U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences

Monitoring the Educational Progress of Racial/Ethnic Minorities:

The United States Experience

Roma Conference 2003June 29-July 1 2003

This paper is intended to promote the exchange of ideas among researchers and policy makers. The views expressed in it are part of ongoing research and analysis and do not necessarily

reflect the position of the U.S. Department of Education.

Monitoring the Educational Progress of Racial/Ethnic Minorities:

The United States Experience

Roma Conference 2003June 29-July 1 2003

This paper is intended to promote the exchange of ideas among researchers and policy makers. The views expressed in it are part of ongoing research and analysis and do not necessarily

reflect the position of the U.S. Department of Education.

U.S. Department of Education

Institute of Education Sciences

National Center for Education Statistics

2

INTRODUCTION

This presentation will address the following questions posed by the conference:

• Why are racial/ethnic data collected? How are they used?

• What has been the experience of the United States?

• How can data be used to inform national policy development?

This presentation will address the following questions posed by the conference:

• Why are racial/ethnic data collected? How are they used?

• What has been the experience of the United States?

• How can data be used to inform national policy development?

3

INTRODUCTION

To address these questions, the presentation will provide:

• A rationale for racial/ethnic data

• An historical perspective

• Current data standards

• Issues in collecting racial/ethnic data

• Indicators of educational performance and schooling contexts

• Current policy uses

To address these questions, the presentation will provide:

• A rationale for racial/ethnic data

• An historical perspective

• Current data standards

• Issues in collecting racial/ethnic data

• Indicators of educational performance and schooling contexts

• Current policy uses

4

RATIONALE

Why racial/ethnic data are collected

• Race and ethnicity can be considered an indicator of complex social processes that end up stratifying individuals and providing them with differential access to opportunities and resources.

• Data collected are necessary to evaluate inequalities across groups and identify the needed changes.

• Race and ethnicity can be considered an indicator of complex social processes that end up stratifying individuals and providing them with differential access to opportunities and resources.

• Data collected are necessary to evaluate inequalities across groups and identify the needed changes.

SOURCE: American Sociological Association. 2003. The Importance of Collecting Data and Doing Social Scientific Research on Race. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

5

HISTORY

U.S. Census and history of racial/ethnic data collection

• Racial data have been collected since the first census in 1790. Representation policy and tax collection mandates guided data collection by giving different consideration to Black slaves.

• Data collection varied widely by state, with some states adopting additional race categories.

• Racial data have been collected since the first census in 1790. Representation policy and tax collection mandates guided data collection by giving different consideration to Black slaves.

• Data collection varied widely by state, with some states adopting additional race categories.

SOURCE: Bennett, Claudette. 2000. “Racial Categories Used in the Decennial Censuses, 1790 to Present,” Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 161-180.

6

HISTORY

U.S. Census and history of racial/ethnic data collection

• When the official Census Board was created in 1850, additional categories were added and amended over the next 50 years.

• When the official Census Board was created in 1850, additional categories were added and amended over the next 50 years.


7

HISTORY

U.S. Census and history of racial/ethnic data collection 1950 to 2000

• Beginning in 1960, census data collection was completed primarily via mail and self identification was the primary means of collecting race information.

• Category options were expanded; however, data tabulation and category combinations varied until the 1980s.

• In 1977, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) first outlined federal standards for reporting race and ethnicity. These standards continue to be modified, yet have assured inter-agency consistency.

• Beginning in 1960, census data collection was completed primarily via mail and self identification was the primary means of collecting race information.

• Category options were expanded; however, data tabulation and category combinations varied until the 1980s.

• In 1977, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) first outlined federal standards for reporting race and ethnicity. These standards continue to be modified, yet have assured inter-agency consistency.


8

HISTORY

Percent of 5- to 19-year olds enrolled in school, by race: 1850 to 2001

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait, 1993; and unpublished tabulations.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

White

Black and other races

Percent enrolled

9DATA STANDARDS

Recent review and revisions to data collection guidelines as result of public comment

• Interest groups expressed criticism that guidelines did not reflect the increasing diversity of the U.S. resulting from inter-racial marriages and immigration.

