STATISTICS IN BRIEF
October 1995
STUDENT STRATEGIES TO AVOID HARM AT SCHOOL
Ideally, schools should be havens where students and teachers can engage in
activities related to learning free of concern about personal safety. In
reality, today's schools are touched by the violence that is widespread in
society. Students are exposed to crime or threats to personal safety at
school, at school-related activities during the day, or on the way to or from
school, and a small but unacceptable percentage of students are victimized at
school. 1 In an effort to increase the safety of students at school, one of
the National Education Goals states that, "By the year 2000, every school in
America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined en-
vironment conducive to learning," and measures to increase safety at school
have been proposed in many schools and jurisdictions. However, until the
conditions in our schools improve, students must take what steps they can to
ensure their own safety.
This report presents information from a national survey of 6th- through
12th-grade students on student strategies to avoid harm at school. The data
are from the 1993 National Household Education Survey (NHES:93) conducted by
Westate for the National Center for Education Statistics. This report is
based upon the responses of the 6,504 students in grades 6 through 12 who
were surveyed. 2 Weights were applied to make the survey estimates applica-
ble to the entire population of children in grades 6 through 12. 3
STUDENT USE OF STRATEGIES TO AVOID HARM AT SCHOOL
The NHES:93 results suggest that unsafe conditions at school are not uncommon.
About half of 6th- through 12th-grade students personally witnessed bullying,
robbery, or physical assault at school, and about 1 out of 8 students reported
being directly victimized at school. 4 Threats or crime at school may
motivate students to develop strategies to avoid harm. In the NHES:93,
students were asked to report the types of strategies that they used to avoid
trouble at school or on the way to or from school during the 1992-93 school
year. Data were collected from January through April 1993. Specifically,
students reported on whether they ever took a special route to get to school,
avoided certain places in the school building, avoided places on the school
grounds, stayed away from school-related events, stayed in a group while at
school, or skipped school because they were worried someone might hurt or
bother them.
One-half of 6th- through 12th-grade students indicated that they do not use
any stategy to avoid trouble at school, the other half reported using a
single strategy or a combination of strategies. Twenty percent of students
said that they tried to stay in a group while at school, but did not report
any other strategy to avoid harm, and 5 percent resorted to a single strategy
other than staying in a group (figure 1).
Figure 1.--Sixth- through twelfth- graders' reports of the use of strageties to avoid trouble at school: 1993
No strategy - 50%; A single strategy other than staying in a group - 5%;
Staying in a group only - 20%; Combination of strategies - 25%.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, National Household Education Survey, 1993.
USE OF STRATEGIES TO AVOID HARM AT SCHOOL, BY SCHOOL AND STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS
School grade level, school type, and the racial/ethnic composition of the
school relative to the student's own race/ethnicity were associated with
students' reports of using some strategy to avoid difficulty at school. As
might be expected, safety at school also had an impact.
DIFFERENCES BY SCHOOL GRADE LEVEL
Senior high school students were less
likely than students attending either elementary or middle or junior high
schools to report using one or more of the strategies measured in this
survey. Only 43 percent of senior high school students but 58 percent of
6th- through 12th-grade students attending elementary school and 60 percent
attending middle or junior high schools said they used some strategy
(table 1). It is worth noting that only 11 percent of students in grades 6
through 12 attended an elementary school. According to the definition used
in this report, elementary and middle or junior high school students would,
on average, be younger than high school students. 5 Thus, age of student
may be a confounding factor in the findings about school grade level.
DIFFERENCES BY SCHOOL TYPE
Resorting to a strategy to avoid harm or harassment
at school is more common for students attending public schools than for
those attending private schools, and there is a significant difference between
students at public schools to which they were assigned and those at public
schools chosen by the family.
More than half of students at public schools of choice reported strategies
(57 percent) versus 50 percent of students at assigned public schools and
only 31 percent of students at private schools (table 1).
Public schools chosen by the family, attended by 11 percent of 6th- through
12-grade students, may be in areas that are perceived as less safe than
other schools, which may account for some of the difference. The programs
offered by magnet schools, for instance, may attract students and their
parents despite requiring youths to travel to less familiar surroundings.
This distance, in itself, would possibly warrant extra caution on the part of
students.
