PDF & Related InfoOCR, in considering the possibility of collecting information on the E&S Survey by automated means, was interested in determining the extent to which districts have automated their own student record systems. What kinds of information are maintained on these systems? Would districts prefer reporting data to OCR by automated means? What types of assistance would be needed if districts were to do so?
Districts were asked if they have an automated student record system that is integrated, i.e., can they link information from different sources on record systems an individual student (Table 7). Thirty percent of districts currently have in operation an automated, integrated student record system (Figure 12). Another 9 percent plan to have one by the 1992-93 academic year. The remaining 61 percent do not have an automated system.
Enrollment size and metropolitan status were two factors related to the likelihood of districts having automated, integrated student record systems. The following statistically significant differences in the percentages of districts with automated systems were found:
The FRSS survey asked districts how they currently maintain the individual student following types of individual student information: race/ethnicity, sex, information disability category, LEP status, instructional setting for pregnant students, participation in interscholastic athletic activities, disciplinary actions, and reason for disciplinary action (e.g, fighting, possession of drugs). Districts could specify that they maintain the information on automated systems, paper files, or partly on each (Table 8).7
Certain types of information were more likely than others to be maintained on automated systems (Figure 13). For example, more districts maintained data on sex of students on computers (39 percent) than any other item.
Whether districts classify their biracial/bi-ethnic students as a single race/ethnicity was related to enrollment size. Ninety-four percent of large districts classified biracial/bi-ethnic students this way, compared to 82 percent of medium districts, and 69 percent of small districts.
The types of information maintained on automated, integrated systems varied by enrollment size and metropolitan locale (Table 9). Large districts were more likely than small districts to maintain each of the various types of information on automated systems. For example, 69 percent of large districts and 20 percent of small districts maintained disability categories on automated systems.
In terms of locale, urban districts were more likely than suburban districts, and suburban districts were more likely than rural districts to maintain the following items on automated, integrated systems: race/ethnicity, sex, and disability category. Information on sex, for instance, was maintained on automated systems by 72 percent of urban districts, 51 percent of suburban districts, and 30 percent of rural districts.
Greater proportions of urban districts than of suburban or rural districts maintained the following items on automated, integrated systems: instructional setting for pregnant students (34 percent of urban districts, 13 percent of suburban districts, and 7 percent of rural districts); disciplinary actions; and reasons for disciplinary actions.
OCR has been considering alternative data collection methods for the of providing data E&S Survey. Districts were asked how they would prefer to provide data reported on the ED 101 and ED 102 forms. The choices included paper questionnaire, magnetic tape, IBM-compatible diskette, MAC diskette, and Apple diskette (Table 10). Districts could select more than one preference (Figure 14). Two-thirds of the districts (66 percent) chose paper questionnaires as a method of preference.
The preferred method of transmission varied by district size, metropolitan status, and region. For example, small and medium districts were more likely to select a paper questionnaire as a method of preference (68 percent and 61 percent, respectively) than were large districts (44 percent).
Large districts, on the other hand, were more likely to select magnetic tape as a method of preference (35 percent) than were medium districts (10 percent), and medium districts were more likely to do so than were small districts (3 percent).
Districts were asked what types of assistance they would require in order to be able to report E&S Survey data by automated means. Districts could select more than one type of assistance from the following: telephone hotline, written instructions, data editing specifications, and computer file specifications (Table 11).
When asked, about one-fourth of districts (26 percent) said that reporting by automated means, even with assistance, would not be possible in the foreseeable future. Of the remaining time-fourths of districts (74 percent) that would be able to report by automated means, more than half would require each type of assistance. The type of help selected by the most districts was written instructions, which was chosen by 66 percent. Fifty-six percent of districts would want computer file specifications;51 percent, a telephone hotline; and 51 percent, data editing specifications (Figure 15).
7If districts indicated that information for all students was maintained on automated systems, their response was marked "automated systems," even if the same information was also kept on paper files. If information on only some of site students was maintained on automated systems, and information on the rest of the students was kept on paper files, responses were marked "part automated, part paper files." If all information was kept only on paper files, the response was marked "paper files."
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}