ARCH

REPORT 78

REPORT

BUREAU OF RESEARCH

PROMOTION &
NON-PROMOTION

IN FLORIDA

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

1968-69

JANUARY 1970

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
TALLAHASSEE FLORIDA
FLOYD T. CHRISTIAN, COMMISSIONER

Research Report-78 is a summary of the State
membership data for Florida public schools
prepared by the Bureau of Research of the
Department of Education. Basic data for this
report were compiled by Mr. Ed R. Allen, Jr.,
Research Associate. This report revises
Research Report-69. (850)

PROMOTION AND NON-PROMOTION IN FLORIDA

PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 1968-69

This is the twelfth tabulation prepared by the Bureau of Research

presenting statistics on promotion and non-promotion of pupils in Florida

public schools. Data for this study are taken from annual reports submitted

by public school principals covering the 1968-69 school year.

An analysis is made on a grade-by-grade basis as well as by grade groups.

Pupils in separate exceptional child classes are not included, since promotion

policies for pupils in special classes vary from the policies in regular classes.

Brevard County operates under a different grade organization from most other

counties and is excluded from all totals. Therefore, this report deals

primarily with pupils in regular classes who were in school at the close of the

1968-69 school year.

The data in this report should be interpreted with extreme caution,

especially as they apply to an individual district. In some instances due to

the small number of pupils as a result of detailed breakdowns, a few pupils

can make a difference of several percentage points. This report.does not take

into account pupils who make up deficiencies during the summer and thus are

enabled to go into the next grade. The effects of the increased emphasis on

remedial reading and make-up work during the summer was not evaluated at this

time. Another situation which may be misinterpreted is found in those districts

having some ungraded classes or schools. In such systems a child may be reported

as non-promoted but later progress may permit him to enter a higher grade and

continue on schedule.

Primarily this is a statistical

trends of value for future planning.

are not available by race even though

differences in promotional patterns.

do not carry a designation of race.

study prepared in an effort to establish

Analyses of promotion and non-promotion

previous studies have shown apparent

Principals' annual attendance reports

MEMBERSHIP AT CLOSE OF 1967-68 & 1968-69 NOT PROMOTED

Number Not Promoted Percent Not Promoted

1967-68 1968-69 1967-68 1968-69

Grades 1-6 27,655 25,413 4.10 3.49
Grades 7-9 18,708 17,651 6.07 5.21
Grades 10-12 13,915 14,505 6.18 5.82

Total 60,278 57,569 4.99 4.37

Table 1 is a comparitive State summary of the number and percent of pupils

in each grade at the close of the 1967-68 and 1968-69 school years who were not

promoted. The general state-wide pattern of non-promotion is about the same as

in previous years, i.e., a gradual decline. This is shown in Table 2 which gives

the percent of pupils not promoted by grade for each of the last nine years.

Table 3 gives the number of promotions and non-promotions for each grade

in each district.

Table 4 shows the percent of regular membership promoted by grade group,

the current expense per pupil, and the theoretical cost of re-teaching pupils

who were not promoted.

Table 5 gives the number of pupils in each district taught in separate

exceptional child classes, usually under the supervision of a teacher on an

exceptional child unit. There were 14,814 pupils in this classification; 71.07

percent were classified an elementary and 28.93 percent as secondary pupils.

Pupils receiving supplemental services from exceptional child teachers and

those students in vocational schools are counted with regular pupils and are

not included in Table 5.

Also excluded from consideration as promoted or non-promoted are 60,169

pupils in Brevard County. Promotion in this district is not on the same basis

as in classes in most other school districts.

The pupils in these excluded groups amount to about 5.7 percent of the

total number of pupils in school at the close of the year in the State.

The theoretical cost of re-teaching pupils who were not promoted in

1968-69 is estimated at $37,100,535 for the 57,569 pupils. This estimate is

reached by multiplying the number of non-promoted pupils in each district by

the 1968-69 current expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance in each

district. The State total is a summation of the estimated cost of re-teaching

non-promoted pupils in each district. This estimate excludes pupils in separate

exceptional child classes and Brevard County.

Actually, the estimated cost is theoretical, and represents an over-

simplification. The assumption is made that per pupil costs will remain con-

stant, and that the non-promoted pupils will remain in school to graduate.