• During the 1990s, OMB conducted a comprehensive review of standards and several government agencies conducted usability studies on race survey questions.

• New guidelines were developed in 1997 and agency compliance was expected by January 2003.

• Interest groups expressed criticism that guidelines did not reflect the increasing diversity of the U.S. resulting from inter-racial marriages and immigration.

• During the 1990s, OMB conducted a comprehensive review of standards and several government agencies conducted usability studies on race survey questions.

• New guidelines were developed in 1997 and agency compliance was expected by January 2003.

SOURCE: U.S Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, “Revisions to the Standards for Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity,” 2000

10

DATA STANDARDS

1997 OMB definitions of race\ethnic categoriesWhite- A person having origins in any of the original

peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

Black or African American - A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.

Hispanic or Latino - A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

Asian - a person having origins in any of the original peoples of he Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent.

American Indian or Alaska Native – a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander - A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.

White- A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

Black or African American - A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.

Hispanic or Latino - A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

Asian - a person having origins in any of the original peoples of he Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent.

American Indian or Alaska Native – a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander - A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.

11

CURRENT ISSUES IN DATA COLLECTION

Recent revisions to data collection guidelines

• OMB maintained that the minimum categories be retained; however, collection of more detailed information is permitted so long as the groups can be aggregated into the minimum categories.

• Rather than creating a multiracial category, individuals are able to select more than one category. There are 64 potential combinations for the 5 racial groups and 2 ethnicities.

• Agencies are encouraged to provide as much detail as possible about the distribution of multiple responses.

• OMB maintained that the minimum categories be retained; however, collection of more detailed information is permitted so long as the groups can be aggregated into the minimum categories.

• Rather than creating a multiracial category, individuals are able to select more than one category. There are 64 potential combinations for the 5 racial groups and 2 ethnicities.

• Agencies are encouraged to provide as much detail as possible about the distribution of multiple responses.

SOURCE: U.S Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, “Revisions to the Standards for Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity,” 2000.

12

CURRENT ISSUES IN DATA COLLECTION

Maintaining respondent confidentiality

• The distinctiveness of racial categories may increase the likelihood of obtaining individually identifiable information

• Confidentiality of education data is protected by law:

- the Privacy Act of 1974

- the E-Government Act of 2002

- the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002

• The U.S. Patriot Act of 2001 allows the U.S. Attorney General to access individually identifiable data relevant to terrorism investigations.

• The distinctiveness of racial categories may increase the likelihood of obtaining individually identifiable information

• Confidentiality of education data is protected by law:

- the Privacy Act of 1974

- the E-Government Act of 2002

- the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002

• The U.S. Patriot Act of 2001 allows the U.S. Attorney General to access individually identifiable data relevant to terrorism investigations.

SOURCE: U.S Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES Statistical Standards, 2002.

13

INDICATORS OF EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE AND PROGRESS

Student performance• National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP) reports achievement scores by race/ethnic subgroups and provides information about trends in score differences between subgroups in order to present information about achievement gaps.

• National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reports achievement scores by race/ethnic subgroups and provides information about trends in score differences between subgroups in order to present information about achievement gaps.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Progress (NAEP), 1999 Trends in Academic Progress.

Trends in differences between White and Black students‘ average scores (White minus Black): 1971 to 1999

YEAR

Statistically different from gap in 1999

14INDICATORS OF EDUCATIONAL

PERFORMANCE AND PROGRESS

Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)

• Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) does not provide racial subgroup comparisons across all countries.

• However, race and ethnicity data can be collected through country specific supplemental surveys. This practice seems to be limited to English speaking countries.

• Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) does not provide racial subgroup comparisons across all countries.

• However, race and ethnicity data can be collected through country specific supplemental surveys. This practice seems to be limited to English speaking countries.

