR 2, ASK A2a)

A1a. With space for specification?

YES 

 NO 

A2. “Other “ or “undesignated?”...................... 1 2 3 (IF 1 OR 2, ASK A2a)

A2a. With space for specification?

YES 

 NO 

A3. “Unknown?” .............................................. 1 2 3

A4. Some other general category?.................... 1 2 3 (IF 1 OR 2, ASK A4a)

A4a. What is the name of this category?

 

B. Adding specific racial or ethnic categories, such as Filipino?

(RECORD ALL SPECIFIC CATEGORIES NAMED)

B1. 1 2

B2. 1 2

B3. 1 2

B4. 1 2
2

Scheduled for Under

implementation consideration

C. Renaming any existing categories?

(RECORD THE CATEGORY AND NEW NAME)

C1. 1 2

C2. 1 2

D. Redefining any existing categories?

(RECORD THE CATEGORY AND

THE KIND OF REDEFINITION)

D1. 1 2

D2. 1 2

E. Are there any other modifications scheduled for implementation or under consideration? If so, please describe

them and indicate if they are scheduled for implementation or are being considered.

E1. 1 2

E2. 1 2

REFER TO QUESTION 1 WHEN ASKING QUESTIONS 2-4.

2A. (IF NO ITEMS WERE CIRCLED IN COLUMN 1 OF Q1, SKIP TO Q2B) What institutions or agencies will

be affected by the revisions that are scheduled for implementation?

Yes No

A. All school districts? ................................................................ 1 2

B. Entire department of education?............................................. 1 2

C. State agency that deals with K-12 schools?............................ 1 2

D. Other state agencies or departments? ..................................... 1 2 (IF YES, ASK D1)

D1. What are the other agencies?

D1a. _____________________________________

D1b. _____________________________________

D1c. _____________________________________
3

2B. (IF NO ITEMS WERE CIRCLED IN COLUMN 2 OF Q1, SKIP TO Q3) What institutions or agencies will

be affected by those revisions that are being considered?

Yes No

A. All school districts? ................................................................ 1 2

B. Entire department of education?............................................. 1 2

C. State agency that deals with K-12 schools?............................ 1 2

D. Other state agencies or departments? ..................................... 1 2 (IF YES, ASK D1)

D1. What are the other agencies?

D1a. _____________________________________

D1b. _____________________________________

D1c. _____________________________________

(IF NO ITEMS WERE CIRCLED IN COLUMN 1 OF Q1, SKIP TO Q4.)

3. How were the revisions or additions that are scheduled for implementation authorized -- by state law, state

regulation, state guidelines issued to schools? When were they passed, and when must they be adopted?

If yes,

Date passed Date adopted

Yes No (MO/YR) (MO/YR)

A. State law passed.................................... 1 2 __________ __________

B. State regulation adopted ....................... 1 2 __________ __________

C. State guidelines issued to schools......... 1 2 __________ __________

D. Some other procedure........................... 1 2 __________ __________ (IF YES, ASK D1)

D1. Please describe the procedure

 

 
4

4. What has prompted your state to revise or add to the five standard federal categories?

Yes No

A. For instance, was it prompted by requests or complaints from

outside the state government, such as parents or school districts? 1 2

B. Did data collection requirements from within

the state government prompt the revisions? ............................. 1 2

C. Are there any other reasons why your state made these

revisions?.................................................................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK C1)

C1. Please explain any other reasons.

 

 

(IF RESPONDENT ANSWERED NO TO Q4A, GO TO Q5; OTHERWISE, SKIP TO Q6A)

5. In the past 5 years, approximately how many complaints or requests for revisions to the categories used to classify

students’ race and ethnicity are you aware of receiving in your state?

Number of complaints _________

(IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS “NONE,” SKIP TO Q8A)
5

6A. From whom have the requests or complaints about the five standard categories come?

For instance, have you heard from:

Yes No

A1. Schools or school districts?................................................... 1 2

A2. Parents? ................................................................................. 1 2

A3. Organizations?....................................................................... 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A3a)

A3a. Which ones?

A3a1. ____________________________________

A3a2. ____________________________________

A4. Anyone else?. ........................................................................ 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A4a)

A4a. Who else?

__________________________________________

6B. Have you received more complaints from any one particular

group? .............................................................................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK B1)

B1. Which group is this?