Obviously, some of the pupils who are not promoted will withdraw from school

before graduation and per pupil costs are likely to increase. Some pupils

reported as non-promoted may make up deficiencies and be promoted.

No consideration is given in this report to dropouts, although it is known

that the net withdrawals in some districts especially in secondary schools are

substantial during each year. Principals' Annual Reports indicate a net loss

of about 10,413 pupils between the close of the eighth month of school and

the close of the school year. (See Research Report 77, Analysis of Membership

at the Close of Each Month of School, 1968-69)

Altogether, 11,177 first graders were not promoted at the close of the

1968-69 school year. If some acceptable remedial action could be taken to

cut in half the failure rate in the first grade alone, a theoretical saving

of $3,761,340 could result. While this theoretical saving would not be

realized immediately, it is equal to enough to pay about 442 additional teachers

or to .construct and equip over 101 new classrooms.

Needed Study

There is a need for extensive study and research in the area of promotion

and non-promotion. The data in this report does not answer basic questions, but

does suggest issues on which inadequate information is available.

1. What is the relationship between non-promotion and irregular
attendance? Is this an important factor? This leads into
questions involving the causes of irregular attendance.

2. Do pupils who are not promoted tend to drop out of school?
In an effort to establish and maintain "high" standards, is
the principle of providing an opportunity for optimumgrowth
of each pupil sacrificed?

3. What is the relationship between non-promotion and type of
curriculum? How well does the program of'the school meet the
needs of pupils who are not promoted?

4. Does a high rate of non-promotion in lower grades tend to
reduce the rate of non-promotion in higher grades? Is any
reduced rate in higher grades due to those students becoming
drop-outs?

5. 'Are promotion standards and practices consistent from district
to district? From school to school, within the same district?
From section-to-section within the same grade in the same
school?

6. What are the emotional and psychological effects of non-
promotion? Is there any relationship between non-promotion
and disciplinary problems?

7. Does organized remedial work, special homework, or individual
coaching appear to have any appreciable effect on the non-
promotion rate? On school attendance?

8. What is the effect of stability of residence on non-promotion?
Does movement from one school to another during the year.
contribute to non-promotion?

9. Is academic achievement higher in school systems with a high
non-promotion rate? Is the higher rate justified? What are
the alternatives?

10. What part does personal and educational guidance play in non-
promotion? What would be considered as adequate guidance
services?

11. Does the administrative organization of school, especially at
the junior high level, have any effect on the rate of non-
promotion? Does attaching an eighth or ninth grade to a senior
high school result in higher non-promotion? What effect has the
middle school structure had on non-promotion rates?

12. What are the underlying causes of non-promotion? What can be
done about them at the local level? At the district level?
At the State level?

13. What is the purpose of non-promotion? Is it for the non-
promoted child's benefit? For the benefit of other pupils?
To enhance the reputation of the school? A punitive measure?

14. What is a reasonable rate of non-promtion? What is an
excessive rate, and under what conditions?

15. What is the relationship between class size and non-promotion?
Between teacher experience and non-promotion? Between length
of school day and non-promotion? Between school facilities and
non-promotion?

These are but a few of the many questions that come to mind. None of

the answers are easy, and most of the problems must be worked out at the

local level, where detailed data are available. Most districts have capable

personnel on their staff who can undertake the task of finding the answers

to one or more of these questions if time can be made available to them.

The Bureau of Research would like to be supplied with the results

of any studies in this area conducted at the local level.

TABLE I

PUPILS IN SCHOOL AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR WHO WERE
NOT PROMOTED, BY GRADE, 1967-68 and 1968-69*

Not Promoted
Grade Number in School Number Percent
1967-68 1968-69 1967-68 1968-69 1967-68 1968-69

1 118,984 124,959 11,895 11,177 10.00% 8.947.

