“Channel One is disproportionately found in schools located in high poverty areas.” **
Does that matter to Ariel Glickman? Christina Jones? Leilani Rapaport?
Ariel Glickman
Christina Jones
Leilani Rapaport
From Jim Metrock
Hey, Ariel, Christina, and Leilani, can we talk?
You three college students have decided to do a summer internship at Channel One. You have already written articles for Channelone.com’s blog page. You understand, like those interns before you, that you will be the the fresh, summer face of Channel One. Thousands of young people will see your faces and read your words and see you in videos posted on Channel One’s website. Your presence at the company is meant to convey an image that Channel One is rock solid. Hey, if we’re about to go out of business, why would we hire interns?
Of all the companies you could have interned with, why join this firm? I am thinking that there might have been some type of “bait and switch” pulled on you three. Did you think you were applying for an internship at CBS News and then when you showed up all bright and eager you were unceremoniously escorted down the hall and shoved into the Channel One “studio”?
As budding journalists, here is a News Flash for you: Channel One News is a youth marketing company. Tell me you knew that – please. If you didn’t know that before, it should be real obvious to you by now.
Channel One is a pariah in the world of education and in the legitimate news gathering business, but they are a true champion in the kiddie marketing industry.
Channel One News is to CBS News as a fish is to a bicycle. Go over to a veteran CBS correspondent and ask him or her, off the record, about Channel One News. Ask how they feel about mixing advertising and news – a practice Channel One has perfected. Ask about the quality of the “news people” at Channel One. Have you met Kent Haehl yet? Why you chose to do your summer internship for adman Haehl and his crew of kiddie marketers is perplexing.
Did any of you do any research on Channel One before accepting the job? If you didn’t, you may not be as smart as your bios indicate and all of you sound extremely smart. If you did the research, like a good reporter is suppose to do, and you still decided to join a company that makes it money off the backs of schoolchildren by converting their school time into marketing time, then shame on you. You have betrayed young people across the country.
The three of you now work for a company that has its boot heel on the neck of millions of schoolchildren from low income communities. These schools too often agree with Channel One’s Faustian deal (TV sets for your school time) because they feel they have no choice.
Channel One robs the students that need extra time the most. Sure, Christina, you will say that no one is forcing these schools to sign a contract with Channel One. No one put a gun to their head and brought TV commercials into the school. You would be wrong if you said that. Economic conditions force principals and superintendents of schools with few resources to do things they would never do otherwise.
No school would agree to bring Channel One’s commercials into classrooms and waste that potential academic time if they had all the money in the world. Schools that can say NO to Channel One, say NO to Channel One.
Now you are part of this marketing machine.
I hope you will at least scan the study at the bottom of this article. It was paid for my a group that was opposed to Channel One, but it may be of value to your. It was done by Dr. Michael Morgan at the University of Massachusetts – Amherst way back in 1993. The summary:
The schools that have signed on with Whittle Communications do not represent a typical cross-section of American schools. Rather, these “Channel One Schools” differ in some consistent, systematic, and troubling ways from other schools.
Overall, the most glaring discrepancies revolve around clusters of attributes reflecting class, income, and race. Channel One is disproportionately found in schools located in high poverty areas. These schools spend the least amount of money per student on instructional or other materials by far. Also, Channel One is more often found in schools with larger proportions of African- American students, while the more Asian students there are in a school, the less likely that school is to feature Channel One.
I can hear Ariel and Leilani and Christina all saying that this is an old study that it is out of date. Actually it’s not an old study – it is a very old study. But it is still relevant because few things have changed.
A little more current (but not much) information is from the Alabama Department of Education in 1998. It showed that the schools that spent the most per student (richer communities) were likely not to have Channel One, while the schools that spent the least per student overwhelmingly had Channel One.
So how do you feel now Ariel, Christina, and Leilani? Did I take the fun out of the fun summer internship? I hope I did. You three can find important work elsewhere that will advance your careers in legitimate journalism. Of course if you are contemplating a career in kiddie marketing, then you certainly do have the best summer internship available.
|
CHANNEL ONE COMPARISON OF SCHOOL SYSTEMS AND PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES |
|
TOP TEN PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES
BOTTOM TEN PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES
FINANCIAL DATA WAS TAKEN FROM 1997 REPORT CARDS. CHANNEL ONE INFORMATION WAS TAKEN FROM STATE DEPARTMENT SURVEY, |
** CHANNEL ONE IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS:
WIDENING THE GAPS
Michael Morgan
Department of Communication
University of Massachusetts/Amherst
Phone: (413) 545-6345 / 1311
Fax: (413) 545-6399
Email: [email protected]
A Research Report Prepared for UNPLUG
October, 1993
Since March 1990, Whittle Communications has been offering
"Channel One" to the nation's junior and senior high schools.
