Understanding the High School Transcript Study
Overview
Standardizing transcript information
Defining curriculum levels
The NAEP connection
Caution in interpreting results
Overview
This report presents information about the types of courses that graduates took during a 4-year high school curriculum, how many credits they earned, and the grades they received. Information on the relationships between high school records and performance in mathematics and science on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is also included. Transcripts were collected from about 640 public schools and 80 private schools for the 2005 High School Transcript Study (HSTS). These transcripts constituted a nationally representative sample of 26,000 public and private high school graduates, representing approximately 2.7 million 2005 high school graduates. The 2005 results are compared to the results of the 1990, 1994, 1998, and 2000 NAEP HSTSs and differences among graduates by gender, race/ethnicity, and parent education are examined. The sample size was insufficient to permit reliable estimates for American Indian/Alaska Native graduates in 2005. Learn more about how HSTS data are collected.
Standardizing transcript information
Not all high schools have the same standards for course titles, assigning credits, and grade scales. To allow comparisons, HSTS standardizes the transcript information. To control for the variation in course titles, a coding system called the Classification of Secondary School Courses (CSSC) is used for classifying courses on the basis of information available in school catalogs and other information sources. Find out more about how courses are classified.
Course credits are converted to standardized Carnegie units of credits (or Carnegie credits), in which a single unit is equal to 120 hours of classroom time over the course of a year. Schools provided information on how many course credits represent a Carnegie credit at their school. The course credits recorded on the transcript were then converted (standardized) into Carnegie credits for the data analysis for this report.
Points are assigned to each letter grade as follows: A=4 points; B=3 points; C=2 points; D=1 points; and F= 0 points. The points are weighted by the number of Carnegie credits earned, so that a course with 60 hours of instruction counts half as much as one with 120 hours. The average of the points earned for all the courses taken is the grade point average (GPA). Courses in which a graduate did not receive a grade, such as pass/fail and audited courses, do not factor into the GPA calculation. No additional grade points were assigned for Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, and other honors classes. This process does not standardize for differences in grading practices among schools and teachers. Find out more about how GPA is calculated.
Defining curriculum levels
Curriculum levels in this report are defined by the number of course credits earned by graduates in specified types of courses during high school, as follows:
Standard: at least four credits of English and three each in social studies, mathematics, and science.
Midlevel: in addition to standard, geometry and algebra I or II must be completed; at least two courses in biology, chemistry, and physics; and at least one credit of foreign language.
Rigorous: in addition to midlevel, an additional credit in mathematics including precalculus or higher; biology, chemistry, and physics; and at least three foreign language credits.
The NAEP connection
Approximately 17,400 of the graduates included in the transcript study also participated in the NAEP twelfth-grade mathematics or science assessments in 2005. Thus, findings of the HSTS can be linked with NAEP results, allowing a comparison of coursetaking patterns and educational achievement as measured by NAEP. Learn more about how HSTS is linked to NAEP.
Caution in interpreting results
An apparent relationship between a variable and measures of educational achievement, like those presented here, does not imply that a difference in the variable causes differences in educational achievement. There are many reasons why the performance of one group of students differs from another, including ones that are not measured in NAEP.
The findings presented on this site are descriptive in nature. Readers are cautioned not to draw causal inferences based solely on the results presented here. It is important to note that many of the grouping variables examined (e.g., eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch, parental education level) may be correlated with one another, and complex interactions and relationships have not been explored here.
The results in HSTS reports are estimates because they are based on samples of students rather than on entire populations. Likewise, the NAEP average scores, used in conjunction with the HSTS results, are also estimates of student performance. In addition, the results are subject to a measure of uncertainty due to sampling and measurement error. These measures of uncertainty are reflected in the standard error of the estimates.
NCES uses widely accepted statistical standards in analyzing data. The differences between the estimates discussed in HSTS reports take into account the standard errors associated with the estimates. Comparisons are based on statistical tests that consider both the magnitude of the difference between the estimates and the standard errors of those statistics. Differences between estimates are pointed out only when they are significant from a statistical perspective. All differences reported are significant at the 0.05 alpha level unless otherwise noted. The term significant is not intended to imply a judgment about the absolute magnitude or the educational relevance of the differences, but rather to identify statistically dependable population differences to help inform dialogue among policymakers, educators, and the public. In the tables and charts of this report, the symbol (*) is used to indicate findings that are significantly different from one another.
You are cautioned against interpreting transcript study results in a causal manner. Inferences related to student subgroup performance or to the effectiveness of public and nonpublic schools, for example, should take into consideration the many socioeconomic and educational factors that may also impact coursetaking patterns and academic performance.