2 113,400 122,686 5,917 5,459 5.22 4.45

3 112,009 122,528 4,075 3,769 3.64 3.08

4 110,038 120,292 2,693 2,266 2.45 1.88

5 111,349 118,148 1,902 1,581 1.71 1.34

6 108,447 119,559 1,173 1,161 1.08 .97

1-6 674,227 728,172 27,655 25,413 4.10 3.49

7 108,414 119,824 7,076 6,329 6.53 5.28

8 103,330 112,809 6,453 5,971 6.25 5.29

9 96,594 106,437 5,179 5,351 5.36 5.03

7-9 308,338 339.070 18,708 17,651 6,07 5.21

10 87,215 96,557 7,024 7,158 8.05 7.41

11 74,589 82,166 4,505 4,702 6.04 5.72

12 63,178 70,470 2,386 2,645 3.78 3.75

10-12 224,982 249,193 13,915 14,505 6.18 5.82

1-12 1,207,547 1,316,435 60,278 57,569 4.99% 4.37%

*Excludes 14,814 pupils in separate
pupils in Brevard County.

exceptional child classes, and 60,169

TABLE 2

PERCENT OF PUPILS IN SCHOOL AT THE CLOSE OF
THE YEAR, BY GRADE, WHO WERE NOT PROMOTED*

Grade 1960-61 1961-62 1962-63 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69

1 10.65% 10.58% 10.92% 11.147 11.08% 10.84% 10.67% 10.00% 8.947.

2 6.04 6.05 6.23 6.16 5.85 5.77 5.43 5.22 4.45

3 4.63 4.76 4.53 4.77 4.25 3.95 3.93 3.64 3.08

4 4.14 3.73 3.85 3.70 3.37 2.99 2.61 2.45 -1.88

5 3.36 3.23 2.99 2.71 2.40 2.16 2.04 1.71 1.34

6 2.36 2.12 2.07 1.84 1.69 1.24 1.22 1.08 .97

1-6 5.40 5.25 5.29 5.25 4.93 4.64 4.43 4.10 3.49

7 8.44 8.39 8.55 8.08 7.66 7.17 6.87 6.53 5.28

8 7.62 7.65 7.90 7.44 7.34 7.07 6.48 6.25 5.29

9 6.67 6.56 *6.68 6.66 6.35 5.97 5.76 5.36 5.03

7-9 7.64 7.57 7.75 7.43 7.15 6.77 6.40 6.07 5.21

10 7.79 8.20 8.15 8.13 8.49 7.85 7.74 8.05 7.41

11 6.24 6.74 6.62 6.15 6.55 6.38 6.24 6.04 5.72

12 3.36 3.66 4.03 3.16 3.88 3.66 3.85 3.78 3.75

10-12 6.01 6.97 6.62 6.11 6.48 6.13 6.13 6.18 5.82

1-12 6.06% 6.09% 6.13% 5.93% 5.76% 5.44% 5.247. 4.99% 4.37%

*Excludes pupils in separate exceptional child classes, special vocational classes and
pupils in Brevard County in years prior to 1968-69. Figures for 1968-69 include
pupils in special vocational classes.

TABLE 3

MEMBERSHIP PROMOTED AND NON-PROMOTED AT END
OF YEAR 1968-69,* GRADES 1-6

FIRST GRADE SECOND GRADE THIRD GRADE FOURTH GRADE FIFTH GRADE SIXTH GRADE

COUNTY PRO- NON- PIRO- NON- PRO- NON- PRO- NON- PRO- NON- PRO- NON-
MOTED PRO. MOTED PRO* NOTED PRO. MOTED PRO. MOTED PRO. MOTED PRO.