DIFFERENCES BY STUDENT'S RACE/ETHNICITY AND SCHOOL RACIAL COMPOSITION
White students were less likely than black students or Hispanic students to report
use of any strategy to avoid harm at school.
Forty-five percent of white students versus 60 percent of black students
62 percent of Hispanic students said that they used one or more strategies
(table 1).
When the racial composition of the school is taken into account for white and
black students, it was white students attending schools in which most of the
other students were also white who were less likely to report the use of a
strategy to avoid harm at school as compared to black students in schools of
any racial composition.
DIFFERENCES BY SCHOOL SAFETY
As would be expected, any encounter with
victimization at school increases the likelihood that students will use some
strategy to try to avoid harm. Students who know that incidents of bullying,
robbery, or physical assault have taken place at their schools or students
who have witnessed these events were more likely to report using one or more
strategies to avoid such incidents. About three-quarters of students who
either worry about being victimized at school or who have been victimized
reported using one or more strategies to avoid harm (table 1).
USE OF SPECIFIC STRATEGIES TO AVOID HARM AT SCHOOL BY SCHOOL AND STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Whether a single strategy or part of a combination of ways to increase safety
at school, staying in a group was the most commonly reported, by 41 percent
of students (table 2). Twenty percent of students opted to stay away from
certain places in the school building. Relatively few students (5 percent)
chose to take a special route to get to school or to skip school (7 percent).
Choice of specific strategy varied by some school and student characteristics.
DIFFERENCES BY SCHOOL GRADE LEVEL
The use of specific kinds of strategies
to avoid harm was related to school grade level.
- One-quarter of middle or junior high school children reported that they
deliverately stay away from certain places in the school compared with 17
percent of high school students who used this strategy (table 2).
- Both elementary and middle or junior high school students were more likely to stay away from places on school grounds, take a special route to get to school, and stay in a group than were senior high school students.
DIFFERENCES BY SCHOOL TYPE
The reports of public school students and
private school students were also distinct regarding specific avoidance
strategies. For example:
- Twenty-one percent of students at assigned public schools and 24 percent of students at chosen public schools reported deliberately staying away from certain places in school compared to 5 percent of private school students (table 2).
In fact, higher percentages of students at both assigned and chosen public
schools than at private schools reported using all types of avoidance
strategies.
DIFFERENCES BY STUDENT'S RACE/ETHNICITY AND SCHOOL RACIAL COMPOSITION
While the NHES:93 found that the incidence and types of victimization varied little
by race/ethnicity and school racial composition, some strategies used by
students to avoid trouble were different for black and white students in
schools of various racial compositions. To illustrate:
- Nine percent of black students in mostly black schools and 10 percent of
black students in racially mixed schools took a special route to get to
school, nearly 5 times the percentage of white childlren in mostly white
schools that reported this strategy (table 2).
- Black students in mostly black schools and black students in racially
mixed schools were also more likely to stay away from certain places in the
school than were white students in mostly white schools.
- Eight percent of white students in mostly white schools stayed away from
certain places on the school grounds compared to 26 percent of black students
in mostly blackk schools and 19 percent of black students in mostly nonblack
schools.
Student choice of specific strategy by race/ethnicity also revealed some significant differences. For example:
- Only 3 percent of white students took a special route to get to school
versus 8 percent of black students and 10 percent of Hispanic students (table
2).
- While 10 percent of black students and 11 percent of Hispanic students reported they sometimes stayed home from school because they worried about harm, 5 percent of white students said they did so.
Black and Hispanic students were also more likely than white students to stay
away from certain places in the school, to stay away from places on the school
grounds, and to stay away from school-related events.
SUMMARY
Wary of potential danger, approximately half of 6th- through 12th-grade
students employ strategies to help them avoid harm, most commonly staying in
a group while at school or avoiding certain places in the school. White
students attending schools in which most of the students are white were less
likely to report using a strategy than were black students, regardless of the
racial composition of their schools. There is a striking difference in
reported use of strategies between students at private schools and students
at public schools, with a lower percentage of private school students than
public school students reporting the use of any strategy to avoid harm at
school. Students who must think about avoiding harm at school are diverting
energy that should be expended on learning. Improving students' safety at
school will enable American youth to redirect their concerns to school work
and student activities.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND DATA RELIABILITY
The 1993 National Household Education Survey (NHES:93) is a telephone survey
conducted by Westat for the U.S. Department of Education's National Center
for Education Statistics (NCES). Data collection took place from January
through April of 1993. The sample is nationally representative of all
civilian, noninstitutionalized persons in the 50 states and the District of
Columbia. This sample was selected using random digit dialing (RDD) methods,
and the data were collected using computer assisted telephone interviewing
(CATI) technology.