Channel One provides a centrally prepared, ten-minute daily
newscast accompanied by two minutes of commercials. Schools that
sign contracts with Whittle Communications receive the program as
well as a satellite dish, two VCRs, and a 19" TV monitor for each
classroom. They may also receive teaching guides and other
materials, including other video materials. By most accounts,
approximately 12,000 schools are currently showing the program to
about eight million of the country's 13-18 year-olds.
The spread of Channel One raises a host of complex questions
about the relationship between public institutions and private
corporations in contemporary society. Several states have passed
or proposed legislation banning the controversial program, based
on concerns about the implications of providing advertisers such
direct access to students within the walls of tax-supported
public school buildings. Critics charge that it is inappropriate
for public educational institutions to even appear to endorse
specific products or advertisers, and that Channel One signals
the further penetration of the marketing strategies and over-
commercialization that dominate so many aspects of our lives.
More fundamentally, some object to virtually any use of
broadcast-type television in the school context, since students
spend so much time viewing TV outside of school and because it
can reduce the time that might otherwise be devoted to the
acquisition of reading, math, and other basic skills.
Conversely, others contend that Channel One's news programs
provide students with timely and stimulating reports about
important current events while giving schools valuable video
equipment that can also serve as a useful educational resource in
a variety of other applications and contexts. Further, it has
been reported (Oullette, 1993; Osborn, 1993) that the service may
be beneficial inasmuch as some schools are explicitly using it to
foster critical viewing skills and to teach students to
deconstruct hidden ideological messages underlying the newscasts
and commercials.
Research to date suggests that both views may be partially true.
Studies conducted in Michigan (Greenberg and Brand, 1993) in the
Midwest (Tiene, 1993) showed that students who watched Channel
One knew more about the news items covered in the programs than
did students without access. Channel One viewers even scored
higher on tests of general knowledge than did non-viewers. In
both cases, however, the differences were fairly small.
Moreover, in the Michigan study, exposure to Channel One had no
apparent impact on the priority students assigned to various news
topics, on students' levels of interest in news and current
affairs, or on their use of other news media outside of school.
And, the Midwestern study found that two-thirds of students feel
they have "learned some things" from Channel One, and only about
one in ten want their school to eliminate the program.
On the other hand, the Michigan study found that students who
attended schools receiving Channel One gave more favorable
evaluations to the products advertised on the programs. The
research noted that more than half of the commercials shown were
for gum, candy, snacks, and fast food. Students, of course, are
bombarded with commercials for these kinds of products for many
of their waking hours outside of school. But the added exposure
to these commercials _within_ the classroom had other effects:
Compared to their peers who attended schools that do not receive
the programs, students who watched Channel One were more likely
to indicate that they would purchase the advertised products, and
they expressed more materialistic attitudes in general. The
extra exposure to these commercial messages within the school
context, which adds up to about a _full school day_ of watching
commercials over the year, clearly had some impact, perhaps
because it is assumed that the schools are giving some implicit
approval to the products advertised.
The present study does not seek to examine the "effects" of
Channel One on our students. Rather, it asks a more basic
question: What kinds of schools, in what sorts of communities,
choose to receive Whittle Communications' Channel One? Where
does Channel One fit into the pool of educational resources we
are making available to the next generation? The goal of this
report is to provide a bird's-eye comparative profile of the
schools that, across the country, do and do not receive Channel
One.
Channel One is currently contracted to both public and private
junior and senior high schools. Inasmuch as the use of Channel
One has very different implications in private vs. public (i.e.,
tax-supported) school contexts, the analysis focuses _only_ on the
patterns for public schools.
Methods and Data Description
The analysis is based on the data archives of Market Data
Retrieval, a subsidiary of the Dun & Bradstreet Corporation. MDR
maintains an extensive and continuously updated data bank on
numerous aspects of each and every American school. Accordingly,
the unit of analysis in these comparisons is the school.
As of early October 1993, there were over 81,000 public schools
in the United States. Excluded from analysis were all schools
(about 45,000 in all) whose oldest students were sixth graders,
because such students are younger than those allegedly targeted
by Whittle Communications to receive Channel One. (It should be
noted that in the process of verifying data samples with specific
schools, Channel One was in fact found to be in use by some 5th
grade classes.) This leaves a total of more than 36,000 public
schools for analysis with students in the seventh grade or above
(i.e., these schools covered grades 7-9, 7-12, 9-12, etc.).