ALACHUA 1.31 170 1,867 106 1.790 61 1,771 42 1,705 18 -1777 61
BAKER 184 19 207 0 195 3 207 5 228 5 202 0
BAY 1,*332 183 1.355 60 1,390 54 1,433 36 1,294 26 1*456 14
BRADFORD 281 25 325 5 300 4 286 1 287 1 309 6
BREVARD
BROWARD 8,955 460 -9,413 238 9,326 110 9,541 97 9,100 46 9, 162 24
CALHOUN 162 20 142 15 172 7 159 1 184 1 163 5
CHARLOTTE 257 16 235 3 253 8 262 2 253 0 285 1
CITRUS 254 10 244 7 225 2 275 6 264 4 250 12
CLAY 725 89 687 47 747 28 710 22 603 20 710 7
CJLLIER 637 55 666 21 670 16 650 0 624 0 578 0
COLUMBIA 568 60 1530 17 547 19 588 1 518 0 569 1
DADE 18,728 1,431 19,118 793 19,518 585 19,660 256 19,601 212 20,232 157
DESOTO 238 33 279 23 252 7 262 8 229 5 221 2
DIXEIE 129 10 126 4 132 9 120 0 117 4 126 1
OUVAL 10 247 674 10,612 398 10.757 230 10,634 149 10.485 110 10,845 47
ESCAMBIA 3.124 5.99 3,933 252 2-t967 181 3,914 127 3.969 75 4,006 67
FLAGLER 94 11 92 5 112 5 101 4 88 4 92 17
FRANKLIN 127 33 155 15 161 8 145 4 143 12 122 18
GADSDEN 901 114 .989 0 1,019 82 1,003 34 980 34 952 41
GILCHRST 69 4 17 1t 76 3 59 8 66 4 88 0
GLADES 71 9 80 11 76 8 96 7 72 4 73 3
GULF 203 51 236 19 218 2 227 2 247 20 241 14
HAMILTON 191 33 186 9 183 12 187 13 178 7 183 6
HARDEE 319 108 2.1 28 280 8 280 7 293 7 263 3
HENDRY 286 58 285 10 242 2 272 0 263 0 244 0
HERNANDO 252 57 317 30 259 15 297 41 293 8 302 6
HIGHLANDS 610 107 531 40 548 43 514 39 491 19 547 13
HILLSBOROUGH 8.475 658 8, 769 462 8,735 367 8,675 126 8,555 88 8,780 54
HOLMES 191 20 19Q 19 195 21 243 9 201 1 209 24

INOLAN RIVER
JACKSON
JEEFERSON
LAFAY ETT E
LAK E
LEE
LEON
LEVY
LIBERTY
MAD ISON
MANATEE
MARION
MARTIN
MONROE
NASSAU
CKALOOS A
OKEECHO8EE
ORANGE
, SCEOLA
PALM BEACH
PASCO
PINELLAS
POLK
PUTNAM
ST. JOHNS
ST. LUCIE
SANTA ROSA
SARASOT A
SEM INOLE
SUMTFR

--

..

SUWANNEE 309 67 335 15 284 32 340 15 310 12 335 9
TAYLOR 306 61 310 35 305 22 319 18 283 9 325 9
UNION 114 3 183 3 88 0 98 0 110 0 99 0
VflLUSIA 2*420 165 2.584 109 2,527 47 2,540 38 2,674 25 2,613 10
MAKULLA 130 10 123 5 141 4 128 0 139 4 137 4
IALTON 280 46 312 15 317 7 313 18 360 8 353 15
WASHINGTON 252 25 226 3 234 0 237 9 211 14 264 10

XOT AL 10 7447 11.04IA7 110.393 110,971 109,843 111,959
10 473 5.200 3.525 2*072 1.480 1.057

*This excludes all of Brevard County and all type 02 schools.

666
587
256
62
1.426
1.494
1,602
278
63
321
1,275
1.307
479
986
447
2.226
260
6,644
*06
5.248
855
6.190
4.539
800
533
1.035
768
1.367
1,593
2327

77
94
13
3
159
260
95
31
10
42
109
196
77
123
43
182
0
623
62
64&4
121
454
747
94
78
161
88
133
198
A2

691
624
220
53

1.6Q2
1,631
1.631
267
l-7
.294
1-t 325

488
933
48f7
2.224
328
6.6448
432

844
6. 125
4,786
820
570
980
796
1,.382
t 60-1
279

91
172
3
3
1 02
114
38
24
14
29
50
61
i2
55
10
142
0
317
18
21t9
47
2)06
267
46
55
62
35
65
122
2Aa

641
623
237
56
1.211
1 535
1,703
287
68
272
1.257
1,313
450
907
455
21132
252
6,744
383
5,465
839
6,315
4,596
796
554
1,044
787
1-444
1,496
27n

3Y5
54
2
5
-73
81
49
13
3
l3
33
33
43
20O
UL
89
3
175
33
145
40
127
176
34
36
29
35
29
75
?l

671
670
263
54
1.191
1,526
1,718
272
63
311
1,331
1 293
447
869
514
2 224
255
6 650
369
5.431
871
6 306
4,664
796
572
1,055
746
1 ,4Q9
1, 591
79 Q

22
51
1
2
45
80
13
5
2
1
21
19
25
18
0
31
1
138
15
92
24
76
83
12
38
19
26
18
43
4

~

722
647
267
51
1.148
1,572
1,737
247
89
322
1,310
1,352
437
828
508
2,126
237
6,614
411
5.354
809
6,446
4,663
810
571
1,011
827
1,461
1,575
773

,_ ,

~

~

~

689
698
247
58
1.248
1,613
1,634
282
72
322
1,345
1,354
434
830
565
2 197
224
6,766
417
51318
902
6,364
4,660
788
612
974
773
1,502
1,685
"I'T

.