______________________________________________
6

7. What kinds of requests or complaints have you received?

For example, have you received requests to modify the current categories by:

A. Adding a generalized category, such as: Yes No

A1. “Multiracial” or “multi-ethnic?” ........................... 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A1a)

A1a. With space for specification? ................... 1 2

A2. “Other” or “undesignated?” .................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A2a)

A2a. With space for specification? ................... 1 2

A3. “Unknown?”.......................................................... 1 2

A4. Some other general category? ............................... 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A4a)

A4a. What is that category?

_______________________________________

B. Adding specific racial or ethnic categories, such as

Filipino? .................................................................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK B1)

B1. Please tell me which specific categories.

B1a. __________________________________

B1b. __________________________________

B1c. __________________________________

B1d. __________________________________

C. Renaming any existing categories?................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK C1)

C1. Please tell me which existing categories and their

suggested names.

C1a. __________________________________

C1b. __________________________________
7

Yes No

D. Redefining any existing categories? .............................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK D1)

D1. Please tell me which existing categories and their

suggested new definitions.

D1a. __________________________________

D1b. __________________________________

E. Eliminating the collection of these data?........................ 1 2

F. Any other requests or complaints? ................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK F1)

F1. What are they?

F1a. __________________________________

F1b. __________________________________

8A. How does your Department of Education obtain racial and ethnic data from school districts?

On paper forms................................................................................ 1

On diskette....................................................................................... 2

By E-mail......................................................................................... 3

Other (specify) ___________________________________ ....... 4

8B. Are you aware of your state’s Department of Education receiving from school districts any racial and ethnic data

that differ from the five standard federal categories?

Yes................................................................................................... 1 (GO TO 8C)

No .................................................................................................... 2 (SKIP TO Q9)

8C. Can you tell me any specific categories that you are aware of? For example, are there school districts that use a

generalized category, such as “other” or “multiracial,” or some specific alternative racial or ethnic categories, such

as Filipino?

Yes ............................................................................................ 1 (GO TO C1)

No ............................................................................................ 2 (SKIP TO Q9)

C1. Please tell me the ones you recall.

C1a. 

C1b. 

C1c. 

C1d. 
8

9. Does your state accept data from schools or school districts that differ from the five standard federal categories, or

do you require schools or districts to aggregate or otherwise modify their data prior to submitting it to the state

department of education?

State accepts variations by schools/districts.................................... 1

State requires prior aggregation by schools/districts....................... 2

10. Does your state provide schools and school districts with guidelines or instructions for modifying data that differ

from the five standard federal categories?

Yes ............................................................................................ 1 (GO TO Q11)

No ............................................................................................ 2 (SKIP TO Q12A)

11. What kind of guidelines do you provide? That is, do you request school districts to prorate students among the

five standard categories by some formula, or by some other kind of aggregating system? Please describe your

state’s guidelines.

(IF ANY CATEGORIES WERE IDENTIFIED IN Q8B, PROBE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT EACH.)

 

 

 

 

12A. What does your state do with data it receives from schools or school districts that do not conform to the five

standard federal categories?

The data are aggregated or otherwise modified............................... 1 (GO TO 12B)

The data are left as submitted.......................................................... 2 (SKIP TO Q13)

12B. Please describe the procedures your state uses to modify these data.

(IF ANY CATEGORIES WERE IDENTIFIED IN Q8B, PROBE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT EACH.)

 

 

 

 
9

13. Please describe the impact that the scheduled revisions may have had, or that you expect will be encountered when

the changes are in effect, on the following procedures:

A. Revising forms? 

 

 

B. Revising computer systems? 

 

 

C. Training employees? 

 

 

14. In general, approximately how many months do you think it will take to fully implement the scheduled changes?

NUMBER OF MONTHS 

15. Do you maintain historical files on the racial and ethnic data collected in your state?

Yes................................................................................................... 1 (GO TO Q16)

No .................................................................................................... 2 (SKIP TO Q17)

16. Do you issue reports on these data?

Yes................................................................................................... 1 (GO TO Q17)

No .................................................................................................... 2 (SKIP TO Q18)

17. How do you think changes to the current system would affect your state’s ability to report trends in the

racial/ethnic makeup of students?

 

 

 
10

18. Given what you know about the demographics of your state’s student population, or your awareness of changes or

trends in these demographics, such as immigration or migration trends, to what extent do you think there is a need

to change the current system of classifying racial and ethnic data?

