Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2016
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2016 NCES 2016-007 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2016 AUGUST 2016 Lauren Musu-Gillette Jennifer Robinson Joel McFarland National Center for Education Statistics Angelina KewalRamani Anlan Zhang Sidney Wilkinson-Flicker American Institutes for Research NCES 2016-007 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION U.S. Department of Education John B. King, Jr. Secretary Institute of Education Sciences Ruth Neild Deputy Director for Policy and Research Delegated Duties of the Director National Center for Education Statistics Peggy G. Carr Acting Commissioner The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign countries. NCES activities are designed to address high-priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high-quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public. Unless specifically noted all information contained herein is in the public domain. We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to NCES, IES, U.S. Department of Education Potomac Center Plaza (PCP) 550 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20202 August 2016 The NCES Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov. The NCES Publications and Products address is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch. This publication is only available online. To download, view, and print the report as a PDF file, go to the NCES Publications and Products address shown above. This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Statistics under Contract No. ED-IES-12-D-0002 with American Institutes for Research. Mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Suggested Citation Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., McFarland, J., KewalRamani, A., Zhang, A., and Wilkinson-Flicker, S. (2016). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups 2016 (NCES 2016-007). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved [date] from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch. Content Contact Lauren Musu-Gillette (202) 245-7045 [email protected] Highlights Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups examines the educational progress and challenges students face in the United States by race/ethnicity. This report shows that over time, students in the racial/ethnic groups of White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Two or more races have completed high school and continued their education in college in increasing numbers. Despite these gains, the rate of progress has varied among these racial/ethnic groups and differences by race/ethnicity persist in terms of increases in attainment and progress on key indicators of educational performance. Demographics: Preprimary, Elementary, and Secondary Education Participation: • The percentage of school-age children ages 5–17 in the United States who were White decreased from • In 2012, about 28 percent of children under 6 years 62 percent in 2000 to 53 percent in 2013, and the old who were not enrolled in kindergarten regularly percentage of children who were Black decreased received center-based care. The percentage of children from 15 to 14 percent during this time. In contrast, who regularly received center-based care was higher the percentage of school-age children who were from for Black (34 percent), Asian (33 percent), and White other racial/ethnic groups increased during this children (29 percent) than for Hispanic children period: those who were Hispanic increased from (22 percent). (Indicator 5). 16 to 24 percent; those who were Asian, from 3 to 5 percent; and those who were of Two or more races, • In 2012, a higher percentage of young children from from 2 to 4 percent. (Indicator 1). nonpoor families than from poor families regularly received center-based care (34 vs. 20 percent). This • In 2013, the percentage of all U.S. children under same pattern was observed for White, Black, and 18 who were born within the United States was Hispanic young children. (Indicator 5). 97 percent. The percentages of Asian, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic children who were born within the • Between fall 2002 and fall 2012, the percentage of United States (79, 93, and 94 percent, respectively) students enrolled in public elementary and secondary were below the 97 percent average for all children. schools who were White decreased from 59 to In contrast, the percentages of Black children 51 percent, and the percentage who were Black (97.5 percent), White children and children of Two or decreased from 17 to 16 percent. During the same more races (99 percent each), and American Indian/ period, however, the percentage who were Hispanic Alaska Native children (rounds to 100 percent) who increased from 18 to 24 percent, and the percentage were born within the United States were above the who were Asian/Pacific Islander increased from 4 to average for all children. (Indicator 2). 5 percent. (Indicator 6). • Greater percentages of Asian and Hispanic children • Black students accounted for a higher percentage under 18 were born within the United States in 2013 of enrollment in public charter schools (28 percent) than in 2003 (79 vs. 77 percent for Asian children than in traditional public schools (15 percent) in and 94 vs. 89 percent for Hispanic children). 2012. Hispanic students also accounted for a higher (Indicator 2). percentage of enrollment in public charter schools (29 percent) than in traditional public schools • In 2013, a higher percentage of Asian children (24 percent). The percentage of public charter school (83 percent) lived with married parents than did enrollees who were White (35 percent) was lower than White children (73 percent), Pacific Islander children the percentage of traditional public school enrollees (60 percent), Hispanic children and children of Two who were White (52 percent). Asian/Pacific Islander of more races (57 percent each), American Indian/ students also made up a lower percentage of charter Alaska Native children (44 percent), and Black school enrollees (4 percent) than of traditional public children (32 percent). (Indicator 3). school enrollees (5 percent). (Indicator 6). • The percentage of children under age 18 living in • In 2013, about 4.6 million public school students poverty, based on the official poverty measure, varied participated in English language learner (ELL) across racial/ethnic groups. In 2013, the percentage programs. Hispanic students made up the majority was highest for Black children (39 percent), followed of this group (78 percent), with around 3.6 million by Hispanic children (30 percent), and White and participating in ELL programs. (Indicator 7). Asian children (10 percent for each). (Indicator 4). Highlights iii • The ELL program participation rate in 2013 for month preceding data collection was higher for Asian some racial/ethnic groups was lower than the total students (65 percent) than for students who were participation rate (9 percent). About 7 percent of Black (46 percent), Hispanic (44 percent), White American Indian/Alaska Native students, 2 percent of (43 percent), of Two or more races (42 percent), Black students, 2 percent of students of Two or more American Indian/Alaska Native (36 percent), or races, and 1 percent of White students participated Pacific Islander (35 percent). Indicator( 11). in ELL programs. In contrast, the percentages of Hispanic (29 percent), Asian (20 percent), and Pacific • A higher percentage of Asian students (45 percent) Islander (14 percent) students participating in ELL than of students of any other racial/ethnic group programs were higher than the total percentage in earned their highest math course credit in calculus. 2013. (Indicator 7). The percentage earning their highest math course credit in calculus was also higher for White students • In 2012–13, the percentage of students served under (18 percent) than for students of Two or more races the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (11 percent), Hispanic students (10 percent), and (IDEA) was highest for American Indian/Alaska Black students (6 percent). (Indicator 12). Native students (16 percent), followed by Black students (15 percent), White students (13 percent), • The percentage of students who were 9th-graders in students of Two or more races (13 percent), Hispanic fall 2009 earning any Advanced Placement/ students (12 percent), Pacific Islander students International Baccalaureate (AP/IB) credits by 2013 (11 percent), and Asian students (6 percent). was higher for Asian students (72 percent) than (Indicator 8). for White students (40 percent). The percentages for Asian and White students were higher than the Achievement: percentages for students of any other racial/ethnic group. (Indicator 13). • At grade 4, the White-Black gap in reading narrowed from 32 points in 1992 to 26 points in 2013; the • The average number of AP/IB course credits earned in White-Hispanic gap in 2013 (25 points) was not high school by Asian students (4.5 credits) was higher measurably different from the gap in 1992.