Within this universe of 36,000 schools, however, only about half
of the district administrators or other personnel had provided
responses to MDR's survey item concerning the presence of Channel
One in the schools. That is, we have a measure of whether or not
the school receives Channel One for 17,344 schools, representing
47.7 percent of the total relevant universe of schools.
This sample is clearly huge (it is so large that extremely tiny
differences would appear significant by conventional tests), but
how representative is it? The attached Tables and Figures
suggest there is little probable response bias in the resulting
sample. The responding schools match the entire universe of
relevant schools almost precisely on almost every measure: in
terms of school type, school level, school enrollments, spending
on instructional materials, regional location, poverty levels,
and racial/ethnic composition, the responding schools and the
total universe show virtually identical distributions.
Nevertheless, a few minor discrepancies were apparent. The
sample under-represents schools in districts with low enrollments
and, conversely, over-represents schools in districts with a
great many students. (The more students in a district, the more
likely it is that the school provided data; the response rate was
only 14% for the smallest districts, but it was over 90% for the
largest districts.) The exact same pattern appears with regard
to the number of schools in a district: the response rate was
only about 13% for the 3245 schools that are the only schools in
their districts, while 96% of the 2988 schools in districts with
100 or more schools provided data.
Both of these differences evidently exist because the response
rate was much greater for urban than for rural schools: although
three-fourths (74.4%) of urban schools responded, only about a
third (34.8%) of rural schools provided data. (Over half, 56.1%,
of suburban schools responded.) Finally, the response rate was
slightly lower (38.9%) for schools with the fewest African-
American students (i.e., of the 14,204 schools where less than
one percent of the students are African-American).
Overall, then, the sample of 17,344 schools is more than
acceptably representative of the universe from which it was
drawn. The primary discrepancy is the under-representation of
rural schools (which constitute 57.4% of all target schools, but
only 41.8% of the schools in the sample). It is unclear
precisely what are the consequences of this sampling discrepancy
for the analysis, but it should be kept in mind as a potential
limitation throughout.
Overall Patterns
According to the data, Whittle Communications' Channel One can be
found in 26.4 percent (N=4572) of these 17,344 "target" schools.
That is, 26.4 percent of US public schools with junior and
senior high school age students who provided data for this
measure report receiving Channel One; Whittle Communications' own
figures could of course differ slightly. The exact percentage of
_students_ reached by Whittle Communications cannot be determined
from these data (since they reflect schools, not students), but
some published reports have pegged it as high as 40 percent.
The schools that have signed on with Whittle Communications do
not represent a typical cross-section of American schools.
Rather, these "Channel One Schools" differ in some consistent,
systematic, and troubling ways from other schools.
Overall, the most glaring discrepancies revolve around clusters
of attributes reflecting _class, income, and race_. Channel One is
disproportionately found in schools located in high poverty
areas. These schools spend the least amount of money per student
on instructional or other materials by far. Also, Channel One is
more often found in schools with larger proportions of African-
American students, while the more Asian students there are in a
school, the less likely that school is to feature Channel One.
The baseline figure of 26.4 percent (i.e., Channel One is
estimated to be in just over a quarter of all relevant public
junior and senior high schools) should be kept in mind as a
benchmark in the following comparisons of Channel One's "reach"
according to poverty levels, instructional spending, race,
enrollments, and geography.
Poverty Level
"Poverty level" was measured in terms of the percent of
households in the school's community with incomes below the
official poverty line, based on the multidimensional Orshansky
indicator which is a ratio of the number of children in an area
below the poverty line to the number of children above it,
adjusted for family size, sex of the household head, and farm vs.
non-farm income.
In the nation's richest schools, where less than five percent of
the students are below the poverty line, Channel One's
penetration is only 16.6 percent (much lower than the national
average of 26.4 percent). But at the other end of the scale,
where at least 25 percent of the students are below the poverty
line, a very high 37.7 percent of the schools have Channel One.
That is, the schools with the greatest concentrations of low-
income students are _more than twice as likely_ (37.7% vs. 16.6%)
as the schools with the wealthiest students to have Channel One.
The data show a very strong and monotonic pattern: as community
income levels drop, the proportion of schools receiving Channel
One steadily rises (see attached tables and figures).
Academic Spending
Given the findings for Poverty Level presented above, it is not
surprising that Channel One is found most often in those schools
that spend the least amount of money on instructional materials
per student per year; the _more_ money schools spend on
instructional materials per student, the _less_ likely they are to
receive the program. Specifically, less than 15 percent of the
schools that spend at least $200 per student per year have
Channel One, compared to _almost half_ of the schools that spend
less than $50. In other words, the schools that spend the least
amount of money on instructional materials are over _three times_
as likely to receive the program as are the schools that spend
the most.