The School Safety and Discipline (SS&D) component of the NHES:93, which is
the basis of this report, included a sample of students in grades 3 through
12. Two instruments were used to collect data on the school experiences of
these students. A household Screener, administered to an adult member of the
household, was used to determine whether any children of the appropriate ages
lived in the household, to collect information on each household member, and
to identify the appropriate parent/guardian respondent. If one or two
eligible children resided in the household, interviews were conducted about
each child. If more than two eligible children resided in the household, two
children were randomly sampled as interview subjects. For household with
children who were sampled for the survey, SS&D interviews were conducted with
the parent/guardian most knowledgeable about the care and education of each
child. If an eligible youth resided in a household in which no adult was
acting in a caretaking capacity for him or her, then that "emancipated" youth
responded to the interview. A sample of youth in grades 6 through 12 was
also interviewed following the completion of the parent interview about the
child. This report was wased on the responses of students in grades 6
through 12.
RESPONSE RATES
For the NHES:93 survey, Screeners were completed with 63,844 households, of
which 12,829 contained at least one child sampled for the SS&D component.
The response rate for the Screener was 82 percent. The completion rate for
the SS&D interview with parents of 6th- through 12th-grade students, or the
percentage of interviews conducted with parents for sampled children in that
grade range, was 90 percent, and the completion rate for the youth in grades
6 through 12 who were sampled was 83 percent. Thus, the overall response
rate for the SS&D interview with parents of students in grades 6 through 12
was 74 perdent (the product of the Screener response rate and the SS&D
completion rate). For youth, the overall response rate was 68 percent. For
the NHES:93, item nonresponse (the failure to complete some items in an
otherwise completed interview) was very low. The item nonresponse rates for
variables in this report are generally less than 2 percent for parents and 1
percent for youth. Items with missing data were imputed using a hot-deck
procedure. As a result, no missing values remain.
DATA RELIABILITY
Estimates produced using data from the NHES:93 are subject to two types of
error, sampling and nonsampling errors. Nonsampling errors are errors made
in the collection and processing of data. Sampling errors occur because the
data are collected from a sample rather than a census of the population.
NONSAMPLING ERRORS
Nonsampling error is the term used to describe variations
in the estimates that may be caused by population coverage limitations and
data collection, processing, and reporting procedures. The sources of non-
sampling errors are typically problems like unit and item nonresponse, the
differences in respondents' interpretations of the meaning of the questions,
response differences related to the particular time the survey was conducted,
and mistakes in data preparation.
In general, it is difficult to identify and estimate either the amount of
nonsampling error or the bias caused by this error. In the NHES:93 survey,
efforts were made to prevent such errors from occurring and to compensate for
them where possible. For instance, during the survey design phase, focus
groups and cognitive laboratory interviews were conducted for the purpose of
assessing respondent knowledge of the topics, comprehension of questions and
terms, and the sensitivity of items. The design phase also entailed over 500
staff hours of CATI instrument testing and a pretest in which over 275 inter-
views were conducted.
An important nonsampling error for a telephone survey is the failure to
include persons who do not live in households with telephones. About 92 per-
cent of all students in grades 3 through 12 live in households with tele-
phones. Estimation procedures were used to help reduce the bias in the esti-
mates associated with children who do not live in telephone households.
SAMPLING ERRORS
The sample of telephone households selected for the NHES:93
is just one of many possible samples that could have been selected. There-
fore, estimates produced from the NHES:93 sample may differ from estimates
that would have been produced from other samples. This type of variability
is called sampling error because it arises from using a sample of household
with telephones, rather than all households with telephones.
