analyses using the combined E&S/ECLS-K datafile. We therefore altered both our approach and our questions substantially. Instead of restricting our focus to one or two empirical questions, we broadened our efforts to investigate the general utility of the E&S survey data.

In the first section of the full report, we document the extent to which the E&S survey includes data in common with three other large, widely used datasets collected by the U.S. Department of Education: the CCD, the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS:88), and the ECLS-K. Of course, the timing of all data collections must coincide. For example, students in NELS:88 began high school in 1988 and graduated (most of them) in 1992. Our findings are displayed in a series of tables that indicate which E&S survey measures are redundant and available on other datasets and which data are unique to E&S survey. In a concluding section of the report we share our views regarding the value of the E&S survey from the standpoint we know best: as quantitative researchers interested in studying educational equity using large, nationally representative databases.