Education Week on the Web


Contents
The Challenges
The Solutions
State By State
How To Order
 

Indiana Urban Data

This table shows Indiana's urban and district scores in seven areas:

  • Achievement
  • Poverty and Achievement
  • Teaching, Climate, and Class Size
  • Child Poverty and Race
  • Student Characteristics
  • School Size, Spending, and Dropout Rates
  • Standards and Accountability
  • See this state's corresponding data on our five indicators.

    All figures in percents. States with significant urban centers are ranked by percent of students at NAEP "basic" level or higher.

    Achievement

    For more information about these measures, see our 50-state Urban Achievement data table.

    "Urban" refers to a school district in which 75% or more of the households served are within the central city of a metropolitan area.
    ? = state did not participate in national assessment
    n/d = no district in sample met the "urban" definition
    * = interpret with caution due to Small sample size

      Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin
    Reading: 4th graders, 1994, in urban districts ? 52 ? ? 66
    ... in nonurban districts ? 71 ? ? 73
    Mathematics: 8th graders, 1996, in urban districts ? 50 37 ? 59
    ... in nonurban districts ? 73 74 ? 82
    Science: 8th graders, 1996, in urban districts ? 46 33 ? 59
    ... in nonurban districts ? 70 72 ? 79

    Poverty and Achievement

    "Urban" refers to a school district in which 75% or more of the households served are within the central city of a metropolitan area. "High-poverty" refers to a school where more than half the students are poor enough to qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.
    "Algebra class" refers to an algebra or integrated-mathematics course.

    ? = state did not participate in national assessment.
    n/d = no district in sample met the "urban" definition.
    n/s = no school in sample met the "high-poverty" definition.
    * Interpret with caution due to Small sample size
    .

      Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin
    Reading: 4th graders, 1994, in urban districts: High-poverty schools ? 30 ? ? 34
    ... in urban districts: All other schools ? 62 ? ? 74
    ... in nonurban districts: High-poverty schools ? 57* ? ? 70*
    ... in nonurban districts: All other schools ? 71 ? ? 73
    Mathematics: 8th graders, 1996, in urban districts: High-poverty schools ? 35 30 ? 28
    ... in urban districts: All other schools ? 65 48* ? 71
    ... in nonurban districts: High-poverty schools ? 79* 35* ? 84
    ... in nonurban districts: All other schools ? 73 73 ? 81
      Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin
    Science: 8th graders, 1996, in urban districts: High-poverty schools ? 37 29 ? 24
    ... in urban districts: All other schools ? 61 51* ? 71
    ... in nonurban districts: High-poverty schools ? 79* 24* ? 75
    ... in nonurban districts: All other schools ? 69 73 ? 81
    Algebra: 8th graders in urban districts: Taking an algebra class ? 21 23 ? 33
    .. and scoring at least "basic" ? 80 54 ? 71
    Algebra: 8th graders in nonurban districts: Taking an algebra class ? 21 32 ? 23
    .. and scoring at least "basic" ? 96 94 ? 96

    Teaching, Climate, and Class Size

    "Urban" refers to a school district in which 75% or more of the households served are within the central city of a metropolitan area.
    n/d = no district in sample met the "urban" definition.
    * Interpret with caution due to Small sample size
    .

      Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin
    Teacher Qualifications: Teachers with no license, or only an emergency or temporary license, urban districts 6 3 3 4 3
    ... in nonurban districts 2 1 1 1 2
    ... Secondary classes taught by teachers without at least a college minor in their subjects, urban districts 17 14 15 16 14
    ... in nonurban districts 12 11 11 15 12
    Class Size: Elementary teachers with class sizes of fewer than 25 students, urban districts 33 92 34 66 36
    ... in nonurban districts 60 72 37 52 74
    ... Secondary teachers with fewer than 80 students per day, urban districts 6 14 6 13 20
    ... in nonurban districts 14 13 9 13 11
      Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin
    Climate: Teachers who report that physical conflicts among students are a serious or moderate problem, urban districts 59 46 66 60 45
    ... in nonurban districts 27 26 27 25 23
    ... Teachers who report that student weapons possession is a serious or moderate problem, urban districts 24 15 28 19 17
    ... in nonurban districts 5 5 6 5 6
    ... Principals who report a great deal of control over hiring, urban districts 83 75 53 55 61
    ... in nonurban districts 87 86 88 83 90

    Child Poverty and Race

    All figures in percents. States with significant urban centers are ranked by percent of students at NAEP "basic" level or higher.