(With 20 data points, based on category mid-points, the Pearson
product-moment correlation between instructional spending and the
presence of Whittle Communications is a near-perfect -.88, with
p<.001; the Spearman non-parametric rank-order coefficient is an
equally strong -.86, also p<.001. These results indicate an
_extremely_ powerful inverse relationship.)
The same patterns hold in other areas of school expenditures.
For example, Whittle Communications is especially pervasive in
the schools that spend the absolute least on texts; fully _two-
thirds_ (67.5 percent) of the schools that spend less than a mere
$10 per year per student on texts have Channel One, compared to
less than one in five (18.8 percent) of the schools that spend
$75 or more. (Based again on category midpoints, this produces a
Spearman coefficient of -.39, p<.05.)
Moreover, this tendency is especially pronounced in terms of
_total school expenditures_ per student per year (including all
instructional materials, texts, salaries, and all other
expenses). At the upper level, among schools that spend at least
$6000 per student per year, only about 1 in 10 (10.5 percent)
have Channel One. At the other end of the scale, where total
spending per student is $2599 or less, about 6 in 10 of the
schools (60.5 percent) have Channel One.
In other words, the schools that spend the least amount of money
on the overall, aggregate educational enterprise are about _six
times as likely_ to have Channel One as are the schools that spend
the most. (For total, combined spending, the Spearman
coefficient is a strong -.70, p<.001.)
The clear suggestion is that the Channel One program -- and its
commercials -- take the place of more proven educational
resources in the country's most impoverished schools. Whittle is
thus apparently used not to complement, but in the place of,
texts and other instructional materials when these resources are
most lacking. The schools with the fewest resources to offer are
those in which students are most likely to be exposed to Whittle
Communications' programs and advertisements in the classroom.
Race and Ethnicity
Channel One's penetration is somewhat related to the racial or
ethnic composition of schools, but the patterns are less clear
than were those for income and school spending. (Of course, it
is difficult to categorize all people into unambiguous or
exhaustive racial/ethnic groupings, and many students do not fall
neatly into one single category. The data reported here reflect
commonly-used distinctions, but we acknowledge their generality
as an inherent limitation of any similar analysis.)
The data show a general tendency wherein the greater the
percentage of African-American students in a school, the more
likely it is that a school has Channel One. Among the schools
with the fewest African-American students (i.e., where less than
one percent of the students are African-American), 25.8 percent
receive the program, compared to 29.1 percent of the schools
whose students are at least 25 percent African-American. In
other words, the schools with higher proportions of African-
American students are slightly but monotonically more likely to
use Channel One.
There is a mild curvilinear relationship between the percentage
of Latino students in a school and the reach of Channel One; the
program is more likely to be found in schools with a _medium_
proportion of Latino students. The differences, however, are
fairly small: Channel One is in 26.7 percent of the schools where
less than one percent of the students are Latino, compared to
30.2 percent of the schools where between 1 and 25 percent of the
students are Latino, while the figure for the few schools (about
12 percent of all "target" schools) where over 25 percent of the
students are Latino drops to 23.3 percent. Although some reports
have alleged that Whittle Communications has specifically
targeted certain needy schools with large Latino populations
(Arana & Watson, 1992), there is no evidence in these data that
schools with the highest proportions of Latino students are
currently _more_ likely to accept the program.
On the other hand, Channel One is sharply less likely to be found
in schools with proportionately more Asian students. That is,
Channel One is in 37.3 percent of the target schools that are
less than one-quarter Asian, but only in 4.1 percent of schools
where over a quarter of the students are of Asian descent. (This
may, in part, reflect the legal battles that have held back
Channel One's spread in California, a state with large
concentrations of Asian students.)
Thus, whatever may or may not be the "marketing plan" of Whittle
Communications, the data not show sharp or substantial
differences in the actual acceptance of Channel One in schools
according to their proportions of African-American and/or Latino
students. On balance, Channel One is somewhat more common in
schools with the highest proportions of African-Americans, and
with a medium proportion of Latino students, but the differences
are not very large. Although the data on income and school
spending show that the country's least privileged students are
those most exposed to Whittle Communications' commercial messages
within their schools, there is no evidence in the available data
that race or ethnicity is the driving force behind the class
differences. Poverty and a lack of educational resources seem to
motivate schools to receive Channel One, whatever their racial or
ethnic composition.
