DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 089 684 IR 000 396

AUTHOR Barbadora, Bernard M.TITLE A Description of the Cincinnati Public Schools'

School Information System.INSTITUTION Cincinnati Public Schools, Ohio.PUB DATE Apr 74NOTE 22p.; Paper presented at the American Educational

Research Association Annual Meeting (Chicago,Illinois, April 15 through 19, 1974)

EDRS PRICE MP-$0.75 HC-$1.50 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS Computer Programs; *Decision Making; *Educational

Planning; Elementary Schools; Evaluation;*Information Systems; Junior High Schools;*Management Information Systems; ProgramDescriptions; School Districts; *School Systeme;Senior High Schools

IDENTIFIERS Cincinnati Public Schools; *School InformationSystem; SIS Hewlett-Packard 2000C Computer

ABSTRACTThe Cincinnati Public Schools' Information System

(SIS) was established in 1970 and is currently an ongoing mechanismserving almost 100 schools. 'Its overall purpose is to provide dataand information to decision-makers in order to optimizedecision-making. The system utilizes a Hewlett-Packard 2000C unit andcollects data on over 800 variables relating to students, staff,school plants, assignable costs, demographic characteristics, specialeducation, and other matters. Each elementary, junior, and seniorhigh school is provided with 11 reports which describe what theschool is doing in relation to these variables and how thesevariables relate to educational achievement. Four years' experiencewith the system indicates that it provides excellent support foreducational planning and control processes, for goal setting, Froblemidentification and needs analysis, and for product evaluation. Inaddition, the SIS is an integral part of the educationalaccountability system and the district's Planning, Programing, andBudgeting System (PPBS). (Author)

(=>A Description Of

C:1The Cincinnati Public Schools'

School Information System

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION &WEL.EARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATIONti-HS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODuCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED' FROMTHE PERSON CR ORGANIZATIONAiING 17 POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED CO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEOuEAT,CN POSON CR POLICY

ByBernard M. Barbadora

Manager, The School Information SystemCincinnati Public Schools

230 East Ninth StreetCincinnati, Ohio

Paper Presented At the 1974Annual Meeting Of The American Educational Research Association

April 15-19

A Brief Description Of The Cincinnati Public Schools' School Information System

INTRODUCTION

In May of 1970 the Cincinnati Public Schools, Cincinnati, Ohio, received a Title

III grant for the purpose of developing and implementing a School Information System

(SIS) for the school district. The overarching rationale or strategy for this en-

deavor was the belief that when decision makers are provided with relevant, timely,

'reliable, and valid information; and when it Is presented in an easy to read fashion,

they are better able to make rational decisions than when such information is not

available. The seven basic goals of the system are (1) To develop a school eval-

uation and management model using system concepts. (2) To gather data on school

unit variables "most likely" influthicing the effective operation of the Cincinnati

Public Schools. (3) To construct a longitudinal school unit data bank and informa-

tion system. (4) To analyze data for parsimony, descriptiveness, and prediction of

school output. (5) To report data and information meaningfully to decision makers

so they can more effectively carry out the decision-making process. (6) To develop,

administer, analyze, and report the student, teacher, parent, and administrator

surveys. (7) To provide in- service training sessions for decision makers so they

can tiderstand and utilize this information system.

In the above paragraph an attempt was made to give the reader an idea of the

rationale for the system and what it is endeavoring to accomplish. The remaining

sections of this document will address itself to: (1) Background and Direction of

the School Information System, (2) Hardware Configurations, (3) Data Collection,

(4) Data Resources, Information Reporting, and (6) Evaluation of the System.

MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE SYSTEM

A. Background and DireCtion of'the System.

At the present time I have a staff of three plus myself. At the outset of the

project I had a staff of six people which included two programmer analysts, one pro-

grammerone evaluator, two statistical clerks and a secretary.

1

With respect to the system, it works within and services the 99 regular schools

comprising the Cincinnati Public School District. In other words, the system services

all seventy-three elementary schools, all eighteen junior high schools, and eight senior

high schools. The entire system's effort is channeled in the direction of the school

as the basic unit of data aggregation. In other words, data and information is de-

lineated, gathered, analyzed, and reported at this organizational level and services

only those decision makers (i.e., principals, supervisors, directors, assistant

superintendents, superintendent, and the Board itself) involved in decisions affecting

school units. Further, the system is in no way attempting to evaluate, manage, collect,

or report data or information relating to particular Students, particular classes of

students, particular teachers, or particular sub-districts of schools in the Cincin-

nati Public School system. The, system's primary focus is toward the school as a whole.

As more is learned about educational management and evaluation systems, their applica-

tion in education, whr:n resources, financial and human, become available, and as this

particular system becomes,operational, however, there is every intention of working

toward and within each of the other levels of the school organization.

Another characteristic of the system should also be made known before continuing.

The primary focus of this system is to deal with and serve as an information founda-

tion to the educational program dimension and not to support the maintenance (e.g.,

budget, salary, scheduling, etc.) dimensions connected with the educational setting.

At the present, we do not see ourselves servicing as a data crib to operationalize a

Planning Program Budgeting System (PPBS), a performance contracting system, or a

cost/effectiveness'system. This will come, but only after this basic system is first

operationalized. To reiterate, we are at the present-- and for the next few years --

interested in serving educational decision makers whose responsibility is to contri-

bute to the running of a school. And further, to assist these individuals by pro-

viding them with relevant, timely, valid, and objective information on those educa-

tional variables that have a significant impact on positively changing the behavior

of students.

2

More specifically, in terms of a system's framework, what the Hystem is endeav-

oring to do is delineate information needs, gather and analyze data to meet these

needs, and to generate and report information to decision makers for planningI

and controlling the educational change process at the school unit level. Operation-

ally speaking, COaccomplish these purposes, SIS is lending itself to identifying,

analyzing, and quantifying the relationships between all inputs going into a school

and educational outcomes (i.e., only those goals or objectives relating to the

educand). Further, SIS is allowing for determining the combination of contributing

factors which will maximize the educational outpilts. Finally,'the system is devel-

oped in such a way that it lends itself to the information reporting task. This is

of necessity in order that local school decision-makers can get the information when

they need It and in a most easily understood manner.