    Because the 1990 U.S. Census considered "Hispanic" to be an ethnic rather than racial category, black children may also be Hispanic, and vice versa. An "extremely impoverished neighborhood" refers to a census tract in which at least 40% of the residents are poor.
    n/a = not applicable.
    * In addition to city data, these tables provide a separate listing of county-level data because these cities are part of countywide districts.

    City Chicago East St. Louis Indianapolis Detroit Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo
    State IL IL IN MI OH OH OH OH OH
    Children who are poor: in the city 34 58 19 47 37 43 24 41 28
    ... in the state 17 17 14 19 18 18 18 18 18
    Children who are black in the city 47 100 28 82 50 54 31 50 26
    ... in the state 19 19 10 17 13 13 13 13 13
    Children who are Hispanic in the city 28 1 1 3 1 7 1 1 6
    ... in the state 11 11 2 3 2 2 2 2 2
      Chicago East St. Louis Indianapolis Detroit Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo
    Children living in poor neighborhoods in the city 21 58 5 41 26 25 13 30 13
    ... in the state 7 7 2 8 6 6 6 6 6
    ... city's share of state 75 4 34 61 15 21 12 9 7
    ... state's share of nation 6 6 1 6 5 5 5 5 5
    ... who are Black 84 100 78 86 84 79 68 89 60
    ... who are Hispanic 15 1 1 4 1 9 1 1 8

    Student Characteristics

    "Free lunch" does not include reduced-price lunch.
    n/a = data not available

    City Chicago East St. Louis Indianapolis Detroit Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo
    State IL IL IN MI OH OH OH OH OH
    Students poor enough to be eligible for free lunch (1995): in the district n/a n/a 62 63 56 80 50 63 51
    ... in the state n/a n/a 22 25 24 24 24 24 24
    Minority students (1995): in the district 89 100 58 94 67 79 55 66 48
    ... in the state 36 36 14 23 18 18 18 18 18
      Chicago East St. Louis Indianapolis Detroit Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo
    Special education students (individual education plan) (1995): in the district 4.1 5.7 19.7 10.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
    ... in the state 3.8 3.8 4.2 10.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

    School Size, Spending, and Dropout Rates

    n/a = not available
    * = weighted average

    City Chicago East St. Louis Indianapolis Detroit Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo
    State IL IL IN MI OH OH OH OH OH
    School Size: % high school students in schools enrolling 900 or fewer students (1995): in the district 9 33 2 11 5 20 39 2 2
    ... in the state 26 26 37 43 45 45 45 45 45
    Spending: 1993-94 expenditure per student, adjusted for regional costs and special student needs: in the district $4,581 $4,498 $4,697 $5,845 $5,813 $5,338 $6,028 $5,225 $5,515
    ... in the state $4,722 $4,722 $4,518 $5,190 $5,184 $5,184 $5,184 $5,184 $5,184
      Chicago East St. Louis Indianapolis Detroit Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo
    Dropout Rates: % students in grades 9-12 who dropped out of school in 1993-94: District n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
    ... in the state n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
    % change in the district's class of 1994 enrollment from freshman year to spring 1994 graduation -52 -39 -72 -68 -57 -65 -76 -74 -63
    % change in the district's total high school enrollment during the same period 2 -14 3 -4 -3 5 -3 1 -12

    Standards and Accountability

    Parentheses indicate that the district does not have the program or policy but the state does.
    * = both the district and the state have the policy or program.
    ** = the district has teacher evaluation program, but evaluation is not based on student performance.
    NR No response
    n/a Not applicable
    Not yet District is in process of developing policy
    W Examples of student work
    Gr Grades
    Pr Projects, exhibitions, or demonstrations
    Inf Publishes report on performance
    Imp Takes steps to improve low-performing schools
    Cat Identifies schools by performance categories
    Rew Recognizes or rewards high-performing schools

    City Chicago East St. Louis Indianapolis Detroit Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Toledo
    State IL IL IN MI OH OH OH OH OH
    Has the district adopted academic standards? Yes* NR (Yes) Yes Yes* Not yet NR Yes* NR
    District requires students to master standards to graduate Yes NR (Yes) No (Yes) n/a NR Yes NR
    How does district measure whether students have mastered standards? Test*, W, Gr, Pr NR (Test) n/a Test*, W, Gr, Pr n/a NR Test*, W, Gr, Pr NR
    Does district hold itself accountable for student performance? (Inf) NR Inf Inf Inf Inf NR Inf NR
    Does district hold its schools accountable for student performance? (Inf), Imp, Rew NR Inf, Cat, Rew Inf, (Cat), Imp, Rew Inf Inf, Imp NR Inf, Imp, Rew NR
    Does district hold its teachers accountable for student performance? Yes** NR NR Yes** Yes** Yes** NR Yes** NR

    © 1998 Editorial Projects in Education