Enrollments
The presence of Channel One does not vary greatly by the size of
school enrollment, but the data show a mild curvilinear pattern,
with mid-sized schools (i.e., with between 300 and 1000 students)
most likely to have the program. A very similar curvilinear
pattern holds in terms of the number of students enrolled in the
entire district, with a few variations. For one thing, Channel
One is extremely unlikely to be found in the smallest school
districts. For another, the greatest numerical (though not
proportionate) clustering of Channel One schools is in districts
with the largest number of students (25,000 or higher); that is,
these largest school districts are _not_ more likely than smaller
districts to have Channel One, but in raw numbers there are more
Channel One schools in this category than in any other.
The patterns are not very strong here, but what differences exist
point towards the greater likelihood of finding Channel One in
neither the most nor the least crowded schools and districts, but
instead in more "average," typical, mid-sized schools and
districts.
(These manifest patterns could be greatly influenced by the
variations in response rates across different-sized school
districts -- as noted above, the response rate is _much_ lower for
the smaller schools and districts -- but there is no way to
determine the consequences of this definitively. All we do know
is that the data are _most_ reliable for the larger districts,
where the response rate was over 90 percent. If it happened that
the smaller districts _that use Channel One_ were more likely to
respond than the smaller districts that do not -- a plausible
scenario, arguably -- then it could well be that the data inflate
the appearance of Channel One in smaller schools and thereby
underestimate the extent to which Channel One schools actually do
tend to be more densely crowded.)
Geographic Patterns
The data show that urban schools are slightly more likely to have
Channel One (27.3 percent) than are either suburban (26.5
percent) or rural (25.6 percent) schools. (Given the much lower
response rate for rural schools, it is possible to speculate,
following the same logic as above, that these data underestimate
the relationship. That is, if rural schools that use Channel One
were more likely to respond than rural schools that do not, then
any "real" tendency for Channel One schools to be more likely to
be urban schools could be obscured.)
Channel One schools are more likely to be found in the South
Atlantic, South Central, and Mountain states; over 30 percent of
the schools in those regions receive the program. In contrast,
only about ten percent or fewer of the schools in the New England
or Pacific states have Channel One.
Statewise estimates show that Whittle Communications is most
pervasive in Tennessee (the company's home base; 74.6 percent),
Mississippi (73.3 percent), Utah (66.7 percent), New Mexico (63.8
percent), West Virginia (58.3 percent), Arkansas (57.3 percent),
Louisiana (50.6 percent), Pennsylvania (46.1 percent), Arizona
(45.5 percent) and Michigan (39.7 percent). On the other end
of the scale, Channel One is reportedly being used in none (or
very, very few) of the schools in Alaska, California,
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
These statewise differences could have a lot to do with the
patterns observed for ethnicity and race. Were it not for legal
and legislative battles carried out in New York and California,
it seems likely that Whittle Communications' presence in crowded,
low income, urban schools with disproportionate numbers of
students of color would be vastly greater than it already is.
Summary and Conclusion
Overall, schools that receive Channel One are mid-to-large sized
(but not _the_ most crowded) schools; they are slightly more likely
to be found in urban areas, but the reach of Channel One in
suburban and rural schools seems nearly as great. They are
slightly more likely to have higher proportions of African-
Americans, or to have a medium proportion of Latino students.
They are especially likely to be located in South Central,
Mountain, or South Atlantic states, rather than in New England or
the Pacific states.
Most of all, however, Channel One is most often found in schools
with the largest proportions of low income, underprivileged
students, and in schools that have the least amount of money to
spend on conventional educational resources. Ironically, these
schools have more high-tech equipment, in no small part due to
Whittle Communications' own contributions, but they invest
substantially less in teachers, texts, or other instructional
materials. The relationship between spending on texts or other
instructional resources and accepting Channel One is especially
striking: Channel One is apparently used _instead of_ traditional
materials when resources are scarcest. Schools that can afford
to spend more on their students are _much_ less likely to utilize
Channel One.
Given these patterns, the greater devotion to commercialism that
students apparently develop from watching Channel One is
particularly disturbing. That is, Channel One is more often
shown to the students who are probably least able to afford to
buy all the products they see advertised. It requires no stretch
of the imagination to suggest that this in turn may enhance their
alienation and frustration.
The commercialization of the culture -- and increasingly,
perhaps, of the schools -- means that other voices and interests,
less able to generate profits, are being shut out of the
educational system. It seems inevitable that Channel One will
further entrench and legitimize the power of massive private
commercial interests in those public arenas where a diversity of
voices is most badly needed.
The results from a new four-year study, just released by the
Department of Education, sound similar to so many others we have
become accustomed to hearing about, but these are more shocking
than usual: according to the report, almost half the nation's
adults have low reading comprehension and math skills. Worse,
the study points to increasing divisions in society between the
haves and the have-nots, based on poverty and racial/ethnic
status. Low income students and youth of color attend schools
most in need of a substantial infusion of resources. These are
the same schools that give their students Channel One instead,
creating the illusion of providing more and better educational
facilities. In this way, Channel One may be helping to widen an
already dangerous gap in our society.