The standard error is a measure of the variability due to sampling when
estimating a statistic; standard errors for estimating a statistic; standard
errors for estimates presented in this report were computed using a jackknife
replication method. Standard errors can be used as a measure of the preci-
sion expected from a particular sample. The probability that a complete census
count would differ from the sample estimate by less than one standard error
is about 68 percent. The chance that the difference would be less than 1.65
standard errors is about 90 percent; and that the difference would be less
than 1.96 standard errors, about 95 percent.
Standard errors for all of the estimates are presented in the tables. These
standard errors can be used to produce confidence intervals. For example, an
estimated 5 percent of students reported that they took a special route to
get to school. This figure has an estimated standard error of .5. Therefore,
the estimated 95 percent confidence interval for this statistic is approxi-
mately 4 to 6 percent.
STATISTICAL TESTS
The tests of significance used in this analysis are based
on Student's (t) statistics. As the number of comparisons at the same signifi-
cance level increases, it becomes more likely that at least one of the esti-
mated differences will be significant merely by chance, that is, it will be
erroneously identified as different from zero. Even when there is no sta-
tistical difference between the means or percentages being compared, there is
a 5 percent chance of getting a significant (t) value of 1.96 from sampling
error alone. As the number of comparisons increases, the chance of making
this type of error also increases.
A Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct significance tests for multiple
comparisons. This method adjusts the significance level for the total number
of comparisons made with a particular classification variable. All the
differences cited in this report are significant at the .05 level of signifi-
cance after a Bonferroni adjustment.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the following people who reviewed this report and
provided helpful critique and suggestions: Marilyn McMillen of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Statistics Division of NCES; Mike Cohen of the
Statistical Standards and Methodology Division of NCES; John Ralph of the
Data Development Division of NCES; Oliver Moles, OERI; Bruce Taylor, Bureau
of Justice Statistics; and Edward D. Jonas, Jr., Atlanta Board of Education.
ENDNOTES
1. Nolin, M.J., Davies, E., and Chandler, K. STUDENT VICTIMIZATION AT
SCHOOL (forthcoming).
2. A total of 12,690 parents of students in grades 3 through 12 and 6,504
students in grades 6 through 12 were interviewed in the NHES:93.
3. The survey data were weighted to the entire U.S. population of youth in
grades 6 through 12, not only those youth living in households with
telephones.
4. Nolin, M.J., Davies, E., and Chandler, K. STUDENT VICTIMIZATION AT
SCHOOL (forthcoming).
5. Elementary schools were defined as having a lowest grade of 3 or less and
a highest grade of 8 or less. Middle or junior high school schools were
defined as having a lowest and a highest grade of 4 through 9. Senior high
schools were defined as having a lowest grade of 7 through 12 and a highest
grade of 10 through 12. Schools that did not precisely meet these qualifica-
tion were classified as "combined."
6. For additional information on telephone coverage issues and estimation
procedures to correct for coverage biases see J.M. Brick and J. Burke,
Telephone Coverage Bias of 14-to 21 -year olds and 3- to 5- year-olds. U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, report
number NCES 92-101.
Table 1.--Percentage of students reporting the use of any strategy to avoid harm at school, 1 by school and student characteristics: 1993
______________________________________________________________________________
| Number of students | Some strategy | No strategy
CHARACTERISTICS | in grades 6 thru | or combination | used
| 12 (thousands) | of strategies |
| | used |
_________________________|____________________|________________|______________
| | Percent | s.e. | Percent| s.e.
