Findings of a paper that compared three analytic models for classifying public schools are presented in this paper. The first model is the traditional additive multiple linear regression model that assumes the use of a compensatory policy in assigning weights to school attributes. The second is an adaptation of Coomb's (1964) conjunctive model proposed by Einhorn (1970), and the third is an adaptation of Coomb's disjunctive model, also formulated by Einhorn (1970). Data were collected through a "policy capturing" procedure, in which 28 educational leaders in a southeastern state reviewed a series of hypothetical school profiles of 80 elementary and 80 secondary schools and classified them as nonstandard (deficient), standard (acceptable), or exemplary (normatively outstanding). An index of intrajudge consistency was developed to compare the three models of school classification. Multiple regression analysis was used to examine statistical differences. Findings indicate that the distributions of intrajudge consistency indices were largely overlapping. However, the conjunctive model for aggregating school scores was superior in that it clearly differentiated individual school characteristics and provided a more accurate overall picture of school quality. Five tables and three figures are included. (Contains 62 references.) (LMI)