B. Hardware Configurations.

With respect to some of the more salient characteristics of our present hard-

ware configuration, these iiclude the use of an H.P. 2000C unit having a 32K CORE

memory. Storage for the time environment is a 2314 tape disc with 23.5m

bytes. Off-line storage is done on 800 bpi-9 track magnetic tape or punched or

mark sense cards. All reports are produced in a time-shared environment using either

terminal for short reports or line printer for longer reports. Data input is via

terminals and/or cards with the majority of cards either being punched or mark sensed.

C. Data Collection.

The following is a brief alphabetical list of the more than 800 data variables

per school collected and reported by SIS. In general, the SIS reports containing

these vari41 es cover each regular school (under the Cincinnati Board of Education)

from 1965-66 through the most recent academic year. The reader can assume that

absolute numbers are available for all variables--as well as percentages and district

averages wherever appropriate. For detail, see the Definition of Variables Booklet

3

produced by SIS,

I. PUPILS

A. Absence and Attendance(20 variables - by sex, grade) average daily rates

B. Membership(18 variables

C. Mobility(40 variables

D. Promotion(24 variables

- average daily - black)

- by grade, total school)

- total by grade, by sex)

E. Referrals(2 variables - attendance and psychological)

F. Tests - Academic Achievement(110 variables - Metropolitan Achievement, grades 3, 6, 8 reading, math)

G. Tests - Academic Aptitude(15 variables - grades 3, 6, 8)

H. Tests - Physical Achievement(30 variables - by age and physical classification)

I. Student Attitude Survey(30 variables - 6, 9 and 12 graders)

J. Graduate Follow-Up Survey(5 variables given to twelfth graders)

K. Delinquency(4 variables, e.g., physical arrests, drug arrests)

L. Health(2 variables - hearing and seeing)

M. Wealth(2 variables - free lunches and low income families)

N. Foster Homes(1 variable)

II. STAFF - CERTIFICATED

A. Absence and Attendance(10 variables - by school)

-1

Barbadora, Bernard M., Defin:.tion of Variables, Cincinnati Public Schools,Cincinnati, Ohio, Division of Research and Development. September, 1973, pp. 1-20.

4

B. Composition

(7 variables

C. Experience(8 variables

- age, staff turnover)

- average years teaching - B. A. degree, M. A. degree)

D. Pupil/Teacher Ratio(8 variables - by total school and by grade)

E. Teachers Attitude Survey(50 variables - 6 factors by total school)

III. SCHOOL/PLANT

A. Age of school building(1 variable)

B. Play area per student(1 variable)

C. Rooms in use(1 variable)

U. Portable classrooms in use(1 variable)

E. Portable classrooms available(1 variable)

F. Other building data(5 variables - capacity, number of books)

IV. ASSIGNABLE COSTS

A. Per Pupil(7 variables instructional costs, federal)

B. Total School Costs(7 variables - general fund costs - state)

V. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

A. Parent Attitude Survey(30 variables - given every parent in Cincinnati Public Schools)

B. Census(100 variableso- by school attendance area, mean income types offamilies - education - income)

Vi. OTHER SURVEY DATA

(100 variables - Administrator Survey - Teacher Survey by race - StudentSurvey by sex, etc.)

VII. SPECIAL EDUCATION

(50 variables - membership, promotion, phyaical achievement)

D. !Mtn Resources.

Very little data with the exception of the Student, Teacher, Parent, and

Administrator Surveys are collected denovo. Therefore, SIS relien on many individ-

uals, departments, and agencies for the "original" collection of data. The following

is a list of both intra-system and outside systems contacted for the inputting of

data into SIS. INTRA-SYSTEM SOURCES: Office of the Clerk-Treasurer; Office of the

Superintendent; Department of Research and Development; Administrative Research

Branch; School-Community Relations Branch; Department of Business Management;

Evaluation Services Branch; Health and Physical Education; Educational Opportunities

Services Branch; Staff Personnel Branch; Elementary and Secondary Schools; Pupil

Adjustment and Attendance Services Branch; Psychological Services Branch; Department

of Human Resources; Food Services Branch; and Department of Facilities Management.

OUTSIDE SYSTEM SOURCES: Hamilton County Board of Elections, Cincinnati Police

Records -- Regional Computer Center, City Planning, Chamber of Commerce, and Ohio-

Kentucky-Indiana Regional Planning Authority.

E. Information Reporting.

In reference to the reporting dimension of SIS, this is perhaps the most important

and novel aspect of the system. Essentially the School Information System produces

ten major reports. By title they are: Exceptional Characteristics Report, Schoolt

Variable, rintout: School Variable Stanine, School Factor Stanine, Student Survey,

Teacher Survey, Parent Survey, Goal Survey, Achievement Forecast Report, and Trend

Report. Specific characteristics and uses of each of these documents will now be

elaborated upon. (OVERHEAD) However, the reader is referred to the appendices given

after each title to get a clearer idea of what the report looks like.

1. Titliv: Exceptional Characteristics (1-5 pages) SO Appendix A

Contents: Positive (i.e., cox-rented positively with student achievement

variables), negative, and neutral data--when they are above or below the middle

6

two-thirds of District schools at the same level. For example, a listing for one of

the 73 elementary schools would mean that school was among the top or bottom dozen

elementary schools on that particular variable.

Uses: As quick identification of major strengths and weaknesses. brief

guideline for goal development or needs assessment, summary of highlights for report

2 (below).

2. Title: Variable Printout (16.pages) See Appendix B

Contents: Variables are printed in raw score, percent, direction, (i.e., +

or - depending on correlation with student achievement), district-wide comparison,

and normal range (one standard deviation) for several hundred variables in the SIS

data bank.A

Uses: Basic data on school's inputs and outputs, backup detail for all

other more abbreviated reports and can be used for both context and product evaluation.

3. Title: Factor Stanine Profile (1 page) See Appendix C

Contents: Twenty major input and output factors (i.e., clusters of variables)

with direction as well as stanine and percentile rankings.

Uses: Global snapshot of a school, summarized version of #4 below:

4. Title: Variable Stanine Profile (16 pages) See Appendix D

Contents: Direction, stanine, and percentile for most of SIS's variables.

Uses: Quick picture of how one school compares with others in the District

backup for report 3.

5. Title: Student Survey (1 page) See Appendix E

Contents: Percent of agree, disagree, and undecided responses to 30

qt....1stionnaire items. Taken by all sixth, ninth, and twelfth graders.

Uses: Assessment of student attitudes, confirmation or refutation of other

data on students.

6. Title: Teacher Survey (2 pages) See Appendix F

Contents: Actual and averaged responses to 50 questionnaire items. Taken

by all teachers.

7

UHVH: Assessment of teacher attitudes, basis for staff meetings, offers

direction for change.

7. Title: Parent Survey (1 page) See Appendix G

Contents: Percent of yes, no, and undecided responses to 22 questionnaire

items. Taken by a large sample of the parents for each school.

Uses: Assessment of parent sentiments, basis for P.T.A. discussion.

8. Title: Goal Survey (1 page) See Appendix H

Contents: Percent of top selections from eleven goal statements put to

school administrators and to the above survey populations.

Uses: Note emphases of the various groups, compare groups, review program

priorities. To determine amount of agreement parents, students, and teachers have

regarding need areas of the school.

9. Title: Achievement Forecast (2 pages) See Appendix I

Contents: Graphical comparison between a school's "predicted" achievement

(based on a variety of input variables) and the school's actual achievement (i.e.,

achievement test results) in reading and mathematics..

Uses: Evaluation of a school's success--in terms of its resources, needs

assessment and program evaluation.

10. Title: Trend Report (4-8 pages) See Appendix J

Contents. '--3-.for selected variables are graphed over the past five

'school years.

Uses: Find patterns, better predict what will happen next year, historical

background of school. Seek out trends in data. More accurately predicting what the

future has in store. Past history of the school.

EVALUATION OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM

Regarding some evaluative data, results of a survey of all principals in April

of 1973 proved to be very positive. Specifically, Item 1 queried understanding of

SIS reports. Of the four choices provided, 22 reported "very well", 74 marked

8

"rather well", and therefore none fell into the lower two categories of "rather

little" and "very little".

Item 2 inquired about the general frequency of report usage. Fifty, a slight

majority, replied "monthly", while 13 and 12 reported "weekly" and "annually"

respectively. Only three purported to use SIS documents "daily". Another 20

commented to the effect that they tended to use the reports as needed or at varying

times.

Item 3 dealt with extent and kind of use made of the reports. Results are shown

in Table I below:

TABLE I: "How much do you refer to the report?"

\h' Areas Of UseNot

At AllA

LittleSome-¶hat

A

LotAver -

age*..2.8a To answer staff uestions 2 27 54 13

b To answer arent uestions 5 39 41 11 2.6c For discussion in staff meetin:s

.._

1 19 45 31 3.1d For discussion in community meetings 0

1

30

11

42

36

24

48

2.9

3.4

e) To assess needs or develop goals forour school

f) To evaluate aspects of your school 1 6 44._

45_.

3.4*Calculated with a 1-4 point scale with high score meaning high usage.

As can readily be seen, the overall usage in terms of the above areas was reasonably

high in 111 cases.

Another item on this same survey asked for respondents to indicate their interest

in the various reports. Again, the results were quite positive and are given below in

TableTABLE II: "Rank each SIS Report in terms of interest for you".

Name Of SIS Report None Low High Average*a) Exceptional Characteristics 1

.Medium12 35 45 3.3

b) Variable Printout .4 10 49 31 3.2r) Factor Stanine 3 10 44 37 3.2

Variable Stanine 4 13 47 29 3.1,_(.1)

e) Student Survey 2 6 30 57 3.5f) Teacher Survey 0 3 26 65 3.7

Parent Survey . 0 2 31 63 3.6,g)

h) Goal Survey 0 6 38 51 3.5i) Trend Report 0 12 36 44 3.3

Achievement Forecast 4 7 , 32 48 3.4*Based on a 1-4 point scale with 4 meaning "high".

In general, one can note the substantial interest of the principals at large in all

the reports. Considering the centers of gravity or average figures, no report fell

below "medium". The four surveys, led by the Teacher Survey, rated above any of the

other six reports.

In conclusion, this is what the School Information System looks like and what

it is endeavoring to accomplish. To date the major problems encountered include:

complete acceptance of the system on the part of all principals, more training on

the part of administrators so that they can more fully understand and utilize the

system, more help needs to be provided in data usage, timeliness of data, and greater

financial support is definitely needed if the system is to fully operationalize a

pupil information system. And last,but certainly not least, is the fact that up toOs.

this year we never had our own computer.

Regarding some of the positive characteristics of the system, the system does

provide for easy access and retrieval of data in order to support the educational

planning and controlling process. It has proved to be an excellent mechanism for

goal setting, problem identification, and needs analysis. It has also proved valuable

in doing product evaluation. To the author's knowledge, this is the only management

and evaluation system serving the educational program dimension as opposed to grade

reporting, scheduling, payroll, etc. Generally speaking, it is seen as a vital

support mechanism for both an educational accountability system as well as a Planning,

Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS).

SUMMARY

In the above paragraphs, an attempt was made to give a quick overview of the

Cincinnati Public Schools' School Information System. Specifically, it was stated

that the overall goal of the system was to provide data and information to decision

makers for the purpose of more enlightened decision making. The paper addressed Itself

to the taajor components of the system and they were: its hardware configuration;

where what, and how data is Collected and examples of how the data

is reported. Finally a brief evaluative testimonial of the system was given.

10

TABLE OF APPENDICES

The following are exemplavy pages of each of the documents produced

by the Cincinnati Public Schools' School Information System.*

Appendix AExceptional Characteristics of Your School

Appendix B13

School Variable Printout

Appendix C14

Factor Stanine Profile

Appendix D15

Variable Stanine Profile

Appendix EStudent Survey

Appendix FTeaCher Survey

Appendix GParent Survey

Appendix HCoal Survey

Appendix

16

17

18

Achievement Forecast Report

Appendix J . .

Trend Report

19

20

.. . . . .... . ... . .. . . ... 21

*It should be noted that for each of these report,-1e4oto and veryinstructional meMorandimbs are prepared and accompany eaCh'doCiimentwith its

release.

APP

EN

DIX

A

E.SLI

C1AICIsthi6 T1 ;u8LIC SCHOOL INFORmATION SYSTEM

ILLYISICIILIIEPILIGRAILIESEARCILLDFc1Cal

PasiTTTE764ApAcTERIsms

ACktIEMEMERIL

liKUPTIONAL CHARACTCAISTICS OF YOUR SCHOOL

1 3.711-32-SCHOOLIEM.

NEGATIVE CHARAC/ERISTICS

(BASED Oh SCHOOL ACHLEYEALEAT)

,,101.,?AvEcAGE,DALLYA6SNCE - GRADE K

.H/Gti 2VEPAcf_CAILX_LUENrANCr - ARAOr.

rLLCINAVERAGEGAILY ABSENCE - GRADE 5

kticat. AvEs..cf IyT1

AT-m-4:1 Am-

- aRA.IF

--4..0wirreu,:fftROLLMENTS - TOTAL

011L1EIXERNALLIXAUIEEKS- =AL_

LOW:I LEAVING SCHOOL - TOTAL

2-ExrEtrmAt _TrrAkcFicag. - altAnF

LON,2 NEW ShROLLmENTS - GRADE I

raw tlilrismau TRAksFkki - GAAnF 1

LOW/4,14ENROLLPIENTS - GRADE 2

S.

hiGh 1 TRANSFERS -IX - GRADE K

kitar f TRArts.FF_Rc-nuy - GRAnT

Z LEAVING SCHOCH. - GRADE K

HLGAALEAlata...1010m -!GBAGE

JrsIGn Z TCaNSFERS-OUT - GRADE 2

__Lek i "IS Pitc.rtaTFD - CRADE 7

Law Z TOTAL PROMOTED - GRADE 3

ta- I. !arc pporearla

aR2CIF

Les R. 3 READING(251)

Ink ay_ I

Anthatstom

Law Gk. 3 WORD KNOWLEDGE(752)

,1

CAN NOT DETERMINE IF

PaSIMEMIL_NEGATreFEnABAL/EALstiCS___

(BASED ON SCHOOL ACHIEVERNI)

LOs AVERAGE DAILY MEMBERSHIP - TOTAL

Arm AniaS APPIERPRSHIP

54;74.1

LOW AVERAGE DAILY MEMBERSHIP - wUADC

crgsaoss_maisocsau_-_,--

LOW AVERAGE DAILY MEMBERSHIP - GRADE 2

o.

LOW GROSS MEMBERSHIP - GRADE 3

1.011-AVERAGELIALLX-11FmacoSH/P

cRAtLE 4

LOW GROSS MEMBERSHIP - GRAZE 4

LOW GROSS MEMBERSHIP - GRADE 5

LOw2ufw ENROLLMENTS - GRADE 3

fn At 9 LFAvrwa'cris:OL

GRAnF A

,

LOWZLEAvING-SC4001- - GRADE

LONA-1Z-LEAvImG SCHOOL --GRADE 5

HIG)6IGTRLS4oRONOTED - TOTAL

Hr4W2'13i2At PROHDTFO'- G22flf 2

Wiripk2.402S-PRONCTE0--4RACE K

rerGH-2'CT*rt ~RCM) - GRAJDF

HIGH .Z'

- GRADE 1

CakAhc 2

Kick A ,GIRLS.: pk3MOTE6,7vGRAIDE 3

KIGHJASOYSPROPOTED:- GRADE 4

Leu GR. 3 WORD ANALYSIS(90Z) "

III- ay- IL sogLIPIGI75s1

L.:). GR. 3 SPELLING(90Z)

Liv.d Gg

triusour,ALLosuan_

LOW GR. 3 ARITH. CONPUTATIONt750

LC. SR. 3 ARM. CONCEPTS(252)

IWt- A 2RITM- CflitrFPTs17511

LO GR. 3 ARITH. CONCEPTS49023

LO

W1 2- A Anym_ MOB- SDLV 19021

LOw GP. 4 READING(902)

.11

11'd

o.1

.Lau GR. 6 LANGUAGE(902)

HIGH tIOTAL,,PRONOTE0,- GRADE 5

SO

HIGH Z GIRLS, ORCMOTEG- GRADE 5

krak r rt-A-AL rorrtyreft

agADr 4

HIGH I BOYS-PRCPCTEC - GRADE 6

hIGH.2GTPLPPOPIQTFC-

LOW5D,Y,O. QASH SC..:RE-60YS II

SUKAIALLTAPow =SCORE -BOYS /II

LOW GROSS MEMBERSHIP - GRADE 6

MTLN I StACk NEM4FIV,WIP

LOs GR. 3 READING VARIABILITY

LOU GA. 3 WORD AHALrSIS 10A*LABILITY

__LON GR- A StfkkthC 2A2TAbILITY

LOW GR. 3 ARITH. COmPUTATIC% VARIABILITY

S.LOW GR. 6 READING VARIABILITY

'Id'

O

LOW GR. 6 LANGUAGE VARIABILITY

a__A

MY

L ii

iLOW GR. 6 ARITH. CONCEPTS vskiAeurrr

-,

La. Ga. 6 ARITH. PROB. SOLv.(902)

LOA G.1- 3 IQ TIARA

LC., Q4. 3 IO (252)

Lam GP- 3 r4 taa2t

LE0 G-.. o IQ (902) '

'AFTICIPATIUN THROW-BOYS I

kr PLPTICIRAIIM./ftf niffta,lian I

PA4T1CIPATION BROAD JUMP-602S I

LCat PArtICIPATION DASH-GIRLS I

-vrIGH,-,STURETSIGAHE SKILLS SCORE-GIRLS III

rtrotATtsatrArttt tLItUc '5.cr1RF-An.us. Iv

FTGWABALL-.214ROw SCORE -BAYS V

STOW sr:min/c.d.:ft

scLkE-GIRLS +

pciGo scpooLt. ArwPhEkE FACTOR

SEE so.olGt. valletsLE 0.141JuT g-c

L.C PARTICIPATION STUNTS -GrPLS I

Trr

jFJI

I.Y

tLrtAsk-Ant's_ II

,C PAATICIPATION THROH-BOYS II

21.u-ILW4II-ak 2DLE CALwzr-BCIMS-

ZS

CLI03 SCORE -BAYS II

-IT

L-,

...AP SCORE-BOYS II

LON G.R. 3 10 VARIABILITY

Glit__6 T4 VARYARILTYY

LOW Z OM STAFF

LPN PiprtirEAawK2 RATIO -

.n; I

LOW PUPIL/TEACHER RATIO - GRADE 2

HIGH AVERAGE DAILY ABSENCE -

1 12-11tEwfhpalksfATS - SPECIAL

NIGH I TRANSFERS -OUT - SPECIAL

Law Z LEAVING SCHOOL - SPECIAL

bLIGKAL

HIGh S aays oRommeo - sptclAt.

4_GIRLS ixammuILL- sPt-T.A.k

APPENDIX B

E SE TITLE III

PI

INFOitsTION 8TZTEm

DIVISION OF POOGItA8 86$48148* c ofSIQH

STA

OC

IL-I

INO

TE

ICE

-PID

INM

T--

-

L.>

25400

316:,49

3.00

4.00

44.0

0

1400 0

4.00

3.00

-47.00

2.00

3.00

12.00

11300

ALL

MAE'

SCHOOL

miTS

C61TICAL

IKEA

'0 .0 D311 0

I.

PUPIL$ -

TOTAL semot,____

AVERAGE DAILY A85ENCE

AvatAGE GAILY ATTU/Q/04CE

( -I

J1

4.941I

t.1...9311

1.551

9.1.52;

5RAOCk

AVERAGE DAILY ABSENCE

I-)

6.982

13.101

1.:AveltAOf DAILY AM:HOWE

93.0Z8

86.90%

GRADE

AvERAGE °ALLY ABSENCE

(-I

6.331

1.83;

4IIRAGE QAJtv ATITA.0AsCE

Llice%

91,174_

*ODE 2

_1*

.-

AVERAGE GAUT 88SkaCt

4 -1

o.38%

7.476

etpEPAGI malty 6Tro.RAKt_

lo,

9A.4424_

____940.S24_

3_MAD&

AVERAGE GAILY ASZETIGE

(-1

7.41%

7.224

92.991-

awsof

____,

__92,Y13_

AVERAGE CALL/ 8.85L144,t

.00%

7.634

AvERAG.EIDAILT ArILT4QANCE.

94.42.8

?Zan

G4A0L-..1

A9E-86GE DAILY 6ostmc.I

t-t

3.774

7.52%

4.1

9643%

92.14a

AYET.AGE DAILY 665ENCE

6.25

Z_ --

7.75%

AJWIAGEJIAILIJIIIEWANCE

93.751

AllEfta a9 SEA

8071

t-P

0.494

(-)

6.044

8.631

-tIS

EiCEPi

,ow

1.)6.L ?mai MiLE

C

5.981 IC,

11.128

()

/Urea TO

94620

08.72* TO

17.484

82.514 TO

914292

6.22% TC

11.44;

_04014 TO _VALI_

!1)1

5.466 TO

9.904

Z V

INsiAoA.....N21.20/=

04.444 70

9.94Z

_119.4 111_57.1.__ - -

,-.,

6A..81% TO

1.2.45%

09.33% TC

95.2.11.

4.16% TO

14.38*

111.11¢1_11!

-2161

4.474 To

11.131

41ff

atk4

TV

omits

5.811 TO

11.274

0

_8.041% TO J1.184

C C211

APP

EN

DIX

- C

- _

__ _

_ _

_L T

L £

Z L

1. _

_

INC

INN

1I

P'oo

t_ I

C S

CN

CO

I. I

NFO

RR

AT

LO

S SY

ST

EN

2BO

UL

AS.

. 1/E

SLA

IIC

ilA-1

3F-5

4461

--

STA

NIN

F PR

OFI

LE

1471

-7z

,trw

nnk

vtat

ST &

NIN

E

aF-2

1i 3

-4_

-5-

-6-

.1[-

-s1

00c,

-T36

3.72

".lr

Ty

isrs

i3

1.24

Avr

eft L

TV

(-I

7001

-

5552

6

DaP

UI

AT

LO

'4

1-.1

13-1

-4-

c.st

"L

ITZ

Tr.

.trc

fel

173

-

1:72

tE

5-66

Ls

L4

1-C

t

3-2

2 &

I-

&FA

Tits

T.4

1.14

---'

4.1

11.

243

32

Our

Pur

FAC

TC

);

11A

LN

ISV

EM

EN

TC

.F. 3

I25

'12

.AC

P. V

LA

B I

L I

TT

- G

S . 3

t)

it1

J.34

1.?

ME

LT

-1. A

O,.

VA

R /A

BIL

ITY

-2.

32

14C

etli'

VE

":ki

6k. b

(*I

47 IO

.d4

VE

SdA

L:a

C.^

.. SA

AA

A6L

LIT

VG

q. o

a2.44

L6

z 1T

s.V

A-1

' IA

o IL

IT

Y -

GR

. 6(

41.

50

ST4O

Z.1

11C

ON

FI0e

NC

EI.

)

(*)

43 o C

41

..o4

16.

ST %

/GE

N"'

*TT

TtA

0E5.

50

19ST

UO

Es

'SE

LF

AT

T T

UG

E4.

)4.

54

20ST

VC

IEN

TV

E F

OR

LE

AR

NIN

G14

.)Z

3.93

APP

EN

DIX

DN

IP

ESE& TITLE III

crut

rxw

a: T

-1-

su--

-r-c

r-c-

-- a

&Pi A T 1-13 I*

S"C

ST U

VDIVISION-OP PROGRAM BAMAKO. C DESIGN

vAII

CA

BL

E

PUPI

LS

CaS

EN

CE

AND ATTINCIANCE

TOTAL SCHOOL

AvERAGE OAILlt ABSENCE

AVERAGE OBILY

GRADE

IL

AVERAGE DAILY ABSENCE

AVERAGE

TITENDANCE

GRADE 1

AVERAGE DAILY ABSENCE

AVERAGE. DAILY ATTENDANCE

GRADE 2

AVERAGE

DA

ILY

AISSErCi

WERAGE DAIL'? ATTENDANCE

GRADE 3

AVERAGE DAILY ABSENCE

AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE

GRADE 4

AVERAGE DAILY ABSENCE

AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDAsiCr

GAADE S

AV

ER

AG

E ,D

AIL

YABSENCE

AV

ER

AG

Ev

-KT

itTE

TO

AN

CE

CrotA0E

AV

ER

AG

EDAILY ABSENCE

AVECIGE

-OST

O 4

-Ttli

eDA

NC

E

ABSENCE by Stx

SOTS

4111LS

-IM

MO

ILT

-IT

EIT

NE

-MFI

CE

-19

71-7

2 SC

HO

OL

YE

AR

0 "oD

IRE

CT

ION

OV

VIR

IEra

"---

T s

STANINE

PERCENTILE

STEAD*

01

s

C34

4.16

0tI

6$5.

94

(-1

.-

3_ 971.

24C ia C

t16.

7*,

( -I

- *46

4.Ib

04

54

5.20

(-I

374.

1*t1

635.

6*70

4-1

. .60

5.50

tI.

404.

50U

It -

1.

324.

06t1

.-

OA

5.94

2.04

C(-

- .t

.93

I-41 Si 37 30

4.54

5.44

4.34

_3.

96

C C C

4.1

C-1

rW

FACTOR I

APP

EN

DIX

E

CINCtNNATt PuBLIC SCHOOL INFORMATION SYSTEM

DIVISION OF PROGRAM RESEARCH L DESIGN

STUDENT SURVEY

A C A D E N I C CC 4 FIDENCE

N A y

- 2 9 7 2

ITEM w

ITEMS COMPRISING ABOVE FACTOR

2.

I NEED MORE HELP IN SOME OF MY STUDIES.

7.

/ GET ALONG BETTER OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL THAN IN SCHOOL.

9.

I AN SATISFIED WITH THE GRADES ON NY REPORT CARO.

22.

NY PARENTS 11.11111(

I SHOULD 00 BETTER IN MY SCHOOLWORK.

34.

NY TEACHERS THINK I SHOULD DO BETTER tN NY SCHOOLWORK.

FACTOR II

ArT ITUDE TGWARO SCHOOL

ITEM *

ITEMS CONPAPIS[NG ABOVE FACTOR

1.

I,LIKE SCHOOL.

4.

1 LIKE NY SCHOOL.

8.

I WOULD LIKE TO SPEND MORE TINE AT SCHOOL.

12.

1. LOOK FORWAQO TO CONING TO SCHOOL.

20.

SCHOOLWORK IS INTERESTING TO NE.

<25..,1 LIKE READING.

22.

1 LIKE MY TEACHERS.

29.

'1"NOULC CONE TO SCHOOL EVEN IF I DID NOT HAVE TO.

FACTOR III

SELF ATTIToDE

- TrEnAt

. rrEms -COMPRISING ABOVE FACTOR

5.

1.'FEEL THAT PEOPLE GENERALLY LIKE ME.

10. TEACHERS CARE ASCOT NE.

.17.

1 LIKE TO WORK ON NY G.

21.

MY TEACHERS THINK 1 AN DOING WELL IN NY SCHOOLWORK.

23.

IT IS HARD -FOR NE TO KAKE FRIENDS.

24.

1 AN At. UNLUCKY PERSON.

:26. SCHOOLWORK IS TOC HARD FOR ME.

28.

I-AN-A HAPPY PERSON.

FACTOR /V

I4CENTIvE FCR LEARNING

ITEM I

ITEMS COMPRISING ABOVE FACTOR

6.

I,ENJOYOUT-OF-CLASS SCHOOL ACTIVITIES.

23.

1 TALK ABOUT SCHOOL AT HONE.

15.

I GET PRAISE. Aa HONE FOR 0000 SCHOOLWORK.

18.

my PARENTS ARE INTERESTED IN WHAT I 00 IN SCHOOL.

* C4 -FACTORABLE ITEMS

3.

READING LIBRARY BOOKS HELPS ME IN NY SCHOOLWORK.

IL.

STUDENTS IN Par SCHOOL GET ALONG PRETTY WELL TOGETHER.

14.

SOMEONE FROM HONE HAS TALKED TO MY TEACHEP(S) THIS SCHOOL YEAR.

16.

I THINK I WILL GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL.

19.

I READ MORE THAN IS REOuIREC SY NY SCHOOLWORK.

TOTAL PERCEKTAGES DO NOT ALWAYS EQUAL 100 i DUE- TO RESPONDENTS OMISSIONS.

REFER, TO INTERPRETIVE MEMO

ELEMENTARY

ALL ELEMENTARY

SCHOOL UNIT

SCHOOL UNITS

A.AFE

DISAGREE UNOECIOED

N119

AGREE DISAGREE UNDECIDED

N =

5.14.2

75

11

12

73

IS

10 i

45

26

27

46

30

2i

52

36

10

48

39

12

65

20

14

71

IT

11

49

IS

34

62

13

23

ST

14

31-

62

t4

22

41

26

31

55

24

-20

IS

66

17

21

62

16

52

24

23

52

27

19

42

21

36

52

19

27

6T

16

15

65

21

13

52

12

34

66

11

21

42

35

2A

44

38

17

76

6- 16

63

13

22

38

14

47

52.

16

31

66

10

21

73

12

13

48

14

36

43

19

36

I:.

80

717

71

11

I*,

66

17

23

58

17

185

12

776

15

52

710

73

12

14

94

32

88

5-

-5

76

19

475

18

-6

77

913

71

17

11

94

14

90

35

59

26

14

60

_22

16

43

39

16

51

29

18

72

20

663

29

784

212

80

415

45

33

21

40

40

18

APP

EN

DIR

C1

"WC

&7[

!CZ

'T-I

irvi

rT

-5-C

lirtr

irtT

1111

r- a

m -

a7-1-17

S Y

"E

DIVISIOls OF vuOGRAFI

RE

SEA

RC

H 4

. DE

SIG

N

TEACNER

sway

er-c

rin-

mou

nisr

ene-

--T

-Em

IX 4

L-7

"111

77--

FACTORI

STAFF NORALE

ITER

STENS COMPRISING ABOVE FACTOR

6.

Air

vier

of-rEacmok APPRAISAL SYSTEM.

17.

ATTENDANCE REGULARITY OF NY FELLOm TEACHERS.

26.

SAT

ISFA

CT

ION

WIT

H A

T T

EA

CH

ING

ASS

IGN

ME

NT

.23.

COOPERATION AMONG TEACHERS IN NT SCHOOL.

Clet*At QuaLtir OF TEACHING IN AT-164OOL.

UNDERSTANDING OF MY RESPORSIBIL ITT IN THE SCHOOL.

34.

STAFF MORALE IN MY SCHOOL.

37.

ADMINISTRATIVE HELP IN SCHOOL

tans

DISCIPLINE PROBLEMS.

42.

TEACHER-

PR

INC

IPA

LCOOPERATION.

47.

NY INVOLVEMENT IN DECISIONS AFFECTING ME.

41.

SYSTER'S APPRECIATION OF NY CORTRIbuTION.

50.

VALUE OF STAFF MEETINGS IN MY SCHOOL.

FACTORII

SPECIAL EDuCAT 1 ON

kCT

6S

-NW

No.

OF

RESPONSES

SCH

OO

LA

VE

RA

GE

PER

RA

TIN

GiiiRRUG2r

OF

AL

L_

_ ____

RATING

ELM/START

_____

SCHOOL

POO

RA

verA

GE

EX

CE

LL

EN

T__

TE

AC

HE

RS

12

34

5 6

Tti

n1.

625

21

35

1O

02

62

O 0

1.2

11

01

4 0

O 0 0 4

3O 0

02

10

14

O1

t1

2O

00

21

o6

4o

1I

64

20

22

40

5I

32

7__4

11

5 2T

20

11

O0

0 6

22

FAC

TO

RAVERAGE

ITEPI

1116.

:Clrt"CCVMHOOL0S

PRO Sv1:11:1_087""FoRPUPIL S HEALTH.

31

12.

ADEQUACY OF COUNSELING SERVICES.

56

14.

ADEQUACY OF PSYCH

00------CAL SERVICES.

13

21.

PROvLSIOns FOR THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

CH

ILO

IN

NY

SCHOOL.

52

22.

PROVISIONS FOR THE SOCIALLY MALADJUSTED CHILD IN MY

SCM

0044

.___

6

25.

PROVISIONS FOR 1.4E EOUCA11.1 MENTALL:- RETARDED IN MY

SCHOOL.

1

45.

CURRICuLUN IN` MY SUBJECT AREA Fat DISADVANTAGED PUPILS.

1

paDvISIOMS FOR THE EMOTIONALLY

ofsr

ugse

oCHILDREN IN NY SCHOOL.

6

FACTOR

Iii

fitPIL. CHARACTERISTICS

1f08

I11M5 COMPRISING MOVE FACTOR

'r

-10.

STUDENTS IN THE SCHOOL GET ALONG PRETTY NELL TOGETHER.

CI. ?MO -IMAGE OF MY PUPILS.

If. BEHAVIOR OF PUPILS IN NY SCHOOL.

WIIECUTRETIV 3 ItY VUPICS.

-ASPIRATION LEVEL OF NY PUPILS.

:W..-

-14(

EE

t5on

fita

x-ik

tiVIT

tiC-t

itEiT

IN A0 ARCuND NY SCHOC:L.

GENERAL ACKEvEmENT OF NY ouPrLs._

YOUR TEACHERS. RESPONSES TC THESE ETERS dERE .1:GNIFICANT0.

717I-almteRPRETIvE MEMO

20

01

02

61

10

53

20

03

Z1

01

5_ 1__1

1_0_ 0_

23

31

22

14

30

14

21

I0

0FACTOR AVERAGE

43

33

10.3

O2

24

74

04

33

3I

00

O2

26

3I

0

O 23 621G

10

s2

41

O1

45

13

0FACTOR AVERR;E

cIFFERENT "DM ^k-E AYS4A;.5

ALL

3.57

3.14

4.71

5.06

5.85

5.40

5.07

4.84

5.21

5.20

5.92

5. S

S4.

354.

195.

504.54

6.16

5.11

_4.42

4.08

--4.42

3.71

5.14

4.16

5.03

4.5s

2.07

2.29

3.42

3.07

300

2.71

2.28

X00

-4.07

2.90

_3.78

3.14

2.07

2.02

2.19

2.57

2.ST

3.92

-

3.78

4.57

4.07

3.68

RESPONDENTS.

3.92

47:171v

3.66

4.05

3.86

4.78

4.09

4.07

Fci 0 0 0 C a C

APPENDIX G

_ESEA TITLE III

$7.1NcLftmATI PudLIC SCHOOL

INFORNATIO K SV,7t04

JIVISIOh IF PRUAAN AE5tAICH L CES[Gft

piTpniiiisrEr4o - MAY 1972

S V R v Z

YOUR

AuL ELENENTARY

WIWI- UNIT

2010(111KIIS

N<

184

NoR25.013

S C14 C'

ATMCSPH'EaE

J:7E

K:s

:y1.

7EA

SCOMPRISING THE ABOVE CATEGORY

1. :90'YOu"FEfL NELCPIE AT THE SCHOOL Y04$CHILD ATTENDS.

4.,.:00ou FEEL EPEE TO CALL THE TEACHER OR SOMEONE

ELSE

ATSCdOOL IF YOU KW A QUESTIO,

.5.-,14AVEiYOU-TALKED 'WANT OF YOUR CHILD'S. TEACHERS Oa

THE :PRINCIPAL

Duu

nifi

_mfs

tilac

tS

CoG

OL

PR

OG

RA

M Q

uALI

TY

ITEM

ITEMS,COMPRISING THE ABOVE CATEGORY

2. HAS YOUR CHILD'S SCHOOL FAILED TO TEACH WHAT

YOU

;MINK SHOULD SE LEARNED.

3. ARE'YOu DISSATISFIED WITH THE QUALITY OFTEACHING

AFT

OU

RSH

ILIP

S SC

HO

OL

.T. HAS THE.SCHOOL DONE A GOOD JOB CF TEACHING YOUR

.000

13. IFTOU:COULD SENO YOUR CHILD TO ANY

OTHER PUBLIC

SCHOOL IN THE CITY, NOULD YOU CbOOSE TO 00 So.

s.

16.400 YOU BELIEVE THE PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE IN YOUR

-

CHILD'S SCHOOL IS DOING A GOOD

HOOL PUPIL REL ATIONS

ITEM 8

ITEMS' CONPRISING THE ABOVE CATEGORY

6.00ESTOuR CHILD USUALLY DISLIKE GOING

TO SCHOOL.

19.'00 YOU %INK YOUR CHILD IS

TREATED UNFAIRLY

AT: SCHOOL.

----

----

11*Q

0 Y

RU

""E

YL

tQU

gC"M

213T

EA

g"gf

tS/A

XE

A:,PERSONAL INTEREST IN CHIR.HER4.