_________________________|____________________|_________|______|________|_____
Total ...................| 24,060 | 50 | 0.8 | 50 | 0.8
| | | | |
School grade level 2 | | | | |
Elementary school | 2,663 | 58 | 3.1 | 42 | 3.1
Middle or junior high | | | | |
school | 7,418 | 60 | 1.5 | 40 | 1.5
Senior high school 1 | 1,539 | 43 | 1.2 | 57 | 1.2
Combined | 2,440 | 40 | 5.3 | 60 | 5.3
| | | | |
School type 3 | | | | |
Public, assigned | 19,507 | 50 | 0.9 | 50 | 0.9
Public, chosen | 2,683 | 57 | 2.1 | 43 | 2.1
Private | 1,870 | 31 | 2.0 | 69 | 2.0
| | | | |
School size 4 | | | | |
Under 300 | 2,632 | 46 | 2.8 | 54 | 2.8
300 - 599 | 7,820 | 50 | 1.6 | 50 | 1.6
600 - 999 | 6,176 | 50 | 1.8 | 50 | 1.8
1,000 or more | 7,433 | 50 | 1.4 | 50 | 1.4
| | | | |
Student's race/ethnicity | | | | |
and school racial com- | | | | |
position 5 | | | | |
White in mostly white | | | | |
school | 9,598 | 43 | 1.8 | 57 | 1.8
White in racially mixed | | | | |
school | 6,449 | 48 | 1.6 | 52 | 1.6
White in mostly non- | | | | |
white school | 789 | 46 | 4.4 | 54 | 4.4
Black in mostly black | | | | |
school | 1,055 | 59 | 2.9 | 41 | 2.9
Black in racially mixed | | | | |
school | 1,958 | 61 | 4.2 | 39 | 4.2
Black in mostly non- | | | | |
black school | 814 | 60 | 4.0 | 40 | 4.0
Other race/ethnicity- | | | | |
school combination | 3,399 | 61 | 2.1 | 39 | 2.1
| | | | |
Student's race/ethnicity | | | | |
White, non-Hispanic | 16,835 | 45 | 1.2 | 55 | 1.2
Black, non-Hispanic | 3,826 | 60 | 2.4 | 40 | 2.4
Hispanic | 2,636 | 62 | 2.2 | 38 | 2.2
Other races | 762 | 56 | 7.3 | 44 | 7.3
| | | | |
Sex | | | | |
Male | 12,040 | 49 | 1.0 | 51 | 1.0
Female | 12,020 | 50 | 1.1 | 50 | 1.1
| | | | |
Knows of incidents | | | | |
Yes | 17,002 | 56 | 1.1 | 44 | 1.1
No | 7,058 | 35 | 2.2 | 65 | 2.2
| | | | |
Witnessed incidents | | | | |
Yes | 13,425 | 57 | 0.9 | 43 | 0.9
No | 10,636 | 40 | 1.1 | 60 | 1.1
| | | | |
Worried about being | | | | |
victimized | | | | |
Yes | 6,045 | 78 | 1.2 | 22 | 1.2
No | 18,015 | 40 | 0.8 | 60 | 0.8
| | | | |
Victimized | | | | |
Yes | 2,784 | 74 | 2.2 | 26 | 2.2
No | 21,276 | 47 | 0.8 | 53 | 0.8
_________________________|____________________|_________|______|________|______
1. Includes school activities during the day and on the way to or from school.
2. Schools were classified according to the lowest and highest grades at the school. Schools in which the lowest grade was 3 or less and the highest grade was 8 or less were classified as elementary. Middle or junior high schools were those that had a low grade of 4 through 9 and a high grade of 4 through 9. Senior high schools have a low grade of 7 through 12 and a high grade of 10 through 12. Schools that did not precisely meet these qualifica- tions were classsified as "combined."
3. School type was defined by the parents of the students who were inter- viewed as an assigned public school, a public school that was chosen by the family, or a private school.
4. School size was determined by the estimate of parents of students who were asked to choose from among the following four categories: under 300, 300 to 599, 600 to 999, or 1,000 or more. Parents who were only able to estimate the number of students in their child's grade were allowed to do so, and that answer was converted to size of school based upon the number of grades in the school.
5. School racial composition was measured by parent reports. Schools were
characterized as having more than 75 percent of students in the same racial/
thnic group as the child, between 25 and 75 percent, or less than 25 percent
in the same racial/ethnic group.
NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Number of students may not add to totals due
to rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statis-
tics, National Household Education Survey, 1993.
Table 2.-- Percentage of students reporting specific strategies to avoid harm at school, 1 by school and student characteristics: 1993
_________________________________________________________________________________
Strategies
_______________________________________________________________________________
| Number of | Take special | Stay away | Stay away
| students in | route to get | from certain| from places
Characteristics | grades 6 | to school | places in | on school
| through 12 | | the school | grounds
| (thousands) | | |
|_____________|______________|_____________|_______________
| |Percent | s.e.|Percent| s.e.|Percent| s.e.