4

~

- __

W

.

!

TABLE 3 (CONT'D)

MEMBERSHIP PROMOTED AND NON-PROMOTED AT END
OF YEAR 1968-6#,* GRADES 7-12

SEVENTH GRADE EIGHTH GRADE NINTH GRADE TENTH GRADE ELEVENTH GRADE TWELFTH GRADE

PRO- NON- eRO- NON- PRO- NON- PRO- NON- PRO- NON- PRO- NON-
COUNTY MOTED PRO. MOTED PROL MOTED PRO. MOTED PRO. MOTED PRO. MOTED PRO.

ALACHUA 1 618 64 49484 62 1T541 46 1,317 83 1,130 59 1,024 44
BAKER 211 1 L192 8 181 174 3 139 1 118 2
BAY 1.423 78 1 .3.7 101 1-3319 87 1,103 146 904 79 816 22
BRADFORD 323 6 294 2 243 41 257 11 243 6 219 10
8EVARC
HOWARD 8#854 422 S,i328 346 7*753 393 6,802 539 5,991 410 4 841 269
CALHOUN 154 20 171 14 138 16 136 6 111 9 102
CHARLOTTE 296 A 278 4 3!05 1 283 20 196 5 163 6
CITRUS 281 -3 251 13 215 31 196 18 191 19 132 6
CLAY 622 46 671 46 540 78 t477 44 385 33 291 55
COLLIER 551 6 498 .5 466 33 411 26 311 18 303 19
COLUM-B1A .577 20 -539 504 11 458 18 381 14 316 11
DADE 18,709 1,114 1A.429 1,293 17,548 729 15,370 1,323 13,468 890 11,931 697
OESOTO 229 20 223 3 173 9 136 16 143 15 104 2
DIXIE ,15 .7 128 7 120 4 98 2 81 76 1
CUVAL 9.7,32 726 68348 445 8,888 559 7,787 723 6,670 342 6,149 217
ESCAMBIA 3,769 448 4,693 378 3,272 269 3.012 321 2,622 198 2,342 96
FLAGLER 92 19 83 14 76 2 60 8 61 41
FRANKL4N 151 15 AIOI 1 .93 21 85 9 57 6 66 1
GADSDEN 8.75 29 841 23 735 87 710 53 566 20 547 1
GILCHRIST 67 -4 62 12 60 3 55 2 54 3 42
GLADES 11 12 43 12 58 11 48 4 23 2 32
GULF 236 9 213 4 217 7 163 20 158 14 144 3
HAM LTlN .216 13 165 11 157 2 150 8 144 4 115
HARDEE 2,6 12 256 3 229 8 177 10 132 5 133 6
HENDRY 257 46 249 21 172 10 129 21 122 12 118 5
HERNANOO 210 16 258 if 245 29 203 22 197 20 154 7
HIGHLANDS 506 21 474 23 462 17 403 12 339 15 292 7
HILLSBOROUGH 8,467 340 6,344 339 7,579 326 6,685 418 5t853 332 4,883 122
HflMES 235 20 183 29 192 23 181 14 159 11 159 2

INDIAN RIVER
JACKSCN
JEFFERSON
LAFAYETTE

684
6-46
180
55

47
118
13
;3

605
601
224
58

29
18
is

646 26
556 69
226 10
67 3

565
543
151
49

489
547
155
46

7
20
7
2

380
429
148
46

LAKE 1,235 70 1,11 58 989 158 808 94 767 81 661 56
LEE 1,476 74 1,401 64 1 328 54 1,242 81 1,046 44 887 23
LEON 1,623 116 1.453 51 1,341 62 1,329 96 1,126 76 971 37
LEVY 277 13 271 15 228 12 188 10 167 6 164 2
LIBERTY 79 1 78 3 61 50 52 1 34
MADISON 293 27 293 1l 285 29 217 18 230 6 209 2
MANAT EE 1 236 98 1,.61 88 1,204 35 1,153 54 943 41 837 14
MARION 1,335 78 1,262 58 1,245 85 1,056 174 937 106 888 40
MART-IN 465 .4 398 6 398 13 326 11 269 8 278 2
MONROE 740 49 678 21 629 75 584 35 425 20 359 5
NASSAU 478 18 485 13 459 10 399 28 298 11 281 9

CKALOQS A
CKEECHOBEE
CRANG E
CSCEOLA
PALM BEACH
PAS CO
PINELLAS
POLK
PUTNAM
ST. JOHNS

1.907
239
6,.477
440
5, 224
-419
6,527
4, 521
,795
513

118
8
281
46
267
43
187
349
53
45

1 749
172
4,261
361
4, 993

6,A428
4,,141
692
565

82
34
293
35
246
62
193
266
52
2_1

1.621 52
159 28
6.040 260
376 36
4,740 235
679 124
6,163 105
3,892 203
675 41
4.03 103

L.425
126
5,498
303
4,263
593
5,688
3,372
560
349

84
20
380
14
201
56
347
305
54
90

1,086
94
4,550
277
3,668
497
5,113
2,963
550
298

53
4
259
10
126
24
244
195
31
AA

965
80
4,014
232
3 230
445
4.414
2, 622
489
12A

18
11
146
10
98
15
144
88
16
1a

ST. LUCIE 924 40 870 1 772 5 717 9 554 42 500 12
SANTA ROSA 773 44 724 32 667 22 469 24 359 9 359 1
SARASOTA 1.430 61 1,351 68 1,364 73 1361 66 1,237 45 1,066 31
SEMINOLE 1.721 84 1,443 142 1,059 235 909 371 795 221 692 41
SUMTER 295 9 295 3 247 3 214 8 224 10 171 3
SUWANNEE 350 17 342 a 328 29 338 20 250 16 274 8
TAYLOR 322 3 264 64 277 23 232 16 200 12 164 2
UNION 110 118 80 5 85 4 82 2 69 5
VCLUSIA 2,646 196 2,461 154 2,442 103 2,067 248 1,812 160 1,653 37
WAKULLA 140 14 114 a 95 13 94 8 78 15 49 2
WALTON 308 52 304 31 290 40 255 35 237 18 226 3
WASHINGTON 223 19 224 16 205 24 178 13 158 3 141 1

TOTAL 106.759 100,815 95,687 84 822 73,410 64,414
6.206 5. 852a ,S2.56 6,957. 4.523 2, 523
*This excludes all of Brevard County and all type 02 schools.

--

--

--

TABLE 4

PROMOTION BY GRADE GROUP AND THEORETICAL COST OF RE-TEACHING*

PERCENT OF REGULAR MENBESHRPPROMU-D NUMBER OF REGULAR AVERAGE THEORETICAL
AT CLOSE OF 1968-69 SCHOOL YEAR BY PUPILS AT THE END CURRENT ANNUAL COST
GRADE GROUP OF 1968-69 WHO- EXPENSE OF RE-TEACHING
COUNTY WERE WERE NOT PER PUPIL PUPILS NOT
1-6 7-9 10-12 1-12 PROMOTED PROMOTED 1968-69 PROMOTED

ALACHUA 96.38% 96.43% 94.91 96.*12% 18,857 761 $615.76 $ 468,593.36
BAKER 97.45 98.48 98.63 07.94 2,238 47 640.55 30,105.85
BAY 95.68 93.94 91.95 94.49 15,204 886 613.37 543,445.82
BRADFORD 97.70 94.62 96..38 86.62 3,369 118 726.30 85,703.40
EREV ARD 602.97
EROWARO 98.23 95.55 93.54 96.69 98,058 3,353 709.28 2,378,215.84
CALHOUN 95.25 89.90 9.-88 93.93 1,794 116 869.84 100,901.44
CHARLOTTE 98.,10 98.99 95.39 7. 77 3,066 70 978.47 68,492.90
CITRUS 97.39 94.08 92.;35 85.53 2,798 131 861.79 112,894.49
CLAY 95.15 90.92 89,.33 93.17 7,068 518 586.28 303,693.04
COLLIER 97.65 97.18 ,94.21 96.96 6,355 199 860.70 171,279.30
COLUMBIA 97.17 97.59 96.41 97.13 6,135 181 679.21 122,937.01
LADE 97.16 94.49 193.34 95.71 211,402 9,480 748.74 7,098,055.20
DESOTO 95.00 94.55 92.07 84.42 2,489 147 644.25 94,704.75
DIX IE 96.40 95.17 98.84 .96.52 1_360 _49 759.95 37.237,55

CUV AL
ES CAMBI A
FLAGLER
FRANKLIN
GAOSDEN
GLCHRIST
GLADES
GULF
HAMILTON
HARDEE
HENDRY
HERNANDO
HIGHLANDS
HILLSBOROUGH
Hnfl MF-;

93.54
90.74
87.76
86.47
94.58
90.87
83. 09
96.82
95.31
96.97
89.09
'12.66
95.95
96.04
Rq-.44

94. 14
92. 84
.95.29
92.86
9 4. 19
o9d.-79
94.50
92 63
Z. 15
95.46
90.66
92.87
9 .82
95.23
4- ,A7

95.88 1L2*214
93.36 42,323
91.77 992
89.78 1,406
84. 4Q L0tl 4.0
93.49 775
89.95 743
93.75 2,507
94.54 2,045
-93.40 .2_903
03.25 2,639
91.94 3,057
84.44 5,619
96.27 93,802
4l7-q7 7.14

4,820
3,012
89
160
598
54
83
167
118
205
191
268
356
3,632
SQt

576.75
576.59
768.31
659.50
589.21
912.02
904.17
720.03
774.93
696.82
605.59
721.37
706.45
604.52
*7.j 11

2,779,935.00
1,736,689.08
68,379.59
105,520.00
352,347.58
49,249.08
75,046.11
120,245.01
91,441.75
142,848.10
115,667.69
193,327.16
251,496.20
2,195,616.64
i in 1 _? ^A

97.54
94.731
92.64
90.46
93.80
93.55
91.76
92.70
93.23
91.47
95.78
91.6-4
92.3-3
96.73

_ _- o).# 12

I
r
h,

---

--

I

INDIAN RIVER
JACKS ON
JEFFERSON
LAFAY.ETTE
LAKE
LEE
LEON
LEVY
LIBERTY
NADISON
MANATEE
MARION
MARTIN
LONROE
NASSAU
KALOOSA
OKEECHOBEE
ORANGE
CSCEOLA
PALM BEACH
PASCO
PINELLAS
PFLK
PUTNAM
ST. JOHNS
ST. LUCIE
SANTA ROSA
SARASOTA
SEMINOLE
SUMTER
SUWANNEE
TAYLOR
UNION
VOJLUSIA
WAKULLA
WALTON
WASHINGTON

137 7~;9

263,923.61
481,142.04
52,047.06
18,232.06
708,760,80
600,345.31
447,663.00
114,776.09
30,037.98
1 1 AR8 Rn

94.60
91.7.1
98.61
95.98
93.76
94.34
97.91
95.05
93.71
95,44
97.01
95.76
92.96
95.52
97.52
96.72
99.11
96.62
94.20
96.44
94.99
97.57
95.34
96.22
92.82
95.43
95.66
97.00
94.91
92.65
92.69
92.31
99.03
97.49
96.73
94.67
95.89

95.04
85.90
93..89
96.79
92.09
95.63
94.95
95.1.0
98.2,0
92.27
94.30
94.54
98.20
93.39
97.20
95.44
88.79
95.75
90.96
95w24
90.84
97.51
93.86
93.67
89.65
98.01
95.67
95.35
90.16
98.24
95.00
90.90
98.40
94.34
90-93
88.00
91.70

93.35
95.06
96.60
98.60
90.64
95.55
94,25
94.65
99.27
9 6.49
94.42
90.00
9Z.65
95.80
95.32
95. 73
89.55
944.71
95.98

94.17
95.39
93.84
94.06
84.81
96. 56
9 7.22
96.2.7
19.10
94. 67
95.14
95.21
95.55
92.55
89.84
92.,76
9. 56

95.23
90.84
97.06
96.76
92.75
94.89
86.44
95.34
95.85
64.74
96.20
94.25
95.13
95.06
97,03
86.25
95.25
96,02
93.63
9-6.-11
93.76
*97.09
84.69
05.16
90.96
96.25
95.89
86.41
90.96
94.86
93.86
92.44
98.13
,5.65
94-00
92.51
94.91

,

9L6,5_2 % _24~66_9_r4_. 3A.

0~i 5.56! 1,1 86.8246

55.12

$673.05

$37,100,535.15

all of Brevard County and all type 02 schools.

TOTAL

7 449
7.171
2 574
65.6
12_,672
16,722
17,695
2,928
786
3.*369
14,433
14e621
4,786
8,769

21 882
2,426
72 826
4,407
58 t478
8,925
72 079
49,419
8 571
5,874
10,436
8*048
16 .374
16,160
3*136
3,790
3,303
1,156
28,409
1*370
3,555
2.553

-

373
723
78
22
990
901
654
143
34
187
570
892
245
456
165
852
121
3,017
300
ZoA366
594
2,163
2 774
436
584
407
345
609
1 606
170
248
270
22
1 292
87
288
137

~

707.57
665.48
667.27
828.73
715,922
666.31
684.50
802.63
883.47
7D9 A40
721.02
650.17
701.81
675.15
61- 79
566.83
593.41
628.18
652.04
RS99?-
582.64
695.68
642.51
638.55
675 Q94
641.34
663.75
834.32
572.31
70Z5.63
718.76
697.83
745.79
661.37
874.31
635.10
76q i7

~

~

~

.

s5.l12

*This excludes

---

131 348 80
.

410,981.40
579,951.64
171,943.45
307,868.40
104,575.35
482,939.16
71,802.61
1,895,219.06
195,612.00
1,946176.96
346,088.16
1,504,755.84
1,782,322.74
278,407.80
394,74809-
261,025.38
228,993.75
508,100.88
919,129.86
119q Q957 1n

11 1

178,252.48
188,414.10
16,407.38
854,490.04
76,064.97
182,908.80
105.437.94

~

~

~

_

~

~

~

~

~

_

TABLE 5

NUMBER OF PUPILS IN SEPARATE EXCEPTIONAL
CHILD CLASSES, IN MEMBERSHIP AT CLOSE OF YEAR,
ZBY GRADE GROUP, 1968-64

COUNTY ----.------ GRADE GROUP ------------*
1-6 7-9 10-12 1-12
ALACHUA 262 163 46 471
BAY 288 T.7 385
BRADFORD 58 58
BREVARD 435 155 84 674
EROWARO 718 14l8 86 952
.tHARLOJTTE 20 -2 32
CLAY 57 3,7 94
COLLIER 69 1S 6 90
COLUMBIA 73 46 119
CADE 1,677 4817 .155 2,239
OESOTO 24 2a 36
CUVAL 869 321 215 1,405
ESCAMBIA 317 186 65 488

FLAGL ER
FRANKLIN
GAOSDEN
GULF
HAMILTON
HARDEE
HENRY

15
9
8
25
31
34
32

15
9
62
38
44
65
32

HiERNANDO 53 5 58
HIGHLANDS 20 20
H L LLS0BROUGH 638 342 55 1,055
LNDIAN RIVER 147 X4 161
JACKSON 147 147
LAKE 52 12 L 75
LEE 222 ..124 81 417
LEON 217 145 23 385
MADISON 70 70
MANAT E 214 132 30 376
MARLON 24 23 5 54
MARTIN 36 LA 50
MONROE 67 25 92
4KALOOSA 259 18 3 340
,GKEECHOBEE 20 20
ORANGE 873 243 3 1 079
CSCEOLA 48 1 55
PALM ZBEACH 291 64 11 356
PASCO 87 87
PINELLAS 708 91 27 826
POLK 121 121
PUTNAM 66 15 1 82
ST. JOHNS 6 6
ST. LUCIE 120 40 1 161
SANTA ROSA 111 29 10 150
SARASOTA 310 9DO 52" 552
SUMTER 65 S 70
SUWANNEE 48 48
TAYLOR 92 6 100
UNION 19 19
VCLUs A 316 8.. 411
WALTON 9 7 16
WASHINGTON 31 14 2 47

jLOT-LAL 1Q522f8 3.306 980 14,814
-14-

___ ___.

	Title Page
	Introduction
	Needed study
	Table 1: Pupils in school at the...
	Table 2: Percent of pupils in school...
	Table 3: Membership promoted and...
	Table 3 (cont'd): Membership promoted...
	Table 4: Promotion by grade group...
	Table 5: Number of pupils in separate...