REFERENCES
Arana, Ana, and Aleta Watson. "Channel One used ethnic divisions
to win customers." San Jose Mercury-News, Dec. 13, 1992.
"Dumber Than We Thought." Newsweek, Sept. 20, 1993, p. 44.
Greenberg, Bradley S., and Jeffrey E. Brand. "Television News
and Advertising in Schools: The 'Channel One' Controversy."
Journal of Communication, Winter 1993, 43:1, 143-151.
Osborn, Barbara. "Critiquing Channel One: Billerica Middle
Schools." The Independent, August/September 1993, pp. 44-45.
Ouellette, Laurie. "Whoops for Whittle Communications" and
"Deconstructing Channel One." Mediaculture, The Advocate,
Sept. 2, 1993, p. 6. (Syndicated via Alternet News Service,
Aug. 19, 1993.)
Tiene, Drew. "Channel One: Good News or Bad News for our
Schools?" Educational Leadership, May 1993, pp. 46-51.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTIONS OF CHANNEL ONE
Number of Number of Percent of Percent of
Schools in Schools with Schools with Schools in
Sample Channel One Channel One Category
---------- ------------ ------------- -----------
OVERALL 17344 4572 26.36% 100.00%
School Type:
Elementary 1759 400 22.74% 10.14%
Middle 4547 1214 26.70% 26.22%
Jr Hi 2156 600 27.83% 12.43%
Sr Hi 6867 1817 26.46% 39.59%
Combined 703 158 22.48% 4.05%
Voc/Tech 424 153 36.08% 2.44%
Special 625 171 27.36% 3.60%
Adult 263 59 22.43% 1.52%
School Level:
K-8 1759 400 22.74% 10.14%
K-12 703 158 22.48% 4.05%
5-8 4547 1214 26.70% 26.22%
7-9 2156 600 27.83% 12.43%
7-12 1088 337 30.97% 6.27%
9-12 5209 1286 24.69% 30.03%
10-12 570 195 34.21% 3.29%
Voc/Tech 424 153 36.08% 2.44%
Special 625 170 27.20% 3.60%
Adult 263 59 22.43% 1.52%
School Enrollment:
1-99 993 267 26.89% 5.73%
100-199 1054 234 22.20% 6.08%
200-299 1305 310 23.75% 7.52%
300-499 2961 902 30.46% 17.07%
500-999 6675 1855 27.79% 38.49%
1000-2499 4085 956 23.40% 23.55%
2500+ 271 48 17.71% 1.56%
District Enrollment:
<599 707 51 7.21% 4.08%
<1199 1344 308 22.92% 7.75%
<2499 2275 769 33.80% 13.12%
<4999 2219 641 28.89% 12.79%
<9999 1746 491 28.12% 10.07%
<24999 3096 879 28.39% 17.85%
25K + 5957 1433 24.06% 34.35%
Number of Schools in District:
1 420 51 12.14% 2.42%
2-4 2920 754 25.82% 16.84%
5-9 3019 857 28.39% 17.41%
10-24 2721 736 27.05% 15.69%
25-99 5397 1516 28.09% 31.12%
100 + 2867 658 22.95% 16.53%
Spending on All Instructional Materials:
<44.99 197 96 48.73% 1.14%
<54.99 234 110 47.01% 1.35%
<64.99 476 168 35.29% 2.75%
<74.99 1053 332 31.53% 6.08%
<79.99 706 196 27.76% 4.07%
<84.99 1111 407 36.63% 6.41%
<89.99 768 167 21.74% 4.43%
<94.99 919 288 31.34% 5.30%
<99.99 945 356 37.67% 5.45%
<109.99 2462 781 31.72% 14.21%
<119.99 1642 354 21.56% 9.47%
<129.99 1858 289 15.55% 10.72%
<139.99 1173 309 26.34% 6.77%
<149.99 1065 312 29.30% 6.15%
<159.99 606 107 17.66% 3.50%
<169.99 487 75 15.40% 2.81%
<179.99 389 50 12.85% 2.24%
<189.99 277 45 16.25% 1.60%
<199.99 233 22 9.44% 1.34%
200 + 729 106 14.54% 4.21%
Text Expenditures:
<9.99 114 77 67.54% 0.66%
<12.99 97 28 28.87% 0.56%
<15.99 238 101 42.44% 1.37%
<18.99 673 136 20.21% 3.88%