_____________________|_____________|________|_____|_______|_____|_______|_____
Total.............. | 24,060 | 5 | 0.5 | 20 | 0.6 | 14 | 0.6
| | | | | | |
School grade level 2 | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Elementary school | 2,663 | 7 | 1.4 | 21 | 4.2 | 22 | 2.6
Middle or junior | | | | | | |
high school | 7,418 | 7 | 0.8 | 25 | 1.4 | 18 | 2.5
Senior high school | 11,539 | 3 | 0.4 | 17 | 0.8 | 10 | 0.5
Combined | 2,440 | 4 | 1.1 | 15 | 2.5 | 10 | 1.8
| | | | | | |
School type 3 | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Public, assigned | 19,507 | 5 | 0.5 | 21 | 1.0 | 14 | 0.8
Public, chosen | 2,683 | 6 | 1.1 | 24 | 3.2 | 18 | 2.6
Private | 1,870 | 2 | 0.7 | 5 | 0.8 | 4 | 0.9
| | | | | | |
School size 4 | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Under 300 | 2,632 | 3 | 0.9 | 15 | 4.0 | 12 | 2.4
300 - 599 | 7,820 | 5 | 0.8 | 20 | 1.8 | 16 | 1.7
600 - 999 | 6,176 | 5 | 0.7 | 21 | 1.0 | 13 | 1.0
1,000 or more | 7,433 | 4 | 0.5 | 21 | 1.2 | 13 | 0.8
| | | | | | |
Student's race/ | | | | | | |
ethnicity and school | | | | | | |
racial composition 5 | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
White in mostly | | | | | | |
white school | 9,598 | 2 | 0.4 | 13 | 1.0 | 8 | 0.8
White in racially | | | | | | |
mixed school | 6,449 | 4 | 0.6 | 21 | 1.9 | 12 | 1.0
White in mostly non-| | | | | | |
white school | 789 | 3 | 1.1 | 19 | 3.0 | 13 | 2.8
Black in mostly | | | | | | |
black school | 1,055 | 9 | 2.1 | 31 | 3.3 | 26 | 3.6
Black in racially | | | | | | |
mixed school | 1,958 | 10 | 2.2 | 32 | 4.7 | 24 | 8.6
Black in mostly non-| | | | | | |
black school | 814 | 5 | 1.8 | 23 | 3.9 | 19 | 3.0
Other race/ethni- | | | | | | |
city-school combina-| | | | | | |
tion | 3,399 | 8 | 1.1 | 27 | 1.8 | 24 | 1.6
| | | | | | |
Student's race/ethni-| | | | | | |
city | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
White, non-Hispanic | 16,835 | 3 | 0.4 | 16 | 0.7 | 10 | 0.7
Black, non-Hispanic | 3,826 | 8 | 1.4 | 30 | 3.0 | 24 | 4.3
Hispanic | 2,636 | 10 | 1.2 | 28 | 1.9 | 25 | 1.9
Other races | 762 | 5 | 1.5 | 26 | 4.1 | 21 | 3.3
| | | | | | |
Sex | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Male | 12,040 | 5 | 0.6 | 19 | 1.3 | 14 | 1.5
Female | 12,020 | 4 | 0.6 | 21 | 0.9 | 13 | 0.9
_____________________|_____________|________|_____|_______|_____|_______|______
Table 2.-- Percentage of students reporting specific strategies to avoid harm
at school, 1 by school and student characteristics: 1993 (CONTINUED)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Strategies
_______________________________________________________________________________
| Number of | Stay away | Stay in a | Stay home
| students in | from school- | group at | sometimes
Characteristics | grades 6 | related | school |
| through 12 | events | |
| (thousands) | | |
|_____________|______________|_____________|_____________
| |Percent | s.e.|Percent| s.e.|Percent| s.e.
