Table of Contents 
Executivesw a r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Purpose of NonvocationalLaboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Comparison with Other States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Evaluation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 
Appendix A: FTE Students in NVLs as a Percentage of Total Nonvocational FTE 
Students as of March 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 
Appendix B: Total Nonvocational Classes Taught as Nonvocational Laboratories 
asofMarch1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 
Appendix C: Potential Additional QBE Funding for Nonvocational Laboratories Based upon Possible Future Growth in the 9 Subject Areas 
Comprising 99% of All NVL Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 
Appendix D: FTE Students in NVLs as a Percentage of Total Nonvocational FTE Students by Department of Education Local School System 
SocioeconomicGroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28