<21.99 1017 297 29.20% 5.87%
<24.99 1329 339 25.51% 7.67%
<27.99 1433 325 22.68% 8.27%
<30.99 1786 456 25.53% 10.31%
<33.99 1319 225 17.06% 7.61%
<36.99 1258 372 29.57% 7.26%
<39.99 963 311 32.29% 5.56%
<44.99 2811 824 29.31% 16.22%
<49.99 1361 459 33.73% 7.85%
<54.99 761 167 21.94% 4.39%
<59.99 609 184 30.21% 3.51%
<64.99 438 64 14.61% 2.53%
<69.99 287 28 9.76% 1.66%
<74.99 276 72 26.09% 1.59%
75+ 558 105 18.82% 3.22%
Total Combined Expenditures:
<2599 238 144 60.50% 1.37%
<2799 417 251 60.19% 2.41%
<2999 599 249 41.57% 3.46%
<3199 794 388 48.87% 4.58%
<3399 893 260 29.12% 5.15%
<3599 1410 563 39.93% 8.14%
<3799 1634 461 28.21% 9.43%
<3999 1752 438 25.00% 10.11%
<4199 1104 291 26.36% 6.37%
<4399 1193 215 18.02% 6.88%
<4599 1337 216 16.16% 7.71%
<4799 1086 111 10.22% 6.27%
<4999 512 213 41.60% 2.95%
<5199 683 127 18.59% 3.94%
<5399 512 186 36.33% 2.95%
<5599 506 196 38.74% 2.92%
<5799 331 7 2.11% 1.91%
<5999 254 35 13.78% 1.47%
<6000+ 2075 219 10.55% 11.97%
Region:
New England 739 78 10.55% 4.26%
Mid Atlan. 1677 360 21.47% 9.67%
So Atlan. 3298 1001 30.35% 19.02%
No Central 4906 1132 23.07% 28.29%
Mountain 1150 410 35.65% 6.63%
So Central 3282 1418 43.21% 18.92%
Pacific 2292 173 7.55% 13.21%
Metro status:
Urban 5709 1558 27.29% 33.09%
Suburban 4328 1145 26.46% 25.09%
Rural 7216 1849 25.62% 41.82%
Poverty Level:
<5% 2526 420 16.63% 14.82%
5-25% 11749 3054 25.99% 68.93%
25% + 2770 1044 37.69% 16.25%
Percent African-American:
<1 % 5525 1424 25.77% 34.42%
1-25 % 6208 1746 28.13% 38.67%
>25 % 4319 1255 29.06% 26.91%
Percent Latino:
<1 % 8105 2163 26.69% 50.49%
1-25 % 5952 1798 30.21% 37.08%
>25 % 1995 464 23.26% 12.43%
Percent Asian:
<1 % 10702 3989 37.27% 66.67%
1-25 % 5060 424 8.38% 31.52%
>25 % 290 12 4.14% 1.81%
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF SAMPLE AND UNIVERSE
All Potential
Responding Schools Target Schools
-------------------- --------------------
N of Percent in N of Percent in Response
Schools Category Schools Category Rate
------- ---------- ------- ---------- ---------
OVERALL 17344 100.00% 36359 100.00% 47.70%
School Type:
Elementary 1759 10.14% 4811 13.23% 36.56%
Middle 4547 26.22% 8432 23.19% 53.93%
Jr Hi 2156 12.43% 3717 10.22% 58.00%
Sr Hi 6867 39.59% 14064 38.68% 48.83%
Combined 703 4.05% 2844 7.82% 24.72%
Voc/Tech 424 2.44% 1033 2.84% 41.05%
Special 625 3.60% 995 2.74% 62.81%
Adult 263 1.52% 463 1.27% 56.80%
School Level:
K-8 1759 10.14% 4811 13.23% 36.56%
K-12 703 4.05% 2844 7.82% 24.72%
5-8 4547 26.22% 8432 23.19% 53.93%
7-9 2156 12.43% 3717 10.22% 58.00%
7-12 1088 6.27% 2911 8.01% 37.38%
9-12 5209 30.03% 10184 28.01% 51.15%
10-12 570 3.29% 971 2.67% 58.70%
Voc/Tech 424 2.44% 1031 2.84% 41.13%
Special 625 3.60% 995 2.74% 62.81%
Adult 263 1.52% 463 1.27% 56.80%
School Enrollment:
1-99 993 5.73% 3005 8.26% 33.04%
100-199 1054 6.08% 3441 9.46% 30.63%
200-299 1305 7.52% 3813 10.49% 34.23%
300-499 2961 17.07% 7205 19.82% 41.10%
500-999 6675 38.49% 12331 33.91% 54.13%
1000-2499 4085 23.55% 6189 17.02% 66.00%