 

 

 
1

YELLOW FORM

THIS FORM IS TO BE USED ONLY FOR STATES WHERE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY:

REVISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE, but

NO ADDITIONAL REVISIONS ARE ANTICIPATED.

1. What modifications to the five standard federal categories have been made in your state?

Please indicate from the following list of possible modifications which ones your state has made.

A. Added a generalized category, such as: Yes No

A1. “Multiracial” or “multi-ethnic?” ........................... 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A1a)

A1a. With space for specification? ................... 1 2

A2. “Other” or “undesignated?” .................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A2a)

A2a. With space for specification? ................... 1 2

A3. “Unknown?”.......................................................... 1 2

A4. Some other general category? ............................... 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A4a)

A4a. What is that category?

_______________________________________

B. Added specific racial or ethnic categories, such as

Filipino? .................................................................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK B1)

B1. Please tell me which specific categories.

B1a. __________________________________

B1b. __________________________________

B1c. __________________________________

B1d. __________________________________

C. Renamed any existing categories?.................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK C1)

C1. Please tell me which existing categories were

changed and their new names.

C1a. __________________________________

C1b. __________________________________
2

Yes No

D. Redefined any existing categories? ............................... 1 2 (IF YES, ASK D1)

D1. Please tell me which existing categories, and the

new definitions.

D1a. __________________________________

D1b. __________________________________

E. Are there any other modifications you have made that I

didn’t name? ............................................................................ 1 2 (IF YES, ASK E1)

E1. What are they?

E1a. __________________________________

E1b. __________________________________

2A. Does your state provide schools/school districts with specific definitions of these modifications or additions?

Yes................................................................................................... 1 (GO TO 2B)

No .................................................................................................... 2 (SKIP TO Q3)

2B. Can you send us a copy of these definitions?

Yes................................................................................................... 1 (GIVE ADDRESS OR FAX #)

No .................................................................................................... 2

3. Does your state modify racial and ethnic data classified according to these revised categories prior to reporting the

data to the federal government (i.e., in order to conform to the federal categories)?

Yes................................................................................................... 1 (GO TO Q4)

No, data are left as submitted .......................................................... 2 (SKIP TO Q5)

4. What procedures does your state follow to aggregate these data? That is, do you prorate students among the five

standard categories by some formula, or by some other kind of aggregating system? Please describe the

procedures you use to modify these data.

(PROBE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THOSE REVISIONS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN Q1.)

 

 

 
3

5. To what institutions or agencies do the revisions that have been made apply?

Yes No

A. All school districts? ................................................................ 1 2

B. Entire department of education?............................................. 1 2

C. Other state agencies or departments? ..................................... 1 2 (IF YES, ASK C1)

C1. What are the other agencies?

C1a. 

C1b. 

C1c. 

6. How have these revisions or additions been authorized -- by state law, state regulation, state guidelines issued to

schools? When were they passed, and when were they adopted for use?

If yes,

Date passed Date adopted

Yes No (MO/YR) (MO/YR)

A. State law passed.................................... 1 2 __________ __________

B. State regulation adopted ....................... 1 2 __________ __________

C. State guidelines issued to schools......... 1 2 __________ __________

D. Some other procedure........................... 1 2 __________ __________ (IF YES, ASK D1)

D1. Please describe the procedure.

 

 
4

7. What prompted your state to revise or add to the five standard federal categories?

Yes No

A. For instance, was it prompted by requests or complaints from

outside the state government, such as parents or school districts? 1 2

B. Did data collection requirements from within

the state government prompt the revisions? ............................. 1 2

C. Are there any other reasons why your state made these

revisions?.................................................................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK C1)

C1. Please explain any other reasons.

 

 

(IF RESPONDENT ANSWERED NO TO PART A, GO TO Q8; OTHERWISE, SKIP TO Q9A)

8. In the past 5 years, approximately how many complaints or requests for revisions to the categories used to classify

students’ race and ethnicity are you aware of receiving in your state?

Number of complaints ________

(IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS “NONE,” SKIP TO Q11A)
5

9A. From whom have these requests or complaints come? For instance, have you heard from:

Yes No

A1. Schools or school districts?................................................... 1 2

A2. Parents? ................................................................................. 1 2

A3. Organizations?....................................................................... 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A3a)

A3a. Which ones?

A3a1. ____________________________________

A3a2. ____________________________________

A4. Anyone else?. ........................................................................ 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A4a)

A4a. Who else?

__________________________________________

9B. Have you received more complaints from any one particular

group? .............................................................................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK B1)

B1. Which group is this?