15

• Several factors contribute to the lack of international definition standards

- Lack of consensus regarding definition

- Variance in demographic composition

- Confidentiality and privacy concerns

• Several factors contribute to the lack of international definition standards

- Lack of consensus regarding definition

- Variance in demographic composition

- Confidentiality and privacy concerns

INDICATORS OF EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE AND PROGRESS

Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)


PERFORMANCE AND PROGRESS

Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

U.S. fourth graders’ average (PIRLS) scores, by race/ethnicity: 2001

565

502517

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

600

White Black Hispanic

565

502517

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

600

White Black Hispanic

NOTE: Race categories exclude Hispanic origin unless specified.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2001.

International average (500)

Average scale score

17

Sweden 561

Netherlands 554

England 553

Bulgaria 550

Latvia 545

Canada (O, Q) 544

Lithuania 543

Hungary 543

United States 542Italy 541

Germany 539

Czech Republic 537

New Zealand 529

Scotland 528

Singapore 528

Russian Federation 528

Hong Kong, SAR 528

France 525

Greece 524

Slovak Republic 518

Iceland 512

Romania 512

Israel 509

Slovenia 502

Norway 499

Cyprus 494

Moldova 492

Turkey 449

Macedonia 442

Colombia 422

Argentina 420

Iran 414

Kuwait 396

Morocco 350

Belize 327

International Average 500

Sweden 561

Netherlands 554

England 553

Bulgaria 550

Latvia 545

Canada (O, Q) 544

Lithuania 543

Hungary 543


Germany 539

Czech Republic 537

New Zealand 529

Scotland 528

Singapore 528


Hong Kong, SAR 528

France 525

Greece 524

Slovak Republic 518

Iceland 512

Romania 512

Israel 509

Slovenia 502

Norway 499

Cyprus 494

Moldova 492

Turkey 449

Macedonia 442

Colombia 422

Argentina 420

Iran 414

Kuwait 396

Morocco 350

Belize 327


U.S. White 565 U.S. Black 502

U.S. Hispanic 517 Sweden 561

Netherlands 554

England 553

Bulgaria 550

Latvia 545

Canada (O, Q) 544

Lithuania 543

Hungary 543


Germany 539

Czech Republic 537

New Zealand 529

Scotland 528

Singapore 528


Hong Kong, SAR 528

France 525

Greece 524

Slovak Republic 518

Iceland 512

Romania 512

Israel 509

Slovenia 502

Norway 499

Cyprus 494

Moldova 492

Turkey 449

Macedonia 442

Colombia 422

Argentina 420

Iran 414

Kuwait 396

Morocco 350

Belize 327


PIRLS 4th grade achievement, by race/ethnicity: 2001

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), 2001.

Average is statistically significantly higher than the subgroup average

Average is not statistically significantly different from the subgroup average

Average is statistically significantly lower than the subgroup average

18INDICATORS OF SOCIAL CONTEXT FOR

EDUCATIONPercent of kindergarteners with two or more risk factors, by race/ethnicity: Fall 1998

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

White, non-Hispanic

Black, non-Hispanic

Hispanic Asian/Pacif icIslander

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

White, non-Hispanic

Black, non-Hispanic


The percentage of first-time kindergartners with two or more risk factors is about five times greater for Hispanics (33 percent) and four times greater for Blacks (27 percent) than for their White peers (6 percent).

Percent

SOURCE: U.S Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education, 2000; based on Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99, Fall 1998.

19

INDICATORS OF SCHOOLING CONTEXTS Percent of elementary/secondary school students in schools with 50 percent or more minority, by race/ethnicity: Fall 2000

0

20

40

60

80

100

White, non-Hispanic

Black, non-Hispanic


AmericanIndian/Alaska

Native

0

20

40

60

80

100

White, non-Hispanic

Black, non-Hispanic



Native

Percent

Black and Hispanic students are more likely to attend schools where minorities comprise the majority of enrollment. Nearly 80 percent of Hispanics and 70 percent of Blacks attended schools were the minority population was more than 50 percent, compared to 11 percent of Whites.