00-TOULFEEL YOUR CHILD IS SAFE AT SCHOOL.

CA

T T

ON

AL

IS$U

ES

!YEW'. ,1TEMS'CONPRISING THE ABOVE CATEGORY

5.:0114.0u:FEEL THAT YOU ARE POCRLY INFORM() OFYOUR

:CHILD0SjyROGRESSIK*9U410L._

9,SHOULD:IT BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD

OF"EDUCATION TV ACKEVERACIALLY BALANCED SCHOOLS.

12. SHOULD. STUDENTS HAVE A STRONGER VOICE

IN SCHOOL

AFFAIRS.

14. SHOULD' PARENTS HAVE A STRONGER *DICE

IN WHAT THE

.L:.AcimQai TEACHING.

,

if,__

____

____

_.15. AREYou 1M FLAVOR OF STRONGER STUDENT

DISCIPLINE.

17. DO-YOU-FEEL 'MAT CUTBACKS IN THE scrigict

SYSTEM'S

AMMIGET,WAVEAtEOUCED THE QUALITY OF YOUR CHILDIS

EOuCATION.

XS

0 1)

2

I,

95

03

922

96

01

9C6

89

10

086

120

16

61

19

10

77

10

)

22

63

12

14 74

10

)

72

15

10

77

910

38

43

16

18 68

11

2

53

18

24

76

616

1

98472

S13 18

986

LI*

64 1

7

2 7

)

_.7 65 72

_./.5

20

TO

716

75

6

50

16

29

33

39

24

5Q

11

25

35

38

'23';

58

14 822

23 17

20

48

25

24

71

52

66

17

41 16

13

19

v*TOIALAERCENTAGESiARE NOT ALWAYS EQuAL TO 2602 OUE TO

RESPONDENTS" OMISSIONS

C

APP

EN

DIX

H

ESE

4T

ITL

,E_

811

t:I

7* N

AT

I Pu

sLlc

sch

ooL

rosc

;Rsi

AT

rot.

Syst

fmal

vi s

ip/ O

F Pl

OG

RA

N T

ILSE

AA

CIA

L D

ESI

GN

NY

- 1

9 7

2G

OA

L. S

uRN

ER

PER

CE

NT

AG

EG

RO

UP

SEL

EC

TIN

G E

XC

N G

OA

L

STU

DE

NT

TE

AC

NE

RA

LL

AO

NIW

IST

RA

TO

RS

PPE

NT

SSC

46.1

3L. E

-LE

RE

NT

AR

x.-

SC

eUX

tt.ilf

.ilac

tLfa

EL

EN

IEN

TA

RX

- SX

STE

NSC

HO

OL

EL

AIN

EN

TA

TU

r-

%U

N

UN

ITSY

STE

MU

NIT

SYST

EM

T O

T1.

.UNIT

SYST

EM

SER

RE

SPO

ND

ING

N40

5,02

6It

141.

612

9 -

90N

184

25.0

13-

.

....

- 4

5 4-

--5

2-X

---

44-

2--

- 2

2 . -

Z -

_ -

i 4 1

..

- _

.-

-23

L -

-31

4-

--

-G

OO

D N

EA

L. T

N.

C I

T I

ZE

NSN

IP

I-N

PRO

VE

NE

NT

OF

SASI

C S

KIL

LS

J0T

RA

ININ

G

SEL

F -

OE

XE

LO

PRE

NT

TA

LE

P4T

OE

uEL

Opo

sEN

T

LE

ISU

RE

.TIM

E C

TIv

IT

115

SC L

EN

GE

S

uND

ER

S7 M

O L

NG

OT

HE

R. P

EO

PLE

etem

f 'a

tm)

6-A

NIL

Y L

IVIN

G.4

:4)

CN

AR

AC

TE

R W

ILD

ING

26 Z

40 X

57 Z

4111

1 I

53 Z

52 I

49 X

21s

--

- -2

a-

--X

ao s

-_

_TO

X-

TX

- Z

67 X

60 X

14 t

12 t

24 X

30 X

27 X

_.,n

I___

_Z

u 3

_7X

X -

34 Z

._

_St.

Z40

X.

46 Z

1

SO 2

30 2

0 t

14 X

15 2

20 2

j Ze

2

3* X

24 X

.0

XIL

i3

X11

X9

Z

10 2

27 t

7 t

li i

10 X

21 I

26 I

t

le Z

39 X

57 Z

47 X

60 Z

59 X

40 z

5% 2

38 4

25 4

13 :

8 4

5 Z

. I,

23 X

la 4

71 x

61 Z

50 X

46 X

41 X

APP

EC

DIX

I

ESE-A TITLE III

INC INN& T

to.tSL I C SCNOOL I hF^

AT IC,. SYS TE m

)1 yi st oft Of ;.1,0Art RES ACpt

GRADE EQUIVALENCE

7.0

7.S

7.4

7.3

7.2

7.1

7.3

6.9

'S. P

6.7

6.6

6.5

6.4

6.3

6.2

6.1

6.0

5:9

5.8

S.7

5.6

S. S

5.4

5.3

5.2

5.1

5.0

4.9

4.8

4.7

4.6

4.5

4.4

4.3

4.2

4.1

4.0

3.9

3.9

3.7

3.6

Acpc I eVENewt FORECAST

1172-73 SCHOOL YEA*

S IxTm GRADE

EAOI NG

YEAR

70-71

71-72

72-73

SCHOOL SYSTEN AVG

5.1

4.9

NATIONAL NORM

6.3

6.3

LEGEND

PREDICTION AREA

FOR YOUR SCHOOL

YOU* SCHOOL 5

ACTUAL ATTAINMENT

60 40 30 20 10

APP

EN

DIX

J

ESE

AT

ITL

EII

IPU

BL

ICSC

HO

OL

INFO

RM

AT

ION

SYST

EM

DIV

ISIO

N O

F PR

WR

A14

RE

SEA

RC

H &

DE

SIG

N

1%8-

69

Tre

nd R

epor

t

S

1969

-70

1970

-71

LE

GE

O:

Perc

ent o

n w

elfa

re

*Per

cent

fre

e lu

nche

s

S Percent

votin

g

1971

-72

Syst

em A

vera

geN

atio

nal N

orm

.

NO

TE

:L

ack

of o

ne s

ymbo

l ind

icat

esno

dat

a fo

r th

at y

ear