_____________________|_____________|________|_____|_______|_____|_______|______
Total.............. | 24,060 | 8 | 0.6 | 41 | 0.9 | 7 | 0.5
| | | | | | |
School grade level 2 | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Elementary school | 2,663 | 8 | 1.7 | 50 | 3.8 | 8 | 1.3
Middle or junior | | | | | | |
high school | 7,418 | 9 | 0.7 | 49 | 1.7 | 8 | 0.9
Senior high school | 11,539 | 7 | 0.6 | 36 | 1.0 | 6 | 0.5
Combined | 2,440 | 8 | 1.7 | 33 | 4.3 | 6 | 1.4
| | | | | | |
School type 3 | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Public, assigned | 19,507 | 8 | 0.6 | 42 | 0.7 | 7 | 0.6
Public, chosen | 2,683 | 10 | 1.7 | 45 | 4.9 | 7 | 1.3
Private | 1,870 | 3 | 1.0 | 27 | 2.0 | 2 | 0.5
| | | | | | |
School size 4 | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Under 300 | 2,632 | 6 | 1.6 | 37 | 3.3 | 6 | 1.2
300 - 599 | 7,820 | 8 | 1.0 | 42 | 1.1 | 6 | 0.8
600 - 999 | 6,176 | 8 | 0.7 | 42 | 1.5 | 8 | 0.9
1,000 or more | 7,433 | 8 | 0.8 | 41 | 1.2 | 8 | 0.6
| | | | | | |
Student's race/ | | | | | | |
ethnicity and school | | | | | | |
racial composition 5 | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
White in mostly | | | | | | |
white school | 9,598 | 6 | 0.7 | 37 | 1.5 | 4 | 0.5
White in racially | | | | | | |
mixed school | 6,449 | 6 | 0.7 | 40 | 2.2 | 6 | 0.7
White in mostly non-| | | | | | |
white school | 789 | 9 | 2.6 | 38 | 3.9 | 10 | 2.6
Black in mostly | | | | | | |
black school | 1,055 | 12 | 2.5 | 42 | 3.3 | 8 | 1.9
Black in racially | | | | | | |
mixed school | 1,958 | 11 | 2.4 | 48 | 6.0 | 10 | 2.2
Black in mostly non-| | | | | | |
black school | 814 | 9 | 2.2 | 47 | 3.6 | 13 | 3.4
Other race/ethni- | | | | | | |
city-school combina-| | | | | | |
tion | 3,399 | 13 | 1.3 | 49 | 2.0 | 11 | 1.2
| | | | | | |
Student's race/ethni-| | | | | | |
city | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
White, non-Hispanic | 16,835 | 6 | 0.5 | 38 | 1.6 | 5 | 0.4
Black, non-Hispanic | 3,826 | 11 | 1.5 | 46 | 3.5 | 10 | 1.6
Hispanic | 2,636 | 13 | 1.4 | 50 | 2.5 | 11 | 1.3
Other races | 762 | 13 | 2.3 | 46 | 5.7 | 11 | 2.8
| | | | | | |
Sex | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Male | 12,040 | 8 | 0.8 | 40 | 1.0 | 6 | 0.6
Female | 12,020 | 7 | 0.6 | 42 | 1.5 | 8 | 0.7
_____________________|_____________|________|_____|_______|_____|_______|______
1. Includes school activities during the day and on the way to or from school.
2. Schools were classified according to the lowest and highest grades at the school. Schools in which the lowest grade was 3 or less and the highest grade was 8 or less were classified as elementary. Middle or junior high schools were those that had a low grade of 4 through 9 and a high grade of 4 through 9. Senior high schools have a low grade of 7 through 12 and a high grade of 10 through 12. Schools that did not precisely meet these qualifica- tions were classsified as "combined."
3. School type was defined by the parents of the students who were inter- viewed as an assigned public school, a public school that was chosen by the family, or a private school.
4. School size was determined by the estimate of parents of students who were asked to choose from among the following four categories: under 300, 300 to 599, 600 to 999, or 1,000 or more. Parents who were only able to estimate the number of students in their child's grade were allowed to do so, and that answer was converted to size of school based upon the number of grades in the school.
5. School racial composition was measured by parent reports. Schools were
characterized as having more than 75 percent of students in the same racial/
ethnic group as the child, between 25 and 75 percent, or less than 25 percent
in the same racial/ethinic group.
NOTE: s.e. is standard error. Number of students may not add to totals due
to rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statis-
tics, National Household Education Survey, 1993.
CONTACT: Kathryn Chandler 202-502-7486
AUTHORS:
Kathryn Chandler, NCES
Mary Jo Nolin, Elizabeth Davies; Westat, Inc.