______________________________________________
6

10. What kinds of requests or complaints have you received?

For example, have you received requests to modify the current categories by:

A. Adding a generalized category, such as: Yes No

A1. “Multiracial” or “multi-ethnic?” ........................... 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A1a)

A1a. With space for specification? ................... 1 2

A2. “Other” or “undesignated?” .................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A2a)

A2a. With space for specification? ................... 1 2

A3. “Unknown?”.......................................................... 1 2

A4. Some other general category? ............................... 1 2 (IF YES, ASK A4a)

A4a. What is that category?

_______________________________________

B. Adding specific racial or ethnic categories, such as

Filipino? .................................................................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK B1)

B1. Please tell me which specific categories.

B1a. __________________________________

B1b. __________________________________

B1c. __________________________________

B1d. __________________________________

C. Renaming any existing categories?................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK C1)

C1. Please tell me which existing categories and their

suggested names.

C1a. __________________________________

C1b. __________________________________
7

Yes No

D. Redefining any existing categories? .............................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK D1)

D1. Please tell me which existing categories and their

suggested new definitions.

D1a. __________________________________

D1b. __________________________________

E. Eliminating the collection of these data?........................ 1 2

F. Any other requests or complaints? ................................. 1 2 (IF YES, ASK F1)

F1. What are they?

F1a. __________________________________

F1b. __________________________________

11A. How does your Department of Education obtain racial and ethnic data from school districts?

On paper forms................................................................................ 1

On diskette....................................................................................... 2

By E-mail......................................................................................... 3

Other (specify) _____________________________________ ..... 4

11B. Are you aware of your state’s Department of Education receiving from school districts any racial and ethnic data

that differ from categories your state now uses?

Yes ............................................................................................ 1 (GO TO 11C)

No ............................................................................................ 2 (SKIP TO Q12)

11C. Can you tell me any specific categories that you are aware of? For example, are there school districts that use a

generalized category, such as “other” or “multiracial,” or some specific alternative racial or ethnic categories, such

as Filipino?

Yes ............................................................................................ 1 (GO TO C1)

No ............................................................................................ 2 (SKIP TO Q12)

C1. Please tell me the ones you recall.

C1a. 

C1b. 

C1c. 

C1d. 
8

12. Does your state accept data from schools or school districts that differ from the categories your state uses, or do

you require schools or districts to aggregate or otherwise modify their data prior to submitting it to the state

department of education?

State accepts variations by schools/districts.................................... 1

State requires prior aggregation by schools/districts....................... 2

13. Does your state provide schools and school districts with guidelines or instructions for modifying data that differ

from the categories your state uses?

Yes ............................................................................................ 1 (GO TO Q14)

No ............................................................................................ 2 (SKIP TO Q15A)

14. What kind of guidelines do you provide? That is, do you request school districts to prorate students among other

categories by some formula, or by some other kind of aggregating system? Please describe your guidelines.

(IF ANY CATEGORIES WERE IDENTIFIED IN Q11B, PROBE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT EACH.)

 

 

 

15A. What does your state do with data it receives from schools or school districts that do not conform to the categories

your state uses?

The data are aggregated or otherwise modified............................... 1 (GO TO Q15B)

The data are left as submitted.......................................................... 2 (SKIP TO Q16)

15B. Please describe the procedures your state uses to modify these data.

(IF ANY CATEGORIES WERE IDENTIFIED IN Q11B, PROBE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT EACH.)

 

 

 

 
9

16. What has been the impact of implementing the modifications that your state has made on the following procedures:

A. Revising forms? 

 

 

B. Revising computer systems? 

 

 

C. Training employees? 

 

 

17. In general, approximately how many months did it take to fully implement these changes?

NUMBER OF MONTHS 

18. Do you maintain historical files on the racial and ethnic data collected in your state?

Yes ............................................................................................ 1 (GO TO Q19)

No ............................................................................................ 2 (SKIP TO Q20)

19. Do you issue reports on these data?

Yes ............................................................................................ 1 (GO TO Q20)

No ............................................................................................ 2 (SKIP TO Q21)

20. How have the changes you have made affected your state’s ability to report trends in the racial/ethnic makeup of

students?

 

 
10

21. Given what you know about the demographics of your state’s student population, or your awareness of changes or

trends in these demographics, such as immigration or migration trends, to what extent do you think there is a need

to change the current system of classifying racial and ethnic data?