2500+ 271 1.56% 375 1.03% 72.27%
District Enrollment:
<599 707 4.08% 5225 14.37% 13.53%
<1199 1344 7.75% 3822 10.51% 35.16%
<2499 2275 13.12% 5811 15.98% 39.15%
<4999 2219 12.79% 5656 15.56% 39.23%
<9999 1746 10.07% 4577 12.59% 38.15%
<24999 3096 17.85% 4710 12.95% 65.73%
25K + 5957 34.35% 6558 18.04% 90.84%
Schools in District:
1 420 2.42% 3245 8.92% 12.94%
2-4 2920 16.84% 8829 24.28% 33.07%
5-9 3019 17.41% 7914 21.77% 38.15%
10-24 2721 15.69% 7330 20.16% 37.12%
25-99 5397 31.12% 6053 16.65% 89.16%
100 + 2867 16.53% 2988 8.22% 95.95%
Spending on All Instructional Materials:
<44.99 197 1.14% 513 1.42% 38.40%
<54.99 234 1.35% 490 1.36% 47.76%
<64.99 476 2.75% 993 2.75% 47.94%
<74.99 1053 6.08% 1822 5.04% 57.79%
<79.99 706 4.07% 1206 3.34% 58.54%
<84.99 1111 6.41% 1811 5.01% 61.35%
<89.99 768 4.43% 1519 4.20% 50.56%
<94.99 919 5.30% 1741 4.82% 52.79%
<99.99 945 5.45% 1904 5.27% 49.63%
<109.99 2462 14.21% 4347 12.03% 56.64%
<119.99 1642 9.47% 3459 9.57% 47.47%
<129.99 1858 10.72% 3392 9.38% 54.78%
<139.99 1173 6.77% 2690 7.44% 43.61%
<149.99 1065 6.15% 2135 5.91% 49.88%
<159.99 606 3.50% 1407 3.89% 43.07%
<169.99 487 2.81% 1228 3.40% 39.66%
<179.99 389 2.24% 991 2.74% 39.25%
<189.99 277 1.60% 800 2.21% 34.63%
<199.99 233 1.34% 612 1.69% 38.07%
200 + 729 4.21% 3087 8.54% 23.62%
Region:
New England 739 4.26% 1810 4.98% 40.83%
Mid Atlan. 1677 9.67% 3974 10.93% 42.20%
So Atlan. 3298 19.02% 4921 13.53% 67.02%
No Central 4906 28.29% 10542 28.99% 46.54%
Mountain 1150 6.63% 2542 6.99% 45.24%
So Central 3282 18.92% 7667 21.09% 42.81%
Pacific 2292 13.21% 4903 13.48% 46.75%
Metro status:
Urban 5709 33.09% 7676 21.23% 74.37%
Suburban 4328 25.09% 7720 21.35% 56.06%
Rural 7216 41.82% 20760 57.42% 34.76%
Poverty Level:
<5% 2526 14.82% 5492 15.57% 45.99%
5-12 5384 31.59% 11112 31.50% 48.45%
12-25 6365 37.34% 13019 36.91% 48.89%
25% + 2770 16.25% 5650 16.02% 49.03%
Percent African-American:
<1 % 5525 34.42% 14204 44.66% 38.90%
1-5 2542 15.84% 4983 15.67% 51.01%
5-25 3666 22.84% 6158 19.36% 59.53%
25% + 4319 26.91% 6463 20.32% 66.83%
Percent Latino:
<1 % 8105 50.49% 17353 54.56% 46.71%
1-5 3225 20.09% 5973 18.78% 53.99%
5-25 2727 16.99% 4876 15.33% 55.93%
25% + 1995 12.43% 3606 11.34% 55.32%
Percent Asian:
<1 % 10702 66.67% 23081 72.56% 46.37%
1-5 3469 21.61% 5825 18.31% 59.55%
5-25 1591 9.91% 2498 7.85% 63.69%
25% + 290 1.81% 404 1.27% 71.78%
Percent White:
<1 % 847 5.28% 1192 3.75% 71.06%
1-5 425 2.65% 692 2.18% 61.42%
5-25 1231 7.67% 1901 5.98% 64.76%
25% + 13549 84.41% 28023 88.10% 48.35%
========================================================================
========================================================================
I hope this is useful.
Cheers,
- Michael
--
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Michael Morgan * /\/\ /\/\ * [email protected] |
| Department of Communication, UMass/Amherst, MA 01003 USA |
| 413-545-1311 (dept) * 413-545-6345 (office) * 413-545-6399 (fax) |
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