SOURCE: U.S Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Status and Trends in the Education of Hispanics; based on unpublished data from the Common Core of Data, 2000-01.

20

INDICATORS OF SCHOOLING CONTEXTS Percent of 4th grade students in schools where 50 percent or more of students are low-income, by race/ethnicity: 2000

0

20

40

60

80

100

White, non-Hispanic

Black, non-Hispanic



Native

0

20

40

60

80

100

White, non-Hispanic

Black, non-Hispanic



Native

Nearly 60 percent of Hispanics and American Indian/Alaska Native students, and over 70 percent of Blacks attended schools where 50 percent or more of the student population was low income. By comparison, some 20 percent of Whites attended such schools.

SOURCE: U.S Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Status and Trends in the Education of Hispanics; based on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 Reading Assessment.

Percent

21

INDICATORS OF EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Percent of secondary school dropouts among persons 16 to 24 years old, by race/ethnicity: 1970 to 2001

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2001.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Hispanic

Black, non-Hispanic

White, non-Hispanic0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Hispanic

Black, non-Hispanic

White, non-Hispanic

Percent

The proportion of 16-to 24 –year olds who had not completed secondary school declined between 1970 and 2001. The dropout rate for Blacks declined more rapidly than the rate for Whites, from 19 percent in 1980 to 11 percent in 2001.


ATTAINMENT Percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds with a university or higher degree (ISCED 5A or 6) or higher, by race/ethnicity: March 1971 to 2001

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

White, non-Hispanic

Black, non-Hispanic

Hispanic

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

White, non-Hispanic

Black, non-Hispanic

Hispanic

Percent

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education 2002.

Although the percentage of young adults with a university or higher degree increased for all three racial/ethnic groups, the Black and Hispanic gaps with Whites widened slightly.

23

INDICATORS OF SOCIAL CONTEXTS FOR EDUCATIONVoting rates for persons 18 years old and over, by race/ethnicity and highest level of education completed: November 2000

3742

15

5349

29

77

71

51

0

20

40

60

80

100

White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic

Less than high school completion

High school completer

Bachelor's degree or higher

3742

15

5349

29

77

71

51

0

20

40

60

80

100

White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic

Less than high school completion

High school completer

Bachelor's degree or higher

While higher educational attainment is associated with higher voting rates, Hispanics report lower rates than those for Whites and Blacks at each level.

Percent

SOURCE: U.S Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Status and Trends in the Education of Hispanics; based on U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Reported Voting and Registration, by Race, Hispanic Origin, Sex, and Educational Attainment: November 2000. Table 6, based on Current Population Survey, November 2000 supplement.

24

CURRENT POLICY USES

No Child Left Behind

• No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was created in response to underachieving students, schools, and school districts. It requires state testing for all students in grades 3-8. Disaggregated scores by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and disability status will provide information about specific subgroup achievement levels.

• The law holds schools accountable for student achievement and requires academic progress for every subgroup.

• The precedent for NCLB was set by specific states such as Texas, North Carolina, and California that implemented accountability systems that required achievement gains for all subgroups.

• No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was created in response to underachieving students, schools, and school districts. It requires state testing for all students in grades 3-8. Disaggregated scores by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and disability status will provide information about specific subgroup achievement levels.

• The law holds schools accountable for student achievement and requires academic progress for every subgroup.

• The precedent for NCLB was set by specific states such as Texas, North Carolina, and California that implemented accountability systems that required achievement gains for all subgroups.

25

CURRENT POLICY USES

Texas school report card

26

CONTACT INFORMATION

Val PliskoAssociate Commissioner National Center for

Education StatisticsInstitute of Education

SciencesU.S. Department of

Education202 502 7434

[email protected]

THANK YOU.

Val PliskoAssociate Commissioner National Center for

Education StatisticsInstitute of Education

SciencesU.S. Department of

Education202 502 7434

[email protected]

THANK YOU.

U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences

Documents

Transcript of U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences