Prince William County Public Schools

The Percent of Students with Discipline Referrals by Ethnicity graph displays the percentage of students with discipline referrals for the most recent three years.

The percentage of Asian students with discipline referrals in 2016-17 was 7%, 2017-18 was 6%, and 2018-19 was 6%; the percentage of black students with discipline referrals in 2016-17 was 22%, 2017-18 was 20%, and 2018-19 was 19%; the percentage of Hispanic students with discipline referrals in 2016-17 was 15%, 2017-18 was 14%, and 2018-19 was 13%; the percentage of white students with discipline referrals in 2016-17 was 9%, 2017-18 was 9%, and 2018-19 was 8%.

The Percent of Students with Discipline Referrals by Student Group graph displays the percentage of students with discipline referrals for the most recent three years.

The percentage of economically disadvantaged students with discipline referrals in 2016-17 was 18%, in 2017-18 was 16% and in 2018-19 was 16%; the non-economically disadvantaged students with discipline referrals in 2016-17 was 11%, in 2017-18 was 10% and in 2018-19 was 10%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 7%, in 2017-18 was 6% and in 2018-19 was 6%.

The percentage of EL students with discipline referrals in 2016-17 was 13%, 2017-18 was 12% and in 2018-19 was 11%; the non-EL students with discipline referrals in 2016-17 was 14%, in 2017-18 was 13% and in 2018-19 was 13%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 1%, in 2017-18 was 1% and in 2018-19 was 2%.

The percentage of Special Education students with discipline referrals in 2016-17 was 22%, 2017-18 was 21%, and 2018-19 was 19%; the non-Special Education students with discipline referrals in 2016-17 was 13%, 2017-18 was 12%, and 2018-19 was 11%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 9%, in 2017-18 was 9% and in 2018-19 was 8%.

The Percent of Students with Discipline Referrals by Gender graph displays the percentage of students with discipline referrals for the most recent three years.

The percentage of male students with discipline referrals in 2016-17 was 18%, in 2017-18 was 17% and in 2018-19 was 16%; the female students with discipline referrals in 2016-17 was 10%, in 2017-18 was 9% and in 2018-19 was 8%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 8%, in 2017-18 was 8% and in 2018-19 was 8%.

The Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Ethnicity graph displays the percentage of students with exclusionary discipline for the most recent three years.

The percentage of Asian students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 2%, 2017-18 was 2%, and 2018-19 was 2%; the percentage of black students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 11%, 2017-18 was 9%, and 2018-19 was 9%; the percentage of Hispanic students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 7%, 2017-18 was 6%, and 2018-19 was 6%; the percentage of white students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 3%, 2017-18 was 3%, and 2018-19 was 3%.

The Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Student Group graph displays the percentage of students with exclusionary discipline for the most recent three years.

The percentage of economically disadvantaged students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 9%, in 2017-18 was 8% and in 2018-19 was 7%; the non-economically disadvantaged students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 4%, in 2017-18 was 3% and in 2018-19 was 3%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 5%, in 2017-18 was 5% and in 2018-19 was 4%.

The percentage of EL students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 6%, 2017-18 was 5% and in 2018-19 was 5%; the non-EL students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 6%, in 2017-18 was 5% and in 2018-19 was 5%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 0%, in 2017-18 was 0% and in 2018-19 was 0%.

The percentage of Special Education students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 13%, 2017-18 was 11%, and 2018-19 was 10%; the non-Special Education students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 5%, 2017-18 was 4%, and 2018-19 was 4%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 8%, in 2017-18 was 7% and in 2018-19 was 6%.

The Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Gender graph displays the percentage of students with exclusionary discipline for the most recent three years.

The percentage of male students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 8%, in 2017-18 was 8% and in 2018-19 was 7%; the female students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 4%, in 2017-18 was 3% and in 2018-19 was 3%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 4%, in 2017-18 was 5% and in 2018-19 was 4%.

The Elementary Schools Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Ethnicity graph displays the percentage of students with exclusionary discipline for the most recent three years.

The percentage of Asian students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 1%, 2017-18 was 1%, and 2018-19 was 0%; the percentage of black students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 4%, 2017-18 was 4%, and 2018-19 was 3%; the percentage of Hispanic students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 2%, 2017-18 was 2%, and 2018-19 was 1%; the percentage of white students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 2%, 2017-18 was 2%, and 2018-19 was 1%.

The Elementary Schools Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Student Group graph displays the percentage of students with exclusionary discipline for the most recent three years.

The percentage of economically disadvantaged students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 3%, in 2017-18 was 3% and in 2018-19 was 2%; the non-economically disadvantaged students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 1%, in 2017-18 was 1% and in 2018-19 was 1%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 2%, in 2017-18 was 2% and in 2018-19 was 1%.

The percentage of EL students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 2%, 2017-18 was 2% and in 2018-19 was 1%; the non-EL students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 2%, in 2017-18 was 2% and in 2018-19 was 2%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 0%, in 2017-18 was 0% and in 2018-19 was 1%.

The percentage of Special Education students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 6%, 2017-18 was 6%, and 2018-19 was 5%; the non-Special Education students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 1%, 2017-18 was 1%, and 2018-19 was 1%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 5%, in 2017-18 was 5% and in 2018-19 was 4%.

The Elementary Schools Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Gender graph displays the percentage of students with exclusionary discipline for the most recent three years.

The percentage of male students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 3%, in 2017-18 was 3% and in 2018-19 was 3%; the female students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 1%, in 2017-18 was 1% and in 2018-19 was 1%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 2%, in 2017-18 was 2% and in 2018-19 was 2%.

The Middle Schools Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Ethnicity graph displays the percentage of students with exclusionary discipline for the most recent three years.

The percentage of Asian students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 3%, 2017-18 was 3%, and 2018-19 was 2%; the percentage of black students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 16%, 2017-18 was 13%, and 2018-19 was 11%; the percentage of Hispanic students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 10%, 2017-18 was 8%, and 2018-19 was 7%; the percentage of white students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 6%, 2017-18 was 5%, and 2018-19 was 4%.

The Middle Schools Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Student Group graph displays the percentage of students with exclusionary discipline for the most recent three years.

The percentage of economically disadvantaged students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 14%, in 2017-18 was 10% and in 2018-19 was 9%; the non-economically disadvantaged students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 6%, in 2017-18 was 5% and in 2018-19 was 4%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 8%, in 2017-18 was 5% and in 2018-19 was 5%.

The percentage of EL students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 11%, 2017-18 was 8% and in 2018-19 was 6%; the non-EL students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 9%, in 2017-18 was 7% and in 2018-19 was 6%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 2%, in 2017-18 was 1% and in 2018-19 was 0%.

The percentage of Special Education students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 19%, 2017-18 was 15%, and 2018-19 was 12%; the non-Special Education students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 8%, 2017-18 was 6%, and 2018-19 was 5%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 11%, in 2017-18 was 9% and in 2018-19 was 7%.

The Middle Schools Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Gender graph displays the percentage of students with exclusionary discipline for the most recent three years.

The percentage of male students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 13%, in 2017-18 was 11% and in 2018-19 was 9%; the female students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 6%, in 2017-18 was 4% and in 2018-19 was 3%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 7%, in 2017-18 was 7% and in 2018-19 was 6%.

The High Schools Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Ethnicity graph displays the percentage of students with exclusionary discipline for the most recent three years.

The percentage of Asian students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 3%, 2017-18 was 3%, and 2018-19 was 4%; the percentage of black students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 17%, 2017-18 was 14%, and 2018-19 was 15%; the percentage of Hispanic students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 12%, 2017-18 was 11%, and 2018-19 was 11%; the percentage of white students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 4%, 2017-18 was 4%, and 2018-19 was 5%.

The High Schools Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Student Group graph displays the percentage of students with exclusionary discipline for the most recent three years.

The percentage of economically disadvantaged students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 16%, in 2017-18 was 13% and in 2018-19 was 14%; the non-economically disadvantaged students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 6%, in 2017-18 was 5% and in 2018-19 was 6%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 10%, in 2017-18 was 8% and in 2018-19 was 8%.

The percentage of EL students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 15%, 2017-18 was 13% and in 2018-19 was 13%; the non-EL students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 9%, in 2017-18 was 8% and in 2018-19 was 9%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 6%, in 2017-18 was 5% and in 2018-19 was 4%.

The percentage of Special Education students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 19%, 2017-18 was 17%, and 2018-19 was 17%; the non-Special Education students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 9%, 2017-18 was 8%, and 2018-19 was 8%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 10%, in 2017-18 was 9% and in 2018-19 was 9%.

The High Schools Percent of Students with Exclusionary Discipline by Gender graph displays the percentage of students with exclusionary discipline for the most recent three years.

The percentage of male students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 12%, in 2017-18 was 11% and in 2018-19 was 12%; the female students with exclusionary discipline in 2016-17 was 7%, in 2017-18 was 6% and in 2018-19 was 6%; the gap between the two groups in 2016-17 was 5%, in 2017-18 was 5% and in 2018-19 was 6%.

The 2018-19 Teacher Quality of State and Division graph displays the percentage of Title l Schools and Non-Title l schools for the 2018-19 school year.

The percentage of Out-of-Field Teachers in Title l schools in the Division was 2.8% and, in the State, it was 2.5%. The percentage of Inexperienced Teachers in the Division was 5.0% and, in the State, it was 5.2%. The percentage of Out-of-Field and Inexperienced Teachers in the Division was 0.3% and, in the State, it was 0.4%.

The percentage of Out-of-Field Teachers in Non-Title l schools in the Division was 3.3% and, in the State, it was 2.9%. The percentage of Inexperienced Teachers in the Division was 4.3% and, in the State, it was 4.7%. The percentage of Out-of-Field and Inexperienced Teachers in the Division was 0.4% and, in the State, it was 0.4%.

The Average Computers per 100 Students by Title I and Non-Title I Schools graph displays the number of computers per 100 students for the most recent three years.

The average number of computers per 100 students for Non-Title l Schools in 2016-17 was 56, in 2017-18 was 61 and in 2018-19 was 66; for Title l Schools in 2016-17 was 67 in 2017-18 was 71 and in 2018-19 was 76.