Statistical Analysis Report:

Coverage Evaluation of the 1994–95 Common Core of Data: Public Elementary/Secondary Education Agency Universe Survey

October 1997

Introduction

1994-95 CCD SURVEY COVERAGE EVALUATION

The Common Core of Data (CCD) statistical program consists of four separate surveys. These are the "Public Elementary/Secondary Education Agency Universe Survey" (hereafter referred to as the agency survey), the "Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey" (hereafter referred to as the school survey), the "State Nonfiscal Survey", and the "National Public Education Fiscal Survey (NPEFS)".

The purpose of this evaluation is twofold. The results of this evaluation will be used for ongoing process improvement of the CCD surveys. Findings from this evaluation may be used to improve the survey as a whole. This evaluation will also serve as a documentation of coverage. It should be noted that the sources used for comparisons in this evaluation are not intended to be viewed as standards. These sources are merely being used to point out potential survey coverage problems, and the findings do not indicate absolute coverage discrepancies.

A coverage evaluation of the school survey would be of limited value without an existing evaluation of the agency survey, because the two surveys are linked in a hierarchical structure with the agency survey controlling. By definition all records on the school survey must have a corresponding agency record, but agencies need not have a corresponding record on the school survey. Therefore, this evaluation is focused on coverage in the agency survey.

This evaluation does not include the outlying territories of the United States. Each territory has but one education agency, therefore, no agency coverage issues exist in these areas. These areas will, however, be included in the coverage evaluation of individual schools.

This evaluation serves as a snapshot of the 1994–95 school year. The makeup of education agencies in various states is constantly changing, and this evaluation is not meant to serve as a current reference document. NCES sent a draft of this evaluation to all of the state education coordinators to afford them an opportunity to vouch for its accuracy in their particular state. Feedback from state coordinators' comments was incorporated into the final version of this evaluation in cases where it was deemed to be accurate for the reference period.

The entire evaluation process was initiated by researching state statutes and administrative codes to determine the types of education agencies which were legally authorized to exist in each state. This research was based on existing research done by the Bureau of the Census in connection with the 1992 Census of Governments, and updated based upon state legislation passed after the reference date of the Census. This research will also play a significant role in the classification phase of this evaluation, as such information not only reveals what agencies may exist in a given state, but also dictates how these agencies may be operated. These findings are included as Appendix A.

Several external and internal sources were compared to the agency survey. In a few cases comparisons had to be done at the individual school level. These discrepancies are noted in the text. Many of the comparisons done at the individual school level were necessitated by the fact that states had differing interpretations of what constituted an agency versus what constituted a school. The methodology is described in Chapter 9.

The term "education agency" is defined in the CCD survey as follows: "Government agency administratively responsible for providing public elementary and/or secondary instruction or educational support services." In conducting this evaluation, the author made no attempt to apply this definition to potential agencies found in the sources used in the comparisons. Instead, the definitions used in individual sources were accepted as is. The application of CCD definitions to units found in other sources is a possible topic for the classification phase of this evaluation.

In some cases entities with similar characteristics were classified differently by individual states. For example, a regional vocational-technical school might be reported as an agency by state A, and as a school within an existing agency by state B. This issue, in itself, is one of classification and will be addressed in further stages of this comprehensive evaluation. For the purposes of this phase of the evaluation any entity which could potentially be classified as an agency will be treated as such, regardless of how the state reported it.

Table 1 summarizes the results of the aforementioned comparisons, by state. The numbers reflect the number of agencies which appeared on the individual source identified in the column heading, but did not appear on the CCD agency survey. Due to the fact that some agencies which did not appear on the CCD agency survey appeared on several other sources, the detail may not always add to the total. This table does not take into account the number of agencies which appeared on the 1994–95 CCD survey, but could not be identified in any of the other sources.

A total of 779 potential agencies which were not reported on the CCD survey appeared on other sources. This represents approximately five percent of the total number of agencies on the CCD agency survey file. Approximately 89 percent of these potential agencies were found in the states' own education directories. Seven states are responsible for over half of this total. These states are California, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin. There were only five states in which no additional potential agencies could be identified through external sources. These states are Delaware, Hawaii, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Nevada.

PDF Download/view the full report in a PDF file.(238K)

HELP Help with PDF files

For more information about the content of this report please contact CCD staff .